At the current stage this project is about finding statistical generalizations in qualitative, danish educational research. That is to check my assumption that there is a tendency to make statistical generalizations on the basis of observations which cannot support such generalizations.
I will be posting excerpts from all those studies which to me seem problematic. This post is part of that and this is a link to the first post in the line.
Niclasen, janni, & Strøbæk, P. (2019)
Reference:
Niclasen, janni, & Strøbæk, P. (2019). Group versus individual supervision of university students: a qualitative study. Dansk Universitetspædagogisk Tidsskrift, 14(27), 118–135. https://doi.org/10.7146/dut.v14i27.109618
Abstract:
Background: Studies investigating strengths and limitations of group and individual supervision of university students are sparse. The aims of the present study were to investigate advantages and disadvantages of group and individual supervision, and to identify specific situations under which these two forms of supervision are particularly suitable.
Method: A qualitative study comparing a combined group/individual supervision
model with a complete group supervision model among third-year Bachelor psychology students.
Results: Group and individual supervision contribute differently to the supervision process. Group supervision is preferred in the beginning of the supervision process when close ties between the group members are yet to be established and there is a process-oriented focus in the actual supervision. Individual supervision is more
profitable at the end of the supervision course when content-focused supervision is needed.
Discussion: Each supervisory model contributes differently to supervision. Based on the data from present study, a combined group/ individual supervision model is recommended.
Testable hypothesis?:
Nej: "The primary aim of the present study was to investigate the advantages and limitations of individual and group supervision, respectively. The second aim was to identify under which circumstances individual and groups supervision are appropriate. " s121
Method/materials:
"This qualitative study consists of two types of qualitative data that were collected for the pre-sent study; individual qualitative interviews and task-based focus-group interviews. The indi-vidual interviews were approximately one hour in duration, whereas the task-based focus-groups were scheduled to last for a maximum of two hours. The individual interviews were included to investigate students’ individual viewpoints and perspectives. Four individual in-terviews were conducted, two from each of the Bachelor classes. Each of the two focus-groups consisted of three interview persons (Table 1). The task-based focus-groups were included as part of the study design to activate more voices and to shed light on potential agreements and disagreements that may emerge through the dialogues between the stu-dents when they collectively were to discuss and solve the tasks within the groups (Litosseliti, 2003; Morgan, 1996). In order to secure the students’ anonymity and receive honest answers from them, we interviewed the students from each other’s classes. As the interviews and analyses were carried out in Danish the quotes applied in this article were translated by a bilingual native English speaking scholar." s123
Statistical generalizations:
1) "On the basis of the qualitative analysis it is concluded that there are advantages and disadvantages to both types of supervision, and furthermore that the two types are appropriate under particular situations and circumstances. The advantages of individual supervision include more expert supervision from the supervisor, time allocated only to one’s own dissertation, and then individual supervision is considered to be emotionally safe. In group supervision the advantages include social support from the peers, supervision and feedback from more than just the supervisor, inspiration from the peers, and feelings of having a reference group to which one can compare oneself. On the negative side, individual supervision lacks social support, peer inspiration and having a reference group. For group supervision the negative aspects include that it is time-consuming and that the students call for individual time with the supervisor." s130
2) "As in the study conducted by Dysthe et al. (2006), individual supervision creates the opportunity to ask very specific questions and ask for specific advice. This finding is supported and elaborated upon in the present study." s131
3) "On the basis of the above analyses, we tentatively recommend that supervisors offer a mixed group/ individual course of supervision. Group supervision seem to be suitable in the beginning of the supervisory course, when the group dynamic is being established and when the supervision is more focused on the structure and process of the dissertation. Additional-ly, the students do not feel the same time pressure at the beginning of the supervisory course" s131
Comments:
I have flagged this study for generalizations of type 3, 4 and 5 (see typology).
In the first quote a variety of positive and negative attributes are ascribed to the two forms of supervision. The authors safeguard the overproximity of their statements by making them as vaguely relevant to common sense as the evidence that they have produced is to the reality they want to describe. Nonetheless the attributes ascribed to the two forms of supervision, are an example of statistical generalization. Despite the vague delivery it is to be assumed that the attributes mentioned are more likely to be relevant in the future, whenever someone considers or applies one of the two forms of supervision (type 4).
Ingen kommentarer:
Send en kommentar