-
“Results indicate that the student teachers found this form of collaborative planning with their cooperating teachers motivational and presented … opportunity to increase their ability to observe students, promote stronger collegial networks, and develop a stronger sense of self-efficacy.” (p.228)
-
“Students who spend on average half an hour a week discussing their project with their supervisor consider this sufficient, and this suggests that this … is an appropriate guideline for project management. The majority of supervision time is focused on project management issues rather than technical discussion, and project supervision is seen as a very important component of the project process.” (p.76)
-
“In summary, good supervision is characterised by trusting relationships where students and supervisors share research interests and … supervisors provide advice without undermining students’ ownership of projects, resulting in evolving supportive relationships that foster student growth… All supervisors and coordinators were also able to report on a time when supervision was not going well. Perhaps unsurprisingly, many of the key issues identified – ‘differing expectations’, ‘lack of support’, ‘lack of interest and ownership’, and ‘personality conflicts’. A further issue related to the impact of supervisors’ workloads: ‘overworked and pressure to publish’.” (p.33-34)
-
“From students’ discussions of good supervisory practice, three key themes emerged: supportive supervisory relationships, directing … learning to empower students, and an alignment of student-supervisor interests and approaches…Good supervision was enabled by students taking ownership of the research project and preparing for supervisory meetings. Where supervision meetings went well, students reported feeling re-motivated, with increased focus and clarity about the project…From students’ discussions of times when supervision did not go well, five themes emerged: lack of clarity, inconsistencies, power imbalances, inequities and overworked supervisors who are under pressure to publish.” (p.2-3)
-
“The primary finding of this study is that the students’ expectations differ greatly from those of staff. In particular, students tend to have a better …opinion of their project, their competencies, and the supervision received than does the staff. However, advisors and evaluation committees have a similar opinion about projects characteristics. The students’ perception of their learning, furthermore, is not always consistent with the grade obtained or student satisfaction.” (p.45)
-
“The paper finds that supervisor engagement, project location, and faculty involvement were significant factors in determining whether …projects were beneficial to host organizations. The findings indicate that closer relationships among the three primary participants in capstone projects (student, supervisor, and instructor) will lead to more successful capstones for partner organizations.” (p.61) “Supervisors who were the most engaged in the capstone process received completed projects that were the most satisfactory.” (p.80)
-
“…Six supervision styles were identified according to the advisor’s varying degree of involvement in each factor: student alone, execution … focused, global supervision, management focused (advisor assumes the proposed planning is appropriate and leaves the execution and technology aspects in the student’s hands), technological mentoring, and process focused.” (p.679)