Developing learning cohorts for postgraduate research degrees

Abstract

Cohort-based supervision, postgraduate research supervision, cohort development * Sarojni Choy was an employee of the Queensland University of Technology at the time the data for this research study were collected. postgraduate research supervision identified three common models of supervision: traditional, group, and blended. Burnett (1999) described the traditional approach as the Apprentice Master Model (AMM) where the supervisor assumes the role of a 'master' with the student as the 'apprentice' and the group approach as the Collaborative Cohort Model (CCM) where the supervisor becomes the mentor. Further, McCallin and Nayar (2012) noted there was little research evidence about the efficacy of these models and called for more discussion and research to improve supervision as pedagogy.This paper concentrates on the cohort (sometimes referred to as the community) model of supervision. The foundations of learning cohorts are informed mainly by the theory of social constructivist (Fosnot 1996) and Lave and Wenger's (1991) concept of 'community of practice'. Within the educational theory of social constructivism, learning is construed as an "interpretive, recursive, building process by active learners interacting with the physical and social world" (Fosnot 1996, p. 30). It is argued that a social world is less threatening and facilitates interactive dialogue and critical reflection (Brookfield & Preskill 1999) to construct, re-construct and apply knowledge in socially meaningful contexts. Regardless, the social, physical, psychological and pedagogical contexts in which learning occurs needs to be purposefully designed and maintained to enhance student achievement. Furthermore, learners need to be enculturated into those social worlds to engage in and contribute in meaningful ways. However, a learning environment and enculturation alone will not lead to successful learning. As Dysthe, Samara andWestrheim (2006) and Wisker, Robins andShacham (2007) argue that members of a cohort need to be purposefully developed if this model is to succeed. However, approaches to developing learning cohorts specifically for research degrees are not evident in the academic literature. This paper on developing cohorts for postgraduate research degrees describes and justifies the approach we used to develop a cohort of seven students enrolled in a Master of Education (Research) at an Australian University. Their development included provisions through four main schedules: i) a week long residential workshop; ii) formation and fostering of a community of learners; iii) nourishing scholarship; and iv) ongoing cohort learning opportunities. In addition, we also progressively evaluated the design at the reaction level (see Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2007) using student evaluation surveys, group discussions, feedback from cohort sponsor representatives and our reflective notes during 2010. This evaluation provided some early indication of success or otherwise.

Challenges in Collective Academic Supervision: supervisors’ experiences from a Master Programme in Guidance and Counselling

“…There is strong evidence for the effectiveness of peer feedback and group writing processes from studies of group supervision where students work on different subjects, facilitated by a supervisor and based on text feedback from students and the supervisor (Samara 2006;Stracke 2010;Lillejord and Dysthe 2008), as well as from studies of scholarly writing groups formed around 5-10 faculty members (Caffarella and Barnett 2000;Lee and Boud 2003;Parker 2009). In addition to these main groups of studies, different collaborative approaches have been recognised as fruitful ways to develop independent scholarship amongst students, including so-called collaborative cohort models (Govender and Dhunpath 2011;Choy et al 2014), peer support groups (Fisher 2006), interest groups (Manathunga and Goozée 2007), group supervision (Fenge 2012) and reflective focus groups with peers (Wisker et al 2003). While success has many fathers, these approaches share a uniform organising principle: regular meetings between small groups of students (3-7) as a supplement to individual supervision in order to discuss content and/or process issues structured and facilitated by senior academic staff.…”

In the shadow of the ivory tower: Experiences of midwives and nurses undertaking PhDs

“…As support has being previously identified as a predictor of PhD completion 11 , it may be advantageous to appoint a 'champion' within the School to advocate and support all higher degree by research students. The development of an environment and culture that students find supportive and nurturing, will optimise higher degree by research completions 27 .…”

Turning Doctoral Students into Faculty in Gerontological Social Work: The AGESWExperience

“…It is important for gerontological social work doctoral students to have strong mentoring to advance the field of social workers in aging. Choy, Delahaye, and Saggers (2015) reported on a cohort model that included four ongoing activities (workshops, a student learning community, research scholarship, and outside learning opportunities) created in partnership between students and faculty. Findings revealed the model yielded a nurturing and positive environment for students (Choy, Delahaye, & Saggers, 2015).…”

“…Choy, Delahaye, and Saggers (2015) reported on a cohort model that included four ongoing activities (workshops, a student learning community, research scholarship, and outside learning opportunities) created in partnership between students and faculty. Findings revealed the model yielded a nurturing and positive environment for students (Choy, Delahaye, & Saggers, 2015). Students who connect with peers in their specific research area outside of their institutions can gain additional networking and collaboration opportunities.…”

“…Much of the existing research on doctoral education examines the structure, SOCIAL WORK DOCTORAL STUDENTS IN GERONTOLOGY 4 student experience, and outcomes such as time to degree (Pifer & Baker, 2016), yet very little research examines how doctoral students in social work make the transition from PhD students to faculty members. Doctoral programs may provide students with opportunities for socialization into academic roles through activities such as assisting with teaching or research, attending workshops, or editing student-run journals; access to mentors; and guidance in connecting to a broader network of peers that share similar research interests (Choy, Delahaye, & Saggers, 2015;Dougherty, Fields, & Schuman, 2017;Danso & Aalgaard, 2019;Hopwood, 2010). This nexus of a student's own doctoral program and the influence of other researchers, such as through national conferences, contributes to the development of the doctoral student's academic career.…”