5.1 Characterising Supervisor Input

Variations in the student/supervisor relationship have an effect on the extent to which the project is "the students' own work". These are (commonly) not visible, and therefore not factored into assessment.

---ooOoo---

This bundle provides a mechanism by which the level and scope of supervisor assistance can be recorded and factored into assessment, and coincidentally provides a framework in which supervisors can reflect on their own approaches and effectiveness.

The way it works is that, as part of the assessment process, each supervisor is required to report (on a pre-printed form) the extent to which they have assisted students during the course of the project. In order to facilitate comparability, the supervisors are asked to characterise their role as (predominantly) one of four types:

Observer/commentator
The student(s) run the project for themselves, sometimes in the presence of the supervisor. The supervisor gleans from their actions the roles that they have taken, and the success with which they are implementing these roles. The supervisor may suggest lines of attack or potential solutions to problems, but will not in general require that the students adopt them.
Master/mentor.
The traditional "apprentice master" role with the supervisor passing on skills and advising the student(s) on the approaches to be taken to specific tasks.
Line manager.
The student(s) manage and implement the project, but regularly report to the supervisor who tracks progress and dictates strategy but not tactics.
Project manager.
This is the traditional "science" model of project supervision, where (typically) a small aspect of the supervisor's research project or interest is marked off as the students' project, to be integrated on completion. The supervisor has a particular interest in the success of the students' project, and will guide them to that end, allocating sub-tasks and directing progress.

The supervisor's report is attached to the project before it is forwarded to the moderator, second or other assessor.

It works better if staff share an understanding of the contents and import of the supervisory report, both as authors (supervisors) and readers (assessors).

It doesn't work unless projects are supervised by different members of staff.

It doesn't work if the supervisor alone assesses the project (although there may be a personal development gain for staff in the process of reflection).

---ooOoo---

So: moderate, or at least make explicit, the amount and type of assistance being given to project students by their supervisor.