|
For a
number of years the undergraduate dissertation process has been an
individual one. Supervisors allocated individually to students who then
complete a proposal. A series of meetings between the two parties
hopefully resulting in the student engaging with literature and the
researched to produce a final document.
With a
reorganisation of the undergraduate programme in Coventry Business School
it was decided to revise this process. Merely presenting notes on research
methods was not going to satisfy students who need to address individual
ideas and potential pitfalls based on their respective study skill
aptitudes [Davis 2003].
We began
by articulating what we saw as two extreme types of academic and their
approach to teaching: the subject-centred and the student-centred. This
was useful because although guiding independent student research is very
different to teaching large groups of undergraduates on a structured
module, the pedagogical impulses of the teacher /supervisor impact on the
quality of the experience for the students [Entwistle 2003].
Our paper
explores, using reflections of both student and staff experience, the
implications for the student-teacher relationship and the wider learning
environment. For example, recent experience suggests that final year
students are suffering increased anxiety about their grades and this
reveals itself in a powerful need to progress as easily as possible. For
us this suggests a dichotomy for academic staff: they can honour the
student experience with the potential for confrontation, or treat the
student as a consumer and give them what they want.
In our paper we
further explore what these extreme types might mean for the
research/supervision relationship. For example, if supervision is regarded
as an invitation to pre-existing knowledge then research is clearly an
individual activity of absorbing and analysing knowledge of that subject
area. Alternatively, if supervision is regarded as student-centred the
theoretical underpinning for its practice is founded upon the
collective/social nature of research, for example, Action Learning [McGill
and Beaty 2001].
In conclusion,
the subject-centred approach would seem to make teaching into ‘just a
job’. There is little room for continuing professional development [Schon
1983], only in increasing subject knowledge. The limitations for students
are more profound, perhaps a formulaic approach to research could curtail
any interest in research before it begins.
Keywords:
Research methods, facilitation, learning environment
Download FULL
PAPER
Return
to Contents |
