全部 标题 作者
关键词 摘要

OALib Journal期刊
ISSN: 2333-9721
费用:99美元

查看量下载量

相关文章

更多...
PLOS ONE  2014 

Biomedical Ph.D. Students Enrolled in Two Elite Universities in the United Kingdom and the United States Report Adopting Multiple Learning Relationships

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0103075

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract:

Objective The ability to form multiple learning relationships is a key element of the doctoral learning environment in the biomedical sciences. Of these relationships, that between student and supervisor has long been viewed as key. There are, however, limited data to describe the student perspective on what makes this relationship valuable. In the present study, we discuss the findings of semi-structured interviews with biomedical Ph.D. students from the United Kingdom and the United States to: i) determine if the learning relationships identified in an Australian biomedical Ph.D. cohort are also important in a larger international student cohort; and ii) improve our understanding of student perceptions of value in their supervisory relationships. Study Design 32 students from two research intensive universities, one in the United Kingdom (n = 17), and one in the United States (n = 15) were recruited to participate in a semi-structured interview. Verbatim transcripts were transcribed, validated and analysed using a Miles and Huberman method for thematic analysis. Results Students reported that relationships with other Ph.D. students, post-doctoral scientists and supervisors were all essential to their learning. Effective supervisory relationships were perceived as the primary source of high-level project guidance, intellectual support and confidence. Relationships with fellow students were viewed as essential for the provision of empathetic emotional support. Technical learning was facilitated, almost exclusively, by relationships with postdoctoral staff. Conclusions These data make two important contributions to the scholarship of doctoral education in the biomedical sciences. Firstly, they provide further evidence for the importance of multiple learning relationships in the biomedical doctorate. Secondly, they clarify the form of a ‘valued’ supervisory relationship from a student perspective. We conclude that biomedical doctoral programs should be designed to contain a minimum level of formalised structure to promote the development of multiple learning relationships that are perceived as key to student learning.

References

[1]  Walker GE, Golde CM, Jones L, Conklin-Bueschel A, Hutchings P (2008) The Formation of Scholars. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
[2]  Anonymous (2011) Fix the PhD. Nature 472: 259–260. doi: 10.1038/472259b
[3]  Cyranoski D, Gilbert N, Ledford H, Nayar A, Yahia M (2011) Education: The PhD factory. Nature 472: 276–279. doi: 10.1038/472276a
[4]  McCook A (2011) Education: Rethinking PhDs. Nature 472: 280–282. doi: 10.1038/472280a
[5]  Fuhrmann CN, Halme DG, O’Sullivan PS, Lindstaedt B (2011) Improving graduate education to support a branching career pipeline: Recommendations based on a survey of doctoral students in the basic biomedical sciences. CBE Life Sciences Education 10: 239–249. doi: 10.1187/cbe.11-02-0013
[6]  Hakala J (2009) The future of the academic calling? Junior researchers in the entrepreneurial university. Higher Education 57: 173–190. doi: 10.1007/s10734-008-9140-6
[7]  Kemp MW, Newnham JP, Chapman E (2012) The biomedical doctorate in the contemporary university: Education or training and why it matters. Higher Education 63: 631–644. doi: 10.1007/s10734-011-9464-5
[8]  Gardner SK (2009) Student and faculty attributions of attrition in high and low-completing doctoral programs in the United States. Higher Education 58: 97–112. doi: 10.1007/s10734-008-9184-7
[9]  Golde CM (2005) The role of the department and discipline in doctoral student attrition: Lessons from four departments. Journal of Higher Education 76: 669–700. doi: 10.1353/jhe.2005.0039
[10]  Taylor MC (2011) Reform the PhD system or close it down. Nature 472: 261. doi: 10.1038/472261a
[11]  Enders J (2005) Border crossings: Research training, knowledge dissemination and the transformation of academic work. Higher Education 49: 119–133. doi: 10.1007/s10734-004-2917-3
[12]  Barker MJ (2011) Racial context, currency and connections: Black doctoral student and white advisor perspectives on cross-race advising. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 48: 387–400. doi: 10.1080/14703297.2011.617092
[13]  Klenowski V, Ehrich L, Kapitzke C, Trigger K (2011) Building support for learning within a Doctor of Education programme. Teaching in Higher Education 16: 681–693. doi: 10.1080/13562517.2011.570431
[14]  Lahenius K (2012) Communities of practice supporting doctoral studies. International Journal of Management Education 10: 29–38. doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2012.02.003
[15]  Lahenius K, M??tt? S (2011) Students’ experiences in different forms of support during doctoral studies. IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, IEEM2011; 2011; Singapore. 452–456.
[16]  Lunsford L (2012) Doctoral Advising or Mentoring? Effects on Student Outcomes. Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning 20: 251–270. doi: 10.1080/13611267.2012.678974
[17]  Martinsuo M, Turkulainen V (2011) Personal commitment, support and progress in doctoral studies. Studies in Higher Education 36: 103–120. doi: 10.1080/03075070903469598
[18]  Mendoza P (2007) Academic capitalism and doctoral student socialization: A case study. Journal of Higher Education 78: 71–96. doi: 10.1353/jhe.2007.0004
[19]  Gardner SK (2010) Faculty perspectives on doctoral student socialization in five disciplines. International Journal of Doctoral Studies 5: 39–53.
[20]  Gardner SK (2010) Keeping up with the joneses: Socialization and culture in doctoral education at one striving institution. Journal of Higher Education 81: 728–749.
[21]  Felder P (2010) On doctoral student development: Exploring faculty mentoring in the shaping of african american doctoral student success. Qualitative Report 15: 455–474.
[22]  Leonard D, Metcalfe J, Becker R, Evans J (2006) Review of literature on the impact of working context and support on the postgraduate research student learning experience. The Higher Education Academy.
[23]  Cumming J (2009) The doctoral experience in science: Challenging the current orthodoxy. British Educational Research Journal 35: 877–890. doi: 10.1080/01411920902834191
[24]  Seagram BC, Gould J, Pyke SW (1998) An investigation of gender and other on time to completion of doctoral degrees. Research in Higher Education 39: 319–335. doi: 10.1023/a:1018781118312
[25]  Girves JE, Wemmerus V (1988) Developing Models of Graduate Student Degree Progress. The Journal of Higher Education 59: 163–189. doi: 10.2307/1981691
[26]  Parker R (2009) A learning community approach to doctoral education in the social sciences. Teaching in Higher Education 14: 43–54. doi: 10.1080/13562510802602533
[27]  Hasrati M (2005) Legitimate peripheral participation and supervising Ph.D. students. Studies in Higher Education 30: 557–570. doi: 10.1080/03075070500249252
[28]  Boud D, Lee A (2005) ‘Peer learning’ as pedagogic discourse for research education. Studies in Higher Education 30: 501–516. doi: 10.1080/03075070500249138
[29]  Pearson M, Brew A (2002) Research training and supervision development. Studies in Higher Education 27: 135–150. doi: 10.1080/03075070220119986c
[30]  Pearson M, Cumming J, Evans T, Macauley P, Ryland K (2011) How shall we know them? Capturing the diversity of difference in Australian doctoral candidates and their experiences. Studies in Higher Education 36: 527–542. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2011.594591
[31]  Kemp MW, Molloy TJ, Pajic M, Chapman E (2013) Peer relationships and the biomedical doctorate: A key component of the contemporary learning environment. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 35: 370–385. doi: 10.1080/1360080x.2013.812055
[32]  Kemp MW, Pajic M, Molloy TJ, Chapman E (2013) Perceived assessment requirements in the contemporary biomedical doctorate: A case-study from a research intensive australian university. International Journal of Doctoral Studies 8: 105–120.
[33]  Lee A (2008) How are doctoral students supervised? Concepts of doctoral research supervision. Studies in Higher Education 33: 267–281. doi: 10.1080/03075070802049202
[34]  McCallin A, Nayar S (2012) Postgraduate research supervision: A critical review of current practice. Teaching in Higher Education 17: 63–74. doi: 10.1080/13562517.2011.590979
[35]  Spiller D, Byrnes G, Bruce Ferguson P (2013) Enhancing postgraduate supervision through a process of conversational inquiry. Higher Education Research and Development 32: 833–845. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2013.776519
[36]  Vilkinas T (2008) An Exploratory Study of the Supervision of Ph.D./Research Students’ Theses. Innovations in Higher Education 32: 297–311. doi: 10.1007/s10755-007-9057-5
[37]  Lee A, McKenzie J (2011) Evaluating doctoral supervision: Tensions in eliciting students’ perspectives. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 48: 69–78. doi: 10.1080/14703297.2010.543773
[38]  Pearson M, Evans T, MacAuley P (2008) Growth and diversity in doctoral education: Assessing the Australian experience. Higher Education 55: 357–372. doi: 10.1007/s10734-007-9059-3
[39]  Maki PL, Borkowski NA, eds. (2006) The Assessment of Doctoral Education. Sterling, VA.: Stylus Publishing LLC.
[40]  (UK) MRC (2014) Doctoral Training Grant competition.
[41]  Trust W (2014) Four-year PhD Studentship Programmes.
[42]  Fontana A, Frey JH (1994) Interviewing: The Art of Science. In: Denzin NaYL, editor. Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage Publications.
[43]  Punch KF (2009) Introduction to Research Methods in Education. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
[44]  Sandberg J (2000) Understanding Human Competence at Work: An Interpretative Approach. The Academy of Management Journal 43: 9–25. doi: 10.2307/1556383
[45]  Wright A, Murray JP, Geale P (2007) A phenomenographic study of what it means to supervise doctoral students. Academy of Management Learning and Education 6: 458–474. doi: 10.5465/amle.2007.27694946
[46]  Lave J, Wanger E (1991) Situated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[47]  Holley K (2009) Animal research practices and doctoral student identity development in a scientific community. Studies in Higher Education 34: 577–591. doi: 10.1080/03075070802597176
[48]  Delamont S, Atkinson P, Parry O (1997) Critical mass and doctoral research: Reflections on the Harris report. Studies in Higher Education 22: 319. doi: 10.1080/03075079712331380926
[49]  Gardner SK (2007) “I heard it through the grapevine”: Doctoral student socialization in chemistry and history. Higher Education 54: 723–740. doi: 10.1007/s10734-006-9020-x
[50]  Lahenius K, Martinsuo M (2011) Different Types of Doctoral Study Processes. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 55: 609–623. doi: 10.1080/00313831.2011.555924
[51]  Park C (2007) Redefining the Doctorate. The Higher Education Academy.
[52]  Lindén J, Ohlin M, Brodin EM (2013) Mentorship, supervision and learning experience in PhD education. Studies in Higher Education 38: 639–662. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2011.596526
[53]  Deuchar R (2008) Facilitator, director or critical friend?: Contradiction and congruence in doctoral supervision styles. Teaching in Higher Education 13: 489–500. doi: 10.1080/13562510802193905
[54]  Felder PP, Barker MJ (2013) Extending bell’s concept of interest convergence: A framework for understanding the african american doctoral student experience. International Journal of Doctoral Studies 8: 1–20.
[55]  Baptista AV, Huet I (2012) Postgraduate research supervision quality: Rethinking the value of doctoral supervision to design an integrative framework. International Journal of Learning 18: 175–194.
[56]  Halse C, Malfroy J (2010) Retheorizing doctoral supervision as professional work. Studies in Higher Education 35: 79–92. doi: 10.1080/03075070902906798
[57]  Holligan C (2005) Fact and fiction: A case history of doctoral supervision. Educational Research 47: 267–278. doi: 10.1080/00131880500287179
[58]  Hakala J (2009) Socialization of junior researchers in new academic research environments: Two case studies from Finland. Studies in Higher Education 34: 501–516. doi: 10.1080/03075070802597119
[59]  Johnson L, Lee A, Green B (2000) The PhD and the Autonomous Self: Gender, rationality and postgraduate pedagogy. Studies in Higher Education 25: X–147. doi: 10.1080/713696141
[60]  Brailsford I (2010) Motives and aspirations for doctoral study: Career, personal, and inter-personal factors in the decision to Embark on a history PhD. International Journal of Doctoral Studies 5: 15–27.

Full-Text

Contact Us

service@oalib.com

QQ:3279437679

WhatsApp +8615387084133