Research Supervision: An Important Site of Teaching

Supervision of students engaged in research projects and theses is an important site of teaching. Schon's (1987) well-known framework–educating for reflective practice–proves aptly suited for this teaching forum, offering insights for research supervision at multiple university levels. Conceptually, a research and writing studio where a practicum takes place is substituted for Schon's illustrative architectural design studio. The framework is mined for its fine-grained analysis of student-coach interaction and its emphasis on bringing self-reflection, a practice consistent with social work ideals, to three levels: research and writing, the student-coach dialogue and the relationship in which it is embedded.     

Creating a woman friendly culture in institutes of higher engineering education

This article describes the results of a workshop that was held in Valencia during the annual conference of SEFI in 2004. The authors give remarks on the results supported by relevant and recent research. In the workshop, where about 35 participants were present, the following questions were discussed and answered:

Which factors indicate that an institute of higher engineering education is woman friendly? How can we rank these factors and what is the weight of the factors? What initiatives did your institute or other institutions of your country make to increase the percentage of female academic staff and to attract and retain more female students?     

Tales of the Unexpected: supervisors’ and students’ perspectives on short‐term projects and dissertations

This study of the expectations of 22 supervisors of undergraduate and postgraduate projects and dissertations and their students revealed the supervisors’ more elaborated views. Responses were categorised into Educational Support & Guidance and Personal Support, with well over two‐thirds of both supervisors and students highlighting Educational Guidance and less than a quarter Personal Support. Students and staff mentioned an enabling approach which allowed student ownership of their projects. Staff and students also agreed on their expectations of the students’ role, with two‐thirds of the responses of both groups emphasising personal and organisational qualities. The apparent agreement of supervisors and students was questioned by means of two problematic cases. These raised questions of supervisory style, contrasting perceptions of process and the need to take continuous account of student needs as well as the academic aims of staff.