4 steps for better supervision

On this Monday morning in late October associate professor Gitte Wichmann-Hansen from the Centre for Teaching and Learning is doing a course on supervision for 20 assistant professors and postdocs from all the university’s faculties.

The aim of the course is to show how a supervisor asking different types of questions can pave the way for a dialogue where the student or colleague, through his or her responses, is encouraged to reflect on their problem and arrive at a solution instead of relying on the supervisor providing the answers.

Four phases, each with their respective types of questions

Gitte Wichmann-Hansen kicks off by introducing the participants to a four-phase model for supervisory interviews:

1. The first phase involves identifying the problem by asking specifying questions – usually very basic questions about the subject of the supervision, but also questions which can set targets for the supervisory interview.
2. The second phase continues with an identification of the problem, but now with exploratory questions aimed at putting the thoughts and convictions, which lie behind the problem or assignment, into words.
3. The third phase entails asking challenging questions. These are questions that shed new light on the problem or assignment and broaden our understanding of it.
4. The fourth phase is about asking evaluating questions about how the work with the problem or assignment should proceed.

How can I get him to understand how important it is without being critical

The model is immediately put to the test. Gitte Wichmann-Hansen places six chairs in the middle of the room. In the middle sits an assistant professor on a chair with blue upholstery who needs to clarify a problem with a student for whom she is acting as a supervisor. The remaining chairs are for representatives from the groups which the other participants are in. As soon as they are ready with their questions, they take a seat on one of the chairs.

The assistant professor explains that she has some doubts about how to tackle one of her students who is doing his Bachelor’s project

The student is very bright and very active on the programme, yet has not started working on his project even though several months have passed since he should have got going. A couple of weeks ago, he showed up for his first supervisory session with a rough outline without having decided on a specific subject. The assistant professor scheduled a new meeting, and demanded that he should have a subject and an outline ready, and that he should give it to her two days before the meeting.

She is now concerned that the student will again show up without having prepared properly, and she is not sure how to handle such a situation.

How can I get him to understand that it’s important? And how flexible should I be? asks the assistant professor.

First round: Establish the facts of the case

The first round is about asking specifying questions, and the 19 men and women, who are now acting as advisers for the assistant professor, consider numerous aspects in trying to clarify the problem, both in relation to the student and the actions of the assistant professor.

• What is the student so busy with?
• How do you know him?
• What have you actually done to motivate him?
• Have you decided on an academic theme together?
• Have you sought to reconcile your expectations?
• To what extent have you talked about the fact that you are concerned on his behalf?
• Do you know anything about how he usually works?

Gitte Wichmann-Hansen rejects some of the questions along the way because they are not specifying. One group wants to know how the assistant professor knows that the student is bright, but this is an exploratory question, according to Gitte Wichmann-Hansen. Another group asks whether it is possible for the student to do his project with someone else, but this borders on good advice, says the instructor.

Judging from the assistant professor’s answers to all the questions, it appears that she really has done what she can to explain to the student what the supervisory process is about, and she has also tried to help the student make some decisions about his project. But without luck. Moreover, she explains that the student has been busy because, in addition to being a tutor, he has also started his subsidiary subject before finishing his Bachelor’s project. Something which is completely normal at the department in question.

Second round: Going slightly deeper

The supervision continues with exploratory questions. It would appear that these questions are trickier. Gitte Wichmann-Hansen has to remind participants several times that lunch is waiting, and that she would like to see a bit more progress.

But when the questions are finally ready, it is clear that all the groups have asked themselves whether the crux of the problem is perhaps not just the student, but also the ideas and the knowledge which the assistant professor has about her role as supervisor.

• What do you think about your role in his development?
• Do you find it hard to accept the idea that he might fail or have to resit his exam
• Is it important for you to involve yourself very deeply in your supervision?
• At what point will you refuse to provide supervision?
• What do you think turns on the student academically?
• Does supervision have to be a good experience?

“That’s a good question,” says the assistant professor several times, and has to think a bit before replying. From the answers, it is clear that she is very ambitious in relation to her own role as a supervisor, and that she would take it as a personal defeat if she had to cancel a supervisory session, because it would mean that she would have failed to help the student. On the other hand, she knows very little about what her colleagues and the management expect of her as a supervisor.

Third round: What if …?

It is now time to shake the assistant professor’s perception and understanding of the problem at hand with challenging questions, Gitte Wichmann-Hansen tells the participants. Judging by the questions, this can be done in many ways. The questions cover alternative ways of tackling the supervision, and asking the assistant professor to consider whether it is in fact a problem if the student does not finish his assignment now.

• To what extent have you thought of involving him in your considerations?
• What will happen with him and you if you tell him that he’s not going to make it? And who will have the biggest problem?
• How do you think your colleagues would handle a similar problem?
• Could you inspire the student to give more priority to his academic interests
• What are the consequences for you if you cancel a supervisory session meeting
• Could you imagine using the apprentice model and helping him to formulate the problem?
• What would it take for you to feel confident that, at the next supervisory meeting, the student will hand in his assignment on time?

The assistant professor acknowledges that there are limits to how far she is prepared to go with her help. She is not willing to use the apprentice model, because it would give the student an advantage which the other students would not have.

It is also clear that she finds it quite hard to accept the idea that the student might not do the assignment right now.

Fourth round: What will you do now?

The assistant professor considers this while the other participants are allowed to offer advice. Eventually, she is ready to answer the final round of evaluating questions: What will you do now?

I will discuss this with people at various levels, but most importantly I must talk to my boss about what the general approach is in situations like this. I will also raise it with my colleagues, she says.

She is still not completely clear about what will happen if the student fails to submit anything before the next meeting, but on the other hand she is willing to acknowledge that he might not complete his Bachelor’s project this time round:

“I’ll ask whether the re-examination is an option for him. But I will do so in a positive way so that it is his choice whether he wants to sit a re-examination rather than me deciding it for him.”

She also says that it was the exploratory questions in particular that helped to clarify things for her:

“I realised that he needs to learn how to structure his time, and therefore I will draw his attention to the various types of student guidance and guidance with study techniques which are on offer.”

And then she says something which must be music to Gitte Wichmann-Hansen’s ears:

“I have come a long way in trying to resolve this problem. Thank you. You’ve been a dream team of supervisors.”

This was an authentic case. Consequently, for the sake of the student and the supervisor, the supervisor was only referred to as the assistant professor in this article.

The supervisor module is a part of the teacher training course for assistant professors and postdocs at Aarhus University (adjunktpædagogikum) and is offered by AU Educational Development Network (UPNet).

Follow us on Twitter, Medium or visit our website for news and articles

Centre for Teaching and Learning is an educational research and development unit at Aarhus BSS, Aarhus University, Denmark.