Pedagogical-Publication Tensions in Undergraduate Engineering Thesis Supervision

Abstract

In light of the assessment criteria for the doctor of philosophy and masters by research degrees, postgraduate thesis supervision can reasonably be categorised as predominantly research output focussed. This goal is naturally congruent with the publication agenda driving much academic staff activity in the modern ‘publish or perish’ university culture. In contrast, due to the lack of student research experience, the undergraduate thesis is necessarily focussed primarily on the development of research skills (i.e. it is process not output oriented). Undergraduate thesis supervision requires more than just research skills from supervising staff. The lessons learnt from postgraduate research supervision are therefore not always directly transferable to undergraduate thesis supervision. In contrast to the vast body of work in the field of doctoral research supervision, there exists a dearth of literature on undergraduate dissertation supervision. The present study examined the alignment of university, supervisor and student expectations regarding responsibilities in the undergraduate engineering thesis. University expectations, having undergone rigorous review, form the sound pedagogical practice baseline that should be applied to undergraduate supervision. Expectations of academic staff supervisors and thesis students were obtained through the use of survey tools. The surveys used in the present study were adapted from the Role Perceptions Rating Scale (RPRS). Alignment between student and university expectations regarding undergraduate thesis responsibilities in the present study was generally poor. The discrepancy between supervisor and university expectations was even greater, with academic staff generally alarmingly assuming the bulk of the responsibility for many core thesis tasks. The main driver identified for this behaviour (i.e. the supervisor expectations that undergraduate thesis research would contribute to publications) was investigated through post-survey discussions and interviews. Taking primary responsibility for core thesis tasks away from the student, although improving the likelihood of successful research output, diminishes the ability for an accurate assessment of adequate academic performance. The learning that is intended to result from the undergraduate thesis is devalued when research outcomes are prioritised over research process.