Pedagogy of research supervision pedagogy: A constructivist model

Abstract

Graduate research is an integral part of higher education in Pakistan but formal training in supervision is not included in any standard teacher training curriculum. Hence, supervisors usually depend on their own experiences of how they were supervised as graduate students and so every supervisor builds his/her own model of supervision. In this paper we have used Weimer (2006)'s 'wisdom of practice scholarship' framework for describing our personal experiences of constructing a 3Ps‐ Pedagogical Research Supervision Model. Our model combines Zhao (2003)'s knowledge management approach to research supervision with Bybee and Landes' (1990) five E s instructional model for producing a written dissertation at a private university in Pakistan. It is informed by the constructivist philosophy of teaching and learning. Our basic purpose is to open for discussion the issues of research supervision in a context where the language of academic discourse is English but the students and supervisors hail from non‐English speaking contexts. Introduction In the world of academia, graduate research supervision has conventionally been treated as research (Taylor and Beasley 2005). It is geared towards producing a research based written thesis and the efforts of both parties; student and supervisor, are directed to reach the finish line in time. It is assumed that if supervisors can do research they can supervise as well (Rudd 1985). This view of research supervision which is focused on the content knowledge and research expertise of a supervisor ignores the pedagogical content knowledge of research. It does not take into account that supervision is more than overseeing students produce written research reports; it is a complicated and intensive form of one‐on‐one teaching of research which takes on a unique form of sustained interaction over at least one and a half years for Masters and three to four years for PhD students. The individuality of such an interaction stems from the element of choice, i.e., both supervisors and students can select whom they want to work with. The resultant relationship blends the personal with professional expectations and becomes one of the key factors in determining the kind of teaching and