E N D
Department of Science Education Ourcommonknowledge Peer supervision
Department of Science Education Example • Focus p: I’ve got a problem with a PhD student. The student does not get any results. I suggested another method which I know will get results. But the student wants to keep going with her method and try and modify it. Now I have doubts. Should I insist that she changes her method or should I support her in her project with the risk that she doesn’t get any useful results? • Supervisor: How long has she been going? • Focus p: One year. • Supervisor: But she’s got to get some results. You’ve got to tell her that if she doesn’t get any results and get them published soon, she won’t have a PhD at all in two years. • Focus p: No. I’ve problably got to tell her that.
Department of Science Education The dialogue: Structure and progression • Revealing of • problem • situation • Alternative • ways of understan-ding the problem • solutions Extension, transfer to other situations Mind model Own suggestions for solution with justifications Attemptat solving problem Supervision dialogue Application in a dialogue
Department of Science Education Practise triangle – our teacher VALUE BASIS Ethical, political P3 Thinks student should have responsibility for own project JUSTIFICATION Experiential, theoretical P2 Wants students to get results ACTION P1 Suggests alternative method
Enhedens navn Supervisor’s toolbox Meta-communication Approaches / styles Feedback and Assessment Perspectives Caps Themes and progression
Department of Science Education Peer Supervision - Oslo model • Three phases in supervision: • Pre-supervision with groundwork paper • Observation of teaching • Post-supervision • Observation of the supervision dialogue • Three persons involved: Focus person, supervisor, observer
Department of Science Education • Problem-focused peer supervision in groups
Department of Science Education • Pre-supervision exercise