 |
[email protected] |
 |
3275638434 |
 |
 |
| Paper Publishing WeChat |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
David Kipkasi Kessio
Full-Text PDF
XML 819 Views
DOI:10.17265/2161-6248/2022.06.005
Moi University, Eldoret, Kenya
Post COVID-19 era compounded by the proliferation of co-supervision as a result of multidisciplinary research studies and internalization of education has necessitated blended supervision and mentorship. Blended supervision provides panacea to graduate studies where research supervision could be done remotely through blended model which is a hybrid of online and face-to-face. This study sought to evaluate effective strategies of doctorate students’ blended supervision and mentorship programme at School of Education, Moi University, Kenya. The following objectives guided the study: to assess the level of preparedness by the doctorate supervisors in adoption of blended supervision and mentorship; to determine the availability of the ICT infrastructure and platforms that support blended supervision and mentorship; and to establish the challenges in adoption of blended supervision and mentorship. The target populations were doctorate supervisors, doctorate candidates, ICT support personnel, and Dean postgraduate studies at Moi University. The study adopted interpretative philosophical paradigm thus qualitative research design. Constructivist learning theory of learning was adopted. Simple random sampling of postgraduate students and faculty; purposive sampling of the ICT staff, Dean postgraduate studies and doctorate supervisors was used. Open-ended questionnaires, document analysis, and interview schedule were employed to collect data from the respondents. Data were analyzed descriptively and through thematic coding. Key findings revealed that there was inadequate preparation of doctorate supervision, lack of feedback expectation tool thus delayed responses and poor connectivity especially during interaction. The study findings would inform policy, adoption, and implementation of blended supervision in Africa higher education institutions and would be of significance to policy makers, researchers, and institutions of higher education in enhancement of doctorate students’ blended supervision and mentorship.
strategies, blended supervision, constructivist learning
David Kipkasi Kessio. (2022). Effective Strategies of Doctorate Students’ Blended Supervision and Mentorship at School of Education, Moi University, Kenya. US-China Education Review B, Nov.-Dec. 2022, Vol. 12, No. 6, 220-226.
Abukari, A., & David, S. (2019). Quality assuring the professional doctorate: Challenging traditional precepts through the supervisors’/advisers’ lens. Quality Assurance in Education, 27(3), 304-319. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-08-2017-0052
Åkerlind, G., & McAlpine, M. (2017). Supervising doctoral students: Variation in purpose and pedagogy. Studies in Higher Education, 42(9), 1686-1698.
Aliyu, A., Bello, M. U., Kasim, R., & Martin, D. (2014). Positivist and non-positivist paradigm in social science research: Conflicting paradigms or perfect partners? Journal of Management and Sustainability, 4(3), 79-95.
Barnes, B. J., Williams, E. A., & Stassen, M. L. A. (2012). Dissecting doctoral advising: a comparison of students’ experiences across disciplines. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 36(3), 309-331.
Benmore, A. (2016). Boundary management in doctoral supervision: How supervisors negotiate roles and role transitions throughout the supervisory journey. Studies in Higher Education, 41(7), 1251-1264.
Bordens, K. S., & Abbott, B. B. (2014). Research design and methods: A process approach (9th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE.
Denzin, N. K. (2014). Interpretive autoethnography. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Freeman, R., & Tolmie, A. (2012). The role of doctoral and graduate schools. In The SAGE handbook of digital dissertations and theses (pp. 47-62). London: SAGE.
Gill, P., & Burnard, P. (2008). The student-Supervisor Relationship in the PhD/doctoral process. British Journal of Nursing, 17(10), 668-671.
Halse, C. (2011). Becoming a supervisor: The impact of doctoral supervision on supervisors. Learning, Studies in Higher Education, 36(5), 557-570.
Hawkes, D. (2016). Why do a professional doctorate? Evidence from prospective EdD students. International Journal of Continuing Education & Lifelong Learning, 8(2), 34-46.
Hoddell, S., Street, D., & Wildblood, H. (2002). Doctorates—Converging or diverging patterns of provision. Quality Assurance in Education, 10(2), 61-70.
Hutchings, M. (2017). Improving doctoral support through group supervision: Analysing face-to-face and technology-mediated strategies for nurturing and sustaining scholarship. Studies in Higher Education, 42(3), 533-550.
Lee, A., & Murray, R. (2015). Supervising writing: Helping postgraduate students develop as researchers. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52(5), 558-570.
Lees, A. (2008). How are doctoral students supervised? Concepts of doctoral research supervision. Studies in Higher Education, 33(3), 267-281.
Park, C. (2005). New variant PhD: The changing nature of the doctorate in the UK. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 27(2), 189-207.
QAA. (2017). The quality code for higher education—Part B: Assuring and enhancing academic quality—Chapter B11: Research degrees, the quality assurance agency for higher education, Gloucester. Retrieved 7 November 2017 from www.qaa.ac.uk/assuring-standards-and-Quality/the-quality-code/quality-code-part-B
Taylor, J. (2008). Quality and standards: The challenge of the professional doctorate. Higher Education in Europe, 33(1), 65-87.