سبک‌شناسی راهنمایی تحصیلی در دوره دکتری

نوع مقاله : علمی- پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 گروه آموزش عالی، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روان‌شناسی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران

2 گروه رهبری و توسعه آموزش، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روان‌شناسی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران

3 مؤسسه عالی آموزش و پژوهش مدیریت و برنامه‌ریزی، تهران، ایران

10.22055/edus.2021.35742.3149

چکیده

راهنمایی تحصیلی دوره دکتری نقش مهمی در موفقیت این دوره دانشگاهی دارد. اساتید راهنما در ارائه راهنمایی تحصیلی شیوه‌ها، سلایق و باورهای مختلفی دارند. مطالعه این ویژگی‌ها و انسجام‌بخشی آن‌ها در چارچوب‌هایی نظری (سبک‌های راهنمایی تحصیلی) رویکردی است که می‌تواند زمینه‌ساز پدید آوردن فهمی عمیق‌تر از پدیده راهنمایی و همچنین ساخت ابزارهایی برای شناسایی و ارزیابی وضعیت راهنمایی تحصیلی دوره دکتری باشد. بر همین اساس در این پژوهش با استفاده از روش مرور روایتی، ادبیات حوزه آموزش عالی در منابع داخلی (25 مقاله) و خارجی (58 مقاله) مورد بررسی و تحلیل قرار گرفت و 6 سبک‌شناسی برای راهنمایی تحصیلی دوره دکتری شناسایی شد که عبارتند از سبک‌شناسی اندرسون، گور، گاتفیلد، مینهارد و همکاران، مورفی و همکاران، و ویلکیناس. این سبک‌شناسی‌ها در مقاله توصیف شده و یک مقایسه کلی نیز میان آن‌ها صورت گرفته است. بررسی این سبک‌شناسی‌ها نشان داد که ابعاد تربیتی و اخلاقی راهنمایی تحصیلی و همچنین تفاوت‌های موجود میان راهنمایی گروه‌های تحصیلی مختلف، مهم‌ترین موضوعات مغفول در این سبک‌شناسی‌ها می‌باشد. به علاوه مشخص شد که عمده‌ی تمرکز این سبک‌شناسی‌ها بر یکی از اهداف دوره دکتری (پرورش پژوهشگران) بوده و می‌توان ارائه سبک شناسی‌هایی با تمرکز بر هدف مهم دیگر دوره دکتری (تولید علم) را نیز پیشنهاد نمود.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Doctoral Supervision Stylistics

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mohammad Yamani Douzi Sorkhabi 1
  • Ahmad Mahjoubian 1
  • Mohammad-Hasan Pardakhtchi 2
  • Gholamali Farjadi 3
1 Education and psychology department. Shahid Beheshti University. Tehran. Iran
2 Education and Psychology department , Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
3 Institute for Management and Planning studies. Tehran. Iran
چکیده [English]

Introduction
The doctoral program plays an important role in the implementation of university missions and scientific development through original research and training of future scientists and researchers. On the other hand, research shows that the success of this course is influenced by factors, one of the most important of which is supervision. Supervisors have different methods, tastes and beliefs in providing supervision. The study of these characteristics and their integration in the theoretical frameworks (academic supervision styles) is an approach that can pave the way for a deeper understanding of the supervisory phenomenon as well as build tools for identifying and evaluating doctoral supervision status.
Method
in this study, using the method of narrative review, the literature in the field of higher education in internal resources (25 articles) and external (58 articles) was examined and analyzed.
Results
6 stylistics were identified for doctoral supervision, which are stylistics: Anderson, Gurr, Gatfield, Mainhard et al., Murphy et al., And Vilkinas. These stylistics are described in the article and a general comparison is made between them.
Discuss
The study of these stylistics showed that the educational and moral dimensions of academic supervision, as well as the differences between the guidance of different educational groups, are the most important issues neglected in these stylistics. In addition, it was found that the main focus of these stylistics is on one of the goals of the doctoral course (educating researchers) and it can be suggested to provide stylistics focusing on another important goal of the doctoral course (science production).
It should be noted that stylistic studies due to the practical approach as well as conceptual coherence, can help to improve the status of doctoral guidance, because contemplation of different styles of academic supervision and attention to their various dimensions by supervisors can by creating knowledge of different angles of academic supervision will lead to improving the quality of this process.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Supervision
  • Doctoral course
  • Stylistics
  • Supervisor
  • Supervision style
Arasteh, H., & Saeedi, Y. (2016). Examining master's student satisfaction of interactive and supervisory styles of supervisors. Technology of Education Journal. 10(4), 335-346. [Persian]
Attaran, M., Zeinabadi H.R., & Tolabi, S. (2009). Supervisor selection and Student-Supervisor relation: PhD graduates perspectives. Journal of Curriculum Studies. 4(3), 281-308. [Persian]
Bahrami, S., Zabardast, M.A., & Salimi, J. (2020). Qualitative Analysis of University Professors' Experiences of Professional Identity. Journal of Educational Sciences. 27(1), 203-220. [Persian]
Bastalich, W. (2017). Content and context in knowledge production: a critical review of doctoral supervision literature. Studies in Higher Education. 42(7), 1145-1157.
Bozorg, H., & Khakbaz, A.S. (2013). Hidden Supervisor: the emergent curriculum of advising graduate students thesis (case study: training science course). Resarech in Curriculum Planning. 10(9), 38-50. [Persian]
Deuchar, R. (2008). Facilitator, director or critical friend?: Contradiction and congruence in doctoral supervision styles. Teaching in Higher Education. 13(4), 489-500.
Ebrahimipour, H., Arazi, R., Shadnam, Z., Nasrollahi, S., Ebrahimipour, S., & Lael- Monfared, E. (2015). Duties and Performance of Academic Advisors from the Students' Perspective. Research in Medical Education. 7(2), 69-77. [Persian]
Gatfield, T. (2005). An investigation into PhD supervisory management styles: Development of a dynamic conceptual model and its managerial implications. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management. 27(3), 311-325.
Ghoraishi khorasgani, M. S., Yamani Douzi Sorkhabi, M., Zakersalehi, G., & Mehran, G. (2019). Functional pathology of autonomous campuses of Tehran Public universities. Journal of Educational Sciences. 26(1), 197-216. [Persian]
Gurr, G. M. (2001). Negotiating the "Rackety Bridge" — a Dynamic Model for Aligning Supervisory Style with Research Student Development. Higher Education Research & Development. 20(1), 81-92.
Halse, C., & Malfroy, J. (2010). Retheorizing doctoral supervision as professional work. Studies in Higher Education. 35(1), 79-92.
Hemer, S. R. (2012). Informality, power and relationships in postgraduate supervision: supervising PhD candidates over coffee. Higher Education Research & Development. 31(6), 827-839.
Khodayarian, M., Mirmohammadi, J., Salimi, T., Araban, M., Mojahed, Sh., & Resaee, M. (2011). Determining the competency dimensions of supervisor professor from the nursing students' viewpoints: A qualitative study. Iranian Journal of Medical Education. 11(4), 332-346. [Persian]
Mainhard, T., Van Der Rijst, R., Van Tartwijk, J., & Wubbels, T. (2009). A model for the supervisor–doctoral student relationship. Higher Education. 58(3), 359-373.
Mizani, M., Khabiri, M., & Sajjadi, N. (2011). Assessing the abilities of postgraduate physical education students and the quality of teachers' supervision in writing dissertations. Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education. 17(3), 111-134. [Persian]
Murphy, N., Bain, J. D., & Conrad, L. (2007). Orientations to research higher degree supervision. Higher Education. 53(2), 209-234.
Nabavi, M., Aminbeidokhti, A., & Jafari, S. (2018). The Mediating Role of Cooperative Learning in Relation with Teaching Qualification and Professional Competence of Faculty Members with Students' Academic Achievement. Journal of Educational Sciences. 25(1), 145-164. [Persian]
Nejati, M., & Shafaei, A. (2018). Leading by example: the influence of ethical supervision on students' prosocial behavior. Higher Education, 75(1), 75-89.
Pearson, M., & Kayrooz, C. (2004). Enabling critical reflection on research supervisory practice. International Journal for Academic Development. 9(1), 99-116.
Romiani, U., Abili, K., Porkarimi, J., & Frahbakhsh, S. (2019). The exploration of Identification and Selection approaches of Talented Faculty Members at Comprehensive Universities with regional performance level. Journal of Educational Sciences. 26(1), 175-196. [Persian]
Salehi Omran, E., Aghdaie, M., & Hashemkhani, S. (2012). Using multi-criteria decision-making methods to select a doctoral dissertation supervisor. Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education. 18(3), 47-66. [Persian]
Seddigh, A. (1937). PhD in persian language. Mehr Journal. 5(5), 417-421. [Persian]
Shirbagi, N., & Kaveie, S. (2012). Investigating the role and supervisory relationship between supervisor and student from the perspective of graduate students. New Educational Approaches. 7(1), 1-26. [Persian]
Sohrabi, MR. (2013). Principles of writing a review article. Pejouhandeh. 18(2), 52-56. [Persian]
Vilkinas, T. (2008). An exploratory study of the supervision of Ph. D./research students’theses. Innovative Higher Education. 32(5), 297-311.
Yamani Douzi Sorkhabi, M. (2012). Qulaity in Higher Education. S.A.M.T Press. [Persian]
Yamani Douzi Sorkhabi, M., & Aminmozaffari, F. (2009). Investigating the effective factors on research experiences of postgraduate students of Shahid Beheshti University. Educational and Psychological Studies of Ferdowsi University. 10(1), 83-100. [Persian]
Yamani Douzi Sorkhabi, M., Sohrabi, M., Goldasteh, A., & Samary, A. (2016). An Analysis of the Status of Factors Affecting Research Experiences (Dissertation Writing Process) of Graduate Students and Its Changes in Shahid Beheshti University. Journal of Iranian Higher Education. 8(1), 1-18. [Persian]