Supervisor Training- A Paper for Discussion
Introduction:
Setting up a system of compulsory training for supervisors of undergraduates has long been seen as one of the major aims for CUSU. Since 2002 every Academic Affairs and Education Officer has included it in his or her manifesto and it is a point often discussed at CUSU Council and Education Network meetings. The University, especially since 2003, has made some progress towards mandatory training. However, it does not appear to regard this as a strong priority. Indeed, in retrospect, Ben Brinded’s (CUSU President 2003-4) comment, in April 2004, that “[the university has] embraced the need for mandatory supervisor training” [Varsity, 20th April 2004] seems somewhat premature and many steps towards mandatory training which began during his presidency have not been followed through. This paper is divided into two parts. The first part surveys what has been achieved so far and the second proposes a way forward, both for the university and CUSU.
The Current Situation:
This section surveys different areas of the university which have some part to play in training and examines what has been achieved. The areas are: the Personnel Division (responsible for Staff Development), the Education Section, the Faculties, the Colleges, CUSU and the G.U.The Personnel Division of the University:
The Personnel Division of the University is responsible for the university’s Human Resources. As part of this, it runs Staff Development programmes, offering training to members of staff. Slightly strangely, this has become the section of the university most involved in training supervisors. This is because the last time when training of supervisors became a major issue was in 2002-2003 when the QAA Institutional Audit of the university was carried out . The QAA report included the following as one of the six areas of “good practice” within the university :“the development of training for supervisors through UTAs (researchers with experience in giving undergraduate supervisions, who have been trained to train others for their role as supervisors)” [QAA Audit, paragraph 202.ii, page 39]
Therefore, the UTAs, and the Personnel Division which organises them, became central to supervisor training, despite the fact that most supervisors begin supervising when they are Postgraduate Students and not as members of university staff.
Unfortunately, the UTA scheme does appear to be rather a rather small-scale operation. Currently, the manager of the scheme is Dr. Liz Elvidge (eme21) and its secretary is Rehnuma Sazzad (rs472), both members of the personnel division . Only two UTAs appear to be currently active: Dr. Anna Gannon (ag335) (formally at the Department for Coins and Medals at the Fitzwilliam Museum) and Dr. Emma Williams (ejw1001@admin) (a member of the personnel division). Together they organise the “Graduate Development Programme for Graduate Studies” . The most important parts of this are the following 3 courses:
1. Supervising and Small Group Teaching
2. Supervising Undergraduates: Introduction
3. Supervising Undergraduates More Effectively
“Supervising and Small Group Teaching” is taught by Dr. Gannon and Dr. Williams whilst “Supervising Undergraduates: Introduction” and “Supervising Undergraduates More Effectively” are taught by a former King’s Senior Tutor, Dr. Rob Wallach (erw1). The first course lasts six hours and is run six times each year, the second lasts two-and-a-half hours and is run three times a year, and the third lasts two-and-a-quarter hours and is taught twice. The UTAs also run a Cam Community (one of many under-used CARAT programmes) for “graduates who teach” , organise occasional training sessions on specific (mostly science-related) subjects and encourage graduates to join the Higher Education Academy.
The Education Section:
The Education Section (the administrative arm of the General Board’s Education Subcommittee) has an unsatisfactorily brief document which outlines the basic technical issues associated with supervising and offers links to other websites.Individual Faculties:
A few faculties provide online guidance for supervisors. The following seem to be the only examples: HPS , Physics and Chemistry , Engineering and Maths . Some of these are rather old and not up to date. The Maths Faculty also runs its own training sessions for potential supervisors at the start of each year. If only the sentiment (expressed in block capitals) it expressed on the booking form were repeated elsewhere:“Anyone planning to supervise should attend one of these sessions: students have a right to expect trained teachers. Note that having been supervised yourself is not sufficient training. ”!
Additionally, Engineering has a compulsory training session for those who wish to supervise third-year students and extra guidelines for Directors of Studies and Module Leaders for choosing supervisors .
Individual Colleges:
Although supervisions are organised by individual colleges, there is little evidence that any organise training for their supervisors or insist that they are trained.CUSU:
CUSU’s current policy on supervisor training is set by a motion passed at the Easter I Council of 2003-2004 , in response to the CUSU’s Quality of Supervisions Survey and Report . This resolved, amongst other things:“To continue the ongoing campaign for mandatory supervisor training for all college and University teaching officers.”
And
“To encourage all colleges and faculties to follow the good practice identified in the Report.”
The “good practice” identified in the survey, with regards to supervisor training, was as follows:
“• The colleges and the University should ensure that all teaching officers receive some form of training in effective teaching and communication skills.
• Training for supervisors should include some guidance on how best to prepare students for supervisions.
• When designing training courses, the skills that students value in individual supervisors should be taken into account. This includes: the ability to explain clearly and ensure that students understand complex ideas and theories, the ability and willingness to answer questions, and the ability to facilitate a discussion between students and the supervisor.
• Training should include some guidance on creating a learning environment where all students feel at ease.
• Training should include sessions on gender awareness, cultural awareness, racial awareness and disability awareness.”
It is worth remembering that CUSU has to perform a somewhat complex balancing act when campaigning about supervisions. This is because it represents both the undergraduates who are supervised and the postgraduate students who carry out a large number of supervisions. Whilst many undergraduates would prefer to be supervised only by U.T.O.s, many postgraduates see supervising as an integral part of their own training. CUSU therefore needs to remember the views of both groups when considering supervisions and deciding on policy.
The G.U.:
Although this report is written by a CUSU officer, it seems important to consider the Graduate Union’s views. The Graduate Union does not appear to have an official policy on supervisor training. However, in its response to HEFCE’s 2003 Report into improving standards of education , it did state:“We noted under 'Supervisory arrangements' that we agree that all new supervisors should be trained, however we would like to see all supervisors of postgraduates receive some form of appropriate training. More specifically, given the results of the JCAP report at the University of Cambridge, more widespread supervisor training on how to teach women students and students from non-Anglo-Saxon ethnic and racial backgrounds would be advantageous. ”
Although this is concerned with the supervisors of postgraduates, the same sentiments should be applicable to undergraduate supervisions.
There was also some discussion at a GU Exec meeting on the 2nd July 2003 about the need for supervisor training. However, it appears that recommendation in 6.4, that the issue should be further discussed, was never followed up:
“6. Mandatory Supervisor Training
6.1 Tom [Illingworth- non-portfolio member of G.U. Exec] thinks that it's a good idea; can be profitable even for hiring in academia in the future
6.2 Christian [Kim- General Secretary] thinks that postgraduate students who are required to undergo supervisor training should be paid for their time (suggestion of 10 pounds per hour); thinks that it's better to have a voluntary training program, especially since there is a big question mark as to the real benefit of the current supervisor training program; thinks that it's important to have a GU stance that looks out for the interests of the postgraduate students (in terms of labor/pay)
6.3 David [Eyers- non-portfolio member of G.U. Exec] suggests possibility of raising the basic pay for supervising time as a way of paying for mandatory training
6.4 Conclusion: The discussion to be held at a later date to find the Grad Union (possibly at the GU exec meeting following the GU Council Meeting of July 15th) ”
Proposals:
In the first instance, CUSU needs to decide what the “mandatory supervisor training”, should be in specific terms. As a first draft, the following are suggested:1. An introduction to the supervision system and what a supervision entails.
2. How to teach effectively within a supervision.
3. How to mark written work.
4. Dealing with problems which may arise.
5. Using CamCORS.
6. Awareness of students from minorities groups in society or with disabilities and how this may affect supervising.
Once CUSU has agreed on the desired content of the mandatory training, CUSU should begin to look to how this can be implemented within the university. It would be helpful to find out exactly how many active supervisors there are within the university so that the scale of the task can be judged. CamCORS’s Steering Group may be of help here. They should be able to extract from the CamCORS database the number of people who have submitted supervision reports in the last 12 months.
Training for supervisors needs to be better and more centrally organised in order to make it more appealing to both potential supervisors and Directors of Studies. It also needs to become ingrained as part of the “Cambridge system”. Much of this can be achieved with publicity so that potential new supervisors do not have to “seek out” training. Information about the UTAs’ courses should be included in every college Graduate Handbook and on college websites. It would also be advantageous to have the courses regarded as “lectures” by the university and so be included in the Reporter’s annual lecture list. At the same time, CUSU could press for this course to be a compulsory pre-requisite for potential supervisors. There is already some precedence for this in the “Safety Course for Graduate Students” which is a compulsory course for all new Postgraduate Students who are embarking on various science-related courses. As an intermediate step, it could be proposed that each student should expect to receive a percentage of supervisions from trained supervisors. This would allow the training to be “rolled-out”.
Equally important as to publicity for the UTAs’ courses would be the production of a “Handbook for Supervisors”. This would be more ambitious but does seem to be an important and sensible step. It could act both as a companion to the Personnel Division’s taught courses and a stand-alone guide to supervisors and replace the unofficial guides published by individual faculties. The following sections could be included:
1. Guide to supervising (this part could be a companion to the Personnel Division’s courses and could cover topics such as: “what is a supervision?”, different teaching approaches that can be used, ways to improve supervising skills, dealing with problems, preparing supervisors for exams and information on further support for supervisors).
2. CamCORS
3. Separate sections prepared by each faculty which could cover faculty-specific information.
4. Separate sections prepared by each college to give college-specific information (this would probably be very short and simply include lists of undergraduate Directors of Studies and details of how to book rooms for supervisions within each college).
The two major issues in creating such a handbook would be funding and finding contributors. Others within CUSU are more experienced at resolving these issues and getting publications off the ground but CUSU should perhaps also explore funding it itself, as occurs within the “Little Black Book” and “LGBT Freedom Guide”. There is no current “Education” publication and it would benefit a great many CUSU members as the graduate members would be able to supervise better and have information easily available to them whilst the undergraduate members would benefit from the increased quality of supervisions. Supervisor training does seem to be, time and time again, the main problem with education within the university. Therefore, it seems sensible for CUSU to devote more time and resources to perusing it.
Jacob Head
CUSU Education Officer
January 2006