Subject: Technology Management and Marine Engineering. Course: Bachelor’s Project. Study level: Bachelor. Size of class: Groups of 2-8.
The project deals with supervision of bachelor projects at the engineering college. These student projects are the final project that students conduct during their education as diploma engineers. The projects span one semester and count 20 ECTS points. The projects are normally done by student groups consisting of 2-3 students. The students choose a topic themselves, which is often a case done in cooperation with a company. A typical project could deal with design optimization of an industrial product, or development of new concepts to solve a technical challenge. The bachelor project is assessed at an oral group exam, where the students do a 20 min presentation of the project and afterwards the students are examined based on the project report.
The normal approach to supervising bachelor projects at the engineering college is to have one-hour weekly meetings between the student group and the supervisor. This is also the way I supervise my bachelor groups. The students document their bachelor project in a project report.
I would like to develop a tool for aligning expectations, which I can use when a student group approaches me and asks if I would like to be their supervisor for their bachelor project. The aim is to support the “match making” between the student group and me as supervisor. The goal is a method to align expectations between student groups and the supervisor.
I conducted a workshop where the expectations between the students and the supervisor were discussed and (hopefully) aligned. The workshop was based on a questionnaire, which is attached in Appendix 2. In the questionnaire the students were asked to address typical dilemmas in group work and supervision. The total time for the workshop and evaluation was approximate two hours
The alignment process is done two-folded:
First the students in the groups align their individual expectations. Secondly, the group aligns their shared expectations with the supervisor. Appendix 1 shows the schematics of the workshop:
First, the students answer individually on the questionnaire in Appendix 2.
Secondly, based on the individual answers to the questionnaire the student group spends approximately 15 minutes to discuss their individual answers, and they are asked to answer the questionnaire again. However, this time the group must agree on the shared answers.
Once the students have filled out the common questionnaire, these results are used as an initiator for an alignment dialog with the supervisor, who has also filled out the questionnaire. This alignment dialog happens in plenum.
As the student group and the supervisor discuss alignment, notes are taken as action points. This could be things to adjust in the supervision, things to follow up on later in the project, or things that need to be addressed separately due to time limitations in the workshop.
During the workshop, we discussed each of the questions in the questionnaire and compared the answers from the student group to the answers from the supervisor. For most of the questions, the students and the supervisor agreed, but we also discussed pros and cons even though we agreed. See an example of such a discussion in appendix 4.
The overall results of the workshop were good. The questionnaire worked as a good initiator for a constructive dialog about the supervision of the student group.
The workshop was evaluated together with the students, my adjunct mentor, and myself. The evaluation was based on the questionnaire shown in appendix 3. In the questionnaire, the students are asked to rate (on a 1 to 5 scale) whether they agree or disagree to statements.
The overall rating of the 10 questions in the questionnaire was 4.4 out of 5. The students all agree fully to the following statements:
The overall outcome of the workshop was good.
The workshop can help to align expectations in the group.
The workshop can help to align expectations between the student group and the supervisor.
The evaluation questions which scored lowest was question related to:
Weather the workshop has initiated new thoughts on the role of the supervisor (average rating 2.7 out of 5).
Whether the workshop has initiated thoughts on supervision in general that the students did not have before the workshop (average rating 3.3 out of 5).
After the evaluation with the student and my adjunct mentor, I have considered the following for future use and applications:
Make a simpler (shorter) workshop, which can be used in the very beginning of new student projects.
Make a similar workshop in the middle of future bachelor projects in order to adjust the supervision.
Ask colleagues to try the workshop on other student groups, and discuss their experiences.
Consider involving the company in the alignment process.
Invite colleagues to sit-in during supervision.
