Development of the Student Teacher Research Evaluative Supervisor Survey: An Exploratory Factor Analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.38140-joheti-2025v1i1a7Keywords:
Exploratory factor analysis, knowledge creation, supervision style, supervisioon attribute, research supervisionAbstract
Purpose - The aim of this study was to develop a suitable psychometric measure for determining supervision styles and attributes of research supervisors in Zimbabwean teachers’ colleges. Exploratory research on students’ expectations from research supervisors, along with supervisor attributes and styles that inform the knowledge creation process is imperative. Additionally, in the context of the Heritage-based Education 5.0 era, there is a pressing need for instruments to explore the student-supervisor relationship with a view of promoting quality research output.
Design/methodology/approach – An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) of the underlying dimensions in the supervision and knowledge generation process is reported in the study. A total of 33 questions from a self-developed supervisor style and attributes questionnaire were used to gather data from 114 students.
Findings - Following EFA, a four-factor research supervision model consisting of “constructive expert”, “supportive mentor”, “active listener-communicator”, and “nurturer- interactive persona” was extracted.
Conclusion – The study concluded that students preferred supervisors who were constructive experts, perceptive, widely read, and evidenced exceptional mastery of research.
Recommendation - The twenty-four item STRESS is advanced as a tool that can be used for determining supervisor attributes and styles in the knowledge creation process through research in teachers’ colleges.
Originality/value - A defining and innovative feature of our study is the adaptation of the “ba” principle, normally associated with industrial organisational settings, to an educational environment which has not been studied before.
Key words: exploratory factor analysis, knowledge creation, supervisor style, supervisor attributes, research supervision.
References
Agricola, B. T., Prins, F. J., Van der Schaaf, M. F., & Van Tartwijk, J. (2021). Supervisor and student perspectives on undergraduate thesis supervision in higher education. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 65(5), 877-897. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2020.1775115
Almusaed, A. (2020). The role of the supervisor on developing PhD students’ skills. In R. Thripp & I. Sahin (Eds), Proceedings of iHSES 2020-International Conference on Humanities, Social and Education Sciences (pp. 25-36).
Bakokonyane, K., & Pansiri, N. O. (2024). Applying collaborative research supervision approach in higher education. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 16(4), 1131-1145.
Boehe, D. M. (2016). Supervisory style: A contingency framework. Studies in Higher Education, 41(3), 399-414. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.927853
Bollen, K. A., Gates, K. M., & Lou, L. (2024). A model implied instrumental variable approach to exploratory factor analysis (MIIV-EFA). Psychometrika, 89(2), 687-716.
Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2022). Business research methods (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Coutinho, I. R. (2019). Listening to and feeling doctoral students’ perceptions of their doctoral supervision: The PhD students’ point of view. Advances of Social Science Research Journal, 6(12), 206-223.
Davis, D. (2019). Students’ perceptions of supervisory attributes: What do students want? What do they believe they receive? International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 14, 431-464. https://doi.org/10.28945/4361
Ferguson, P. (2011). Student perceptions of quality feedback in teacher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(2), 52-62. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930903197883
Garfield, 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), 315-325.
Gohar, A. S., & Qouta, M. M. (2021). Challenges of improving the quality of academic supervision of postgraduate studies at the Faculty of Education, Damietta University. Journal of Educational Issues, 7(1), 113-137.
Grant, B. M. (2005). Fighting for space in supervision: Fantasies, fairytales, fiction, and fallacies. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 18(3), 337-357.
Haksever, A. M., & Manisali, E. (2000). Assessing supervision requirements of PhD students: The case of construction management and engineering in the UK. European Journal of Engineering Education, 25(1), 19-32.
Hylland, K., & Hylland, F. (2019a). Contexts and issues in feedback on L2 writing. In K. Hylland & F. Hylland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing(2nd ed., pp. 1-22). Cambridge University Press.
Hylland, K., & Hylland, F. (2019b). Interpersonality and teacher-written feedback. In K. Hylland & F. Hylland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing (2nd ed., pp. 1-22). Cambridge University Press.
Hultman, J. D., & Eadens, D. W. (2019). Supervisors matter for college students: Relationship between employment type and student outcomes. Journal for the Advancement of Educational Research, 13(1), 55-70.
Jakubik, M. (2008). Experiencing collaborative knowledge creation processes. The Learning Organisation, 15(1), 5-25. https://doi.org/10.1108/096964708110842475
Jamieson, S., & Gray, C. (2006). The supervision of undergraduate research students: Expectations of students and supervisors. Practice and Evidence of Scholarship Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 1(1), 37-59.
Jonson, A. (2013). Facilitating productive use of feedback in higher education. Active Learning in Higher Education, 14, 63-76.
Katikireddi, S. V., & Reilly, J. (2017). Characteristics of good supervision: A multi-perspective qualitative exploration of Masters in Public Health dissertation. Journal of Public Health, 39, 625-632.
Madobi, B., & Pedzisai, C. (2020). Students’ challenges in undertaking undergraduate research. International Journal of Higher Education & Research, 10(2), 116-137.
Mulliner, E., & Tucker, M. (2017). Feedback on feedback practice: Perceptions of students and academics. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(2), 266-288. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1103365
Mushoriwa, T. D., & Nyakutse, G. (2014). MEd graduates’ perceptions of their supervision, writing and defence. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(8). https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n8p319
Ngulube, P. (2020). Postgraduate supervision practices in education research and the creation of opportunities for knowledge sharing. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 79(2), 255-272. https://doi.org/10.333225/pec/21.79.205
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company. New York: Oxford University Press.
Nonaka, I., Byosiere, P., Borucki, C. C., & Konno, N. (1994). Organisational knowledge creation theory: A first comprehensive test. International Business Review, 3(2), 337-351.
O'Neil, T. (2021). Phenomenal 'Ba': Developing creative potential through virtual time travel in experiential worlds (Doctoral dissertation, University College Dublin, School of Mechanical and Materials Engineering).
Orsmond, P., & Merry, S. (2011). Feedback alignment: Effective and ineffective links between tutors’ and students' understanding of coursework feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(2), 125-136. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930903201651
Portland State University. (2017). Psychological measurement. Newsom, Psy 495.
Philips, E. M., & Pugh, D. S. (2000). How to get a PhD: A handbook for students and their supervisors. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Rahim, M. N. (2021). Post-pandemic of Covid-19 and the need for transforming education 5.0 in Afghanistan higher education. Utamax: Journal of Ultimate Research and Trends in Education, 3(1), 29-39.
Rahim, M. N., & Sandaran, S. C. (2020). EFL teachers' perceptions of the barriers and opportunities for implementing eLearning at Afghanistan universities. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(11C), 97–104. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.082311
Schartel, S. A. (2012). Giving feedback: An integral part of education. Best Practices & Research Clinical Anesthesiology, 26, 77-87.
Sopina, E., & McNeill, R. (2015). Investigating the relationship between quality, format and delivery of feedback for written assignments in higher education. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 40, 666-680.
Sürücü, L., Beydo?an, A. E., & Maslakç?, A. (2024). Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) in business research: Beyond best practices. Journal of Business Research, 168, 114383.
Van der Schaaf, M. F., Baartman, L. K. J., Prins, F. J., Ooster, A., & Schaap, A. (2011). Feedback dialogues that stimulate students’ reflective thinking. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 57(3), 227-245. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2011.628693
Yeoh, J. S. W., & Doan, T. (2012). International students’ perceptions of quality supervision. International Journal of Innovation Interdisciplinary Research, 3, 10-18.
Yu, B., & Wright, E. (2016). Socio-cultural adaptation, academic adaptation and satisfaction of international higher degree students in Australia. Tertiary Education and Management, 22(1), 49-64.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Copyright (c) 2025 Patrick SENDERAYI, Muyeudziri MAGOHO, Sihle Patience SENDERAYI, Minienhle SIBANDA, Lethukuthula NCUBE, Moreblessing DUBE, Bekezela NDLOVU
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
