Utilization of Digital Technologies in Doctoral Thesis Supervision at the University of Nairobi: Implications for Quality Assurance
Abstract
The utilization of online digital technologies in higher education teaching and learning has gained impetus in the post-COVID-19 era. A number of higher educational institutions have invested in capacity-building programmes related to the utilization of online digital technologies for teaching and learning. However, the utilization of these technologies in doctoral supervision is hampered by challenges related to access to digital devices, internet connectivity and the general attitude among digital technology users. Furthermore, despite supervisors’ efforts to reinforce mentoring, the lack of in-person engagement between supervisors and students portends a greater challenge. Therefore, the study sought to determine the influence of doctoral students’ gender on their thesis progression, the relationship between the frequency of engaging supervisors and thesis progression, the preferred mode of supervisor engagement and the level of student utilization of digital technologies in their doctoral work. The study sampled 109 students from a population of 150 PhD students of the University of Nairobi. Data were gathered through questionnaires and interviews that were administered to doctoral students and their supervisors respectively. The results showed a weak negative correlation between student and supervisor engagement and their stage in theses writing. The study also established low utilization of digital technologies in doctoral thesis supervision. Nonetheless, the results showed that student-supervisor engagement has an impact on their progression and that a significant number of doctoral students were comfortable with engaging their supervisors through a combination of face-to-face/in-person and virtual/online sessions. The study recommends that universities should adopt a blended doctoral supervision model to leverage the strengths of both in-person and virtual student-supervisor engagement. Further, there is a need to train both students and supervisors in the use of digital tools to enhance their engagement
Downloads
References
Almusaed, A., & Almassad, A. (2020). Role of the Supervisor in Developing PhD Students’ Skills. International Conference on Humanities, Social and Education Sciences. Washington, DC, USA.
de Beer, M., & Mason, R. B. (2009). Using a blended approach to facilitate postgraduate supervision. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46(2),213-226.
Gumbo, M. T. (2018). University of South Africa Supervisors’ Knowledge of Technological Tools and ICTs for Postgraduate Supervision. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 17(4), 54-68.
Fisher M, Nyabaro V, Mendum R, Osiru, M. (2020). Making it to the PhD: Gender and student performance in sub-Saharan Africa. PLoS ONE 15(12), 1-19.
Lee, A., & Green, B. (2009). Supervision as a metaphor. Studies in Higher Education, 34(6), 615–630.
Leijen, A., Lepp, L., & Remmik, M. (2016). Why did I drop out? Former students’ recollections about their study process and factors related to leaving the doctoral studies. Studies in Continuing Education, 38(2), 129–144.
Lepp, L., Remmik, M., Leijen, Ä., & Leijen, D. A. J. (2016). Doctoral students’ research stall: Supervisors’ perceptions and intervention strategies. Sage Open, 6(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016659116
Maor, D., Currie, J. K. (2017). The use of technology in postgraduate supervision pedagogy in two Australian universities. Int J Educ Technol High Educ 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0046-1
McCallin, A., & Nayar, S. (2012). Postgraduate research supervision: A critical review of current practice. Teaching in Higher Education, 17(1), 63-74.
Maor, D., Currie, J.K. The use of technology in postgraduate supervision pedagogy in two Australian universities. Int J Educ Technol High Educ 14(1), 1-15.
Stubb, J., Pyhalto, K., & Lonka, K. (2011). Balancing between inspiration and exhaustion: PhD students’ experienced socio-psychological well-being. Studies in Continuing Education, 33(1), 33–50.
Sverdlik, A., Hall, N. M., McAlpine, L., & Hubbard, K. (2018). The PhD experience: A review of the factors influencing doctoral students’ completion, achievement, and wellbeing. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 13(1), 361-388.
Taylor, S. E. (2012). Changes in doctoral education: Implications for supervisors in developing early career researchers. International Journal for Researcher Development, 3(2), 118-138.
Wu, M, Zhao, K., & Fils-Aime, F. (2022). Response rates of online surveys in published research: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 7. Retrieved from Loyola eCommons, Education: School of Education Faculty Publications and Other Works, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2022.100206.
Zhao, C.-M., Golde, C. M., & McCormick, A. C. (2007). More than a signature: How advisor choice and advisor behaviour affect doctoral student satisfaction. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 31(3), 263–281.
Copyright (c) 2024 Peter Changilwa Kigwilu, PhD, Raphael Nyonje, PhD
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
