A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education Enhancing academic and Practice

158 ❘
Teaching, supervising, learning
Further to supervisory responsibility being determined, the supervisor and supervisee
should establish an agreed, appropriate working relationship. At the first meeting, the
supervisor and supervisee should discuss expectations in terms of apportioning
responsibility. The most recognised formal approach to agreeing a working relationship
is that of a learning contract, or what Williams and Horobin (1992: 43) refer to as creating
a ‘we culture’. Ryan (1994) offers a template for a supervisor checklist and student contract
which itemises the range of responsibilities to which both parties agree (e.g. agreed times
for meetings, writing up supervisory meeting notes, dealing with ethical issues,
submission of progress reports for formative assessment and involvement in peer group
support).
WAYS OF BROADENING SUPPORT
With the ‘massification’ of higher education, and the recognition of the value of teamwork,
peer support has been increasingly viewed as a learning strategy that should be promoted
within the curriculum for a range of reasons (Thorley and Gregory, 1994). Working in
project teams provides moral support at the same time as promoting teamwork skills.
Such an approach is becoming more widespread (e.g. in problem-based medical
education) (see Chapter 26). Moore (2007) uses the term PBL, which he uses in relation
to the teaching of electronics, to refer to ‘project-based learning’, suggesting it not only
improves students’ knowledge, understanding and transferable skills, but additionally
enhances their employability. A group of, say, five or six has a greater range of total
experience and skills than any one individual. It is particularly beneficial to be able to
draw on a range of students’ skills such as an exceptionally IT literate student, a student
capable of sophisticated statistical analysis, or a student capable of maintaining morale
when the going gets tough. It could be a requirement of the department that peer support
teams meet at prescribed times to provide feedback. Jaques (1989: 30) advocates this
method, suggesting that:
Many of the issues to do with the progress of a project can be just as well dealt with
by students themselves, provided they have a reasonably clear structure to work
with. In the case of individual projects, students can report and be quizzed in turn by
the rest of a peer group at regular meetings on matters like: . . . What are you
proposing to do? . . . How can you break that down into manageable steps? . . . What
or who else could help you?
He advocates using a similar set of guidance questions towards the end of the project,
moving on to suggest ways of engaging these peer groups in summative evaluation prior
to formal submission of the project.
Chelford and Hopkins (2004) advocate the use of group projects in Built Environment
curricula and explore how best to address assessment issues. A range of disciplines
are now moving to group projects, and Case study 2 provides a useful illustration