Supervisor’s Role
(PBL course)
Daniel V. P. Figueiredo
Huan C. Nguyen
Søren S. Christensen
Suvra S. Das
Aalborg University
2004-11-04
INTRODUCTION
This document presents the information gathered during an activity taken under the scope
of the Project Based Learning Course at Aalborg University. The aim of this work is to
experience the challenges arising from the supervision of a group in the specific system
of teaching employed by Aalborg University.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The project group is on 9th semester and two supervisors have been assigned. The project
has been proposed jointly by the two assigned supervisors. The proposal is based on
research activities from both supervisors, where the supervisors have interests in different
parts of the project. In that sense, the technical issues of the project is divided among the
supervisors. The project is considered to be a “task project”.
Supervisor A is from Europe (not Denmark) and has not been educated at AAU.
Supervisor A is currently doing a post-doc at AAU. Besides this, Supervisor A has stayed
part time at AAU during both the master and PhD studies. This is the second supervision
project for Supervisor A. Moreover, supervisor A is familiar with PBL only through the
PBL course.
Supervisor B is from Denmark and has been educated at AAU. Supervisor B is currently
working towards a PhD-degree. Supervisor B has been involved in four projects as
supervisor so far, all with international students, however all within the latest year.
Supervisor B has not spent any time abroad.
The project group consists of two group members. Both members are from China and
have been at AAU for one year, starting from the 7th intro semester. Both group members
have troubles in communicating in English, and from a technical point both they belong
to the category of weak students. One of the students is doing slightly better than the
other. The students are highly motivated and work hard.
It should be noticed that the students from this study specialization handled the division
of project proposals among the groups themselves. The supervisors adjusted this project
proposal afterwards, in order to make it feasible for these students, who selected this
proposal. In that sense, the expectations from the supervisors towards the project outcome
are mediocre.
PLANNING EXPERIMENT BEFORE THE MEETING
Before the meeting of the supervisor with his students, we gathered with the supervisor to
discuss the strategy to adopt and to understand the status of the work under development.
From the acknowledgement that there was a student that seemed weaker than the other, it
was debated what should be done to bring the student to discussion. In the scope of the
project, it was agreed that the supervisor would ask a few questions to see if the students
understood the subject they were studying. Another kind of questions were agreed to be
also positive to encourage and motivate the students to this project. Those questions were
intended to make them think about the problems they were trying to solve and the path
they should follow. Moreover, these questioning is intended to prepare students for the
final defense of the project.
OBSERVATIONS DURING MEETING
Figure 1 illustrates the sitting arrangement during the meeting. This arrangement is
particularly suitable for presentation-oriented meeting, as both supervisors and observers
can have a close observation of the presentation and students’ activities.
The students are well-organized for the meeting. They had previously prepared a detailed
agenda for the meeting. They had also prepared a presentation according to the agenda.
Following the previous arrangement with supervisors, one of the students, number 2,
takes turn to present in this meeting.
It is quite clear that the supervisors have established a good relation with the students and
have had a deep understanding of students’ knowledge in the field. This is due to the fact
that they have been working with each other for one year already through previous
projects.
From our observation, student 2 is more active than the other. Not only giving the
presentation, he also answers most of the questions put forwarded by the supervisors.
Although the supervisors try to give student 1 several chances to talk by asking him
direct questions, he remains silent most of the time. The reasons for the student 1 to be
less active could be: (a) He is not very fluent in English, or/and (b) He does not have the
same level of understanding as student 2.
Student 2
Blackboard
Student 1
Observer 2
Observer 1
Supervisor B
Supervisor A
Figure 1: Meeting layout
Moreover, when the topic of work distribution among the group arises into discussion,
they seem to be uncertain about their option. The strategy of the group is to work together
both in studying the problem and programming, even if it seems that student 2 takes the
lead in decisions.
During presentation, both of the students show that they are lacking of fundamental
knowledge required for their project, such as simulation skills. Therefore, the supervisors
have been deeply involved in the project, i.e. providing them detailed guidance. At some
point, the supervisors have to tell the students about which techniques can be used or
where they could find references. The students also seem to often forget previous
discussions, and the supervisors have to remind them.
Both students are not secure about the decisions they have to take in order to proceed
with the project. So, they are regularly asking supervisors what option they should take at
a certain point. Moreover, when showing results in a graph, students’ behavior was non
self-critic. They showed a curve asking supervisors if it was correct without having
looked for typical results for what they were simulating.
At the end the group showed a time table for the project until the end of the year. This
time table was quite detailed and, apart from some changes in some task definition, it was
a good indicator on how well the students are awakened to the extension of the work.
SUGGESTIONS
1/ Supervisors should encourage the students to take notes during technical discussion.
Besides the minutes of the meeting, the students could be asked for short reports, e.g. on
a particular technical issue discussed in the meeting.
2/ In order to have correct assessment of each student’s contribution in the project and to
motivate the student 2, it might be a good idea to let each student present his works,
rather than taking turns to present the group work. By doing this, the supervisors can
have a better understanding of each student’s capacity and thus can give better help.
3/ In the situation where students do not take initiative in choosing the path for the project,
it would be better that the supervisor let them understand that it would be more beneficial
if they choose their own imaginative way and only then ask for help or check for
correctness.