Undergraduate Research Supervision: A Case Study of Supervisors' Perceptions at Yanbu University College
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This exploratory case study examined supervisors' perceptions of supervision of undergraduate research projects, and whether the level of experience affects the quality of the supervision process. Data were collected through questionnaires and interviews. Participants were three supervisors with varying levels of experience in the supervision process at Yanbu University College in Saudi Arabia. Obtained themes were used with the whole data-set. The data were rearranged according to the emerged common themes among the three participants. Findings revealed that the level of experience affected the supervision process in relation to the supervisors‘ perceptions. It also suggested that the level of expereince of the supervisors influnced the process of supervision and the feedback given to the undergraduate students. An implication of these findings is that providing novice supervisors with training and guidance should be considered. Departments should create a discussion platform between experienced and novice supervisors to ensure that the supervision expereince is well delivered to undergraduates during their research projects. The study recommends supervisors to revisit all phases of their practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".