Content uploaded by Karen D. Könings
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Karen D. Könings on Feb 02, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article was downloaded by: [University of Maastricht]
On: 01 February 2015, At: 23:21
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Click for updates
Innovations in Education and Teaching
International
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/riie20
Improving supervision for students at a
distance: videoconferencing for group
meetings
Karen D. Köningsa, Daniela Popab, Maike Gerkenc, Bas Giesbersd,
Bart C. Rientiese, Cees P.M. van der Vleutena & Jeroen J.G. van
Merriënboera
a Department of Educational Development & Research and
Graduate School of Health Professions Education, Maastricht
University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
b Department of International Health, Maastricht University,
Maastricht, The Netherlands
c Department of Educational Research and Development, School
of Business and Economics, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The
Netherlands
d Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University,
Rotterdam, The Netherlands
e Institute of Educational Technology, The Open University, Milton
Keynes, UK
Published online: 29 Jan 2015.
To cite this article: Karen D. Könings, Daniela Popa, Maike Gerken, Bas Giesbers, Bart C. Rienties,
Cees P.M. van der Vleuten & Jeroen J.G. van Merriënboer (2015): Improving supervision for students
at a distance: videoconferencing for group meetings, Innovations in Education and Teaching
International, DOI: 10.1080/14703297.2015.1004098
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2015.1004098
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [University of Maastricht] at 23:21 01 February 2015
Improving supervision for students at a distance:
videoconferencing for group meetings
Karen D. Könings
a
*, Daniela Popa
b
, Maike Gerken
c
, Bas Giesbers
d
,
Bart C. Rienties
e
, Cees P.M. van der Vleuten
a
and Jeroen J.G. van Merriënboer
a
a
Department of Educational Development & Research and Graduate School of Health
Professions Education, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands;
b
Department of
International Health, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands;
c
Department of
Educational Research and Development, School of Business and Economics, Maastricht
University, Maastricht, The Netherlands;
d
Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus
University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands;
e
Institute of Educational Technology, The Open
University, Milton Keynes, UK
Every year, thousands of students go abroad for part of their study programme.
Supervision from the home institution is then crucial for good study progress.
Providing supervision and feedback at a distance is challenging. This project
aims to identify bottlenecks for supervision and hypothesises that online supervi-
sory group meetings with videoconferencing contribute to good supervision.
Study 1 showed that students who were abroad perceived lower-quality supervi-
sion and feedback on all measured aspects, compared with students staying at
the home institution. Within a quasi-experimental design, Study 2 showed that
students participating in online meetings experienced better supervision than
those who were abroad without online meetings, and they were equally positive
about supervision as students who stayed at the home institution. These findings
stress the need for extra support for students during their stay abroad and the
large potential of videoconferencing in optimising supervision at a distance.
Keywords: higher education; internationalisation; student perceptions; satisfaction;
distance education; supervision; interactive learning; videoconferencing
Introduction
In Europe, 213,266 students went abroad in an Erasmus programme in 2010 (EU
Commission, 2011). Universities seek to provide support at a distance through
online and blended learning (Hastie, Hung, Chen, & Kinshuk, 2010). This paper
describes a project aiming to identify bottlenecks in undergraduate thesis supervision
at a distance and diminish them by regular group meetings using videoconferencing
software.
The final semester of the European Public Health bachelor programme at Maastricht
University is dedicated to writing a bachelor thesis based upon research within real-life
working environment. Students take part in thesis groups with peers who give each
other feedback. For a period of four months, students choose to stay within the home
university or go to a foreign institution. The project is carried out individually, under
supervision of a university staff member (Todd, Bannister, & Clegg, 2004). Study 1 will
*Corresponding author. Email: Kd.Konings@maastrichtuniversity.nl
© 2015 Taylor & Francis
Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 2015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2015.1004098
Downloaded by [University of Maastricht] at 23:21 01 February 2015
investigate how the perceived quality of supervision differs for students who go abroad
and those who stay at the home university. To overcome possible disadvantages of
being at a distance, effects of organising online group meetings with videoconferencing
will be evaluated in Study 2. Given the advantages of group discussions and collabora-
tive learning (Yeh et al., 2008), online thesis group meetings are likely to be beneficial
for the quality of undergraduate thesis supervision. It is hypothesised that students who
are abroad experience better supervision and feedback when involved in online group
meetings than when only using more common tools like email, phone and discussion
boards. Ultimately, it is aimed to provide students who are abroad with the same quality
of supervision as students who stay at the home university.
Despite the high learning potential of a stay abroad, it implies higher risks for
study progress (Rienties, Beausaert, Grohnert, Niemantsverdriet, & Kommers,
2012). Students also have to deal with their thesis supervisor –who gives support
and feedback –being at a distance. Often, they have a daily supervisor at their host
institution, but the staff member at the home university stays responsible for supervi-
sion and guidance on the content, adhering to academic requirements, and grading
the undergraduate thesis. Good supervision at a distance is essential for good
progress of students’work, but it is more difficult to guarantee.
According to students, a good supervisor should be well-informed and interested
in the project, available and easy to contact with questions or problems, provide
comments and feedback on writing products, and ensure that the project and thesis
are of good quality and size (Jamieson & Grey, 2006). It can be especially challeng-
ing to supervise undergraduate thesis groups when some or all students are located
in different locations. Students abroad mostly have to rely on communicating with
their supervisor by email or telephone, with lack of face-to-face conversations and
thesis group meetings.
A risk of distance education is lack of interaction, causing isolation and
disconnectedness, which negatively influences students’satisfaction (Bolliger,
Supanakorn, & Boggs, 2010). Online learning is promising for supervision at a
distance (de Beer & Mason, 2009). Software programmes for videoconferencing
enable students and their supervisor to virtually meet on fixed time points in a vir-
tual classroom. Blended learning, which is the combination of face-to-face learning
(i.e. at the home university) and online learning (i.e. at a distance) is implemented
to an ever-larger extent. A recent meta-analysis, however, has shown that (quasi-)
experimental studies, comparing blended learning and face-to-face education, are
still rare (only 47 studies between 2005 and 2013; Spanjers et al., 2014). As many
of the effects are still not understood, there is a strong need to systematically
investigate effects of educational innovations like online meetings.
Online group meetings are likely to solve many of the problems with undergrad-
uate thesis supervision, which students might experience when being abroad. It
enables real-time communication, which makes it easier to understand each other
(Giesbers, Rienties, Gijselaers, Segers, & Tempelaar, 2009; Hrastinski, Keller, &
Carlsson, 2010). Interaction is considered as one of the most important factors in
student satisfaction and quality of online education (Bolliger et al., 2010; Resta &
Laferrière, 2007; Selim, 2007). Additionally, videoconferencing enables nonverbal
communication via webcams and presenting visual information on a shared
whiteboard (Giesbers et al., 2009).
2K.D. Könings et al.
Downloaded by [University of Maastricht] at 23:21 01 February 2015
We aim to answer the following questions:
(1) Do perceptions of students who go abroad for their undergraduate thesis
work, compared with students who stay at the home university, differ with
respect to the following aspects of their supervision: feedback-seeking pro-
motion, risk in feedback seeking, source availability, staff enthusiasm and
support, and quality of feedback? (Study 1)
(2) Can the perceived disadvantages for students who are abroad be resolved by
online thesis group meetings with videoconferencing? (Study 2)
(a) Can the findings of Study 1 be replicated?
(b) What are the effects of using online thesis group meetings on
perceived supervision?
(c) Are there still differences in perceived supervision between students
abroad having online thesis group meetings and students who stay at
the home university?
General method
Overlapping aspects of both studies will be described first. Thereafter, Study 1 and
Study 2 will be described in detail. Studies were conducted in two subsequent years,
using two different cohorts of students.
Materials
Learning environment
Before the actual start of their stay abroad, undergraduate students prepare a research
proposal and discuss it several times in face-to-face meetings with their thesis group,
consisting of five to seven students and supervised by a staff member from the home
university. Students are used to work in groups as they are studying in a problem-
based learning curriculum. The supervisor guides the group process and gives
feedback on students’work. Also during the stay abroad, the supervisor provides
feedback, ensures that academic requirements are met, and monitors students’
progress until the thesis is finalised. Students are expected to regularly discuss their
work and progress in their thesis group and with their supervisor.
Placement Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ)
This questionnaire measures students’perceptions of the supervision and feedback
by the supervisor during the stay abroad. The PEQ is based on relevant items of
subscales of existing, validated questionnaires that operationalise different aspects
of good thesis supervision. Despite the complexities and contentiousness of debates
of what good supervision looks like, we attempted to identify a series of characteris-
tics, which we attribute to good supervision. The PEQ consists of 32 items, covering
eight scales: (1) Feedback-seeking promotion (Steelman, Levy, & Snell, 2004) about
the extent to which the supervisor is supportive of feedback-seeking behaviours of
students and stimulates them to ask for feedback (4 items, α= .86); (2) Risk in feed-
back seeking (Ashford, 1986) about feedback-seeker’s risk of embarrassment and
loss of face (5 items; α= .84); (3) Source availability (Steelman et al., 2004) about
Innovations in Education and Teaching International 3
Downloaded by [University of Maastricht] at 23:21 01 February 2015
the perceived amount of contact with the supervisor and the ease with which
feedback can be obtained (3 items; α= .88); (4) Staff enthusiasm and support (ETL
Project, 2002) about the supervisor’s enthusiasm about the subject and patience in
explaining difficult concepts (2 items; α= .80).
Three scales measure student perceptions of the quality of feedback (Lizzio &
Wilson, 2008): (5) Developmental dimension about the supportive function of
feedback in the learning process (7 items; α= .88); (6) Encouragement about the
extent to which the feedback enhances student motivation (4 items; α= .82); and (7)
Fairness about clarity, legibility and consistency of feedback (3 items; α= .69).
The scale Satisfaction (8) questions students’satisfaction with the role of the
supervisor and the quality of the thesis group meetings (TALQ; Frick, Chadha,
Watson, & Zlatkovska, 2010; 3 items, α= .66). This scale is only included in Study
2, as it became interesting to measure satisfaction as another relevant variable for
evaluating the undergraduate thesis programme. Satisfaction is closely related to
motivation for learning (Könings, Brand-Gruwel, & van Merriënboer, 2011) and the
likelihood of finishing the thesis (Ives & Rowley, 2005).
Scales 4–8 are originally designed for use with undergraduate university stu-
dents. Reliability and validity studies have shown satisfying results (see references
above). Scales 1–3 have also shown good reliability and validity, but are originally
developed for graduates. The internal consistency of all scales in our studies is
satisfactory (see reported α’s above).
Items are rated on a five-point scale, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to
strongly agree (5). Some items are reformulated to better fit our specific educational
context.
Placement Evaluation Questionnaire-Supervisor version (PEQ-S)
To identify effects of possible differences between supervisors, a parallel version of
five subscales of the PEQ is developed for supervisors. It consists of 17 items of the
scales: Feedback-seeking promotion, risk in feedback seeking, source availability,
staff enthusiasm and satisfaction.
Procedure
After returning from their stay abroad, students filled out the PEQ by clicking a link
to the online instrument. After one week, a reminder was sent. Supervisors also
received an invitation, accompanied by a link to the PEQ-S.
Study 1
Method
Participants
The participants were 34 university students (third year of bachelor programme) and
their supervisors (N= 5); 24 students went for a stay abroad and 10 students stayed
at the home university. Students were organised in five thesis groups of which three
thesis groups contained both home students and abroad students, and two thesis
groups only contained abroad students.
4K.D. Könings et al.
Downloaded by [University of Maastricht] at 23:21 01 February 2015
Data analysis
Unpaired-samples ttests were conducted to test whether PEQ scores differed
between students who went abroad and those who stayed at the home university. To
indicate effect sizes, Cohen’sdis reported.
Results
Table 1presents the descriptive statistics of the PEQ for all students, and sepa-
rately for students who went abroad (from now on called ‘abroad students’) and
those who stayed at the home university (‘home students’). The comparison
between both groups showed differences on all scales. Abroad students per-
ceived their supervisor as much less promoting feedback-seeking behaviour than
home students, t(32) = 3.03, p< .01, d= 1.14. The risk in seeking feedback
from the supervisor was much higher for abroad students than for home stu-
dents, t(32) = 2.11, p< .05, d= .77. The perceived amount of contact with the
supervisor and the ease with which feedback can be obtained (‘source availabil-
ity’) is rated much lower by abroad students than home students, t(31) = 2.50,
p< .05, d= .99. Staff enthusiasm is perceived much lower by abroad students
than home students, t(32) = 4.26, p< .05, d= 1.77. All effect sizes are large.
Provided feedback is experienced as less fair by abroad students than home
students, t(30) = 2.22, p< .05, d= .88. A trend was found that abroad students
perceived feedback as less supportive in the learning process (‘development’),
t(30) = 1.69, p≤.10, d= .61, and less encouraging, t(29) = 1.96, p< .10, d= .73,
than home students.
Results of supervisors who had a thesis group consisting of abroad students only
did not differ from results of supervisors of mixed groups (i.e. abroad and home
students; p> .10 for all ttests).
Discussion
Students who went abroad experienced more problems in the supervision process:
they felt less stimulated, had more hesitations in asking for feedback, and were less
satisfied with the feedback.
Perceived lower quality of supervision for abroad students might be due to lower
affordances of communication tools at a distance. Contact with the supervisor might
Table 1. Means and standard deviations for all students and separately for abroad students
and home students.
All
(n= 34)
Abroad
(n= 24)
Home
(n= 10)
MSD MSD MSD
Feedback seeking promotion 3.49 .98 3.19 .88 4.20 .89
Risk in feedback seeking 2.13 .80 2.31 .72 1.70 .86
Source availability 3.33 1.19 3.01 1.16 4.06 .96
Staff enthusiasm and support 3.48 1.06 3.06 .94 4.45 .59
Feedback –development 3.79 .65 3.66 .56 4.07 .77
Feedback –encouragement 3.86 .54 3.73 .47 4.13 .61
Feedback –fairness 3.37 .77 3.18 .76 3.80 .65
Innovations in Education and Teaching International 5
Downloaded by [University of Maastricht] at 23:21 01 February 2015
have been less frequent and intense, causing isolation (e.g. Yeh et al., 2008).
Communication might have taken place asynchronously, leading to possible
problems in understanding each other (Giesbers et al., 2009). Additionally, abroad
students did not participate in actual thesis group meetings, thereby decreasing pos-
sibilities for discussions, which have been found to be important for engagement,
satisfaction, and quality of learning (Bolliger et al., 2010; Oncu & Cakir, 2011;
Resta & Laferrière, 2007; Selim, 2007).
Study 2
An intervention was introduced to abroad students: online thesis group meetings
were organised using videoconferencing software. In a quasi-experimental design,
half of the abroad students participated in online group meetings (experimental con-
dition), while for the other half of the abroad students no intervention was imple-
mented (control condition; identical to Study 1). Study 2 will investigate the effects
of online group meetings on perceived quality of supervision.
Method
Participants
The 49 undergraduate students were divided into eight thesis groups, each
supervised by a different staff member of the home university. In the experimental
condition, 19 students (15 abroad, 4 home) and three supervisors took part in online
thesis group meetings. These supervisors voluntarily decided to participate in this
experiment. Students were assigned to supervisors based on the match between the
thesis topic and the supervisor’s research interests. In the control condition, the sam-
ple consisted of 30 students (20 abroad, 10 home) and five supervisors. Of the three
experimental groups with online thesis group meetings, two groups were mixed with
home and abroad students and one group had only abroad students; of the five
control groups, two groups were mixed and three groups had only abroad students.
Materials and procedure
Online thesis group meetings took place with a web-based videoconferencing pro-
gramme at a time interval of 2–3 weeks. Communication tools are included for tele-
conferencing, chat, emoticons, webcams and a shared interactive whiteboard.
Students and supervisors were instructed to use the whiteboard for presenting and
discussing the progress of individual students, based on presentations prepared
beforehand. The home students regularly met during face-to-face thesis group meet-
ings, while in the abroad control group students and supervisors were also expected
to regularly discuss the work and the progress. Explicit instruction about organising
regular supervision contact was given to all participants.
Data analysis
ANOVAs were conducted to compare three conditions: Experimental-abroad
(N= 15), control-abroad (N= 20) and control-home university (N= 10). Four stu-
dents participated in the experimental group while being at the home university; they
6K.D. Könings et al.
Downloaded by [University of Maastricht] at 23:21 01 February 2015
were excluded from the analyses because this group is irrelevant for the research
questions. Post hoc analyses with Bonferroni correction were used to investigate
differences on PEQ scale means between:
(1) controls-abroad and controls at the home university, which is a replication of
Study 1 (research question 2a);
(2) experimental-abroad students and control-abroad students, testing the
hypothesised beneficial effects of online thesis group meetings over tradi-
tional methods to maintain communication while located in different places
(research question 2b); and
(3) experimental-abroad students and controls at the home university, showing
whether the found negative effects of being abroad on the feedback-related
variables can be resolved by online thesis group meetings (research
question 2c).
Results
Table 2presents descriptive statistics of the PEQ scores for the entire sample of
students as well as per condition.
Control-abroad versus control-home
Descriptive statistics of abroad students and home students are presented in Table 2
(Columns 3–6). Findings of Study 1 were replicated: abroad students felt much less
promoted to seek feedback than home students (F= 6.82, p< .01, Δ= .96,
SD = .32, p= .01, d= 1.15). They experienced a much higher risk to ask for feed-
back than controls at the home institution (F= 4.60, p< .05, Δ= .59, SD = .23,
p< .05, d= 1.03). Source availability was perceived to be much lower for abroad
students (F= 8.55, p< .01, Δ= 1.22, SD = .35, p< .01, d= 1.33) and they per-
ceived much less staff enthusiasm (F= 8.26, p< .01, Δ= 1.30, SD = .34, p< .01,
d= 1.48) than home students. All effect sizes are large.
For abroad students, feedback was much less helpful for their development
(F= 6.41, p< .01, Δ= .84, SD = .26, p< .01, d= 1.18) and less encouraging
Table 2. Means and standard deviations for all students and separately per condition.
All students
(n= 49)
Control-
home
(n= 10)
Control-
abroad
(n= 20)
Experimental-
abroad
(n= 15)
MSD MSD MSD MSD
Feedback seeking promotion 4.04 .90 4.48 .40 3.51 1.12 4.38 .48
Risk in feedback seeking 1.86 .62 1.58 .32 2.17 .74 1.68 .47
Source availability 3.92 1.01 4.47 .57 3.25 1.17 4.27 .55
Staff enthusiasm and support 4.15 .99 4.85 .24 3.55 1.22 4.40 .54
Feedback –development 3.83 .73 4.26 .30 3.41 .97 4.02 .18
Feedback –encouragement 3.82 .86 4.25 .42 3.44 1.17 3.97 .43
Feedback –fairness 3.69 .85 3.97 .51 3.55 1.06 3.58 .78
Satisfaction 3.51 .78 4.00 .54 3.22 .72 3.47 .91
Innovations in Education and Teaching International 7
Downloaded by [University of Maastricht] at 23:21 01 February 2015
(F= 3.54, p< .05, Δ= .81, SD = .33, p= .05, d= .92) than for peers who stayed at
the home university. There was no significant effect on fairness of feedback.
Results on six of seven scales mirror the findings of Study 1, underlining the
substantial disadvantages for students who are geographically dispersed. The eighth
scale measuring satisfaction that was added in Study 2 yielded another significant
result: satisfaction was much lower for abroad students (F= 3.58, p< .05, Δ= .78,
SD = .29, p= .05, d= 1.23) than for home students.
Experimental-abroad versus control-abroad
Table 2also presents the descriptives of the abroad students, separately for the
experimental condition (columns 7–8) and the control condition (columns 3–4). Post
hoc analyses showed large differences between the groups (Figure 1). Students
involved in online group meetings felt much more promoted to seek feedback than
the controls (F= 6.82, p< .01, Δ= .87, SD = .28, p= .01, d= 1.01). There was a
trend that they perceived less risk to ask for feedback than controls (F= 4.60,
p< .05, Δ= .49, SD = .20, p= .057, d= .79). Source availability (F= 8.55, p< .01,
Δ= 1.02, SD = .30, p< .01, d= 1.12) and staff enthusiasm (F= 8.26, p< .01,
Δ= .85, SD = .30, p< .01, d= .90) were rated much higher by students in the
experimental condition than by controls. All effect sizes are large. No significant
differences were found on quality of feedback and satisfaction.
Figure 1. Mean scores and standard deviations of the PEQ scales of control-abroad students
and experimental-abroad condition.
8K.D. Könings et al.
Downloaded by [University of Maastricht] at 23:21 01 February 2015
Experimental-abroad versus control-home
Descriptives for experimental-abroad students and control-home students are
presented, respectively, in columns 7–8 and 3–4 of Table 2. Post hoc analyses did
not show any significant differences between these two conditions (all p> .10): no
negative effects were found for abroad students, as compared with those who stayed
at the home university. On none of the scales of the PEQ-S differences were found
between supervisors in the experimental and control conditions (p> 10 for all
ttests).
Discussion
This study replicated the findings of Study 1 and stresses the need for extra support
for students who go abroad. Regularly scheduled online thesis group meetings
showed strong beneficial effects, as students experienced the supervisor’s support as
much more available and supportive, and asking for feedback as less risky,
compared with abroad students who did not participate in group meetings. Abroad
students do not perceive detrimental effects on quality of supervision when partici-
pating in online group meetings and are as positive about supervision as those who
stayed at the home university. These results underline the earlier reported importance
of synchronous communication (Hrastinski et al., 2010) and group meetings for
learning (Bolliger et al., 2010; Oncu & Cakir, 2011).
General discussion
These two studies focused on the perceived quality of supervision for students who
went abroad for their undergraduate thesis work, as compared with students who
stayed at the home university. Study 1 has shown that students who went abroad
perceive lower quality of supervision and feedback. In Study 2, online thesis group
meetings were introduced and this considerably improved the perceived quality of
supervision on all aspects. There is no longer any difference in the perceived quality
of the supervision process between students who went abroad and those who stayed
at the home institution. This indicates that disadvantages from being at a distance
can be fully compensated by regularly planned online thesis group meetings.
The found detrimental effects of being abroad on quality of supervision and
feedback are in line with earlier research (Hrastinski et al., 2010): in asynchronous
communication, there is less social support and exchange, which is essential for
good supervision. Synchronous communication, like videoconferencing, positively
influences participation in discussion and enables a higher degree of support. Imme-
diate feedback, negotiating and monitoring of reactions to feedback increase com-
mitment and motivation. The results of our studies might be due to the fact that
abroad students typically had to rely more on asynchronous communication, while
home students communicated more face-to-face (synchronous). This difference is
diminished by introducing online thesis group meetings.
Critical success factors for online-learning include characteristics of the supervi-
sor, like attitudes towards interactive learning and online learning, and teaching style
(Selim, 2007). This might have influenced our results, but the fact that results of
Study 1 have been replicated in Study 2 with different students and supervisors
indicates that effects of differences between supervisors are limited.
Innovations in Education and Teaching International 9
Downloaded by [University of Maastricht] at 23:21 01 February 2015
A limitation of our study is that students were not randomly assigned to
conditions: they decided themselves to go abroad or not. Differences in student char-
acteristics might have influenced results, but it is reasonable that experienced super-
vision requirements are comparable, as thesis requirements are the same for all
students. Another limitation concerns the assignment of students to the experimental
or control condition (Study 2). Abroad students are non-selectively assigned to con-
ditions, but based on the supervisor they were grouped with. This might have caused
some bias because of the selection of supervisors who were willing to participate in
this project. This bias was unavoidable as for educational innovations you depend
on staff members who are motivated to leave routine procedures and try something
new (Fullan, 2007; Könings, Brand-Gruwel, & van Merriënboer, 2007).
The current studies have two main practical implications. Staff members in
undergraduate curricula, which allow students to go abroad for writing a thesis upon
research within the real-life working environment, should be aware that supervision
of these students is more difficult and is likely to be of less quality if no special
measures are taken. Supervisors can be stimulated to organise online group meetings
with videoconferencing software. This might contribute to providing an effective
feedback environment to students.
Theoretically, the studies have provided further support for earlier research show-
ing the importance of interaction (Bolliger et al., 2010), synchronous communication
(Giesbers et al., 2009; Hrastinski et al., 2010), and group work (e.g. Yeh et al.,
2008) for learning. Our first study shows negative effects of lack of these elements
on perceived quality of supervision, while the second study demonstrates benefits of
them when present in online group meetings. Furthermore, the studies are in align-
ment with the priorities of research in online learning environments (Oncu & Cakir,
2011): enhancing student engagement and collaboration by interaction and discus-
sions in online environments. The current studies established the importance of
online interaction on perceived quality of education.
To conclude, the current studies have shown that quality of supervision is
likely to suffer when students are abroad for their undergraduate thesis work.
The findings stress the need for extra support of students during their stay
abroad. Online thesis group meetings with videoconferencing help to overcome
disadvantages of being in different locations and have a large potential in
optimising supervision at a distance.
Notes on contributors
Karen D. Könings, PhD, is an assistant professor at the Department of Educational Develop-
ment and Research, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University,
the Netherlands. She conducts research on the role of student expectations and perceptions of
education, the effectiveness of blended learning, and participatory instructional design as a
way to better account for students’perspectives.
Daniela Popa, MD MSc, is a lecturer at the Department of International Health at Maastricht
University. Her main responsibilities are related to teaching and coordination of modules and
leading the Placement Programme in the Bachelor and Master Programmes in European
Public Health at the Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences.
Maike Gerken, MA, is doctoral candidate at the School of Business and Economics,
Maastricht University. Her main research interests are informal learning in the workplace,
innovative work behaviour and online course design.
10 K.D. Könings et al.
Downloaded by [University of Maastricht] at 23:21 01 February 2015
Bas Giesbers, MA, is a projectleader in e-learning at the Rotterdam School of Management
and an external PhD student at the department of Educational Research and Development,
Maastricht University. He has a background in educational psychology and gained experience
in educational technology, teaching, and research on distance education, distance supervision
and teacher professionalisation in the field of distance education.
Bart C. Rienties, PhD, is a reader in Learning Analytics at the Institute of Educational Technol-
ogy at the Open University UK. As educational psychologist, he conducts multi-disciplinary
research on work-based and collaborative learning environments and focuses on the role of
social interaction in learning, which is published in leading academic journals and books.
Cees P.M. van der Vleuten, PhD, is a professor of Education, Chair of the Department of
Educational Development and Research and scientific director of the School of Health Pro-
fessions Education, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, the
Netherlands. His area of expertise lies in evaluation and assessment.
Jeroen J.G. van Merrienboer, PhD, is a professor of Learning and Instruction at Maastricht
University, Department of Educational Development and Research. He is heading the
research and PhD programme of the Graduate School of Health Professions Education. His
research focuses on four-component instructional design, cognitive load theory and the use of
new media in education.
References
Ashford, S. J. (1986). Feedback-seeking in individual adaptation: A resource perspective.
Academy of Management Journal, 29, 465–487. doi:10.2307/256219
Bolliger, D. U., Supanakorn, S., & Boggs, C. (2010). Impact of podcasting on student moti-
vation in the online learning environment. Computers & Education, 55, 714–722.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.03.004
de Beer, M., & Mason, R. B. (2009). Using a blended approach to facilitate postgraduate
supervision. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46, 213–226.
doi:10.1080/14703290902843984
ETL Project. (2002). ETLQ: Experiences of Teaching and Learning Questionnaire. Unpublished
instrument, Coventry: Universities of Edinburgh. Retrieved from http://www.ed.ac.uk/etl
EU Commission. (2011). Erasmus –Facts, Figures & Trends. The European Union support
for student and staff exchanges and university cooperation in 2009/2010. Luxembourg:
EU Commission.
Frick, T. W., Chadha, R., Watson, C., & Zlatkovska, E. (2010, May). New measures for
course evaluation in higher education and their relationships with student learning.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Denver, Colorado.
Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Giesbers, B., Rienties, B., Gijselaers, W. H., Segers, M., & Tempelaar, D. T. (2009). Social
presence, web videoconferencing and learning in virtual teams. Industry and Higher
Education, 23, 301–309. doi:10.5367/000000009789346185
Hastie, M., Hung, I. C., Chen, N. S., & Kinshuk. (2010). A blended synchronous learning
model for educational international collaboration. Innovations in Education and Teaching
International, 47,9–24. doi:10.1080/14703290903525812
Hrastinski, S., Keller, C., & Carlsson, S. A. (2010). Design exemplars for synchronous
e-learning: A design theory approach. Computers & Education, 55, 652–662.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.025
Ives, G., & Rowley, G. (2005). Supervisor selection or allocation and continuity of supervi-
sion: PhD students’progress and outcomes. Studies in Higher Education, 30, 535–555.
doi:10.1080/03075070500249161
Jamieson, S., & Gray, C. (2006). The supervision of undergraduate research students: Expec-
tations of student and supervisor. Practice and Evidence of Scholarship of Teaching and
Learning in Higher Education, 1, 137–159. doi:10.1080/0260293970220104
Innovations in Education and Teaching International 11
Downloaded by [University of Maastricht] at 23:21 01 February 2015
Könings, K. D., Brand-Gruwel, S., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2007). Teachers’
perspectives on innovations: Implications for educational design. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 23, 985–997. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2006.06.004
Könings, K. D., Brand-Gruwel, S., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2011). The match between
students’lesson perceptions and preferences: Relations with student characteristics and
the importance of motivation. Educational Research, 53, 439–457. doi:10.1080/
00131881.2011.625155
Lizzio, A., & Wilson, K. (2008). Feedback on assessment: Students’perceptions of quality
and effectiveness. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33, 263–275.
doi:10.1080/02602930701292548
Oncu, S., & Cakir, H. (2011). Research in online learning environments: Priorities and meth-
odologies. Computers & Education, 57, 1098–1108. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.12.009
Resta, P., & Laferrière, T. (2007). Technology in support of collaborative learning. Educational
Psychology Review, 19,65–83. doi:10.1007/s10648-007-9042-7
Rienties, B., Beausaert, S., Grohnert, T., Niemantsverdriet, S., & Kommers, P. (2012). Under-
standing academic performance of international students: The role of ethnicity, academic
and social integration. Higher Education, 63, 685–700. doi:10.1007/s10734-011-9468-1
Selim, H. M. (2007). Critical success factors for e-learning acceptance: Confirmatory factor
models. Computers & Education, 49, 396–413. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.09.004
Spanjers, I. A., Könings, K. D., Leppink, J., Verstegen, D. M., De Jong, N., Czabanowska,
K., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2014). Meta-analyses on the quality of blended learning.
Paper presented at the Special Interest Meeting of EARLI SIG 6 (Instructional Design) &
SIG 7 (Learning and Instruction with Computers), Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Steelman, L. A., Levy, P. E., & Snell, A. F. (2004). The feedback environment scale:
Construct definition, measurement, and validation. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 64, 165–184. doi:10.1177/0013164403258440
Todd, M., Bannister, P., & Clegg, S. (2004). Independent inquiry and the undergraduate dis-
sertation: Perceptions and experiences of final-year social science students. Assessments
& Evaluation in Higher Education, 29, 335–355. doi:10.1080/0260293042000188285
Yeh, C., Chang, T., Chiang, L., Drost, C., Spelliscy, D., Carter, R., & Chang, Y. (2008).
Development, content, process and outcome of an online peer supervision group for
counselor trainees. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 2889–2903. doi:10.1016/
j.chb.2008.04.010
12 K.D. Könings et al.
Downloaded by [University of Maastricht] at 23:21 01 February 2015
