The Relationship Between Interpersonal Approaches of Thesis Supervisors and Graduate Student Satisfaction

Abstract

The purpose of this explanatory mixed method study is to describe students’ perceptions of the thesis supervision approaches used, their satisfaction with these approaches, and whether their satisfaction differed based on students’ gender, degree sought, and concentration. The study comprised two parts. First, a questionnaire was distributed to all graduate students who had written a thesis/dissertation during 2015-2017 (N=213) at one of the universities in the United Arab Emirates. Second, a group of students from among those mentioned above (N=16) were interviewed. The study revealed that the most commonly used approach by the supervisors was the collaborative interpersonal approach and the least used one was the directive informational approach. There was no significant difference according to the degree sought and concentration. However, when it came to gender, female students believed that the supervisors had used the collaborative approach more than the male students. Overall, graduate students were satisfied with their supervisors’ approaches, while some were highly satisfied. The findings indicated a pattern where the more collaborative the supervisor was, the more satisfied the student became and the more the supervisor used the non-directive interpersonal approach, the less satisfied the students became. The study recommends that faculty supervisors attend to the various needs and preferences of their students and be ready to shift away from their preferred approach to suit the diverse needs and abilities of their students.

Full text

International Education Studies; Vol. 12, No. 10; 2019
ISSN 1913-9020 E-ISSN 1913-9039
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education
96
The Relationship Between Interpersonal Approaches of Thesis
Supervisors and Graduate Student Satisfaction
Dalal M. Aldosari1 & Ali S. Ibrahim1
1 College of Education, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates
Correspondence: Dalal M. Aldosari, College of Education, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, Maqam,
United Arab Emirates.
Received: April 29, 2019 Accepted: July 9, 2019 Online Published: September 29, 2019
doi:10.5539/ies.v12n10p96 URL: https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v12n10p96
Abstract
The purpose of this explanatory mixed method study is to describe students’ perceptions of the thesis supervision
approaches used, their satisfaction with these approaches, and whether their satisfaction differed based on
students’ gender, degree sought, and concentration. The study comprised two parts. First, a questionnaire was
distributed to all graduate students who had written a thesis/dissertation during 2015-2017 (N=213) at one of the
universities in the United Arab Emirates. Second, a group of students from among those mentioned above (N=16)
were interviewed. The study revealed that the most commonly used approach by the supervisors was the
collaborative interpersonal approach and the least used one was the directive informational approach. There was
no significant difference according to the degree sought and concentration. However, when it came to gender,
female students believed that the supervisors had used the collaborative approach more than the male students.
Overall, graduate students were satisfied with their supervisors’ approaches, while some were highly satisfied. The
findings indicated a pattern where the more collaborative the supervisor was, the more satisfied the student became
and the more the supervisor used the non-directive interpersonal approach, the less satisfied the students became.
The study recommends that faculty supervisors attend to the various needs and preferences of their students and be
ready to shift away from their preferred approach to suit the diverse needs and abilities of their students.
Keywords: dissertation, graduate student, interpersonal approach, student satisfaction, supervision, thesis
1. Introduction
Thesis writing is the last stage in achieving a graduate degree and is the pinnacle of graduate studies, as the process
helps develop vital research skills (Ho, Wong, & Wong, 2010; Ylijoki, 2001). Graduate student thesis completion
can refine research skills and enhance critical/reasoning capabilities; thus, the absence of a thesis could weaken
students’ graduate research abilities (Drennan & Clarke, 2009). However, Ylijoki (2001) found that the
challenging process of completing the thesis also contributed to student anxiety, prolonged the time until
graduation, and even resulted in students’ withdrawal from graduate studies.
A crucial factor that determines how successfully students navigate the thesis writing process challenge is their
relationship with their supervisors. Students are aware of the supervisor’s importance in achieving their degrees
(Erichsen, Bolliger, & Halupa, 2014; McAlpine & McKinnon, 2013). Research by de Kleijn, Meijer, Pilot, &
Brekelmans (2014) established that students identified the relationship with their thesis supervisor as a key feature
in the research supervision process.
Though some supervisors may prefer to maintain a formal relationship with their students, many often become
personally involved in their students’ theses/dissertations. Supervisors are important for maintaining student
satisfaction (de Kleijn, Mainhard, Meijer, Pilot, & Brekelmans, 2012). Supervisors’ communication and support
are positively correlated with students’ academic performance (Ismail, Jui, Sham, Faqih, & Abdullah, 2015).
However, students become dissatisfied when the supervision relationship lacks continuous communication, time
spent together, and timely feedback (Abo-Daf, 2002; Alawi, Jabr, & AboSamra, 2008; Shatnawi, 2006). Therefore,
maintaining a productive and positive relationship is a key factor in preventing graduate student dissatisfaction and
reducing graduate program withdrawal rates (Parker-Jenkins, 2018).
Many efforts have been made to classify the different types of supervisor-supervisee relationships into different
approaches and models of supervision (McCallin & Nayar, 2012). In this study, we adopt Glickman, Gordon, and

ies.ccsenet.org International Education Studies Vol. 12, No. 10; 2019
97
Ross-Gordon’s (2013) three main interpersonal approaches: directive, collaborative, and non-directive, which
were extracted from three main philosophies, namely essentialism, experimentalism, and existentialism. These
approaches were adopted to investigate the relationship between graduate student satisfaction and supervisor
interpersonal approach in a government-run university in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
2. Conceptual Framework
Supervision is a personal and professional relationship whereby an experienced faculty member acts as a student’s
guide, facilitator, role model, and informer. A supervisor provides the supervisee with knowledge, advice,
counseling, challenges, and support in the supervisee’s journey toward a particular profession (Johnson, 2016).
According to Wisker (2012, pp. 40-41), the supervision of graduate students is “a professional relationship … that
focuses on development and training… Students at all levels need guidance, modeling and managing so that they
can start to develop as independent researchers”. Every supervisor has his/her own interpersonal approach in
dealing with his/her students. Glickman et al. (2013, p. 90) noted that the interpersonal approach “is a range of
interpersonal behaviors available to a supervisor who is working with individuals and groups”. Lee (2008)
observed that supervisors who are aware of the strengths and weaknesses of supervision approaches are more
likely to enjoy and benefit from the supervision experience.
As discussed in Glickman et al. (2013), essentialists believe that knowledge, truth, and reality exist outside of
humans and that knowledge does not change. The purpose of education is to train the mind to think logically
(Glickman et al., 2013). Bagley founded this philosophy in 1938 (Glickman et al., 2013). Essentialism advocates
that there is essential subjects/knowledge that students should learn, and the educator is the main source of this
knowledge (Kessinger, 2011). Thus, from the essentialist perspective, the supervisor is the expert who transfers
knowledge to a student or trainee. As students follow the supervisor’s directions, they grow closer to becoming
good learners (Glickman et al., 2013).
Essentialism coincides with the first main interpersonal supervisory approach, the directive approach. The
directive approach is divided into two types: directive control and directive informational. Directive control means
that the supervisor directs the student by standardizing specific time tables and criteria that ensure the expected
results. The supervisor also guides the student by explaining the positive and negative consequences of his/her
actions. In the directive informational approach, the supervisor directs the student to choose from the available
alternatives. In the directive approaches (control or informational), the supervisor is the source of knowledge, has
the power and responsibility, and s/he is the one who makes the decisions, but the degree of freedom in the first
approach is far less than in the second (Glickman et al., 2013).
Experimentalism emphasizes that reality, knowledge, and truth are not absolutes and are instead continuously
changing and updating (Glickman et al., 2013). Experimentalists believe that people are born with limitless
possibilities for development and growth. Therefore, the traditional educator-learner relationship where the
educator is the only source of knowledge is not sufficient for experimentalists (Elias & Merriam, 1995).
Experimentalism represents a collaborative interpersonal approach where the supervisor works democratically
with the student to test old hypotheses and try new ones (Glickman et al., 2013). In the collaborative interpersonal
approach, the supervisor and student share equal power, make joint decisions, and bear equal responsibility
(Glickman et al., 2013).
Existentialism asserts that humans are the source of reality, truth, and knowledge. It emphasizes that there is no
absolute knowledge or logic because this will prevent humans from discovering existence and then it will keep
them ignorant (Glickman et al., 2013). Existentialism encourages individuals to create their own meaning from the
world around them and to engage in self-discovery (Glickman et al., 2013; Koirala, 2011). Thus, supervision in
existentialism means that the supervisor helps the student explore his or her own capabilities to make decisions
freely. Supervisors are facilitators and offer help when necessary (Glickman et al., 2013). The non-directive
interpersonal approach to supervision is extracted from this philosophy. It means that the student leads the
supervision process, has the responsibility, and makes decisions. The supervisor’s role facilitates autonomous
learning so that the student can develop acceptable results (Glickman et al., 2013; Koirala, 2011). Figure 1
illustrates the different philosophies and Glickman et al.’s (2013) approaches to supervisions that guide this study.

ies.ccsenet.
3. Literat
u
There are
a
b
ecause t
h
of the firs
t
student re
l
discuss in
3.1 Studie
s
Lee (2007
implemen
t
developin
g
the superv
the impor
t
Acker, Hi
l
order mo
d
whereas t
h
(Acker et
structure t
h
model, th
e
p
articipan
t
successful
McCallin
supervisio
supervisio
3.2 Studie
s
Aguinis,
N
taxonomy
org
u
re Review
a
dearth of pr
e
h
eir approache
s
t
studies that
u
l
ationships. H
o
detail in the f
o
s
on the Appr
o
) conducted a
t
ing the five
g
a quality rel
a
isor helps the
d
t
ance of stude
n
l
l, and Black (
1
d
el. In the tec
h
h
e negotiated
al., 1994, p.
4
h
e students’ g
r
e
students an
t
s in negotiati
n
social scienc
e
and Nayar (2
0
n in New Zeal
n changes to i
m
s
on Approac
h
N
esler, Quigl
e
(referent, co
e
e
vious studies
r
s
were mostly
u
u
tilizes the ap
p
o
wever, there
a
o
llowing subs
e
o
aches Derive
d
literature rev
i
supervisory
a
tionship. The
d
octo
r
al stude
n
n
t obedience)
a
1
994) outline
d
h
nical rational
i
order model
a
4
83). The tech
n
r
owth in the r
e
d supervisors
n
g and under
s
e
supervision.
0
12) also revi
e
and. They sug
g
m
prove resea
r
h
es Derived fr
o
e
y, S u
k
-Jae-L
e
e
rcive, expert,
Internatio
n
Figure 1. C
o
r
elated to the
a
u
sed to descri
b
p
roaches fra
m
a
re many stud
i
e
ctions.
d
from the Lit
e
i
ew to list five
models—fun
c
study showed
n
t acquire rea
s
a
nd one other
a
d
two supervis
i
i
ty model, su
p
a
ssumed that
s
n
ical rationali
t
e
search field,
shared resp
o
s
tanding rese
a
e
wed the 200
0
g
ested that su
p
r
ch excellence
o
m Existing A
p
e
e, and Tedes
c
legitimate, a
n
n
al Education St
u
98
o
nceptual fra
m
a
bove approac
h
b
e superviso
r
-t
m
ed by Glick
m
i
es on the sup
e
e
rature
supervisory
m
c
tional, encul
t
that supervis
o
s
onable progre
a
pproach.
i
on models: th
e
p
ervision prior
i
s
upervision w
a
t
y model mus
t
leaving them
o
nsibilities, a
n
a
rch. The neg
o
0
to 2010 lite
r
p
ervisors and s
t
and increase
d
p
proaches
c
hi (1996) i
mp
n
d reward po
w
u
dies
m
ewor
k
h
es in the con
t
eacher relatio
n
m
an et al. (201
3
e
rvisor-gradu
a
m
odels. Then,
t
uration, criti
c
o
rs tend to use
ss throughout
t
e
technical rat
i
i
ty was given
a
s “a process
o
t
be carried o
u
as passive pa
r
n
d this model
o
tiated order
m
r
ature to disc
u
t
udents shoul
d
d
octoral degre
e
mp
lemented Fr
e
w
er) to exam
i
V
t
ext of studyin
g
n
ships; therefo
3
) to explain
s
a
te student rel
a
he conducted
c
al thinking,
the functional
t
he research p
h
i
onality mode
l
to procedure
o
o
pen to negot
u
t in predictab
r
ticipants. In t
h
prepares stu
d
m
odel more a
c
u
ss the influe
n
d
have enough
t
e
completion
r
e
nch and Ra
v
i
ne the relati
o
V
ol. 12, No. 10;
g
graduate stu
d
re, this is likel
y
s
uperviso
r
-gra
d
a
tionship, whi
c
a study in 20
0
emancipation,
approach (w
h
h
ases and agre
l
and the nego
t
o
r technique i
iation and ch
a
le steps that
w
h
e negotiated
o
d
ents to be
a
c
curately des
c
n
ce of postgra
d
training to adj
u
r
ates.
v
en’s (1959)
p
o
nship betwee
n
2019
d
ents
y
one
d
uate
c
h we
0
8 by
and
erein
e
s on
t
iated
s
sues
a
nge”
w
ould
o
rder
a
ctive
c
ribes
d
uate
u
st to
ower
n
the

ies.ccsenet.org International Education Studies Vol. 12, No. 10; 2019
99
supervisor’s power and the students’ educational outcomes. The study concluded that the expert power (i.e., when
the supervisor is viewed as having special knowledge) was positively associated with the student’s educational
outcomes, while coercive power (i.e., when the supervisor is viewed as a potential punisher) was associated
negatively with the student’s educational outcomes.
Raven (2008) added informational power to the taxonomy, which means that the supervisor uses diverse and
logical explanations for conducting research that the supervisee understands and accepts. Raven addressed that the
effectiveness of the specific power type is dependent on the nature of the supervisor, the supervisee, and the
context. He found that reward power leads to higher supervisee satisfaction and emphasized that supervisors with
awareness of these power strategies are more effective supervisors.
Armstrong (2004) used known theories and approaches to investigate the influence of supervisors’ cognitive styles
on supervision quality. His study involved analytic (step-by-step method) and intuitive (supervisors use their
feelings to act regardless of the conscious reasoning) styles. The findings showed that the more the supervisor was
analytic, the more the students perceived the quality of the supervision and “achieved significantly higher grades
for their dissertation” (p. 599).
3.3 Studies Investigating Students and/or Supervisors’ Perceptions
Abdallah, Hillerinch, Romero, Topp, and Wnuk (2010) interviewed an experienced professor to identify the
relationships between supervisors and students. Bartlett and Mercer’s (2000) model, which is used in this study,
had three approaches. The first is “creating in the kitchen,” where the supervisor is the leader and has a close
relationship with the supervisee. The second approach is “digging in the garden,” where they do not work together,
and the supervisor just offers advice to the student. The third approach is the “bush walking” approach, where the
supervisor and student have equal power and a close relationship. They identified the importance of supervisors
organizing communication with their students and found that the “creating in the kitchen” model was the most
suitable approach. However, there is no ultimate, standardized model for all supervision processes.
Ylijoki (2001) identified the thesis writing issues from the students’ perspectives. Based on the experiences of 72
Finnish students, four core cultural narratives were developed: heroic, tragic, businesslike, and penal stories (and
all students subconsciously follow their own story). Each story presents a different perspective on the importance
of thesis writing, the relationship between the supervisor and the student, and study problems. It is important that
students recognize their narratives to improve the supervision process. Students and supervisors should hold the
same narrative to enhance their relationships.
Franke and Arvidsson (2011) analyzed the different ways that supervisors advise their doctoral students and
revealed two main supervision structures: research practice-oriented and research relation-oriented supervision. In
research practice-oriented supervision, the supervisor and the student share mutual research practices, while
research relation-oriented supervision means that the supervisor and the student lack a clear connection between
their research practices. The results also showed that approximately 23.3% of the supervisors use both structures.
There is no standardized approach to be used for all graduate students’ thesis or dissertation supervision. Based on
the existing studies, it is difficult to determine the best practices that supervisors should rely on. However, a
controlling approach is more positively related to students’ grades/learning, and a positive relationship leads more
to students’ satisfaction (de Kleijn et al., 2012). As Parker-Jenkins (2018) noted, the supervisory relationships’
expectations, roles, and boundaries must be initially expressed to avoid any misunderstanding and to encourage
higher rates of thesis/dissertation completion.
4. Statement of the Problem
The graduate thesis assesses a student’s likelihood of conducting research (Drennan & Clarke, 2009). However, a
large proportion of students exit their graduate program without completing their thesis (Gosling & Noordam,
2011). Improving the supervision process can improve student satisfaction and increase student retention rates.
Many studies have emphasized the importance of the supervisor-student relationship and its impact on students’
educational outcomes and satisfaction (e.g., Aguinis et al., 1996; de Kleijn et al., 2014; Erichsen et al., 2014; Ismail
et al., 2015).
The key role of the supervisor in postgraduate studies makes it a pertinent subject for research. Despite its
importance, however, little research has been conducted to examine supervision in the context of the UAE. Hence,
the researchers carried out a preliminary study to explore the situation in one UAE university. The study drew on
responses from six graduate student interviews (four master and two PhD graduates). The early small-scale study
provided interesting preliminary insights. A major finding was that some supervisors were controlling and did not
give students the freedom to make important decisions, such as topic selection and methodology. Students reported

ies.ccsenet.org International Education Studies Vol. 12, No. 10; 2019
100
that some supervisors reportedly used coercive power. As one PhD student described her interaction with her
supervisor: “His attitude was angry… the attitude was very bad, not only with me.” Students’ concerns about not
receiving effective feedback were also raised repeatedly, with one student saying, “There was no proper guidance
regarding the methodology.” The lack of timely feedback delayed the students’ completion of their thesis. One
student reported saying, “Writing my thesis took a very long time … If he had given me feedback about every
chapter from the beginning, I would have finished my thesis earlier.”
These preliminary conversations offered insight into the supervision process, but it is important to more fully
investigate supervision approaches. By studying these approaches, we can gain a deeper understanding of how
they may affect students’ satisfaction, particularly in the UAE. This study also adds to the literature on supervision
and the supervisor-student relationship in higher education in general and in the UAE, particularly.
5. Research Questions
This study was guided by the following research questions:
1) What are the supervisory approaches used by faculty members and how satisfied are graduate students with
these approaches?
2) Is there a relationship between supervision approaches and student satisfaction? Is there a significant
difference in the relationship between graduate student satisfaction and supervisor interpersonal approaches
according to the gender, level of education (master’s or PhD), and concentration (Sciences or Arts) of the
students?
3) How do students perceive the relationship between the supervisors’ interpersonal approaches and their
satisfaction with using these approaches?
6. Methodology
6.1 Study Design
This study used an explanatory mixed method design, by first collecting quantitative data and then collecting/using
qualitative data to better understand the quantitative results (Gay, Mills, & Airasian, 2011). The quantitative data
provided information on a large sample of graduate students concerning their opinions of their supervisors’
approaches and their satisfaction, whereas the qualitative data provided more in-depth data and greater details on
their experiences.
6.2 Instruments
We used semi-structured interviews and a closed questionnaire. The questionnaire addressed the first and second
research questions and included two sections: demographic data/supervisory practices and graduate student
satisfaction. The demographic data covered gender (male or female), level of education (master’s or PhD), college
(Arts or Sciences), and status (already graduated or about to graduate). The supervisory practice questions covered
six main thesis/dissertation writing phases: topic selection, development of research problem, framing of the
literature review, research method decisions, feedback process, and writing the discussion chapter. A final question
gauged the supervisor’s overall approach and the student’s overall satisfaction level. For questions about the
approaches used, the students selected from four choices: directive control, directive informational, collaborative,
and non-directive. For the sub-questions on satisfaction, a six-level satisfaction scale was used, ranging from not
satisfied at all = 1 to totally satisfied = 6.
Next, semi-structured interviews were conducted to address the third research question. These interviews allowed
the researchers to ask pre-prepared questions and to improvise as needed (Wengraf, 2001). The semi-structured
interviews covered demographic data and supervisory practices and included questions similar to those in the
questionnaire but with different wording.
6.3 Validity and Reliability
Six experienced academicians reviewed the questionnaire and interview questions to determine the instruments’
validity. We made minor question adjustments based on their advice (which largely focused on language). To
measure the instrument reliability, the test-retest method was used by distributing the questionnaire to a group of
15 graduate students who were not included in the research sample. The researcher subsequently redistributed it
after 10 to 14 days to the same group. Then, the Pearson coefficient was used to measure the correlation between
their pre-test and post-test responses. The scores were very high (0.831 to 0.960), revealing that there was a high
correlation between the first and second administrations and that this part of the questionnaire was highly reliable.
Cronbach’s alpha was then used to test the satisfaction scale. The scores were very high (0.951 and 0.958),
indicating that the instruments were reliable.

ies.ccsenet.org International Education Studies Vol. 12, No. 10; 2019
101
6.4 Population and Sample
The target population included both master’s and PhD students, who had written or were about to finish writing
their thesis/dissertation between 2015 and 2017 at one UAE university (N = 213). There were 175 master’s and 38
PhD graduates. The researcher intentionally targeted this group as they were more likely to remember their
thesis/dissertation supervision experience than those who had graduated earlier or those who had not yet arrived at
the final stages of their thesis/dissertation.
The questionnaire was sent to all graduated and enrolled graduate students. A total of 124 participants completed
the questionnaire, indicating a 58.2% response rate. The sample consisted of 45 males (36.3%) and 79 females
(63.7%), with the majority enrolled in the sciences-related colleges (91 students), compared to a smaller number in
the humanities-related colleges (33 students). Of the 124 respondents, 105 were master’s students who had written
or were in the process of writing a thesis; the remaining were PhD students. Most of the participants (61.3%) had
already graduated, whereas 38.7% were about to graduate.
The interview participants were selected from the quantitative sample based on their willingness to be interviewed.
The sample comprised 16 students: 2 males and 14 females, 11 master’s students and 5 PhD candidates, with half
in the humanities-related colleges and half in the sciences-related colleges.
6.5 Procedures
The researchers first obtained the proper ethical institutional approval. Then, the researchers contacted the
university’s registration department to obtain the potential participants’ contact information.
Next, an electronic questionnaire link with an invitation to participate was sent to all 213 participants. The
electronic questionnaire required the participants’ informed consent, which participants electronically confirmed
before beginning the questionnaire.
Willing participants from the quantitative sample who provided their contact information were invited to sit for a
semi-structured interview. The average duration of each interview was from 12 to 35 minutes. Most interviews
were face-to-face and recorded, while a few were phone interviews in cases where the alumni were in distant cities.
In such cases, notes were taken during the interview. For the face-to-face interviews, participants were asked to
sign the informed consent form and were given a copy. For the phone interviews, the informed consent form was
sent to participants prior to the interview. All interviews were then transcribed.
6.6 Data Analysis
For the quantitative study, the researcher used percentages to identify the most common supervision approaches.
Students’ satisfaction levels were assessed using a six-point Likert-type scale, ranging from not satisfied at all = 1
to totally satisfied = 6, and the means, medians, modes, and standard deviations were then calculated to ascertain
the overall satisfaction level. SPSS software was used to extract these frequencies and to analyze the data.
To identify the relationship between the supervision approach used and students’ satisfaction level, One-Way
ANOVA and post hoc Tukey tests were used to analyze each question, with supervision approach as the
independent variable and student satisfaction as the dependent variable. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to
identify the differences in the relationship between graduate students’ satisfaction and supervisors’ interpersonal
approach according to the level of education, gender, and concentration.
The qualitative data were extracted from verbatim interview transcriptions. A thematic analysis was then
conducted to examine the students’ perceptions of their supervision experience during the thesis/dissertation
writing process.
7. Results
7.1 Question One Results
7.1.1 Supervisory Approaches
Most students (57.3%) reported that their supervisors most often used the collaborative approach, followed by the
non-directive approach (17.7%), the directive control approach (13.7%), and the directive informational approach
(11.3%). Table 1 displays the results.

ies.ccsenet.org International Education Studies Vol. 12, No. 10; 2019
102
Table 1. Supervision approaches used in percentages (%)
Directive Control Directive Informational Collaborative Non-directive
1. Research topic selection 21.8 16.9 32.3 29.0
2. Research problem formulation 20.2 11.3 51.6 16.9
3. Literature review framing 13.7 10.5 37.9 37.9
4. Research methodology decisions 21.0 14.5 46.0 18.5
5. Providing feedback 11.3 21.8 52.4 14.5
6. Writing the discussion chapter 9.7 12.9 54.8 22.6
7. Overall approach 13.7 11.3 57.3 17.7
7.1.2 Student Satisfaction
A six-level scale was used to assess satisfaction, with the following breakdown: “not satisfied at all” (M= 1-1.83),
“dissatisfied” (M= 1.84-2.66), “somewhat unsatisfied” (M= 2.67-3.49), “somewhat satisfied” (M= 3.5-4.32),
“satisfied” (M=4.33-5.15), and “totally satisfied” (M= 5.16-6). The mean values ranged from 5.01 to 5.31,
indicating that students generally ranged from “satisfied” to “totally satisfied” with their supervisor’s interpersonal
approach. They were “totally satisfied” with research topic selection (M = 5.31) and research methodology
decisions (M = 5.18), and they were “satisfied” with the remaining phases. The students were most satisfied with
research topic selection and least satisfied with the feedback provided (M = 5.01).
7.2 Question Two Results
A one-way ANOVA test was conducted to check whether there was a relationship between the supervisor’s
interpersonal approach and the graduate student’s satisfaction level. We then conducted a post hoc Tukey test to
observe which approach was related to higher satisfaction levels. The ANOVA showed that there was a statistically
significant relationship between the supervisor’s approach and the student’s satisfaction level, F (3.120) = 17.770,
p =.000 (See Table 2). Multiple comparisons showed that the collaborative approach was positively related to
students’ satisfaction, while the non-directive approach was negatively related to students’ satisfaction (Tables 2
and 3).
Table 2. ANOVA test of graduate students’ satisfaction levels with supervisors’ approaches
Sum of Squares df Mean Squared F Sig.
Between Groups 53.503 3 17.834 17.770 .000
Within Groups 120.432 120 1.004
Total 173.935 123
Table 3. Post Hoc Tests 6
Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: In general, how satisfied are you with your supervisor’s approach?
Tukey HSD
(I) (J) Mean Difference (I - J) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
Directive Control
Directive Informational -.47059 .36155 .564 -1.4126 .4714
Collaborative -1.11848* .27050 .000 -1.8232 -.4137
Non-Directive .52941 .32350 .362 -.3134 1.3723
Directive Informational
Directive Control .47059 .36155 .564 -.4714 1.4126
Collaborative -.64789 .29295 .126 -1.4111 .1154
Non-Directive 1.00000* .34250 .021 .1077 1.8923
Collaborative
Directive Control 1.11848* .27050 .000 .4137 1.8232
Directive Informational .64789 .29295 .126 -.1154 1.4111
Non-Directive 1.64789* .24445 .000 1.0110 2.2848
Non-Directive
Directive Control -.52941 .32350 .362 -1.3723 .3134
Directive Informational -1.00000* .34250 .021 -1.8923 -.1077
Collaborative -1.64789* .24445 .000 -2.2848 -1.0110
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

ies.ccsenet.org International Education Studies Vol. 12, No. 10; 2019
103
The Mann-Whitney U test results indicated that there is a significant difference based on gender (p = .019). Female
students (M = 67.61) believed that supervisors used the collaborative approach more than male students (M =
53.52). There was no significant difference between male and female students as both groups were satisfied. There
was no significant difference in the relationship between graduate student satisfaction and the supervisor’s
interpersonal approach according to the level of education and concentration.
7.3 Question Three Results
The quantitative and qualitative results are presented here to address question three. Table 4 illustrates the
statistically significant relationship, if any, between the supervisor’s interpersonal approach and the graduate
student’s satisfaction level, identifying which approach led to higher or lower students’ satisfaction for each
thesis/dissertation writing phase. The collaborative approach resulted in more students’ satisfaction in almost all
writing stages. The non-directive approach caused less satisfaction in almost all writing stages.
Table 4. Relationship between the supervisor’s interpersonal approach and the graduate student’s satisfaction level
Phase P More satisfied Less satisfied
Research topic selection .427 - -
Research problem formulation .001 Collaborative Directive control
Literature review framing .033 Collaborative Non-directive
Research methodology decision .000 Collaborative Non-directive
Providing feedback .000 Collaborative Non-directive
Writing the discussion chapter .000 Collaborative Non-directive
Overall approach .000 Collaborative Non-directive
The qualitative results indicate that students were generally satisfied. However, most students felt more satisfied
when they had discussions with and received directions from their supervisors at every phase. For example, one
student said, “After several meetings, we agreed on the topic... I was really satisfied.” Another student mentioned,
“He is a specialist, so he knew where the problem was, he explained the idea to me and then I added to it… and I
was satisfied with this.”
On the other hand, students were less satisfied when their supervisors gave them complete, uninterrupted freedom.
One student reported, “I had the complete freedom from my advisor to choose the topic... I wasn’t satisfied
completely with the way of my supervisor because I suffered too much to choose my topic.” Another student
added, “The discussion chapter was written by me without any guidance from the supervisor, I was led by previous
studies to write it… I was not satisfied.”
Thirteen of 16 participants believed that their supervisors used collaborative interpersonal approaches during their
thesis/dissertation writing process. Six students stated that their supervisors always used the collaborative
interpersonal approach, while three students reported that they used it in the later phases of the thesis/dissertation
writing process, as they moved from the directive interpersonal approach to the collaborative interpersonal
approach. On the other hand, four students stated that the supervisors had used it alongside the other three
interpersonal approaches. For example, one student said, “She was directive in the beginning, and then moved to
the discussion approach. I am very satisfied with her behavior.” Another student declared, “It was a combination of
all approaches with more of independent work from my side, and more of positive and supportive guidance from
my supervisor’s side, and the result was a great deal of learning.”
8. Discussion
The results indicate that most students believed that supervisors most often use collaborative interpersonal
approach and least often use directive informational approach, which might suggest either that students were aware
that they had equal power with their supervisors or that the students reported on the most-recent supervision
approach used. Previous studies conducted regionally at different universities showed that students held high
evaluations of their supervisors’ human relations (e.g., Abo-Daf, 2002; Alawi et al., 2008; Al-Sakraan, 2016),
which suggests that supervisors’ high human relations levels might also have contributed to students’ satisfaction
levels and approach evaluations and led them to conclude that they experienced collaborative interpersonal
approach. It remains true that students are more satisfied when they share power with supervisors in the
thesis/dissertation writing process. This confirms Acker et al.’s (1994) “negotiated order model” and Fernando and
Hulse-Killacky’s (2005) “attractive supervisory style” (i.e., a process based on negotiation, change, and supervisor
support). The question two results indicated that the collaborative approach increases student’s satisfaction;

ies.ccsenet.org International Education Studies Vol. 12, No. 10; 2019
104
therefore, it is important that supervisors acknowledge and trust their graduate students’ capabilities, ideas, and
decisions instead of implementing their own ideas. Presenting ideas, problem solving, and negotiating solutions
(Glickman et al., 2013) can be implemented to better this approach.
The results indicate that there was no significant difference in the relationship between graduate student
satisfaction and supervisor interpersonal approach according to education level or study area, which corroborates
previous findings (Shatnawi, 2006). However, the results indicate that there is a significant gender difference in
that female students (in comparison to male students) believed that their supervisors more often used the
collaborative approach. A potential explanation for this finding is that female students were more committed and
thus had more discussions and meetings with their supervisors, affecting their interpersonal approach perceptions.
The qualitative data suggested that there is a relationship between the supervisor’s interpersonal approach and
student satisfaction in that students are more satisfied as supervisors are more collaborative (i.e., the supervisor
listens, responds, is encouraging, negotiates, etc.). Conversely, students are less satisfied with the non-directive
supervision approach, which is indicative of how supervisors perceive students’ competency levels. These results
are supported by Ibrahim (2018), who found that supervisors employ directive control or directive informational
approaches due to their negative perceptions of the abilities of incoming graduate students. The current study also
found that students were less satisfied when their supervisors did not offer directions, which is supported by
Abdallah et al.’s (2010) argument that supervisors should offer guidance and support while also encouraging
student independence.
Many studies encourage supervisors to vary their approaches depending on individual student capabilities (e.g.,
Abdallah et al., 2010; Acker et al., 1994; Armstrong, 2004; Fernando & Hulse-Killacky, 2005; Lee, 2008;
McCallin & Nayar, 2012; Raven, 2008). Per Ibrahim (2018), limiting students with directions and defined choices
does not help them become independent scholars. Therefore, we iterate the idea that graduate students need
freedom in order to be successful scholars/practitioners.
This study focused on students’ satisfaction with their supervisors’ interpersonal approaches. However, it is
important to note that some students might be satisfied with the supervision approach used but dissatisfied with the
thesis/dissertation itself. It is important to note that different approaches are useful for different ends. For instance,
Fernando and Hulse-Killacky (2005) found that only the task-oriented style, which is similar to the directive
approach, was statistically significant in predicting students’ self-efficacy. Therefore, when the goal is to
efficiently finish the task and to promote self-efficacy, a directive approach is more suitable. A collaborative
approach is more useful when the concern is student satisfaction. Student satisfaction is important but should not
preclude the production of quality work. If a balance between the two objectives is reached, the chance that
students will “create long-term institutional advocates” (Johnson, 2016, p. 11) will increase.
9. Conclusion
We found that, to achieve the best supervision process, several supervision styles must be used. We recommend
that supervisors begin with the most satisfying approach, the collaborative approach, with experienced
students/researchers until they can discern which approach type best suits the student. With novice
students/researchers, supervisors might transition from the directive to the collaborative approach. It is also
important that students begin the process by communicating their needs, preferences, and abilities so that
supervisors can adapt their approaches accordingly. Ideally, supervisors should balance the three supervision
approaches, depending on students’ needs, abilities, and willingness. Supervisors should prepare to tailor their
approach to cater to a diverse student population. Students also should constantly keep their supervisors updated
on their needs, interests, preferences, and abilities. This will help them grow through the process.
9.1 Suggestions for Further Study
Existing studies have not identified a correlation between gender and students’ supervision evaluations (e.g.,
Abo-Daf, 2002; Alawi et al., 2008; Shatnawi, 2006). We therefore recommend that future research should further
investigate this correlation.
The scope of this study did not include age variables, which could be relevant. Some students do not proceed
directly from undergraduate to graduate studies and return to undertake a master’s or PhD after starting their career
or while working in their career. Further study is needed to determine whether age has some bearing on student
experience with supervisors.
References
Abdallah, F., Hillerinch, K., Romero, V., Topp, E., & Wnuk, K. (2010). Supervision of a Master’s Thesis:
Analysis and Guidelines. Project Reports-Genombrottet, LTH.

ies.ccsenet.org International Education Studies Vol. 12, No. 10; 2019
105
Abo-Daf, M. K. (2002). The evaluation of the university professor performance in the field of academic
supervision from the perspective of postgraduate students. Journal of Reading and knowledge, 17, 15-54.
Acker, S., Hill, T., & Black, E. (1994). Thesis supervision in the social sciences: Managed or negotiated? Higher
Education, 28(4), 483-498. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01383939
Aguinis, H., Nesler, M., Quigley, B., Suk-Jae-Lee, & Tedeschi, J. (1996). Power Bases of Faculty Supervisors
and Educational Outcomes for Graduate Students. The Journal of Higher Education, 67(3), 267-297.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2943845
Alawi, H. R., Jabr, A. F., & AboSamra, M. (2008). The views of students and graduates on whether supervision
of the Master Thesis in Education possess the supervisory skills at Palestinian universities. Journal of the
Association of Arab Universities for Research in Higher Education, 51, 485-526.
Al-Sakraan, A. F. (2016). Developmental vision of the role of the academic supervisor of theses, dissertations,
and complementary research of postgraduate students in departments of education at Al-Imam Muhammad
Ibn Saud Islamic University. Journal of Educational Sciences, 6, 15-71. https://doi.org/10.12816/0030297
Armstrong, S. J. (2004). The impact of supervisors’ cognitive styles on the quality of research supervision in
management education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(4), 599-616.
https://doi.org/10.1348/0007099042376436
Dde Kleijn, R. A., Mainhard, M. T., & Meijer, P. C. (2013). Master’s thesis projects: Student perceptions of
supervisor feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(8), 1012-1026.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.777690
De Kleijn, R. A., Mainhard, M. T., Meijer, P. C., Pilot, A., & Brekelmans, M. (2012). Master’s thesis supervision:
Relations between perceptions of the supervisor–student relationship, final grade, perceived supervisor
contribution to learning and student satisfaction. Studies in Higher Education, 37(8), 925-939.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.556717
De Kleijn, R. A., Meijer, P. C., Pilot, A., & Brekelmans, M. (2014). The relation between feedback perceptions
and the supervisor–student relationship in master’s thesis projects. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(4),
336-349. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2013.860109
Drennan, J., & Clarke, M. (2009). Coursework master’s programmes: The student’s experience of research and
research supervision. Studies in Higher Education, 34(5), 483-500.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070802597150
Elias, J. L., & Merriam, S. B. (1995). Philosophical foundations of adult education. Melbourne: Krieger
Publishing Co.
Erichsen, E. A., Bolliger, D. U., & Halupa, C. (2014). Student satisfaction with graduate supervision in doctoral
programs primarily delivered in distance education settings. Studies in Higher Education, 39(2), 321-338.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2012.709496
Fernando, D. M., & Hulse-Killacky, D. (2005). The relationship of supervisory styles to satisfaction with
supervision and the perceived self-efficacy of master’s-level counseling students. Counselor education and
supervision, 44(4), 293. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6978.2005.tb01757.x
Franke, A., & Arvidsson, B. (2011). Research supervisors’ different ways of experiencing supervision of doctoral
students. Studies in Higher Education, 36(1), 7-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070903402151
Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. W. (2011). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and
applications. New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.
Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2013). The basic guide to supervision and instructional
leadership (3rd ed.). Pearson Education, Inc.
Gosling, P., & Noordam, B. (2011). Mastering your PhD: survival and success in the doctoral years and beyond.
Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15847-6
Green, J. L. (2016). Improving graduate students’ satisfaction with academic advising (Doctoral dissertation).
Retrieved from Proquest database UMI number 1800286751.
Higher Education. (2017, April 16). Abu Dhabi Education Council (ADEC). Retrieved from
https://www.adec.ac.ae/en/education/highereducation/pages/default.aspx
Ho, J. C., Wong, P. T., & Wong, L. C. (2010). What helps and what hinders thesis completion: A critical incident

ies.ccsenet.org International Education Studies Vol. 12, No. 10; 2019
106
study. International Journal of Existential Psychology and Psychotherapy, 3(2), 117-131.
Ibrahim, A. (2018). Directive, collaborative, or non-directive? Thesis supervision approaches in the United Arab
Emirates. Issues in Educational Research, 28(3), 679-700. Retrieved from
http://www.iier.org.au/iier28/ibrahim.pdf
Ismail, A., Jui, M. K., Sham, F. M., Faqih, & Abdullah, N. (2015). Effect of mentoring program on mentees’
academic performance from an islamic Perspective. Islamiyyat, 37(1), 29-38.
https://doi.org/10.17576/islamiyyat-2015-3701-03
Johnson, W. B. (2016). On being a mentor: A guide for higher education faculty. New York: Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315669120
Kessinger, T. A. (2011). Efforts toward educational reform in the United States since 1958: A review of seven
major initiatives. American Educational History Journal, 38(1/2), 263.
Koirala, M. P. (2011). Existentialism in education. Academic voices: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 1, 39-44.
https://doi.org/10.3126/av.v1i0.5309
Lee, A. M. (2007). Developing effective supervisors: Concepts of research supervision. South African Journal of
Higher Education, 21(4), 680-693. https://doi.org/10.4314/sajhe.v21i4.25690
Lee, A. M. (2008). How are doctoral students supervised? Concepts of doctoral research supervision. Studies in
Higher Education, 33(3), 267-281. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070802049202
McAlpine, L., & McKinnon, M. (2013). Supervision–the most variable of variables: Student perspectives.
Studies in Continuing Education, 35(3), 265-280. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2012.746227
McCallin, A., & Nayar, S. (2012). Postgraduate research supervision: A critical review of current practice.
Teaching in Higher Education, 17(1), 63-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2011.590979
Parker-Jenkins, M. (2018). Mind the gap: developing the roles, expectations and boundaries in the doctoral
supervisor–supervisee relationship. Studies in Higher Education, 43(1), 57-71.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1153622
Raven, B. H. (2008). The bases of power and the power/interaction model of interpersonal influence. Analyses of
Social Issues and Public Policy, 8(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-2415.2008.00159.x
Shatnawi, N. M. (2006). Administrative problems that graduate students encounter in Umm Al-Qura University.
Journal of Education and Psychology, 18(2), 370-408.
Wengraf, T. (2001). Models of research design and their application to semi-structured depth interviewing.
Qualitative Research Interviewing. London: SAGE Publications.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849209717.n3
Wisker, G. (2012). The good supervisor (2nd ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-02423-7
Ylijoki, O. (2001). Master’s Thesis Writing from a Narrative Approach. Studies in Higher Education, 26(1),
21-34. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070020030698
Appendix A
Survey Questions
Dear Participant:
I aim to investigate the relationship between master’s and PhD graduates’ levels of satisfaction with their
supervision. You only need 10 to 15 minutes to complete the questionnaire. All the information provided will
remain confidential and anonymous. Please do not include your name or any other identifying information.
Completion and return of the questionnaire will indicate your willingness to participate in this study.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need clarifications or have any questions.
Thank you for your contribution.

ies.ccsenet.org International Education Studies Vol. 12, No. 10; 2019
107
Dalal Al Dosari,
Master’s Candidate
Mobile: 0502004227.
Email: 200719912@uaeu.ac.ae
Graduate students’ satisfaction with their supervisors’ approaches:
A study of one university in the UAE
Directions: Please check one choice for each of the following:
Section 1: Demographic data
Gender:
Male
Female
Level of education:
Master
DBA
PhD
Status:
Graduated (finished the
thesis/dissertation)
About to finish the
thesis/dissertation
College:
Food and Agriculture Business and Economics Law
Engineering Humanities and Social Sciences Science
Medicine and Health Information Technology Education
Section 2: Supervisory practices
Directions: Below are sets of four sentences. Check which statement best describes your thesis/dissertation
supervisor. If you worked with more than one supervisor, consider your latest supervisor only. You may choose
only one of the four options.
1: Selecting the research topic:
My supervisor directed me to a certain topic to study.
My supervisor gave me some ideas for topics and asked me to select one to study.
My supervisor and I discussed different topics and we decided together to study one.
My supervisor gave me complete freedom to select the topic.
How satisfied are you with the supervisor’s behavior in “selecting the research topic”?
Totally
satisfied
Satisfied Somewhat
satisfied
Somewhat
unsatisfied
Not satisfied Not satisfied at
all
6 5 4 3 2 1
2: Formulating the research problem:
My supervisor understood the problem in a certain way, and I had to follow his/her understanding.
My supervisor showed me different ways to frame the problem and I selected one.

ies.ccsenet.org International Education Studies Vol. 12, No. 10; 2019
108
My supervisor and I reached an agreement on how to formulate the problem.
My supervisor gave me complete freedom to frame the problem.
How satisfied are you with the supervisor’s behavior in “formulating the research problem”?
Totally
satisfied
Satisfied Somewhat
satisfied
Somewhat
unsatisfied
Not satisfied Not satisfied at
all
6 5 4 3 2 1
4: Deciding on the research methodology:
My supervisor preferred a certain methodology and I had to use it.
My supervisor told me about the different research methodologies and asked me to select one to use.
My supervisor and I reached an agreement on the research methodology.
My supervisor gave me the freedom to select the methodology of my study.
How satisfied are you with the supervisor’s behavior in “deciding on the research
methodology”?
Totally
satisfied
Satisfied Somewhat
satisfied
Somewhat
unsatisfied
Not satisfied Not satisfied at
all
6 5 4 3 2 1
5: Providing feedback:
My supervisor gave me direct feedback and I had to do as he/she directed.
My supervisor gave me a lot of feedback and I was allowed to select the ones I saw suitable.
My supervisor gave me enough freedom to discuss his/her feedback and we agreed on the things I
should change.
My supervisor did not give me direct feedback. I felt that I was the one who led the feedback
process and s/he was supportive of this attitude.
3: Framing the literature review:
My supervisor had a view on the literature and I had to cope with it.
My supervisor suggested different ways to frame the literature and I made my selection.
My supervisor and I discussed different ways to frame the literature and we decided together to
adopt one.
My supervisor gave me complete freedom to frame the literature as I understood it.
How satisfied are you with the supervisor’s behavior in “framing the literature”?
Totally
satisfied
Satisfied Somewhat
satisfied
Somewhat
unsatisfied
Not satisfied Not satisfied at
all
6 5 4 3 2 1

ies.ccsenet.org International Education Studies Vol. 12, No. 10; 2019
109
How satisfied are you with the supervisor’s behavior in “providing feedback”?
Totally
satisfied
Satisfied Somewhat
satisfied
Somewhat
unsatisfied
Not satisfied Not satisfied at
all
6 5 4 3 2 1
6: Writing the discussion chapter:
My supervisor directed me to produce the discussion chapter in a specific way and I had no choice
but to agree with his/her requirements.
My supervisor gave me some alternatives for writing the discussion chapter and I selected one to
follow.
My supervisor and I reached an agreement on the way of writing the discussion chapter and s/he
accepted some of my ideas.
My supervisor gave me complete freedom to write the discussion chapter as in my way.
How satisfied are you with the supervisor’s behavior in “writing the discussion chapter”?
Totally
satisfied
Satisfied Somewhat
satisfied
Somewhat
unsatisfied
Not satisfied Not satisfied at
all
6 5 4 3 2 1
7: Overall, during the writing of my thesis/dissertation, I believe:
My supervisor used the directive approach: giving me specific ideas and steps to follow.
My supervisor used the alternatives approach: giving me options and asking me to select from them.
My supervisor used the collaborative approach: giving me complete freedom to share my ideas and
we agreed together on what was to be done.
My supervisor used the non-directive approach: giving me complete freedom to write the
thesis/dissertation as I liked.
In general, how satisfied are you with your supervisor’s approach?
Totally
satisfied
Satisfied Somewhat
satisfied
Somewhat
unsatisfied
Not satisfied Not satisfied at
all
6 5 4 3 2 1
Please clarify any points from the above or add any comments on the way your supervisor worked
with you.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………
If you are willing to participate in an interview regarding the same topic, please provide your
email address (optional): …………………………………………………………

ies.ccsenet.org International Education Studies Vol. 12, No. 10; 2019
110
Appendix B
Semi-structured Interview Questions
Graduate students’ satisfaction with their supervisors’ approaches:
A study on one university in the UAE
(Semi-structured Interview)
Demographic data:
Gender:
Male
Female
Level of education:
Master
DBA
PhD
Status:
Graduated (finished the
thesis/dissertation)
About to finish the
thesis/dissertation
College:
Food and Agriculture Business and Economics Law
Engineering Humanities and Social Sciences Science
Medicine and Health Information Technology Education
Supervisory practices:
1 - How did you select your thesis topic?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Sub-questions:
Did your supervisor direct you to a certain topic? Or
Did your supervisor give you some ideas for topics and you selected one? Or
Did you discuss different topics with your supervisor and decide together to study one? Or
Are you the one who selected the topic alone? (Your supervisor gave you the complete freedom to do so.)
How satisfied are you with your supervisor’s behavior in “selecting the research topic”?
…………………………………………………………………………………………
2 - How did you formulate the research problem?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Sub-questions:
Did your supervisor direct you to a certain way of formulating the problem and you had to follow it? Or
Did your supervisor show you different ways of formulating the problem and you selected one way to write it?
Or
Did you reach an agreement with your supervisor on how to formulate the problem? Or
Did your supervisor give you the freedom to formulate the problem the way you wanted to?
How satisfied are you with your supervisor’s behavior in “formulating the research problem”?
…………………………………………………………………………………………
3 - How did you frame the literature review?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Sub-questions:

ies.ccsenet.org International Education Studies Vol. 12, No. 10; 2019
111
Did your supervisor have a view on the literature that you had to cope with? Or
Did your supervisor suggest different ways to frame the literature and you made your selection from among them?
Or
Did your supervisor and you discuss different ways to frame the literature and decide together to adopt one? Or
Did your supervisor give you complete freedom to frame the literature as you understood it?
How satisfied are you with your supervisor’s behavior in “framing the literature”?
…………………………………………………………………………………………
4 - How did you decide on the research methodology?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Sub-questions:
Did your supervisor prefer a certain methodology that you had to use? Or
Did your supervisor tell you about the different research methodologies and ask you to select one to use? Or
Did your supervisor and you arrive at an agreement on the research methodology? Or
Did your supervisor give you the freedom to select the methodology for your study?
How satisfied are you with your supervisor’s behavior in “deciding on the research methodology”?
…………………………………………………………………………………………
5 - How did your supervisor provide you with feedback?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Sub-questions:
Did your supervisor give you direct feedback and you had to do as he/she directed? Or
Did your supervisor give you multiple rounds of feedback that you were allowed to choose from, to select the
ones you saw suitable? Or
Did your supervisor give you enough freedom to discuss his/her feedback and you agreed on the things you
should change? Or
Are you the one who led the feedback process and your supervisor did not give you direct feedback?
How satisfied are you with your supervisor’s behavior in “providing feedback”?
…………………………………………………………………………………………
6 - How did you write the discussion chapter?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Sub-questions:
Did your supervisor direct you to produce the discussion chapter and you had to follow his directions? Or
Did your supervisor give you some alternatives for writing the discussion chapter and you selected one to follow
from among them? Or
Did your supervisor and you arrive at an agreement on the way of writing the discussion chapter? Or
Did your supervisor give you complete freedom to write the discussion chapter in your way?
How satisfied are you with your supervisor’s behavior in “writing the discussion chapter”?
…………………………………………………………………………………………
7 - Overall, during the writing of your thesis/dissertation, what approach did your supervisor use?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Sub-questions: Is it….?

ies.ccsenet.
Directive
Alternati
v
Collabor
a
be done.
Non-dire
c
In
g
enera
…………
Appendi
x
Research
org
approach: gi
v
v
es approach
:
a
tive approac
h
c
tive approac
h
l, how satisfi
e
……………
…
x
C
Ethics Appr
o
v
ing you spec
i
:
giving you o
p
h
: giving you
h
: giving you
c
e
d are
y
ou wi
t
…
……………
…
o
val
Internatio
n
i
fic ideas and
s
p
tions and ask
i
complete fre
e
c
omplete free
d
t
h
y
our super
v
…
……………
n
al Education St
u
112
s
teps to follo
w
ing you to sel
e
e
dom to share
d
om to write t
h
v
isor’s appro
a
……………
…
u
dies
w
.
e
ct from them.
your ideas an
d
h
e thesis/disse
a
ch?
…
……………
V
d
together dec
rtation as you
……
V
ol. 12, No. 10;
ide on what
w
like.
2019
w
as to

ies.ccsenet.
Cop
y
ri
g
h
t
Copyright
This is an
license (h
t
org
t
s
for this articl
e
open-access
a
t
tp://creativec
o
e
is retained b
y
a
rticle distrib
u
o
mmons.org/li
c
Internatio
n
y
the author(s)
u
ted under the
c
enses/by/4.0/
n
al Education St
u
113
, with first pu
b
terms and co
n
).
u
dies
b
lication right
s
n
ditions of th
e
V
s
granted to th
e
e
Creative Co
m
V
ol. 12, No. 10;
e
journal.
m
mons Attrib
2019
u
tion