Download
1 / 22
230 likes | 318 Vues
PhD Education Through Apprenticeship. 1,2(,3). 3. 3. Daniel Patel M. Eduard Gröller Stefan Bruckner Christian Michelsen Research, Bergen, Norway Department of Informatics, University of Bergen, Norway
E N D
PhD Education Through Apprenticeship 1,2(,3) 3 3 Daniel Patel M. Eduard Gröller Stefan Bruckner Christian Michelsen Research, Bergen, Norway Department of Informatics, University of Bergen, Norway Institute of Computer Graphics and Algorithms, Vienna University of Technology, Austria 1 2 3 2 3 1
Description of the PhD education in the visualization group at the Vienna University of Technology and thoughts around it Goals of a PhD education • Teach students how to perform independent research so they expand on current knowledge • Lower degrees typically is about teaching students current knowledge
Problem • For a student, the requirements and path to a PhD can be vague and blurred • For a supervisor • difficult to know how to guide students towards becoming an independent researcher • difficult to evaluate if one has succeeded under ways
Solution Four central mechanisms facilitate the student in meeting the PhD requirement in Vienna 1) To require an article-based PhD 2) To give the student freedom to choose research direction 3) To let students work in shared offices towards joint deadlines 4) To involve students in reviewing articles
1) Require an article-based PhD Publication criterion, in 3-4 years: • 3-4 articles as lead author in 6 predefined publication forums • Journals or conferences of international renown • Fewer articles at most highly acclaimed forums. (Vis, TVCG, Eurovis, Eurographics) 3+ publications indicates ability to produce research of international quality after completion of PhD study
Variations • Write article first, then find venue with best fit • might be no optimal fit, not deadline driven, no comparison • Deliver an unrefereed manuscript to a PhD committee • less certain outcome, evaluation more difficult to perform • education less feedback-oriented, no training from periodic reviews • Ok when • research directions with no well-established evaluation forums • thesis for different reasons must be evaluated as a whole (social or art sciences)
Advantages of article-based PhD • Limited selection of publication forums + strict annual submission deadlines => focuses goal • Each publication is an example of what to do • Reduces risk of having the originality of work nullified when others publish first • Give continual indications to student’s research capabilities
Phases in article writing • Developing idea within PhD topic • read articles, discuss, see co-PhD projects. Learning, Supervision, Unfocused • Solidify idea • programming, result creation. Make, Mature, Focused • Document idea • perhaps slow, deadline avoids procrastination.Less focused? • Submit paper • exhausted, Followed by period of low-intensity work • Receive review • supervisor support. Depressed, Consider giving up PhD • Address reviews
Two-step internal reviewing So that coherent and polished article is sent out to reviewers • make only chapters, headings, figures, screenshots • expand on 1. • hand in to supervisor who: • suggests rewritings • marks unclear sections • poses questions without criticizing • address feedback, meeting if unclear • hand to supervisor, minor review • if supervisor consent -> submit to external review
Co-authorship • Contributors in order of work, supervisor last • other groups have authors alphabetically • Collaborators • defining clear subtasks, delegating • getting large pieces of work done • difficulties and administrative overhead • skills in leadership and management • Requirements for being co-author • group leaders / department heads added irrespective of contribution • vancouver guidelines (1978), do not allow this • All authors must contribute to, understand and defend paper • Sudbø affair, co-authors investigated as accomplices
Summative vs Formative feedback • Summative • critique/quality of work, good/bad • can be interpreted as personal and criticizing • a reviewer on this paper: «..terrible use of figures in the paper» • a reviewer on a paper by colleague «..the work is a significant step backwards» • Formative • neutral/advice to reach goal • support (paper was rejected, lets see how we can address review comments) • article review comments by supervisor «what is this?», «why ..?», «this is unclear» • Article-based PhD reduces need for summative feedback • provided by anonymous reviewers and external PhD committee • critique is external, supervisor and the student collaborate for publication • productive working relationship
2) Give the student freedom to choose research direction Nondictating supervision • Does not dictate but gives advice • Requires student to choose (always offers more than 1 solution to student question) • Responsibility of student to make a choice • Student takes high-level decisions and responsibility, becomes independent thinker • Knowing that the research idea is ones own can create an inner drive • Holburn and Bligh [HB97], students become motivated when identifying own projects
Closely guided supervision Positive • When there exists clear low-level goals • When research is not doable by one person (medicine). Then a synchronizing (closely guided) supervisor might be required. • For students who plan to enter similar work environments found in certain industries (lab) • For students who do not work well independently • Experienced and detailed leadership -> fewer mistakes and dead-ends -> higher production of publications Negative • Student instructed in research, takes fewer high-level decisions • For research groups: not prepared to do independent research in case leader stops producing good ideas or leaves
Supervision types: • Supervisors who educate researchers that become enabled to independently create their own research • Supervisors who advance their own career by creating research, using researchers primarily as resources Appel and Bergenheim [AB05]: great variation whether supervisors consider main result of a PhD education as -the involved learning process (1) -the produced research work (2)
3) Let students work in shared offices towards joint deadlines Educational aspects • Few barriers to initiate contact=>cooperation, Exchange of ideas Note: fine balance between comfortable shared offices and large, overcrowded, noisy office landscapes • Curiosity/competition/collaboration=>give feedback on other students’ paper drafts • New students learn lab tools, article writing tools, subtle tricks of the trade (submission procedure, film clip compression, graphics drivers) Quickly changing (detail) knowledge outside scope of supervisor • Receive review results simultaneously. Reviews are shared. Educational value for students that have read few or no reviews before
3) Let students work in shared offices towards joint deadlines Social and motivational aspects • Students work towards same deadlines, group spirit arises making them work harder and longer • Social mingling and relaxing is incorporated (Good for foreign students, students lacking social network) • Students arrange acceptance/rejection parties • gives collective credit to success/comfort for failure • fellow rejects share disappointments and are motivated by the accepts
4) Involve students in reviewing articles Students aretaught to performreview Advantages • Getting early access to the latest research • Getting inspiration and ideas from fields one otherwise would not investigate • Learning to read articles from a different point of view (learn not to take novelty and accuracy for granted) • Becoming part of the international research environment • Paper writing skills improved (aware of common pitfalls and mistakes) • Eases the burden of the professor • Doing reviews makes students respect the reviewer effort and to not submit premature articles themselves
Master/Apprentice supervision Student is trained as an apprentice in a handiwork • The student is introduced to a workplace of a craft (the craft of doing research and writing articles) • The student learns this craft by working side-by-side (in shared offices) with more experienced craftsmen (senior PhD students) • Student observes and mimics while getting advice from the supervisor (the Master) and feedback (reviews) from the customers • Other types of student-supervisor relationships [BA88] : • Guru-Diciple (student listens to wisewords) • Teacher-Student (supevisorteaches) • Projectleader-Teamworker • Colleague – Colleague • Friend – Friend • Facilitator-Customer • [BA88] Brown&Atkins 1988 Effectiveteaching in highereducation. London: Routledge
Conclusions • Success is often measured as scientific productivity (publications and grants). Personal growth and satisfaction is equally important, but much more difficult to quantify. • Apprenticeship, as described in this paper, offers a model in which both factors are addressed. • Thank you for listening • Questions?
