Perspectives of University of Zambia Trainee Teachers on Research Proposal Supervision

Full text

Zambia Journal of Education Vol 5, Number 1, published 20th June 2018
37
Perspectives of University of Zambia Trainee Teachers on Research Proposal
Supervision
Mweemba, L., Banja, M.K., Ndhlovu, D., Ziwa , J.I., and Sachingongu, N.
Dr. Liberty Mweemba is (PhD) is an Environmental Scientist/Engineer and a Geographer with
more than 17 years experience at both national and International levels. He is a Senior Lecturer
and has been teaching at the University of Zambia since 2003. He has also taught at different
higher learning institutions in Zambia and abroad. He has taught at both undergraduate and
postgraduate levels and has supervised several Masters and Doctorial students. He also served as
a School Experience coordinator for several years in the School of Education. He has also taught
Quantitative and Qualitative Techniques in research. Lastly, Liberty Mweemba has published
articles in many high level international scientific journals as well as books and has also spoken at
numerous international conferences.
Dr. Madalitso Khulupirika Banja is a lecturer in Sociology of Education in the Department of
Educational Psychology, Sociology and Special Education, in the School of Education at the University
of Zambia. He holds an International Diploma in Project Management (Cambridge University), Bachelor
of Arts in Education and a Masters of Education (Sociology) both from the University of Zambia. He has
taught English Language and Literature in English at the Secondary School level, and also Sociology of
Education at the then Copperbelt Secondary Teacher’s College. Dr. Banja is author of ‘Faith of many
colours; A reflection on Pentecostal and charismatic challenges in Zambia’ published in 2009 and
Teachers as agents of Pupil Indiscipline (2013). His major interests are mentorship in education,
professionalism in teaching, pupil and teacher discipline, evaluation of educational systems and processes,
social stratification and research in education. Email: madalitso.banja@unza.zm
Dr. Daniel Ndhlovu is a senior lecturer in the Department of Educational Psychology, Sociology
and Special Education at the University of Zambia. He holds Doctoral, Master’s and Bachelor’s
degrees in Special Education from the University of Zambia. In addition, Dr. Ndhlovu holds a
Secondary Teachers Diploma in Commercial Subjects and a Diploma in Guidance, Counselling
and Placement both from the University of Zambia. He has vast experience in a teacher, counsellor
and lecturer at secondary school, college and university levels of education. Additionally, Dr.
Ndhlovu is a researcher, and consultant in special education, career guidance, counselling, early
childhood education, and HIV and AIDS related issues. His email address is:
Daniel.ndhlovu@unza.zm

Zambia Journal of Education Vol 5, Number 1, published 20th June 2018
38
Dr. Judith Ilubala-Ziwa is a holder of a PhD in Religious Studies from UNZA, a Master’s from
Leeds, and a Bachelor’s from UNZA. She is a lecturer in the Department of Religious at the UNZA
where her research interests include: religion and gender and religious education teaching methods.
Nkenda Sachingongu is a Lecturer in the Department of Gender Studies at the University of
Zambia. He is currently a Special Research Fellow; pursing a PhD in Gender Studies on the topic
Sexual and Reproductive Rights among Girls in Child Marriages in Kalomo and Nyimba Districts
of Zambia. Before joining the University of Zambia, he worked as a secondary school teacher and
later as a Research Analyst and Research Manager in a number of NGOs.
Abstract
The purpose of this research was to examine the experiences and challenges student teachers were
facing during research proposal writing supervision and the need for change in the existing
theories and models of research supervision. The idea was to explore common themes emerging
from lived experiences of University of Zambia student teachers’ perception of lectures’ research
proposal writing supervision. Research proposal writing is one of the main components for
students taking Special Education in the School of Education but developing a research proposal
is often an arduous task for a research student. The participants in the study were drawn from
student teachers on the teacher education programme at the University of Zambia. The results
from the study showed that student teachers had different perceptions about research proposal
supervision. These included lack of guidance from supervisors, unavailability of supervisors,
unfriendly supervisors, lack of consistency in the supervisors’ comments, delayed feedback for
submitted work, and lack of research materials. The study recommended that more time should be
allocated to proposal writing.
Key words: Research proposal, methods, teaching, professional, supervision.
Introduction
This report has six parts. The first summarises the purpose and objectives of the study. The second
presents a review of prior research on undergraduate research programmes and challenges students
face in writing the research proposal. The third part discusses the methodology used in the study.
In the fourth part we present the results which we discuss in the next part. In the final part we
present a conclusion based on the discussion and make appropriate suggestions regarding student
perspectives of research proposal writing in the School of Education.
The motivation for this paper arose out of the supervisory experiences of the authors who were all
actively involved in undergraduate supervision of research proposal writing. Undergraduate
students in the School of Education at the University of Zambia are required to conduct research

Zambia Journal of Education Vol 5, Number 1, published 20th June 2018
39
as part of the requirements for the award of the bachelor’s degree. This setup is similar to that
obtaining at other universities such as the Zimbabwe Open University where a research project is
a prerequisite for the completion of a degree programme in all the faculties in the university.
Developing research students as capable researchers is the focus of research supervision (Down,
Martin and Bricknell, 2005). It is through research proposal writing that students become exposed
to research. This research process commences with the drafting of a research proposal written
under the supervision of a supervisor. During the research process, each student is assigned a
supervisor, who is expected to provide professional guidance and support to the student for the
duration of the research process. This proposal writing takes place concurrently with theory
lectures on the entire research process which provides the theoretical background to students.
While different schools and departments may have their own specific proposal and research report
formats, in the School of Education the proposal consists of the introduction which is made up of
background to the study, statement of the problem/specific problem to be solved,
objectives/research questions, purpose of the study, significance of the study and operational
definition of terms. The proposal also consists of reviewing the relevant literature, and the
methodology which is made up of research design, target population, sampling procedure, sample,
data collection instruments, data collection procedure, data analysis and ethical considerations;
and the expected timeline and proposed budget for the study. Students are allowed the leeway to
identify and develop a research topic of their choice within the field of Special Education. These
topics nonetheless have to be approved by the supervisors who work with the students throughout
the duration of the proposal writing stage. By doing the project, students draw on experience and
knowledge gained from earlier foundational courses and demonstrate their ability to pull it all
together while creating or discovering something new. Research proposal writing gives students a
practical glimpse of what research work is all about.
The importance of a proposal in the research process is emphasized by Paul and Psych cited in
Manchishi et al. (2012: 127) who noted that:
one’s research is as good as one’s proposal and that an ill-prepared
proposal dooms the research project while one that has been well
designed promises success and good impression to the makers.
In order to write such a good proposal as envisaged above requires good preparation of the student
in the theory of the research process. This is the purpose of the research course whose importance
is highlighted by Manchishi et al. (2015: 136) who have stated:
There should be a very strong research course at undergraduate in
all the programmes so that the Educational Research Methodology and
Proposal Writing at master’s level should not be completely
strange to students. In other words, since most students enrolling for
masters lack background in research, the school should design research
courses to provide a strong research background which would be a
foundation for Educational Research Methodology and Proposal Writing.
Research supervision should stimulate the acquisition of knowledge. Successful supervision must
be measured not only by the completion rate of research students within a set timeline but also by
the success level of the entire research process. This raises the necessity for training institutions to

Zambia Journal of Education Vol 5, Number 1, published 20th June 2018
40
evaluate their programmes and have client feedback if they are to effectively and efficiently offer
relevant training.
This is important particularly considering that there has been a marked increase in the number of
students enrolled in research courses and a resultant increase in the number of supervisors who can
work effectively with the increased number of students. Without doubt, the ability to conduct one’s
own research and be able to interpret the research findings of others requires an understanding of
the entire research process. Knowledge of the research process helps a supervisor to examine
his/her professional practices and to reflect on them. This has become particularly more important
now than ever before because policy and practice decisions in education world over are becoming
increasingly research-driven. This increases the stakes in ensuring that students see the research
course not just as a means to an end but as an end in itself.
Research on undergraduate research in education is extremely limited. Kanyanga et al. (2011)
conducted a study to determine factors that affected completion of postgraduate research
programmes at the University of Zambia. Although involving postgraduate students as opposed to
undergraduate students, Kanyanga’s study, both in its methodology and its findings, directly
informs our own study and any policy implications we or others may draw from it. Further, Banja
(2013) conducted a study on the perceptions of doctoral students regarding the nature, structure
and administration of PhD programmes in the School of Education. However, there are no known
studies that have been conducted in Zambia targeting the views of undergraduate students on
research supervision. Elsewhere, Todd et al. (2006) and Rowley and Slack (2004) have likewise
pointed to the lack of material on undergraduate supervision. Similarly, Johnson (2011) has
reported that to date education research, in the area of dissertations, has been concerned with
diversity of issues relating to postgraduate research supervision. Since undergraduate dissertations
have become compulsory in education programmes, it is timely to investigate the role, experience
and impact of this element of undergraduate education (Johnson (2011).
Purpose of the study
The purpose of this study was to investigate in-depth perceptions of University of Zambia trainee teachers
on research proposal writing.
Significance of the study
This research fills a gap in our knowledge. This study might add to our current knowledge about
the student and staff experience of undergraduate research proposal writing. The findings of this
research might also assist in analysing the student-supervisor relationship and help improve the
supervision process by informing staff of students’ views. The findings can help inform the
practice of those acting as supervisors, thereby improving upon the quality of their supervision and
research teaching. It is hoped that the research on students’ perceptions of the research challenges
they face would contribute to policy formulation and evaluation of the current supervisory
practices in the Department of Educational Psychology, Sociology and Special Education in
particular and the School of Education in general.

Zambia Journal of Education Vol 5, Number 1, published 20th June 2018
41
Limitations of the study
The study was conducted with one class only in the School of Education, therefore care has to be
taken not to generalise from a study of undergraduates in one course only to the entire University.
In addition, the study collected the views of students only and the supervisors voice is missing
from the discussion.
Statement of the Problem
As potential consumers of research findings, the training that teachers receive in research is of crucial
importance. To our knowledge, there has not been any study to document the experiences of undergraduate
students during their training in research. It is against this background that the researchers were motivated
to investigate research students’ perceptions of research supervision. This study therefore, is aimed at
examining the experiences and views of student teachers of the training received in research theory and
practical proposal writing supervision in Special Education. The following were the objectives of the study:
1. To assess the perceptions of undergraduate students on the supervision of the Special Education
research course.
2. To establish the nature of challenges student teachers were facing in the Special Education research
course.
3. To examine the role of the supervisor in research proposal writing.
4. To collect data on the challenges that undergraduate students faced in writing their research
proposals.
Literature Review
This section of the article reviewed some of the current secondary research literature on
undergraduate research, with a focus on student’s evaluation of the supervising abilities of
supervisors and also the nature and extent of the interaction between students and their academic
supervisors.
Role of the Supervisor
The role of the supervisor is a key concern in the literature. Rowley and Slack (2004) acknowledge
that the supervision process is demanding but that supervisors play an important role in this process
in terms of supporting students. The supervisor’s role includes giving advice, and academic
guidance to students (Todd et al 2006).
Numerous studies (such as Latona and Browne, 2001; Piccinin, 2000; Seagram, Gould and
Pyke,1998; Dinham and Scott, 1999) cited in Kanyanga et al.(2011) have identified factors
affecting research degree completion. Smith (1995) cited in Kanyanga et al. (2011) stressed the
importance of the nature of supervisor-student relationships and pointed out that the relationship
becomes key as the student works through the research stage of his/her studies.
Challenges students face in writing Research Proposals
Different scholars (Kikula and Quorro, 2007; Kombo and Tromp, 2011; Kasonde-Ngandu, 2013)
have established that students faced a lot of challenges in developing their research proposals.
These challenges ranged from lack of clarity of the research problem, failure to analytically review
literature and providing a clear path on how the study is to be conducted, among others.

Zambia Journal of Education Vol 5, Number 1, published 20th June 2018
42
There are different categories of challenges that impacts on the way students carry out their
research projects. This paper discusses the tutor-related and student-related challenges. Research
scholars like Nyawaranda (2005), Shumba (2004) and Chabaya, Chiome and Chabaya (2009) and
Pearce (2005) cited in Mapolisa and Mafa (2006) highlight some of the challenges caused by
supervisors. These included too few meetings with students, lack of interest in students, lack of
interest in the students’ research topic, too little practical help given to students, delayed feedback
on submitted work, absence from work, lack of research experience, lack of relevant research skills
and knowledge such as in the area of statistics as observed by Thomas and Nelson (2001) and
Bogdan and Biklen (1992). The experiences of students at the Zimbabwe Open University revealed
that some of these tutors have varying research exposure and experiences. Among other competing
challenges, the supervision process at the Department of Education at the ZOU has contributed to
lowering the quality of the research product (Monalisa and Mafa, 2004).
In addition, Mottiar and Gorham (nd) have reported students highlighted challenges in identifying
a research question and a feeling of uncertainty about how to proceed in carrying out the research.
Research scholars such as Bell (2000), Pearce (2005), Sidhu (2001), Anderson, Day and
MacLaughlin (2006) and Aspland, Edwards, O’Leary and Ryan (1999) cited in Mapolisa and Mafa
(2006) have listed lack of time, lack of money, lack of library resources, lack of commitment and
motivation to do the research, lack of adequate theory in the area being researched on, students’
failure to meet regularly with their supervisor, and family problems or commitments as some of
the challenges in the supervision of research projects that emanate from students.
Methodology
This research was undertaken during the 2012/2013 academic year with third year students who
were pursuing the Bachelor of Special Education Degree Programme. This section describes the
research methodology used to collect the data on the perspectives of University of Zambia students
on research proposal supervision.
The study used both qualitative and quantitative methods. One hundred and twenty students
pursuing the BEd. (Special Education) research course completed the questionnaire. Students were
asked to evaluate their supervisors in terms of supervisory effectiveness, availability for
supervision and quality of supervision, among others. Since the study sought to have in-depth
understanding of the perceptions of students of research proposal supervision at the University of
Zambia, a case study design of students in EPS 301 research course was used. The intended use of
the design was consistent with that of Kombo and Tromp (2006) who pointed out that a case design
is used to describe a unit in detail. As a result, in-depth study of students’ perspectives about
research proposal supervision was conducted.
The population of the study was all the 160 students registered for the EPS 301 Research course.
The accessible sample was 120 students that registered for EPS 301 Research course. This number
consisted of 61 female and 59 male students. Because it provided equal chance to participants to
be chosen for the sample, simple random sampling procedure was used to select the sample.
A structured questionnaire was used to collect the data. This instrument enabled the researchers to
collect both quantitative and qualitative data from the respondents. Statistical Package for Social

Zambia Journal of Education Vol 5, Number 1, published 20th June 2018
43
Sciences (SPSS) was used to analyse quantitative data while thematic analysis was used to analyse
qualitative data.
Results and Discussion
Demographic characteristics of respondents
Of the 120 trainee teachers who participated in the research fifty-nine (49.2%) constituted male
respondents and 61 (50.8%) were females. The major portion of the respondents (70.1%) was
under 23 years old. About 23.4 percent of selected students were in the range 23-31 years, followed
by 5.2% in the range of 32-40 years old, and only 1.3 percent were 41 years old and above. Further,
2 (1.7%) of the respondents were non-school leavers, 42 (35.3%) were school leavers, and 75
(63.0%) were in-service.
Rating the quality of teaching in Research Course EPS 301
Respondents were asked to rate the quality of teaching the research course, EPS 301. The results are shown
in figure 1.
Figure 1: Rating of quality of teaching in EPS 301
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Very Good Good Poor Very Poor
15.8%
75.8%
6.7%
1.7%
Percent

Zambia Journal of Education Vol 5, Number 1, published 20th June 2018
44
The results show that the opinions of respondents were homogenous across all categories of socio-
demographic categories. Nineteen (15.8%) of the respondents rated the quality of teaching as very
good, 91 (75.8%) as good, 8 (6.7%) as poor and 2 (1.7%) as very poor. This is significant because
the students separated the teaching from the shortcomings associated with supervision. Students
bemoaned the lack of support from supervisors particularly in respect of the constructive feedback
acquired. Clearly, students had more positive views of the quality of teaching compared to the
quality of supervision. This point will be discussed in more detail later on.
Rating of supervisor’s guidance
Background to the study. Regarding respondents’ rating of their satisfaction with the interaction
and guidance by the supervisor with specific reference to the background of the study, 18 (15%)
rated it as poor, 33 (28%) rated it as fair, 32 (27%) rated it as good, 24 (20%) rated it as very good,
while 11 (9%) rated it excellent.
Development of research objectives. In terms of the satisfaction with the interaction and guidance
by the supervisor in developing research objectives, 9 (8%) of the respondents rated it as poor, 23
(19%) rated it as fair, 41 (34%) rated it as good, 35 (29%) rated it as very good, while 12 (10%)
felt it was excellent.
Literature Review. As far as respondents’ rating of their satisfaction with the interaction and
guidance by the supervisor in the area of literature review, 21 (18%) viewed it as poor, 27 (23%)
rated it as fair, 30 (25%) felt it was good, 29 (24%) rated it as very good, while 11 (9%) reported
that it was excellent.
Methodology. In the area of methodology, respondents’ rating of their satisfaction with the
interaction and guidance by the supervisor was as follows; 20 (17%) rated it as poor, 30 (25%)
rated it as fair, 36 (30%) rated it as good, 23 (19%) rated it as very good, while 10 (8%) rated it
excellent.
Findings indicate that the overall guidance of their supervisor relative to developing the
background of the study, developing study objectives, conducting a meaningful review of the
related literature and casting the study in a good methodology, ranged from poor to excellent. As
alluded to earlier, more respondents had less favourable opinions of the quality of supervision
compared to their perception of the quality of teaching. Only ten (12%) of the respondents rated
the quality of teaching as either poor or very poor while under supervision as many as 18(15%)
rated supervisors’ guidance on background to the study as poor, 9 (8%) rated supervisors’ guidance
on development of research objectives as poor, 21 (18%) rated supervisors’ guidance on literature
review as poor and 20 (17%) rated supervisors’ guidance on methodology as poor. In short, there
is a much higher number and percentage of student responses that are positive about the quality of
teaching compared to the quality of research supervision. This can be attributed to a number of
factors. Firstly, under supervision, a student was tied to a single supervisor as opposed to the
teaching which had several lecturers involved. The implication of this is that lecturers appeared to
attend to classes more consistently than supervisors attended to their students, thereby eliciting
more negative views in the eyes of the respondents.

Zambia Journal of Education Vol 5, Number 1, published 20th June 2018
45
Supervision Barriers for Respondents
Respondents were asked to give challenges they were experiencing in the existing arrangement of
research supervision. Table 1 shows the mean score response of barriers and challenges of the
respondents.
Table 1: Research Proposal Supervision Barriers for respondents
Females (N =
61)
Males (N =
29)
t-test
Barrier
Mean SD
Mean SD
t-value sig. 2-tailed
Lack of guidance from supervisor
Unavailability of supervisor
High cost of tying and printing drafts
Much work alongside proposal writing
Supervisor not friendly
No consistency in supervisor’s comments
Feedback not received on time
Lack of research materials
Lack of background information
Supervisor’s incompetence
Difficult to come up with research topic
3.43 0.99
3.87 0.99
2.96 0.81
3.48 1.90
3.31 0.93
3.25 1.90
3.09 0.99
3.66 1.15
3.01 0.87
2.79 0.99
2.97 0.83
3.39 1.12
3.53 1.01
2.89 1.17
3.20 1.10
3.11 1.17
2.79 1.01
2.83 1.11
3.38 1.06
2.67 0.99
2.81 1.02
2.47 1.12
6.36 0.000
9.03 0.000
10.9 0.000
7.84 0.000
3.17 0.003
3.11 0.020
5.22 0.000
3.19 0.001
2.99 0.002
4.11 0.000
3.01 0.000
As demonstrated in table 1, unavailability of the supervisor (M = 3.87, SD = 0.99) was the highest among
all the given reasons, especially among female graduates which indicates that females viewed unavailability
of supervisors the most research proposal writing barrier, followed by lack of research materials (M = 3.66,
SD = 1.15), too much work alongside proposal writing (M = 3.48, SD = 1.09), lack of guidance from
supervisor (M = 3.43, SD = 0.99), supervisor not friendly (M = 3.31, SD = 0.93), lack of consistency in
supervisor’s comments (M = 3.25, SD = 1.90), feedback from supervisor is not received in good time (M
= 3.09; SD = 0.99), lack of background information to the research course (M = 3.01; SD = 0.87), difficult
to come up with research topics (M = 2.97; SD = 0.83) cost of typing and printing drafts (M = 2.96; SD =
0.81) and supervisor’s incompetence in some research components (M = 2.79, SD = 0.99). Similarly, the
male respondents also gave unavailability of the supervisor the highest mean score of 3.53 (SD = 1.01) of
the research proposal writing barrier items advanced in the study. This indicates that males viewed
unavailability of supervisor the most research proposal writing barrier also, followed by lack of guidance
from supervisor (M = 3.39, SD = 1.12), lack of research materials (M = 3.38, SD = 1.06), too much work
alongside proposal writing (M = 3.20, SD = 1.10), supervisor not friendly (M = 3.11, SD = 1.17), cost of
typing and printing drafts (M = 2.89, SD = 1.17), feedback from supervisor is not received in good time

Zambia Journal of Education Vol 5, Number 1, published 20th June 2018
46
(M = 2.83; SD = 1.11), supervisor’s incompetence in some research components (M = 2.81; SD = 1.02),
lack of consistency in supervisor’s comments (M = 2.79; SD = 1.01), lack of background information to
the research course (M = 2.67; SD = 0.99) and difficult to come up with research topics (M = 2.47, SD =
1.12).
The results also show that female and male groups viewed unavailability of supervisors, lack of
guidance from supervisors, lack of research materials and too much work alongside proposal
writing as the most research proposal writing barriers. However, it is interesting to note that among
the research proposal writing barriers, the males had a slightly higher mean (M = 2.81) than the
females (M = 2.79) only on supervisor’s incompetence in some research components. For the rest
of the barrier items, the means for females were higher than that of the males. A sample t-test was
performed to compare the mean differences of each item between males and females for research
supervision barriers.
The results further show that the mean score of each of the barrier items from female respondents
was higher than that of the male respondents. All the mean differences for barrier items between
the female and male respondents were statistically significant at the level of p<0.001. Supervisors
not being friendly to students was significant at p<0.003, while lack of consistency in supervisor’s
comments was significant at p<0.020).
The supervision challenges reported by the research students in this study were consistent with
those identified by Thomas and Nelson (2001) and Bogdan and Biklen (1992). Further, if there is
a poor relationship between the supervisor and the student, the student was more likely to
negatively assess their supervisor. This demonstrates that students perceived significant drawbacks
due to ineffective supervision, particularly the unavailability of supervisors which as the data
shows, was the most significant barrier indicated by the respondents, both male and female.
Additionally, the unavailability of supervisors affected all aspects of supervision. For instance, too
much interference from a supervisor in a students’ work (personality) can act as a challenge for a
student wishing to express themselves and own the work they consider theirs. It is important that
the student is allowed to design their project, undertake the research and write it up without too
much interference from the supervisor (Armstrong (2012). This view by Armstrong cannot go
without comment. Not every student can be allowed to design their projects on their own. Some
students might need help because they possess low learner capacity to design good research
projects. Such students, if allowed to work on their own, might produce projects which fail to meet
the acceptable standards. There are important questions raised about power relations in student
research supervision (Kalogiannakis, 2002). In understanding this, it is important that we consider
the kind of power relations that exist in the classroom and during supervision. Relations between
students and supervisors are affected by such factors as age, gender and socio-economic
background. Therefore, we must acknowledge not only the different perspectives of teachers and
students, but their institutionally unequal positioning as students and supervisors (Saikkonen,
2002).
Staff expertise could be an important factor in student evaluation of their supervisors in particular
and the quality of supervision in general. Clearly, therefore, since supervisor’s knowledge levels
of research and their interpretation of their role differs, the level and quality of supervisor
interaction with students cannot be expected to be at the same level. Consequently, as the results

Zambia Journal of Education Vol 5, Number 1, published 20th June 2018
47
show, not all students will face the same barriers and challenges since their needs and stages of
development may be different.
Indeed, considering the increasing numbers of students to be supervised against the number of
qualified staff, we realise that some of the challenges students face might be attributed to academic
supervisors who are selected for convenience, rather than for their supervisory capabilities that are
supported by relevant qualifications. Furthermore, lecturers also differ in their personalities and
values, strengths and weaknesses. As earlier indicated these supervisors have different
personalities and knowledge basis; and so do the students. In the course of the supervision,
supervisors will be exposed to students of various capabilities. As a result while some faculty may
be invigorated by the challenges these students can offer, others will be depressed by these
students’ lack of ability (Centra, 1978). Clearly the student one supervises might have an impact
on the experiences of a supervisor. It becomes clear therefore, that supervision performance is a
function of a number of factors, as Hackman (1975) cited in Bogen (1978: 51) has argued:
What seems clear is that an assessment of faculty performance and its enhancement
cannot rely on simple analysis or on single effort. Research on complex
organization suggests that improving performance requires consideration of the
needs of the individual, the nature of the task to be done, acknowledgement of
organizational variables affecting performance, and recognition of the place that
environmental conditions, constraints, and incentives have in performance. An
understanding of performance requires an analysis of the interactive relationships
among these important variables.
This agrees with the views of Centra (1978, 31) who has noted that:
Students’ assessments can also assist in making administrative judgments about
lecturer effectiveness. Lecturer evaluation is, of course, especially sensitive and
difficult. … Since teaching is the major activity of most faculty members, measures
of teaching quality as well as measures of quantity such as teaching load must
certainly be considered in judging the performance of individual teachers or of a
department as a whole.
Relevance of research skills obtained from the research course
Regarding respondents’ rating of the relevance of the research skills that had been obtained in the
research course, out of the 120 respondents, 61 (50.8%) said it was very relevant, 46 (38.3%) said
it was relevant, 12(10.0%) said it was quite relevant with only 1 (0.8%) respondent indicating that
it was not relevant.
Since students were required to frame topics within their area of study (Special Education), it is
not surprising that 119 (99 %) of the respondents found the research skills obtained from the
research course relevant to them in one way or the other. This is consistent with the views of Bauer
& Bennett (2003) as cited in Shaw and Kennepohl (2013).
Respondents’ perceptions for improvements in the Teaching of EPS 301
Respondents were asked to suggest ways of improving the teaching in EPS 301 research course.
The results in Figure 2 show the participant suggestions to the improvements in the teaching of
EPS 301 research course.

Zambia Journal of Education Vol 5, Number 1, published 20th June 2018
48
Figure 2: Rating of improvements needed in teaching of EPS 301 research course
From the responses, it was clear that students hardly agreed on what was needed to improve the
teaching of EPS 301. The single most prominent finding was on the pace of teaching with 30 out
of the 120 singling it out for improvement. Regarding the pace of teaching, out of the 120
respondents, 30 suggested that lecturers should slow down the pace of teaching. This is hardly
surprising considering that students pursue the research in half the academic year and while
pursuing other courses. Time is definitely of the essence. So clearly undertaking a dissertation is
time consuming and influences students in both negative and positive ways. It is not surprising
therefore that even students who have an overall positive experience of completing the dissertation
do experience stress and are aware of the hard work that is necessary in order to complete.
Four (2.8 %) of the participants were for the idea of splitting the class into groups for better
teaching/learning results. This group of participants saw the value of group work. It can be an
effective method as it can enhance motivation and active learning among students. Though group
work requires careful preparation, it is one of the methods which develops critical thinking and
communication among learners. These four respondents also supported the idea of having more
time for proposal writing. Five (3.4 %) of the respondents suggested that the course should be
made more practical. Additionally, 5 (4.5 %) respondents stated that supervisors should be mentors
and not critics. Six (5.7 %) of the respondents observed that supervisors should be committed to
their work while 7 (6.2 %) suggested that improvements should be made on lecturer attendance to
class. With regard to the relationship between lecturers and supervisors, 10 (8.5 %) of the
respondents suggested that conflicting ideas between lecturers and supervisors should be resolved.
Furthermore, 11 (10.8 %) participants observed that learning/teaching materials should be made
available. This agrees with the findings of Peters (n.d.) who advances that in modern times a
necessary learning/teaching tool relevant to research supervision is the effective and efficient use
of technology. This can be achieved by research supervisors facilitating students’ access to
resources and guiding students to optimize the use of ICT resources, such as the latest data analysis

Zambia Journal of Education Vol 5, Number 1, published 20th June 2018
49
software and electronic database, to enhance the reliability and validity of their research. On the
other hand, 19 (15.3 %) of the participants suggested that there should be improvements on lesson
delivery by lecturers and that team teaching should be done away with. However, team teaching
can be of benefit to both the lecturer and the student. Team members can select teaching/learning
materials, organise field trips and design tests and final examinations for all students. Thus, a team
member benefits from the expertise of other members. Similarly, a student benefits from the
different co-ordinated teaching styles of lecturers involved in the team.
Conclusion
This study has provided a good insight into the experiences of students during research supervision. The
findings throw considerable light on how undergraduate students’ capacities to write research proposals are
negatively impacted by supervisor related challenges such as unavailability for supervision at the University
of Zambia with a particular focus on the Bachelor of Special Education programme. The study has shown
the need for extensive changes in the student-supervisor relationship at the University of Zambia. This is a
rich vein of research which can influence the way research courses are offered in all schools and
departments. From a supervisor’s point of view it is useful to have an understanding of the emotions
expressed by students regarding the supervision experience. Being aware of such concerns can influence
the way academic research supervisors interact with their students and strive to meet their needs. The
solution, it seems, does not lie in policy changes but administrative changes. Nonetheless, the onus lies on
supervisors to be competent in understanding and addressing issues presented by the diversity of learning
styles and backgrounds. Supervisors are therefore called upon to re-examine their attitudes, beliefs, and
assumptions that underlie their teaching and supervision and to think critically about their supervisory
practices so that both lecturers and supervisors can identify what is working and what needs to be improved.
Recommendations
In line with what has been discussed in this study, we make the following recommendations:
1. More time should be allocated to proposal writing.
2. Supervisors should be readily available to the learners and provide timely and more
constructive feedback.
3. Sufficient and adequate learning/teaching materials should be made available.
4. With regard to the pace of teaching, lecturers should slow down the pace of teaching so
that learners could effectively capture the taught/learned material.
References
Armstrong, C. (2012). Lecturing series; Supervising Undergraduate Dissertations.
http://www.jobs.ac.uk/careers-advice/working-in-higher-education.
Banja, M.K. (2015). ‘Student Perceptions on the Nature and Management of the School of Education PhD
Programmes at the University of Zambia’. Zambia Journal of Teacher Professional Growth 2 (2): 45-60.
Burnet, T.C.P. (2001). ‘The supervision of doctoral dissertations using a collaborative cohort
model’. Counsellor Education and Supervision 39 (1): 46-51.

Zambia Journal of Education Vol 5, Number 1, published 20th June 2018
50
Conrad, L., Perry, C., & Zubert-Skerritt, O. (1992). ‘Alternatives to traditional postgraduate
supervision in the social sciences. In O. Zubert-Skerritt, (Ed.), Starting Research - Supervision and
Training. Brisbane: The Tertiary Education Institute.
Down, C. M., Martin, E. & Bricknell, L. (2005). Student focused postgraduate supervision: A
mentoring approach to supervising postgraduate students. Melbourne: RMIT University.
Duffy, J. (2000). ‘Knowledge management: To be or not to be?’ Information Management Journal,
34 (1): 64-67.
Evans, T. & Pearson, M. (1999). ‘Off-campus doctoral research and study in Australia: Emerging
issues and practice’. In A. Holbrook & S. Johnston. (Eds.). Supervision of Postgraduate Research
in Education .Victoria: AARE.
Mottiar, Z. and Gorham, G. (2009). ‘The Undergraduate Dissertation: Student and Staff
Perceptions.’ Paper presented at Tourism and Hospitality Research in Ireland Conference,
Shannon. 16-17 June, 2010.
Jenkins, A., Blackman, T., Lindsay, R., and Paton-Saltzberg, R. Teaching and research: Student
perspectives and policy implications. Studies in Higher Education.
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cshe20. Accessed 25/11/2012.
Kalogiannakis, M. (2002). ‘Multimedia and new power relations in the classroom: the new role of
teachers.’ Paper presented at the Fourth International Conference on…’ June 29- July 2. Tampere:
University of Jyväskylä.
Laske, S. & Zubert-skerritt, O. (1996). Frameworks for postgraduate research and supervision.
Lismore: Southern Cross University Press.
Manchishi, P.C., Ndhlovu, D. & Mwanza, D.S. (2015). ‘Common Mistakes Committed and
Challenges Faced in Research Proposal Writing by University of Zambia Postgraduate Students’.
International Journal of Humanities Social Sciences and Education 2 (3): 126-138.
Mapolisa, T. and Mafa, O. (2006). ‘Challenges being experienced by undergraduate students in
conducting research in open and distance learning’. International Journal of Asian Social Science
2(10): 1672-1684.
Rowley, J. (2000). ‘Is higher education ready for knowledge management?’. The International
Journal of Education Management. 14 (70): 325-333.
Saikkonen, T. (2002). ‘Dialogue in the art class?’ Paper presented at the Fourth International
Conference on… June 29 - July 2. Tampere: University of Jyväskylä

Zambia Journal of Education Vol 5, Number 1, published 20th June 2018
51
Shaw, L. and Kennepohl, D. (2013). ‘Student and Faculty Outcomes of Undergraduate
Science Research Projects by Geographically Dispersed Students’. International review of
Research in Open and Distributed Learning 14 (5): 69-81.