Content uploaded by Wissal Belhaj Rhouma
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Wissal Belhaj Rhouma on Jun 13, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Research on Humanities and Social Sciences www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5766 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0484 (Online)
Vol.14, No.4, 2024
24
PhD Journey: The Interplay between Learner Autonomy and
Modes of Supervision
Wissal Belhaj Rhouma (Corresponding author)
0000-0001-5701-8162
Faculty of Letters, Arts, and Humanities of Manouba, University of Manouba
E-mail: bhr.wissal@gmail.com
Abstract
Autonomous learning has been the ultimate goal of education for over four decades and it is more so for doctoral
students. However, the expectations and actual practices of both the supervisor and the supervisee may be
conflicting. The degree of learner autonomy among doctoral students is an important aspect to examine
especially with the varying supervision modes across the disciplines within the cultural context. This study
investigates the relationship between learner autonomy and the modes of supervision. It also explores the
expectations of doctoral students towards their PhD journey. Data were collected with two questionnaires: (1) the
Autonomous Learning Scale (Macaskill & Taylor, 2010) and (2) the Quality in PhD Processes Questionnaire
(Herrmann & Wichmann-Hansen, 2017). Participants were 152 Tunisian doctoral students from different fields
of study. The results showed that learner autonomy positively correlates with the advising supervision mode and
negatively correlates with the controlling modes. Overall satisfaction of the progress of the PhD was the most
significant indicator of the Autonomous Learning Scale. The findings imply the necessity of supervisors to adjust
and establish a balance between support and control so that doctoral students take ownership of the doctoral
journey to autonomy.
Keywords: Learner autonomy, doctoral students, supervision, culture, advising supervision
DOI: 10.7176/RHSS/14-4-03
Publication date: May 30th 2024
1. Introduction
Acquiring learner autonomy has been the one ultimate goal of education for over four decades. However, there is
little agreement in the literature on what is autonomous learning. Some view it as the ability to be entirely
independent in all the different stages of learning from defining the objectives, choosing the content, selecting
the method, monitoring the procedure, to evaluating the learning experience (Betts, 2004; Holec, 1981, Ly, 2018).
Others perceive it as control with decision-making, critical thinking, and without the rejection of the presence of
a teacher or any kind of support (Benson, 2016; Little, 1995). Therefore, the degree of autonomous learning for
doctoral students is expected to be higher because of their educational background. However, the variation
depends on their educational system, cultural norms, and prior experience towards learning (Cotterall, 1995b,
2017; Lamichhane, 2017). This study examines learner autonomy among doctoral students enrolled at Tunisian
universities and if it is modulated by the student supervisor relationship. The actual role of the supervisor and
what the doctoral student expects are sometimes cause of confusion and can be traced back to low degrees or
absence altogether of learner autonomy.
The importance of the supervision and its quality has been associated directly with completion rates (Haksever &
Manisali, 2000). For students to finish their dissertations within the stipulated time, understanding the role of the
supervisor in this journey is crucial. There is little consensus in the literature on the role of the supervisor.
Haksever and Manisali (2000) divided supervision roles into three elements: (1) personal help, (2) indirect
research-related help, and (3) direct research-related help. Personal help is about providing a support system with
encouragement, motivation, and socializing. Indirect research-related help implies helping with contacts and
equipment. Direct research-related help refers to helping with the actual work such as dealing with
methodological problems, providing a critical analysis of the work and its trajectory. The results from this study
showed that direct research-related help has the biggest discrepancy between expectations and current practices
(Haksever & Manisali, 2000).
Mhunpiew (2013) asserted that there are five roles that the supervisor needs to fulfil for the success of the thesis
Research on Humanities and Social Sciences www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5766 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0484 (Online)
Vol.14, No.4, 2024
25
or dissertation: (1) specific technical support, (2) broader intellectual support, (3) administrative support, (4)
management, and (5) personal support. He also investigated the current practices of the supervisor in contrast
with the expectations of the role of the supervisor. Although the expectations of the role of the supervisor
included current practices (guidance on the structure of the dissertation, establishment of rapport, and the
agreement of having a common goal), it included 12 other roles that were not current practices such as training
the student to present and defend and listening to the student problems. This mismatch between the roles as
perceived by the student and the supervisor create an unbalance in the course of the project. It results in students’
disappointment and dissatisfaction that might in turn lead to dropout (Litalien & Guay, 2015).
Barnard and Shultz (2020) examined how supervisors encourage their students to become more autonomous in
the first year of the supervision. Results showed that supervisors intentionally abstained from helping the
students in certain situations, talked about their own experiences as encouragement, and gave direct feedback
with reflective questions, or asked their students to take part in a research group.
Wichmann-Hansen and Schmidt Nielsen (2023) investigated the relationship between student autonomy and
directive supervision among 1.243 doctoral students at a research-intensive Danish University. Directive
supervision is plainly defined as placed along a continuum: the controlling supervision mode on one extreme and
the advising supervision mode on the other extreme. The results showed that learner autonomy positively
correlates with the advising supervision mode and negatively correlates with the controlling supervision mode.
2. Methods
2.1 Participants and procedure
The participants were 152 Tunisian doctoral students or recently graduated doctors (92 women and 59 men).
Eighty-eight participants came from a variety of hard science specialties (chemistry, physics, mathematics,
demography, and IT) and 63 participants came from social sciences (Public law, private law and criminology,
political sciences, Islamic economics and finance, history, philosophy, linguistics, psychology, sociology, French
literature). The participants were preselected from the database of the Tunisian ministry of higher education and
scientific research concerned with doctoral enrolment system (theses.tn). The doctoral students enrolled or
recently graduated in the earlier mentioned specialties received an email introducing the researcher affiliation,
the questionnaire and its duration, and a guarantee for anonymity.
The volunteer sampling technique was used because the participants volunteered to answer to the link in their
email and they were able to exit the online questionnaire at any moment. The participants enrolled before 2016
were excluded from this study because the database does not automatically remove the dropout. All the
participants were sent the two questionnaires in one online form via email. The same content was sent to all the
participants, which included a small introduction of the researcher, a brief introduction to the questionnaire, its
approximate duration, and the link of the questionnaire.
2.2 Setting
Doctoral cycle is Tunisia is part of LMD system that introduced in 2006. Doctoral degree is obtained relies
mainly on the PhD doctoral requirement. Seventy percent of the score is obtained through the doctoral
dissertation. The remaining 30% is composed of enrolment in methodology and writing workshop courses, the
publication of articles, carrying out an exchange program or internship, participation in conferences, organization
of study days or international conferences. The doctoral student is expected to finish the doctoral thesis after
three years or extended to a maximum of two more years.
2.3 Materials
Two questionnaires were used in this study: (1) the Autonomous Learning Scale and (2) the Quality in PhD
Processes Questionnaire. The two questionnaires were translated from English into French and were later
independently checked by two teachers of French. The Autonomous Learning Scale was adopted from Macaskill
and Taylor (2010). It is a brief measure of learner autonomy targeted at university students. The 12 items-scale is
primarily concerned about the independence of learning and study habits. The participants are required to rate on
a 5-point Likert scale from 1 as “very unlike me” to 5 as “very like me” the 12 statements. In this study, the
alpha coefficients for this scale is .736.
The second questionnaire, the Quality in PhD Processes Questionnaire, is adapted from Herrmann and
Wichmann-Hansen (2017). The included items can be divided into three subscales. The first one is concerned
with five basic information (sex, year of enrolment, degree of progress, scientific branch, and specialty). The
Research on Humanities and Social Sciences www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5766 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0484 (Online)
Vol.14, No.4, 2024
26
second one is concerned with supervision and contains ten items to which the participants rate from 1 as
“strongly disagree” to 5 as “strongly agree” on a 5-point Likert scale. The third subscale is concerned with
overall satisfaction. The participants are required to rate on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 as “never” to 5 as
“always” for two items and then directly respond by “yes”, “no”, or “I don’t know” to two final questions.
3. Results
3.1 Sex
A Pearson correlation was calculated to examine the relationship between sex and the Autonomous Learning
Scale and found no correlation, r (150) = -.040, p > .05. The sex of the participants is not related to their learning
autonomy. The results are in line with the Gender Similarities Hypothesis that argue that males and females are
similar on most, but not all, psychological variables (Hyde, 2005). She claims that sex differences are
overemphasized in such a way that the differences between sexes are small in comparison with differences
within the same sex and she emphasized the significance of the context in creating or removing sex differences.
3.2 Year of enrolment
A Pearson correlation was calculated to examine the relationship between the year of enrolment and the
Autonomous Learning Scale and found no significant correlation, r (150) =.105, p > .05. Figure 1, below,
demonstrates that the participants report their learner autonomy the highest in the first year of enrolment and
after PhD graduation. As demonstrated in Figure 1, a decline is reported in the second and third year and an
increase in the fourth and fifth year. The obtained results entail that inaccurate perception of autonomy in the
first-year result in a decline and an increase after graduation.
Figure 1. The autonomous Learning Scales across the years of PhD journey
3.3 Stages of progress
A Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated for the relationship between stages of progress and the
autonomous learning scale. A strong positive correlation was found, r (150) = .302, p < .001, indicating a strong
linear relationship between the two variables. The more advanced the participants are in their PhD project, the
more autonomy they gain. Linear Regression indicated that the stage of progress, which is the progress of
students in their PhD thesis project, predict their Autonomous Learning Scale, F (1.150) = 15.06, p = .000. The
stage of progress accounts for 8% of the variance of the Autonomous Learning Scale as indicated by the adjusted
R2.
3.4 Science branch
Science branch referred to two main branches: Hard science and soft science. Fifty eight percent of the
participants come from hard science while 42% come from soft science. The science branch of the participants
does not correlate with the Autonomous Learning Scale, r (150) = - .144, p > .05.
3.5 Specialty
The specialties of the participants were diverse, as illustrated in Table 1, below. The specialty of the participants
does not correlate with the Autonomous Leaning Scale, r (150) = -.136, p > .05. There is no empirical evidence
on the relationship between learning autonomy and specialty.
Research on Humanities and Social Sciences www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5766 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0484 (Online)
Vol.14, No.4, 2024
27
Table 1. Specialty of participants
Specialty Frequency Percent Specialty Frequency Percent
Chemistry 14 9.2 Philosophy 6 3.9
Biology 2 1.3 Economics 2 1.3
IT 25 16.4 Psychology 4 2.6
Mathematics 16 10.5 Sociology 11 7.2
Physics 29 19.1 Criminology 1 .7
Demography 3 2.0 Legal science 2 1.3
History 5 3.3 Political science 4 2.6
Linguistics 12 7.9 Others 16 10.5
Total 152 100
3.6 Supervision modes
The majority of the participants (n= 63, 41%) strongly agreed that the supervisor is available when needed. The
Pearson correlation indicated that the availability of the supervisor is positively correlated with the Autonomous
Learning Scale, r (150) = .224, **p < .01. It predicts the autonomy scale of the participants, F (1.150) = 7.88, **p
<.01, as It is responsible for 4% of the variance. Participants who had available supervisors reported more
autonomy than those who had unavailable ones. Thus, availability of the supervisor is an important element in
the making of an autonomous learner.
The Autonomous Learning Scale positively correlates with the supervisor’s friendliness and accommodation,
using the Pearson correlation coefficient, r (150) = .209, p < .01. The vast majority of the participants strongly
agreed (n = 76, 50%) or agreed (n = 41, 27%) that their supervisor is friendly and accommodating. The
perception of the supervisor as friendly and accommodating predicts the autonomous learning scale of the
participants, F (1.50) = 6.84, p < .01, as it is responsible for 3% of the variation. The participants who perceive
their supervisor as very friendly and accommodating are more autonomous than those who perceive them as less
or otherwise.
More than half of the participants strongly agreed (n = 58, 38.2 %) or agreed (n = 48, 31.60 %) that their
supervisors leave the control of the project to them. However, no significant correlation was found, r (150)
= .098, p > .05.
Seventy-eight per cent of the participants agreed (n = 51, 33.60%) or strongly agreed (n = 68, 44.70%) that their
supervisors encourage them to work independently. No significant correlation was found in that regard with the
autonomous learning scale, r (150) = .104, p > .05.
The largest group of participants (n = 48, 31.60%) were unsure whether their supervisors set the agenda for
supervision. No significant correlation was found with the autonomous learning scale, r (150 ) = .140, p > .05.
However, the participants significantly differently in their learning autonomy scales between those who agreed
and those who neither agreed nor disagreed that their supervisors often set the agenda for the supervision, using
the independent samples t test (t (76) = 3.58, p < .001).
The Autonomous Learning Scale negatively correlates with supervisors’ rarely giving advice on the best thing to
do, r (150) = -.168, p < .05, using the Pearson correlation coefficient. The more often the supervisor gives advice
to his/her students on how to do things, the higher their autonomous learning scale to be. The frequency of
giving advice from the part of the supervisor is a predictor of the Autonomous Learning Scale, F (1.150) = 4.36,
p < .05. It predicts 2% variation.
Seventy-five percent of the participants (n = 114) strongly agreed that their relationship between their
supervisors and them is characterized by mutual respect. The student-supervisor mutual respect relationship
positively correlates with The Autonomous learning Scale, r (150) = .189, p < .05. The mutual respect
relationship is a strong predictor of the Autonomous Learning Scale, F (1.150) = 5.56, p < .05, with 2% of the
variation.
Forty percent of the participants agreed (n = 28, 18.40%) or strongly agreed (n = 33, 21.70%) that they prefer to
Research on Humanities and Social Sciences www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5766 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0484 (Online)
Vol.14, No.4, 2024
28
have a supervisor telling them what to do. Preferring one’s supervisor telling the student what to do negatively
correlated with the Autonomous Learning Scale, r (150) = -.240, p < .01. It also predicted the Autonomous
Learning Scale, F (1.150) = 9.155, p < .01. Therefore, having the room to make important decisions about one’s
project predicts 5% of the variation of the Autonomous Learning Scale, as indicated by the adjusted R2. It is
worth mentioning that the negative correlation refers to not preferring the supervisor telling the students what to
do is the inclination found in this study.
More than half of the participants agreed (n = 51, 33.60%) or strongly agreed (n = 39, 25.70%) that they usually
have a clear goal of what they want to get out of the supervision. This statement does not mean that the
supervisor and the student have the same definition of their roles. The goal clarity of students on what they want
to get out of the supervision correlates positively with the Autonomous Learning Scale, r (150) = .161, p < .05.
The clarity of the goal of the supervision by the doctoral students predicts the Autonomous Learning Scale, F
(1.150) = 3.99, p < .05. The variance of predictability, as indicated by the Adjusted R Square is quite low as it
accounts for 1% of the variance.
Sixty-four percent of the participants agreed (n= 49, 32.20%) or strongly agreed (n= 49, 32.20%) that it is
important that they are the ones to make all the critical choices in their PhD project. The importance of making
all the critical choices by the student correlates positively with the Autonomous Learning Scale, r(150)= .381, p
< .01. It also predicts the Autonomous Learning Scale, F(1.150) = 25.42, p < .001, using the linear regression
test. Making all the critical choices in their PhD project predicts 13% variation of the Autonomous Learning
Scale, the highest predictor in this study. Having a say in their project is an essential element that goes hand in
hand with learner autonomy. It is about being in charge of their own project and being able to take the important
decisions.
Thirty percent of the participants reported that they sometimes feel that they act alone and lack the necessary
feedback to make progress. Feeling alone and lacking the necessary feedback negatively correlated with the
Autonomous Learning Scale, r (150) = -.200, p < .05. The participants who feel the most alone are the ones who
have less learning autonomy and vice versa. Therefore, not feeling alone and having the necessary feedback is a
predictor of the Autonomous Learning Scale, F (1.150) = 6.26, p < .05, with 3% of the variation.
3.7 Severe stress levels
More than half of the participants reported that they usually (n = 38, 25%) or always (n = 51, 33.60%) felt severe
symptoms of stress because of the PhD. However, no significant correlation was found between stress symptoms
and the autonomous learning scale, r (150) = -.040, p > .50. However, sex was negatively correlated with
frequency of experiencing severe stress symptoms, r (150) = -. 210, p > .050. An independent-samples t test
calculated the differences between male and female frequency of experiencing severe stress symptoms and found
significant differences (t (150) = 2.62, p < .050). The results showed that female participants experienced
significantly more severe stress symptoms than their male counterparts (m = 3.76, sd = 1.34; m = 3.17, sd =
1.37).
These results are supported by earlier studies which showed that females are under more stress symptoms than
their male counterparts for various reasons because of the conflict engendered of their role in society (Kralj,
1989; Trocki & Orioli, 1994). The conflict refers to the impossibility of women being able to fulfil what is
expected of them from the society, namely care givers, in charge of the household, academia, and their jobs. It is
possible to deduce that gender roles put a lot of responsibilities on women in Tunisia to excel at every aspect.
3.8 Completion time
Forty-five percent of the participants reported that they can realistically finish within the stipulated time (n = 69).
Twenty percent (n = 31) reported that they cannot and 34.20% (n =52) were not sure. Their estimation of
completion within the stipulated time correlated negatively with the Autonomous Learning Scale, r (150) = -.196,
p < .05, using the Pearson correlation coefficients. It also is a predictor of the autonomous learning Scale, F
(1.150) = 5.98, p < .05, which is yielded via the linear regression test. It is responsible for 3% of variation, as
indicated by the adjusted R2.
3.9 Overall satisfaction
Forty-eight percent of the participants admitted they were not happy with the progress of their PhD project (n=
73) while 42.80% (n= 65) reported they were happy with the progress of their PhD project. The participants who
were satisfied with their progress were more autonomous than those who were not (m= 46.11, sd= 5.65; m=
40.78, sd = 5.35). The Pearson correlation yielded negative significant results, r (150) = -.363, p < .001. The
degree of happiness about the progress of the PhD project is a predictor of the Autonomous Learning Scale, F
Research on Humanities and Social Sciences www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5766 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0484 (Online)
Vol.14, No.4, 2024
29
(1.150) = 22.70, p < .001. Overall satisfaction of the progress of the PhD accounts for 12% of the variance of the
Autonomous Learning Scale, as indicated by the adjusted R2., the second highest found predictor in this study.
4. General Discussion
The results showed that autonomous learning is strongly related to the PhD journey experience. The mode of
supervision, advising or controlling, influenced significantly the attained degree of the autonomy among
Tunisian doctoral students. The results revealed the absence of relationship between the Autonomous Learning
Scale and only two items of the Quality in PhD Processes Questionnaire. The items are “My supervisor leaves
the control of the project to me” and “My supervisor encourages me to work independently”. This could be
explained by the fact that doctoral autonomous students reported that they needed the availability of the
supervisor while at the same time they preferred that the latter does not interfere with the important decision in
the project. They also admitted that they did not want to feel alone and they did not want to have the supervisor
tell them what to do. In other words, doctoral students need their supervisor to be present when needed for
advice or feedback while they are doing the work. Doctoral students preferred to work in an environment of
advising supervision mode and not in a controlling supervision mode. These results are in line with Wichmann-
Hansen and Schmidt Nielsen (2023) whose results showed that learner autonomy positively affects the advising
supervision mode and negatively affects the controlling supervision mode. It can be deduced that advising
supervision mode advantages promotes more the quality of PhD supervision and learner autonomy than
controlling supervision mode advantages.
These results are in line with Mhunpiew (2013) who discussed the realistic five roles of the supervisor as
specific technical support, broader intellectual support, administrative support, management, and personal
support. Tunisian doctoral students from different specialties reported that they are the ones making all the
crucial decisions not their supervisors. It is however inconsistent with Haksever and Manisali (2000) who found
irregularities between expectations and current practices in the direct research-related help. This can be
explained by the fact that they worked on engineering students while this study incorporated doctoral students
regardless of specialty or age. Finally, making sure that the doctoral students are the ones in control of their PhD
project and not their supervisor is vital for the successful completion of the project within the stipulated time in
the Tunisian context.
5. Conclusion
Statistics in Tunisia on completion rates of enrolled doctoral students could have added insights. Future research
should address this line to explore the reasons and provide solutions to fill the gap. A dialogue-based-supervision,
where the student is given control of the process and is encouraged to become fully autonomous without the
exclusion of the supervisor, is essential for a successful collaborative production. Finding the balance in
monitoring the supervisor supervisee relationship requires a constant effort from both sides (Wichmann-Hansen
et al., 2012). Debunking of the expectations that they each have for one another is a key element in setting the
record straight from the beginning (Wichmann-Hansen, 2021). Collective supervision is considered a motivating
experience because it creates a group and therefore helps avoid or lessen the isolating effect of the PhD journey
(Agné & Mörkenstam, 2018). It is also recommended that the supervisor makes it clear from the start that the
PhD journey does not merely end with the obtention of the diploma but also with the development and expansion
of autonomous learning (Barnard and Shultz, 2020).
References
Agné, H., & U.Mörkenstam, 2018. “Should first-year doctoral students be supervised collectively or individually?
Effects on thesis completion and time to completion. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(4), 669-
682.
Barnard, R. A., & Shultz, G. V. (2020). “Most important is that they figure out how to solve the problem”: How
do advisors conceptualize and develop research autonomy in chemistry doctoral students?. Higher
Education, 79(6), 981-999.
Benson, P. (2016). Learner autonomy. In The Routledge handbook of English language teaching (pp. 339-352).
Routledge.
Betts, G. (2004). Fostering autonomous learners through levels of differentiation. Roeper Review: A Journal of
Research on Humanities and Social Sciences www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5766 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0484 (Online)
Vol.14, No.4, 2024
30
Gifted Education, 26(4), 190-91.
Boggu, A. T., & Sundarsingh, J. (2019). An experiential learning approach to fostering learner autonomy among
Omani students. Journal of language teaching and research, 10(1), 204-214.
Chan, V., Spratt, M., & Humphreys, G. (2002). Autonomous language learning: Hong Kong tertiary students'
attitudes and behaviours. Evaluation & Research in Education, 16(1), 1-18.
Cotterall, S. (1995). Readiness for autonomy: Investigating learner beliefs. System, 23(2), 195-205.
Cotterall, S. (2017). The pedagogy of learner autonomy: Lessons from the classroom. Studies in Self-Access
Learning Journal, 8(2), 102-115.
Finch, A. (2002). Autonomy: Where are we? Where are we going. JALT CUE-SIG Proceedings, 15-42.
Fotiadou, A., Angelaki, C., & Mavroidis, I. (2017). Learner autonomy as a factor of the learning process in
distance education. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-learning, 20(1), 96-111.
Haksever, A. M., & Manisali, E. (2000). Assessing supervision requirements of PhD students: The case of
construction management and engineering in the UK. European Journal of Engineering Education, 25(1), 19-32.
Henri, D. C., Morrell, L. J., & Scott, G. W. (2018). Student perceptions of their autonomy at University. Higher
Education, 75(3), 507-516.
Herrmann, K. J., & Wichmann-Hansen, G. (2017). Validation of the Quality in PhD Processes Questionnaire.
Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education, 8(2), 189-204.
Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning. Oxford: Peagamon.
Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60(6), 581–592.
Kralj, M. M. (1989). Life-change stress and stress symptoms. Journal of College Student Development, 30, 333.
Lamichhane, P. (2017). Identifying the challenges of autonomous learning among international Master of
Research students in Western Sydney University. (Doctoral dissertation).
Litalien, D., & Guay, F. (2015). Dropout intentions in PhD studies: A comprehensive model based on
interpersonal relationships and motivational resources. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 41, 218-231.
Little, D. (1995). Learning as dialogue: The dependence of learner autonomy on teacher
autonomy. System, 23(2), 175-181.
Macaskill, A., & Taylor, E. (2010). The development of a brief measure of learner autonomy in university
students. Studies in higher education, 35(3), 351-359.
Sereti, S., & Giossos, Y. P. (2018). Development of a Learner Autonomy Scale. Ανοικτή Εκπαίδευση: το
περιοδικό για την Ανοικτή και εξ Αποστάσεως Εκπαίδευση και την Εκπαιδευτική Τεχνολογία, 14(1), 94-103.
Smith, Richard, Kuchah, K. and Lamb, M. (2018) Learner autonomy in developing countries. In: Chik, A. and
Aoki, N. and Smith, Richard, (eds.) Autonomy in Language Learning and Teaching (pp. 7-27): New Research
Agendas. London: Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.
Trocki, K. F., & Orioli, E. M. (1994). Gender differences in stress symptoms, stress-producing contexts, and
coping strategies.
Wichmann-Hansen, G., Bach, L. W., Eika, B., & Mulvany, M. J. (2012). Successful PhD supervision: a two-way
process. The Researching, Teaching, and Learning Triangle, 55-64.
Wichmann-Hansen, G., & Schmidt Nielsen, K. J. (2023). Can hands-on supervision get out of hand? The
correlation between directive supervision and doctoral student independence in a Danish study
context. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 1-16.
Wichmann-Hansen, G. (2021). DUT Guide on supervision. Dansk Universitetspædagogisk Tidsskrift, 16(31).
Research on Humanities and Social Sciences www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5766 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0484 (Online)
Vol.14, No.4, 2024
31
Appendix
Appendix A: Summary of the variance predictor of Autonomous Learning Scale
Items Variance
it is important that I make all the critical choices in my PhD project. 13%
Are you –all things considered- happy about the progress in your PhD project?
(overall satisfaction)
12%
How far along are you in your PhD programme? (Stages of progress) 8%
I prefer my supervisor telling me what I need to do 5%
My supervisor is available when needed 4%
My supervisor is friendly and accommodating 3%
How often do you feel that you act alone in your project and lack the necessary feedback to
make progress?
3%
Did you finish or do you realistically expect to finish within the stipulated time?
(Completion time)
3%
My supervisor rarely gives specific advice about the best thing to do 2%
The relationship between my supervisor and me is characterized by mutual respect 2%
I usually have a clear goal of what I want to get out of the supervision 1%
Total 56%
Appendix B: Le parcours du doctorant
Cher(e)s doctorant(e)s,
Nous vous remercions de répondre aux questions suivantes afin de nous permettre de continuer à enrichir le
parcours des futurs doctorant(e)s. Nous vous garantissons l’anonymat dans le traitement des résultats des
questionnaires.
En quelle année êtes-vous inscit(e)?
o 1ère
o 2ème
o 3ème
o 4ème
o 5ème
o Aucune
Où en êtes-vous dans votre programme de doctorat ?
o Je viens de commencer
o Environ un tiers du parcours
o A peu près à mi-chemin
o Environ les deux tiers du parcours
o Achevé
Cette partie contient plusieurs propos. Veuillez les évaluer selon le degré de correspondance en utilisant l'échelle
suivante :
Research on Humanities and Social Sciences www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5766 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0484 (Online)
Vol.14, No.4, 2024
32
J'aime trouver par moi-même des informations sur de nouveaux sujets.
Ne me ressemble pas du tout 1 2 3 4 5 Me ressemble beaucoup
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
Je trouve souvent des excuses pour ne pas me mettre au travail.
Ne me ressemble pas du tout 1 2 3 4 5 Me ressemble beaucoup
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
J’arrive bien à respecter les délais.
Ne me ressemble pas du tout 1 2 3 4 5 Me ressemble beaucoup
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
Je gère bien mon temps.
Ne me ressemble pas du tout 1 2 3 4 5 Me ressemble beaucoup
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
J'aime bien travailler seul(e).
Ne me ressemble pas du tout 1 2 3 4 5 Me ressemble beaucoup
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
Même lorsque les tâches sont difficiles, j'essaie de m'y tenir.
Ne me ressemble pas du tout 1 2 3 4 5 Me ressemble beaucoup
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
J'aime être mis(e) au défi.
Ne me ressemble pas du tout 1 2 3 4 5 Me ressemble beaucoup
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
Je planifie efficacement mon temps pour étudier.
Ne me ressemble pas du tout 1 2 3 4 5 Me ressemble beaucoup
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
J'ai tendance à être motivé pour travailler en fonction des délais d'évaluation.
Ne me ressemble pas du tout 1 2 3 4 5 Me ressemble beaucoup
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
Je prends en charge mon apprentissage.
Ne me ressemble pas du tout 1 2 3 4 5 Me ressemble beaucoup
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
J'aime les nouvelles expériences d'apprentissage.
Ne me ressemble pas du tout 1 2 3 4 5 Me ressemble beaucoup
Research on Humanities and Social Sciences www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5766 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0484 (Online)
Vol.14, No.4, 2024
33
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
Veuillez évaluer votre degré d'accord ou de désaccord avec les propos ci-dessous en utilisant l'échelle suivante :
Mon directeur/Ma directrice de thèse est disponible en cas de besoin.
Pas du tout d’accord 1 2 3 4 5 Tout à fait d’accord
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
Mon directeur/Ma directrice de thèse est amical(e) et flexible.
Pas du tout d’accord 1 2 3 4 5 Tout à fait d’accord
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
Mon directeur/Ma directrice de thèse me laisse le contrôle du projet.
Pas du tout d’accord 1 2 3 4 5 Tout à fait d’accord
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
Mon directeur/Ma directrice de thèse m'encourage à travailler de manière indépendante.
Pas du tout d’accord 1 2 3 4 5 Tout à fait d’accord
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
Mon directeur/Ma directrice de thèse établit souvent le programme de l'encadrement.
Pas du tout d’accord 1 2 3 4 5 Tout à fait d’accord
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
Mon directeur/Ma directrice de thèse me donne rarement des conseils précis sur la meilleure chose à faire.
Pas du tout d’accord 1 2 3 4 5 Tout à fait d’accord
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
La relation entre mon directeur/ma directrice de thèse et moi est fondée sur le respect mutuel.
Pas du tout d’accord 1 2 3 4 5 Tout à fait d’accord
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
Je préfère que mon directeur/ma directrice de thèse me dise ce que je dois faire.
Pas du tout d’accord 1 2 3 4 5 Tout à fait d’accord
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
J'ai généralement un objectif clair de ce que j'attends de l'encadrement.
Pas du tout d’accord 1 2 3 4 5 Tout à fait d’accord
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
Je tiens à faire moi-même les choix cruciaux dans mon projet
Avez-vous le sentiment d'agir seul(e) dans votre projet et de ne pas avoir le retour d'information nécessaire pour
avancer ?
Research on Humanities and Social Sciences www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5766 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0484 (Online)
Vol.14, No.4, 2024
34
Jamais 1 2 3 4 5 Toujours
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
Votre travail de doctorant vous provoque-t-il de graves symptômes de stress (par exemple, isolement,
palpitations, maux d'estomac, dépression, agitation, perte de mémoire) ?
Jamais 1 2 3 4 5 Toujours
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
Quels sont les facteurs qui, selon vous, ont contribué de manière significative au retard ou à l'absence de progrès
(vous pouvez choisir plus d'une réponse)
o Manque de motivation et d'intérêt
o Le projet de thèse est devenu gigantesque et difficile à gérer
o La peur de ne pas être à la hauteur
o Problèmes liés au financement
o Les conditions pratiques ou expérimentales (par exemple, l'accès à l'équipement ou aux données)
o Encadrement insuffisant.
o Encadrement de faible qualité
o La situation familiale ou personnelle
o Autre(s)
Avez-vous terminé ou pensez-vous raisonnablement terminer dans le délai imparti ?
o Oui
o Non
o Je ne sais pas
Êtes-vous satisfait(e) de l'avancement de votre projet de doctorat ?
o Oui
o Non
o Je ne sais pas
Merci d'avoir pris le temps de répondre à cette enquête
Votre contribution nous est utile.
Appendix C: The PhD student Journey Questionnaire
What year are you in?
▢ 1st
▢ 2nd
▢ 3rd
▢ 4th
▢ 5th
▢ None
How far along are you in your PhD programme?
▢ Just started
▢ Approximately one third through
▢ Approximately halfway
Research on Humanities and Social Sciences www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5766 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0484 (Online)
Vol.14, No.4, 2024
35
▢ Approximately two thirds through
▢ Finished
Instructions: to what extent the following statements are unlike or like
I enjoy finding information about new topics on my own.
Very unlike me 1 2 3 4 5 Very like me
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
I frequently find excuses for not getting down to work.
Very unlike me 1 2 3 4 5 Very like me
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
I am good at meeting deadlines.
Very unlike me 1 2 3 4 5 Very like me
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
My time management is good.
Very unlike me 1 2 3 4 5 Very like me
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
I am happy working on my own.
Very unlike me 1 2 3 4 5 Very like me
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
Even when tasks are difficult I try to stick with them.
Very unlike me 1 2 3 4 5 Very like me
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
I enjoy being set a challenge.
Very unlike me 1 2 3 4 5 Very like me
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
I plan my time for study effectively.
Very unlike me 1 2 3 4 5 Very like me
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
I tend to be motivated to work by assessment deadlines.
Very unlike me 1 2 3 4 5 Very like me
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
I take responsibility for my learning experiences.
Very unlike me 1 2 3 4 5 Very like me
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
Research on Humanities and Social Sciences www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5766 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0484 (Online)
Vol.14, No.4, 2024
36
I enjoy new learning experiences.
Very unlike me 1 2 3 4 5 Very like me
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
My supervisor is available when needed.
Strongly disgree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly agree
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
My supervisor is friendly and accommodating.
Strongly disgree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly agree
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
My supervisor leaves the control of the project to me.
Strongly disgree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly agree
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
My supervisor encourages me to work independently.
Strongly disgree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly agree
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
My supervisor often sets the agenda for the supervision.
Strongly disgree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly agree
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
My supervisor rarely gives specific advice about the best thing to do.
Strongly disgree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly agree
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
The relationship between my supervisor and me is characterized by mutual respect.
Strongly disgree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly agree
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
I prefer my supervisor telling me what I need to do.
Strongly disgree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly agree
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
I usually have a clear goal of what I want to get out of the supervision.
Strongly disgree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly agree
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
It is important to me that I make all the critical choices in my project.
Strongly disgree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly agree
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
Research on Humanities and Social Sciences www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5766 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0484 (Online)
Vol.14, No.4, 2024
37
Do you feel that you act alone in your project and lack the necessary feedback to make progress?
Never 1 2 3 4 5 Always
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
Does your work as PhD sudent give you severe stress symptoms (e.g. isolation, palpitations, stomache ache,
depression, restlessness, memory loss)?
Never 1 2 3 4 5 Always
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
Which factors do you consider to have significantly contributed to the delay or the lack of progress (you can
choose more than one answer)?
o Lack of motivation and interest
o The project has become immense and difficult to manage
o Fear of not being good enough
o Problems with the financing
o Practical or experimental conditions (e.g. access to the equipment or data)
o Inadequate supervision
o Low quality supervision
o Family or personal conditions
o Others
Did you finish or do you realistically expect to finish within the stipulated time?
o Yes
o No
o I don’t know
Are you –all things considered- happy about the progress in your PhD project?
o Yes
o No
o I don’t know
