Dissertation supervision should help students become confident, independent researchers. However, when students arrive expecting the supervisor to set the agenda and provide the answers, these meetings can end up reinforcing dependence rather than developing autonomy. How to shift the balance? A simple pre-meeting reflection could be the answer.
Students do not need a completed dissertation chapter to have a useful supervision meeting. Yet early in my experience supervising students, I noticed that several waited until they had substantial sections written before booking one. As well as time pressure, work and family commitments, they were uncertain about what to bring, what questions to ask and how to make the conversation useful.
- Tips for new PhD supervisors: how to hold effective meetings
- Are we overlooking the power of autonomy when it comes to motivating students?
- The active lecture: student-centred learning for the future
This is an important part of the undergraduate curriculum, in which students are expected to think and act like researchers. Helping them prepare for those conversations goes further than running efficient meetings; it is about developing the confidence and judgement they will need beyond graduation.
Because supervisors hold experience of the research process, students might begin to see feedback as instructions to follow rather than ideas to explore. Instead of bringing questions and testing their own thinking, they wait for the supervisor to set the agenda and determine the next steps.
Student-led supervision does not mean tossing students into the deep end and hoping they swim. A small amount of pre-meeting structure can provide the scaffolding they need to participate confidently and take greater ownership of the conversation.
A simple change before every meeting
To help students become more active participants in their research, I introduced a short pre-meeting reflection. At least 24 hours before we meet, students complete four quick questions. I have used this approach for more than a year, with approximately 10 undergraduate international business dissertation students across several teaching terms.
The aim is to create a short moment of reflection that helps students arrive ready to shape the discussion, rather than wait for direction. The answers don’t have to be complicated and responses have ranged from a full sentence to bullet points.
The four questions are:
1. What progress have you made since our last meeting?
Starting with progress helps students recognise achievements and see themselves as researchers making decisions rather than simply completing tasks. As the undergraduate dissertation period is limited, students are encouraged to set milestones. Progress here is not just writing but can be seen simply in tasks such as identifying the research gap from the literature review, narrowing their questions, understanding a relevant theory or deciding on the appropriate methodology.
2. Have you completed a section or chapter? Briefly describe it.
This anchors the discussion in concrete outputs rather than vague intentions. At this stage students do not need to have completed a chapter, although they usually try to. Instead of arriving with a chapter they might consider “perfect”, the goal is to push them to highlight a milestone no matter how small, such as a revised section or reading notes.
3. What aspects do you feel need further attention?
This gives students permission to identify where they are stuck before the meeting begins. Encouraging them to describe the difficulty as precisely as they can helps move the conversation from “I don’t know what to do” to a more focused problem, such as uncertainty about applying a methodology or analysing their data. We can then consider possible responses together, rather than beginning with a general request for direction.
4. What specific questions do you have?
This shifts students from passive recipients of feedback to active participants in the conversation. It feeds on from the previous question and is just an opportunity to think of areas that need improvement. They don’t need to have a question at this point, it could be a comment or they could leave it as a simple “no further questions for now”. Use their priorities to shape the conversation while leaving room to raise essential issues such as research ethics, feasibility or deadlines.
These responses form our meeting plan. Rather than spending the opening minutes establishing where the student is in the process, we can move straight into discussing ideas and solving problems.
This approach ensures the conversation remains student-led. Before offering guidance or advice, I ask the student to explain the options they have already considered and what they feel their next steps should be. At the end of our session, the student summarises the agreed action points and decides when to book another meeting. The ownership of both the problem-solving and the outcome is shifted directly to the student, empowering them to drive their own research journey.
Setting expectations: how I introduce the reflection
When I first set up supervision with a new cohort, I explain that these questions are designed to help students get the most out of our limited time together. I make it clear that identifying areas of confusion is not a sign of failure. In fact, recognising what needs further investigation is the very purpose of academic research.
Not every student embraced the process immediately. However, once they saw that their reflections genuinely shaped the conversation, I noticed students arriving better prepared. The key was explaining that the reflection was not a monitoring tool but a way of ensuring supervision focused on the issues they most wanted to explore.
Keep the preparation manageable. Make it clear that students should still attend if they have made little progress or can’t complete the reflection. In those circumstances, the questions can provide a starting point for the meeting itself. Students who are struggling to begin shouldn’t feel they have to produce something polished to qualify for support.
What changed after introducing the questions
After introducing the reflection with my undergraduate supervisees, I gathered informal feedback through conversations after meetings and noticed three consistent changes in how students approached supervision. These were observations from my own practice, rather than findings from a formal evaluation.
First, students described feeling more confident and better prepared. Knowing they had already identified their difficulties made the meeting feel like a supportive, collaborative discussion rather than an unexpected test.
Second, students arrived with more purposeful questions. Rather than asking broad questions such as: “Is my dissertation going in the right direction?”, they increasingly asked focused questions about their argument, evidence or next steps.
For instance, before data collection, one student asked: “Would it be OK to include some secondary data in my dissertation, even though I didn’t mention it in my research proposal?” This showed me that the student was beginning to appreciate diverse data sources and desires to strengthen their work beyond initial primary data collection. In helping them decide, we looked at the value of the secondary data and how it would triangulate their findings or improve the overall rigour of their work.
Third, supervisory time became far more productive. Receiving reflections 24 hours in advance allowed me to understand students’ priorities and consider where they might need support.
In my experience, the change becomes particularly clear after two or three sessions. Students who initially hesitate to book meetings begin showing up with clear, self-directed agendas and greater confidence in discussing their research decisions.
Try this tomorrow
Before your next dissertation or project meeting, email students these four questions and ask them to spend no more than 10 minutes responding. Explain that unfinished work and uncertainty are welcome. Read their answers beforehand and use them to agree the priorities for the discussion together.
Encouraging student autonomy does not mean stepping back entirely; it means providing the right structure at the right time. By asking students to pause and reflect before a session, we help them develop the judgement and confidence they need as independent researchers.
Student-led supervision does not happen because we ask students to be independent. It happens because we create opportunities for them to practise independence. Sometimes the first step towards developing confident, independent researchers is simply helping students arrive at supervision already knowing what they want to ask.
Temitope Bodunrin is lecturer in marketing at the University of the West of Scotland.
If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.
comment