Guide for MHPE Thesis Supervisors & Second Assessors

Thesis supervision & second assessor

Thesis supervision

The thesis supervisor assists the student in formulating a final thesis proposal (including a work schedule for the thesis) and a final thesis. The student should regularly contact you for advice and to discuss their progress as well as any obstacles they may encounter.

On average, frequency of communication between student and thesis supervisor varies between once a month in the beginning of the project to once a week towards the finalization of the thesis. Students should make agreements with you about when to work on the thesis and when to expect feedback, such that you can take this into account in your time schedule.

An increasingly important part of the thesis supervision process is to discuss the use of Generative AI (GenAI). Please read the MHPE GenAI policy, which requires that students submit a GenAI Self-disclosure form together with their thesis proposal and final thesis. Discuss with your student the possibilities and limitations of how GenAI might be used in their project, including documenting their use. Transparency and responsible use are key. Open dialogue about GenAI use can help in this process. See the FAQ section below for tips on discussing GenAI with your student, and for examples of responsible use.

Delay or other problems

Students have the responsibilities to inform their thesis supervisor in time about progress, delay, or problems related to the process and content of the master thesis. In case students experience study delay or if they, for some reason, are unable to continue their studies, they should first contact their MHPE coach for advice and guidance. However, problems related to the content or progress of the master thesis should first be discussed with you, the thesis supervisor.

In case the student or supervisor experiences discomfort in the collaboration, both student and supervisor are advised to discuss their problem with each other and, if necessary, with the MHPE Thesis Coordinator.

Second assessor

The second assessor is an independent assessor that decides on:

Whether the thesis proposal is of sufficient quality to start data collection
Whether the final thesis is of sufficient quality according to the MHPE competency framework

The second assessor only communicates with the thesis supervisor, not with the student. There are two formal moments in the process of preparing and executing the MHPE thesis project during which the thesis supervisor and the second assessor interact:

Approval of the thesis proposal
Assessment of the final thesis

Appointment of thesis supervisor & second assessor

For each thesis project a thesis supervisor and a second assessor are appointed at the start of the thesis project (Campus 2). The MHPE Thesis Coordinators communicate these assignments before the start of Campus 2.

The assignment of these roles is based on the match between the expertise of the thesis supervisor and second assessor with the preliminary thesis proposal students write in preparation for Campus 2. The role assignment is performed by the MHPE Thesis Coordinators. (NB MHPE-CAN & MHPE-NYC assign the thesis supervisor for their students. They communicate the matching to the MHPE Thesis Coordinators. The second assessor is selected from the MHPE-SHE faculty pool by the MHPE Thesis Coordinators).

Assessment of thesis proposal & final thesis

Procedure: Approving the thesis proposal

Both the thesis supervisor and the second assessor need to approve the thesis proposal before the student can start with data-collection for the thesis. Approval of the thesis proposal is sought through the following process:

In anticipation of completion of the thesis proposal, the thesis supervisor updates the second assessor about progress and when completion of the thesis proposal can be expected;
The thesis supervisor decides when they feel the thesis proposal is advanced enough to start the process of ‘approval of the thesis proposal’.
When the student gets the green light from the thesis supervisor, the STUDENT submits the proposal in Pebblepad in the MHPE Thesis workspace (here are the instructions for students to submit the thesis proposal). Note that the student also has to submit a GenAI self-disclosure form! This is available on Canvas.
The thesis supervisor approves the proposal in Pebblepad. The second assessor either approves the proposal or suggests which changes are needed before the proposal can be approved. Watch this short Pebblepad clip: “How to approve the thesis proposal” or follow these instructions.
In case the second assessor requests a revised thesis proposal, a NEW submission needs to be made by the student.

Procedure: Assessing the final thesis

Once the thesis is completed it will be assessed by both the supervisor and the second assessor. The supervisor assesses both the content of the thesis and the process of working on the thesis with the student. The second assessor assesses the content of the thesis. The assessment procedure of the thesis is sought through the following process:

In anticipation of completion of the thesis, the thesis supervisor updates the second assessor about progress and when completion of the thesis can be expected;
The supervisor decides when the thesis is ready for assessment.
When the student gets the green light from the thesis supervisor, the STUDENT submits the final thesis in Pebblepad in the MHPE Thesis workspace (here are the instructions for students to submit the final thesis). Note that the student also has to submit a GenAI self-disclosure form! This is available on Canvas.
The supervisor and the second assessor each assess the thesis independently within 15 working days. Watch this short Pebblepad clip: “How to assess the final thesis” or follow these instructions.
Based on prompts and a short rubric, assessors are required to assess each competency on a scale of 1 – 5 and provide narrative comments for each competency in Pebblepad. Here you can find the assessment template.

Assessment criteria & decision rules

The final thesis is assessed according to the competencies that the student needs to attain (analyze, design, implement, evaluate, communicate, critical & reflexive stance, navigate diversity). Based on prompts and a short rubric, assessors are required to assess each competency on a scale of 1 – 5 and provide narrative comments for each competency. Here you can find the assessment template.

A final thesis is sufficient if all competencies are assessed as being at level 3 or higher.

All competencies should be assessed as being at level 3 or higher because the thesis is the final, comprehensive authentic task before becoming a Master in Health Professions Education.
In case one of the competencies is assessed to be below level 3 by either the supervisor, the second assessor or both, the student needs to remediate this competency informed by the narrative feedback provided. If you have assessed one or more competencies at level 1 or 2, please contact the Thesis Coordinator by email. The Thesis Coordinator will inform the student and thesis supervisor/second assessor.
The supervisor or second assessor (or both) assess whether the revised thesis is sufficient (level 3 or higher).

Disagreement between thesis supervisor & second assessor

Assessment of competency levels may differ between the supervisor and second assessor, but they may never differ more than 2 points on the 1 – 5 scale for each competency. When the assessment of the supervisor and the second assessor differ more than 2 points on a competence (i.e., 5 vs. 2, 4 vs. 1), the MHPE Thesis Coordinators will guide a discussion between them to see whether consensus can be reached or decide on which steps the student needs to take before the student is asked to remediate.

The student receives one opportunity to remediate those competencies that were deemed insufficient by the supervisor or the second assessor. If the final thesis is still considered insufficient (1 or more competencies rated below 3), the student will need to redo the thesis project.

Overall, the MHPE Thesis Coordinators invest in calibration to align feedback and assessment and avoid assessments of theses that are too divergent. An example of this are the Peer Reflection Meetings organized 3-4 times a year for MHPE thesis supervisors and second assessors. In some of these meetings, example theses are discussed including reflecting on how assessors would evaluate the theses and why.

Deadlines & thesis presentation

Thesis & portfolio deadlines

The MHPE Assessment committee would like to point out that the Master thesis is NOT the final stage of the MHPE curriculum. After the thesis is assessed and approved, students still need to write a reflection on their entire portfolio before they can hand it in to the assessment committee.

The deadline to meet to ensure graduation in June of each year (during the graduation ceremony in Maastricht), is April 1^st.

This means that the thesis needs to be completed AND assessed by both the supervisor and second assessor well BEFORE April 1^st to enable students to complete their final reflection.

There are two alternative deadlines for handing in the entire portfolio: June 1^st and October 1^st.

If the Master thesis is finished and assessed by both assessors before May 1^st, students may choose to travel to Maastricht for the thesis presentations and graduation but will not receive their diploma at this time.

Please discuss with your student which deadline they intend to make and to what extent this is feasible. Please also include the second assessor in this process.

Thesis presentation

Students are required to present their thesis project to an audience of peers that are able to ask critical questions. Two options are organized through the MHPE to present the thesis: online or on-site in Maastricht. These opportunities are organized in May/June of each calendar year. If the student is delayed or might have another opportunity to present the thesis project to a group of critical peers, they may also present their project elsewhere. Students should communicate to the MHPE Support Office which option for thesis presentation they elect.

NB in case the student opts for presenting the thesis elsewhere, a video recording of the presentation as well as the slides need to be sent to the MHPE Support Office as proof.

Supervisors are not required to provide feedback on the thesis presentation but can offer their feedback if the student requests it. Supervisors are not required to attend the thesis presentation but encouraged to do so.

Frequently Asked Questions

Each year, 3-4 Peer Reflection Meetings are organized, which MHPE thesis supervisors and second assessors can attend to reflect on issues/questions that arise during thesis supervision and assessment. The session is moderated by the MHPE Thesis Coordinators. Below you can find an overview of frequently asked questions.

FAQ

How much & what does the student need to do by themselves?

In the Peer Reflection Meetings, we discussed several cases regarding students collaborating during their thesis project and what was thought to be acceptable and under what conditions.

Some students may need more help than others and some supervisors tend to provide more support than others. However, students should do the work themselves. The supervisor is there to guide, point them in the right direction, not to do the work.
Be aware that in some cases there is an expectation from students that they get support with regard to statistics. Explain that we expect them to do the work themselves. Statisticians may be consulted to confirm whether their plan for data-analysis is sound.
Remember that MHPE students need to learn what it means to do research and to get a true appreciation of the research process and what is needed to complete it.

Student had a research team surrounding them during the thesis project.

Depends on what the research team does. The student is the principal investigator, should do the data analysis and write up. Sometimes a larger team is needed for data-collection (also see next point)

Student asked someone else to do the interviews.

Often IRB will not allow the student to conduct the interviews themselves in case there is a dependency relationship between the interviewer and the participants. However, the student should develop the interview guide, pilot the interview guide with people that are not dependent, train the interviewer, do the analyses themselves and discuss changes to the interview guide with the interviewer.
It was suggested that in some programs an ‘exchange’ happens, where students interview for each other’s programs to help each other out as well as develop interview skills as part of the MHPE.

Student did qualitative data-analysis together with someone else.

It is typically advised that more than one person do the data-analysis in case of qualitative methodology. It is part of rigorous work and the student needs to discuss what they are constructing from the data.
Approaches differ in terms of supervisor involvement in data-analysis. Some supervisors would read a couple of transcripts (or parts of transcripts), discuss these with their student, and monitor the data-analysis process. Some supervisors trained students how to code and would, in the process, code some of the data themselves.
This is also an area where a MHPE-peer might be a good partner to assist in the coding process.

Student wants statistician to do quantitative analyses for them.

Supervisors generally agree that the students should do the quantitative analyses themselves and within the boundaries of the level of competency. Students can ask for advice from a statistician but are not allowed to outsource the analyses.
It was suggested that perhaps students should share their syntax as an appendix within their thesis so their work could be checked.

What can I do when my student is stuck in writing the thesis proposal?

Here are a couple of strategies:

Explore possible reasons for why they are stuck, and, if necessary, refer them to their MHPE coach for further support.
Be very direct with the student, i.e., ‘if you continue on this path, you are not going to make it. You need to adjust your strategy. What are you going to do differently?’ In one of the Peer Reflection Meetings, an example was shared in which, for three students who had had this direct approach, two found their wind and a third had to come to the conclusion that they could not deliver and finish the thesis project.
Use the second assessor to create strict deadlines, e.g. ‘I have agreed with the second assessor that they will look at your proposal [specific date and time], you need to have it ready, or you will be considerably delayed’.
Let the student generate a plan of action working their way backwards from the deadline and then discuss feasibility.

How to deal with students that are keen but work in ‘fits and bursts’?

Case: student is a clinician that has limited but dedicated time to work. However, their schedule for working on the MHPE is not commensurate with the realities of an iterative process for a qualitative research project.

Supervisors share tips for working with someone with a ‘fits and bursts’ schedule
- Schedule ahead aligned with their clinical roster
- Schedule time to provide feedback and give the student clear deadlines (e.g., ‘I want it by Friday at 14.00 because I have time to read between 14.00 and 16.00).
When a student is planning a qualitative project make sure that they understand what it entails in terms of time management of the project.

What to do when my student has only limited amount of time left to complete the thesis project and has to start from scratch?

Look for the low-hanging fruit: is the student coordinator of some part of the educational continuum that they can do a theory informed evaluation of? Is there evaluation data that they can explore with follow-up qualitative data collection? Find a way in which the student can make the knife cut both ways (craft something within their practice to become a thesis project)
Sometimes a change of thesis supervisor may be warranted, especially if the original supervisor has used all their available strategies. However, be mindful that there is not always a replacement available.
Minimally, students should demonstrate a sound conceptual framework, use educational theory, alignment between research question and methodology, perform rigorous work, have a realistic discussion of their results.
Publication is not a goal, perhaps a conference poster may be a good idea?
Indicate how many feedback rounds can typically be expected (5 – 10)

What if students cannot finish the MHPE within the required 5 years?

Generally, students can get a certificate indicating the learning tasks they have completed in the MHPE curriculum. This is actively suggested to students who will not make the 5 years deadline.
Leniency to the deadline is only applied in a very limited number of cases, discussed case per case, and decided by the Program Director.

Suggestions when dealing with students that have ‘dropped off the radar’.

Discuss expectations about communication during the first meeting with the student.
Try both the Maastricht University E-mail and the ‘private’ e-mail (can be requested from the MHPE Support Office at mhpe@maastrichtuniversity.nl)
Contact the MHPE coach to ask for more information about the student’s progress in general.
Students should be able to responsibly handle communication and meetings. Note that in certain cases shame for not progressing as hoped may hamper students’ ability to reach out and ask for help.
During a Peer Reflection Meeting, one of the supervisors described having to ‘learn to become a little bit more flexible as a thesis supervisor’. Students have different paces for different reasons. As a supervisor you provide them with opportunities to meet and to talk. If students don’t respond, you wait, and sometimes accept that some of them take more years to finish.
Ask the student whether ‘life has happened’ – there are various reasons why there may be radio silence. Try to assess whether this is to be expected with this student and whether probing is required (keep potential cultural expectations in mind).
Remember: It is not your responsibility that they finish on time.

I am unsure whether the thesis is moving in the right direction. Can I discuss this with the second assessor?

Especially in cases where the thesis supervisor is relatively junior, they are paired with a senior second assessor just for these instances in which some mentoring may be needed. It is however important that the integrity of the assessment process is maintained. The assessments should still be done independently from one another.
In cases where a thesis supervisor is dealing with an exceptionally difficult process, they are encouraged to first discuss this with the MHPE Thesis Coordinator and thereafter potentially with the second assessor.

Literature reviews – is this an acceptable methodology for the MHPE thesis or not?

No. The aim of the thesis project is that students can demonstrate that they can manage the empirical cycle of a study including the setting up of the study and data collection.
Example provided of student wanting to do both a scoping review and interviews for expert validation of the findings. This IS acceptable because the student collects data with multiple participants on top of the literature review.

Helping students to get from a broad topic to a researchable question – how much guidance should I give?

Supervisors differ in how ‘directive’ they are and that is okay.
Help students by asking questions like ‘why does your topic matter?’ ‘what is the problem you want to solve?’ ‘what have others been saying about this problem in the literature? From what angles have they approached it?’.
Ask students to find an example paper that did a study they would like to emulate and ask them to study the discussion section for suggestions for future research and the limitations of that study.
Suggest that the student finds a topic that is close to their daily practice.

The student wants to publish, but the thesis is not (yet) publishable.

Suggestions:

Supervisors generally agree that not everyone needs to publish, finishing the thesis comes first, publishing the manuscript comes after. Sometimes it can work to first finish the thesis and (if need be) collect more data for the manuscript that may be publishable.
Bring them up to speed on what publishable work looks like nowadays (in comparison to, say, 20 years ago) to show that the field is moving and has been elevating its standards.
Sometimes the paper can be published in a local/national journal.
It was mentioned that sometimes thesis served an excellent purpose as jumping boards for grant applications.
The question arose whether the thesis supervisor should be co-author on a manuscript coming from a thesis. One person mentioned that they felt that it was the student who did all the work and therefor the supervisor did not always deserve to be co-author. Several people felt that their guidance was sufficient to warrant co-authorship. Second assessors were generally not seen as default co-authors, however if there was a lot of work after the thesis was finished before a manuscript is publication ready, this may be different (if the second assessor is actively involved in this stage).

What is and what is not allowed in terms of AI use in the thesis?

Use of AI throughout the thesis process is allowed, conditional on the student using AI responsibly. MHPE supports thoughtful, transparent use of GenAI as long as its use falls within Tier 1 or 2 of the MHPE GenAI policy. Tier 3 use of GenAI (High external influence: GenAI shaped, replaced, or generated substantial parts of your reasoning, structure, or written work) is not allowed within the MHPE.
As a supervisor, you are encouraged to discuss the use of AI with your student, including possibilities, limitations and documentation. Please read the MHPE GenAI policy, which requires that students submit a GenAI Self-disclosure form together with their thesis proposal and final thesis. Transparency and responsible use are key.
Open dialogue about GenAI use can help in this process. We have added some prompts for that conversation below.
A document with examples on responsible use, considerations and best practices can be found below.

Discussion Prompts AI Use

Use of AI in the Thesis Process:
Have you been using any AI tools while working on the thesis?

If not, why?
If so, for which parts of the thesis did you use AI tools?
Exploring the topic, formulating the problem statement / research question, structuring the thesis, searching / summarizing literature, rewriting or improving text, checking style / language / grammar, generating ideas or examples, any other part?
Which AI tool(s) have you been using?

Reflection on the use of AI:

What is your goal in using AI?
What does the use of AI bring you?
What risks or limitations do you experience when using AI? (e.g., incorrect information, loss of personal writing style, bias)
How do you verify whether the AI output is correct, reliable, and usable?

Ethical and Academic Considerations:

How do you ensure that the use of AI does not replace your own thinking process?
How do you safeguard academic integrity in using AI? (e.g., source citation, clearly distinguishing your own work from AI-generated content)
Do you acknowledge the use of AI in your thesis? If yes, where, and how?

Reflection and Looking Ahead:

What have you learned from working with AI in this process?
What would you do differently next time?

Category	Responsible Use	Considerations & Best Practices
Research Data & Privacy	Do not input confidential research data, case studies, or personal information into GenAI tools. Always seek approval from supervisors before uploading research-related data.	Be aware of potential data storage and security risks. Use Maastricht University-recommended tools like Bing Chat Enterprise (with a Maastricht University account) for better data protection.
Receiving Feedback	Use GenAI for feedback on spelling, grammar, punctuation, and academic writing style by generating a list of suggested improvements.	Critically assess whether the suggestions improve clarity and readability. Do not blindly accept AI-generated changes.
Brainstorming	Use GenAI for brainstorming ideas, outlines, and subtopics. Always review suggestions with supervisors to ensure scientific relevance and accuracy.	GenAI may not always provide correct information, especially on specialized, recent, or local topics. Verify all suggested content.
Understanding Sources	Use AI for translation, summarization, or explanations of academic sources to enhance comprehension.	Always cross-check AI-generated summaries with the original sources to ensure accuracy. AI outputs can misinterpret academic content.
Translation Assistance	Request multiple translation options for words or sentences and choose the most appropriate for academic writing.	Ensure the translation aligns with the intended meaning and supports the proper scientific tone.
Transparency	Maintain a separate document to log all prompts and AI outputs, including notes on their relevance and accuracy.	It is mandatory to submit this log along with the final thesis. Supervisors should encourage transparent documentation of AI use.