Students' Experiences of University Support During the Thesis Phase: Challenges, Needs, and Opportunities for Improvement

Research Paper Recommended citation: Nurminen, M., Saari, M., & Rantanen, P. (2025). Students’ Experiences of University Support During the Thesis Phase: Challenges, Needs, and Opportunities for Improvement. In Kangaslampi, R., Langie, G., Järvinen, H.-M., & Nagy, B. (Eds.), SEFI 53rd Annual Conference. European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI), Tampere, Finland. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17631480. This Conference Paper is brought to you for open access by the 53rd Annual Conference of the European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI) at Tampere University in Tampere, Finland. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. STUDENTS’ EXPERIENCES OF UNIVERSITY SUPPORT DURING THE THESIS PHASE: CHALLENGES, NEEDS, AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT M. Nurminen a, 1 ,, M. Saari b, P. Rantanen c, H.-M. Järvinen d, J. Viteli e a Tampere University, Pori, Finland, ORCID 0000-0001-7609-8348 b Tampere University, Pori, Finland, ORCID 0000-0001-7677-2355 c Tampere University, Pori, Finland, ORCID 0009-0007-9603-0552 d Tampere University, Tampere, Finland, ORCID 0000-0003-0047-2051 e Tampere University, Tampere, Finland, ORCID 0000-0003-2234-3509 Conference Key Areas: Improving higher engineering education through researching engineering education, Curriculum development and emerging curriculum models in engineering Keywords: thesis writing, peer support, institutional support ABSTRACT This article examines university students' experiences with institutional and peer support during the thesis writing phase. Article highlights key challenges, unmet needs, and opportunities for improvement. Based on survey responses from Bachelor's, Master's, and Doctoral students, the research identifies several issues such as insufficient structured guidance, inconsistent supervisory support, inadequate methodological assistance, limited peer collaboration, and gaps in mental health and career resources. Students reported feelings of isolation, stress, and practical barriers in accessing available support services. To address these findings, the article proposes universities enhance guidance and increase supervisor availability and training. They could also offer targeted peer support groups and more practical methodological workshops. Flexible scheduling to accommodate diverse student populations, as well as improved mental health and career services would help thesis and other work. By implementing mentioned recommendations, universities could enhance the thesis-writing process and experience, reduce student stress, and increase successful thesis completion. 1 Corresponding Author M. Nurminen [email protected] 1 1 INTRODUCTION The thesis phase is a milestone in higher education, which shapes students into independent researchers by fostering critical thinking (Wiger & Oskarsson 2024), sustained motivation (Kitzig et al. 2023), and rigorous academic inquiry, all skills required in the academic and engineering careers and shown by the earlier studies to have effect on learners. However, this period also poses significant challenges, including isolation (Trikic et al. 2024), difficulties in time management, methodological hurdles, and psychological stress, impacting students at all academic levels, from Bachelor’s to Doctoral studies. Recognizing these complexities, universities have increasingly developed structured support systems that combine institutional resources and peer collaboration to alleviate students' struggles and enhance their thesis-writing experience. Despite these efforts, variability in the availability, quality, and accessibility of support continues to hinder students' progress and overall academic development. This article explores students' experiences with university support during their thesis writing phase, identifying challenges, addressing student needs, and highlighting potential opportunities for improvement. Drawing upon students' feedback on conducted survey, the study emphasizes the necessity for universities to provide structured guidance, improved supervision, tailored methodological training, enhanced peer collaboration, comprehensive mental health and career support, and flexible solutions accommodating diverse student populations. Using the survey results to examine existing support mechanisms and their effectiveness, this research contributes insights for educators and policymakers seeking to create inclusive, supportive, and effective thesis-writing environments. 2 BACKGROUND The thesis writing process is a formative process that helps students learn what it means to be a researcher (Weatherall, 2019). It involves navigating complex, selfregulated tasks and developing a coherent academic voice (Cerrato-Lara et al. 2017; Thompson 2016). Thesis process represents a stage in higher education that demands rigorous academic inquiry, critical thinking (Bennett 2018; Price 2015; Yamin et al. 2023), and sustained motivation (Mendoza et al. 2022; Berestova et al 2022). However, many students at the Bachelor’s (BSc), Master’s (MSc), and Doctoral (PhD) levels experience challenges such as isolation, writer’s block, time management difficulties, and mental health strain.(Calle-Arango et al. 2023) To address these issues, universities and academic communities have developed various support systems that involve both institutional resources and peer collaboration. Institutional support for the thesis writing process can be given on group or individual basis. Group support can take the form of writing centers (Calle-Arango et al. 2023; Ubaldo 2021) and writing groups (Li & Vandermensbrugghe 2011). Writing centers are institutional support services that offer programs tailored to the needs of students. These centers provide individual consultations, workshops, and peer review sessions, helping students improve their writing skills and receive constructive feedback. Writing groups, particularly for international students, create a cooperative peer learning environment. These groups help students engage in continuous learning and writing development, addressing the unique challenges faced by non-native English speakers. Individual one-on-one consultations with learning advisers are highly effective, especially for multilingual students. These sessions provide personalized advice and address specific writing issues, which are often not met in group settings (Ma 2019). Students report significant pedagogical and psychological benefits from these consultations. The growing diversity of the doctoral student population places additional pressure on institutional resources. Tailored support services are necessary to meet the varied needs of students, including those from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds. The rise of non-institutional writing support services, particularly online, raises concerns about their ethical and educational legitimacy. Institutions need to monitor and regulate these services to ensure they provide legitimate and beneficial support to students (Aitchison & Lee 2006). Peer support for thesis writing process systems can transform the often-isolated experience of thesis writing into a collaborative and interactive process. This collaboration can begin early and continue throughout the thesis writing phase, fostering a sense of community and shared goals (Irmak & Ulutaş 2024). Collaborative peer-support models, including online learning communities, have been shown to provide valuable feedback and support for thesis revisions, making the process more manageable and less isolating (Lai 2011). Improved writing skills and academic literacy can be aided by peer reviews and feedback for the writing process, helping students improve their writing quality through the exchange of drafts and constructive criticism (Lee & Ho 2021; Adamek 2015). Providing feedback on peers’ theses can also enhance one’s own academic writing skills, raise awareness of the thesis genre, and promote reflective and critical writing practices (Yu 2019). Writing groups specifically designed for international students can offer ongoing support in a cooperative peer learning environment, addressing the unique challenges these students face when writing in a second language (Li & Vandermensbrugghe 2011). Peer writing mentors can help develop academic literacy and promote a sense of community, particularly for under-represented groups. This support can be crucial in building relationships and fostering a supportive academic environment (CapousDesylla 2021). Participation in a support community can alleviate individual struggles associated with writing a dissertation, providing non-evaluative peer support, feedback, and shared academic resources (Yaylali 2025). Encouraging peer support and collaboration in writing can lead to better academic outcomes and a more engaging learning experience. This approach can be integrated into teaching strategies to foster a collaborative learning environment (Pu & Barnard 2025). 3 METHODOLOGY To further study the institutional and peer support students receive, or would have liked to have received, a survey was conducted at Tampere University, aimed at students who were in different stages of the thesis writing process, from planning to completion. The survey was announced to students in the university’s Intra webpage, which had in earlier studies turned out to be an effective way of contacting students and collecting data. The questionnaire is shown in Appendix A. The questionnaire in the survey had four sections: General information, University Support & Collaboration, Quality of Support, and Additional Comments. General Information section included question about the student’s level of study, the unit of the university they study under, and the stage where they are in their thesis writing process. University Support & Collaboration asked students who had been most helpful in their thesis work, if they had collaborated with other students or research group staff members, and what type of support they had received or would have liked to have received from those two groups. Also, students were queried if they had participated in any peer support groups, writing workshops, or study groups specifically for thesis writing. Quality of Support section asked the students how they rated the overall support they had received from the university community, what type of support they thought was missing or inadequate during the thesis writing process, and finally in what ways did they think that universities could improve peer support and collaboration for thesis students. Additional Comments section had a single question: Is there anything else you would like to share about your experience writing your thesis and the role of collaboration/support in the process? 4 RESULTS The survey questionnaire was completed by 56 students of Tampere University, including 7 (13%) Bachelor's, 27 (48%) Master's, and 22 (39%) PhD students from 11 university units. Communication Sciences and Computing Sciences units had the highest representation, each with seven participants. Table 1 shows that while most BSc, MSc, and PhD students find supervisors and fellow students most helpful in equal shares, there is a noticeable increase in the support students report they had received from university work colleagues, which could indicate that the university is able to integrate students to the university's working community. Students work more frequently with their peers as they progressed in their studies from BSc to PhD, and that at the PhD level a larger share of students felt that they had received the support they required (see Table 2). From Table 3 we can see that while the BSc students that participated in the study are working with university's research centers, most MSc students (67%) answered that they were either not aware of the research centers, or did not know how to contact them. For the PhD students the portion of students who chose this answer was only 14%, so the university seems to connect students with the research centers, central research communities in the university, on the PhD level. On BSc level, largest section of students (29%) report getting support from other students with research methods/data analysis. For MSc students feedback on writing (56%) and emotional/motivational support (48%) were the most received categories of help. On PhD level emotional/motivational support rises to 64% while feedback on writing falls to 41%. Table 1. Most helpful in supporting thesis work based on the student answers Table 2. Students’ collaboration with their fellow students during thesis Ratings students gave to the overall support they had received for their thesis writing from the university community are shown in the Figure 1. The figure shows that the replies from students who reported that they had received either Very Poor or Poor support decreased from BSc students (Very Poor 29% and Poor 29%) to MSc students' (19% Very Poor, 26% Poor) and PhD students (5% Very Poor, 23% Poor). Although this share of students fell from BSc to PhD, the combined percentage of answers in the Very Poor or Poor categories remained relatively high, especially considering that most of the improvement went to the Fair category, not the Good or Excellent. Table 3. Students’ collaboration with a university research group(s) during thesis Figure 1. Students’ rating for overall support for thesis writing Students reported challenges in receiving structured guidance during their thesis writing. Many experienced confusion due to unclear or inconsistent instructions about formatting, methodologies, and writing styles. One student specifically mentioned, "No guidelines on font, spacing, page numbers minimum requirements and anything related to the writing style." Methodological support was reportedly insufficient among participants, especially among students employing quantitative research methods. A Master's student emphasized an apparent need for a introductory course for quantative methods, underscoring a recognized methodological gap. Students strongly advocated for more practical, hands-on training workshops early in their thesis process. One respondent stated, "Everything [was lacking]. I only got a topic and an order "Please write it". The writing workshops offered by the university were seen as especially important on the early stages of the thesis writing process, to build up both peer support and writing routine. Supervision emerged as another area of concern. Students described supervisors' availability as inconsistent, and some felt their supervisors lacked sufficient expertise and time to properly supervise and guide their students' work. One student articulated, "It would be lovely that the supervisors actually would have time to supervise. Their role, in my opinion, is crucial and cannot be distributed to the academic community around. I have also experienced this as a supervisor myself." Another student highlighted significant disparities in supervision quality, noting, "There are huge differences when it comes to (PhD) thesis supervision practice. Some get very useful advice from their supervisors, some get none." This sentiment was apparent in some other students’ responses, too, and some commented on how busy their supervisors seemed to be. Three students directly stated that university should give supervisors more time and resources for their work. Students also expressed a strong need for improved peer and community support to alleviate isolation. Particularly affected were doctoral students, with one noting, "Peer support is extremely important, especially emotion and motivation wise. Also supervisors have huge role! I pity all that don't have functional relationship with their supervisor(s)." The survey also highlighted gaps in career guidance and mental health support, particularly among doctoral students. Doctoral researchers faced substantial distress due to limited mental health resources. For the questions "What types of support you wish you had received from research group members during your thesis writing process? (Select all that apply)" 8 students answered they would have liked to have more emotional/motivational support. 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS While Tampere University has approximately 22,500 students, the findings of this survey—based on responses from 56 students—cannot be generalized to represent the full student body. Nevertheless, they illuminate patterns in student experiences that resonate with prior research on master’s thesis supervision and institutional support in higher education contexts (Hu et al., 2016; Gröhnert et al., 2020; ScheferWenzl & Miladinovic, 2022). Though institutional structures vary, the challenges highlighted by these students mirror those documented internationally, suggesting widespread areas for improvement in thesis supervision and support. A prominent issue was inconsistent supervision, often limited to late-stage feedback. This aligns with findings by Hu et al. (2016), who observed that in both Dutch and Chinese universities, the timing and style of supervision greatly influenced student well-being and perceived progress. Inadequate feedback and remote-only interaction—especially problematic for international students—left many feeling unsupported. Gröhnert et al. (2020) emphasize that effective thesis supervision hinges not only on subject expertise but also on a structured and relational approach, where supervisor availability and consistent feedback play a vital role in fostering thesis momentum. Structural and bureaucratic issues were also prevalent. Students reported frustration over inflexible thesis seminar schedules, unclear formatting and citation expectations, and excessive coursework obligations. These observations support Hu et al.’s (2016) findings regarding the burden of institutional rigidity and underscore the value of flexible and culturally sensitive supervisory frameworks. Importantly, peer support emerged as both a buffer and a burden. While many students found informal feedback loops highly motivational, others resisted structured peer-review mechanisms. This ambivalence echoes insights from Schefer-Wenzl and Miladinovic (2022), who argue for supervisory models that blend structured group processes (e.g., topic pools, peer review timelines) with student autonomy. Their model of continuous supervision—combining group coaching and individual scaffolding—demonstrates that structured peer interaction can be beneficial when optional and embedded in a supportive culture. Mental health struggles were a central theme. Students reported isolation, stress, and inadequate access to psychological support—conditions that are consistent with findings across European and international contexts (Hu et al., 2016; Gröhnert et al., 2020). While Dutch supervisors in Hu et al.’s study emphasized emotional support and informal interaction as part of good practice, the Finnish students in this study frequently felt neglected in this regard. Universities should critically reflect on the cultural expectations and actual delivery of emotional support, especially for international or non-traditional students. Several students also cited outdated or inaccessible digital tools as significant barriers, particularly in relation to AI, data privacy, and data management. These concerns are consistent with the trends identified by Schefer-Wenzl and Miladinovic (2022), who advocate for agile and technology-supported supervision processes, including earlyphase feedback, blended supervision, and use of project tracking tools like Moodle or Trello. Students’ feedback on thesis seminars was mixed: some found them helpful, while others found them inflexible or slow-paced. Suggestions for more modular or intensive formats reflect growing demands for individualized academic pathways, a trend also supported by the findings of Gröhnert et al. (2020) and the need to accommodate diverse learning needs. Overall, the findings emphasize the need for: • clearer thesis guidelines and expectations, • well-trained and responsive supervisors, • improved mental health services, • expanded funding options, and • the cultivation of meaningful peer and institutional support networks. There is strong alignment here with prior research advocating for adaptive, culturally sensitive, and student-centered supervision strategies (Gröhnert et al., 2020; Hu et al., 2016; Schefer-Wenzl & Miladinovic, 2022). Incorporating student feedback into institutional reforms would greatly enhance thesis-writing experiences and outcomes. As thesis supervision is increasingly recognized as a relational, emotional, and pedagogical practice, universities must invest in evolving their structures accordingly. REFERENCES Adamek, M. E. (2015). Building scholarly writers: Student perspectives on peer review in a doctoral writing seminar. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 35(1-2), 213–225. Aitchison, C., & Lee, A. (2006). Research writing: Problems and pedagogies. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 265–278. Bennett, L. Y. (2018). An exploration of Japanese students’ concept and application of critical thinking in academic writing. English Language Education, 14, 123–139. Berestova, A., Kolosov, S., Tsvetkova, M., & Grib, E. (2022). Academic motivation as a predictor of the development of critical thinking in students. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 14(3), 1041–1054. Calle-Arango, L., & Ávila Reyes, N. (2023). Obstacles, facilitators, and needs in doctoral writing: A systematic review. Studies in Continuing Education, 45(2), 133– 151. Capous-Desyllas, M., Bromfield, N. F., Nava, A., & Barnes, B. (2021). Teaching note—Strategies for enhancing writing among first-generation social work students: Reflections on the use of peer writing mentors. Journal of Social Work Education, 57(1), 189–196.