Abstract:

Introduction:
The supervision of research-based Master’s Theses in biomedical sciences represents a critical stage for the acquisition of research competences, scientific rigor, and academic autonomy. In the Master’s Degree in Biomedical and Health Research at the University of Extremadura, the master's thesis constitutes students' first formal experience with clinical or experimental research. Previous evidence indicates that postgraduate students frequently begin this process with limited methodological confidence, weak self-regulated learning strategies, and low self-efficacy for academic writing. The present study describes and evaluates an innovative supervisory model that integrates structured mentoring, active learning, and the systematic use of validated assessment instruments to support and evaluate the master's thesis process.

Methods:
The model was implemented in a cohort of master’s students (n = 30) and was structured around three components: (1) personalized and structured supervision through scheduled tutorials with predefined milestones and continuous formative feedback; (2) guided discovery and progressive autonomy in research tasks, including problem formulation, literature review, methodological design, data analysis, and interpretation; and (3) motivational strategies emphasizing the clinical and social relevance of research projects.
Learning outcomes were assessed using a mixed-methods approach. Quantitative data were collected using validated instruments: the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ, Spanish version) administered pre- and post-master to assess motivation and self-regulated learning; the Self-Efficacy for Writing Scale (SEWS) and the Self-Efficacy for Writing and Defending Academic Texts scale (SWE-DT) to assess academic writing and defense self-efficacy; and the Student Assessment of their Learning Gains (SALG) at program completion to evaluate perceived learning gains. Methodological rigor, scientific coherence, and written and oral communication were evaluated using standardized AAC&U VALUE rubrics, complemented with criteria derived from methodological quality checklists ( Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT)/Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP)) integrated into thesis committee assessment. Qualitative data were obtained from reflective reports and tutorial records.

Results:
Post-intervention analyses showed improvements in self-regulated learning strategies and academic writing self-efficacy, alongside high SALG scores for perceived gains in methodological knowledge, critical analysis of scientific literature, and data interpretation. Rubric-based evaluations indicated high levels of methodological rigor and scientific coherence across submitted master's theses. Qualitative findings revealed increased research confidence, autonomy, and engagement, particularly in projects involving real clinical or experimental datasets.

Conclusions:
The findings support the effectiveness of a structured, evidence-informed supervisory model in enhancing research competences and motivation during the Master’s Thesis process. The integration of validated questionnaires and standardized rubrics provides robust evaluative evidence that complements traditional thesis assessment and is feasible for small postgraduate cohorts in biomedical and health sciences.

Keywords:

Research Supervision, Master’s Thesis, Motivational Strategies, Active Learning, Biomedical Research Training.