1887
Postgraduate Writing in a Globalised World
  • ISSN 0155-0640
  • E-ISSN: 1833-7139
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

The mastery of academic writing is essential in doctoral writing. Supervisory feedback provides opportunities for students to improve their writing. It is a communicative tool that can be categorised based on fundamental functions of speech: referential, directive, and expressive. This study provides some understanding of the impact that language and speech functions have on the learning experiences of doctoral students. Sources of data are oral interviews with each student, and their supervisor’s written feedback on drafts of that student’s thesis. Analysis of the feedback provided useful insights into the type of feedback the student considered useful for their development. The students found value in all three types of feedback. In particular, expressive types of feedback often led to an emotional reaction, as students viewed praise, criticism and opinions as motivating or challenging. We argue that expressive types of feedback can play an important role for developing academic writing. This study assists supervisors to acquire a higher level of language awareness so they are better equipped to provide feedback that supports the academic writing and overall learning of their students.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/aral.39.2.02str
2017-01-31
2019-11-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bitchener, J. , Basturkmen, H. , East, M. , & Meyer, H
    (2011) Research report: Best practice in supervisor feedback to thesis students. Wellington: Ako Aotearoa.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Borg, S. , & Burns, A
    (2008) Integrating grammar in adult TESOL classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 29(3), 456–482. doi: 10.1093/applin/amn020
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amn020 [Google Scholar]
  3. Brinko, K. T
    (1993) The practice of giving feedback to improve teaching: What is effective?Journal of Higher Education, 64, 574–593. doi: 10.2307/2959994
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2959994 [Google Scholar]
  4. Carter, S. , & Kumar, V
    (2016) ‘Ignoring me is part of learning’: Supervisory feedback on doctoral writing. Innovations in Education and Teaching International. doi: 10.1080/14703297.2015.1123104
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2015.1123104 [Google Scholar]
  5. Chang, G. C. L
    (2014) Writing feedback as an exclusionary practice in Higher Education. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 37(3), 262–275. doi: 10.1075/aral.37.3.05cha
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.37.3.05cha [Google Scholar]
  6. East, M. , Bitchener, J. , & Basturkmen, H
    (2012) What constitutes effective feedback to postgraduate research students? The students’ perspective. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 2, 1–16.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Falchikov, N. , & Boud, D
    (2007) Assessment and emotion: The impact of being assessed. In D. Boud & N. Falchikov (Eds.), Rethinking assessment in higher education: learning for the longer term (pp.144–155). London/New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Gulfidan, C
    (2009) A model for doctoral students’ perceptions and attitudes towards written feedback. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Utah State University, Utah.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Hattie, J. , & Timperley, H
    (2007) The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. doi: 10.3102/003465430298487
    https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487 [Google Scholar]
  10. Hayes, J. R
    (1996) A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. InC. M. Levi & S. Ransdell(Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp.1–27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Holmes, J
    (2013) An introduction to sociolinguistics (4th ed.). London/New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Hounsell, D
    (2007) Towards more sustainable feedback to students. In D. Boud & N. Falchikov (Eds.), Rethinking assessment in higher education: Learning for the longer term (pp.101–113). London/New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Hyatt, D. F
    (2005) ‘Yes, a very good point!’: A critical genre analysis of a corpus of feedback commentaries on Master of Education assignments. Teaching in Higher Education, 10(3), 339–353. doi: 10.1080/13562510500122222
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510500122222 [Google Scholar]
  14. Hyland, F. , & Hyland, K
    (2001) Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 185–212. doi: 10.1016/S1060‑3743(01)00038‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00038-8 [Google Scholar]
  15. Irons, A
    (2008) Enhancing learning through formative assessment and feedback. London/New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Kim, M. K
    (2016) Post/Graduate feedback in second language writing: The feedback network on the dissertation proposal. In C. Badenhorst & C. Guerin (Eds.), Research literacies and writing pedagogies for Masters and Doctoral Writers (pp.238–256). Leiden, Netherlands: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Kumar, M. , Kumar, V. , & Feryok, A
    (2009) Recursiveness in written feedback. NewZealand Studies in Applied Linguistics, 15(1), 26–27.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Kumar, V. , & Stracke, E
    (2007) An analysis of written feedback on a PhD thesis. Teaching in Higher Education12(4), 461–470. doi: 10.1080/13562510701415433
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510701415433 [Google Scholar]
  19. (2011) Examiners’ reports on theses: Feedback or assessment?Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10(4), 211–222. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2011.06.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.06.001 [Google Scholar]
  20. Li, S. , & Seale, C
    (2007) Managing criticism in Ph.D. supervision: A qualitative case study. Studies in Higher Education, 32(4), 511–526. doi: 10.1080/03075070701476225
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070701476225 [Google Scholar]
  21. Mohd Azkah, S. H. A. , Sidhu, G. K. , & Abdul Rahman, S. B
    (2016) Supervisors’ written feedback on thesis writing: Postgraduate students’ perspectives and concerns. In C. H. Fook et al . (Eds.), 7th International Conference on University Learning and Teaching (InCULT 2014) Proceedings (pp.337–347). Singapore: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑981‑287‑664‑5_27
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-664-5_27 [Google Scholar]
  22. NUS Connect
  23. Parr, J. M. , & Timperley, H. S
    (2010) Feedback to writing, assessment for teaching and learning and student progress. Assessing Writing, 15(2), 68–85. doi: 10.1016/j.asw.2010.05.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2010.05.004 [Google Scholar]
  24. Ramaprasad, A
    (1983) On the definition of feedback. Behavioural Science, 28(1), 4–13. doi: 10.1002/bs.3830280103
    https://doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830280103 [Google Scholar]
  25. Sadler, D.R
    (1989) Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119–144. doi: 10.1007/BF00117714
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00117714 [Google Scholar]
  26. Stracke, E. , & Kumar, V
    (2010) Feedback and self-regulated learning: Insights from supervisors’ and PhD examiners’ reports. Reflective Practice, 11(1), 19–32. doi: 10.1080/14623940903525140
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14623940903525140 [Google Scholar]
  27. Wang, T. , & Li, L
    (2009) International research students’ experiences of feedback. InThe Student Experience, Proceedings of the 32nd HERDSA Annual Conference, Darwin, 6–9 July 2009 (pp.444–452). Milperra, NSW: Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/aral.39.2.02str
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error