Cover not available
Article published In:
Postgraduate Writing in a Globalised World
Edited by Emmaline Lear and Elke Stracke
[Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 39:2] 2016
► pp. 122–138

Exploring doctoral students’ perceptions of language use in supervisory written feedback practices – because “feedback is hard to have”

| University of Canberra
| University of Otago

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.

Keywords: Doctoral writing, pragmatic feedback model, interview research, feedback, expressive function of speech
Published online: 7 February 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.39.2.02str
References
Bitchener, J., Basturkmen, H., East, M., & Meyer, H
(2011) Research report: Best practice in supervisor feedback to thesis students. Wellington: Ako Aotearoa.Google Scholar
Borg, S., & Burns, A
(2008) Integrating grammar in adult TESOL classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 29(3), 456–482. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinko, K. T
(1993) The practice of giving feedback to improve teaching: What is effective? Journal of Higher Education, 641, 574–593. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carter, S., & Kumar, V
(2016) ‘Ignoring me is part of learning’: Supervisory feedback on doctoral writing. Innovations in Education and Teaching International. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chang, G. C. L
(2014) Writing feedback as an exclusionary practice in Higher Education. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 37(3), 262–275. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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, 21, 1–16.Google Scholar
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
Gulfidan, C
(2009) A model for doctoral students’ perceptions and attitudes towards written feedback. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Utah State University, Utah.Google Scholar
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H
(2007) The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hayes, J. R
(1996) A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. 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
Holmes, J
(2013) An introduction to sociolinguistics (4th ed.). London/New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, F., & Hyland, K
(2001) Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 101, 185–212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Irons, A
(2008) Enhancing learning through formative assessment and feedback. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kumar, M., Kumar, V., & Feryok, A
(2009) Recursiveness in written feedback. NewZealand Studies in Applied Linguistics, 15(1), 26–27.Google Scholar
Kumar, V., & Stracke, E
(2007) An analysis of written feedback on a PhD thesis. Teaching in Higher Education 12(4), 461–470. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011) Examiners’ reports on theses: Feedback or assessment? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10(4), 211–222. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, S., & Seale, C
(2007) Managing criticism in Ph.D. supervision: A qualitative case study. Studies in Higher Education, 32(4), 511–526. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
NUS Connect
(2010) Feedback campaign tools. Retrieved from [URL].
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Ramaprasad, A
(1983) On the definition of feedback. Behavioural Science, 28(1), 4–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sadler, D.R
(1989) Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 181, 119–144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stracke, E., & Kumar, V
(2010) Feedback and self-regulated learning: Insights from supervisors’ and PhD examiners’ reports. Reflective Practice, 11(1), 19–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wang, T., & Li, L
(2009) International research students’ experiences of feedback. In The 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.
Cited by

Cited by 5 other publications

Calle-Arango, Lina & Natalia Ávila Reyes
2023. Obstacles, facilitators, and needs in doctoral writing: A systematic review. Studies in Continuing Education 45:2 ► pp. 133 ff. DOI logo
Kiley, Margaret
2019. Threshold Concepts of Research in Teaching Scientific Thinking. In Redefining Scientific Thinking for Higher Education, ► pp. 139 ff. DOI logo
Ta, Binh Thanh
2024. Collaboratively pursuing student uptake of feedback through storytelling: a conversation analytic study of interaction in team doctoral supervision. Applied Linguistics Review 0:0 DOI logo
Ta, Binh Thanh & Anna Filipi
2020. Storytelling as a resource for pursuing understanding and agreement in doctoral research supervision meetings. Journal of Pragmatics 165 ► pp. 4 ff. DOI logo
Xu, Linlin & Jiehui Hu
2020. Language feedback responses, voices and identity (re)construction: Experiences of Chinese international doctoral students. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 57:6 ► pp. 724 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.