Comparative Study of Graduate Students’ Self-Perceived Needs for Written Feedback and Supervisors’ Perceptions

Document Type: Research Article

Authors

1 Department of TEFL and English Literature, Payame Noor University

2 Department of TEFL and English Literature, Payame Noor

3 Department of English Language and Literature, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran

4 Department of Linguistics, Payame Noor University

Abstract

This study was an attempt to examine the supervisors’ and graduate students’ needs for written feedback on thesis/dissertation and juxtaposed them to see how each group views feedback. A mixed-methods design was employed to collect the data. Questionnaires and interviews were deployed to collect the data from 132 graduate TEFL students and 37 supervisors from 10 Iranian Universities. Results indicated that there were similarities (argument, logical order, transition, clarity, and references decisions) and differences (inclusion of information, formatting, grammar, conclusion, introduction, and consistency) between the priorities given by the M.A. and Ph.D. students. Moreover, the findings indicated that the M.A. students’ expressed priorities were not similar to those of the supervisors except in 3 areas (argument, formatting, and grammar). On the contrary, the supervisors’ priorities were close to those expressed by the Ph.D. students in almost all cases. Different factors underlying the perceptions of the students and supervisors were also extracted and presented. Some implications and suggestions for further research are proposed.

Keywords


Alonso, R. A., Alonso, M. A., & Marinas, L. T. (2012). Hedging: An exploratory study of pragmatic transfer in nonnative English readers’ rhetorical preferences. Ibérica, 23, 47-62.

Anderson, L., & Krathwohl, D. A. (2001). Taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.

Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Razavieh, A., & Sorensen, C. (2006). Introduction to research in education. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Belcher, D., & Hirvela, A. (2005). Writing the qualitative dissertation: What motivates and sustains commitment to a fuzzy genre? Journal of English for Academic Purposes (JEAP), 4, 187-205.

Biklen, S. K., & Casella, R. (2007). A practical guide to the qualitative dissertation. New York: Teachers College Press.

Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. New York: Routledge.

Bitchener, J., Basturkmen, H., East, M., & Meyer, H. (2011). Best practice in supervisor feedback to thesis writers. Retrieved May 2, 2017, from the World Wide Web: http://akoaotearoa.ac.nz/best-practice-supervisor-feedback

Boud, D. (1991). HERDSA green guide No. 5: Implementing student self-assessment (2nd ed.). Campbell Town: The Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia (HERDSA).

Brussino, G., & Gunn, C. (2008). Australasian language learners and Italian websites: A profitable learning partnership? In F. Zhang & B. Barber (Eds.), Handbook of research in computer enhanced language acquisition and learning (pp. 1-19). New York: IGI Global.

Caffarella, R. S., & Barnett, B. G. (2000). Teaching doctoral students to become scholarly writers: The importance of giving and receiving critiques. Studies in Higher Education, 25(1), 39-52.

Can, G., & Walker, A. (2014). Social science doctoral students’ needs and preferences for written feedback. Higher Education, 68, 303-318.

Carless, D. (2006). Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 219-233.

Chanock, K. (2000) Comments on essays: Do students understand what tutors write? Teaching in Higher Education, 5(1), 95-105.

Cohen, A. D. (1991). Feedback on writing: The use of verbal report. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 133-153.

Dong, Y. R. (1998). Nonnative graduate students’ thesis/dissertation writing in science: Self-reports by students and their advisors from two U.S. institutions. English for Specific Purposes, 17(4), 369-390.

Ferris, D. R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 315-339.

Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ferris, D. R., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161-184.

Fritz, C. O., & Morris, P. E. (2000). When further learning fails: Stability and change following repeated presentation of text. British Journal of Psychology, 91, 493-511.

Galagan, P. (2010). Bridging the skills gap. Alexandra, VA: American Society Training and Development.

Goldstein, L. M. (2004). Questions and answers about teacher written commentary and student revision: Teachers and students working together. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 63-80.

Graham, S. (2006). A study of students’ metacognitive beliefs about foreign language study and their impact on learning. Foreign Language Annals, 39 (2), 296-309.

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2006). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112.

Hyland, K. (2004). Genre and second language writing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Hyland, K., & Hyland, F (Eds.). (2006). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues applied linguistics series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

James, D. (2000) Making the graduate: Perspectives on student experience of assessment in higher education. In A. Filer (Ed.), Assessment: Social practice and social product (pp. 20-35). London and New York: Routledge Falmer.

Kumar, V., & Stracke, E. (2007). An analysis of written feedback on a Ph.D. thesis. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(4), 461-470.

Leki, I., & Carson, J. G. (1994). Students’ perceptions of EAP writing instruction and writing needs across the discipline. TESOL Quarterly, 28(1), 81-97.

Leki, I., Cumming, A., & Silva, T. (2008). A synthesis of research on second language writing. London: Routledge.

Maclellan, E. (2001) Assessment for learning: The differing perceptions of tutors and students. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(4), 307-318.

Mahfoodh, O. H. A., & Pandian, A. (2011). A qualitative case study of EFL students’ affective reactions to and perceptions of their teachers’ written feedback. English Language Teaching, 4(3), 14-24.

Mancuso-Murphy, J. (2007). Distance education in nursing: An integrated review of online nursing students’ experience with technology-delivered education. Journal of Nursing Education, 46(6), 253-260.

Mhunpiew, N. (2013). A supervisor’s roles for successful thesis and dissertation. US-China Education Review, 3(2), 119-122.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS survival manual: A step-by-step guide to data analysis using SPSS for Windows. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Peterson, S. S. (2010). Feedback as a teaching tool for improving student writing. What works? Research into practice. Toronto, ON: Ontario Ministry of Education.

Phelps, R., Fisher, K., & Ellis, A. (2007). Organizing and managing your research: A practical guide for postgraduates. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rahimi, M. (2011). EFL students’ perceptions and preferences for teachers’ written feedback: Do students’ ideas reflect teacher’s practice? Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 2, 151-171.

Rahimi, M. (2013). Is training peer reviewers worth its while? The effect of training peer reviewers on the quality of their feedback and writing. Language Teaching Research, 17(1), 67-89.

Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education (2nd ed.). London: Routledge Falmer.

Richards, J. C., &Schmidt, R. (2010). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics (4th ed.). London: Longman (Pearson Education).

Sampsize (2005). Available online: http://sampsize.sourceforge.net/iface/s3.html

Sandelowski, M. (2003). Tables of tableaux? The challenges of writing and reading mixed methods studies. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 321-350). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Surry, D. W., Stefurak, T., & Kowch, E. G. (2010). Technology in higher education: Asking the right questions. In D. Surry, T. Stefurak, & R. Gray (Eds.), Technology in higher education: Social and organizational aspects (pp. 1-12). Harrisburg, PA: IGI Global.

Swales, J., & Freak, C. B. (1994). Writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan.

Tardy, C. (2006). Appropriation, ownership, and agency: Negotiating teacher feedback in academic settings. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 60-78). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Weaver, M. R. (2006). Do students value feedback? Student perceptions of tutors’ written responses. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 31, 379-394.

Williamson, K., Bernath, V., Wright, S., & Sullivan, J. (2007). Research students in the electronic age: Impacts of changing information behavior on information literacy needs. Communications in Information Literacy, 1(2), 47-63.

Yu, S., & Lee, I. (2013). Understanding supervisors’ commentary practices in doctoral research proposal writing: A Hong Kong study. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 22(4), 473-483.

Zacharias, N. (2007). Teacher and student attitudes toward teacher feedback. RELC, 38(1), 38-52.