[Home ] [Archive]   [ فارسی ]  
:: Main :: About :: Current Issue :: Archive :: Search :: Submit :: Contact ::
:: Volume 21, Issue 2 (9-2018) ::
IJAL 2018, 21(2): 43-87 Back to browse issues page
A Typology of Supervisor Written Feedback on L2 Students’ Theses/Dissertations
Monoochehr Jafarigohar , Mohammad Hamed Hoomanfard, Alireza Jalilifar
Abstract:   (5264 Views)
The present study aimed at providing a typology of Iranian supervisors’ written feedback on L2 graduate students’ theses/dissertations and examining the way different speech functions are employed to put the supervisors’ thoughts and feelings into words. In so doing, a corpus of comments, including 15,198 comments provided on 87 TEFL theses and dissertations by 30 supervisors were analyzed. We employed an inductive category formation procedure to form the typology of comments, and followed a deductive procedure to put the comments into the three categories of expressive, referential, and directive speech functions. The findings showed that supervisors provided seven main categories of comments on theses and dissertations: grammar and sentence structure, content, method, organization, references, formatting, and academic procedures. Furthermore, the findings indicated that supervisors employed comments with different patterns and for different purposes on MA and PhD students’ texts.
Keywords: Academic writing, Feedback, Second language writing, Supervisor feedback
Full-Text [PDF 600 kb]   (1199 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Special
Received: 2018/06/23 | Accepted: 2018/07/29 | Published: 2018/08/20
1. Adcroft, A. P. (2013). Support for new career academics: An integrated model for research intensive university business and management schools. Studies in Higher Education, 38, 827-840. [DOI:10.1080/03075079.2011.599378]
2. Aitchison, C., & Lee, A. (2006). Research writing: Problems and pedagogies. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 265-278. [DOI:10.1080/13562510600680574]
3. Alter, C., & Adkins, C. (2006). Assessing student writing proficiency in graduate schools of social work. Journal of Social Work Education, 42(2), 337-354. [DOI:10.5175/JSWE.2006.200404109]
4. Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Razavieh, A., & Sorensen, C. (2006). Introduction to research in education. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
5. Barnes, B. J., & Austin, A. E. (2009). The role of doctoral advisors: A look at advising from the advisor's perspective. Innovative Higher Education, 33, 297-315. [DOI:10.1007/s10755-008-9084-x]
6. Belcher, D., & Hirvela, A. (2005). Writing the qualitative dissertation: What motivates and sustains commitment to a fuzzy genre? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4, 187-205. [DOI:10.1016/j.jeap.2004.07.010]
7. Bitchener, J., Basturkmen, H., East, M., & Meyer, H. (2011). Best practice in supervisor feedback to thesis writers (Research Report). Retrieved from http://akoaotearoa.ac.nz/best-practice-supervisor-feedback.
8. 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. [DOI:10.1080/030750700116000]
9. Can, G. (2009). A model for doctoral students' perception and attitudes toward written feedback for academic writing. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Utah State University.
10. Can, G., & Walker, A. (2011). A model for doctoral students' perceptions and attitudes toward written feedback for academic writing. Research in Higher Education, 52, 508-536. [DOI:10.1007/s11162-010-9204-1]
11. Carless, D. (2006). Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 219-233. [DOI:10.1080/03075070600572132]
12. Chamberlain, C. (2016). Writing-centred supervision for postgraduate students. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of the Witwatersrand.
13. Cotterall, S. (2011) Doctoral students writing: Where's the pedagogy?, Teaching in Higher Education, 16(4), 413-425. [DOI:10.1080/13562517.2011.560381]
14. Dehghan, F., & Razmjoo, S. A. (2012). Discipline-specific writing strategies used by TEFL graduate students. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 4(3), 1-22.
15. Ferris, D. (2007). Preparing teachers to respond to student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 165-193. [DOI:10.1016/j.jslw.2007.07.003]
16. Foucault, M. (1974). The order of things: An archaeology of the human sciences. New York: Vintage.
17. Grant, B. M. (2010). Negotiating the layered relations of supervision. In M. Walker & P. Thompson (Eds.), The Routledge doctoral supervisor's companion (pp. 88-105). London: Routledge.
18. Halbert, K. (2015). Students' perceptions of a 'quality' advisory relationship. Quality in Higher Education, 21 (1), 26-37. [DOI:10.1080/13538322.2015.1049439]
19. Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. (2004). An introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.
20. Hasani, M. (2014). Developing a structural model for evaluation of faculty members core competencies in Urmia University (Using of Analytic Hierarchy Process). Quarterly Journal of Career & Organizational Counseling, 6, 55-75.
21. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112. [DOI:10.3102/003465430298487]
22. Hemer, S. R. (2012). Informality, power and relationships in postgraduate supervision: Supervising PhD candidates over coffee. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(6), 827-839. [DOI:10.1080/07294360.2012.674011]
23. Holmes, J. (2001). An introduction to sociolinguistics. Harlow, England: Longman.
24. Hoomanfard, M. H. (2017). EFL learners' attitudes and perceptions of online and conventional peer written feedback: A tertiary level experience. Malaysian Journal of Languages and Linguistics, 6(1), 49-62. [DOI:10.24200/mjll.vol6iss1pp49-62]
25. Hoomanfard, M. H., Jafarigohar, M., & Jalilifar, A. R. (in press). Hindrances to L2 graduate students' incorporation of written feedback into their academic Texts. Journal of Language Research.
26. Hoomanfard, M. H., & Rahimi, M. (in press). A comparative study of the efficacy of teacher and peer online written corrective feedback on EFL learners' writing ability. Journal of Language Research.
27. Hoomanfard, M. H., Jafarigohar, M. Jalilifar, A. R., & Hosseini Masum, S. M. (2018). A comparative study of graduate students' self-perceived needs for written feedback and the supervisors' perceptions. Research in Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 24-46.
28. 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]
29. Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (2001). Sugaring the pill; Praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 185-212. [DOI:10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00038-8]
30. Hyland, K. (2013). Faculty feedback: Perceptions and practices in L2 disciplinary writing. Journal of second language writing, 22, 240-253. [DOI:10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.003]
31. Ives, G., & G. Rowley. (2005). Supervisor selection or allocation and continuity of supervision: PhD students' progress and outcomes. Studies in Higher Education 30(5), 535-55. [DOI:10.1080/03075070500249161]
32. Joyner, R.L, Rouse, W.A., & Glatthorn, A.A. (2013). Writing the winning thesis or dissertation: A step by step guide (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
33. Kamler, B., & Thomson, P. (2006). Helping doctoral students write: Pedagogies for supervision. London: Routledge.
34. Kiley, M. (2011). Developments in research supervisor training: Causes and responses. Studies in Higher Education, 36(5), 585-599. [DOI:10.1080/03075079.2011.594595]
35. Kumar, V., & Stracke, E. (2007). An analysis of written feedback on a PhD thesis. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(4), 461-470. [DOI:10.1080/13562510701415433]
36. Lee, A., & Murray, R. (2015). Supervising writing: Helping postgraduate students develop as researchers. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52(5), 558-570. [DOI:10.1080/14703297.2013.866329]
37. Lei, J., & Hu, G. (2015). Apprenticeship in scholarly publishing: A student perspective on doctoral supervisors' roles. Publications, 3, 27-42. [DOI:10.3390/publications3010027]
38. 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]
39. Lizzio, A., & Wilson, K. (2008). Feedback on assessment: Students' perceptions of quality and effectiveness. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(3), 263-275. [DOI:10.1080/02602930701292548]
40. Lizzio, A., Wilson, K., Gilchrist, J., & Gallois, C. (2003). The role of gender in the construction and evaluation of feedback effectiveness. Management Communication Quarterly, 16, 341-379. [DOI:10.1177/0893318902238895]
41. Lumadi, M.W. (2008). The pedagogy of postgraduate research & its complexities. College Teaching Method & Styles Journal. 4(11), 25-32. [DOI:10.19030/ctms.v4i11.5577]
42. Maclellan, E. (2001). Assessment for learning: The differing perceptions of tutors and students. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(4), 307-318. [DOI:10.1080/02602930120063466]
43. Manchón, R. M., Murphy, L., & Roca de Larios, J. (2005). Using concurrent protocols to explore L2 writing processes: Methodological issues in the collection and analysis of data. In P. K. Matsuda & T. Silva (Eds.), Second language writing research: Perspectives on the process of knowledge construction (191-205). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
44. Mayring, P. (2004). Qualitative content analysis. In U. Flick, E. von Kardorff & I. Steinke (Eds.), A companion to qualitative research (pp. 266-269). London: Sage.
45. Merkel, W. (2018). Role reversals: A case study of dialogic interactions and feedback on L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 39, 16-28. [DOI:10.1016/j.jslw.2017.11.007]
46. Mhunpiew, N. (2013). A supervisor's roles for successful thesis and dissertation. US-China Education Review, 3(2), 119-122.
47. Mirador, J. F. (2000). A move analysis of written feedback in higher education. RELC Journal, 31(1), 45-60. [DOI:10.1177/003368820003100103]
48. Muthuchamy, I, & Thiyagu, K. (2011). Technology and teaching: Learning skills. Delhi: Kalpaz Publications.
49. O'Donovan, B., Price, M., & Rust, C. (2004). Know what I mean? Enhancing student understanding of assessment standards and criteria. Teaching in Higher Education, 9(3), 325-335. [DOI:10.1080/1356251042000216642]
50. Paltridge, B., & Starfield, S. (2007). Thesis and dissertation writing in a second language: A handbook for supervisors. London: Routledge. [DOI:10.4324/9780203960813]
51. Parker, R. (2009). A learning community approach to doctoral education in social sciences. Teaching in Higher Education 14(1), 43-54. [DOI:10.1080/13562510802602533]
52. Price, M., Handley, K., Millar, J., & O'Donovan, B. (2010). Feedback: All that effort, but what is the effect? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(3), 277-289. [DOI:10.1080/02602930903541007]
53. Rimaz, S., Dehdari, T., & Dehdari, L. (2015). PhD students' expectations from their supervisors: A qualitative content analysis. JMED, 9(4), 56-71.
54. Rust, C., Price, M., & O'Donovan, B. (2003). Improving students' learning by developing their understanding of assessment criteria and processes. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(2), 147-164. [DOI:10.1080/02602930301671]
55. Schoonen, R., Snellings, P., Stevenson, M., & van Gelderen, A. (2009). Towards a blueprint of the foreign language writer: The linguistic and cognitive demands of foreign language writing. In R.M. Manchón (Ed.), Learning, teaching, and researching writing in foreign language contexts. US: Multilingual Matters. [DOI:10.21832/9781847691859-007]
56. Skehan, P. (2009). Modeling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30, 510-532. [DOI:10.1093/applin/amp047]
57. 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]
58. 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. [DOI:10.4018/978-1-60960-147-8.ch001]
59. Swales, J. (2004). Research genres: Exploration and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [DOI:10.1017/CBO9781139524827]
60. Taheri, M., & Younesi, J. (2015). PhD students' attitude model about the feedback of academic. Educational Psychology, 10(34), 44-66.
61. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
62. Walker, M. & Thomson, P. (2010). The Routledge doctoral supervisor's companion. London: Routledge. [DOI:10.4324/9780203851760]
63. Warrell, J, G. (2016). Meaningfully becoming and learning to be: Graduate learners' professional identity development in online learning communities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Calgary.
64. Wright, T. (2003). Postgraduate research students: People in context? British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 31(2), 209-227. [DOI:10.1080/0306988031000102379]
65. Zhao, H. (2010). Investigating learners' use and understanding of peer and teacher feedback on writing: A comparative study in a Chinese English writing classroom. Assessing Writing, 15(1), 3-17. [DOI:10.1016/j.asw.2010.01.002]
Add your comments about this article
Your username or Email:


XML   Persian Abstract   Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Jafarigohar M, Hoomanfard M H, Jalilifar A. A Typology of Supervisor Written Feedback on L2 Students’ Theses/Dissertations. IJAL. 2018; 21 (2) :43-87
URL: http://ijal.khu.ac.ir/article-1-2936-en.html

Volume 21, Issue 2 (9-2018) Back to browse issues page
Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics
Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.09 seconds with 30 queries by YEKTAWEB 4227