Feedback and self‐regulated learning: insights from supervisors’ and PhD examiners’ reports

Stracke, Elke; Kumar, Vijay

doi:10.1080/14623940903525140

Cited by 57 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The feedback content analysis was based on the work of Stracke and Kumar (2010). These authors used linguistic principles to develop a feedback model and framework that contains three category types.…”

Section: The Structure Of Feedback Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Student peer review: enhancing formative feedback with a rebuttal

Harland

Wald

Randhawa

2016

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a Higher education development centre, university of otago, dunedin, new Zealand; b ecology degree Programme, university of otago, dunedin, new Zealand ABSTRACT This study examines the use of peer review in an undergraduate ecology programme, in which students write a research proposal as a grant application, prior to carrying out the research project. Using a theoretical feedback model, we compared teacher and student peer reviews in a double blind exercise, and show how students responded to feedback given by each group. In addition, students wrote a rebuttal for every feedback point before re-drafting and submission. Despite students claiming they could tell if the reviewer was a teacher or student, this was not always the case, and both student and teacher feedback was accepted on merit. Analysis of feedback types and rebuttal actions showed similar patterns between students and teachers. Where teachers differed slightly was in the use of questions and giving direction. Interviews with students showed the rebuttal was a novel experience, because it required a consideration of each comment and justification as to why it was accepted, partially accepted or rejected. Being a reviewer helped students to learn about their own work, and it changed the way they understood the scientific literature. In addition, some students transferred their new peer review skills to help others outside of the ecology programme.

show abstract

Section: The Structure Of Feedback Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Student peer review: enhancing formative feedback with a rebuttal

Harland

Wald

Randhawa

2016

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Apart from that, students also responded well to written feedback based on supportive, encouraging, and polite tone elements (Eyres, Hatch, Turner, & West, 2001;Ferguson, 2009) compared to the negative written feedback. The rationality behind this is that the students prefer recognition for their work (Ferguson, 2009;Stracke & Kumar, 2010) Other findings also showed that students wish to obtain more direct feedback (Bitchener et al 2011), detailed, specific, and extensive feedback especially on central issue of their paper (Crossouard & Pryor, 2009, Eyres et al, 2001, Ferguson, 2009. In Gulfidan's study (2009), regarding the positive statements on how feedback should be provided, the students preferred "straightforward written feedback', 'feedback that gives me clear instructions for how to revise my paper' and 'detailed, specific comments more than overall, general comments'.…”

Section: Feedback Preferencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Graduate Students’ Needs and Preferences for Written Feedback on Academic Writing

Singh¹

2016

ELT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this research is to examine graduate students' needs and preferences for written feedback on academic writing from their lecturers and thesis supervisors. Quantitative method via survey questionnaire was used to collect data from 21 respondents. The data collection involved Master and Doctorate students at a tertiary level institution in Malaysia. The data was analyzed and tabulated using descriptive analysis. Results indicate that graduate students regularly need written feedback on their academic writing and they preferred electronic method to obtain feedback from their supervisors. Findings also indicate that graduate students appreciated feedback which was straightforward, provided clear instructions, directed them to other related resources, and feedback which was detailed or specific. This research filled the gap in literature by providing awareness among thesis supervisors and lecturers on the students' needs and preference for written feedback on their academic writing. Apart from that, greater understanding of students' perceived needs for feedback and preferences of feedback is also vital for lectures and thesis supervisors to increase the effectiveness of providing constructive written feedback.

show abstract

“…This does not augur well for good supervision and eventual production of quality PhD dissertation as the ultimate aim of doctoral education is to train scholars to become independent (i.e. highly self-regulated) learners [8]. Table 4 indicates that 67.6% of respondents agreed that faculty-provided explicit assessment rubrics were used in scoring the student's presentation and defence of work done.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Supervision is crucial to the work of academicians and is in itself a social activity; hence supervision requires painstaking work with a student while simultaneously giving heed to the broader scholarly community [2] [7]. Supervisors and dissertation assessors provide a PhD supervisee needed guidance in a doctoral journey to gradually move from being a novice to becoming an expert in a specialized field of study [8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%