{"title":"L2 master’s and doctoral students’ preferences for supervisor written feedback on their theses/dissertations","authors":"MohammadHamed Hoomanfard","doi":"10.1016/j.asw.2024.100891","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The present study employed a qualitative research design to investigate possible differences between L2 master’s and doctoral students’ preferences for supervisor written feedback. Although the role of learners’ preferences, as a part of attitudinal engagement, has been emphasized in the literature on feedback, there are still niches in the literature that need to be occupied. One of these gaps is the examination of L2 master’s and doctoral students’ preferences for supervisor written feedback on their theses/dissertations. To bridge this research gap, the researcher interviewed 52 master’s and 21 doctoral Iranian English Language Teaching students. Thematic analysis of the interview data identified five main preferences: feedback that is clear, specific, encouraging, dialogic, and non-appropriative. The examination of interview data showed that both master’s and doctoral students expressed high levels of preference for receiving clear and encouraging feedback. A significantly higher percentage of master’s students expressed their preference for specific comments. In contrast, doctoral students exhibited heightened preferences for non-appropriative and dialogic feedback. The findings also provided insights into the underlying factors that can shape master’s and doctoral students’ preferences. Several practical implications and suggestions for further research are also discussed in this study.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46865,"journal":{"name":"Assessing Writing","volume":"62 ","pages":"Article 100891"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Assessing Writing","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1075293524000849","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The present study employed a qualitative research design to investigate possible differences between L2 master’s and doctoral students’ preferences for supervisor written feedback. Although the role of learners’ preferences, as a part of attitudinal engagement, has been emphasized in the literature on feedback, there are still niches in the literature that need to be occupied. One of these gaps is the examination of L2 master’s and doctoral students’ preferences for supervisor written feedback on their theses/dissertations. To bridge this research gap, the researcher interviewed 52 master’s and 21 doctoral Iranian English Language Teaching students. Thematic analysis of the interview data identified five main preferences: feedback that is clear, specific, encouraging, dialogic, and non-appropriative. The examination of interview data showed that both master’s and doctoral students expressed high levels of preference for receiving clear and encouraging feedback. A significantly higher percentage of master’s students expressed their preference for specific comments. In contrast, doctoral students exhibited heightened preferences for non-appropriative and dialogic feedback. The findings also provided insights into the underlying factors that can shape master’s and doctoral students’ preferences. Several practical implications and suggestions for further research are also discussed in this study.
期刊介绍:
Assessing Writing is a refereed international journal providing a forum for ideas, research and practice on the assessment of written language. Assessing Writing publishes articles, book reviews, conference reports, and academic exchanges concerning writing assessments of all kinds, including traditional (direct and standardised forms of) testing of writing, alternative performance assessments (such as portfolios), workplace sampling and classroom assessment. The journal focuses on all stages of the writing assessment process, including needs evaluation, assessment creation, implementation, and validation, and test development.