语言为第二语言的硕士生和博士生对导师就其论文/毕业论文提供书面反馈意见的偏好

IF 4.2 1区 文学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Assessing Writing Pub Date : 2024-09-11 DOI:10.1016/j.asw.2024.100891
{"title":"语言为第二语言的硕士生和博士生对导师就其论文/毕业论文提供书面反馈意见的偏好","authors":"","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":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"L2 master’s and doctoral students’ preferences for supervisor written feedback on their theses/dissertations\",\"authors\":\"\",\"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\":null,\"pages\":null},\"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}","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

摘要

本研究采用了定性研究设计,以调查语言为第二语言的硕士生和博士生对导师书面反馈的偏好可能存在的差异。虽然学习者的偏好作为态度参与的一部分,在有关反馈的文献中得到了强调,但文献中仍有一些空白需要填补。其中一个空白点就是研究语言为第二语言的硕士生和博士生对导师就其论文/毕业论文所做书面反馈的偏好。为了弥补这一研究空白,研究人员采访了 52 名伊朗英语语言教学专业的硕士生和 21 名博士生。通过对访谈数据进行主题分析,确定了五种主要偏好:反馈清晰、具体、鼓励性、对话性和非适当性。对访谈数据的分析表明,硕士生和博士生都非常希望得到清晰和鼓励性的反馈。硕士生表示喜欢具体评论的比例明显更高。与此相反,博士生则更倾向于非适当的和对话性的反馈。研究结果还揭示了影响硕士生和博士生偏好的潜在因素。本研究还讨论了进一步研究的若干实际意义和建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
L2 master’s and doctoral students’ preferences for supervisor written feedback on their theses/dissertations

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Assessing Writing
Assessing Writing Multiple-
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
17.90%
发文量
67
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.
期刊最新文献
A comparative study of voice in Chinese English-major undergraduates’ timed and untimed argument writing The impact of task duration on the scoring of independent writing responses of adult L2-English writers A structural equation investigation of linguistic features as indices of writing quality in assessed secondary-level EMI learners’ scientific reports Validating an integrated reading-into-writing scale with trained university students Understanding the SSARC model of task sequencing: Assessing L2 writing development
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1