Abstract
Feedback has a significant effect on the quality of the thesis a supervisee writes. However, this largely depends on the supervisors' and supervisees' feedback practice and perception. Thus, this study aimed to assess the supervisors' and supervisees' perception and practice of the process-oriented thesis written feedback from four perspectives: the function, focus, nature, and adjustment required. To do this, the study used questionnaires and interview data collected from English as a Foreign Language (EFL) thesis supervisors and supervisees were selected through a proportional random sampling technique from four Ethiopian universities. The study revealed that (1) supervisors and supervisees have a good perception of the four aspects of process-oriented effective written feedback despite some variations in the mean values among the sub-categories of effective written feedback. (2) It was also discovered that supervisors were practicing process-oriented effective written feedback to a required extent and supervisees agree their supervisors do so. However, interestingly, (3) there was a significant difference between supervisors' and supervisees' perceptions on the one hand and supervisors' reported practice and supervisees' views about their supervisors’ practice of effective written thesis feedback on the other.
Keywords: Feedback perception, Feedback practice, Thesis feedback, Written feedback, Process-oriented feedback
1. Introduction
Thesis supervisees may not attain the academic writing expected of them without their supervisors' provision of effective written feedback [1]. Accordingly, continuous written feedback on thesis drafts is the major source of supervisees' learning and improvement and it closes the gaps between their actual level and the standards expected of them [1,2]. Hence, teachers’ written feedback is considered very vital for assisting students in progressively revising their written work [3,4]. It is particularly vital for thesis writing in an English as a Foreign Language (EFL) context like in Ethiopia. Effective supervisory feedback is critical in ESL/EFL situations as the learners can simply be challenged by the language, they are writing with in addition to the content they are writing [5]. The same challenge was observed among Jordanian Ph.D. students who were studying abroad in a foreign language [6].
Supervisees in Ethiopia, thus, pass through several typical stages in thesis writing, these are, concept paper writing, proposal writing, writing the review section, writing the methodology, writing the results and discussion, conclusions, and recommendations. All these stages can only effectively be achieved with the assistance and continuous feedback of the thesis supervisor on each stage. This is what the authors of this study call process-oriented thesis feedback, which according to Chugh et al. [7], is a life-span supervisory feedback approach. Supervisees engaging in such a feedback process benefit a great deal from it [8].
However, all written feedback may not always be effective or beneficial. Yet, there seems to be little agreement on what exactly effective written feedback refers to. On the other hand, there are considerable attempts made to characterize effective feedback. Feedback is more effective when it focuses on behavior rather than on the person, when it is considered as a process, not a one-time quick fix when it considers the recipient's amount of experience and the developmental stage, when it contains a moderate amount of positive feedback with a selected and limited amount of negative feedback and when given frequently, but not excessively [9]. In the same token, Underwood and Tregidgo [10] surveying the literature on feedback have recommended that effective feedback on writing should provide both content-level and surface-level feedback, present feedback in specific rather than general ways, tell students both what they did right and where they need help and generate text appropriate to the ability level of the student. Similarly, effective feedback should meet the expectations of the supervisees and the supervisors and that needs to consider cultural, linguistic, and learning style differences among the supervisees [11]. Moreover, effective feedback should balance both the strengths and weaknesses of the student's writing [12,13]. Effective feedback is insightful feedback from research supervisors which can significantly improve the quality of the dissertation [14]. Chugh et al. [7], in their review article summarized five features of effective supervisory feedback.
-
1.
Manage expectations and negotiate supervision arrangements;
-
2.
Build and maintain a positive supervisory relationship;
-
3.
Awareness of and critical reflection on own practice;
-
4.
Suitable feedback content; and
-
5.
Suitable and balanced ways of giving feedback.
Based on the reviews made, in the context of this study, we see effective written thesis feedback as enhanced feedback on the process and the product (the thesis) that enables supervisees to improve their thesis. Hence, effective EFL thesis feedback needs to be understandable, detailed, specific, positive, and timely. In addition, it needs to be adjusted to the level of understanding of the supervisee and be provided piece by piece building on previous feedback. Feedback also needs to be studied from its consideration of the level of performance, timeliness, accuracy, tone, focus, level of detail, congruency with expectations, and comprehensibility [15]. Effective feedback also requires both the supervisees' and supervisors’ favorable perceptions. Feedback is more effective when the discrepancies between feedback givers' and feedback recipients' perceptions are moderate [9].
Despite varied focuses and participants, written feedback has been an issue for several studies. Some studies were done on written feedback from teachers' perspectives [13,16]. Others studied written feedback from both teachers' and students' perspectives [12,17]. A couple of studies emphasized students' and teachers' perceptions and practices of written feedback at course levels [16,17]. Similarly, the study by Ghazal et al. [12] focused on the quality of written feedback and students' perception of it. Lucero et al. [31] focused on the nature and types of teacher feedback comments on students' short stories. Hyland and Hyland [13] examined the praise and criticism aspects of feedback on ESL students' writing assignments. Kumar and Stracke [1], Yenus [18] and Gedamu and Gezahegn [19] studied the focus and language functions of supervisors’ written feedback. Others focused on supervisory feedback on the proposal instead of the whole lifespan of the dissertation process [20,21]. Rasool et al. [22], rather specifically focused on the effects of online supervisory feedback on student-supervisor communications during COVID-19.
Yet, there are several questions left unanswered. These include.
-
•
What is the extent of the practice of process-oriented effective written feedback on a thesis, particularly in the EFL context?
-
•
How do supervisees and supervisors perceive process-oriented thesis written feedback? And
-
•
Is there congruence between supervisees' and supervisors' perception and practice of process-oriented written feedback?
On top of this, in the studies above, EFL supervisees' views of their supervisors' feedback practices have not been voiced together with supervisors' views. Moreover, since feedback is a process and context-dependent, there seems to be a need for studying feedback practice in different contexts. Researchers suggest further research in the area of evidence-based practice in supervisory feedback [7]. In addition, studies with the consideration of varied typologies of feedback are minimal. Ellis [23] suggests research questions on what the different types of written corrective feedback are and how these types can most convincingly be classified. Zellermayer [24] in his review of studies on feedback, in one group of review of studies, feedback was seen in terms of being positive vs. negative, specific vs. vague, clarifying vs. directing, and macro vs. micro. On the other hand, feedback is agreed to be classified into functions and content of the feedback [25]. Even if our intentions in this study are not to categorize feedback, the categorizations we made here on the bases of function, focus, nature, and adjustment required of written feedback can be seen as one way of classifying. Generally, even if the effectiveness of process-oriented feedback largely depends on the recipients' and providers’ practice and perception of the feedback process, studies either mostly overlook these factors or study them from a narrow scope.
Thus, there is a generally felt niche to study the supervisors' and supervisees' perceptions and practices of process-oriented written feedback and the nexuses between the two variables in the EFL context. As result, this study sought to (1) explore EFL supervisors' and supervisees' perceptions of process-oriented effective written feedback, (2) examine EFL supervisors' practices of process-oriented written feedback, and (3) discover the association between supervisors' and supervisees' perceptions of process-oriented effective written feedback and written feedback practices in selected public universities of Ethiopia. Hence, the findings of this study may help EFL thesis supervisors to evaluate and re-adjust their written feedback practices in consideration of the function, focus, nature, and adjustment required of the feedback. Moreover, readers may get a data-driven knowledge of the perception and perceived practice of thesis feedback conducted from supervisors' and supervisees’ perspectives from a relatively under-represented study context, Ethiopia.
2. Theoretical framework of the study
The three learning theories namely behaviorism, cognitivism and constructivism believed to explain the philosophical assumptions behind providing feedback. Originally, feedback seems to relate to the behaviorist theory where writing instruction is considered as a series of instructor-provided stimuli and learners' responses to these stimuli, that is feedback [24]. However, as the theories of learning historically changed from the behaviorist view to the social constructivist theory, the way feedback is viewed has also changed. For the constructivist theory, learning is an active process of the construction of knowledge with the active engagement of the learner in the learning process with feedback from capable individuals [26]. Lipnevich and Panadero [25] in providing the reader with a brief historical overview of feedback state that researchers have moved from the conception of feedback as “it is done to the students to change their behavior” to “it should give information to the students to process and construct knowledge.” This subscribes to the Vygotskian social constructivist theory where an able adult is required to drive the thesis writer to the required zone of development with a required interaction between the supervisor and supervisees through feedback on each stage of thesis writing. Hence, even if their focus is on students’ engagement in written feedback, Mao and Lee [27] encourage researchers to consider sociocultural theory (SCT) for research into feedback. Gedamu & Gezahegn [19] also believe that social constructivist theory can be used as a framework for studying feedback focus and language function.
The theory that informs the Ethiopian EFL thesis writing and feedback process seem to be this social constructivist. Kio [28] specifically calls this a ‘connected model of feedback’ that considers supervisees learning from feedback coming from teachers and from peers (others) in a social process. In the Ethiopian EFL thesis writing context, the supervisee writes a concept paper or paper of intent and the supervisor provides written feedback and may also hold a conference based on the feedback. The supervisee, then, will develop a proposal in consideration of the feedback on the concept paper. The supervisor, then, provides written feedback on the proposal with the possibility of conferencing again. This will continue at every stage of the thesis writing process. This process-oriented written feedback is very important in improving the quality of the thesis. This model can best be described in the following diagram.
The repeated interactions between the supervisees and the supervisor, the internal and external examiners on the feedback message in the Ethiopian context seem to very well relate to what Rust et al. [29], affirm a social constructivist approach to feedback requires to do. That this, students need to actively engage with the feedback. Hence, in this study, thesis writing is seen as an interactive process that includes all the eight stages indicated in Fig. 1 while the written feedback is considered the feedback on all the stages. A recent book, indicated, “… reviewed research shows that feedback should be seen as an interactional activity in which educators and students collaboratively interpret and evaluate student performance and co-create learning opportunities.” [30, p. 52]. The interaction between the supervisor and the supervisee on the bases of the feedback is then believed to maximize the output (the thesis). This interaction and the study design are further diagrammatically expressed in Fig. 2.
Fig. 1.
A theoretical model for thesis feedback in Ethiopian Higher Education (Authors' sketch).
Fig. 2.
Conceptual framework of the study (Authors' sketch).
3. Research methodology
3.1. Research design
The general objective of this study was to explore EFL supervisors' and supervisees' perceptions and practices of written thesis feedback from the perspectives of the functions, the focus, the nature, and the adjustment required of written feedback. To address the objective of the study a cross-sectional descriptive survey design was adopted. It is named cross-sectional because the data was collected from a cross-section of participants (Supervisors and supervisees) selected from four public universities in different parts of Ethiopia. The design is primarily descriptive because it focused on describing the supervisors' and supervisees’ perceptions and perceived practice of process-oriented thesis feedback.
3.2. Research context
The study was conducted in four Ethiopian universities; namely Arba Minch University, Wolayeta Sodo University, Hawassa University, and Dilla University. In fact, like in most other contexts, in Ethiopia, thesis written feedback does not come only from the supervisors, it also comes from internal and external examiners with the presentation of the final thesis. Supervisees are then expected to address feedback comments and interact with the supervisor on the base of the feedback. Hence, the supervisee is seen as an active learner who understands written feedback messages and improves the thesis accordingly.
3.3. Participants of the study
Thirty-seven supervisors and fifty-five supervisees were randomly selected for the survey questionnaires from Arba Minch University, Wolayeta Sodo University, Hawassa University, and Dilla University. Four supervisors and four supervisees were also chosen from each university based on their willingness for an in-depth interview. The supervisors selected were supervising from four to six supervisees at the time of data collection while most of the supervisees were supervised by a main and co-supervisor.
3.4. Data collection instruments
To address the research objectives sets of questionnaires and interviews were utilized. The perception and practice questionnaires were organized into four sub-categories including 20 and 17 randomly arranged items, respectively. The four main categories are made based on the ideas of different scholars [9,13,24, 25, 31], and included the functions of feedback, the focus of feedback, the nature of feedback, and the adjustment required of feedback.
3.4.1. Supervisor and supervisee questionnaires
The purpose of the supervisor questionnaire was to elicit data from these supervisors on their perceptions and practice of effective written feedback. To this end, the close-ended questionnaire was prepared by the authors on five-point Likert scales that range from strongly disagree (1), disagree (2), undecided (3), agree (4), and strongly agree (5). Similarly, the purpose of the supervisee questionnaire was to obtain data on supervisees' perception of written feedback and their views on their supervisors' written feedback practice. The supervisors' self-rating data may be inflated and hence data from supervisees on their supervisors’ feedback provision practices was used to control this situation. Hence, a close-ended questionnaire was prepared on five-point Likert scale that ranged from strongly disagree (1), disagree (2), undecided (3), agree (4), and strongly agree (5). These items were arranged in the same manner and with the same category as the supervisors.
3.4.2. Interview with supervisors and supervisees
Semi-structured interviews were also used to intensively probe supervisors' and supervisees' perceptions of written feedback. The items of the interview were prepared by the authors in consideration of the ideas in the perception questionnaires. To this effect, a face-to-face individual interview was held with four supervisors and four supervisees. The items of the interview with the supervisee included whether they feel that their supervisor's written feedback could be a useful tool to improve their thesis writing, what effective written feedback on a thesis mean for them, and what areas their thesis supervisor focuses on in his/her written feedback. Similarly, the interview items for the supervisor are included. How they see the importance of their written feedback in improving students' thesis writing and the reasons for their responses. The item of the interview with supervisors has also included what they think effective written feedback should do or should be. Each interview was tape-recorded and noted with the consent of the participants. The recorded interview data were transcribed and checked for accuracy for analysis.
3.5. Reliability and validity of the data collection instruments
A pilot study was run at Jimma University, Ethiopia to check the reliability of the study. The reliability of the items of perception and practice questionnaires was checked using Cronbach alpha. The supervisors' (n = 15 participants) alpha value equaled 0.92 for the 20 items of perception which is very highly reliable [32]. Similarly, the supervisees' (n = 25 participants) was computed to be 0.82 for the 20 items of perception indicating highly reliable items. Similarly, the alpha values of the 17 items of supervisors' (n = 15 participants) practice of effective thesis written feedback and supervisees' (n = 25 participants) views of the supervisors’ written feedback practice were 0.93 and 0.86 which are very highly reliable and highly reliable, respectively. Regarding the validity of the tools, the supervisors and the supervisees at Jimma university were asked to make comments on the tools. They have raised issues of clarity on a few items. Hence, items 3 and 15 of the student and teacher questionnaires were improved for language.
For the construct validity of the questionnaire items for supervisors and supervisees, principal component analysis (PCA) was conducted with orthogonal Varimax rotation. Hence, based on the results of PCA for supervisors' practice of effective thesis written feedback and supervisees' views of their supervisors' practice (n = 17 items) confirmed all the items were retained with four factors. The factors have been labeled as practice relating to feedback function (n = 4), feedback focus (n = 4), feedback nature (n = 5), and feedback adjustment (n = 4) items. Similarly, a principal component analysis (PCA) on supervisors' and supervisees’ perceptions of effective written feedback (n = 23 items) showed that the 20 items retained comprised four components which are labeled as feedback function (n = 5), feedback focus (n = 5), feedback nature (n = 5), and feedback adjustment (n = 5) items.
3.6. Data collection procedures
Firstly, the questionnaires were administered to the selected participants of the study. Having collected data through questionnaires, interviews were held with each of the four-participant supervisors and supervisees on a face-to-face basis. The interviews were facilitated by the investigators. The responses of the interviewees were audio-recorded with the consent of the interviewees. These were transcribed verbatim for thematic analysis.
3.7. Methods of data organization and analysis
The data obtained through questionnaires were quantified and organized into averages at item and scale or sub-scale levels. To see if there were statistically significant differences between supervisors' and supervisees' perceptions and practice independent samples t-tests were used in consideration of the assumptions of this test. The qualitative data acquired through supervisors’ interviews on the same issue were first transcribed and analyzed verbatim.
To see the association between supervisors' and supervisees' perceptions of effective written feedback and written feedback practices on students’ thesis work, Pearson product-moment correlation was applied. In addition, a five percent (α = 0.05) level of significance was applied throughout the study to determine significant differences and relations.
3.8. Conceptual framework of the study
As described in the theoretical framework, in this study, thesis writing is seen as an interactive process in the lined stages such as concept notes of the study, proposal for the study, tools of the study, pilot report, data report, first draft, pre-submission draft and final thesis while the written feedback is considered the feedback on all these stages made by the supervisor. The interaction between the supervisor and the supervisee on the bases of the feedback is then believed to maximize the output (the thesis). In other words, desirable feedback is feedback provided with due consideration of the function, the focus, the nature and adjust required in the course of feedback practice. This has to then be supported by the favorable perception of supervisors and supervisees. Hence, in consideration of all the methodological descriptions and the theoretical framework, Fig. 2 was seen as the conceptual framework summarizing the ideas of the study.
As shown in Fig. 2, improved written feedback practice may result from a favorable perception of effective feedback and effective thesis written feedback practice which will in turn enhance the thesis quality.
3.9. Ethical considerations
The objectives of the study were introduced to the participants of the study and they were informed that participation in the study was entirely voluntary. They were informed not to include any personal identifier in completing the survey questionnaire and their informed consent was obtained before their indolent in the study. Moreover, the research was conducted following the principles set by the Arba Minch University Institutional Research Ethics Board.
4. Results and discussion
In this section, we present the findings of the study and the discussion made based on them.
4.1. Results of the study
4.1.1. EFL supervisors' and supervisees’ perceptions of effective written feedback
One of the specific objectives of this study was to explore EFL supervisors' and supervisees’ perceptions of effective written feedback with references to sub-categories which included perception of the Functions of Feedback, the Focus of Feedback, the Nature of Feedback and the Adjustment required of Feedback. The analysis of the data from the questionnaires has been presented below in consecutive tables followed by data from the interview.
5. Results from questionnaires
This section presents the results from the supervisors' perception questionnaire and supervisees’ perception questionnaire (Tables 1–6).
Table 4.
Supervisors' and Supervisees’ Perception of the Adjustment of effective feedback.
| Item No. | Effective written feedback … | Supervisor (n = 37) |
Supervisee (n = 55) |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Std. Dev | Mean | Std. Dev | ||
| 3 | be specific in indicating the gaps in the thesis. | 4.51 | 0.90 | 3.95 | 0.97 |
| 12 | prioritizes and focuses on feedback provision. | 4.11 | 0.84 | 3.38 | 1.39 |
| 13 | builds upon previous feedback. | 4.05 | 1.10 | 4.04 | 0.92 |
| 14 | be toned down to the supervisee's level of understanding. | 3.97 | 1.19 | 3.42 | 1.32 |
| 15 | follows a certain standard of providing feedback. | 4.16 | 0.90 | 3.84 | 1.29 |
| Grand mean | 4.18 | 3.67 | |||
Table 5.
Supervisors' and Supervisees’ Perception of all sub-categories of effective feedback.
| Categories of effective written feedback | Supervisor (n = 37) Mean | Supervisee (n = 55) Mean | Mean difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Functions | 4.49 | 4.21 | 0.28 |
| Focus | 3.93 | 3.72 | 0.21 |
| Nature | 4.22 | 4.07 | 0.15 |
| Adjustment required | 4.18 | 3.67 | 0.51 |
Table 1.
Supervisors' and Supervisees’ Perception of the Functions of effective feedback.
| Item No. | Effective feedback | Supervisor (n = 37) |
Supervisee (n = 55) |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Std. Dev | Mean | Std. Dev | ||
| 1 | communicates gaps. | 4.59 | 0.96 | 3.80 | 1.18 |
| 2 | improves thesis. | 4.67 | 0.94 | 4.38 | 0.85 |
| 5 | provides detail for improvement. | 4.24 | 0.83 | 4.12 | 1.06 |
| 9 | evaluates work. | 4.51 | 0.90 | 4.40 | 0.81 |
| 20 | acknowledges efforts. | 4.38 | 0.92 | 4.05 | 0.99 |
| Grand mean | 4.49 4.21 | ||||
Table 6.
An independent samples T-Test of the supervisees' and supervisors’ perception of effective written feedback.
| Group | N | Mean | SD | Df | T | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Supervisor | 37 | 4.20 | .67 | 90 | 2.20 | .031 |
| Supervisee | 55 | 3.92 | .52 |
As shown in Table 1, the supervisors' and supervisees’ perception of the functions of the effective feedback scale mean equals 4.49 and 4.21, respectively. These indicate more than agreement (>4) values which shows that supervisors and supervisees had a good perception of the functions of effective feedback.
The supervisors' and supervisees' perception of the focus of effective feedback equals the mean of 3.93 and 3.72, respectively (Table 2). These mean values are nearly equal agreement scale showing a favorable perception of the supervisors and supervisees to the focus of effective written feedback.
Table 2.
Supervisors' and supervisees’ perception of focus on effective feedback.
| Item No. | Effective feedback | Supervisor (n = 37) |
Supervisee (n = 55) |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Std. Dev | Mean | Std. Dev | ||
| 11 | balances praise and criticisms. | 4.03 | 1.19 | 3.945 | 0.97 |
| 16 | criticizes the supervisee's thesis work. | 2.73 | 1.3 | 3.38 | 1.394 |
| 17 | develops supervisee as a thesis writer. | 4.08 | 1.06 | 4.04 | 0.92 |
| 18 | does not disrespect the supervisee as a person. | 4.29 | 1.15 | 3.42 | 1.32 |
| 19 | focuses on the work, not the supervisee as a person. | 4.51 | 1.51 | 3.84 | 1.29 |
| Grand Mean | 3.93 | 3.72 | |||
Supervisors’ and supervisees agreed to the items relating to the nature of effective written feedback (Table 3). It can then be inferred that the supervisors and supervisees positively viewed the nature of effective written feedback.
Table 3.
Supervisors' and Supervisees’ Perception of the Nature of effective feedback.
| Item No. | Effective written feedback … | Supervisor (n = 37) |
Supervisee (n = 55) |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Std. Dev | Mean | Std. Dev | ||
| 4 | encouraging. | 4.46 | 0.99 | 4.29 | 0.92 |
| 6 | be exclusively positive. | 3.11 | 1.33 | 2.89 | 1.29 |
| 7 | be timely. | 4.49 | 0.99 | 4.27 | 1.04 |
| 8 | be clear or understandable to the supervisee. | 4.51 | 0.99 | 4.44 | 0.90 |
| 10 | be constructive. | 4.49 | 0.90 | 4.42 | 0.76 |
| Grand mean | 4.22 | 4.07 | |||
Despite some differences in the mean values (4.18 and 3.67) between the supervisors' and the supervisees’ perceptions, they are near agreement indicating a favorable perception of the adjustment required for effective written feedback.
In summary, even if there are some variations in the supervisors' and supervisees' perception values with supervisees' showing lower values for all the sub-categories of effective written feedback than the supervisors’, both groups seem to rate all the categories that included functions, focus, nature, and adjustment of effective written feedback positively.
On the other hand, an independent samples t-test was used to scrutinize if there are statistically significant differences between the supervisor and supervisee groups. See Table 6.
The 2- tailed independent samples t-test for the equality of means of the aggregate groups (t (2.20), df = 90, p = 0.031) was found to be statistically significant at a 0.05 level of significance. The findings indicated that the supervisors' perception statistically significantly differs from the supervisees’ perception.
5.1. Results from interviews
In connection to supervisors' and supervisees’ perceptions of effective written feedback, semi-structured interviews were made with four supervisors and four supervisees. The results are presented in this section.
All four supervisors perceived supervisors’ written feedback as very important except for some variation in their justifications of the importance of the written feedback. Supervisor 1 and Supervisor 3 focused on the written feedback as a document for later reference.
Supervisor 1 said, The supervisor's written feedback is very important to improve the candidate's work. Since it doesn't fade away, it can be referred to at any time by both the candidate and the supervisor. It can be used as an exhibit for future reference, especially in times of dispute. I think it is also more systematic than oral feedback since it is a formative tool.
Hence, to Supervisor 1, written feedback is perceived as a document to referred back by supervisee and supervisor. He sees written feedback superior to oral feedback.
In the same manner Supervisor, 3 mentioned, Since the supervisor is not a computer, he can't remember everything he found when he reads the thesis, so he can't express everything orally. Even if it had been possible, the advisee can't grasp every comment that the supervisor forwards orally. Even the written record could help the advisee to refer and improve his/her thesis after some time.
Supervisee 3 seem to perceive written feedback the same way as Supervisor 1. Written feedback is seen as a record for supervisee to refer to for improving the thesis.
In addition, Supervisor 3 while he thinks written feedback is something very important to improve the supervisees' thesis, he, in addition, seems to emphasize written feedback as a tool that draws the supervisees' attention to what and where to improve.
Similarly, supervisor 2 responded that he feels it is very important as it gives directions/clues to the students in both theoretical issues and practical approaches (experiences) in conducting research. So, supervisor 2 rather justifies his response by focusing on the importance of written feedback as something that gives clues in conducting research.
In a related question of what they think effective written feedback should do or should be, supervisors responded differently. Supervisor 4 thought, Effective written feedback should indicate where the problem lies and how these problems should be improved. Therefore, whenever, supervisors give written comments then students should attend to all the comments as much as possible and the comments the supervisors should give are also meant for improving students written work. Well, students are not good at researching nowadays. Therefore, by giving such guidance we can just help our students to be a bit good then where they were.
Supervisor 1, on the other hand, focused on the goal orientation of effective feedback. He mentioned, “Effective feedback should be goal-oriented. It requires that the candidate has a goal and he/she takes action to achieve the goal and receives goal-related information about his or her actions from the supervisor.” Supervisor 2, rather, thinks effective written feedback should do several things. These as directly quoted include, Guide students to follow scientifically agreed components of the research process, help students see the gaps in their draft work on each research component, probe students to come up with scientifically sound justifications for the specific approaches and methods they preferred to use in their work, indicate areas of focus to improve their work by themselves rather than editing or correcting, mention the missed components, and suggest issues to be included under and encourage students to focus on the most updated related work or literature to substantiate or verify their claims.
The supervisors seem to generally believe written feedback is an important tool to improve supervisees’ thesis. This is a relevant perception of written feedback that has to be positively taken in the thesis supervision process.
Supervisees were also asked nearly similar questions as the supervisors except for the way they are phrased. The first question was whether they felt that their supervisors' written feedback could be a useful tool to improve their thesis writing and their justification for either of their responses. All four perceived written feedback as something very important and all justified this in a nearly similar manner. Supervisee 1 agrees it is important and justifies it as “… because it shows me how to improve my thesis and directs me the way that what I include in my thesis and what I eradicate from my thesis.” Supervisee 2, adds, “yes, because it encourages me to correct mistakes when writing a thesis.” Supervisees 3 and 4 also see supervisors’ comments are important and they believe so because the comments help them see gaps.
When supervisees were asked what they think is effective written feedback, they expressed this differently. Supervisor 1 mentions, “For me, effective written feedback is the way that the supervisor indicates to me what to or not include in my thesis.” Supervisee 2 says, “In my opinion, effective written feedback means a critical way of giving feedback. It is also positive feedback.” Supervisee 3, on the other hand, explains, “Effective written feedback is the feedback that gives the necessary idea to improve the thesis.” Supervisee 4, thinks effective written feedback is about showing the major problems of the researcher and directing them to correct them.
In total, terms such as ‘indicating what to include’, ‘giving critical feedback’, ‘giving necessary ideas for improvement’, and ‘showing problems in the theses’ seem to be echoed in what supervisees think effective feedback is. While the supervisors' responses are largely related to the supervisees' responses, some specific terms are expressed differently. Supervisors tend to choose terms such as ‘focused, clear and encouraging and delivered politely’, ‘enable the supervisees to see the gaps of their draft work’, and ‘be goal-oriented.
Even if interviewed supervisees and supervisors unanimously agree on the importance of written feedback both groups tend to differ in some of the phrases used to justify why they think written feedback is important. Supervisors used phrases such as ‘it doesn't fade away, it can be referred to at any time, it is more systematic than oral feedback’, ‘it gives directions/clues to the students’, and ‘it makes supervisors be helpers, guide and assistants during the theses work’. On the other hand, supervisees use terms such as, ‘it shows how to improve the thesis, it encourages supervisees to correct mistakes when writing a thesis, it helps to see gaps and they can be used as a document for later reference.’
To conclude, the qualitative responses seem to be congruent with the quantitative results where supervisees' and supervisors’ perceptions differ to some extent but they tend to equally regard written feedback as important.
5.1.1. EFL supervisors’ practices of written feedback
The second specific objective of this study was to explore EFL supervisors’ practice of written feedback with references to sub-scales which included the practice of the functions of feedback, the focus of feedback, the nature of feedback, and the adjustment of feedback. The results are presented in the sections below. See Tables 7–12.
Table 10.
Required adjustment of feedback.
| Item No. | Practices of Written Feedback | Supervisor (n = 37) |
Supervisee (n = 55) |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Std. Dev | Mean | Std. Dev | ||
| 31 | give comments piece by piece. | 3.54 | 1.02 | 3.60 | 1.10 |
| 35 | build upon previous feedback. | 4.05 | 1.03 | 3.55 | 0.98 |
| 36 | tone down comments to the level of understanding. | 3.84 | 1.07 | 3.40 | 1.15 |
| 37 | follow a certain standard of providing feedback. | 4.05 | 0.91 | 2.56 | 1.30 |
| Grand mean | 3.87 | 3.28 | |||
Table 7.
Supervisors' and supervisees’ practice relating to the functions of feedback.
| Item No. | Practices of Written Feedback | Supervisor (n = 37) |
Supervisee (n = 55) |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Std. Dev | Mean | Std. Dev | ||
| 27 | acknowledge efforts. | 4.05 | 0.97 | 3.80 | 1.06 |
| 29 | explain how to revise in detail. | 4.05 | 0.91 | 4.02 | 0.95 |
| 32 | give clues about which direction to look. | 4.81 | 0.98 | 4.00 | 1.02 |
| 33 | communicate gaps. | 4.30 | 1.02 | 4.02 | 0.85 |
| Grand mean | 4.30 | 3.96 | |||
Table 12.
An independent samples t-test of the supervisees' views and supervisors’ practice of written feedback.
| Group | N | Mean | SD | df | t | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Supervisor | 37 | 4.06 | .670 | 90 | 2.81 | 0.01 |
| Supervisee | 55 | 3.68 | .60 |
Despite the variations among the items of the supervisors' practice and supervisees’ views of the practice of the functions of effective feedback, the grand mean equals 4.30 and 3.96, respectively which are nearly equivalent to the scale value of the agreement, that is, 4.00 (Table 7). Hence, supervisors report they are practicing the items relating to the functions of feedback, and supervisees also agree their supervisors do so.
Regarding supervisors' practice of the focus on effective feedback and supervisees' views on their supervisors' practice in this aspect, according to Table 8, the mean values equal 4.09 and 3.77, respectively. These mean values are nearly equal in agreement despite some differences between the supervisors' reported practice and supervisees' views about the supervisors’ practice.
Table 8.
Supervisors' and supervisees’ practice relating to the focus of feedback.
| Item No. | Supervisors' Supervisory Practices of Written Feedback | Supervisor (n = 37) |
Supervisee (n = 55) |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Std. Dev | Mean | Std. Dev | ||
| 24 | balance praises with criticisms. | 3.89 | 1.02 | 3.58 | 1.17 |
| 26 | show the place which requires revision. | 4.41 | 0.90 | 4.04 | 0.94 |
| 28 | write respectfully. | 4.19 | 0.94 | 4.02 | 1.16 |
| 34 | add oral feedback sessions to the written. | 3.89 | 1.15 | 3.45 | 1.02 |
| Grand mean | 4.09 | 3.77 | |||
Table 9 shows the mean values of the supervisors' practice and supervisees' views of the practice of the items relating to the nature of effective feedback equal to 4.14 and 3.72, respectively. These mean values are near the agreement scale with this sub-category indicating supervisors' reported practice and supervisees' agreement with the supervisors’ report.
Table 9.
Supervisors' and supervisees’ practice relating to the nature of feedback.
| Item No. | Practices of Written Feedback | Supervisor (n = 37) |
Supervisee (n = 55) |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Std. Dev | Mean | Std. Dev | ||
| 21 | offers details on specific issues. | 4.14 | 0.86 | 3.63 | 0.93 |
| 22 | be specific about the gaps in the thesis. | 4.22 | 1.06 | 3.64 | 1.11 |
| 23 | be always understandable. | 4.14 | 0.71 | 3.69 | 1.07 |
| 25 | provides feedback on time. | 4.12 | 0.94 | 3.73 | 1.28 |
| 30 | Uses positive language to criticism. | 4.08 | 1.01 | 3.91 | 0.99 |
| Grand mean | 4.14 | 3.72 | |||
Supervisors' reported practice of the adjustment aspect of written feedback is nearly in agreement. However, supervisees' views of their supervisors’ practice of the adjustment aspect of written feedback are nearly equal and neutral.
Except for items of practice relating to the need to adjust written feedback which is a little above neutral for supervisees all other categories are agreement level (Table 11). Although the differences in the supervisors' and supervisees’ responses may need further explanation, it is good to see if the aggregate responses of the supervisors and the supervisees are statistically significantly different. Hence, the following table shows an independent sample t-test result.
Table 11.
Summary of supervisors' practice and supervisees’ views on the practice.
| Categories of the practice written feedback | Supervisor (n = 37) |
Supervisee (n = 55) |
Mean difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Mean | ||
| Functions | 4.30 | 3.96 | 0.34 |
| Focus | 4.09 | 3.77 | 0.32 |
| Nature | 4.14 | 3.72 | 0.42 |
| Adjustment | 3.87 | 3.28 | 0.59 |
The 2- tailed independent samples t-test for the equality of means of the aggregate groups (t (2.81), df = 90, p = 0.01) was found to be statistically significant at a 0.05 level of significance. The findings indicated that the supervisors' self-report of their practice was statistically significantly different from the supervisees’ view of their practice.
5.1.2. The association between supervisors' and supervisees’ perceptions of effective written feedback and written feedback practices
A Pearson moment correlation was run to see the association between supervisors' and supervisees’ perceptions of effective written feedback and written feedback practices. This is presented in the following table.
Table 13 reveals a significant positive relationship (r (92) = 0.58, p = 0.00) for the supervisors' and supervisees’ aggregated practice and perception. The strength of this correlation result was strong compared with the standard coefficient of correlation which lies between ±0.50 and ±1.
Table 13.
The association between supervisors' and supervisees’ perceptions and practice.
| Perception | Practice | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Practice | Pearson Correlation | .58** | 1 |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | .00 | ||
| N | 92 | 92 | |
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
6. Discussion
Supervisory feedback practice and perception have been a focus of a number of studies. They have been studied from different perspectives, scopes and differing regur. Yet, there are a number of issues to be studied. Hence, the current study comes in the middle of this never-ending search with a differing scope and focus.
The current study showed that even if there are some variations in the supervisors' and supervisees' perception values with supervisees' showing lower mean values for all the sub-categories of effective written feedback than the supervisors', both groups perceived the functions, focus, nature, and adjustment of process-oriented written feedback favorably. Unfortunately, not many researchers have studied the perception of a process-oriented thesis written feedback in EFL from the four aspects and from both the supervisors' and supervisees' perspectives at the same time. Yet, the findings of the current study seem to be congruent with a few in the broad areas of feedback. For example, the findings agree with a study by Mulliner and Tucker [17] where a greater degree of harmony was found between staff and students in their perceptions of the effectiveness of feedback. In particular, to the supervisors, the finding is consistent with Iqbal et al. [33] findings as teachers positively valued written feedback and its role in students' learning. Similarly, the study is congruent with another study where students' perception of the written feedback they received was favored [34]. It also agrees with Ravand and Rasekh's [35] review that indicated students' positive views about teachers' feedback in the vast majority of studies they have reviewed. Very recently, Kusuma and Islamiati [36] found that supervisees perceived the supervisory written feedback helpful in correcting errors in writing a thesis proposal. The congruences in the findings of the current study and all the studies reviewed seem to indicate that supervisees and supervisors generally seem to have favorable perceptions of thesis feedback. However, the current study differed in that while supervisees and supervisors view supervisors' written feedback positively, they have not necessarily perceived it the same way. This difference is probably because of the differences in their understanding of the supervisory process in the four categories as supervisors tend to be superior in understanding the technical issues of supervisory feedback. This may affect supervisees' engagement in and supervisors' practice of the thesis feedback [5]. Neupane Bastola [37] thinks that supervisors' and students' differing perceptions of supervisory feedback can create misunderstanding.
Concerning the practice of thesis written feedback, except for items relating to the need to adjust written feedback which is a little above neutral for supervisees, all other categories (the functions, the focus, and the nature of thesis written feedback) are in agreement level which indicates that supervisors believe they are practicing the process-oriented effective thesis written feedback and supervisees also agree their supervisors do so. Despite a varied focus, many studies confirmed that supervisory feedback is a common engaging practice [12,13,[16], [17], [18],31,[38], [39], [40]]. Yet, research on supervisory feedback may depend on how one sees feedback practice itself. Zhang and Hyland [39] studied feedback practice from the dynamic interplay of power in the interactions while Neupane Bastola and Hu [41] studied this across disciplines in terms of meeting expectations. On the other hand, Neupane Bastola [37] studied it on the bases of engagement and challenges as perceived by supervisors and students. This shows that there are varied ways of approaching research on thesis feedback practice. Hence, the current study chose to examine a process-oriented thesis written feedback practice from the functions, focus, nature and adjustment required of thesis written feedback.
In this study, like the perception, there is a significant mean difference between supervisors' reported practice and supervisees' views of their supervisees' thesis written feedback practice. One of the reasons for this is supervisees tend to expect more than what the supervisors are currently practicing while supervisors may think this is all of what is expected of them. Secondly, supervisors seem to have reported practicing effective written feedback to a high extent while it is actually lower than that. On the other hand, supervisees seem to have reported their supervisors’ practice as lower than expected thinking if they rate higher than this, they may get reduced support next. The feedback supervisee wishes to receive may differ from what supervisors provide [11]. Moreover, as mentioned earlier, there is a knowledge gap between the supervisees and supervisors regarding effective thesis feedback practice [5,37].
This study also found congruencies between supervisors' practice and perception on the one hand and supervisees' perception and views about their supervisors' practice of process-oriented effective written feedback, on the other. However, some studies reviewed indicated this was not always true. For instance, Iqbal et al. [32] discovered that supervisors' practices, in most cases, were discordant with their perception of the written feedback. Similarly, Lee [42] found many disparities between EFL (English as a Foreign Language) teachers’ perceptions and their actual practices of giving feedback. One of the reasons for this difference might be the differences in the contexts of the studies as feedback practice and perceptions can be shaped by the feedback provision work environment. Feedback setting affects feedback practice and perception [24].
7. Conclusions and recommendations
Supervisors and supervisees were observed to have favorable perceptions of effective written feedback studied from the comprehensive dimensions such as feedback function, nature, focus and adjustment required. Yet, it is evidenced that they differ in their perception. This implies that feedback practices in EFL contexts should consider supervisors' and supervisees' perceptions of thesis-written feedback but at the same time, one needs to know supervisors and supervisees may not perceive thesis-written feedback the same way. Similarly, it is seen that EFL supervisors were practicing written feedback to a high extent and supervisees agree with it. Yet, the supervisors' reported practice statistically significantly differs from what supervisees view about their supervisors' practice. As feedback practice is majorly the supervisors’ duty, it is important to consider what the supervisors report about their practice. Concerning the association between supervisors' and supervisees' perceptions of effective written feedback and written feedback practices, this study proved congruence between supervisors' perception and practice on the one hand and supervisees' perception and views about their supervisors' practice of written feedback, on the other. This is suitably important for effecting effective process-oriented thesis feedback practice. Since this study focused on written feedback, other researchers may need to study if similar results can be obtained with oral thesis feedback.
8. Limitations of the study
While we believe this study contributed a great deal to the study of supervisors' and supervisees’ process-oriented thesis written feedback in the EFL context for focus, function, nature, and adjustment required of thesis written feedback, we have to consider the two major limitations of the study. The first is related to the limitations of self-reported feedback practice which implies the conclusions on practice have to be interpreted cautiously.
Author contribution statement
Tesfaye Habtemariam Gezahegn: Conceived and designed the experiments; Performed the experiments; Analyzed and interpreted the data.
Abate Demissie Gedamu: Analyzed and interpreted the data; Contributed reagents, materials, analysis tools or data; Wrote the paper.
Funding statement
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Data availability statement
Data will be made available on request.
Declaration of interest's statement
The authors declare no competing interests.
Acknowledgments
We are thankful to Arba Minch University for financing the data collection for this study.
Footnotes
Supplementary data related to this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e12865.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
The following are the supplementary data related to this article:
References
- 1.Kumar V., Stracke E. An analysis of written feedback on a Ph.D. thesis. J. Teach. Higher Educ. 2007;12(4) [Google Scholar]
- 2.Giles T.M., Gilbert S., McNeill L. Nursing students' perceptions regarding the amount and type of written feedback required to enhance their learning [internet] J. Nurs. Educ. 2013;53(1) doi: 10.3928/01484834-20131209-02. Available at: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Perez-Amurao A.L. The value of feedback and conferencing in the process approach to writing for Filipino and Thai students in higher education: a comparative analysis. TESOL Int. J. 2014;9(2) [Google Scholar]
- 4.Kim V., Kim J. Roles of teacher feedback in promoting effective English-medium instruction of a business subject. J. Asia TEFL. 2020;17(3) doi: 10.18823/asiatefl.2020.17.3.9.889. Available at. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Zheng Y., Yu S., Wang B., Zhang Y. Exploring student engagement with supervisor feedback on master's thesis: insights from a case study. J. Innov. Educ. Teach. Int. 2019 doi: 10.1080/14703297. Available at. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Hawari O.M.A., Al-Shboul Y., Huwari I.F. Supervisors' perspectives on graduate students' problems in academic writing. Eur. J. Educ. Res. 2022;11(1):545–556. doi: 10.12973/eu-jer.11.1.545. Available at: [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Chugh R., Macht S., Harreveld B. Supervisory feedback to postgraduate research students: a literature review. Assess Eval. High Educ. 2022;47(5) doi: 10.1080/02602938.2021.1955241. Available at: [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Wang T., Li L.Y. ‘Tell me what to do’ vs. ‘guide me through it’: feedback experiences of international doctoral students. J. Act. Learn. High. Educ. 2011;12:2. [Google Scholar]
- 9.Brinko K.T. The practice of giving feedback to improve teaching: what is effective? J. High Educ. 1993;64(5) [Google Scholar]
- 10.Underwood J.S., Tregidgo A.P. Improving student writing through effective feedback: best practices and recommendations. J. Teach. Writ. 2006;22(2) [Google Scholar]
- 11.East M., Bitchener J., Basturkmen H. What constitutes effective feedback to postgraduate research students? The students' perspective. J. Univ. Teach. Learn. Pract. 2012;9(2) [Google Scholar]
- 12.Ghazal L., Gul R., Hanzala M., Jessop T., Tharani A. Graduate students' perceptions of written feedback at a private university in Pakistan. Int. J. High. Educ. 2014;3(2) doi: 10.5430/ijhe.v3n2p13. Available at. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Hyland F., Hyland K. Sugaring the pill: praise and criticism in written feedback. J. Sec Lang. Writ. 2001;10(3) doi: 10.1016/S10603743(01)00038-8. Available at. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Bahtilla M. Supervisory feedback: supervisors' reasons for not giving timely feedback. Innovat. Educ. Teach. Int. 2022 doi: 10.1080/14703297.2022.2083656. Available at. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Lipnevich A.A., Berg D., Smith J.K. Human Factors and Social Conditions in Assessment. Routledge; 2016. Toward a model of student response to feedback; p. 17. (electronic) [Google Scholar]
- 16.Gul R., Tharani A., Lakhani A., Rizvi N., Ali K. Teachers' perceptions and practices of written feedback in higher education. World J. Educ. 2016;6(3) doi: 10.5430/wje.v6n3p10. Available at. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Mulliner E., Tucker M. Feedback on feedback practice: perceptions of students and academics. J. Assess. Eval. Higher Educ. 2015;42(2) doi: 10.1080/02602938.2015.1103365. available at. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Yenus N. Higher education supervision practices on student thesis writing: language Function and focus of written feedback. Int. J. Teach. Learn. Higher Educ. 2018;30(3) [Google Scholar]
- 19.Gedamu A.D., Gezahegn T.H. EFL supervisors' written feedback focus and language functions: a mixed-methods study. Asian. J. Second. Foreign. Lang. Educ. 2021;6:21. doi: 10.1186/s40862-021-00125-2. Available at. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Kusuma L.B.D., Yunita W., Hardiah M. Students' preferences of the research proposal writing feedback. Premise: J. Engl. Educ. Appl. Ling. 2022;11(1) [Google Scholar]
- 21.Nurcholis I.A., Islamiati S. Students' perception toward supervisors' written feedback in writing thesis proposal. Teach. Engl. Lang. Learn. Engl. J. (TELLE) 2022 [Google Scholar]
- 22.Rasool U., Aslam M.Z., Qian J., Barzani S.H.H. The effects of online supervisory feedback on student-supervisor communications during the COVID-19. Eur. J. Educ. Res. 2022;11(3) doi: 10.12973/eu-jer.11.3.1569. Available at: [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Ellis R. EPILOGUE: a framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. J. Stud. Second Lang. Acq. 2010;32(2) [Google Scholar]
- 24.Zellermayer M. The study of teachers' written feedback to students' writing: changes in theoretical considerations and the expansion of research contexts. J. Instr. Sci. 1989;18 [Google Scholar]
- 25.Lipnevich A.A., Panadero E.A. Review of feedback models and theories: descriptions, definitions, and conclusions. Front. Educ. 2021;6 doi: 10.3389/feduc.2021.720195. Available at: [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Hattie J., Timperley H. The power of feedback. Rev. Educ. Res. 2007;77(1) doi: 10.3102/003465430298487. Available at. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Mao Z., Lee I. Researching L2 student engagement with written feedback: insights from sociocultural theory. Tesol Q. 2021;5(2) doi: 10.1002/tesq.3071. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Kio L.S. Feedback theory through the lens of social networking. Issues Educ. Res. 2015;25(2) [Google Scholar]
- 29.Rust C., O'Donovan B., Price M. A social constructivist assessment process model: how the research literature shows us this could be best practice. Assess Eval. High Educ. 2005;30(3) doi: 10.1080/02602930500063819. Available at. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Ta T.B. Routledge; New York: 2023. A Conversation Analytic Approach to Doctoral Supervision: Feedback, Advice, and Guidance; p. 209. (print) [Google Scholar]
- 31.Lucero M., Fernández M., Montanero M. Teachers' written feedback comments on narrative texts in Elementary and Secondary Education. Stud. Educ. Eval. 2018;59 doi: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2018.07.002. Available at: [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Cohen L., Manion L., Morrison K. sixth ed. Routledge; New York: 2007. Research Methods in Education; p. 657. (print)10:0-415-36878-2. [Google Scholar]
- 33.Iqbal S., Gul R., Lakhani A., Rizvi F.N. Teachers' accounts of their perceptions and practices of providing written feedback to nursing students on their assignments. Int. J. High. Educ. 2014;3(3) doi: 10.5430/ijhe.v3n3p70. Available at. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Isa R.M., Azero M.A. Assessment feedback to accounting students. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 2013;90:651–659. [Google Scholar]
- 35.Ravand H., Rasekh A.E. Feedback in ESL writing: toward an interactional approach. J. Lang. Teach. Res. 2011;2 [Google Scholar]
- 36.Kusuma I.A., Islamiati S. Students' perception toward supervisors' written feedback in writing thesis proposal. Teach. Engl. Lang. Learn. Eng. J. (TELLE) 2022 [Google Scholar]
- 37.Neupane Bastola M. Engagement and challenges in supervisory feedback: supervisors' and students' perceptions. RELC J. 2020;53(1) [Google Scholar]
- 38.Zhang Y., Hyland K. Responding to supervisory feedback: mediated positioning in thesis writing. Writ. Commun. 2022;39(2) doi: 10.1177/07410883211069901. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Zhang Y., Hyland K. Elements of doctoral apprenticeship: community feedback and the acquisition of writing expertise. J. Sec Lang. Writ. 2021;5 doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2021.100835. Available at: [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Saeed M.A., Al Qunayeer H.S., Al-Jaberi M.A. Exploring supervisory feedback formulation on academic writing of research proposals and postgraduates' responses to feedback: a case study. Sage Open. 2021;11(2) doi: 10.1177/21582440211007125. Available at: [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Neupane Bastola M., Hu G. Supervisory feedback across disciplines: does it meet students' expectations? Assess. Eval. Higher Educ. 2020 doi: 10.1080/02602938.2020.1780562. Available at: [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Lee I. Ten mismatches between teachers' beliefs and written feedback practice. ELT J. 2009;63:1. doi: 10.1093/elt/ccn010. Available at: [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement
Data will be made available on request.