Giving and receiving written feedback on research reports: A narrative review and guidance for supervisors and students

The student and supervisor perspectives were both described in some studies. Meanwhile, other studies focused specifically on either the student or supervisor perspective. The types of research reports where written feedback was provided were generally doctoral or master’s theses, but also included reports from graduate courses in which a research report was the major assessment task. The themes we identified are somewhat consistent with three paradigms of written feedback conceptualised by Chong et al. (2018). They reported that the vast majority of studies on feedback focus on structural, ‘product’ type feedback. Meanwhile, ‘interactive’ factors, such as relationship dynamics and ‘internal’ responses of students, were less represented (Chong, 2018). Here we reflect on the intra- and inter-personal impact of receiving written feedback from the student perspective and the impact on supervisors of delivering written feedback, as well as collating and describing the structural and content components of written feedback on research reports.

EMOTIONAL IMPACT OF RECEIVING OR GIVING WRITTEN FEEDBACK

Carter and Kumar (2017) describe receiving feedback as ‘an inherently emotional business’ and believe that writing feedback ‘must avoid breaking the fragile shell of success’. Feedback has been shown to have an affective influence, with negative feedback having an emotional impact (Can and Walker, 2011, Tuvesson, 2014, Carter and Kumar, 2017) that may lead to a loss of confidence and withdrawal from seeking further feedback (Can and Walker, 2011), thereby influencing future learning (Li and Barnard, 2011, Parboteeah and Anwar, 2009). Carter and Kumar (2017) recommend that all written feedback in research reports contains some praise, particularly early in candidature. Honest feedback is also possible through the balancing of critique and enablement (Carter and Kumar, 2017).

Students receiving feedback on a research report may include experienced clinicians, who are novice researchers, or high achieving undergraduates and graduates. Students who commence a higher degree immediately after their undergraduate studies are likely to have achieved high grades in their undergraduate courses and may mistake critical written feedback as criticism (Wei et al., 2019). Research students who are drawn to the practical aspects of research may need repeated iterations of a report to achieve high academic writing standards, especially if they do not have an aptitude or inclination for crafting text (Wei et al., 2019). There is a high degree of variability concerning skills, confidence and recent experience in academic writing, with more than half of higher degree research students (in Australia) aged over 30 years when they enrol (Hey-Cunningham et al., 2020). Therefore, life experience factors before enrolment have the potential to substantially impact on students’ experience in a research course that has a written report as the major assessment item.

In a qualitative case series, Inouye et al. (2017) investigated how feedback interacts with agency (Inouye and McAlpine, 2017). They observed that critically engaging with feedback was linked to confidence in scholarly identity, which perpetuated ownership and agency. The rate and degree to which this forward cycling of confidence and agency progressed were determined by previous experiences of feedback (Inouye and McAlpine, 2017). Conversely, receiving highly critical feedback has been described by students as being a devastating experience (Stracke and Kumar, 2010). The emotional reaction reflected the degree of personal investment in a research report or the extent to which researchers (particularly novice researchers) personalised the critique of their work (Eyres et al., 2001). Receiving negative feedback in a written form is reported by students as preferable to verbal or face-to-face delivery since they can absorb the feedback and reflect in private, thereby mitigating some of the emotional impact (Crossouard and Pryor, 2009).

In their 2005 paper, Sankaran, Swepson, and Hill reflected on their personal experiences of giving and receiving critical written feedback to emphasise the emotional investment involved in submitting research reports or theses (Sankaran et al., 2005). Many years later and all entrenched in academic careers, the authors still refer emotively to the feedback received, describing examiners who agreed with their report as ‘open-minded’ and using words like ‘scary’, ‘angry’ and ‘frustrated’ to describe responding to the critical feedback (Sankaran et al., 2005).

There is some evidence that emotional responses to negative feedback decrease with experience (Can and Walker, 2011). Chong (2018) suggests that trust in the student-teacher relationship can facilitate resilience and that self-efficacy and self-regulation are critical at a personal level for the student (Chong, 2018).

However, resilience to feedback may not apply for novice researchers, who are particularly vulnerable to negative feedback and report feeling abused by the experience (Eyres et al., 2001). Therefore, novice researchers, particularly those who enter from a successful academic or work career, must be well prepared for the vulnerability and possibility of ‘failure’ that research can bring (Carter and Kumar, 2017). Supervisors also report that it is challenging to deliver negative written feedback without risking the student’s confidence or supervisory relationship (Li and Seale, 2007). The consequences of negative written feedback are reported to be more pronounced when the supervisor has a directive feedback style (Stracke and Kumar, 2010).

WRITTEN FEEDBACK WITHIN THE SUPERVISORY POWER DYNAMIC

Written feedback is provided within the context of an existing power relationship (Can and Walker, 2011, Crossouard and Pryor, 2009). However, opinions vary about the role of feedback in power dynamics. Bitchener et al. (2010, p 10) describe the relationship as being ‘more consistent with a pedagogy, where critique or advice is provided by the supervisor or supervisory team who is (are) regarded as the “expert(s)”’. Alternately, Kumar and Stracke (2007) describe the feedback relationship on research reports, particularly at a doctoral level, as more consistent with a peer relationship (Kumar and Stracke, 2007). East et al. (2012) report that while students realised they were ultimately responsible for their work, a sense of partnership and equality in the relationship and genuine interest by supervisors helped them to optimise performance and output (East et al., 2012).

The power relationship between the student and supervisor should progress from an apprenticeship towards power equality through the course of the research project (Li and Seale, 2007). This changing dynamic sees the research student progress from a passive role by gradually increasing their expertise and capacity for self-reflection and self-regulation and relying less on supervisory expertise (Wang and Li, 2011). This transformational process is consistent with doctoral pedagogic practices described by Danby and Lee (2012) as ‘a flexible construct which allowed for changing relationships’. The potential for the research student to become a ‘full member of the disciplinary community’ depends on the research supervisor recognising and being responsive to the changing needs of the researcher (Cotterall, 2011).

The student’s confidence in their academic writing and associated research skills contribute to shifting the power dynamic towards a peer relationship. Inouye et al. (2019) reported that the experience of preparing written work and exchanging feedback in peer writing groups contributed to a growth in their confidence and capacity for self-reflection, both of which contribute to transitioning of the student-supervisor power relationship.

Wang and Li (2011) indicated that directive feedback is preferred by those in a more dependent relationship (Wang and Li, 2011). Students with a more equal relationship prefer guidance or more goal-oriented feedback (De Kleijn et al., 2013). Notably, while not the focus of this review, cultural factors influence preferences and perceptions concerning power dynamics. Negative feedback can bring power dynamics to the forefront, with students being more likely to question the motives behind the feedback provided (Can and Walker, 2011) and interpret critique as being directed at the individual rather than the written work (Eyres et al., 2001).

A supervisor’s professional identity and personal perceptions of stress influence the power dynamics in the supervisory relationship (Wisker and Robinson, 2016). Students’ research progress is positively influenced if supervisors have minimised their stress and isolation, developed personal coping strategies and perceive themselves as having institutional support (Wisker and Robinson, 2016).

COMMUNICATING WRITTEN FEEDBACK

Written feedback is an important communication method that can be effective for engagement and stimulating critical thought (Can and Walker, 2011). Single episodes of feedback may be part of an ongoing dialogue (Bitchener et al., 2010) in which supervisors respond to the ideas raised within the research report (Stracke and Kumar, 2010) while continuing to teach and train academic writing (Kumar and Stracke, 2007). Eyres et al. (2001) postulated that feedback is most effective if it leads the recipient towards pushing boundaries, encouraging thinking and creating a dialogue (Eyres et al., 2001). Similarly, Adams (2019) conceptualises feedback as dialogic and transformational, with the research student taking increasing responsibility during their candidature for orchestrating the communication by actively participating in the feedback process and engaging with the development of academic relationships and practice (Adams, 2019).

In a small-scale study, Stracke and Kumar (2010) reported expressive feedback (e.g., praise, criticism and opinion) as most useful in engaging the researcher in reflection and dialogue (Stracke and Kumar, 2010). This is consistent with the statements of other authors who see feedback as being effective when it is suggestive rather than directive (Can and Walker, 2011) and creates a dialogue that encourages reflection (Stracke and Kumar, 2010). One study reported effective feedback should include justification for the comments provided and present an alternate perspective or suggestion (Stracke and Kumar, 2010). In another study by East et al. (2012), students suggested that supervisors project feedback into ‘feedforward’ towards constructive, future progress and that supervisors incorporate feedback within the relationship rather than as a discrete interaction (e.g., incorporating feedback discussion as an agenda item in a meeting) (East et al., 2012).

Written feedback can hinder the development of dialogue, particularly if the feedback is delivered at an inappropriate level to the recipient (Parboteeah and Anwar, 2009), such as providing feedback at an academic level if the recipient is a novice researcher. Similarly, if there is more than one individual providing feedback, a lack of communication between feedback providers can lead to confusion and inconsistency (Sankaran et al., 2005). Students need to be well versed and well prepared by supervisors to consider a range of viewpoints and value this as part of their reflexive and critical thinking development.

Wei et al. (2019) specifically highlight the need for overt, explicit discussions between supervisors and students to clarify expectations about the writing process, feedback process and academic culture (Wei et al., 2019). Although early agreement of feedback terms seems to be a common-sense, routine approach, Wei reports that more than half of the 80 doctoral students in their study would have benefitted from clarity and direction around expectations early in their candidature.

STRUCTURE AND CONTENT OF WRITTEN FEEDBACK

Although feedback structure and content were rarely the primary focus of the included studies, issues related to the amount, nature, format and (in)consistency of feedback; how it informed future report iterations (feedforward); and the relationship between written and verbal feedback was frequently cited. Proposed models for structuring feedback included the use of a framework (Ridgway, 2017, Sankaran et al., 2005) by complexity (Chamberlain, 2016), sequential (from general to specific) or cumulative (building on previous feedback) approaches (Stracke and Kumar, 2010).

A study by Ridgway (2017) investigated the effect of using a linguistics-based framework for feedback on a thesis chapter of a postgraduate student. The supervisor provided feedback on whole text, paragraph and sentence levels, so the student could systematically address each aspect of the feedback separately (Ridgway, 2017). A similar approach is reported in a PhD thesis about writing-centred supervision in higher degrees (Chamberlain, 2016). Chamberlain (2016) proposes interconnected levels of feedback along a continuum from ‘big picture feedback’ for complex tasks around writing cohesion, clarity and flow through ‘mixed feedback’ at a paragraph and sentence level to ‘surface-level feedback’ relating to layout, spelling and grammar (Chamberlain, 2016). Although guidelines for postgraduate supervision indicate that ‘aspects of language and style are not the responsibility of the supervisor’, Chamberlain (2016) reports that most supervisors contribute ‘surface-level’ feedback on spelling and grammar since they feel responsible for the final document’s quality.

Sankaran et al. (2005) also advocated for working to a structure when providing feedback and providing the researcher with a copy of the structure to ensure transparency (Sankaran et al., 2005). The concepts described by Sankaran et al. (2005) form the basis of the checklist for supervisory feedback developed to complement this review (Table 3). Other examples of structuring feedback include an initial focus on the strengths of the report before offering constructive criticism or from general comments before offering more specific feedback (Donnelly and Kirk, 2010, Stracke and Kumar, 2010). The overall feedback may relate to the academic merits of the report as a whole (Stracke and Kumar, 2010) or be more general and comment on aspects of writing and analytical skills (Callaham et al., 2002, Parboteeah and Anwar, 2009). Specific feedback may include comments on content and the structure, organisation and flow of the report (Can and Walker, 2011, Parboteeah and Anwar, 2009). Kumar and Stracke (2007) have further stratified written feedback as referential (structure and organisation), directive (instructions and questions) and expressive (critique and praise) (Kumar and Stracke, 2007).

The ongoing process of providing formative feedback as a structure that ‘scaffold(s) the learning’ (Schulze, 2009, Stracke and Kumar, 2010) was mentioned often in the included papers. This structure assists in providing direction to the development of active learning processes and for the research report or thesis (Heylings and Tariq, 2001). Carter and Kumar (2015) also recommend scaffolding of writing and feedback to allow for and facilitate learning throughout candidature. For example, if a supervisor knows they have addressed grammar in one feedback cycle, they can reference this in the next cycle and make recommendations for further skill development where required (Carter and Kumar, 2017). Conversely, students report that a lack of timely formative feedback leaves them feeling directionless (Heylings and Tariq, 2001).

Doctoral supervisors consistently report that students seem to ignore their feedback (Carter and Kumar, 2017, Neupane Bastola and Hu, 2020, Parboteeah and Anwar, 2009). Conversely, students report that they sometimes choose not to enact feedback after careful consideration. (Carter and Kumar, 2017, Neupane Bastola, 2020) This process of ‘active inaction’ may be perceived by supervisors as a disregard for their feedback. A suggestion made by doctoral supervisors to overcome this incongruity was to request that the student responds to feedback similarly to responding to journal reviewers (Carter and Kumar, 2017). This process provides an avenue and platform for the student to argue a different opinion or theory than their supervisors, but it is clear to the supervisor that the student is actively doing so, rather than ignoring the feedback. This process simultaneously allows the supervisor to check feedback efficiently and the student to practice responding to the reviewer’s comments (Carter and Kumar, 2017). Reading and considering structured feedback responses provides supervisors with the opportunity to learn from the student and advance ideas within the area of a scientific enquiry being explored, both of which contribute to progress along the relationship transition continuum.

Other authors focused on the amount and quality of feedback to be higher priorities than the structure of the feedback while acknowledging that feedback should incorporate both specific and general aspects (Parboteeah and Anwar, 2009). Similarly, a quantitative study involving 21 graduate students showed that students valued regular feedback on academic writing, and preferred clear, instructive and specific feedback (Singh, 2016).

The content of written feedback was not mentioned as often as the structure in the included papers. This finding is consistent with a study that interrogated feedback comments in 15 draft dissertations and identified more comments on structural elements (such as linguistic accuracy and appropriateness) than content (Basturkmen et al., 2014). Although not mentioned as often in the included studies, a strong preference for content feedback over linguistic and genre-related feedback is highlighted by Nurie (2019) in a survey-based study involving 51 doctoral students (Nurie, 2019).

A recent review by Hodgson et al. (2020) collated information from a range of sources about examiners expectations of higher degree research reports. The common elements described were mainly content-related and included: mastery/command (evidence of a thorough understanding of the subject matter); argument (the main point is clearly explained and defended); coherence (consistent with clear links between parts and the whole); independence (originality, autonomy and ownership); criticality (contextualise own work in the existing knowledge base); depth/breadth (thorough and complete); and clarity/accuracy (description, citation and interpretation). Understanding what assessors are looking for when marking a thesis can provide students with useful benchmarking discussion points for both peer and supervisory written feedback (Hodgson, 2020).

Although the concept of supervisors ‘testing’ student’s responsiveness and engagement with their research through the feedback process is expected, research students have also shown interest in the type and amount of feedback provided by supervisors. Students report that too little feedback can indicate supervisor disinterest, unclear feedback and incompetence in fostering writing development. Meanwhile, too much feedback may indicate a disconnection of supervisors from the emotional impact and pressures of research report writing (Wei et al., 2019).

There is an opportunity for technology to play a role in improving the understanding and communication of the requirements or agreed expectations of supervisors and students about the structure and content of research reports. As teaching increasingly moves ‘online’, this technology can add value by increasing the ‘feedback literacy’ of postgraduate research students and supervisors via online programs (Hey-Cunningham et al., 2020) or using communication technology (such as email) as a means of ‘micro-mentoring’ to communicate feedback (Crossouard and Pryor, 2009). Electronic forms can be used to scaffold academic writing is feasible if the supervisor and student have identified this formally as a feedback mechanism (Silva and Marcuccio, 2019).

Table 3: Supervisor, student and shared responsibilities in written feedback on research reports

This checklist can be used early in the supervisory relationship to establish guidelines and boundaries for written feedback (Part A). As the relationship matures, it may guide the formative feedback process and ensure that summative feedback is comprehensive (Part B). The checklist also contains guidance on the structure and content elements of feedback (Part C).

PART A: Early candidate feedback parameters and considerations

PART B: Ongoing candidate feedback parameters and considerations

PART C: Content and structure of written feedback

DISCUSSION

This narrative review focused on the content, context and potential impacts of receiving and giving written feedback on research reports and feedback’s role in the evolving relationship between novice clinician-researchers and their supervisors. Written feedback was considered as a particularly important instructional communication method when a research report is a principal method of assessing scientific proficiency (Can and Walker, 2011, Matthews and Mercer-Mapstone, 2016). It was evident that the quality of written feedback and how it is received and used by the student influence much more than the standard of the resulting written document. We perceived written feedback to be akin to a ‘threshold concept’ in the research learning process. Further, once this threshold is achieved a supervisory relationship transitions into a peer relationship that endures.

The quantitative data from surveys, content analysis of reports and from qualitative data from interviews and focus groups revealed that structure and content was a dominant feature in written feedback. Although this was expected, the need for more a more holistic approach to giving and receiving written feedback was strongly represented in the data. Consistent with the theory that students’ reaction to feedback fit into the interrelated components of discourse, power and emotion (Higgins et al., 2002), the other three themes we identified all related to the human impact of interactions around the structure and content of written feedback. Our review highlighted that the process of communicating written feedback, the emotional impact of receiving or giving feedback, and how these factors then influence the supervisory power dynamic are as vital as the structure and content of the feedback.

Our findings about formative and summative feedback extend on the existing literature, particularly regarding the unique features of writing a research report. Notably, research students who transition from an undergraduate background are used to receiving summative feedback as a justification of a course mark (Houston and Thompson, 2017). However, they are less familiar with critically analysing formative feedback (Carless, 2006) to differentiate the potential of feedback that provides information into future tasks. Consistent with the equity theory proposed by Adams (2005) as a conceptual basis for interpreting feedback, research students are familiar with benchmarking their efforts and grades against peers and course standards (Adams, 2005). Therefore, learning to conceptualise written feedback as a contribution to the learning process and constructively use the feedback to progress their report is an important aspect of the researcher development process. In the included studies, students clearly and consistently reported characteristics of helpful formative feedback. These characteristics are consistent with those described by Heitink et al. (2016) and have been consolidated in the supervisor and student checklist developed from key instructional points in this review (Table 3) (Heitink et al., 2016).

This review supports the notion that appropriate formative feedback can support a student’s transition towards self-reflection and self-regulation of learning (Donnelly and Kirk, 2010, Hattie, 2012, Kumar and Stracke, 2011). It also can contribute positively towards academic growth and learning, performance and confidence in research and academic writing abilities (Donnelly and Kirk, 2010, Heylings and Tariq, 2001, Kumar and Stracke, 2011, Parboteeah and Anwar, 2009). However, in synthesising data about all aspects of written feedback from the included studies, it is equally evident that inappropriate feedback can be damaging to a student’s confidence and detrimental to their research progress.

The authors believe this work contributes a new dimension in the understanding of the impact of research-related written feedback on the supervisory relationship, describing both the student and supervisory perspectives concerning emotional impacts, communication and power dynamics. While the student perspective had been well-described, it had not been linked to the supervisor perspective or operationalised into actionable strategies as we have done. The key points for supervisors and students to discuss about giving and receiving feedback are outlined in Table 3. We envisage that this versatile tool could be used in a range of settings, scholarly relationships and formats to trigger discussions and assist in role delineation. It could also be used as a formal feedback checklist.

Although written feedback capability continues to be recognised as a priority skill (Donnelly and Kirk, 2010, Parboteeah and Anwar, 2009), there continues to be minimal research into the development of supervisors’ feedback provision skills, their perceptions about the emotional impact of providing written feedback and research supervision-related stress. For example, it would be useful to learn more about strategies supervisors could employ to ensure they provide equitable type and amount of written feedback in response to their commitments and stressors. Another aspect of feedback that was not explored was whether supervisors consider the effect on students’ emotion concerning the time of day or stage of the week when providing written feedback.

Paradoxically, the process of giving and receiving written feedback seemed to be accompanied by a set of ‘unwritten rules’ to each supervisory relationship. These ‘rules’ are somewhat assumed by supervisors, not necessarily articulated through the supervisory process, and become clear to the student as they emerge from candidature by comparing their experience to others or when they take on supervisory roles themselves. Although supervisors’ experience as research students was the focus of one included study, this topic warrants further exploration (Sankaran et al., 2005).

Another aspect that was not fully elucidated is the perception of supervisors that students ignore feedback (Carter and Kumar, 2017) compared to ‘active inaction’ reported by the students themselves (Neupane Bastola, 2020). We question whether this conflict arises from different perceptions of ownership of the written report. If the supervisor believes the student ‘owns’ the research report, then it would be the student’s decision of whether to make changes recommended in written feedback.

The application of the educational theory is another aspect of written feedback where new information was limited. The only reference to learning theories related to using blended learning in an online writing skills program to develop writing confidence and capability (Hey-Cunningham et al., 2020). This is likely related to the strong focus on the structure and content of feedback compared to the emotional, power relationship and communication aspects. We expect that future research on written feedback will focus on the impacts of written feedback on both student and supervisor more extensively and be increasingly grounded in the educational theory. A more detailed exploration of individual student and supervisor perspectives of written feedback depending on their academic, career and life experiences would be particularly useful to differentiate the impacts of personality and life experience on responses to written feedback. With research higher degrees and clinician research programs becoming regular progressions within academic and career pathways, this field of research would benefit from interventions that implement and evaluate written feedback models.

In an attempt to represent the scope of the literature about written feedback on research reports, we chose not to exclude review articles. Although the authors were careful not to repeat or duplicate findings that were from the same papers, this process may have led to bias by amplifying some points in the data. While the focus on novice researchers may be perceived as a limitation, there is potential for an application of the findings and associated checklists by more experienced research students and their supervisors and written feedback on topics other than research.

CONCLUSION

While written feedback is seen as an effective learning tool, there is little experimental evidence to support this claim, particularly concerning research reports by novice researchers. There are inherent risks with providing feedback, including potentially negative emotional impacts and a threat to the supervisory relationship. Written feedback can assist researchers with reflection and be a valuable learning tool for novice researchers if it is part of an ongoing dialogue and provided in a structured, transparent format, and a timely, considered manner. The progression of written feedback throughout the supervisory period using the checklist developed from this review is proposed as a means of transitioning from teacher-student to peer researcher relationships.

Funding: There was no funding for this review or manuscript preparation.

References

Adams, G. 2019. A narrative study of the experience of feedback on a professional doctorate:‘a kind of flowing conversation’. Studies in Continuing Education, 41, 191-206.

Adams, J. B. 2005. What makes the grade? Faculty and student perceptions. Teaching of Psychology, 32, 21-24.

Basturkmen, H., East, M. & Bitchener, J. 2014. Supervisors' on-script feedback comments on drafts of dissertations: socialising students into the academic discourse community. Teaching in Higher Education, 19, 432-445.

Bitchener, J., Basturkmen, H. & East, M. 2010. The focus of supervisor written feedback to thesis/dissertation students. International Journal of English Studies, 10, 79-97.

Callaham, M. L., Knopp, R. K. & Gallagher, E. J. 2002. Effect of written feedback by editors on quality of reviews: two randomized trials. JAMA, 287, 2781-2783.

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.

Carless, D. 2006. Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in Higher Education 31, 219-233.

Carter, S. & Kumar, V. 2017. ‘Ignoring me is part of learning’: Supervisory feedback on doctoral writing. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 54, 68-75.

Chamberlain, C. 2016. Writing-centred supervision for postgraduate students.PhD dissertation. University of Witwatersrand, 119-120.

Chong, I. 2018. Interplay among technical, socio-emotional and personal factors in written feedback research.Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43, 185-196.

Cotterall, S. 2011. Doctoral students writing: where's the pedagogy? Teaching in Higher Education, 16, 413-425.

Crossouard, B. & Pryor, J. 2009. Using email for formative assessment with professional doctorate students. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 34, 377-388.

De Kleijn, R. A. M., Mainhard, T. M., Meijer, P. C., Brekelmens, M. & Pilot, A. 2013. Master's thesis projects: student perceptions of supervisor feedback. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 38.

Donnelly, P. & Kirk, P. 2010. How to… give effective feedback. Education for Primary Care, 21.

East, M., Bitchener, J. & Basturkmen, H. 2012. What constitutes effective feedback to postgraduate research students? The students’ perspective. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 9.

Eyres, S. J., Hatch, D. H., Turner, S. B. & West, M. 2001. Doctoral students' responses to writing critique: Messages for teachers. Journal of Nursing Education, 40, 149-155.

Hattie, J. 2012. Feedback in schools. From Sutton, R., Hornsey, M.J., & Douglas, K.M. (Eds., 2011), Feedback: The communication of praise, criticism, and advice. Peter Lang Publishing: New York.

Heitink, M. C., Van Der Kleij, F. M., Veldkamp, B. P., Schildkamp, K. & Kippers, W. B. 2016. A systematic review of prerequisites for implementing assessment for learning in classroom practice. Educational research review, 17, 50-62.

Hey-Cunningham, A. J., Ward, M.-H. & Miller, E. J. 2020. Making the most of feedback for academic writing development in postgraduate research: Pilot of a combined programme for students and supervisors. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 1-13.

Heylings, D. & Tariq, V. 2001. Reflection and feedback on learning: a strategy for undergraduate research project work. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 26, 153-164.

Higgins, R., Hartley, P. & Skelton, A. 2002. The conscientious consumer: Reconsidering the role of assessment feedback in student learning. Studies in higher education, 27, 53-64.

Hodgson, D. 2020. Helping doctoral students understand PhD thesis examination expectations: A framework and a tool for supervision. Active Learning in Higher Education, 21, 51-63.

Houston, D. & Thompson, J. N. 2017. Blending Formative and Summative Assessment in a Capstone Subject:‘It’s not your tools, it’s how you use them’. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 14, 2.

Inouye, K. S. & McAlpine, L. 2017. Developing scholarly identity: Variation in agentive responses to supervisor feedback. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 14, 3.

Kumar, V. & Stracke, E. 2007. An analysis of written feedback on a PhD thesis. Teaching in Higher Education, 12, 461-470.

Kumar, V. & Stracke, E. 2011. Examiners’ reports on theses: Feedback or assessment? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10 211-222.

Li, J. & Barnard, R. 2011. Academic tutors' beliefs about and practices of giving feedback on students' written assignments: A New Zealand case study. Assessing Writing, 16, 137-148.

Li, S. & Seale, C. 2007. Managing criticism in Ph.D. supervision: a qualitative case study Studies in Higher Education, 32, 511-526.

Matthews, K. E. & Mercer-Mapstone, L. D. 2016. Toward curriculum convergence for graduate learning outcomes: academic intentions and student experiences. Studies in Higher Education, 1-16.

Neupane Bastola, M. 2020. Engagement and Challenges in Supervisory Feedback: Supervisors’ and Students’ Perceptions. RELC Journal, 0033688220912547.

Neupane Bastola, M. & Hu, G. 2020. Supervisory feedback across disciplines: does it meet students’ expectations? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1-17.

Nurie, Y. 2019. Doctoral Students' Perceived Needs and Preferences for Supervisors' Written Feedback. PASAA: Journal of Language Teaching and Learning in Thailand, 56, 112-144.

Pare, A. 2011. Speaking of writing: Supervisory feedback and the Dissertation. In: SPRINGER (ed.) Doctoral education: research-based strategies for doctoral students, supervisors and administrators. New York, USA: Springer, 59-74.

Parboteeah, S. & Anwar, M. 2009. Thematic analysis of written assignment feedback: Implications for nurse education. Nurse Education Today, 29, 753-757.

Ridgway, G. D. 2017. Modeling higher degree by research student writing feedback based on Systemic Functional Linguistics: A collaboration of student, supervisor and academic language and learning adviser. Journal of Academic Language and Learning, 11,A174-A187.

Sankaran, S., Swepson, P. & Hill, G. 2005. Do research thesis examiners need training?: practitioner stories The Qualitative Report, 10, 817-835.

Schulze, S. 2009. Teaching research methods in a distance education context: concerns and challenges. South African Journal of Higher Education, 23, 992-1008.

Silva, L. & Marcuccio, M. 2019. Advisor’s Feedback as assessment practices in Doctoral Programs: a scoping review of empirical research. Form@ re-Open Journal per la formazione in rete, 19, 26-47.

Singh, M. K. M. 2016. Graduate Students' Needs and Preferences for Written Feedback on Academic Writing. English Language Teaching, 9, 79-88.

Stracke, E. & Kumar, V. 2010. Feedback and self-regulated learning: insights from supervisors' and PhD examiners' reports. Reflective Practice, 11, 19-32.

Tuvesson, H., And Borglin, G. 2014. The challenge of giving written thesis feedback to nursing students. Nurse Education Today, 34, 1343.

Wang, T. & Li, L. Y. 2011. ‘Tell me what to do’ vs. ‘guide me through it’: Feedback experiences of international doctoral students. Active Learning in Higher Education, , 12.

Wei, J., Carter, S. & Laurs, D. 2019. Handling the loss of innocence: first-time exchange of writing and feedback in doctoral supervision. Higher Education Research & Development, 38, 157-169.

Wisker, G. & Robinson, G. 2016. Supervisor wellbeing and identity: challenges and strategies. International Journal for Researcher Development, 7(2), 123 – 140, 7, 123-140.