Giving and receiving written feedback on research reports: a narrative review and guidance for supervisors and students
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33966/hepj.3.2.14767Abstract
Purpose
Written feedback on research-related writing is an important educational component of novice researcher development. Limited evidence exists to inform effective written feedback, particularly in relation to research reports by novice researchers. The aim of this narrative literature review was to explore supervisor and novice researcher perspectives on the provision of written feedback, particularly in the context of their evolving supervisory relationship.
Methods
A systematic search of peer-reviewed journals in educational and health databases was undertaken for the terms ‘written feedback’ and ‘research report’, from January 2001 to August 2020. Identified literature was critiqued for methodological quality. Findings were coded, grouped and described as themes. Next, the themes and their parts were applied to the development of a two-part written feedback checklist that includes separate but related recommendations for supervisors and novice researchers.
Findings
From 35 included papers, the four main themes that related to written feedback on research reports by novice researchers were: the emotional impact of receiving or giving written feedback; written feedback in the supervisory power dynamic; communicating written feedback; and the content and structure of written feedback. The changing nature and complexity of factors associated with written feedback from research supervisors reflected the transition from a supervisory relationship to a peer relationship. The checklist developed from the synthesised data is intended to provide guidance for supervisors and students about their respective and shared responsibilities within a supervisory relationship.
Implications
Increased awareness of the characteristics, roles and impact of written feedback will assist supervisors of novice researchers to provide effective written feedback, and for students to effectively utilise written feedback. Progression of written feedback throughout the supervisory period is proposed as a means of transitioning from a teacher-student to a peer researcher relationship.
Downloads
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.