Article published In: Australian Review of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 42:3 (2019) ► pp.251–273
A criterion-based approach to oral feedback on thesis writing
An analysis of supervisor and academic literacy advisor feedback
Published online: 15 July 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.17033.dys
https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.17033.dys
Abstract
Is oral feedback on thesis writing from supervisors and academic literacy advisors (ALA) based on writing criteria, such as the MASUS (Measuring the Academic Skills of University Students) criteria (Bonanno, H., & Jones, J. (2007). Measuring the academic skills of university students: The MASUS procedure, a diagnostic assessment. Retrieved from [URL])? The study aimed to investigate the distribution of supervisory and ALA oral feedback in terms of the five MASUS Areas. These Areas of writing were used to analyze fortnightly meetings between two L2 English doctoral candidates and their supervisors (eight meetings) and an ALA (eight meetings). The findings showed that the feedback moves were distributed across the Areas and most moves were produced in multi-Area episodes. However, compared to the ALA, the supervisors covered the Areas less comprehensively, used fewer single-Area episodes, and combined sources with structure. The article concludes that oral feedback on thesis writing is criterion-based, and supervisors can inform their feedback and develop their students’ skills by employing tools such as MASUS.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Theoretical background
- 2.1Feedback on thesis writing
- 2.2Criteria for feedback on writing
- 3.The study
- 3.1Research questions
- 3.2Context and participants
- 3.3Procedure and data
- 3.4Data analysis
- 4.Findings
- 4.1The distribution of feedback moves
- 4.2The distribution of feedback episodes
- 5.Discussion and conclusion
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
References
References (33)
Aitchison, C., Catterall, J., Ross, P., & Burgin, S. (2012). ‘Tough love and tears’: Learning doctoral writing in the sciences. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(4), 435–447.
Aitchison, C., & Lee, A. (2006). Research writing: Problems and pedagogies. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 265–278.
Berry, L., Collins, G., Copeman, P., Harper, R., Li, L., & Prentice, S. (2012). Individual consultations: Towards a 360-degree evaluation process. Journal of Academic Language & Learning, 61, A16–A35.
Bitchener, J., & Basturkmen, H. (2006). Perceptions of the difficulties of postgraduate L2 thesis students writing the discussion section. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 51, 4–18.
Bitchener, J., Basturkmen, H., & East, M. (2010). The focus of supervisor written feedback to thesis/dissertation students. International Journal of English Studies, 101, 79–97.
Bitchener, J., Basturkmen, H., East, M., & Meyer, H. (2011). Best practice in supervisor feedback to thesis students. Wellington, New Zealand: The National Centre for Tertiary Teaching Excellence.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009). The value of a focused approach to written feedback. ELT Journal, 631, 204–211.
Bonanno, H., & Jones, J. (2007). Measuring the academic skills of university students: The MASUS procedure, a diagnostic assessment. Retrieved from [URL]
Brown, D. (2016). The type and linguistic foci of oral feedback in the L2 classroom: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 201, 436–458.
Cargill, M. (2000). Intercultural postgraduate supervision meetings: An exploratory discourse study. Prospect, 151, 28–38.
Carter, S., & Laurs, D. (Eds.). (2014). Developing generic support for doctoral students: Practice and pedagogy. London & New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
Casanave, C. P., & Hubbard, P. (1992). The writing assignments and writing problems of doctoral students: Faculty perceptions, pedagogical issues, and needed research. English for Specific Purposes, 111, 33–49.
Chanock, K. (2007). Valuing individual consultations as input into other modes of teaching. Journal of Academic Language & Learning, 11, A1–A9.
Chanock, K., Horton, C., Reedman, M., & Stephenson, B. (2012). Collaborating to embed academic literacies and personal support in first year discipline subjects. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 9, 3 1–13.
Cooley, L., & Lewkowitz, J. (1997). Developing awareness of the rhetorical and linguistic conventions of writing a thesis in English: Addressing the needs of EFL/ESL postgraduate students. In A. Duszak (Ed.), Culture and styles of academic discourse (pp. 113–129). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Cotteral, S. (2011). Doctoral students writing: Where’s the pedagogy? Teaching in Higher Education, 16(4), 413–425.
Danby, S., & Lee, A. (2012). Researching Doctoral pedagogy close up: Design and action in two Doctoral programmes. Australian Universities’ Review, 54(1), 19–28.
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in Applied Linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dyson, B. (2009). Understanding trajectories of academic literacy: How could this improve diagnostic assessment? Journal of Academic Language and Learning, 31, A52–A69.
(2014). Are onshore pathway students prepared for effective university participation? A case study of an international postgraduate cohort. Journal of Academic Language and Learning, 81, A28–A42.
(2016). EAP or genre-based? A comparison of two curricular approaches to the preparation of international students for university. University of Sydney Papers in TESOL, 111, 31–66.
Erling, E. J., & Richardson, J. T. E. (2010). Measuring the academic skills of university students: Evaluation of a diagnostic procedure. Assessing Writing, 151, 177–193.
Halliday, M. A. K. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed.). London, England: Arnold.
Holder, G. M., Jones, J., Robinson, R. A., & Krass, I. (1999). Academic literacy skills and progression rates amongst pharmacy students. Higher Education Research and Development, 181, 19–30.
Jones, J., Gollin, S., Drury, H., & Economou, D. (1989). Systemic-functional linguistics and its application to the TESOL curriculum. In R. Hasan & J. Martin (Eds.), Language development: Learning language, learning culture (pp. 257-328). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Kumar, V., & Stracke, E. (2007). An analysis of written feedback on a PhD thesis. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(4), 461–470.
Lee, C. (2015). More than just language advising: Rapport in university English writing consultations and implications for tutor training. Language and Education, 29(5), 430–452.
Li, S., & Seale, C. (2007). Managing criticism in Ph.D. supervision: A qualitative case study. Studies in Higher Education, 32(4), 511–26.
Paré, A. (2011). Speaking of writing: Supervisory feedback and the dissertation. In L. McAlpine, & C. Amundsen (Eds.), Doctoral education: Research-based strategies for doctoral students, supervisors and administrators (pp. 59-74). London, England: Springer.
Roberts, M. L., & Reid, K. (2014). Using Bourdieu to think about the Tertiary Learning Advice Consultation. Journal of Academic Language & Learning, 81, A70–A82.
Scouller, K., Bonanno, H., Smith, L., & Krass, I. (2008). Student experience and tertiary expectations: Factors predicting academic literacy amongst first-year pharmacy students. Studies in Higher Education, 331, 167–178.