Feedback and self-regulated learning: Insights from supervisors' and PhD examiners' reports

Reflective Practice

Volumn 11, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 19-32

  Strackea, Elke ^a   Kumarb, Vijay ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CANBERRA   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY PUTRA MALAYSIA   (Malaysia)

Author keywords

Examiner reports; Feedback; Functions of speech; PhD supervision; Reflective practice; Self regulated learning

Indexed keywords

EID: 79952246580     PISSN: 14623943     EISSN: 14701103     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/14623940903525140     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Boekaerts, M. (1999). Self-regulated learning: Where we are today. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 445-457.
2. Boekaerts, M. (2002). Bringing about change in the classroom: Strengths and weaknesses of the self-regulated learning approach-EARLI Presidential Address, 2001. Learning and Instruction, 12, 589-604.
3. Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (Eds.) (1985). Reflection: Turning experience into learning. London: Kogan Page.
4. Bourke, S., Hattie, J., & Anderson, J. (2004). Predicting examiner recommendations on Ph. D theses. International Journal of Educational Research, 41, 178-194.
5. Butler, D.L., & Winne, P.H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65, 245-281.
6. Denicolo, P. (2003). Assessing the PhD: A constructive view of criteria. Quality Assurance in Education, 11(2), 84-91.
7. Holbrook, A., Bourke, S., Lovat, T., & Fairbairn, H. (2008). Consistency and inconsistency in PhD thesis examination. Australian Journal of Education, 52(1), 36-48.
8. Holmes, J. (2001). An introduction to sociolinguistics. Harlow: Pearson Education.
9. Hyland, K. (2002). Directives: Argument and engagement in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 23(2), 215-239.
10. Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. New York: Longman.
11. Hyland, F. & Hyland, K. (2001). Sugaring the pill. Praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of Second Language in Writing, 10, 185-212.
12. Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. New York: Cambridge University Press.
13. Johnston, S. (1997). Examining the examiners: An analysis of examiners' reports on doctoral theses. Studies in Higher Education, 22(3), 333-347.
14. Joyner, R.W. (2003). The selection of external examiners of research degrees. Quality Assurance in Education, 11(2), 123-127.
15. Kumar, V., & Stracke, E. (2007). An analysis of written feedback on a PhD thesis. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(4), 461-470.
16. Scanlan, J.M., & Chernomas, W.M. (1997). Developing the reflective teacher. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 25(5), 1138-1143.
17. Schön, D.A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
18. Tinkler, P., & Jackson, C. (2004). The doctoral examination process. UK: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
19. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scriber, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
20. Walker, G.E., Golde, C.M., Jones, L., Bueschel, A.S., & Hutchings, P. (2008). The formation of scholars. Rethinking doctoral education for the twenty-first century. San Francisco Jossey-Bass.
21. Zimmermann, B.J. (2001). Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview and analysis. In B.J. Zimmermann & D.H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievements: Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed.) (pp. 1-37). Mahwah, NJ/London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
22. Zimmermann, B.J., & Schunk, D.H. (2001). Reflections on theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement. In B.J. Zimmermann & D.H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievements: Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed.) (pp. 289-307). Mahwah, NJ/London: Lawrence Erlbaum.