Social science doctoral students' needs and preferences for written feedback

Higher Education

Volumn 68, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 303-318

  Can, Gulfidan ^a   Walker, Andrew ^b  

^a MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

^b UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Academic writing; Autonomy; Critical feedback; Doctoral students; Feedback categorization; Social science

Indexed keywords

EID: 84903190070     PISSN: 00181560     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10734-014-9713-5     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Aitchison, C. (2009). Writing groups for doctoral education. Studies in Higher Education, 34(8), 905-916.
2. Biklen, S. K., & Casella, R. (2007). A practical guide to the qualitative dissertation. New York: Teachers College Press.
3. Boden, D., Borrego, M., & Newswander, L. K. (2011). Student socialization in interdisciplinary doctoral education. Higher Education, 62(6), 741-755.
4. Caffarella, R. S., & Barnett, B. G. (2000). Teaching doctoral students to become scholarly writers: the importance of giving and receiving critiques. Studies in Higher Education, 25(1), 39-52.
5. Can, G., & Walker, A. (2011). A model for doctoral students' perceptions and attitudes toward written feedback for academic writing. Research in Higher Education, 52(5), 508-536.
6. Carless, D. (2006). Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 219-233.
7. Cattell, R. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate and Behavioral Research, 1, 245-276.
8. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
9. Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(7), 1-9.
10. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11. Crossouard, B., & Pryor, J. (2009). Using email for formative assessment with professional doctorate students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(4), 377-388.
12. Cryer, P. (2000). The research student's guide to success (2nd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
13. Dillman, D. A. (2007). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
14. Egan, J. M. (1989). Graduate school and the self: A theoretical view of some negative effects of professional socialization. Teaching Sociology, 17, 200-207.
15. Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97-107.
16. 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(4), 149-155.
17. Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272-299.
18. Ferguson, P. (2009). Student perceptions of quality feedback in teacher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(1), 51-62.
19. Gagné, R. M., Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1992). Principles of instructional design (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
20. Gannon-Leary, P., Fontainha, E., & Bent, M. (2011). The loneliness of the long distance researcher. Library Hi Tech, 29(3), 455-469.
21. Gardner, S. K. (2008). "What's too much and what's too little?": The process of becoming an independent researcher in doctoral education. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(3), 326-350.
22. Glaser, B. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 12(4), 436-445.
23. Golde, C. M. (2005). The role of the department and discipline in doctoral student attrition: Lessons from four departments. The Journal of Higher Education, 76(6), 669-700.
24. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112.
25. Heath, T. (2002). A quantitative analysis of PhD students' views of supervision. Higher Education Research and Development, 21(1), 41-53.
26. Hockey, J. (1996). Motives and meaning amongst PhD supervisors in the social sciences. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 17(4), 489-506.
27. Hunt, C. (2001). Climbing out of the void: moving from chaos to concepts in the presentation of a thesis. Teaching in Higher Education, 6(3), 351-367.
28. Hyatt, D. F. (2005). 'Yes, a very good point!': a critical genre analysis of a corpus of feedback commentaries on Master of Education assignments. Teaching in Higher Education, 10(3), 339-353.
29. Johnson, L., Lee, A., & Green, B. (2000). The PhD and the autonomous self: gender, rationality and postgraduate pedagogy. Studies in Higher Education, 25(2), 135-147.
30. Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
31. Kamler, B., & Thomson, P. (2006). Helping doctoral students write: Pedagogies for supervision. New York: Routledge.
32. Kumar, V., & Stracke, E. (2007). An analysis of written feedback on a PhD thesis. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(4), 461-470.
33. Lattuca, L. R. (2001). Creating interdisciplinarity: Interdisciplinary research and teaching among college and university faculty. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
34. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
35. Lee, A. (2008). How are doctoral students supervised? Concepts of doctoral research supervision. Studies in Higher Education, 33(3), 267-281.
36. Li, S., & Seale, C. (2007). Managing criticism in Ph. D. supervision: a qualitative case study. Studies in Higher Education, 32(4), 511-526.
37. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
38. Lovitts, B. E. (2005). Being a good course taker is not enough: A theoretical perspective on the transition to independent research. Studies in Higher Education, 30(2), 137-154.
39. Lovitts, B. E. (2007). Making the implicit explicit: Creating performance expectations for the dissertation. VA: Stylus Publishing.
40. Lovitts, B. E. (2008). The transition to independent research: Who makes it, who doesn't and why. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(3), 296-325.
41. Mullen, C. A. (2001). The need for a curricular writing model for graduate students. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 25(1), 117-126.
42. Narciss, S. (2008). Feedback strategies for interactive learning tasks. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J J Gv Merrienboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 125-144). Mahaw, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
43. O'Connor, B. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer's MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instrumentation, and Computers, 32(3), 396-402.
44. Overall, N. C., Deane, K. L., & Peterson, E. R. (2011). Promoting doctoral students' research self-efficacy: combining academic guidance with autonomy support. Higher Education Research & Development, 30(6), 791-805.
45. Page-Adams, D., Cheng, L. C., Gogineni, A., & Shen, C. Y. (1995). Establishing a group to encourage writing for publication among doctoral students. Journal of Social Work Education, 31(3), 402-407.
46. Parker, R. (2009). A learning community approach to doctoral education in the social sciences. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(1), 43-54.
47. Reigeluth, C. M., & Carr-Chellman, A. A. (2009). Situational principles of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth & A. A. Carr-Chellman (Eds.), Instructional-design theories and models (Vol. III, pp. 57-68). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
48. Reigeluth, C. M., & Keller, J. B. (2009). Understanding instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth & A. A. Carr-Chellman (Eds.), Instructional-design theories and models (Vol. III, pp. 27-39). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
49. Seagram, B. C., Gould, J., & Pyke, S. W. (1998). An investigation of gender and other variables on time to completion of doctoral degrees. Research in Higher Education, 39(3), 319-335.
50. Stracke, E., & Kumar, V. (2010). Feedback and self-regulated learning: insights from supervisors' and PhD examiners' reports. Reflective Practice, 11(1), 19-32.
51. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (2008). Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
52. Strijbos, J., Narciss, S., & Dunnebier, K. (2010). Peer feedback content and sender's competence level in academic writing revision tasks: Are they critical for feedback perceptions and efficiency? Learning and Instruction, 20, 291-303.
53. Tierney, W. H., & Hallett, R. E. (2010). In treatment: Writing beneath the surface. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(8), 674-684.
54. Torrance, M. S., Thomas, G. V., & Robinson, E. J. (1992). The writing experiences of social-science research students. Studies in Higher Education, 17(2), 155-167.
55. Torrance, M. S., Thomas, G. V., & Robinson, E. J. (1994). The writing strategies of graduate research students in the social-sciences. Higher Education, 27(3), 379-392.
56. West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: Problems and remedies. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues and applications (pp. 56-75). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
57. Winter, R., Griffiths, M., & Green, K. (2000). The 'academic' qualities of practice: what are the criteria for a practice-based PhD? Studies in Higher Education, 25(1), 25-37.
58. Wisker, G. (2005). The good supervisor: Supervising postgraduate and undergraduate research for doctoral theses and dissertations. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
59. Zhao, C. M., Golde, C. M., & McCormick, A. C. (2007). More than a signature: How advisor choice and advisor behaviour affect doctoral student satisfaction. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 31(3), 263-281.