Cover not available
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

ORCID logo | University of Sydney

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 & Jones, 2007)? 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.

Keywords: writing criteria, MASUS writing criteria, writing rubrics, oral feedback, face-to-face meetings, individual consultations, supervisor feedback, academic literacy advisors’ feedback, thesis writing, second language students
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
Published online: 15 July 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.17033.dys
References
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aitchison, C., & Lee, A.
(2006) Research writing: Problems and pedagogies. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 265–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U.
(2009) The value of a focused approach to written feedback. ELT Journal, 631, 204–211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cargill, M.
(2000) Intercultural postgraduate supervision meetings: An exploratory discourse study. Prospect, 151, 28–38.Google Scholar
Carter, S., & Laurs, D.
(Eds.) (2014) Developing generic support for doctoral students: Practice and pedagogy. London & New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chanock, K.
(2007) Valuing individual consultations as input into other modes of teaching. Journal of Academic Language & Learning, 11, A1–A9.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cotteral, S.
(2011) Doctoral students writing: Where’s the pedagogy? Teaching in Higher Education, 16(4), 413–425. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Danby, S., & Lee, A.
(2012) Researching Doctoral pedagogy close up: Design and action in two Doctoral programmes. Australian Universities’ Review, 54(1), 19–28.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z.
(2007) Research methods in Applied Linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dyson, B.
(2009) Understanding trajectories of academic literacy: How could this improve diagnostic assessment? Journal of Academic Language and Learning, 31, A52–A69.Google Scholar
(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.Google Scholar
(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.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K.
(2004) An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed.). London, England: Arnold.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Kumar, V., & Stracke, E.
(2007) An analysis of written feedback on a PhD thesis. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(4), 461–470. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, S., & Seale, C.
(2007) Managing criticism in Ph.D. supervision: A qualitative case study. Studies in Higher Education, 32(4), 511–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, M. L., & Reid, K.
(2014) Using Bourdieu to think about the Tertiary Learning Advice Consultation. Journal of Academic Language & Learning, 81, A70–A82.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, K., Li, L. Y., Collins, G., & Couchman, J.
(2011) Co-constructing academic literacy: Examining teacher-student discourse in a one-to-one consultation. Journal of Academic Language and Learning, 5(1), 139–153.Google Scholar
Wisker, G., Robinson, G., Trafford, V., Creighton, E., & Warnes, M.
(2003) Recognising and overcoming dissonance in postgraduate student research. Studies in Higher Education, 281, 91–105. DOI logoGoogle Scholar