Making the most of feedback for academic writing development in postgraduate research: Pilot of a combined programme for students and supervisors
Abstract
Feedback from supervisors on written work is the primary tool for teaching writing in postgraduate research and is a pedagogical activity for academic writing development. Despite this, little effort is focussed on teaching supervisors to provide effective feedback, or students to understand and use this feedback (feedback literacy). Here we describe development and pilot of a novel, flexible combined programme to teach postgraduate research students and supervisors how to make the most of feedback on student writing. This online-supported programme, constructed using evidence-based educational design principles, significantly improved student and supervisor feedback literacy. Specifically, skills and experience in providing and responding to effective feedback were improved, along with an understanding of how to utilise feedback to achieve expected writing standards. We believe the strong theoretical basis underpinned success of our programme and propose that future expansion, tailored to specific cohort characteristics and needs, has the potential to improve the feedback process.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Features common with prior studies were explicit discussion of feedback processes and use of peer feedback, implying these are promising practices to promote development of students' feedback literacy.
“Features in common with the present study were the explicit discussion of the feedback processes and the use of peer feedback, implying that these are promising practices to promote the development of students ' feedback literacy.”
From The development of secondary students' feedback literacy: peer assessment as an intervention (2020) · cites this paper as Hey-Cunningham et al., 2020
Cites
Using thematic analysis in psychology
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006) · Qualitative Research in Psychology · doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa · Cited by 194,414 · see citing works
The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback
Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354 · Cited by 2,428 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The development of secondary students' feedback literacy: peer assessment as an intervention
Ketonen, L., Nieminen, P., & Hähkiöniemi, M. (2020) · The Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.1080/00220671.2020.1835794 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
“Hey-Cunningham et al. (2020) designed a pilot of blended learning for postgraduate research students in academic writing that contained principles, exemplars, self-assessment, and peer assessment, and noticed that it improved students’ feedback literacy.”
BackgroundInfluential
- Authors
- Hey-Cunningham, A. J., Ward, M.-H., & Miller, E. J.
- Affiliations
- Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
- The University of Sydney (AU)
- Venue
- Innovations in Education and Teaching International
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2020-01-16
- Volume
- 58
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 182-194
- ISSN
- 1470-3297 (ISSN-L)
- 1470-3300
- OpenAlex
- W2999253937
- Cited by
- 21
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 5.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Innovations in Education and Teaching International (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- University of Sydney (Educational Innovation Grant (2015))
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Doctoral Education Challenges and Solutions
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Keywords
- feedback literacy, academic writing development, postgraduate supervision, supervisor feedback, writing instruction, educational design principles
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
