Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Model for Doctoral Students’ Perceptions and Attitudes Toward Written Feedback for Academic Writing

  • Published:
Research in Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate social science doctoral students’ perceptions and attitudes toward written feedback about their academic writing and towards those who provide it. The study culminates in an explanatory model to describe the relationships between students’ perceptions and attitudes, their revision decisions, and other relevant factors in their written feedback practices. The investigation used a mixed methods approach involving 276 participants from two large mountain west public universities. The main purpose of the qualitative phase was to develop a background for a questionnaire and provisional model to be used in the quantitative phase. Structural Equation Modeling analysis during the quantitative phase provided an eight-factor model that shows the relationships of different factors regarding feedback practices as they relate to doctoral students.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aitchison, C., & Lee, A. (2006). Research writing: Problems and pedagogies. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 265–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alter, C., & Adkins, C. (2006). Assessing student writing proficiency in graduate schools of social work. Journal of Social Work Education, 42(2), 337–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becher, T., & Trowler, P. R. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines (2nd ed.). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press/SRHE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biklen, S. K., & Casella, R. (2007). A practical guide to the qualitative dissertation. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blaxter, L., Hughes, C., & Tight, M. (1998). Writing on academic careers. Studies in Higher Education, 23(3), 281–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolker, J. (1998). Writing your dissertation in fifteen minutes a day: A guide to starting, revising, and finishing your doctoral thesis. New York: Henry Holt and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradburn, N. M., Sudman, S., & Wansink, B. (2004). Asking questions: The definitive guide to questionnaire design—For market research, political polls, and social and health questionnaires (Rev. Ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

  • Brill, J., Bishop, M., & Walker, A. (2006). An investigation into the competencies required of an effective project manager: A Web-based Delphi study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(2), 115–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brinko, K. T. (1993). The practice of giving feedback to improve teaching. Journal of Higher Education, 64(5), 574–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cattell, R. (1966). The Scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate and Behavioral Research, 1, 245–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W., Clark, V. L. P., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 209–240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crossouard, B., & Pryor, J. (2009). Using email for formative assessment with professional doctorate students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(4), 377–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeLyser, D. (2003). Teaching graduate students to write a seminar for thesis and dissertation writers. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 27(2), 169–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dempsey, J. V., & Sales, G. C. (Eds.). (1993). Interactive instruction and feedback. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillman, D. A. (2007). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foss, S. K., & Waters, W. (2007). Destination dissertation: A traveler’s guide to a done dissertation. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, R. M., Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1992). Principles of instructional design (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational research: An introduction (7th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, S. B., & Salkind, N. J. (2005). Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh: Analyzing and understanding data (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F. J., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatcher, L. (1994). A step-by-step approach to using the SAS system for factor analysis and structural equation modeling. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamler, B. (2008). Rethinking doctoral publication practices: Writing from and beyond the thesis. Studies in Higher Education, 33(3), 283–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamler, B., & Thomson, P. (2006). Helping doctoral students write: Pedagogies for supervision. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, B., Walker, A., & Brill, J. (2007). The underutilization of Internet and communication technology-assisted collaborative project-based learning among international educators: A delphi study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(5), 527–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, V., & Stracke, E. (2007). An analysis of written feedback on a PhD thesis. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(4), 461–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavelle, E., & Bushrow, K. (2007). Writing approaches of graduate students. Educational Psychology, 27(6), 807–822.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, A., & Kamler, B. (2008). Bringing pedagogy to doctoral publishing. Teaching in Higher Education, 13(5), 511–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, Y. Y., & Flowerdew, J. (2007). Shaping Chinese novice scientists’ manuscripts for publication. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(2), 100–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, S., & Seale, C. (2007). Managing criticism in Ph.D. supervision: A qualitative case study. Studies in Higher Education, 32(4), 511–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovitts, B. E. (2001). Leaving the ivory tower: The causes and consequences of departure from doctoral study. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S. B., & Hong, S. H. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4(1), 84–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald, S. P. (1994). Professional academic writing in the humanities and social sciences. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, B. P. (2009). SPSS, SAS, and MATLAB programs for determining the number of components and factors using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Retrieved June 1, 2009, from http://people.ok.ubc.ca/brioconn/nfactors/nfactors.html.

  • Oppenheim, A. N. (1966). Questionnaire design and attitude measurement. New York: Basic Books, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pageadams, 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, R. (2009). A learning community approach to doctoral education in the social sciences. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(1), 43–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, R. L. (1992). Getting what you came for: The smart student’s guide to earning a Master’s or a Ph.D. New York: Noonday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phelps, R., Fisher, K., & Ellis, A. (2007). Organizing and managing your research: A practical guide for postgraduates. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2000). A first course in structural equation modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rea, L. M., & Parker, R. A. (2005). Designing and conducting survey research: A comprehensive guide (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (2008). Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Surratt, C. K. (2006). Creation of a graduate oral/written communication skills course. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 70(1), Article 5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomson-Reuters. (2009). Social sciences citation index- subject categories. Retrieved March 1, 2009, from http://scientific.thomson.com/cgi-bin/jrnlst/jlsubcatg.cgi?PC=J.

  • Torrance, M. S., & Thomas, G. V. (1994). The development of writing skills in doctoral research students. In R. G. Burgess (Ed.), Postgraduate education and training in the social sciences (pp. 105–123). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torrance, M. S., Thomas, G. V., & Robinson, E. J. (1994). The writing strategies of graduate research students in the social sciences. Higher Education, 27, 379–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toutkoushian, R. K., Porter, S. R., Danielson, C., & Hollis, P. R. (2003). Using publications counts to measure an institution’s research productivity. Research in Higher Education, 44(2), 121–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, G. E., Golde, C. M., Jones, L., Bueschel, A. C., & Hutchings, P. (2008). The formation of scholars: Rethinking doctoral education for the twenty-first century. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, D. (2005). The essential guide to postgraduate study. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, P. (2006). Out of balance: Lecturers’ perceptions of differential status and rewards in relation to teaching and research. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(2), 191–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Computer Education and Instructional Technology, Middle East Technical University, Inonu Bulvari, 06531, Ankara, Turkey

    Gulfidan Can

  2. Instructional Technology and Learning Sciences, Utah State University, 2830 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT, 84341-2830, USA

    Andrew Walker

Authors
  1. Gulfidan Can
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrew Walker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew Walker.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 3.

Table 3 Standardized paramater estimates for 10 factors-estimates (standard errors)—STDYX standardization
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Can, G., Walker, A. A Model for Doctoral Students’ Perceptions and Attitudes Toward Written Feedback for Academic Writing. Res High Educ 52, 508–536 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-010-9204-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-010-9204-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation