Advertisement

Teachers’ Feedback on EFL Students’ Dissertation Writing in Morocco

  • Mohammed Larouz
  • Soufiane Abouabdelkader
Chapter
  • 25 Downloads

Abstract

This chapter presents a study investigating the effect of teachers’ feedback on EFL students’ dissertation writing in Moroccan higher education institutions. It focuses on teachers and students’ perceptions and practices of feedback as a pedagogical tool. The purpose is to probe the power of teachers’ feedback on university students’ dissertation writing skills and identify its type, nature and eventual repercussions on the quality of their dissertations. The questions raised in the chapter address feedback delivered orally, in writing or through information technology, its nature and its impact on doctoral students. The chapter adopts a phenomenographical research approach that takes into consideration the variation of the data. Questionnaires and interviews with both students and teachers are used to describe and explore the participants’ beliefs and attitudes towards the effects of teachers’ feedback on EFL writing. The study’s findings indicate much discordance between students’ conceptions of feedback and teachers’ understanding of what feedback comprises, offering a number of potential pedagogical implications as well as questions for further research.

Keywords

Teachers’ written feedback Dissertation writing Supervisory feedback Students’ perceptions Morocco 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to kindly thank the editors for their enriching feedback. Thanks are also due to all the participants in the study for their rich feedback. It has tremendously contributed to making our chapter easier to read and more coherent in flow, in as much as any feedback would enrich a writer’s work.

References

  1. Acker, A., Hill, H., & Black, E. (1994). Thesis supervision in the social sciences: Managed or negotiated? Higher Education, 28, 483–498. Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armstrong, S. J., Allinson, C. W., & Hayes, J. (2004). The effects of cognitive style on research supervision: A study of student supervisor dyads in management education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3(1), 41–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atkins, M., & Brown, G. (2002). Effective teaching in higher education. Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Barnard, A., McCosker, H., & Gerber, R. (1999). Phenomenography: A qualitative research approach for exploring understanding in health care. Qualitative Health Research, 9(2), 212–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buckley, C. (2013). Supervising international students’ undergraduate research projects: Implications from the literature. In R. Donnelly, J. Dallat, & M. Fitzmaurice (Eds.), Supervising and writing a good undergraduate dissertation (pp. 132–148). Bentham Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. Bulletin Officiel. (2008). Bulletin Officiel no. 5674, Issue of: 16 October 2008.Google Scholar
  7. Connell, R. W. (1985). How to supervise a Ph.D. Vestes, 28(2), 38–42.Google Scholar
  8. Denicolo, P. (2004). Doctoral supervision of colleagues: Peeling off the veneer of satisfaction and competence. Studies in Higher Education, 29(6), 693–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. DeNisi, A. (2003). A cognitive approach to performance appraisal. Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Donnelly, R., Dallat, J., & Fitzmaurice, M. (Eds.). (2013). Supervising and writing a good undergraduate dissertation. Bentham Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  11. Ellison, B. A. B., & Dedrick, R. F. (2008). What do doctoral students value in their ideal mentor? Research in Higher Education, 39, 455–467.Google Scholar
  12. Huisman, B., Saab, N., Van Driel, J., & Van Den Broek, P. (2018). Peer feedback on academic writing: Undergraduate students’ peer feedback role, peer feedback perceptions and essay performance. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(6), 955–968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kam, B. H. (1997). Style and quality in research supervision: The supervisor dependency factor. Higher Education, 34, 81–103. Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lee, A. (2010). New approaches to doctoral dissertation: Implications of educational development. Educational Developments, 11(2), 18–23.Google Scholar
  16. Lee, I. (2017). Classroom writing assessment and feedback in L2 school contexts. Springer Nature.Google Scholar
  17. Leonard, D., & Becker, R. (2009). Enhancing the doctoral experience at the local level. In D. Boud & A. Lee (Eds.), Changing practices of doctoral education (pp. 71–86). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Marton, F. (1986). Phenomenography: A research approach to investigating different understandings of reality. Journal of Thought, 21(3), 28–49.Google Scholar
  19. Marton, F. (1988). Phenomenography: Exploring different perceptions of reality. In D. Fetterman (Ed.), Qualitative approaches to evaluation in education: The silent revolution (pp. 176–205). New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  20. Messick, S. (1984). The nature of cognitive styles: Problems and promise in educational practice. Educational Psychologist, 19(2), 59–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Moses, I. (1984). Supervision of higher degree students—Problem areas and possible solutions. Higher Education Research and Development, 3(2), 153–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Moulay Ismail University. (2012). Charte des Thèses. Retrieved from http://www.umi.ac.ma/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Projet-Charte-de-Th%C3%A8se.pdfGoogle Scholar
  23. Moulay Ismail University. (2014). La Charte Des Thèses, UMI.Google Scholar
  24. Puckett, K. S., & McClam, T. (1991). Qualities of effective supervisors: The expectations of prospective student teachers. The Teacher Educator, 26(4), 2–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Reed, B. I. (2006). Phenomenography as a way to research the understanding by students of technical concepts. Núcleo de Pesquisa em Tecnologia da Arquitetura e Urbanismo (NUTAU): Technological innovafion and sustainability, 1–11.Google Scholar
  26. Vilkinas, T. (2002). The PhD process: The supervisor as manager. Education + Training, 44(3), 129–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wright, A., Murray, J. P., & Geale, P. (2007). A phenomenographic study of what it means to supervise doctoral students. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 6(4), 458–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Woods, P. (1990). Teacher skills and strategies. Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  29. Youssef, L. S. (2017). What can regular and timely student feedback tell us about the teaching and learning processes? Reflective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 18(6), 750–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohammed Larouz
    • 1
  • Soufiane Abouabdelkader
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of English StudiesMoulay Ismail UniversityMeknesMorocco
  2. 2.Department of English StudiesChouaib Doukkali UniversityEl JadidaMorocco

Personalised recommendations