Supervisory feedback : a mixed-methods multi-perspectival study

Abstract

Writing a thesis is a critical component of master's degree programs with a thesis component. For most students, a master's thesis is the first independent piece of work aiming to transform them from reactive students to pro-active researchers. In this regard, supervisory feedback plays a crucial role because it provides them with much-needed help when they are most likely to benefit from it. However, despite a growing number of students writing master's theses, supervisory feedback on master's theses, especially in a non-western context, has received little research attention. A limited body of existing research has rarely occupied itself with actual supervisory feedback and multiple factors that shape feedback practices. To address this knowledge gap, this multi-perspectival study of supervisory feedback was conducted at a comprehensive public university in Nepal. The study was informed by cultural-historical activity theory and employed an exploratory mixed-methods research design to examine supervisory feedback practices, supervisors' and students' perceptions and motives, and disciplinary variation in supervisory feedback. Data collected for the study included in-text feedback on thesis drafts (n = 97), oral feedback provided during defenses (n = 89), multiple case-studies involving supervisor-student pairs (n = 16), and questionnaire surveys with supervisors (n = 102) and students (n = 442). The study included participants from four disciplines (i.e., Education, English Studies, Physics, and Engineering) to examine the role of disciplinary culture in supervisory feedback. The findings indicated that supervisory feedback mostly failed to address the students' needs and expectations. Supervisory feedback comments, at times, appeared to be too direct and too critical, with a high likelihood of damaging students' confidence and wavering self. The supervisors tended to judge the students directly, although, in principle, it is the thesis that should be the target of evaluation. The supervisors' and the students' perceptions of supervisory feedback differed significantly. The supervisors tended to think that they provided more feedback than the students reported receiving, and the students believed that they engaged with supervisory feedback more than the supervisors thought they did. While some supervisors were guided by a desire to inspire and support their students for in-depth learning and developing research and literacy skills, others were more concerned with finding flaws in students' works without offering ways for improvement. The students also seemed to differ in their motives. Some students were sincerely interested to learn from thesis writing and supervisory feedback, but others did not see much value in writing a thesis beyond fulfilling the requirements for graduation. The supervisors' and the students' historical, social, and personal factors shaped their motives, which, in turn, influenced their practices. The study revealed that the intended outcomes of thesis writing did not seem to materialize in most cases because of the unconducive research environment. Feedback practices and perceptions differed significantly across disciplines, owing to both disciplinary cultures and individual differences. In general, the Physics students were better supported than their counterparts in the other disciplines. Informed by cultural-historical activity theory, a tentative model to conceptualize effective supervisory feedback has been proposed based on the findings of this study. These findings add to the body of knowledge about supervisory feedback on master's theses and have implications for supervisory feedback practices and policy formulation.