Volume 6, Issue 4 (12-2021)                   IJREE 2021, 6(4): 91-105 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

koumachi B. Evaluating the Evaluator: Towards understanding Feed-back, Feed-up, and Feed-forward of Moroccan Doctorate Supervisors’ Reports. IJREE. 2021; 6 (4)
URL: http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-615-en.html
Department of English Studies, School of Arts and Humanities, Ibn Tofail University, Kénitra, Morocco
Abstract:   (157 Views)
Supervisor’s feedback is both a naysaying and a puzzling concern that has always tormented academics in higher education. Particularly, written feedback on pre-final or final versions of a submitted doctoral dissertation is indisputably the most significant step toward granting a doctoral student supervisee the right to defend his/her research project. It also constitutes a rich source on how students are to academically go about writing their dissertation and even go public as they are supposed to produce one or two articles before their vivas. The present research explores the written comments provided by supervisors on Moroccan doctorate supervisees’ dissertations. It principally focuses on both overall and in-text comments and whether they serve as feed-back to take corrective actions for the errors made, feed-up to focus on strategies to attain the academic goal, or feed-forward to be proactive and avoid disturbances that might affect the quality of the final work. A total of 40 supervisees from the English department at FLLA, Ibn Tofail University belonging to Language and Society Research Laboratory participated in the study. Data were collected using an online questionnaire through available Google forms platform. The results revealed that the total majority of supervisees tended to get a mixture of written remarks with a central focus on the quantity rather than on form. This is therefore a plus as to the agreement as well as the variance of the Moroccan supervisors in the use of these evaluation criteria while evaluating their supervisees’ doctoral dissertations targeting different types of feedback with a huge focus of the cyclicity of their utilization.
Full-Text [PDF 690 kb]   (39 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Special

1. Andre, K., & Heartfield, M. (2011). Nursing and midwifery portfolios: Evidence of continuing competence. Chatswood, NSW: Elsevier Australia.
2. Arend, B., & Davis, J. R. (2013). Facilitating seven ways of learning: A resource for more purposeful, effective, and enjoyable college teaching. Stylus Publishing, LLC.
3. Askew, S. (2000). Feedback for learning. London: Routledge Falmer.
4. Bajaj, J. K., Kaur, K., Arora, R., & Singh, S. J. (2018). Introduction of feedback for better learning. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, 12(12), FC11-FC16. doi:10.7860/jcdr/2018/36744.12402 [DOI:10.7860/JCDR/2018/36744.12402]
5. Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, C. C., Kulik, J. A., & Morgan, M. (1991). The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 213-238. [DOI:10.3102/00346543061002213]
6. Bechhofer, F., & Paterson, L. (2012). Principles of research design in the social sciences. Florence: Taylor and Francis. [DOI:10.4324/9780203136720]
7. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). Raising the linguistic accuracy
8. level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback.
9. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 207-217. https://
10. doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.002
11. Bolarinwa, O. (2015). Principles and methods of validity and reliability testing of questionnaires used in social and health science researches. Nigerian Postgraduate Medical Journal, 22(4), 195-201. doi:10.4103/1117-1936.173959 [DOI:10.4103/1117-1936.173959]
12. Breed, R., & Spittle, M. (2020). Developing game sense in physical education and sport. USA: Human Kinetics Publishers.
13. Broadbent, J., Panadero, E., & Boud, D. (2017). Implementing summative assessment with a formative flavour: A case study in a large class. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(2), 307-322. [DOI:10.1080/02602938.2017.1343455]
14. Brookhart, S. M. (2008). How to give effective feedback to your students. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
15. Burke, D. M., & Pieterick, J. A. (2010). Giving students effective written feedback. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
16. Chugh, R., Macht, S., & Harreveld, B. (2021). Supervisory feedback to postgraduate research students: A literature review. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1-15. [DOI:10.1080/02602938.2021.1955241]
17. Dirkx, K., Joosten-ten Brinke, D., Arts, J., & Van Diggelen, M. (2019). In-text and rubric-referenced feedback: Differences in focus, level, and function. Active Learning in Higher Education, 22(3), 189-201. [DOI:10.1177/1469787419855208]
18. Dobinson, T., & Dunworth, K. (2018). Literacy unbound: Multiliterate, multilingual, multimodal. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-030-01255-7]
19. Fazlagić, J. (2017). Images of intellectual capital. Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
20. Fielder, D. J. (2003). Achievement now! How to assure no child is left behind. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
21. Frankenberg-Garcia, A. (1999). Providing student writers with pre-text feedback. ELT Journal, 53(2), 100-106. [DOI:10.1093/elt/53.2.100]
22. Frey, N., & Fisher, D. (2011). The formative assessment action plan: Practical steps to more successful teaching and learning. Moorabbin, Vic: Hawker Brownlow Education.
23. Fry, H., Ketteridge, S., & Marshall, S. (2003). A handbook for teaching and learning in higher education: Enhancing academic practice. Routledge.
24. Gibbons, J. D., & Chakraborti, S. (2021). Nonparametric statistical inference. Boca Raton: CRC Press. [DOI:10.1201/9781315110479]
25. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge. https://apprendre.auf.org/wp-content/opera/13-BF-References-et-biblio-RPT-2014/Visible%20Learning_A%20synthesis%20or%20over%20800%20Meta-analyses%20Relating%20to%20Achievement_Hattie%20J%202009%20...pdf
26. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112. [DOI:10.3102/003465430298487]
27. Heritage, M. (2010). Formative assessment: Making it happen in the classroom. Thousand Oaks, California: A SAGE Company.
28. Holland, M. E. (2008). Feedback research revisited. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communication and technology (pp. 745-783). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
29. Hyland, K. (2019). Second language writing. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. [DOI:10.1017/9781108635547]
30. Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2019). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. United Kingdom: TJ International Ltd. [DOI:10.1017/9781108635547]
31. Irons, A. (2009). Enhancing learning through formative assessment and feedback. London: Routledge.
32. Jönsson, A., & Prins, F. (2019). Transparency in assessment - Exploring the influence of explicit assessment criteria. Frontiers Media SA. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2018.00119 [DOI:10.3389/feduc.2018.00119]
33. Keengwe, J., & Onchwari, G. (2015). Handbook of research on active learning and the flipped classroom model in the digital age. Hershey, PA, USA: IGI Global. [DOI:10.4018/978-1-4666-9680-8]
34. Lane, K. L. (2015). Supporting behavior for school success: A step-by-step guide to key strategies. New York: Guilford Press.
35. Laurillard, D. (2013). Rethinking University teaching: A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies. New York, NY: Digital Printing. [DOI:10.4324/9781315012940]
36. Lee, I. (2019). Classroom writing assessment and feedback in l2 school contexts. Singapore Ltd: Springer.
37. Lipnevich, A. A., & Smith, J. K. (2018). The Cambridge handbook of instructional feedback. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [DOI:10.1017/9781316832134]
38. Mayer, R. E., & Alexander, P. A. (2017). Handbook of research on learning and instruction. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. [DOI:10.4324/9781315736419]
39. McMillan, J. H. (2013). Sage handbook of research on classroom assessment. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
40. McNabb, D. E. (2004). Research methods for political science. New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe Inc.
41. Mcnabb, D. E. (2015). Research methods in public administration and nonprofit management. New York, NY: Routledge. [DOI:10.4324/9781315701127]
42. McNamara, E. (1999). Positive pupil management and motivation: A secondary teacher's guide. London: David Fulton.
43. Mory, E. H. (1992). The use of informational feedback in instruction: Implications for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(3), 5-20. [DOI:10.1007/BF02296839]
44. Nelson, K. (2008). Teaching in the digital age: Using the internet to increase student engagement and understanding. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
45. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd Ed.).New York: McGraw-Hill.
46. OECD. (2001). Evaluation feedback for effective learning and accountability. https://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation/2667326.pdf
47. Railean, E. (2019). Handbook of research on ecosystem-based theoretical models of learning and communication. Hershey PA: IGI Global. [DOI:10.4018/978-1-5225-7853-6]
48. Ramírez Balderas, I., & Guillén Cuamatzi, P. M. (2018). Self and peer correction to improve college students' writing skills. Profile: Issues in Teachers' Professional Development, 20(2), 179-194. [DOI:10.15446/profile.v20n2.67095]
49. Robins, G. (2012). Praise, motivation, and the child. New York, NY: Routledge. [DOI:10.4324/9780203117682]
50. Rowan, L., & Bigum, C. (2012). Transformative approaches to new technologies and student diversity in futures-oriented classrooms future proofing education. Dordrecht: Springer Science +Business Media B.V. [DOI:10.1007/978-94-007-2642-0]
51. Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119-144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00117714 [DOI:10.1007/BF00117714]
52. Seidman, I. (2019). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
53. Spector, J. M., Merrill, M. D., Elen, J., & Bishop, M. J. (2014). Handbook of research on educational communications and technology. New York, NY: Springer. [DOI:10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5]
54. Wheatley, L., McInch, A., Fleming, S., & Lord, R. (2015). Feeding back to feed forward: Formative assessment as a platform for effective learning. Kentucky Journal of Higher Education Policy and Practice, 3(2). https://uknowledge.uky.edu/kjhepp/vol3/iss2/2
55. Wiliam, D., & Paul, B. (1996). Meanings and consequences:
56. A basis for distinguishing formative and summative functions
57. of Assessment. British Educational Research Journal, 22
58. (5), 537-548. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1501668
59. Zarrinabadi, N., & Rezazadeh, M. (2020). Why only feedback? Including feed up and feed forward improves non-linguistic aspects of L2 writing. Language Teaching Research. [DOI:10.1177/1362168820960725]

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:

Send email to the article author

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2022 CC BY-NC 4.0 | International Journal of Research in English Education

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb