THE IMPACT OF PROGRESS FEEDBACK ON SELF REGULATED GOALS AND PERFORMANCE OF POSTGRADUATE RESEARCH STUDENTS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v0i0.1874Keywords:
postgraduate supervision, constructive feedback, feedback strategies, self- regulating learning, goals settingsAbstract
The demand for a continuous consideration of postgraduate supervision has risen because of the various problems reported in numerous studies, such as the high rate of dissatisfaction and attrition, supervisors’ inadequate knowledge about practical aspects of candidature, and unsatisfactory levels in obtaining feedback about students’ performance and progress. These studies indicated that giving and receiving constructive and ongoing feedback between supervisors and students plays an essential role in identifying both parties concerns. For postgraduate research students, the nature of their task requires them to work more independently. Thus, self-regulating learning becomes important, particularly at the early stages of the study where students start to set their study goals, and the social support of the supervisor becomes in need. Self-regulating learning is the process of setting a goal, employing goal-directed actions, monitoring strategies and adjusting them to ensure success. This paper discusses the effect of supervisor feedback on the student’s self-regulation based on a review of the literature of self-regulation theory, and how receiving positive or negative feedback may affect student’s goal setting and performance during the postgraduate study.
Article visualizations:
References
Armstrong, S. (2004). The impact of supervisor’s cognitive styles on the quality of research supervision in management education. British Journal of educational Psychology, 74:599-616
Aspland, T., Edwards, H., O'Leary, J. & Ryan, Y. (1999). Tracking New Directions in the Evaluation of Postgraduate Supervision. Innovative Higher Education, 24:127-147.
Bandura, A., Locke, E.A. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 87–99
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Brown, G. & Atkins, M. (1986). Academic Staff Training in British Universities: Results of a National Survey. Studies in Higher Education, 1:29-42
Butler, R. (1998). Determinants of help seeking: Relations between perceived reasons for classroom help-avoidance and help-seeking behaviors in an experimental context. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90: 630-643.
Connell, R. W. (1985). How to Supervise a PhD. The Australian Universities’ Review, 2: 38–41
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams. Science Quarterly, 44: 350-383
Erdem, F., Ozen, J. (2003). Cognitive and affective dimensions of trust in developing team performance. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 9: 131-135
ESRC (1991). Economic and Social Research Council, Postgraduate training: Guidelines on the provision of research training for postgraduate research students in the social sciences. Swindon: ESRC
Gipps, C., McCallum, B., Hargreaves, E. (2000). What makes a good primary school teacher: Expert classroom strategies. London: Falmer.
Gurr, G. M. (2001). Negotiating the Rackety Bridge: A Dynamic Model for Aligning Supervisory Style with Research Student Development. Higher Education Research & Development, 20: 81-92
Gullet, E. (2010). Web-Based Learning Solutions for Communities of Practice: Developing Virtual Environments for Social and Pedagogical Advancement. In Nikos Karacapilidis (Ed).
Harris, K. R., Friedlander, B.D., Saddler, B., Frizzelle, R. Graham, S. (2005). Self-monitoring of attention versus self-monitoring of academic performance: Effects among students with ADHD in the general education classroom. Journal of Special Education, 39:145-156
Hattie, J., Timperley, H. (2007). The Power of Feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77: 81-112
Heath, T. (2002). A Quantitative Analysis of PhD Students' Views of Supervision. Higher Education Research & Development, 21: 41-61
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: 254-284
Latham, G. P., Locke, E. A. (1991). Self-regulation through goal setting. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50: 212–247
Locke, E. A., Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting & task performance. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Mainhard, T., Van der Rijst, R. & Van Tartwijk, J. (2009). A model for the supervisor-doctoral student relationship. Higher Education, 58: 359-373
McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and Cognition-Based Trust as Foundations for Interpersonal Cooperation in Organizations. The Academy of Management Journal, 24-59
Mouton, J. (2007). Reflection of the Current Throughput Challenges in South African Higher Education. Address Delivered to the Postgraduate Research Indaba at the University of South Africa, February 20-22, 2007
Pearson, M., Kayrooz, C. (2004). Enabling critical reflection on research supervisory practice. International Journal for Academic Development, 9:99-116.
Podsakoff, P., Farh, J.L.(1989). Effects of feedback sign and credibility on goal setting and task performance. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 44:45-67
Pokorny, H. & Pickford, P. (2010). Complexity cues and relationships: Student perceptions of feedback. Active Learning in higher Education, 11:21-30.
Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education, (2nd Ed.) London: Routledge. Richardson
Rowe, A. Wood, L. (2008). Student Perceptions and Preferences for Feedback. Asian Social Sciences, 4:78-88
Schunk, D., (2012). Learning theories: An Educational Perspective. 6th ed. Pearson public.
SNA, (2006). International Postgraduate Students Mirror: Catalonia, Finland, Ireland and Sweden, The Swedish National Agency for Higher Education Högskoleverkets rapportserie 2006:29 R, ISSN 1400-948X, 2006
Spear, R. H. (2000). Supervision of Research Students: Responding to Student Expectations. The Australian National University, Canberra.
Sutton, P. (2009). Towards dialogic Feedback. Critical and Reflective Practice in Education, 1:1-10
Taylor, M. S., Fisher, C. D., Ilgen, D. R. (1984). Individuals’ reactions to performance feedback in organizations: A control theory perspective. In K. M. Rowland & G. R.Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management, 2:81-124
Wadesango, N., Machingambi, S. (2011). Post Graduate Students’ Experiences with Research Supervisors. J Sociology Soc Anth, 2:31-37
Weaver, M. (2006). Do Students Value Feedback? Students’ Perception of Tutors’ Written Response’. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 31:379-394
Wigfield, A., Klauda, S. L., Cambria, J. (2011). Influences on the development of academic self-regulatory processes. In B. J. Zimmerman, & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self - regulation of learning and performance (pp.33-48). New York: Routledge
Wolters, C.A. (2011). Regulation of motivation: Contextual and social aspects. Teachers College Record, 113: 265-283
Zhao, C., Golde, C., McCormick, A. (2007). More than a Signature: How advisor choice and advice behaviour affect student satisfaction. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 31:263-281
Zimmerman, B. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45:166-183
Zuber-Skerrit, O., Ryan, Y. (2004). A Constructivist Model for Evaluating Postgraduate Supervision: A case study. Quality Assurance in Education, 12:82-93
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
