Formative Assessment through Supervisory Feedback on Undergraduate Thesis Writing
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37134/ajatel.vol15.1.9.2025Keywords:
supervisory feedback, Formative Assessment, Undergraduate Students, Thesis Writing, ScaffoldingAbstract
This study examines supervisor written feedback as a form of formative assessment on undergraduate thesis writing. The objectives of the study are to: (1) determine the frequency of types of feedback, and (2) examine patterns of change in the frequency of feedback across three drafts of writing. The study involved the writing of the final year project proposal by five undergraduate students in a global communication degree program. Each student had a different supervisor, and three drafts of their final year project proposal were analyzed. The theoretical frameworks of the study were Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory and Sadler’s theory of formative assessment. The analysis revealed that directive feedback constituted the majority of the responses, accounting for 56.6% of the 369 total comments. This was followed by referential feedback at 29.8%, and expressive feedback at 13.6%. A closer examination of the commentary provided by five supervisors across three successive drafts identified two distinct patterns. First, there was a marked reduction in the volume of feedback by the third draft. For instance, Supervisor 1 initially made 70 comments (57%) on the first draft, which declined to 38 comments (30.9%) on the second draft and further to 15 comments (12.2%) on the third. In contrast, other supervisors, such as Supervisor 5, demonstrated greater consistency in the early stages, offering 29 comments (41.4%) on both the first and second drafts before decreasing to 12 comments (17.1%) in the final draft. The tracking of supervisors’ feedback over drafts produces novel findings on the usefulness of the supervisor’s scaffolding in getting undergraduate students closer to writing conventions in the research community.
Downloads
References
AlKhatnai, M. (2023). Focus and language functions in supervisors’ written feedback on master’s theses at KSU’s translation department. Journal of Institutional Research South East Asia, 21(1), 96-112.
Alt, D., & Raichel, N. (2021). Equity and formative assessment in higher education. Springer International Publishing.
Basturkmen, H., East, M., & Bitchener, J. (2014). Supervisors’ on-script feedback comments on drafts of dissertations: socialising students into the academic discourse community. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(4), 432-445. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2012.752728
Bastola, M. N., & Hu, G. (2023). From the other side of the desk: Supervisors’ perceptions of supervisory feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 59, 100965. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2023.100965
Behroozizad, S., Nambiar, R., & Amir, Z. (2014). Sociocultural theory as an approach to aid EFL learners. Reading, 14(2), 217-226.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2018). Classroom assessment and pedagogy. Assessment in education: Principles, policy & practice, 25(6), 551-575. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2018.1441807
Carter, S., & Kumar, V. (2017). ‘Ignoring me is part of learning’: Supervisory feedback on doctoral writing. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 54(1), 68-75. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2015.1123104
Chugh, R., Macht, S., & Harreveld, B. (2022). Supervisory feedback to postgraduate research students: A literature review. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(5), 683-697. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1955241
Darling-Hammond, L. (Ed.). (2008). Powerful learning: What we know about teaching for understanding. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Fitriyah, I., Ningrum, A. S. B., & Gozali, I. (2024). An investigation of written corrective feedback in EFL writing assessment: How teachers’ feedback practices meet students’ expectations. International Journal of Language Testing, 14(1), 166-184.
Frank, B., Simper, N., & Kaupp, J. (2018). Formative feedback and scaffolding for developing complex problem solving and modelling outcomes. European Journal of Engineering Education, 43(4), 552-568. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2017.1299692
Gedamu, A. D., & Gezahegn, T. H. (2021). EFL supervisors’ written feedback focus and language functions: A mixed methods study. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 6, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-021-00125-2
Hanefar, S. B. M., Anny, N., & Rahman, S. (2022). Enhancing teaching and learning in higher education through formative assessment: Teachers’ perceptions. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 9(1), 61-79.
Jafarigohar, M., Hoomanfard, M. H., & Jalilifar, A. (2018). A Typology of Supervisor Written Feedback on L2 Students’ Theses/Dissertations. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 21(2), 43-87.
Karim, K., & Nassaji, H. (2018). The revision and transfer effects of direct and indirect comprehensive corrective feedback on ESL students’ writing. Language Teaching Research, 15, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818802469
Karim, K., & Endley, M. J. (2019). Should feedback be direct or indirect? Comparing the effectiveness of different types of WCF on L1 Arabic writers’ use of English prepositions. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 13, 68-84.
Kim, O. Y., & Park, E. S. (2017). The utility of indirect written corrective feedback for learners with different proficiency levels. Bilingual Research, 68, 1-26.
Kusumastuti, A., Rodchom, P., Intolo, W., & Phusavat, K. (2025). Roles of indirect feedback and attitude for sustainability in learning. Sustainability, 17(9), 3778. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17093778
Kumar, V., & Stracke, E. (2007). An analysis of written feedback on a PhD thesis. Teaching in Higher education, 12(4), 461-470. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510701415433
Maftuna, K. (2025). Scaffolding techniques: Supporting student progress step-by-step. Tta'lim, Tarbiya Va Innovatsiyalar Jurnali, 1(7), 264–268.
Massri, R. Q. (2025). Boosting learning drive and success: How formative assessment transforms student motivation and achievement. In Challenges of Educational Innovation in Contemporary Society (pp. 461-496). IGI Global Scientific Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3373-0705-3.ch021
Morton, J., Storch, N., & Thompson, C. (2014). Feedback on writing in the supervision of postgraduate students: Insights from the work of Vygotsky and Bakhtin. Journal of Academic Language and Learning, 8(1), A24-A36.
Nurie, Y. (2018). Doctoral students’ perceived needs and preferences for supervisors’ written feedback. PASAA, 56(1), 112-144. https://doi.org/10.58837/CHULA.PASAA.56.1.6
Owen, L. (2016). The impact of feedback as formative assessment on student performance. International journal of teaching and learning in higher education, 28(2), 168-175.
Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119-144.
Sadler, D. R. (2010). Fidelity as a precondition for integrity in grading academic achievement. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,35(6), 727-743. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930902977756
Saeed, M. A., Al Qunayeer, H. S., & AL-Jaberi, M. A. (2021). Exploring supervisory feedback formulation on academic writing of research proposals and postgraduates’ responses to feedback: A case study. Sage Open, 11(2), 21582440211007125. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211007125
Salas-Bustos, D. A., Coral-Padilla, S. J., Bustos-Lozano, H. L., & Belén, M. (2025). The role of formative assessment in higher education: Strategies to improve learning and knowledge retention. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 23, 5441-5455. https://doi.org/10.57239/PJLSS-2025-23.1.00425
Scott, S. V. (2014). Practicing what we preach: Towards a student-centred definition of feedback. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(1), 49-57. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2013.827639
Stracke, E., & Kumar, V. (2016). Exploring doctoral students’ perceptions of language use in supervisory written feedback practices–because “feedback is hard to have”. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 39(2), 122-138. https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.39.2.02str
Stracke, E., & Kumar, V. (2010). Feedback and self‐regulated learning: Insights from supervisors’ and PhD examiners’ reports. Reflective Practice, 11(1), 19-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623940903525140
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Wiliam, D. (2011). What is assessment for learning? Studies in educational evaluation, 37(1), 3-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2011.03.001
Xu, L. (2017). Written feedback in intercultural doctoral supervision: A case study. Teaching in Higher Education, 22(2), 239-255. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2016.1237483
Xu, L., & Hu, J. (2020). Language feedback responses, voices and identity (re) construction: Experiences of Chinese international doctoral students. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 57(6), 724-73. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2019.1593214
Yu, P. (2023). A study of teachers’ adoption of questioning as a formative assessment strategy in university EFL teaching in China’s mainland [Doctoral dissertation, The Education University of Hong Kong].
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Lian Zhao, Su-Hie Ting
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
