Graduate Students’ Needs and Preferences for Written Feedback on Academic Writing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>The aim of this research is to examine graduate students’ needs and preferences for written feedback on academic writing from their lecturers and thesis supervisors. Quantitative method via survey questionnaire was used to collect data from 21 respondents. The data collection involved Master and Doctorate students at a tertiary level institution in Malaysia. The data was analyzed and tabulated using descriptive analysis. Results indicate that graduate students regularly need written feedback on their academic writing and they preferred electronic method to obtain feedback from their supervisors. Findings also indicate that graduate students appreciated feedback which was straightforward, provided clear instructions, directed them to other related resources, and feedback which was detailed or specific. This research filled the gap in literature by providing awareness among thesis supervisors and lecturers on the students’ needs and preference for written feedback on their academic writing. Apart from that, greater understanding of students’ perceived needs for feedback and preferences of feedback is also vital for lectures and thesis supervisors to increase the effectiveness of providing constructive written feedback.</p>
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".