Difference between revisions of "Nguyen2024"
JakubMlynar (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Ngoc Thi Bich Nguyen; Ilana Mushin; |Title=Understanding equivocal feedback in PhD supervision meetings: a conversation analysis approac...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) m (AndreiKorbut moved page Nguyen2022a to Nguyen2024 without leaving a redirect) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|Author(s)=Ngoc Thi Bich Nguyen; Ilana Mushin; | |Author(s)=Ngoc Thi Bich Nguyen; Ilana Mushin; | ||
|Title=Understanding equivocal feedback in PhD supervision meetings: a conversation analysis approach | |Title=Understanding equivocal feedback in PhD supervision meetings: a conversation analysis approach | ||
| − | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Conversation analysis; PhD supervision meeting; Equivocal feedback; Early and late stages of candidature | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Conversation analysis; PhD supervision meeting; Equivocal feedback; Early and late stages of candidature |
| − | |Key= | + | |Key=Nguyen2024 |
| − | |Year= | + | |Year=2025 |
|Language=English | |Language=English | ||
|Journal=Teaching in Higher Education | |Journal=Teaching in Higher Education | ||
| + | |Volume=29 | ||
| + | |Number=6 | ||
| + | |Pages=1537-1553 | ||
|URL=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13562517.2022.2068348?journalCode=cthe20 | |URL=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13562517.2022.2068348?journalCode=cthe20 | ||
|DOI=10.1080/13562517.2022.2068348 | |DOI=10.1080/13562517.2022.2068348 | ||
|Abstract=A significant proportion of the teaching and learning in PhD programs is conducted independently by the candidate under the supervision of one or more supervisors. Supervisors and students are usually expected to meet regularly to ensure that students are on track to produce a dissertation as independent researchers. Yet few studies to date examine how teaching and learning within supervision meetings is interactionally achieved. In this paper we use a conversation analysis approach to study how supervisors formulate their student-solicited feedback. Specifically, we show that equivocation in giving feedback serves a pedagogical purpose that balances competition between the institutional goals of teaching with the expectations that PhD students should already be competent researchers. While supervisors provided equivocal feedback in both early and late stages of candidature, we show here how the nature of this feedback changes, showing the sensitivities of supervisors to the developing capacities of their supervisees. | |Abstract=A significant proportion of the teaching and learning in PhD programs is conducted independently by the candidate under the supervision of one or more supervisors. Supervisors and students are usually expected to meet regularly to ensure that students are on track to produce a dissertation as independent researchers. Yet few studies to date examine how teaching and learning within supervision meetings is interactionally achieved. In this paper we use a conversation analysis approach to study how supervisors formulate their student-solicited feedback. Specifically, we show that equivocation in giving feedback serves a pedagogical purpose that balances competition between the institutional goals of teaching with the expectations that PhD students should already be competent researchers. While supervisors provided equivocal feedback in both early and late stages of candidature, we show here how the nature of this feedback changes, showing the sensitivities of supervisors to the developing capacities of their supervisees. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 04:54, 27 June 2024
| Nguyen2024 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Nguyen2024 |
| Author(s) | Ngoc Thi Bich Nguyen, Ilana Mushin |
| Title | Understanding equivocal feedback in PhD supervision meetings: a conversation analysis approach |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Conversation analysis, PhD supervision meeting, Equivocal feedback, Early and late stages of candidature |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2025 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Teaching in Higher Education |
| Volume | 29 |
| Number | 6 |
| Pages | 1537-1553 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1080/13562517.2022.2068348 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
A significant proportion of the teaching and learning in PhD programs is conducted independently by the candidate under the supervision of one or more supervisors. Supervisors and students are usually expected to meet regularly to ensure that students are on track to produce a dissertation as independent researchers. Yet few studies to date examine how teaching and learning within supervision meetings is interactionally achieved. In this paper we use a conversation analysis approach to study how supervisors formulate their student-solicited feedback. Specifically, we show that equivocation in giving feedback serves a pedagogical purpose that balances competition between the institutional goals of teaching with the expectations that PhD students should already be competent researchers. While supervisors provided equivocal feedback in both early and late stages of candidature, we show here how the nature of this feedback changes, showing the sensitivities of supervisors to the developing capacities of their supervisees.
Notes
