Some Perceptions of Master’s Degree Students on the Comments (remarks) of their Thesis Directors
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
In the writing of the thesis, the comments and reviews given and received to test the hypothesis of the student throughout its elaboration take on a special meaning. Indeed, this article analyzes the students’ perceptions of the comments and the support in the review given by the thesis directors, in order to identify what kind of comments are constructive and which are not.
To achieve this objective, an exploratory method was used, using as procedure an interview of 10 master’s degree students who were in the final stage of the preparation of their theses, as well as a survey of 10 graduates, all of them belonging to Human Sciences majors.
writing comments, revision, feedback, perceptionscomentarios de escritura, revisión, retroalimentación, percepcionescomentários de escrita, revisão, retroalimentação, percepções
Arnoux, E., Borsinger, A., Carlino, P., di Stefano, M., Pereira, C. & Silvestre, A. (2004).La intervención pedagógica en el proceso de escritura de tesis de posgrado. Revista de la Maestría en Salud Pública, 3(6), 1-18.
Aitchison, C., & Lee, S. (2006). Research writing: Problems and pedagogies. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 265-278.
Bartolini, A. M., Vivas, D., Braida, R., & Petric, N. (2008) La trayectoria del tesista. Un estudio en egresados de la universidad autónoma de Entre Ríos. In Tercer Congreso Internacional de Educación: construcciones y perspectivas. Miradas desde y hacia América Latina. Santa Fe: Universidad Nacional del Litoral.
Bazerman, C., & Russell, D. (2003). Writing selves/ writing societies: Research from activity perspectives. Perspectives on writing. Fort Collins, Colorado: WAC Recuperado de http://wac. colostate.edu/books/selves_societies/
Bazerman, C. (2004). Intertextuality: How texts rely on other text. In C. Bazerman & P. Prior (Eds.), What writing does and how it does it. An introduction to analyzing texts and textual practices (pp. 83-96). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, N. J: Erlbaum.
Bitchener, J., Basturkmen, H., & East, M. (2010). The focus of supervisor written feedback to thesis/dissertation students. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 79-97.
Caffarella, R., & Barnet, B. (2000). Teaching doctoral students to become scholarly writers: The importance of giving and receiving critiques. Studies in Higher Education, 25(1), 39-52.
Can, G. & Walker, A. (2011). A model for doctoral students’ perceptions and attitudes toward written feedback for academic writing. Research in Higher Education, 52, 508-536.
Carless, D. (2006). Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 219-233.
Carlino, P. (2003). ¿Por qué no se completan las tesis en los posgrados? Obstáculos percibidos por maestrandos en curso y magistri exitosos. In Actas de las X Jornadas de Investigación en Psicología. Universidad de Buenos Aires.
Carlino, P. (2004). Diario de tesis y revisión entre pares: análisis de un ciclo de investigaciónacción en talleres de tesis de posgrado. In Jornadas Latinoamericanas de Investigación y Práctica en Psicología Educacional. Universidad de Buenos Aires.
Carlino, P. (2015). Revisión entre pares: una práctica social que los posgrados deberían enseñar. Revista Espaço Pedagógico, 22(1), 9-29.
Coffey, A. & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data: Complementary research strategies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cotterall, S. (2011). Doctoral students writing: Where’s the pedagogy? Teaching in Higher Education, 16(4), 413-425.
Dubs, R. (2005). Permanecer o desertar de los estudios de postgrado: síntesis de los modelos teóricos. Investigación y Postgrado, 20(1), 55-79.
East, M., Bitchener, J., & Basturkmen, H. (2012). What constitutes effective feedback to postgraduate research students? The students’ perspective. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 9(2), 1-16.
Eyres, S. J., Hatch, D. H., Turner, S. B., & West, M. (2001). Doctoral students’ responses to writing critique: Messages for teachers. Journal of Nursing Education, 40(4), 149-155.
Ghazal, L., Gul, R., Hanzala, M., Jessop, T., & Tharani, A. (2014). Graduate students’ perceptions of written feedback at a private university in Pakistan. International Journal of Higher Education, 3(2), 13-27.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112.
Hayes J. & Flower, L. (1980). The cognition of discovery: Defining a rhetorical problem. College Composition and Communication, 31, 21-32.
Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192.
Hyland, K. (2009). Academic Discourse. London: Continuum Jodelet, Denise (1984). La representación social: fenómenos, conceptos y teoría. In S. Moscovici (Comp.), Psicología Social II. Pensamiento y vida social. Psicología social y problemas sociales, (pp. 469-494). España: Paidós.
Jodelet, D. (1989). Représentations sociales: un domaine en expansion. In D. Jodelet (Ed.), Les Représentations sociales (pp. 47-78). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Krippendorff, K. (1990). Metodología del análisis de contenido. Teoría y práctica. Barcelona: Paidós.
Kumar, V., & Stracke, E. (2007). An analysis of written feedback on a PhD thesis. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(4), 461-470.
Kumar, V., & Stracke, E. (2010). Feedback and selfregulated learning: Insights from supervisors’ and PhD examiners’ reports. Reflective Practice, 11(1) 19-32.
Mercer, N. (2001). Palabras y mentes. Barcelona: Paidós. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1985). Fenomenología de la percepción. España: Planeta.
Moscovici, Serge. (1989). Des représentations collectives aux représentations sociales. In D. Jodelet (Ed.), Les représentations sociales (pp. 62-86). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Ochoa, L. & Cueva A. (2012). Tesis y deserción: entre el compromiso y el obstáculo. Bogotá: Universidad Nacional de Colombia.
Odena, O. & Burgess, H. (2015). How doctoral students and graduates describe facilitating experiences and strategies for their thesis writing learning process: A qualitative approach. Studies in Higher Education, 42(3), 1-19.
Paltridge, B. (2015). Referees’ comments on submissions to peer-reviewed journals: When is a suggestion not a suggestion? Studies in Higher Education, 40(1), 106-122.
Pont-Suárez, E. S. (2010). “Yo no me siento pobre”: percepciones y representaciones de la pobreza. La ventana, 4(31), 37-63.
Prior, P. (2001). Voices in text, mind and society: Sociohistoric accounts of discourse acquisition and use. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 55-81.
Raiter, A. (2002). Representaciones sociales. In A. Raiter (Comp.), Representaciones sociales (9-29). Buenos Aires: Eudeba.
Reisen, S. & Carlino, P. (2009). Factores que favorecen u obstaculizan la terminación de una tesis de maestría. In I Congreso Internacional de Investigación y Práctica Profesional en Psicología (Tomo I), (pp. 368-371). Universidad de Buenos Aires.
Rosas, A., Flores, D. Valarino, E. (2006). Rol del tutor de tesis: competencias, condiciones personales y funciones. Investigación y postgrado, 21(1), 153- 185.
Rose, G. L. (2005). Group differences in graduate students’ concepts of the ideal mentor. Research in Higher Education, 46(1), 53-80.
Stracke, E. & Kumar, V. (2010). Feedback and self-regulated learning: Insights from supervisors’ and PhD examiners’ reports. Reflective Practice, 11(1), 19-32.
Valarino, E. (1994). Todo menos investigación. Caracas: Equinoccio.
Valarino, E. (1997). Tesis a tiempo. Barcelona: Grupo Editorial Carnero.
Vigotsky, L. S. (1978). El desarrollo de los procesos psíquicos superiores. Barcelona: Crítica.