Supervisory feedback on academic writing in higher education a narrative review of theory, methodology, and context

Le résumé fourni par la source

Supervisory feedback is critical for developing research writing competence in higher education, yet existing reviews often lack theoretical integration, methodological transparency, or attention to non‑Anglophone scholarship. This narrative review synthesises 35 empirical studies (2010–2023) from Web of Science (English) and CNKI (Chinese) databases, following SANRA guidelines. Anchored in feedback literacy and dialogic feedback, we analyse the literature across theoretical frameworks, methodological approaches, and educational contexts. Our synthesis reveals three key insights. First, while Sociocultural Theory predominates, the scaffolding metaphor is often assumed without longitudinal evidence of adaptation; emerging frameworks (Self‑Determination Theory, Academic Discourse Socialisation, Positioning Theory) help explain student agency, affect, and identity dimensions Sociocultural Theory alone underplays. Second, the field relies heavily on qualitative case studies, creating a contradiction between the dynamic nature of supervisory feedback and the static methods used to study it. Conversation Analysis is beginning to illuminate real‑time negotiation of power and disagreement, but methodological pluralism remains limited. Third, supervisory feedback varies markedly by degree level and cultural context – yet most studies examine only one context in isolation, and the causal role of culture versus institutional norms remains unexplained. We call for longitudinal, mixed‑method designs that examine feedback as an emotional, relational, and discipline‑specific process; for greater methodological transparency even in narrative reviews; and for comparative studies that test why and under what conditions feedback works, not just that it varies.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.