Image credit:
Photo by Ron Lach on Pexels.
For those of us who have been up all night marking work, sometimes there can be the strong temptation to scribble all over a piece of writing with suggestions: ‘rewrite this’, ‘sharpen the argument here’, or ‘remove this section’. While the feedback might be detailed and well-intentioned, is it actually useful? Can the candidate understand what matters most, or do they just see a wall of criticism?
This is one of the central difficulties in giving feedback on doctoral writing. It’s difficult because supervisors need to provide guidance without taking over. One of the central roles of being a supervisor is supporting your candidate to become an independent researcher, not someone who is dependent on your red pen. But how do you do this? This involves difficult judgements: what should the candidate prioritise in their work? How much direction is appropriate at this stage? What do you do if well-intentioned feedback is poorly received?
These questions have shaped RSVP’s 60-minute CPD workshop ‘Giving feedback on PGR writing’. The first iteration of this workshop focused on dismantling the popular “feedback sandwich” model and how to give effective feedback using three key characteristics: feedback that is progressive and tailored, specific and actionable, and supportive of intellectual independence. Participants were introduced to practical tools, including the Feedback Expectation Tool and the Feedback Cover Letter.
What the pilots revealed
The first iteration of the workshop was piloted across seven UK research-intensive and teaching-focused institutions. The feedback was positive, but the pilots highlighted areas that needed further development. For example, focus on the feedback sandwich model occupied too much time and could feel ‘basic’ to experienced supervisors. Participants also raised questions about GenAI, conflicting co-supervisor feedback, and neurodiversity. Not all these issues can be answered in a 60-minute workshop, but they became considerations in the updated workshop design.
New workshop design
Here at the University of York, after receiving the pilot feedback, I redesigned the workshop and delivered it again. The revised intervention now focuses on the judgement supervisors said they want to know more about: how to be directive or less directive depending on the candidate’s stage and the piece of work.
The session begins with a discussion of the common challenges supervisors face when giving feedback, then moves to how to judge the type of feedback candidates need. A new scenario lets participants test their understanding of the more-directive or less-directive spectrum for feedback before reflecting on when feedback can be misinterpreted.
Core material from the first version was not entirely removed, but condensed and moved into optional extensions that facilitators may choose to include. For example, the feedback sandwich model was turned into a single slide. Facilitators working with newer supervisors can now add a short activity around the ‘What / Why / How’ structure to make feedback clearer and easier to act on. Facilitators can also expand the time spent on the feedback expectation tool, if they think participants would benefit from more discussion.
Learning from practitioner partner adaptations
One of the most valuable parts of piloting was reading how colleagues at other institutions adapted the material in their own contexts. At the University of Bristol, Jo Gildersleve (Doctoral Research Partnerships Officer) included sections on role-modelling feedback and avoiding assumptions when giving feedback. With Jo’s permission, I have adapted this work into two optional activities.
The ‘Role modelling feedback’ activity invites supervisors to draw on their own experience of receiving feedback (what made it challenging and how they constructively used this feedback) before considering how they model constructive engagement with feedback for PGRs.
The optional ‘Feedback preferences: don’t assume shared norms’ explores how supervisors can reduce avoidable misunderstandings without assuming what particular PGRs or groups will prefer. This latter content is particularly aligned with making inclusivity in this workshop more explicit, as supervisors are now prompted to consider not only what they intend to communicate but how it might be interpreted.
What this process taught me
While I have added new (and more) content as optional in the new version of this workshop, in this case, improvising the workshop also meant really focusing on what supervisors wanted and needed from training. Listening to supervisor feedback about wanting to be better equipped at making strategic judgements with their feedback was at the heart of the workshop redesign. The aim is therefore not to give supervisors more work, but to help them better allocate the limited time they have to provide better support to candidates and help them become independent researchers.