For the supervisor, feedback is perhaps the most difficult aspect of the whole supervision process. The intention of feedback is to enable the recipient to benefit from critically helpful comments and suggestions, but a balance is often difficult to find. To put it simply, the supervisor wants to provide the student with helpful advice to enable the student to improve their performance, but to stop short of actually doing the work for the student. Viewed in this context, any feedback should consist of three parts; a note of what the student has done well; the identification of what can be improved; and suggestions for making these improvements. It is not sufficient to say that, “Your citations are terrible” without explaining how they can be improved. Simply listing the faults can be demoralising and is not sufficiently helpful for learning. Personally, I am not a big fan of the trend to include a “Feed-forward” paragraph, because I belong to the tradition that good feedback always includes within the commentary some instructions on how to make future work even better, so the need for a separate “feed-forward” section is redundant.
That is the broad context, but the level of detail that a student can expect to receive, and the timeliness of such feedback, can be very much case-by-case, and diverse according to different supervisors. When I receive the first pieces of writing from a student, as they complete drafts of individual chapters, I like to give a detailed root-and-branch response. Normally I do this by using track-changes, to insert every missing comma, correct spelling or clumsy grammar, and place annotations in the margin to query or compliment relevant sentences and diagrams. I appreciate that not every supervisor considers this to be part of their role, but I take the view that it is my job to set the benchmark of quality for the student in the presentation of their dissertation. To do this, I can only give them an idea of the standard of writing that I personally would be comfortable with if this was my own presentation. I do not tell the student what to write, but I encourage them by example to present this in the best and most appropriate manner. I work on the (possibly naïve) idea that every student wants to exert themselves to the highest standards possible, and therefore when I make suggestions on how to improve the work, these suggestions are made with the best intention to benefit the student. I leave the decision on whether or not to accept my changes and comments to the wisdom of the student. If s/he feels that their original version is better, that is their decision, but if the External Examiner demands the same changes that I have suggested, I know that it is not because the student has not been given that advice by me, merely that they have not chosen to heed it.
Timing is another variable issue. At my current university we are required that “normally” (a wonderful word) we are expected to return feedback to students within ten working days of the submission deadline, and I think this is fair. The purpose, after all, of feedback is to help the student to improve their future work, and this is best done while the submitted work is relatively fresh in their memory, and before the student starts make similar mistakes in the next piece of work to be submitted for assessment. In practice, with research students, ongoing feedback can be given in a variety of ways – written or verbal – using a diversity of media, including text, telephone support, chats in the corridor, and formal sessions either face-to-face or using video-chat. It is wise to explore very early in the supervision process what works best for the individual student and the individual supervisor.