Introduction: The importance of supervisory interaction facilitated by dialogic feedback is known to create a shared understanding between supervisors and students. However, previous studies of supervisory interaction mainly focus on exploring feedback provision as an input for specific improvement rather than as a process of interaction regardless of its discursivity. Informed by learning community theory, this study explores how thesis supervision in English as an Additional Language contexts is negotiated to identify the supervisory interaction patterns and strategies.

Method: This study applied a qualitative case study by involving six supervisory dyads (six supervisors and 15 students) in English- medium study programs. Thematic analysis was used to analyze 18 video-recorded supervision sessions from the beginning, the middle, and the end of the supervision process.

Findings and discussion: The findings illuminate the negotiated interaction patterns and strategies in supervisory meetings that can be organized into three themes: (1) managing correction, (2) managing scaffolding, and (3) managing students' emotional expressions. The supervisory interaction patterns tend to take the form of a common institutional talk due to the students' desire for confirmation and suggestions. Prompting strategies through exploratory questions can scaffold students' development of argumentative skills although students' deviant responses frequently lead to supervisors' further explanation. The theoretical analysis underscores that learning community theory emphasizes the development of student's academic literacy and argumentative proficiency through dialogic inquiry. Yet, effective engagement in such inquiry necessitates prerequisite academic literacy and rhetorical competencies.

Conclusion: This study highlights the need for developing student's academic literacy, research literacy, and communication skills to achieve an effective inquiry dialogue in thesis supervision.

Writing a thesis is a complex task that requires both creativity and adherence to academic conventions, which can be challenging for undergraduate students who may have limited knowledge of research topics, autonomy and experience with the uncertainties of thesis writing and evaluation. This study aims to explore thesis supervision in Swedish and Indonesian educational contexts to critically understand the underlying factors that contribute to thesis supervision in English as an Additional Language contexts (EAL) and how these factors influence the supervisory processes and outcomes. Using a dialogic approach, this study offers insights into the socially situated nature of supervision, inviting reflection to foster further dialogue and personalised pedagogical considerations. A multi-case study with convergent mixed-method approach was employed, involving 39 participants (14 supervisors and 25 students). Data were collected through questionnaire responses, interview responses, video-recorded supervision meetings and thesis drafts. Qualitative data were analysed through discourse analysis and reflexive thematic analysis, while quantitative data were tested with statistical regression models. Findings revealed that while thesis supervision aimed to foster collaborative dialogic supervision, students often viewed the thesis as a transactional process for graduation. The study highlights challenges in achieving truly dialogic supervision due to conflicting supervisory roles, power dynamics, and students’ limited amount of academic literacy, research literacy, and communicative skills. The participating students, who are preparing to be English teachers, need academic socialisation with argumentative skills, research literacies and academic literacies to be able to write their theses. Thesis supervision and teaching activities in the embedded courses also should address students’ tendency to view thesis writing to get a degree rather than intellectual growth, a mindset that is probably shaped by educational system is focused on grades and assessments. This study calls for a shift in educational focus from qualifications to socialisation and subjectification. The study concludes by recommending a balanced, integrated feedback process and postponing local-level corrections to improve feedback effectiveness.

The negotiated interaction to achieve mutual understanding through dialogic feedback provision has been considered an important element in language learning. Previous research has focused on exploring the role of feedback as a clarifying device that leads to the development of students’ learning strategies, writing, and overall learning performance. However, previous studies tend to examine the effect of feedback on students’ draft development rather than the process of how the supervision is negotiated. This study explores how the feedback provision is negotiated during supervisory sessions by supervisors and students in one Swedish and two Indonesian universities. It contributes to identifying what strategies and patterns students and supervisors use to negotiate their supervisory interaction in an English as Additional Language context. Eighteen video-recorded supervision sessions that covered three supervisory meetings from six supervisory dyads (6 supervisors and 15 students) in two English-Medium study programmes (English for Teacher Education and English Studies) were analysed through thematic analysis. The finding revealed that supervisory interaction in both contexts covers managing correction, managing scaffolding, and managing emotional expressions. The negotiated interaction in both contexts tends to be explanatory discourse where students frequently give defensive responses to correction, confirmatory seeking and reasoning development for suggestion and encouragement. While managing correction and managing scaffolding lead to reciprocal reasonings, the students’ emotional expressions frequently turn into supervisors’ encouragement with students’ confirmatory responses. 

Literature on thesis supervision emphasises collaborative approaches with strong and supportive relationships. Despite an increasing research interest in supervisory relationships, little cross-cultural research has been conducted on supervisory roles and relationships in expandingcircle countries. This study explores how thesis supervisors negotiate different rolesand relationshipsin supervision in English as an Additional Language (EAL) contexts. A multi-case study was employed in three contexts: a Swedish university, two Indonesian private universities, and an Indonesian public university. Semi-structured interviews were conducted withfourteenthesis supervisors. Thematic analysis and systemic-functional appraisal theory were used to analyse the discourse. Our findings revealed that supervisors expressed dealing with (a)symmetrical relationships with students and colleagues, dealing with different supervision roles, and managing priorities relating to intellectual development and instrumental goals. However, these dimensions of supervision were described differently in the three contexts. The Swedish supervisors expressed concernsabouthavingweak authority; meanwhile, the Indonesian private supervisors described frustrated attempts to form a closer relationship with the students, whereas the Indonesian public supervisors reacted to students trying to become too familiar. Furthermore, supervisors in the three contexts had to take different unwanted roles in supervision. The article concludes with implications for understanding situatedaspects ofsupervision.

Introduction: Thesis supervision is a critical part of students’ academic literacy development. Previous research has shown different dimensions of this development with limited attention to cross-cultural aspects. In particular, there has been little research on how students and supervisors negotiate supervision practices in non-anglophone contexts. This study aimed to explore students’ and supervisors’ reported priorities and experiences regarding the provision and reception of feedback in English as an Additional Language thesis supervision. 

Method: We conducted a qualitative case study to illuminate supervisor’s and students’ experiences of supervision in Sweden and Indonesia. It involved 39 participants (14 supervisors and 25 students) from one Swedish and three Indonesian universities. One-on-one semi-structured interviews were conducted and analyzed thematically using Biesta’s functions of education, Habermas’ communicative action theory, and perspectives on academic literacy. 

Findings: Firstly, we found that Swedish and Indonesian supervisors had different feedback provision priorities. Swedish supervisors described prioritizing content-focused feedback to facilitate students’ socialization into academic writing. Conversely, most Indonesian supervisors expressed balancing content- and form-focused feedback with a greater emphasis on qualifying as English teachers. Despite these differences, supervisors in both contexts tended to isolate academic language use from discipline-specific values and practices. Secondly, students in both contexts largely expressed an instrumental orientation to achieving their goals and were frustrated by supervisors phrasing feedback as questions. Many students expressed unfamiliarity with necessary methodologies and theoretical frameworks, which made supervisors’ feedback difficult to decode. 

Discussion: Since only a few of the students viewed the feedback as a support for their process of learning, this study calls for a clear communication about the academic socialization intention through supervision. However, academic socialization cannot solely be the responsibility of supervisors but must be embedded in the curriculum courses 

Doctoral thesis supervision and its writing outcome in Anglophone countries has gathered a great research attention. Moreover, the collaborative supervisory relationship has been considered as an important aspect of doctoral students’ achievement and autonomy in thesis writing. Despite the similar student-supervisor model of supervision between doctoral and undergraduate students, cross-cultural research on undergraduate thesis supervision in the expanding countries seems still underrepresented. The presentation is based on a comparative study of Indonesian and Swedish supervisors’ expression about their experience in supervising undergraduate students to write a thesis in English, the students’ additional language (EAL). The research questions are:

In what ways do Swedish and Indonesian supervisors describe experiencing thesis supervision? In what ways do Swedish and Indonesian supervisors describe their relationships with students and colleagues?

Since previous research has discussed ideal practices of supervision involving students in dialogue and supporting their intellectual development, this presentation focuses on the exploration of the different challenges and considerations pertaining to this ideal as described by the supervisors in the three contexts (Swedish university, Indonesian public university, and Indonesian private university). This presentation highlights similarities and differences between supervisors in Sweden and Indonesia, and between supervisors in private and public Indonesian universities. It adds to previous research on supervision which are mainly conducted in the postgraduate or doctorate levels in the Anglophone context. Moreover, this presentation contributes knowledge of the supervisor's beliefs about their roles and relationships in three different contexts, with implications for what is seen as constituting a “good” supervision practice.

Accordingly, a qualitative case study with semi-structured interview technique was conducted with fourteen thesis supervisors (five Swedish and nine Indonesian). Thematic analysis was informed by systemic-functional linguistics from appraisal theory (Martin & White, 2005). It focused on analysing the discourses expressed by thesis supervisors related to their roles, relationship with students and colleagues, and values about supervision that are scrutinised through the use of modality.

The findings show that supervisors in the three contexts describe tensions related to imbalanced relationships with students and colleagues, supervisors’ various roles, and supervisors’ priority management regarding students’ instrumental purposes and their desired intellectual journey. Different concerns expressed by supervisors related to tensions in their supervisory relationship. Swedish supervisors described experiencing low authority over their students, Indonesian private university supervisors mentioned challenges in befriending students to create more symmetrical supervisory relationships. Meanwhile, Indonesian public university supervisors emphasised their unease related to students’ attitude for being too close to the supervisors. Different undesired supervisory roles recounted by supervisors such as being students’ editors, pseudo debt-collectors, and spoon feeders were necessitated either by institutional situations or personal commitment as the students’ thesis writing gatekeepers.

Research on English as an Additional Language (EAL) academic acculturation has focused on international students as newcomers in English speaking countries and has frequently used a linguistically oriented approach. This research aimed to examine EAL thesis supervision as an academic socialisation practice in non-Anglophone context. We focused on exploring supervisors’ feedback provision priorities and students’ reactions to the feedback in one Swedish and three Indonesian universities. We contribute to the Nordic educational context by shedding light on thesis supervision as part of students’ dynamic academic socialisation. The research was conducted in response to the identified need of new strategies for academic literacy development to manage multicultural assets in the EAL academic writing and publication. We employed a multi-faceted view of academic literacy development, involving both cognitive activities and socially situated practice, integrated with. Biesta’ functions of education and Habermas’s Communicative Action concepts. Semi-structured interview was conducted with thirty-nine participants (14 supervisors and 25 students). The findings indicated different supervisors’ feedback provision priorities. Swedish supervisors explained focusing on content to strive for students’ socialisation and subjectification, while Indonesian supervisors mostly prioritise giving both form and content-focused feedback to target the function of qualification. A few Indonesian supervisors described focusing on socialisation in thesis writing and peer-reviewed publication. While supervisors in both contexts expressed striving for learning orientation through supervision, most students in both contexts described focusing on instrumental goals (finishing their thesis projects and getting degrees). Also, many students explained difficulties dealing with feedback in the form of questions. They indicated resistance to the socialisation process by employing strategic action (deleting or shortening the commented part to avoid further questions and revision). Only a few students viewed question-feedback as a communicative means of learning. Students’ responses signalled a lack of disciplinary literacy through unfamiliarity with research methodologies and theoretical framework that created problems in deciphering the supervisors’ feedback. Since the findings illustrate that students and supervisors have different feedback orientations, we call for increased clarity in communicating aims for thesis supervision. Also, the task of students’ academic literacy development and socialisation cannot fall on thesis supervisors alone. Pedagogical practices through embedded-curriculum programmes are required to foster students’ belonging to academic community and identity adaptation.

Introduction: Thesis supervision is crucial for the development of students’ research expertise and communication skills so they can think and behave like members of an academic community (Golde, 2010). However, research on thesis supervision has mainly been conducted at doctoral level in Anglophone context with limited attention on cross cultural aspects. Therefore, this project aims to shed light on undergraduate thesis supervision in non-Anglophone contexts. It explores how thesis supervision is experienced by students and supervisors and how feedback provision and feedback uptake are negotiated and used to develop the students’ drafts. This project is conducted as a part of graduate school education, learning and globalisation programme. It focuses on exploring thesis supervision in Sweden and Indonesia to contribute to the discussion on the complexities of language pedagogy in multilingual contexts as a result of globalisation where English is used as an additional language (EAL) (Bianco, 2018), particularly in the expanding circle (Kachru, 1985). It also illuminates the dialogue on thesis supervision related to the identified needs and strategies of academic writing and publication in the diverse linguistic contexts (Canagarajah, 2022). This project also adds negotiation within the Northern and Southern perspectives (see Pennycook & Makoni, 2020) where Sweden is culturally and geographically associated with Northern context while Indonesia is associated with Southern context. 

Method and findings: A multi-case study (Yin, 2018) was carried out to illuminate supervisory practice in Sweden and Indonesia and will be reported in the form of compilation thesis. It involved 39 participants (14 supervisors and 25 students) from one Swedish and three Indonesian universities. Online questionnaire, one-on-one semi-structured interviews, non-participatory observation of video-recorded thesis supervision sessions, and document analysis to students’ drafts were conducted and analysed thematically. The whole project will be seen based on dialogic pedagogical supervision driven by Bakthin’s (1981) dialogism as the main lens. 

For the first article, I took inspiration from Gee’s (2014) discourse model and used systemic-functional linguistics from appraisal theory (Halliday & Maythiessen, 2014; Martin & Rose, 2007) to analyse supervisors’ interviews. The findings revealed that supervisors described experiencing (a)symmetrical relationship with students and colleagues and juggling unwanted supervisory roles (i.e being editor, pseudo-debt-collector, and spoon feeder). In the second article, the interview results between supervisors and students focusing on the feedback provision and supervisory priorities were analysed by using Biesta’s (2009) functions of education, Habermas’ (1984) communicative action theory, and perspectives on academic literacy. The findings indicated that supervisors have different priorities in giving content/form-focused feedback. Students reported having difficulties decoding supervisors' feedback and react strategically to the feedback that is phrased as questions. Students' strategic reactions seemed rooted from their lack of feedback and disciplinary literacies. The third article will focus on how feedback is phrased and negotiated between students and supervisors in video-recorded online supervision sessions. I consider doing conversation analysis by using Activity Theory or Social Presence Theory as theoretical framework. Feedback and suggestions on theoretical frameworks and perspectives to analyse supervision sessions (third article) and students’ drafts (fourth article) are most welcome. 

The Indonesian government has promoted the Merdeka (Freedom) curriculum which aims to create a profile of Pancasila students. Developing students’ global diversity character has been emphasised as one of the teaching goals. This goal aligns with the need of World Englishes pedagogy where students learn English to get mutual intelligibility and develop intercultural communicative competence in relevant cultures over native-speakerism focus. This research aims to investigate whether and how three English textbooks for Indonesian Junior High School students, published by the Ministry of Education, depict cultural diversity, and prepare students to be global English users. The study adopted Kirkpatrick’s Lingua Franca principles and Moran’s cultural dimensions (referring to products, practices, perspectives, communities, and persons). The findings indicate that the investigated textbooks greatly emphasise on source culture with superficial Indonesian cultural diversity depiction. American and British English remains used as the norm. Fostering students’ so-called Indonesian noble character has become the content focus. The underlying value of global diversity seems neglected.