This article presents a qualitative case study of feedback practices in the first year of a two-year master's programme. Writing and feedback are viewed as contextualized cultural practices shaped by factors at macro, meso and micro level. The empirical data consists of a text corpus of students’ essays and teachers’ comments, supplemented by interviews. Initial findings showed a discrepancy between the considerable amount of comments given by the teachers and the students’ lack of use of the feedback they received. The text analysis, based primarily on Hattie and Timperley’s (2007) model of feedback revealed several features of the feedback that counteracted learning, but a major problem was unclear goals for the writing combined with a study design that did not include revision of student texts.

This article focuses on supervising professors’ and master’s degree students’ understanding and experiences of supervision practices in a Norwegian university, with focus on differences in text cultures and text norms between and within three academic disciplines. The interview study shows that each discipline is a heterogeneous discourse community with largely unarticulated differences. The findings suggest three supervision models, described as teaching, partnership, and apprenticeship. Dominant trends in supervisory relationships and textual practices are distinguished, and characteristics of each are outlined. Connections are shown between the models supervisors adhere to, the kind of texts they expect from their students, and how they provide feedback. As an example, conflicting attitudes toward exploratory student texts are discussed. The study shows that supervision models and textual expectations are influenced by the disciplinary text cultures in which supervisors and students take part. Finally, some practical implications of the study are suggested.

This article presents descriptions of and examples from qualitative case studies of 3 high school classrooms in Norway and the United States. The focus is on how classroom discourse and writing interact with each other and provide an important and unique instructional resource. The teachers in 2 of the classrooms consistently elicited, overtly valued, and helped develop student opinions and ideas. In this process, authentic questions and uptake were common, and a great diversity of voices was heard. Bakhtin's and Rommetveit's dialogical framework is used as the basis of analysis, as is Lotman's theory about the functional dualism of texts. The main argument is that the interaction of oral and written discourse increased dialogicality and multivoicedness and therefore provided more chances for students to learn than did talking or writing alone. In this way, the texts, both oral and written, were used to generate thoughts and opinions.