An essential component of doctoral students’ academic achievement is assessed through research practice. The revise-resubmit feedback process fosters graduate student academic achievement by promoting continuous improvement, critical thinking, skill development, and preparation for the rigors of scholarly research and publishing. Therefore, motivation plays a crucial role in driving student engagement and active learning through the collaborative and communicative processes inherent in RRF. This study explored the impact of the RRF approach on the cognitive needs and motivation levels of 20 doctoral students enrolled in research methods courses. The study used a narrative inquiry research method guided by semi-structured interviews. Findings aligned with the Self-Determination Theory principles, which posit that satisfying the psychological needs of relatedness, competence, and autonomy leads to higher levels of motivation and engagement. The study recommends further evaluation of the revise-resubmit approach’s effectiveness in peer review as a practice in academic research.
AbuSaaleekA.AleniziA. (2023). Exploring EFL supervisors' feedback on postgraduates' research proposals: Functions and foci. Register Journal, 16(2), 207–223. https://doi.org/10.18326/register.v16i2.207-223
2.
AhmadiA.NoetelM.ParkerP.RyanR. M.NtoumanisN.ReeveLonsdaleJ. C. (2023). A classification system for teachers' motivational behaviors is recommended in self-determination theory interventions. Journal of Educational Psychology.
3.
AwuondaK. W.ZaierA.AtienoS. (2023). Investigating impact of revise-resubmit feedback strategy on graduate students’ research self-efficacy: A mixed methods intervention study. Journal of Popular Education in Africa, 7(10), 74–97. https://kenyasocialscienceforum.wordpress.com/2023/10/22/
4.
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2024). Thematic analysis. In In encyclopedia of quality of life and well- being research (pp. 7187–7193). Springer International Publishing.
5.
BruceA.BeuthinR.SheildsL.MolzahnA.Schick-MakaroffK. (2016). Narrative research evolving: Evolving through narrative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 15(1), Article 1609406916659292. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406916659292
6.
CampbellS.GreenwoodM.PriorS.ShearerT.WalkemK.YoungS.BywatersD.WalkerK. (2020). Purposive sampling: Complex or simple? Research case examples. Journal of Research in Nursing: JRN, 25(8), 652–661. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987120927206
7.
CreswellJ. W.ClarkV. L. P.GutmannM. L.HansonW. E. (2003). Advanced mixed. Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research, 209, 209–240.
8.
Darling-HammondL.FlookL.Cook-HarveyC.BarronB.OsherD. (2020). Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and development. Applied developmental science, 24(2), 97–140.
9.
DeciE. L.RyanR. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(6), 1024–1037. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.53.6.1024
10.
DeciE. L.RyanR. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 49(3), 182.
DweckC. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.
13.
GarnerB.ShankJ. D. (2018). Engaged teaching: A handbook for college faculty. Stylus Publishing.
14.
GraenG. B.Uhl-BienM. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi- level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5
15.
GubaE. G.LincolnY. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. Handbook of qualitative research, 2(163-194), 105.
KoenkaA. C.Linnenbrink-GarciaL.MoshontzH.AtkinsonK. M.SanchezC. E.CooperH. (2021). A meta-analysis on the impact of grades and comments on academic motivation and achievement: A case for written feedback. Educational Psychology, 41(7), 922–947. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2019.1659939
18.
KrappA. (1992). Interesse, lernen und leistung. Neue forschungsansätze in der pädagogischen psychologie. Zeitschrift für Padagogik, 38(5), 747–770.
19.
LegaultL. (2016). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In ShackelfordT. K.Weekes- ShackelfordV. A. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_1139-1
20.
LichtmanM. (2010). Understanding and evaluating qualitative educational research (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
21.
LovittsB. E. (2001). Leaving the ivory tower: The causes and consequences of departure from doctoral study. Rowman & Littlefield.
22.
MayerR. E.MorenoR. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3801_6
23.
MenterI.ElliotD.HulmeM.LewinJ.LowdenK. (2011). A guide to practitioner research in education. Sage.
24.
NiemiecC. P.RyanR. M. (2009). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom: Applying self-determination theory to educational practice. Theory and Research in Education, 7(2), 133–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878509104318
Plano ClarkV. L.CreswellJ. W. (2015). Understanding research: A consumer guide (2nd ed.). Pearson.
29.
PyhältöK.VekkailaJ.KeskinenJ. (2012). Exploring the fit between doctoral students’ and supervisors’ perceptions of resources and challenges vis-à-vis the doctoral journey. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 7, 395–414.
30.
RenningerK. A.HidiS. E. (Eds.), (2019). The Cambridge handbook of motivation and learning. Cambridge University Press.
31.
RodgerD.LaiH. C.Hill-CottinghamR. J.ColesP. C.RobinsonF. (2006, April). A new high efficiency line start motor with high starting torque. In 3rd IET International Conference on Power Electronics, Machines and Drives (PEMD 2006) (pp. 551-555). Stevenage UK: IET.
32.
RyanR. M.DeciE. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
33.
RyanR. M.DeciE. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford publications.
34.
SteffeL. P.GaleJ. E. (Eds.), (1995). Constructivism in education. Psychology Press.
35.
StenforsT.KajamaaA.BennettD. (2020). How to assess the quality of qualitative research. The Clinical Teacher, 17(6), 596–599. https://doi.org/10.1111/tct.13242
36.
VallerandR. J.PelletierL. G.BlaisM. R.BriereN. M.SenecalC.VallieresE. F. (1992). The academic motivation scale: A measure of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in education. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52(4), 1003–1017. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164492052004025
37.
VygotskyL. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processesCole(M.John-SteinerV.ScribnerS.SoubermanE.Eds. & Trans.). Harvard University Press.
38.
WangC. J.LiuW. C.KeeY. H.ChianL. K. (2019). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness in the classroom: Understanding students’ motivational processes using the self-determination theory. Heliyon, 5(7), e01983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01983
39.
WitcherB. (2019). Absolute essentials of strategic management. Routledge.
40.
XuP.ShaoW.ZhangK.GaoP.LiuS.LeiM.HuangS.QiaoY.LuoP. (2024). Lvlm-ehub: A comprehensive evaluation benchmark for large vision-language models. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2024.3507000
41.
ZimmermanB. J.SchunkD. H. (2011). Motivational sources and outcomes of self-regulated learning and performance. Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance, 5(3), 49–64.
42.
ZouD.XieH.WangF. (2023). Effects of technology enhanced peer, teacher and self- feedback on students’ collaborative writing, critical thinking tendency and engagement in learning. J Comput High Educ, 35, 166–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-022-09337y
