Feeling feedback: students’ emotional responses to educator feedback

Assessment feedback allows students to obtain valuable information about how they can improve their future performance and learning strategies. However, research indicates that students are more likely to reject or ignore comments if they evoke negative emotional responses. Despite the importance of this issue, there is a lack of research exploring if certain types of students are more likely to experience negative emotional responses than others. This study builds on extant qualitative studies through a quantitative examination of two previously identified student variables: different citizenship backgrounds (domestic and international) and different grade expectations (higher or lower than expected). The participants were 4514 students from two Australian universities. Analysis of survey data revealed that, regardless of language experience, international students were more likely than domestic students to find feedback comments to be discouraging, upsetting and too critical. Students who received grades lower than they expected on a particular assessment task were more likely than students who received grades higher than they expected to feel sad, shameful and angry as a result of the feedback comments. This paper concludes with several recommendations, including the need to modify assessment feedback practices in order to be sensitive to different student cohorts.     

Student revision with peer and expert reviewing

In a previous study we found that students receiving feedback from multiple peers improve their writing quality more than students receiving feedback from a single expert. The present study attempted to explain that finding by analyzing the feedback types provided by experts and peers, how that feedback was related to revisions, and how revisions affected quality. Participants were 28 undergraduates who received feedback from a single expert (SE), a single peer (SP), or multiple peers (MP), thus forming three groups, respectively. The MP group received more feedback of all types. Non-directive feedback predicted complex repairs that the MP group made more than both other groups. Complex repairs were associated with improved quality.     

When peers agree,do students listen? The central role of feedback quality and feedback frequency in determining uptake of feedback

Prior research on the complex process of revision based upon peer feedback has focused on characteristics of each piece of feedback in isolation. Multipeer feedback allows for feedback to be repeated (or not), which could be a signal of feedback quality or be especially persuasive to peers. Separately, little research has examined how well peers select more impactful and accurate peer feedback in their revisions, whether repeated or not. We analyzed almost 2,000 peer comments received by 107 students in a secondary writing course in the US to determine whether feedback quality and feedback frequency predicted feedback implementation. Controlling for other feedback features and context factors, students were much more likely to implement feedback as both feedback quality and feedback frequency increased, surprisingly with no interaction (i.e., even low-quality comments were more likely to be implemented when repeated). However, low-quality comments often partially overlapped with high-quality comments, providing a potential explanation for the lack of an interaction. Finally, consideration of feedback frequency and feedback quality provides new insights into which feedback features are actually related to implementation. The results generally allay concerns about the blind-leading-the-blind in peer feedback as well as pushing for peer feedback arrangements that produce more overlapping comments.     

Students' response to traditional and computer-assisted formative feedback: A comparative case study

The national movement towards progress files, incorporating personal development planning and reflective learning, is supported by lecturers providing effective feedback to their students. Recent technological advances mean that higher education tutors are no longer obliged to return comments in the ‘traditional’ manner, by annotating students' work with red pen. This paper considers some of the options currently available for returning computer‐assisted feedback, including the Electronic Feedback freeware. This MS Office application enables tutors to readily synthesise and email feedback reports to students. To further ascertain the value of this software, 169 1st‐year Pharmaceutical Science and Pharmacy students completed a questionnaire to gauge their reaction to formative feedback on an extended laboratory report. This included 110 responses from students graded by three tutors who marked work using either handwritten annotations or the Electronic Feedback program. Principle component analysis (PCA) of the Likert scale responses indicates that the identity of the marker did not significantly affect the response of students. However, the type of feedback was a factor that influenced the students' responses, with electronic feedback being rated superior. A Mann‐Whitney analysis of the satisfaction ratings (generated by PCA) indicates that four features of the assignment and feedback were considered significantly improved when the software was used to create feedback, namely; markscheme clarity, feedback legibility, information on deficient aspects, and identification of those parts of the work where the student did well. Modern academics face a number of challenges if they wish to return meaningful and timely feedback to students, among them large class sizes and infrequent face‐to‐face contact. It is pleasing to note, therefore, that assessors reported taking less time to mark when using the software. It is concluded that electronic formative feedback can be returned more quickly and may be used to synthesise relevant feedback that is both fair and balanced.     

The effects of skill diversity on commenting and revisions

The use of peer assessment to evaluate students’ writing is one recommended method that makes writing assignments possible in large content classes (i.e., more than 75 students). However, many instructors and students worry about whether students of all ability levels are capable of helping their peers. We examine how ability pairing (e.g., high-ability student with high-ability student versus high-ability student with low-ability student) changes key characteristics of feedback to determine which pairings are likely to benefit students most. A web-based reciprocal peer-review system was used to facilitate the peer review of students’ writing of two papers. Over 1,100 comments given to writers from their peers were coded for several relevant categories: type of feedback, type of criticism, focus of problem, focus of solution, and implementation. Overall, creating peer-review groups such that students receive feedback from someone of a dissimilar ability appeared to be most beneficial. High-ability writers received similar kinds of feedback from high-ability versus low-ability peers. By contrast, the low-ability writers received more comments that identified problems focusing on substance issues from high-ability reviewers. In addition, the low-ability writers implemented a higher percentage of the comments from the high-ability reviewers.     

Closing the feedback loop: physics undergraduates’ use of feedback comments on laboratory coursework

The laboratory notebooks of physics undergraduates taking two second-year practical courses were audited to discover whether they had used feedback comments in their subsequent coursework. Ninety-five per cent of the 37 students on the first course and 100% of the 14 students on the second course whose work was audited had used feedback. The marker’s comments were classified into two groups based on whether they addressed simple (mastery) or complex (developmental) learning outcomes. Mastery comments were more likely to be acted on than developmental comments which aimed to extend students’ skills and understanding to higher levels. This has implications for the use of feedback audit as a quality control process, since the feedback which is most commonly applied by students is not the most valuable for the development of higher order skills. Following reflection on the results for the first course, students taking the second course were given responsibility for checking their peers’ notebooks against preset criteria. Peer checking improved students’ marks but did not eliminate the need for mastery feedback. It is argued that a direct audit of students’ use of feedback is particularly valuable when undertaken by the teacher who provides the feedback.     

Show and tell: Student and instructor perceptions of screencast assessment

This study addresses students’ and instructors’ perceptions of screencast assessment and compares this feedback method to traditional paper or digital text-based comments. Screencast assessment allows for asynchronous audio and visual commenting on student papers using screencast software. A pilot study using surveys of 39 students enrolled in lower-level composition classes and surveys of five composition instructors have indicated that screencast assessment promotes detailed and effective feedback on student writing. This feedback method reveals instructor's thought process while grading, and this transparency fosters student–teacher communication about writing. Screencast assessment changes the detail and types of comments, fostering an increased use of macro-level comments over micro-level concerns. The method does not necessarily save time grading but allows for feedback in the same amount of time. Because of the suggestion that students and instructors value screencast assessment, this study warrants a larger scale project in order to investigate the student preference for this feedback and whether the method leads to improvement in student performance.     

Behavioural sequential analysis of using an instant response application to enhance peer interactions in a flipped classroom

To stimulate classroom interactions, this study employed two different smartphone application modes, providing an additional instant interaction channel in a flipped classroom teaching fundamental computer science concepts. One instant interaction mode provided the students (N?=?36) with anonymous feedback in chronological time sequence, while the other showed their feedback by “like” ranking (N?=?26). The behavioural patterns of undergraduates using these two different modes were compared. The results showed that the like-ranked feedback deepened the interaction between asking and answering questions, reduced the number of irrelevant messages, and increased attention to questionable messages. The students using the like-ranking mode also received more encouragement during the flipped classroom discussion activities.     

Closing the feedback loop? Iterative feedback between tutor and student in coursework assessments

We evaluate the case for using feedback iteratively, to improve student engagement and learning. In this model, students were invited to respond to tutor feedback with students’ own responses. Among the three courses/modules (three tutors) studied, differences in feedback styles were evident from: (a) thematic analysis of tutor comments and, for one course, and (b) comments in a student focus group. Students were inconsistent in their evaluation of tutor feedback but, in a more detailed study of one of the courses, there was clear evidence for the benefits of iterative feedback. Lessons from the main study were then applied to a course that had not previously incorporated iterative feedback. Using this experience, we provide suggestions for applying iterative feedback in assessments.     

Peer assessment in a project-based engineering course: comparing between on-campus and online learning environments

As the number of participants in online distance learning courses increases, peer assessment is becoming a popular strategy for evaluating open assignments and for breaking the social isolation surrounding distance education. Yet, the quality and characteristics of peer assessment in massive online courses has received little attention. Hence, this study was set to examine peer feedback quality and grading accuracy in a project-based course. The study applied a sequential exploratory mixed methods design. It included 339 participants who studied the same engineering course, but in three different modes: on-campus (n = 77), small private online course (n = 110), and massive open online course (MOOC) (n = 152). Content analysis of feedback comments identified four categories: reinforcement, statement, verification and elaboration, arranged in an ascending scale of cognitive ability. The findings indicated that the MOOC participants provided more feedback comments and volunteered to assess more projects than their counterparts did. However, the on-campus students provided higher quality feedback and their peer grading was better correlated with the grades assigned by the teaching assistants.     

The alignment of written peer feedback with draft problems and its impact on revision in peer assessment

Despite the wide use of peer assessment, questions about the helpfulness of peer feedback are frequently raised. In particular, it is unknown whether, how and to what extent peer feedback can help solve problems in initial texts in complex writing tasks. We investigated this research gap by focusing on the case of writing literature reviews in an academic writing course. The dataset includes two drafts from 21 students, sampled to represent a wide range of document qualities, and 84 anonymous peer reviews, involving 1,289 idea units. Our study revealed that: (1) at both substance and high prose levels, drafts of all quality levels demonstrated more common problems on advanced writing issues (e.g. counter-argument); (2) peer feedback was driven by difficulty of the problem rather than overall draft quality, peer comments were not well aligned with the relative frequency of problems, more comments were given to less difficult problems; (3) peer feedback had a moderate impact on revision, and importantly, receiving multiple comments on the same issue led to more repairs and improvement of draft quality, but consistent with the comments received, authors tended to fix basic problems more often. Implications for practice and research are drawn from these findings.     

Using scaffolded rubrics to improve peer assessment in a MOOC writing course

This study explored the value of using a guided rubric to enable students participating in a massive open online course in writing to produce more reliable assessments of their fellow students’ writing. To test the assumption that training students to assess will improve their ability to provide quality feedback, a multivariate factorial analysis was used to determine differences in assessments made by students who received guidance on using a rating rubric and those who did not. Although results were mixed, on average students who were provided no guidance in scoring writing samples were less likely to successfully differentiate between novice, intermediate, and advanced writing samples than students who received rubric guidance. Rubric guidance was most beneficial for items that were subjective, technically complex, and likely to be unfamiliar to the student. Items addressing relatively simple and objective constructs were less likely to be improved by rubric guidance.     

A linked data-based collaborative annotation system for increasing learning achievements

With the emergence of the Web 2.0, collaborative annotation practices have become more mature in the field of learning. In this context, several recent studies have shown the powerful effects of the integration of annotation mechanism in learning process. However, most of these studies provide poor support for semantically structured resources, more precisely for sharing and linking educational contents using linked data approach. Adopting Semantic Web technologies, this paper proposed a new linked data-based collaborative annotation system called L2OD, which allows students to enrich their annotations with relevant resources retrieved from Linked Open Data clouds. L2OD supports two modes of annotation, a private annotation mode for the user’s individual annotations, and a shared mode for all users’ annotations. The experimentation shows that the learners who have used L2OD have significantly increased their learning achievements referring to the difference between L2OD’s post-test and the control group’s post-test. It also shows significant positive correlations between learning achievements and quantity of private and shared annotations in the experimental group, respectively.     

Effects of different student response modes on science learning

Student response systems (SRSs) are wireless answering devices that enable students to provide simple real-time feedback to instructors. This study aims to evaluate the effects of different SRS interaction modes on elementary school students’ science learning. Three interaction modes which include SRS Individual, SRS Collaborative, and Classroom were examined. A pretest–posttest quasi-experimental design was used to compare the effects of the three interaction modes on science posttest scores for higher order thinking (HOT) questions as well as lower order thinking questions. The results show that SRS Collaborative mode has significant positive effects on science posttest scores of HOT questions. This study points to the potential benefits of using SRS, particularly for collaborative tasks, to solve problems that require HOT skills.     

Peer feedback on academic writing: undergraduate students’ peer feedback role,peer feedback perceptions and essay performance

Within the higher education context, peer feedback is frequently applied as an instructional method. Research on the learning mechanisms involved in the peer feedback process has covered aspects of both providing and receiving feedback. However, a direct comparison of the impact that providing and receiving peer feedback has on students’ writing performance is still lacking. The current study compared the writing performance of undergraduate students (N = 83) who either provided or received anonymous written peer feedback in the context of an authentic academic writing task. In addition, we investigated whether students’ peer feedback perceptions were related to the nature of the peer feedback they received and to writing performance. Results showed that both providing and receiving feedback led to similar improvements of writing performance. The presence of explanatory comments positively related both to how adequate students perceived the peer feedback to be, as well as to students’ willingness to improve based upon it. However, no direct relation was found between these peer feedback perceptions and students’ writing performance increase.     

大学英语书面任务反馈的现状与效率：一项对教师和学生的调查

通过对西南地区某高校大学英语课教师和学生的问卷调查及访谈,发现：在传统大学英语教学环境下,书面任务反馈的对象丰富,但方式传统,以教师纠正性反馈为主,评价简单;师生均认为反馈对学生学习提高有一定效果;学生希望得到更多的来自老师的详细反馈,而教师认为当前的反馈方式耗时较多,效率较低,应采用多元化的反馈方式。反馈理论的成果难以引用于实际,建议研究者关注转变学生对教师依赖,以改变大学英语书面任务反馈的方式,提高效率。     

The effectiveness of multimedia programmes in children's vocabulary learning

The present experiment investigated the effect of three different presentation modes in children's vocabulary learning with a self-guided multimedia programmes. Participants were 135 third and fourth grade children who read a short English language story presented by a computer programme. For 12 key (previously unknown) words in the story, children received verbal annotations (written translation), visual annotations (picture representing the word), or both. Recall of word translations was better for children who only received verbal annotations than for children who received simultaneously visual and verbal annotations or visual annotations only. Results support previous research about cognitive load in e-learning environments, and show that children's learning processes are hindered by limited working memory. This finding implies a challenge for multimedia programmes designed for children and based on self-regulated learning.     

Do students value feedback? Student perceptions of tutors’ written responses

The topic of feedback to students is an under‐researched area, and there has been little empirical research published which focuses on student perceptions. This study explores student perceptions of written feedback and examines whether feedback received demonstrated a student‐centred approach to learning. A multi‐method approach of qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis was used to survey 44 students in the faculties of Business and Art & Design. Student responses show feedback is valued, but believed tutor comments could be more helpful. Survey results indicate that students may need advice on understanding and using feedback before they can engage with it. Content analysis of feedback samples and student responses uncovered four main themes of feedback considered unhelpful to improve learning: comments which were too general or vague, lacked guidance, focused on the negative, or were unrelated to assessment criteria. It is suggested that by focusing on messages conveyed by their writing, providing feedback set in the context of assessment criteria and learning outcomes, and by ensuring that it is timely, tutors could greatly improve the value of feedback.