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.     

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.     

Graduate students’ self-reported perspectives regarding peer feedback and feedback from writing consultants

This study reported how ten Taiwanese Master’s students perceived their experiences of receiving feedback given by their peers and writing consultants to revise a shortened version of their thesis proposals. Collected over the course of one semester, data included students’ writing portfolios and interviews with them. Analysis of the data revealed three major themes: (1) The participants felt quite positive about providing and receiving peer feedback, although they seemed cautious toward language-related peer comments; (2) they generally had positive experience with the writing consultants, although the perceived usefulness of the consultants’ feedback varied with individual consultants and (3) the two types of comments served different functions for students, and questions arose from the peer editing process could serve as prompts for writing consultation sessions. Possible future research directions as well as pedagogical implication are outlined to conclude the paper.     

Improving your oral English

The most common question my students ask is ““How can I improve my oral English?““ My answer is always the same: practice. There is no quick way to learn another language. You cannot magically learn new words and have perfect pronunciation. The only way to improve is with practice and patience.     

Feedback on feedback: eliciting learners’ responses to written feedback through student-generated screencasts

Despite the potential benefits of assignment feedback, learners often fail to use it effectively. This study examines the ways in which adult distance learners engage with written feedback on one of their assignments. Participants were 10 undergraduates studying Spanish at the Open University, UK. Their responses to feedback were elicited by means of student-generated screencast (Jing®) recordings in which students talked through the feedback written by their tutors. The recordings were analysed in terms of the students’ cognitive, affective and metacognitive responses to the tutors’ feedback. Results show that, while students do engage with tutor feedback and make active efforts to integrate it, they sometimes use ineffective strategies, especially when tutor and student make different assumptions about the role of feedback. The richness of the data obtained from the Feedback on feedback (F on F) method suggests that it has the potential to promote much needed feedback dialogue between students and tutors.     

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.     

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.     

Can performance feedback during instruction boost knowledge acquisition? Contrasting criterion-based and social comparison feedback

Feedback indicating how well students are performing during a learning task can be very stimulating. In this study with a pre- and post-test design, the effects of two types of performance feedback on learning results were compared: feedback during a learning task was either stated in terms of how well the students were performing relative to other students (social comparison feedback) or relative to an absolute criterion (criterion-based feedback). Thirty-four students in secondary vocational engineering education were randomly assigned to one of two conditions. In both conditions, students worked together in small groups. All groups completed a math learning task, during which they received either social comparison feedback or criterion-based performance feedback. The findings showed that the type of feedback had a strong effect on learning outcomes: the post-test scores and gains of students in the social comparison condition were significantly higher than those of students in the criterion-based feedback condition.     

What is formation? A conceptual discussion

This paper addresses the principles and connotations of the term formation. In our discussion of formation, we draw on different disciplines in order to widen and deepen our understanding of the concept of formation. We also mirror the formation concept against comparable terms and draw on studies in which it has been applied in empirical research. By drawing on a different perspective on formation, we argue for its relevance to higher education and invite discussion on its potential uses in that field.     

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.     

Fostering oral presentation performance: does the quality of feedback differ when provided by the teacher,peers or peers guided by tutor?

Previous research revealed significant differences in the effectiveness of various feedback sources for encouraging students’ oral presentation performance. While former studies emphasised the superiority of teacher feedback, it remains unclear whether the quality of feedback actually differs between commonly used sources in higher education. Therefore, this study examines feedback processes conducted directly after 95 undergraduate students’ presentations in the following conditions: teacher feedback, peer feedback and peer feedback guided by tutor. All processes were videotaped and analysed using a coding scheme that included seven feedback quality criteria deduced from the literature. Results demonstrate that teacher feedback corresponds to the highest extent with the majority of the seven identified feedback quality criteria. For four criteria, peer feedback guided by tutor scores higher than peer feedback. Skills courses should incorporate strategies focused on discussing perceptions of feedback and practising providing feedback to increase the effectiveness of peer feedback.     

Does the discussion help? The impact of a formally assessed online discussion on final student results

While there is agreement that participation in online asynchronous discussions can enhance student learning, it has also been identified that there is a need to investigate the impact of participation in online discussions on student course performance. This paper presents a case study based on an undergraduate engineering management unit employing a formally assessed online discussion area. It was observed that while many students read a significant number of discussion postings, generally, the posting of new and reply messages occurred at the minimum level required to qualify for the assignment marks. Based on correlation and multiple regression analysis, it was observed that two variables were significantly related to a student's final unit mark—prior academic ability and the number of new postings made to the online discussion. Each new posting contributed three times as much to the final unit mark as its nominal assessment value, suggesting that the work in preparing their new discussion postings assisted students in the completion of a range of assessable tasks for the unit. The number of postings read was not significantly correlated with the final unit mark, suggesting that passive lurking in this online discussion did not significantly contribute to student learning outcomes.     

Using feedback requests to actively involve assessees in peer assessment: effects on the assessor’s feedback content and assessee’s agreement with feedback

Criticizing the common approach of supporting peer assessment through providing assessors with an explication of assessment criteria, recent insights on peer assessment call for support focusing on assessees, who often assume a passive role of receivers of feedback. Feedback requests, which require assessees to formulate their specific needs for feedback, have therefore been put forward as an alternative to supporting peer assessment, even though there is little known about their exact impact on feedback. Operationalizing effective feedback as feedback that (1) elaborates on the evaluation and (2) to which the receiver is agreeable, the present study examines how these two variables are affected by feedback requests, compared to an explanation of assessment criteria in the form of a content checklist. Situated against the backdrop of a writing task for 125 first-year students in an educational studies program at university, the study uses a 2 × 2 factorial design that resulted in four conditions: a control, feedback request, content checklist, and combination condition. The results underline the importance of taking message length into account when studying the effects of support for peer assessment. Although feedback requests did not have an impact on the raw number of elaborations, the proportion of informative elaborations within feedback messages was significantly higher in conditions that used a feedback request. In other words, it appears that the feedback request stimulated students to write more focused messages. In comparison with feedback content, the use of a feedback request did, however, not have a significant effect on agreement with feedback.     

‘Are you listening please?’ The advantages of electronic audio feedback compared to written feedback

Feedback on students' work is, probably, one of the most important aspects of learning, yet students' report, according to the National Union of Students (NUS) Survey of 2008, unhappiness with the feedback process. Students were unhappy with the quality, detail and timing of feedback. This paper examines the benefits of using audio, as opposed to written, feedback in an attempt to overcome student criticisms. Using the Audacity audio software MP3 feedback files were created and sent to 60 students either via a VLE or email. The students were asked to complete an online survey on audio feedback. Twenty‐six students responded. The results were, generally, very positive. The use of audio feedback seemed to have overcome the problems reported by the NUS survey. Students are at least 10 times more likely to open audio files compared to collecting written feedback. The paper concludes with reflections, and advice, on introducing audio feedback.     

Understanding and using feedback – A review of empirical studies concerning feedback from external evaluations to teachers

To improve the quality of teaching, educational accountability needs to include periodic external evaluations of students’ performance. This requires evaluation formats which support the development of the educational process and provide information which is understandable for teachers. The aims of this study were to review: (i) how teachers understand the feedback they receive from external evaluations; (ii) how they use the feedback; and (iii) how teachers’ understanding and use of such feedback affects the achievement of their students. None of the papers included contained simultaneous a study with all three of these aspects of external evaluations; the review shows that teachers have many problems understanding feedback and mainly focus their use of it on developing strategic teaching tactics. Research that focuses on teachers’ understanding of external evaluation, their use of it, and how the use of the feedback can foster student achievement is needed.     

Students’ feedback preferences: how do students react to timely and automatically generated assessment feedback?

This study assesses whether or not undergraduate and postgraduate accounting students at an Australian university differentiate between timely feedback and extremely timely feedback, and whether or not the replacement of manually written formal assessment feedback with automatically generated feedback influences students’ perception of feedback constructiveness. The study demonstrates that students do not differentiate between timely feedback and extremely timely feedback. This result holds for both on-campus as well as off-campus students, although undergraduate on-campus students have significantly higher timeliness expectations than undergraduate off-campus students. In addition, the study demonstrates that a replacement of manually generated feedback with automatically generated feedback improves students’ perception of the constructiveness of the provided feedback substantially (undergraduate) or significantly (postgraduate). Instructors may consequently be able to exploit the advantages of automatic feedback tools without having to be concerned about the impact of such feedback on student perceptions. In addition, instructors should only aim to provide extremely timely feedback rather than timely feedback, if sound pedagogical reasons are available to justify the required effort.     

Identifying mentors’ observations for providing feedback

Mentors’ feedback can assist preservice teachers’ development; yet feedback tends to be variable from one mentor to the next. What do mentors observe for providing feedback? In this study, 24 mentors observed a final-year preservice teacher through a professionally video-recorded lesson and provided written notes for feedback. They observed the lesson for a second time and focused their feedback on the preservice teacher’s questioning only. Findings showed that the mentors’ written feedback varied considerably when open observations occurred. However, there were fewer items when they focused on one teaching practice (i.e. questioning), which also provided a deeper analysis of this specific practice. Research is required around the dimensions of observations (i.e. visual, auditory and conceptual), observations of specific practices, and methodological approaches for observing and collecting data about a preservice teacher’s practice.     

Prompting secondary students’ use of criteria,feedback specificity and feedback levels during an investigative task

This study investigates the effects of prompting on secondary students’ written peer feedback in chemistry investigation reports. In particular, we examined students’ feedback features in relation to the use of criteria, feedback specificity, and feedback levels. A quasi-experimental pre-test post-test design was adopted. Reviewers in the prompted condition were provided with question prompts that asked them to pose written feedback to their peers on what they did or did not do well and suggestions for improvement, while reviewers in the unprompted condition gave written peer feedback without prompts. The findings showed that prompted peer feedback has a significant effect on the number of comments related to Knowledge of errors, Suggestions for improvement and Process level feedback. This study supports the view that prompting peer feedback in the use of criteria, feedback specificity and feedback levels opens up opportunity for reviewers to engage more meaningfully with peer feedback in report writing tasks.     

Looking at MOOC discussion data to uncover the relationship between discussion pacings,learners’ cognitive presence and learning achievements

Education and Information Technologies - The MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) forum carries rich discussion data that contains multi-level cognition-related behavior patterns, which brings the...