Much has been written in the educational psychology literature about effective feedback and how to deliver it. However, it is equally important to understand how learners actively receive, engage with, and implement feedback. This article reports a systematic review of the research evidence pertaining to this issue. Through an analysis of 195 outputs published between 1985 and early 2014, we identified various factors that have been proposed to influence the likelihood of feedback being used. Furthermore, we identified diverse interventions with the common aim of supporting and promoting learners' agentic engagement with feedback processes. We outline the various components used in these interventions, and the reports of their successes and limitations. Moreover we propose a novel taxonomy of four recipience processes targeted by these interventions. This review and taxonomy provide a theoretical basis for conceptualizing learners' responsibility within feedback dialogues and for guiding the strategic design and evaluation of interventions.
For feedback to be effective, it must be used by the receiver. Prior research has outlined numerous reasons why students' use of feedback is sometimes limited, but there has been little systematic exploration of these barriers. In 11 activity-oriented focus groups, 31 undergraduate Psychology students discussed how they use assessment feedback. The data revealed many barriers that inhibit use of feedback, ranging from students' difficulties with decoding terminology, to their unwillingness to expend effort. Thematic analysis identified four underlying psychological processes: awareness, cognisance, agency, and volition. We argue that these processes should be considered when designing interventions to encourage students' engagement with feedback. Whereas the barriers identified could all in principle be removed, we propose that doing so would typically require-or would at least benefit froma sharing of responsibility between teacher and student. The data highlight the importance of training students to be proactive receivers of feedback.
To date little is known about the experiences of girls with autism, or how they live with and manage their autism. This qualitative study explored experiences of learning, friendships and bullying of girls with autism. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 girls with autism, aged 11-17 years, and one parent of each girl. Thematic analysis identified key themes relating to motivation to have friends, challenges for girls with autism and the notion that many girls tend to mask their autism, which had both positive and negative consequences. Overall, the girls were motivated to have friends, but often encountered social difficulties and were sometimes targeted for bullying. Findings pointed to the need for interventions such as staff training and programmes to support the social interaction of girls with autism based on their specific perceptions of friendship.
Many argue that effective learning requires students to take a substantial share of responsibility for their academic development, complementing the responsibilities taken by their educators. Yet this notion of responsibility-sharing receives minimal discussion in the context of assessment feedback, where responsibility for enhancing learning is often framed as lying principally with educators. Developing discussion on this issue is critical: many barriers can prevent students from engaging meaningfully with feedback, but neither educators nor students are fully empowered to remove these barriers without collaboration. In this discussion paper we argue that a culture of responsibility-sharing in the giving and receiving of feedback is essential, both for ensuring that feedback genuinely benefits students by virtue of their skilled and proactive engagement, and also for ensuring the sustainability of educators' effective feedback practices. We propose some assumptions that should underpin such a culture, and we consider the practicalities of engendering this cultural shift within modern higher education.
The ability of children and young people to form and express their perspectives through qualitative research studies can be constrained by difficulties that they can face in typical interview situations. We describe and evaluate an interview method using concrete and engaging activities designed to enable autistic young people to surface their abilities and perspectives. Participants' sense of self-identity was explored using traditional semi-structured interviews and novel activity-oriented interviews. The latter method provided a context within which autistic young people were better able to voice their perspectives. The efficacy of this method and considerations for its use are discussed.
Decades of research indicate that peer interaction among children and adolescents can be beneficial for learning and development. Less, however, is known about which features of interaction may be effective in promoting learning. This meta-analysis examined results from 62 articles with 71 studies into peer interaction, involving a total of 7,105 participants aged 4 to 18 years. The meta-analysis found that peer interaction was effective in promoting learning in comparison with other types of learning conditions. Moderator analyses suggested that learning from interaction with peers was as effective as learning from adults one-on-one, and more effective than children learning individually. Peer interaction is also more effective when children are specifically instructed to reach consensus. Findings point to theoretical considerations for developmental work and practical implications for the effective use of peer interaction techniques in the classroom.
Peer Interaction Meta-Analysis
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.