Identifying predictors of students’ perception of and engagement with assessment feedback

Ali, Nadia; Ahmed, Lubna; Rose, Sarah E.

doi:10.1177/1469787417735609

Cited by 34 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Using qualitative case studies, Han and Hyland (2015) demonstrated that students differ in the extent to which they accept or resist feedback, and in their emotional reactions. In a survey, Ali, Ahmed, and Rose (2018) explored whether characteristics of the student (i.e., gender, age, and whether English was their first language), the learning environment (whether students lived on/off campus), and the programme of study (year and second subject) predicted students' self-reported engagement with feedback. The only significant predictor was year of study, with engagement declining over successive years of the programme.…”

Section: Psychological Approaches To Feedbackmentioning

confidence: 99%

Individual differences in self-reported use of assessment feedback: the mediating role of feedback beliefs

Winstone

Hepper

Nash

2019

Educational Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Feedback can rarely enhance learning unless it is used; however, few studies have examined individual differences in students' engagement with feedback. The present study explored a) the extent to which personality variables and achievement goal orientation are associated with students' self-reported use of feedback; and b) whether beliefs about feedback (utility, accountability, self-efficacy, and volition to implement feedback) mediate these associations.Students aged 16-18 (N = 746) completed self-report measures assessing each of these constructs. Self-reported feedback use was greater among students who scored high in mastery approach goals, performance approach goals, and conscientiousness. Controlling for academic achievement (which correlated weakly with self-reported feedback use), all of these associations were mediated by self-efficacy, and a subset of the associations were also mediated by the perceived utility of feedback and volition to implement feedback. Supporting students to feel competent in using feedback should be a key priority for interventions.

show abstract

Section: Psychological Approaches To Feedbackmentioning

confidence: 99%

Individual differences in self-reported use of assessment feedback: the mediating role of feedback beliefs

Winstone

Hepper

Nash

2019

Educational Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Wilson, 2007 cited in Li andLindsey, 2015). Ali et al (2017) and Li and Lindsey (2015) show that such vagueness is a reflection of lecturers' perceptions of criteria and the subsequent learning impasse where neither lecturers nor students fully understand the link between assignments and assessment criteria. Many lecturers, therefore, add some written comments for the student (i.e.…”

Section: Rubric-referenced Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…First, the framework of Hattie and Timperley is one of the few which explicitly includes feedforward (Boud and Molloy, 2013b;Hounsell et al, 2008;Sadler, 1989) as a category which is relevant considering the function of rubrics suggested in the literature (cf. Ali et al, 2017). Second, the framework is well known in higher education.…”

Section: Scoring Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

In-text and rubric-referenced feedback: Differences in focus, level, and function

Dirkx

Brinke

Arts

et al. 2019

Active Learning in Higher Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rubrics are often used as tools for criteria-based assessments. Although students indicate that they appreciate comments given as feedback which make reference to the rubric and provided in addition to it, there is little information on how this type of feedback actually differs from in-text comments with respect to focus, level, and function of the feedback. The focus refers to three major questions in evaluating students' understanding of information: Where am I going? How am I going? and Where to next? That is, feedup, feedback, feedforward. The level refers to the level at which feedback is directed. That is, the level of task performance, the level of the process of understanding how to do a task, the regulatory or metacognitive process level, and/or the self or personal level. Finally, the function refers to the type of content of the feedback. For example, feedback can be a question, suggestion, or correction. More information on this issue could better inform the decisions on how to provide written feedback to students on written coursework/assignments. The study described in this article gathered data from almost 1000 feedback instances. The results revealed that about two-thirds of the feedback instances were provided in-text and about one-third were comments which made reference to the rubric and were provided in addition to it. The results show that comments in both modalities are overrepresented by feedback at the task level, but that comments which made reference to the rubric

show abstract

“…Lack of objective and timely feedback is a problem in developing student's hand skill and clinical judgement 3 . Additionally, it is advantageous that students receive consistent, unbiased and accurate feedback regarding their preclinical work 2,4,5 . Adjuvant methods such as tutors and digital media have shown to be effective in improving the preclinical learning process 6,7 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of CAD/CAM technology: A self‐assessment tool for preclinical waxing exercise

Chiang

Staffen

Abdulmajeed

et al. 2020

Eur J Dental Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction This study assessed the utility of CAD/CAM technology as a self‐assessment tool for preclinical waxing compared to traditional student self‐assessment to evaluate preclinical work. Material and Methods Thirty‐seven students completed the wax‐up of the maxillary left central incisor with the goal of recreating original anatomy and completed a traditional self‐assessment. The original, unreduced cast and waxings were scanned with an intraoral scanner (E4D, Planmeca). Using CAD/CAM software (Compare, Planmeca), each waxing was superimposed over the original. Tolerance (250 µm) was set to illustrate under‐ and over‐contoured areas, enabling visualisation of the waxing compared to original in three dimensions. Students then completed another self‐assessment and an exit survey. Results Twenty‐four per cent of self‐assessment responses changed after using Compare Software. 20% changed from satisfactory to unsatisfactory. Four per cent changed from unsatisfactory to satisfactory. Greatest change in response occurred in the Incisal Edge (49%) rubric category. Interproximal Contact Area (3%) demonstrated least change in response. Seventy per cent strongly agreed that Compare Software enabled more effective assessment of Lingual Contour. Eight per cent strongly disagreed that Compare Software enabled more effective assessment of finishing. Discussion CAD/CAM software can improve student's critical self‐assessment. Different rubric categories demonstrated differing rates of response change, indicating more critical of certain aspects of the waxing. Majority strongly agreed that the software enabled more effective self‐assessment. Conclusion CAD/CAM technology enhances student's learning in dental wax‐up through improving self‐assessment. This technology may improve teacher‐student communication, reduce one‐on‐one teaching time and allow higher student‐teacher ratio.

show abstract

Identifying predictors of students’ perception of and engagement with assessment feedback

Cited by 34 publications

References 37 publications

Individual differences in self-reported use of assessment feedback: the mediating role of feedback beliefs

Individual differences in self-reported use of assessment feedback: the mediating role of feedback beliefs

In-text and rubric-referenced feedback: Differences in focus, level, and function

Effectiveness of CAD/CAM technology: A self‐assessment tool for preclinical waxing exercise

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About