What makes for effective feedback: staff and student perspectives

Abstract

Since the early 2010s the literature has shifted to view feedback as a process that students do where they make sense of information about work they have done, and use it to improve the quality of their subsequent work. In this view, effective feedback needs to demonstrate effects. However, it is unclear if educators and students share this understanding of feedback. This paper reports a qualitative investigation of what educators and students think the purpose of feedback is, and what they think makes feedback effective. We administered a survey on feedback that was completed by 406 staff and 4514 students from two Australian universities. Inductive thematic analysis was conducted on data from a sample of 323 staff with assessment responsibilities and 400 students. Staff and students largely thought the purpose of feedback was improvement. With respect to what makes feedback effective, staff mostly discussed feedback design matters like timing, modalities and connected tasks. In contrast, students mostly wrote that high-quality feedback comments make feedback effective -especially comments that are usable, detailed, considerate of affect and personalised to the student's own work. This study may assist researchers, educators and academic developers in refocusing their efforts in improving feedback.

Challenging feedback myths: Values, learner involvement and promoting effects beyond the immediate task

“…In a recent study of feedback in Australian universities, both staff and students expressed ideas that feedback constituted comments on work, with the majority of students reporting that they were not able to act on the feedback information provided . The authors argued that “feedback should be judged by looking at what students do with information about their work, and how this results in demonstrable improvements to their work and learning strategies.” A refocus on the outputs of learner engagement with performance‐relevant information may not only strengthen learners’ engagement in feedback processes (the proof is in the pudding), but may also help all parties to set up the conditions that promote feedback that has an effect. That is, it is only by looking for the effects that there can be a critical analysis and calibration (if needed) of the information and processes that help to generate the outputs.…”

Students tell us what good written feedback looks like

“…In addition to the above, we introduced three further characteristics, based on what has been previously suggested as hallmarks of good feedback (e.g. [38]). In contrast to the feedback types and depth described above, comments could be assigned to none, one or more than one of the following categories: Easy‐wins (comments that could easily be addressed by following the marker’s suggestion, without the need for further work). Specific (it was clear what the feedback referred to, and enough detail to follow up the comment was provided). Feedforward (feedback that could clearly be useful for future assignments). …”

Feedback modes matter: Comparing student perceptions of digital and non‐digital feedback modes in higher education

“…This does not mean that the comments focus on the learners’ personal qualities, as critical comments about an individual can be emotionally damaging (Gibbs & Simpson, ; Ryan & Henderson, ) while positive comments, such as praise, do not help learners in their abilities to improve (Hattie & Timperley, ). Rather, personalised feedback comments are designed to address performance on the assessed task (Dawson et al , ; Henderson & Phillips, ). In other words, personalised feedback comments are unique to the individual, and they respond directly to the learner’s piece of work rather than generalising about the entire cohorts’ performance (as may be the case with statement banks, rubrics, etc.).…”