Written Feedback for Students: too much, too detailed or too incomprehensible to be effective?

By C. Glover, Evelyn Brown. 2006

224 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Education, Literature and Literary Theory

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0b50d9083543866605fa595923df729e324fe604

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Education

1. David Boud
2. Rola Ajjawi
3. J. West
4. W. Turner
5. Paul Orsmond
6. S. Merry
7. Stephen Gomez
8. Julian R. Park

In Literature and Literary Theory

1. J. West
2. Paul Orsmond
3. David Boud
4. S. Merry
5. W. Turner

Citations in the corpus

• Feedback alignment: effective and ineffective links between tutors’ and students’ understanding of coursework feedback (2011, background): “The researchers added an additional category, ‘giving praise’ (Glover and Brown 2006).”
• Moving feedback forward: theory to practice (2013, background): “From the student perspective, feedback may be provided in a manner which is deemed to be too late to be useful, too vague, unclear and inconsistent (Glover and Brown 2006; Weaver 2006).”
• Enhancing the assessment experience: improving student perceptions, engagement and understanding using online video feedback (2016, background): “The assumption that students can understand and transfer feedback has also been challenged (Glover & Brown, 2006).”
• Examining the nature and effects of feedback dialogue (2018, background): “In social interactions, participants are typically involved in the ritual maintenance of face (Goffman 1959).”