Is it worth the effort? How feedback influences students’ subsequent submission of assessable work

By B. Crisp. 2007

236 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/406ed4d51016c6c8ffe49d39bb9880122003d163

How researchers see this paper

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

In Education

Citations in the corpus

Supporting Learners' Agentic Engagement With Feedback: A Systematic Review and a Taxonomy of Recipience Processes (2017, background): “A body of evidence indicated that learners in pre-HE and HE may often focus heavily on the grades they receive, at the expense of their engagement with the accompanying qualitative feedback (Bailey & Garner, 2010; Crisp, 2007; Hern andez, 2012; Higgins et al., 2001; Peterson & Irving, 2008).”
Moving feedback forward: theory to practice (2013, background): “Crisp (2007) also highlights the importance of dialogue and argues that providing feedback alone is unlikely to lead to higher standards and suggests that ‘unilateral pronouncements by assessors rather than dialogue with students’ was a possible cause for students failing to respond to feedback…”
From monologue to dialogue: improving written feedback processes in mass higher education (2010, background): “Yet teachers often feel overburdened by having to produce these comments and they often feel that they do not lead to learning improvements (Crisp 2007).”
Feedback on feedback practice: perceptions of students and academics (2017, background): “The difficulty is that even if some or all of the measures and conditions for effective feedback are in place, this does not prove that feedback is effective (Price et al. 2010): it is how students make sense of and use it which is important (Carless et al. 2011; Crisp 2007).”
Feedback alignment: effective and ineffective links between tutors’ and students’ understanding of coursework feedback (2011, background): “Overall, these two explanations for a lack of feedback alignment may help explain the similar findings of Crisp (2007).”
Towards a personal best: a case for introducing ipsative assessment in higher education (2011, background): “Even when there are attempts to ‘sweeten’ negative or challenging feedback and results with positive comments, there are indications from some Australian studies that many learners do not act on critical feedback (Crisp 2007 ), either because they have focused only on the praise at a personal level”
Beyond feedback: developing student capability in complex appraisal (2010, background): “It is not feasible here to summarise the findings from the four major reviews of feedback carried out by Natriello (1987), Crooks (1988), Black and Wiliam (1998), and Hattie and”
Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: a peer review perspective (2014, unknown): “…evidence that they have had any effect on student satisfaction ratings in national surveys, and, indeed, there is a growing number of studies now showing that such enhancements of teacher feedback do not result in improved student learning (e.g. Crisp 2007; Bailey and Garner 2010; Wingate 2010).”
The effects of online peer feedback and epistemic beliefs on students’ argumentation-based learning (2019, background): “content and understanding of the issue at hand (Bayerlein, 2014; Crisp, 2007).”
Exploring the use of peer assessment as a vehicle for closing the gap between feedback given and feedback used (2010, background): “While earlier literature stressed the potential of formative feedback to enhance student learning, it is increasingly being acknowledged that the provision of feedback alone is insufficient to effect higher standards of work by students (Crisp 2007).”