Feedback: focusing attention on engagement

By M. Price, Karen Handley, Jill Millar. 2011

411 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/78c6720ea59642bb9e977c7569d2e137c95d4c73

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): “Although such forms can reduce the workload of providing feedback, Price et al. (2011) claimed that learners sometimes infer that these pro formas signify educators’ disinterest and unwillingness to expend effort in giving feedback, which they argue could lead learners to disengage from their…”
Building Feedback Literacy: Students’ Perceptions of the Developing Engagement With Feedback Toolkit (2019, background): “Reaping these benefits, though, depends on the quality of students’ engagement with the feedback, and their ability to demonstrate proactive recipience, defined as “a state or activity of engaging actively with feedback processes” (Winstone et al., 2017a, p. 17; see also Handley et al., 2011; Price ”
The development of student feedback literacy: enabling uptake of feedback (2018, positive): “Students need motivating and guiding as they learn to navigate opportunities to use feedback (Price, Handley, and Millar 2011).”
Longitudinal perspectives on students’ experiences of feedback: a need for teacher–student partnerships (2020, background): “become progressively disengaged from feedback during the course of their studies as a repercussion of repeated unsatisfactory experiences (Price et al., 2011), although due to the dearth of longitudinal research this finding requires further scrutiny.”
The need to disentangle assessment and feedback in higher education (2020, background): “In their systematic review of students’ engagement with feedback, Winstone, Nash, Parker, and Rowntree (2017b) argued that whilst such artefacts can have a positive impact on academic workload, they can be perceived by students as implying that their markers wish to reduce the effort in feedback, wh”
The development of student feedback literacy: the influences of teacher feedback on peer feedback (2019, background): “…interactions in mass higher education (Nicol, 2010; Boud and Molloy 2013), but more importantly, for its congruence with: (a) sustainable, dialogic feedback processes (Carless et al. 2011; Boud and Molloy 2013), and (b) student engagement with feedback (Price, Handley, and Millar 2011).”
Feedback on feedback practice: perceptions of students and academics (2017, background): “…feedback towards an ongoing dialogic approach that engages students more meaningfully in the assessment and feedback process (Merry et al. 2013; Nicol 2010; Price, Handley, and Millar 2011), and facilitates the development of student self-regulation (Black and McCormick 2010; Carless et al. 2011).”
Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: a peer review perspective (2014, positive): “…from feedback, they must have opportunities to construct their own meaning from the received message: they must do something with it, analyse it, ask questions about it, discuss it with others and connect it with prior knowledge (Nicol 2010; Carless et al. 2011; Price, Handley, and Millar 2011).”
Effectiveness of Performance Management System for Employee Performance Through Engagement (2020, methodology): “Price et al. (2011) examine the relationship between feedback and engagement using analytical model and find a positive relationship between the two constructs.”
Moving feedback forward: theory to practice (2013, background): “In terms of communities of practice Price et al. (2011) indicate that students recognise the need for dialogue in order to fully work with their feedback.”
Researching feedback dialogue: an interactional analysis approach (2017, background): “That is, feedback is about having a positive influence on what students do, and that feedback is most effective when it is cyclical and involves a dialogue (Carless et al. 2011; Price, Handley, and Millar 2011; Boud and Molloy 2013).”
Unpacking the feedback process: an analysis of undergraduate students’ interactional meaning-making of feedback comments (2019, background): “Claims about these dialogical processes often remain at a conceptual level (Evans 2013; Price, Handley, and Millar 2011) or are only approximated through self-reported data from students or teachers (cf. Hounsell et al. 2008).”
Teacher feedback literacy and its interplay with student feedback literacy (2020, neutral): “…often find large classes and the workload associated with assessment and feedback to be burdensome (Tuck 2012; Winstone and Carless 2019), and report frustration when students appear to demonstrate limited engagement with the feedback information that is provided (Price, Handley and Millar 2011).”