Feedback Strategies for Interactive Learning Tasks

By Susanne Narciss. 2007

469 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Developmental and Educational Psychology, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ce649933a6a68078f326e7b02200281756adfc09

How researchers see this paper

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

In Artificial Intelligence

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Anonymity as an instructional scaffold in peer assessment: its effects on peer feedback quality and evolution in students’ perceptions about peer assessment skills (2018, background): “More specifically, previous research has indicated that qualitative feedback should contain two types of information: verifications and elaborations (Narciss 2008).”
A Systematic Literature Review of Automated Feedback Generation for Programming Exercises (2018, methodology): “According to Narciss, this type of feedback could contain “explanations on metacognitive strategies” or “metacognitive guiding questions.””
Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning (2009, background): “Narciss (2008) defines feedback as ‘‘all post-response information that is provided to a learner to inform the learner on his or her actual state of learning or performance’’ (p. 127) and differentiates between external (e.g., peer or teacher) and internal (the learner) sources of feedback.”
Handbook of Research on Learning and Instruction (2011, methodology): “Under this influence, scholars have applied three models to explain and guide learning in the psychomotor domain: information processing, expertise-novice comparison, and dynamical systems.”
From feedback to revisions: Effects of feedback features and perceptions (2020, background): “In addition, Hattie and Timperley described multiple levels at which feedback can be performed, going beyond binary classifications like evaluative vs. informational feedback components (Narciss, 2008), or simple vs. elaborated feedback components (Narciss, 2008; Strijbos et al., 2010).”
The Future of Student Self-Assessment: a Review of Known Unknowns and Potential Directions (2016, background): “Based on the principles of feedback in instructional settings (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Narciss, 2008; Sadler, 1989), students need to first become aware of the possibility of inaccuracy in their selfassessments, perhaps through discrepancy between SSA and external evaluations (e.g., by a teacher…”
Peer Feedback in Learning English Writing: Advantages and Disadvantages (2013, background): “Narciss (2008) also defines feedback as "all post-response information that is provided to a learner to inform the learner on his or her actual state of learning or performance".”
Regulation During Cooperative and Collaborative Learning: A Theory-Based Review of Terms and Concepts (2015, methodology): “, Butler & Winne, 1995; Pintrich, 2000; Thiede & Dunlosky, 1999; Winne & Hadwin, 1998) and interactive instruction (Narciss, 2008).”
In search for the most informative data for feedback generation: Learning analytics in a data-rich context (2015, background): “However, Macfadyen and Dawson (2010, p. 597) note that “knowledge of actual course design and instructor intentions is critical in determining which variables can meaningfully represent student effort or activity, and which should be excluded”.”
Effects of Feedback in a Computer-Based Learning Environment on Students’ Learning Outcomes (2013, background): “Its main purpose is to reinforce the correct recall of facts, which is consistent with a behaviorist view of learning (Hattie & Gan, 2011; Narciss, 2008).”