Differing perceptions in the feedback process

By D. Carless. 2006

1,047 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Feedback is central to the development of effective learning, yet is comparatively underresearched. This article seeks to examine the notion of written feedback on assignments and argue that this feedback process is more complex than is sometimes acknowledged. The author illustrates the problematic nature of assignment feedback by drawing on a large‐scale questionnaire survey conducted across eight universities, and then analysing the issue in more depth though fine‐grained data collected from students in a teacher education institute. The article is framed by the concepts of discourse, power and emotion. It highlights a number of different perceptions of students and tutors towards the assessment, marking and feedback process. The author concludes by arguing that ‘assessment dialogues’ are a way forward to mitigate some of the mistrust or misconceptions that may be unwanted outcomes of the assessment process.

Subfields: Education

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/cf1b763b6c19e7f9ec6f7bc195aa7c2c107ebb6f

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. D. Carless
2. David Boud
3. N. Winstone
4. A. Jonsson
5. Phillip Dawson
6. David J. Nicol
7. Yueting Xu
8. M. Price

Citations in the corpus

• Using learning analytics to scale the provision of personalised feedback (2019, background): “As such, it is not overly surprising that several studies have shown that students’ dissatisfaction with the quality and quantity of feedback is a common concern raised across the majority of higher education institutions (Carless, 2006; Krause, Hartley, James, & McInnis, 2005).”
• Student engagement with teacher and automated feedback on L2 writing (2018, background): “Equally however, research reminds us that it does not always fulfill this potential (e.g. Ferris, 2006; Truscott & Hsu, 2008) and surveys reveal significant student dissatisfaction (Carless, 2006).”
• Enhancing the assessment experience: improving student perceptions, engagement and understanding using online video feedback (2016, background): “In contrast, generic comments such as ‘lacks synthesis of ideas’ or ‘performance was exemplary’ can block further learning as they omit the specific information on which the students can build their knowledge and capabilities (Carless, 2006; Chanock, 2000; Thompson & Lee, 2012).”
• Supervisors' on-script feedback comments on drafts of dissertations: socialising students into the academic discourse community (2014, background): “Feedback may not specify how to improve (Higgens et al. 2001) and students may find feedback difficult to interpret (Chanock 2000; Carless 2006).”
• Student perceptions of hidden messages in teacher written feedback (2013, background): “The full extent of student dissatisfaction is revealed in student surveys in the UK, Australia and Hong Kong (e.g. Krause et al, 2005; Carless, 2006).”
• Feeling feedback: students’ emotional responses to educator feedback (2017, methodology): “Unfortunately, when students experience adverse emotional reactions as a result of the feedback process, their receptiveness may be limited (Carless 2006; Molloy, Borrell-Carrio, and Epstein 2013).”
• Constructive guidance and feedback for learning: the usefulness of exemplars, marking sheets and different types of feedback in a first year law subject (2011, background): “Students’ perceptions of poor feedback is that it is vague, overly critical and unrelated to assessment criteria, and contains no guidance or suggestions about how they could improve their future performance (Carless 2006; Weaver 2006).”
• A scholarly approach to solving the feedback dilemma in practice (2016, background): “Perhaps, this is not surprising if they find it vague (Higgins 2000; Weaver 2006) and either don’t understand it (Lea and Street 1998) or misunderstand it (Carless 2006; Scoles, Huxham, and McArthur 2012).”
• Teacher feedback literacy and its interplay with student feedback literacy (2020, neutral): “…and students, however, hold different conceptions and mythologies of feedback in that teachers believe more strongly than students that feedback is a central mechanism for improvement (Adcroft 2011), and teachers perceive that their feedback is more useful than their students do (Carless 2006).”
• Student perceptions of assessment feedback: a critical scoping review and call for research (2020, background): “Based on the literature published thus far, a preliminary understanding of what needs to be in place for students to successfully engage with feedback to improve their learning involves at least the following aspects (Carless, 2006; Gamlem & Smith, 2013; Handley et al., 2011; Hargreaves, 2011; Havne”
• Examining the nature and effects of feedback dialogue (2018, background): “Students have often progressed to the next module or assessment activity by the time they receive useful information about their work, without opportunities or expectations of dialogue that assists them to construct their understanding in a meaningful way (Carless 2006).”
• Perceptions of effectiveness, fairness and feedback of assessment methods: a study in higher education (2015, background): “Feedback is thus understood as a key element of student learning process and student self-regulation (Carless 2006; Carless et al. 2011; Nicol and MacfarlaneDick 2006).”
• ‘Only true friends could be cruelly honest’: cognitive scaffolding and social-affective support in teacher feedback literacy (2017, methodology): “Against the backdrop of mass expansion of higher education coupled with resource constraints, feedback processes are difficult to implement effectively (Evans 2013), and may cause frustration for both teachers and students (Carless 2006).”
• Feeding forward: using feedback to promote student reflection and learning – a teaching model (2010, background): “The language used by academics, the lack of debate and dialogue, the power relationships, and the emotional nature of the student investment in writing an assignment all inhibit understanding (Carless, 2006; Higgins et al., 2002).”
• Exploring the use of peer assessment as a vehicle for closing the gap between feedback given and feedback used (2010, background): “Carless’ (2006) study highlights how students are impacted upon emotionally by written feedback from tutors.”