Feedback : all that effort, but what is the effect?

By M. Price, Karen Handley, Jill Millar, Berry M. O’Donovan. 2010

764 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e93d595a3a43a246214055c494fe3f0e899f7bb4

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

Facilitating productive use of feedback in higher education (2013, background): “…to illegible writing, which seems to be a surprisingly common problem (Ball et al., 2009; Carless, 2006; Ferguson, 2011; Ferris, 1995; Higgins et al., 2002; Hyland, 2000; Price et al., 2010; Séror, 2009; Whitington et al., 2004), but also due to the use of academic terminology or technical jargon.”
Supporting Learners' Agentic Engagement With Feedback: A Systematic Review and a Taxonomy of Recipience Processes (2017, background): “For example, learners may conclude from individual experiences that implementing their feedback does not pay off by improving their grades (Price et al., 2010), which Handley et al. (2011) theorized can lead to “behavioral disengagement” with subsequent feedback.”
Can we meet their expectations? Experiences and perceptions of feedback in first year undergraduate students (2013, background): “As good feedback is essential for student improvement in the higher education (HE) setting (Price et al. 2010) and a key feature of ‘best practice’ in undergraduate education (Chickering and Gamson 1999), it is important that student perceptions, expectations and understanding of their feedback is…”
‘It'd be useful, but I wouldn't use it’: barriers to university students’ feedback seeking and recipience (2017, methodology): “For feedback to influence learning and development, it must be used (Jonsson 2013; Price et al. 2010), yet engaging well with feedback can be extremely challenging.”
The effectiveness of formative assessment: student views and staff reflections (2020, methodology): “Students were asked questions that were aligned with the following criteria defining effectiveness of the regular formative e-assessments, as developed from Harlen and James (1997), Yorke (2003) and Price et al. (2010): • Students learning to monitor their own progress.”
‘Only true friends could be cruelly honest’: cognitive scaffolding and social-affective support in teacher feedback literacy (2017, background): “It can promote student assessment literacy (Price et al. 2010), which mitigates challenges such as student difficulty in judging the quality of academic work and in using feedback to improve future work (Boud and Molloy 2013).”
Examining the nature and effects of feedback dialogue (2018, background): “timing, frequency, quantity or externally judged product quality) as a way of evaluating feedback effectiveness is problematic because coding the apparent intent of feedback information cannot capture the communicative nature of the phenomenon nor its actual effects on learners (Price et al. 2010).”
Scaffolding theory: High challenge, high support in Academic Language and Learning (ALL) contexts (2014, methodology): “Included in their series of workshops was one in which students and ALL lecturers worked together to tackle one of the more complex readings of the subject, using a process similar to that advocated by Rose et al. (2003) described in the previous section.”
Exploring students’ perspectives on Generative AI-assisted academic writing (2024, positive): “Moreover, it can be seen as a relational process through which AI systems may encourage positive motivation and help learners build confidence and self-esteem (Price et al., 2010).”
A scholarly approach to solving the feedback dilemma in practice (2016, methodology): “taken using previously marked assignments to show how feedback on one was subsequently used to improve a later assignment (Price et al. 2010).”