top of page
Shelly Cloke
Grade 7 Teacher
Classroom Assessment Consulting and Contract Presenting
Contact
cloke.shelly@gmail.com (personal)
shelly.cloke@wrsd.ca (work)
Engaging Students through
Instruction and Assessment:
Research, Instruction
and Assessment Models
by Shelly Cloke
Site Menu
So What Works?
Research has established the positive effects of feedback on student learning and well-being (Black & Wiliam, 2006; Wiliam et al., 2010; Nolan, 2011; Brown et al., 2016; Klapp, 2018); in fact, is one of the most powerful impacts on achievement (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Hattie & Clarke, 2018). This is despite the complexity of its implementation and variability in effects (Black & Wiliam, 2003).
Feedback uptake improves students’ grades by increasing their self-regulation and self-efficacy skills (Brown et al., 2016).
Lipnevich and Smith (2009) affirm that “descriptive feedback specific to individual work is critical to students’ improvement” (p. 352).
Feedback Works!
Harris et al.’s (2014) study of 193 primary and secondary students in New Zealand found positive emotional and behavioral effects from feedback.
Wingate’s (2010) study showed a positive link between feedback on problem areas in student writing and students making improvements to correct them, while also showing the students who did not pay attention to, act on, or even were able to recall feedback did not improve.
Not all feedback is created equal...
Students with low motivation and low self-perception are affected by the amount of feedback, as well as the style and tone (Wingate, 2010).
The interviews and classroom observations of 11 lower secondary students in Gamlem and Smith’s (2013) study of what students perceived as useful in feedback concluded that feedback valence, relations and honest feedback, as well as feedback types are what students perceive as useful.
Feedback was viewed as positive if it was formative, showed approval of performance, and outlined what needed to be done to improve (Gamlem & Smith, 2013).
Feedback was viewed as negative if it came at the end of work with no opportunity to improve, or if the focus was on telling students what they should have done or that overall, they should have done better (Gamlem & Smith, 2013).
What makes feedback work?
It gives the information students want to know
It is detailed and informative
It is given in the context of a personal connection
Feedback works when...
It is iterative or dialogic and includes the opportunity to use it
Involves the student as active and ongoing participant
Give students what they want to know
Several studies showed a pattern of what information students seek in feedback, which is essentially an overall judgement, what was done well, what went wrong, and how to improve in the future (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Shute, 2008; Williams, 2010).
Beaumont et al. (2011) defined feedback as a system of guidance that focuses on two main elements: “judgement of a standard reached,” and “instructions for learning improvement” (p. 673).
Similarly, Van der Kleij et al. (2019) summarized effective feedback as conversations of “clarifying understandings and identifying next-step learning” (p. 321).
Essentially, feedback should answer the following questions for students:
1. How did I do?
2. What did I do well?
3. What did I do wrong?
4. How was my mark determined?
5. What can I do to improve next time?
One further note comes from Williams’s (2010) study of 8-year-old students that echoes the above findings, but further determined that oral feedback was preferred overall, and at least two of the young male participants deemed “lollies as being beneficial to feedback” (p. 311). One must never underestimate the importance of lollies, it seems.
Make it detailed and informative
The research conducted by Ryan et al. (2020) on the effectiveness of digitally recorded feedback on secondary students found that they were not only very interested in feedback in general, but also appreciated the increased level of description and detail given resulting from the use of a digital recording format.
The details and strategies shared by educators increased students’ understanding of the concepts and gave them confidence to improve (Ryan et al., 2020).
In two studies, the strongest desire from students was for more detail in the feedback, including strengths and weaknesses and a justification of the grade they achieved (Carless, 2019; Ryan et al., 2020).
A similar study examining the effectiveness of video feedback or ‘veedback’ on graduate students affirmed that through veedback, strengths and weakness on task performance provided more clarity for students as compared to non-video feedback (Sabbaghan, 2017).
Feedback is also better perceived by students if it is detailed, descriptive and clear, focusing on the student’s work rather than on themselves (Lipnevich & Smith, 2009).
Oh the humanity!
Feedback can also provide an avenue for students to feel valued and supported when the feedback has a personal element, thus increasing engagement and improving the relationship with the educator (Ryan et al., 2020).
Beaumont et al. (2011) conducted a study on 37 secondary students applying to universities and their perception of written and verbal feedback which found verbal was preferred by secondary students more than post-secondary students if it included reassurance and was provided as part of personal rather than clinical relationship.
Winstone, Nash & Parker et al. (2017) outlined the context, message, provider, and receiver as greatly influencing the feedback uptake process (Wood, 2020).
Student as active participant
A meta-review conducted by Van der Kleij et al. (2019) shows that historically, the student level of participation in feedback has expanded and evolved from “student as subject” (p. 319) in the information-processing paradigm of the past, to the communication model where students chose the actions to take regarding feedback, further broadening to the current “student as active participant” (p. 319) in feedback, a dialogic model that has become popular since 2010.
Figure 1
Feedback Typology
Figure 1 shows the Gamlem & Smith (2013) feedback typology (p. 162), updated from Tunstall and Gipps’ feedback typology (1996). It shows how feedback can move from low verbal interaction to passive recipient (Type A) to an active participant involving high verbal interaction (Type D).
Student Involvement in the Assessment Cycle
Van der Kleij et al. (2019) conducted a meta-study of the student role in feedback and found four role categories outlining how much the student was part of the process:
Figure 2
Categorisation of Student Role in Reviews
Figure 2 shows the progression of student involvment from no student role (Transmission model), limited student role (Information Processing model), some student role (Communication model), and substantial student role (Dialogic model). It summarizes the various student roles from receiver of information to active participant (Van der Kleij, 2019, p. 311).
Interestingly, the review found that "traditional conceptualizations of feedback," namely the Information Processing model where student has limited involvement, persists in shaping current assessment and drives "thinking within the field" despite the dialogic model gaining recent popularity (Van der Kleij, 2019, p. 319). This shows a distinct need to inform teachers of the importance of dialogic feedback but also share strategies and approaches that involve students in the assessment cycle. Research-based strategies will be explored in the next section of this website.
process:
Dialogic Feedback
Carless (2019) proposes a feedback framework on single-loop, double-loop and feedback spiral processes that focus on students making sense of the feedback and outlining potential action for improvement. Carless (2019) cites the feedback research of Boud and Malloy (2013) that supports less teacher-controlled feedback practices and “envisions greater student agency in closing feedback loops” (Carless, 2019, p. 707).
The findings of these studies show the value of showing students how to engage with assessment and work with feedback to improve performance.
Rust et al. (2003) present a compelling study that aligns with Beaumont et al.’s (2011) reference to dialogic feedback in figure 2 below. The study involved first-year post-secondary business students who participated in an intervention that involved explicit instruction on how to work with assessment criteria, view, discuss, and evaluate exemplars and sample assignments, as well as conduct a self-assessment of their feedback use.
After the intervention, the students not only improved in their coursework, but also showed both improved “individual and cohort performance both at the time and a year later” (p. 156).
Beaumont et al. (2011) implemented an intervention to increase feedback uptake in a study mentioned above that examined 37 secondary students who were applying to post-secondary institutions. The study found that regarding uptake, “dialogic feedback was most effective because it involves students most actively in the process” (Beaumont et al., 2011, p. 673).
Figure 3
Dialogic Feedback Cycle
Figure 3 demonstrates the stages of assessment feedback and how students can be involved in each step which include prepatory, in-task and performance feedback (Beaumont et al., 2011, p. 675).
Erkan et al. (2020) reinforces the idea that feedback practices can "fail to produce the expected impact on learning" when it's "implementation [is] a one-way transmission of diagnostic information where students play a passive role as the information receivers" (p. 586). They propose a dialogic peer feedback approach where students collaboratively engage in "meaning-making about feedback" (p. 587). Their theoretical framework involves three phases of collaborative discussion with peers: planning and coordination of feedback activities, discussion to support feedback uptake and converting feedback into "task engagement and progress" (p. 586).
Figure 4
Theoretical Framework of Collaborative Feedback
Figure 4 shows the three stages of the framework involving students providing, receiving and discussing feedback
Feedback Uptake
Having students participate, engage and interact with feedback increases the chances they will use it to improve learning. Wood (2020) endorses students being guided through "feedback uptake-oriented activities" to help them "develop feedback literacy" (p. 1173), especially since "feedback processes are only succesful is feedback information is used. In his conceptual article on feedback uptake, he proposes a technology mediated dialogic feedback model that supports the three processes outlined by Carless and Boud (2018) and Carless & Winstone (2020): the ability to appreciate or understand feedback, the ability to "make and refine evaluative jugements about what constititues quality" (p. 1174) and,the ability to manage the emotional implications of giving and receiving feedback (Wood, 2020). Wood's USM model (Understanding, Self-Assessment, and Motivation) seen in Figure 4 below, addresses each of these processes and improves feedback uptake through increased feedback literacy which is necessary since feedback literacy is a "pre-requisite for successful feedback engagement and uptake" (Wood, 2020, p. 1174).
The work of Malecka, Boud, and Carless (2020) supports the idea that "feedback literacy is developed through opportunities to engage in activities that support feedback engagement and uptake" (Wood, 2020, p. 1179).
Figure 5
USM Model of Dialogic Feedback
Figure 5 outlines the interconnected aspects of understanding, self-assessment and motivation (USM) of dialogic feedback needed in increase feedback literacy to support feedback uptake (Wood, 2020, p. 1180)
Summary
Feedback Works!
Overall, feedback is a formative assessment practice that improves student motivation, self-concept, self-efficacy, engagement, emotional well-being, and learning. Characteristics of feedback that positively impact students include feedback that is detailed and descriptive, given within the context of a personal connection, contains the information they seek, and is dialogic, involving the student as an active participant throughout the feedback cycle so they have a chance to use the feedback they receive.
bottom of page