, Volume 62, Issue 6, pp 585–593 | Cite as

Defining the Learner Feedback Experience

  • Erin A. CrispEmail author
  • Curtis J. Bonk
Original Paper


A surge in the proliferation of educational technology tools and models means that postsecondary learners and instructional designers have more options than ever before. Selecting the most appropriate tool for a given learner-centered instructional situation is challenging. The construct of feedback is central to an effective learner-centered instructional design. The present summary of the research on feedback in learner-centered instructional design models provides a rationale for the value of defining the dimensions of a high-quality learner feedback experience. Six dimensions of feedback are proposed; namely, timeliness, frequency, distribution, source, individualization, and content. Key questions posed include whether an analysis of the learner’s feedback experience is a better proxy for measuring the quality in postsecondary online learning than grades, satisfaction, or regular and substantive contact.


Design Evaluation Feedback Higher education Implementation Instruction Learner-centered Postsecondary Technology 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Author A declares that he/she has no conflict of interest. Author B declares that he/she has no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.


  1. Adkins, S. (2016). 2015 International learning technology investment patterns. Ambient Insights, Monroe. Retrieved from
  2. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74. Scholar
  3. Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013). What is the problem with feedback? In Feedback in Higher and Professional Education (pp. 1–10). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, J., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42. Scholar
  5. Carey, K. (2016). The end of college: creating the future of learning and the University of Everywhere. New York: Riverhead Books.Google Scholar
  6. Dirlam, D. K. (2017). Teachers, learners, modes of practice: theory and methodology for identifying knowledge development. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Engle, J. (2016). Answering the call: Institutions and states lead the way toward better measures of postsecondary performance (p. 31). Washington, DC: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.Google Scholar
  8. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Francom, G. M. (2017). Principles for task-centered instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth, B. J. Beatty, & R. D. Myers (Eds.), Instructional-design theories and models (pp. 65–92). Hillsdale: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Fraser, B. J., Walberg, H. J., Welch, W. W., & Hattie, J. A. (1987). Syntheses of educational productivity research. International Journal of Educational Research, 11(2), 147–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gallagher, S. R. (2016). The future of university credentials: New developments at the intersection of higher education and hiring. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  12. Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2004). Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, (1). Retrieved from
  13. Harris, J. (2002). Brief history of American academic credit system: A recipe for incoherence in student learning (10). Retrieved from
  14. Hattie, J. (2015). The applicability of visible learning to higher education. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 1(1), 79–91. Scholar
  15. Jaehnig, W., & Miller, M. (2007). Feedback types in programmed instruction: A systematic review. The Psychological Record, 57, 219–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jarrett, J. (2013). Bigfoot, goldilocks, and moonshots: A report from the frontiers of personalized learning (pp. 31–40). EDUCAUSE Review. Retrieved from
  17. Jaschik, S. (2015). Well-prepared in their own eyes. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from Scholar
  18. Kalaitzidis, T. J., Litts, B., & Halverson, E. R. (2017). Designing collaborative production of digital media. In C. M. Reigeluth, B. J. Beatty, & R. D. Myers (Eds.), Instructional-design theories and models (pp. 173–204). Hillsdale: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Konert, J., Gobel, S., & Steinmetz, R. (2012). Toward social serious games. In Proceedings of the 6th European Conference on Games Based Learning (p. 653). Waterford Institute of Technology, Ireland: Thomson ISI.Google Scholar
  20. Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121–1134. Scholar
  22. Kulhavy, R. W. (1977). Feedback in written instruction. Review of Educational Research, 47(2), 211–232. Scholar
  23. Kulhavy, R. W., & Anderson, R. C. (1972). Delay-retention effect with multiple-choice tests. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63(5), 505–512. Scholar
  24. Kulik, C.-L. C., Kulik, J. A., & Bangert-Drowns, R. L. (1990). Effectiveness of mastery learning programs: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 60(2), 265–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Laitinen, A. (2012). Cracking the credit hour (Policy Paper) (p. 12). Washington, DC: New America Foundation.Google Scholar
  26. McGee, J. (2015). Breakpoint: The changing marketplace for higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  27. McKay, C., & Glazewski, K. D. (2017). Designing maker-based instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth, B. J. Beatty, & R. D. Myers (Eds.), Instructional-design theories and models (pp. 145–172). Hillsdale: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Merrill, M. D. (2013). First principles of instruction: Identifying and designing effective, efficient and engaging instruction. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.Google Scholar
  29. Myers, R. D., & Reigeluth, C. M. (2017). Designing games for learning. In C. M. Reigeluth, B. J. Beatty, & R. D. Myers (Eds.), Instructional-design theories and models (pp. 205–242). Hillsdale: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Pennebaker, J. W., Gosling, S. D., & Ferrell, J. D. (2013). Daily online testing in large classes: Boosting college performance while reducing achievement gaps. PLoS One, 8(11), e79774. Retrieved from
  31. Prensky, M. (2016). Education to better their world: Unleashing the power of 21st-century kids. New York: Teachers College Press. Google Scholar
  32. Prensky, M. (2017). A new paradigm of curriculum. In C. M. Reigeluth, B. J. Beatty, & R. D. Myers (Eds.), Instructional-design theories and models (pp. 121–139). Hillsdale: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Reigeluth, C. M., Beatty, B., & Myers, R. (2017). Instructional-design theories and models (Vol. IV). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  34. Reigeluth, C. M., Myers, R. D., & Lee, D. (2017). The learner-centered paradigm of education. In C. M. Reigeluth, B. J. Beatty, & R. D. Myers (Eds.), Instructional-design theories and models (pp. 5–32). Hillsdale: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Schaffhauser, D. (2014) Gates Foundation picks seven to vie for $20 million digital courseware investments. Campus Technology. Retrieved from$20-million-digital-courseware-investments.aspx.
  36. Selingo, J. J. (2013). College (un)bound: The future of higher education and what it means for students. Las Vegas: Amazon Publishing.Google Scholar
  37. Smith, P. L., & Dillon, C. L. (1999). Comparing distance learning and classroom learning: Conceptual considerations. American Journal of Distance Education, 13(2), 6–23. Scholar
  38. Straumsheim, C. (2015). Investments in ed-tech companies reach new high in first half of 2015. In Inside Higher Ed Retrieved from
  39. United States Department of Education (2017). Western Governors University was not eligible to participate in the title IV programs. (Office of Inspector General) (p. 93). Washington, DC. Retrieved from
  40. Voorhees, R. A., & Voorhees, A. B. (2017). Principles for competency based education. In C. M. Reigeluth, B. J. Beatty, & R. D. Myers (Eds.), Instructional-design theories and models (pp. 33–64). Hillsdale: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Watson, W. R., & Watson, S. L. (2017). Principles for personalized instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth, B. J. Beatty, & R. D. Myers (Eds.), Instructional-design theories and models (pp. 93–120). Hillsdale: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Zainuddin, Z., & Halili, S. H. (2016). Flipped classroom research and trends from different fields of study. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(3). Retrieved from

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications & Technology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Indiana Wesleyan UniversityMarionUSA
  2. 2.Instructional Systems Technology Department, School of Education: Room 4022Indiana University, BloomingtonBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations