Student perceptions of assessment feedback: a critical scoping review and call for research

Abstract

The potential of feedback to enhance students’ performance on a task, strategies, or learning has long been recognized in the literature. However, feedback needs to be utilized by a learner to realize its potential. Hence, examining student perceptions of feedback and their links to effective uptake of feedback has been the focus of much recent feedback research. This paper presents a critical scoping review of the feedback perceptions literature. The review discusses the methods employed by 164 studies published between 1987 and 2018 and synthesizes the main findings across this body of literature. Lacking theoretical frameworks, repetitiveness (not replicability) of studies, and methodological problems observed among the reviewed have resulted in somewhat disappointing conclusions. Based on the findings, we present a framework for future investigations into student perceptions of feedback and suggest several avenues for the future of the field.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. 1.

    Search string: ti(feedback) AND ab(perception*) OR ti(feedback) AND perspect*

References

References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the critical scoping review. The full list of reviewed studies is provided in the online supplementary section.

  1. Alqassab, M., & Panadero, E. (2020). Peer assessment. In S. M. Brookhart (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of education. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology: Theory and Practice, 8, 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, C.-L. C., Kulik, J. A., & Morgan, M. (1991). The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research, 61, 213–238. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543061002213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bayerlein, L. (2014). Students’ feedback preferences: how do students react to timely and automatically generated assessment feedback? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39, 916–931. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.870531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5, 7–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21, 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bloom, B. S. (1968). Learning for mastery. Evaluation Comment (UCLA-CSIEP), 1(2), 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bradley, M. T., & Gupta, R. D. (1997). Estimating the effect of the file drawer problem in meta-analysis. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 85(2), 719–722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Brown, G. (2011). Self-regulation of assessment beliefs and attitudes: a review of the students’ conceptions of assessment inventory. Educational Psychology, 31, 731–748. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2011.599836.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Brown, G. T. L., & Harris, L. R. (2018). Methods in feedback research. In A. Lipnevich & J. Smith (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of instructional feedback (Cambridge handbooks in psychology) (pp. 97–120). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316832134.021.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: a theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65, 245–281. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543065003245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. *Carless, D. (2006) Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in Higher Education 31, 219–233. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572132

  13. Carless, D. (2016). Feedback as dialogue. Encyclopedia of educational philosophy and theory, 1–6.

  14. *Chanock, K. (2000). Comments on essays: do students understand what tutors write? Teaching in Higher Education, 5, 95–105. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/135625100114984

  15. *Clark-Gordon, C. V., Bowman, N. D., Watts, E. R., Banks, J., & Knight, J. M. (2018). “As good as your word”: face-threat mitigation and the use of instructor nonverbal cues on students’ perceptions of digital feedback, Communication Education, 67, 206–225. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2018.1428759

  16. Creswell, J. W., & Guetterman, T. C. (2019). Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. New York: Addison Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  17. *Crimmins, G., Nash, G., Oprescu, F., Liebergreen, M., Turley, J., Bond, R., & Dayton, J. (2016). A written, reflective and dialogic strategy for assessment feedback that can enhance student/teacher relationships. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41, 141–153. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.986644

  18. *Douglas, T., Salter, S., Iglesias, M., Dowlman, M., & Eri, R. (2016). The feedback process: perspectives of first and second year undergraduate students in the disciplines of education, health science and nursing. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 13(1). Retrieved from: http://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol13/iss1/3

  19. *Eva, K. W., Armson, H., Holmboe, E., Lockyer, J., Loney, E., Mann, K., & Sargeant, J. (2012). Factors influencing responsiveness to feedback: on the interplay between fear, confidence, and reasoning processes. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 17, 15–26. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-011-9290-7

  20. Evans, J. S. B. (2010). Intuition and reasoning: a dual-process perspective. Psychological Inquiry, 21, 313–326. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2010.521057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. *Evans, C., & Waring, M. (2011). Student teacher assessment feedback preferences: the influence of cognitive styles and gender. Learning and Individual Differences, 26, 171–109. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.11.011

  22. Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2007). Educational research: an introduction (8th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.

  23. *Gamlem, S. M., & Smith, K. (2013). Student perceptions of classroom feedback. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 20, 150–169. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2012.749212

  24. Goetz, T., Bieg, M., Lüdtke, O., Pekrun, R., & Hall, N. C. (2013). Do girls really experience more anxiety in mathematics? Psychological Science, 24, 2079–2087. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613486989.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Goetz, T., Lipnevich, A., Krannich, M., & Gogol, K. (2018). Performance feedback and emotions. In A. Lipnevich & J. Smith (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of instructional feedback (Cambridge handbooks in psychology) (pp. 554–574). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316832134.027.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Goetz, T., Pekrun, R., Hall, N., & Haag, L. (2006). Academic emotions from a social-cognitive perspective: antecedents and domain specificity of students’ affect in the context of Latin instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 289–308. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709905X42860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Gough, D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (2012). An introduction to systematic reviews. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Guskey, T. (2018). Feedback, correctives, and the use of pre-assessments. In A. Lipnevich & J. Smith (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of instructional feedback (Cambridge handbooks in psychology) (pp. 432–450). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316832134.021.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Handley, K., Price, M., & Millar, J. (2011). Beyond “doing time”: investigating the concept of student engagement with feedback. Oxford Review of Education, 37, 543–560. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2011.604951.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Hargreaves, E. (2011). Teachers’ feedback to pupils: “like so many bottles thrown out to sea”? In R. Berry & B. Adamson (Eds.), Assessment reform in education: policy and practice (pp. 121–133). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  31. *Hargreaves, E. (2013). Inquiring into children’s experiences of teacher feedback: reconceptualising assessment for learning. Oxford Review of Education, 39, 229–246. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2013.787922

  32. *Harris, L. R., Brown, G. T. L., & Harnett, J. A. (2014). Understanding classroom feedback practices: a study of New Zealand student experiences, perceptions, and emotional responses. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 26, 107–133. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-013-9187-5

  33. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. *Havnes, A., Smith, K., Dysthe, O., & Ludvigsen, K. (2012). Formative assessment and feedback: making learning visible. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 38, 21–27. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2012.04.001

  36. Higher Education Funding Council for England. (2016). National student survey results 2016. Retrieved from http://www.hefce.ac.uk/lt/nss/results/2016/

  37. Joanna Briggs Institute. (2015). The Joanna Briggs institute reviewers’ manual 2015: Methodology for JBI scoping reviews (pp. 1–24). Joanne Briggs Institute.

  38. Jonsson, A. (2013). Facilitating productive use of feedback in higher education. Active Learning in Higher Education, 14, 63–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787412467125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Jonsson, A., & Panadero, E. (2018). Facilitating students’ active engagement with feedback. In A. Lipnevich & J. Smith (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of instructional feedback (Cambridge handbooks in psychology) (pp. 531–553). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316832134.026.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist, 58(9), 697–720. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.9.697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. *King, P. E., Schrodt, P., & Weisel, J. J. (2009). The Instructional Feedback Orientation Scale: conceptualizing and validating a new measure for assessing perceptions of instructional feedback. Communication Education, 58, 235–261. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520802515705

  42. Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: a historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Levinsson, M., & Prøitz, T. S. (2017). The (non-)use of configurative reviews in education. Education Inquiry, 8, 209–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2017.1297004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Lipnevich, A. A., Berg, D. A. G., & Smith, J. K. (2016). Toward a model of student response to feedback. In G. T. L. Brown & L. R. Harris (Eds.), The handbook of human and social conditions in assessment (pp. 169–185). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  45. *Lipnevich, A. A., & Smith, J. K. (2009). ‘I really need feedback to learn:’ students’ perspectives on the effectiveness of the differential feedback messages. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21, 347–367. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-009-9082-2.

  46. Lipnevich, A. A., & Smith, J. K. (Eds.). (2018). The Cambridge handbook of instructional feedback. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  47. *Mahfoodh, O. H. A., & Pandian, A. (2011). A qualitative case study of EFL students’ affective reactions to and perceptions of their teachers’ written feedback. English Language Teaching, 4(3), 14–25.

  48. *McGrath, A. L., Taylor, A., & Pychyl, T. A. (2011). Writing helpful feedback: the influence of feedback type on students’ perceptions and writing performance. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 2(2), 5. doi:https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2011.2.5

  49. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2007). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.

  50. Mory, E. H. (1996). Feedback research. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 919–956). New York, NY: Macmillan Library Reference USA.

    Google Scholar 

  51. *Murtagh, L. (2014). The motivational paradox of feedback: teacher and student perceptions. The Curriculum Journal, 25, 516–541. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2014.944197

  52. *Mustafa, R. F. (2012). Feedback on the feedback: sociocultural interpretation of Saudi ESL learners’ opinions about writing feedback. English Language Teaching, 5, 3–15. doi:https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n3p3

  53. *Nguyen, H. T., & Filipi, A. (2018). Multiple-draft/multiple-party feedback practices in an EFL tertiary writing course: teachers’ and students’ perspectives. International Education Studies, 11. doi:https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v11n8p1

  54. Nicol, D. (2013). Resituating feedback from the reactive to the proactive. In D. Boud & E. Molloy (Eds.), Feedback in higher and professional education (pp. 34–49). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Nijstad, B. A., & Stroebe, W. (2006). How the group affects the mind: a cognitive model of idea generation in groups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 186–213. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Nijstad, B. A., Stroebe, W., & Lodewijkx, H. F. (2003). Production blocking and idea generation: does blocking interfere with cognitive processes? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 531–548. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00040-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Panadero, E. (2016). Is it safe? Social, interpersonal, and human effects of peer assessment: a review and future directions. In G. T. L. Brown & L. R. Harris (Eds.), Handbook of social and human conditions in assessment (pp. 247–266). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Paulus, P. B., & Yang, H. (2000). Idea generation in groups: a basis for creativity in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 76–87. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2000.2888.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Peters, M., Godfrey, C., Khalil, H., McInerney, P., Parker, D., & Baldini Soares, C. (2015). Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 13, 141–146. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000050.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: a practical guide. Malden: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Pham, M. T., Rajić, A., Greig, J. D., Sargeant, J. M., Papadopoulos, A., & McEwen, S. A. (2014). A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Research Synthesis Methods, 5, 371–385. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. *Pitt, E., & Winstone, N. (2018). The impact of anonymous marking on students’ perceptions of fairness, feedback and relationships with lecturers. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43, 1183–1193. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1437594

  63. Quality Indicators for Learning and Teaching. (2017). 2016 Student experience survey national report. . https://www.qilt.edu.au/docs/default-source/gos-reports/2017/2016-ses-national-report-final.pdf?sfvrsn=14e0e33c_

  64. *Rakoczy, K., Harks, B., Klieme, E., Blum, W., & Hochweber, J. (2013). Written feedback in mathematics: mediated by students’ perception, moderated by goal orientation. Learning and Instruction, 27, 63–73. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.03.002

  65. Ramaprasad, A. (1983). On the definition of feedback. Behavioral Science, 28, 4–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830280103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Raosoft (2017), Accessed 18 October 2019, retrieved from [online] http://www.raosoft.com

  67. Roseman, I. J., Antoniou, A. A., & Jose, P. E. (1996). Appraisal determinants of emotions: constructing a more accurate and comprehensive theory. Cognition and Emotion, 10, 241–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/026999396380240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00117714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78, 153–189. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Smith, & Lipnevich. (2018). Instructional feedback: analysis, synthesis, and extrapolation. In A. Lipnevich & J. Smith (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of instructional feedback (Cambridge handbooks in psychology) (pp. 591–604). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316832134.021.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Smits, M., Boon, J., Sluijsmans, D. M. A., & Van Gog, T. (2008). Content and timing of feedback in a web-based learning environment: effects on learning as a function of prior knowledge. Interactive Learning Environments, 16, 183–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820701365952.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Thomson Reuters Endnote X7. (2013). Clarivate Analytics Endnote (version X7). [Computer software]. Philadelphia, PA: Clarivate Analytics Available from https://endnote.com/downloads/.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Torrance, H. (2012). Formative assessment at the crossroads: conformative, deformative and transformative assessment. Oxford Review of Education, 38, 323–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2012.689693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Van der Kleij, F. M., & Adie, L. E. (2020). Towards effective feedback: an investigation of teachers’ and students’ perceptions of oral feedback. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice. Advance online publication. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2020.1748871.

  75. Van der Kleij, F. M., Adie, L. E., & Cumming, J. J. (2019). A meta-review of the student role in feedback. International Journal of Educational Research, 98, 303–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2019.09.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Van der Kleij, F. M., Feskens, R. C. W., & Eggen, T. J. H. M. (2015). Effects of feedback in a computer-based learning environment on students’ learning outcomes: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 85, 475–511. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314564881.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Wellington, J. (2010). More than a matter of cognition: an exploration of affective writing problems of post-graduate students and their possible solutions. Teaching in Higher Education, 15, 135–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562511003619961.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. White, H. D. (1994). Scientific communication and literature retrieval. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 41–55). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Wiliam, D. (2019). Some reflections on the role of evidence in improving education. Educational Research and Evaluation, 1, 127–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2019.1617993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Winstone, N. E., Nash, R. A., Parker, M., & Rowntree, J. (2017). Supporting learners’ agentic engagement with feedback: a systematic review and a taxonomy of recipience processes. Educational Psychologist, 52, 17–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1207538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fabienne M. Van der Kleij.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 120 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Van der Kleij, F.M., Lipnevich, A.A. Student perceptions of assessment feedback: a critical scoping review and call for research. Educ Asse Eval Acc (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-020-09331-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Feedback
  • Student perceptions
  • Performance
  • Scoping review
  • Methodology