Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology pp 413–424Cite as

Feedback Models for Learning, Teaching and Performance

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

This chapter focuses on the role of feedback in learning with particular emphasis on its effect on learner performance, motivation and self-regulation. The authors provide a critical account of definitions and models of feedback, tease out the conceptual roots of practice guidelines and highlight how individual, relational and environmental factors can impact on the utility of feedback as a performance changing device. Many of the conceptual models published in the literature draw on theoretical principles rather than empirical data to support the impact of feedback on learning/performance change. The empirical data from a diverse range of disciplines converge to a common finding—that written and verbal feedback in practice deviates considerably from principles of effective practice. The reasons for this theory–practice disjunction are explored, and the authors suggest that the lack of adoption of advocated principles may represent a need to look at feedback in a different way.

A constructivist view on feedback encourages learners and educators to view feedback as a system of learning, rather than discreet episodes of educators “telling” learners about their performance. Highlighting the need for a shift in conceptual framework is not enough however. What is limited in the feedback literature is how to achieve feedback encounters that are typified by learner engagement. We argue that contesting the traditional, behaviourist “feedback ritual” requires leadership from educators, and a deliberate commitment to curricular redesign with purposeful and structured opportunities for learners to engage in feedback episodes, to put into place changes triggered by feedback and finally to re-evaluate performance in relation to set goals. Such a “system-orientated” take on feedback design requires upskilling of both educators and learners and needs to factor in the influence of context, culture and relationships in learning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   229.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Asghar, A. (2009). Reciprocal peer coaching and its use as a formative assessment strategy for first year students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(4), 403–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. (1993). From theory to practice: A cognitive systems approach. Higher Education Research and Development, 12, 73–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boud, D. (1995). Assessment and learning: Contradictory or complementary? In P. Knight (Ed.), Assessment for learning in higher education (pp. 35–48). London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Boud, D. (2000). Sustainable assessment: Rethinking assessment for the learning society. Studies in Continuing Education, 22(2), 151–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2007). Developing assessment for informing judgement. In D. Boud & N. Falchikov (Eds.), Rethinking assessment for higher education: Learning for the longer term (pp. 181–197). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, R. (1987). Task-involving and ego-involving properties of evaluation: Effects of different feedback conditions on motivational perceptions, interest and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(4), 210–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Butler, D., & Winne, P. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Carless, D., Salter, D., Yang, M., & Lam, J. (2010). Developing sustainable feedback practices. Studies in Higher Education, 36(1), 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C., & Brewer, W. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63, 1–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clariana, R., Wagner, B., & Roher Murphy, L. (2000). Applying a connectionist description of feedback timing. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dweck, C. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality and development. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ende, J. (1983). Feedback in clinical medical education. Journal of the American Medical Association, 250, 777–781.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ende, J., Pomerantz, A., & Erickson, F. (1995). Preceptors’ strategies for correcting residents in an ambulatory care medicine setting: A qualitative analysis. Academic Medicine, 70, 224–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falchikov, N. (2002). Learning together: Peer tutoring in higher education. London: Routledge and Palmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fantuzzo, J., & Riggio, R. (1989). Effects of reciprocal peer tutoring on academic achievement and psychological adjustment: A component analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(2), 173–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernando, N., Cleland, J., McKenzie, H., Cassar, K., Fernando, N., Cleland, J., et al. (2008). Identifying the factors that determine feedback given to undergraduate medical students following formative mini-CEX assessments. Medical Education, 42(1), 89–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harré, R., & Van Langenhove, L. (1999). Positioning theory. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J., Biggs, J., & Purdie, N. (1996). Effects of learning skills intervention on student learning: A meta-analysis. Review of Research in Education, 66, 99–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, P., Ferguson-Smith, A., & Johnson, M. (2005). Developing essential professional skills: A framework for teaching and learning about feedback. BMC Medical Education, 5, 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgs, J., Richardson, B., & Abrandt Dahlgren, M. (Eds.). (2004). Developing practice knowledge for health professionals. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higher Education Funding Council for England. (2011). The National Student Survey: Finding and Trends. 2006–2010. Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council for England.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hounsell, D. (2007). Towards more sustainable feedback to students. In D. Boud & N. Falchikov (Eds.), Rethinking assessment in higher education (pp. 101–13). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ilgen, D., & Davis, C. (2000). Bearing bad news: Reactions to negative performance feedback. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49, 550–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Kluger, A., & 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(2), 254–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kluger, A., & Nir, D. (2009). The feedforward interview. Human Resource Management Review, 20, 235–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kluger, A., & Van Dijk, D. (2010). Feedback, the various tasks of the doctor, and the feedforward alternative. Medical Education, 44, 1166–1174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krause, K., Hartley, R., James, R., & McInnis, C. (2005). The first year experience in Australian universities: Findings from a decade of national studies. Retrieved August 5, 2009, from http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/pdfs/FYEReport05KLK.pdf

  • Kulhavy, R., & Stock, W. (1989). Feedback in written instruction: The place of response certitude. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 279–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kulhavy, R., & Stock, W. (1989). Feedback in written instruction: The place of response certitude. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 279–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Kulik, J., & Kulik, C. (1988). Timing of feedback and verbal learning. Review of Educational Research, 58(1), 79–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ladyshewsky, R. (2010). Building competency in the novice allied health professional through peer coaching. Journal of Allied Health, 39(2), 77–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latting, J. (1992). Giving corrective feedback: A decisional analysis. Social Work, 37, 424–430.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, N., & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: The learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 279–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald, R. (1991). Developmental students’ processing of teacher feedback in composition instruction. Review of Research in Developmental Education, 8(5), n5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molloy, E. (2009). Time to pause: Feedback in clinical education, Chapter 8. In C. Delany & E. Molloy (Eds.), Clinical education in the health professions. Sydney: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molloy, E. (2010). The feedforward mechanism: A way forward in clinical learning? Medical Education, 44, 1157–1159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molloy, E., & Clarke, D. (2005). The positioning of physiotherapy students and clinical supervisors in feedback sessions. Focus on Health Professional Education, 7, 79–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mory, E. (2004). Feedback research revisited. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 745–783). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Narciss, S. (2008). Feedback strategies for interactive learning tasks. In M. Spector, M. Spector, D. David Merrill, J. van Merrienboer, M. Driscoll, & M. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 125–143). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicol, D. (2009). Assessment for learner self-regulation: Enhancing achievement in the first year using learning technologies. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(3), 335–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Nicol, D., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Donovan, B., Price, M., & Rust, C. (2008). Developing student understanding of assessment standards: A nested hierarchy of approaches. Teaching in Higher Education, 13(2), 205–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phye, G., & Sanders, C. (1994). Advice and feedback: Elements of practice for problem solving. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 286–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P., & Zusho, A. (2002). Student motivation and self-regulated learning in the college classroom. In J. C. Smart & W. G. Tierney (Eds.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. XVII). New York, NY: Agathon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poulos, A., & Mahony, M. (2008). Effectiveness of feedback: The students’ perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33, 143–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Price, M., Handley, K., Millar, J., & O’Donovan, B. (2010). Feedback: All that effort, but what is the effect? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(3), 277–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pritchard, R., Jones, S., Roth, P., Stuebing, K., & Ekeberg, S. (1988). Effects of group feedback, goal setting, and incentives on organizational productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(2), 337–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramaprasad, A. (1983). On the definition of feedback. Behavioral Science, 28, 4–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riordan, T., & Loacker, G. (2009). Collaborative and systemic assessment of student learning: From principles to practice. In G. Joughin (Ed.), Assessment, learning and judgement in higher education (pp. 175–192). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rorty, R. (1989). Contingency, irony and solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rust, C., Price, M., & O’Donovan, B. (2003). Improving students’ learning by developing their understanding of assessment criteria and processes. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(2), 147–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, D. (1983). Evaluation and the improvement of academic learning. Journal of Higher Education, 54(1), 60–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, D. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, D. (1998). Formative assessment: Revisiting the territory. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 77–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinclair, H. K., & Cleland, J. A. (2007). Undergraduate medical students: Who seeks formative feedback? Medical Education, 41, 580–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Shute, V. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiener, N. (1954). The human use of human beings: Cybernetics and society. Oxford: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yorke, M. (2003). Formative assessment in higher education: Moves towards theory and the enhancement of pedagogic practice. Higher Education, 45(4), 477–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Health Professions Education and Educational Research Unit, Monash University, Building 13C, Office G09, Clayton Campus, Melbourne, VIC, 3800, Australia

    Elizabeth K. Molloy Ph.D.

  2. University of Technology, Sydney, 123, Broadway Sydney, NSW, 2007, Australia

    David Boud Ph.D.

Authors
  1. Elizabeth K. Molloy Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David Boud Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elizabeth K. Molloy Ph.D. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Department of Learning Technologies, C, University of North Texas, North Elm 3940, Denton, 76207-7102, Texas, USA

    J. Michael Spector

  2. W. Sunset Blvd. 1812, St. George, 84770, Utah, USA

    M. David Merrill

  3. , Centr. Instructiepsychol.&-technologie, K.U. Leuven, Andreas Vesaliusstraat 2, Leuven, 3000, Belgium

    Jan Elen

  4. Research Drive, Iacocca A109 111, Bethlehem, 18015, Pennsylvania, USA

    M. J. Bishop

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Molloy, E.K., Boud, D. (2014). Feedback Models for Learning, Teaching and Performance. In: Spector, J., Merrill, M., Elen, J., Bishop, M. (eds) Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_33

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation