See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/337698312

Student Perceptions of Feedback in Higher Education

Article in International Journal of Learning Teaching and Educational Research · November 2019
DOI: 10.26803/ijlter.18.11.3

CITATIONS READS

14 4,328

2 authors:

Jonathan Glazzard Samuel Stones

University of Hull Leeds Beckett University
134 PUBLICATIONS 818 CITATIONS 26 PUBLICATIONS 116 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Samuel Stones on 06 December 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 38

International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research

Vol. 18, No. 11, pp. 38-52, November 2019
https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.18.11.3

Student Perceptions of Feedback in Higher

Education

Jonathan Glazzard
Leeds Beckett University
Leeds, England

Samuel Stones
Leeds Beckett University
Leeds, England

Abstract. Text Feedback is critical to students’ academic development in

higher education. Despite this, evidence suggests that students do not
consistently engage with feedback or recognise the value of it. This
study explored student perceptions of feedback in one university in
England. Data were collected using focus groups. The results indicated
that the participants valued feedback that is detailed and personal. They
also demonstrated a preference for verbal feedback rather than written
feedback. Participants recognised the benefits and limitations of peer
feedback and there was evidence to suggest that participants valued the
judgements of their lecturers above those of their peers. The data
indicate that lecturers should utilise a range of feedback modes,
including face-to-face, verbal, written, audio and video feedback. The
study suggests that the use of written feedback in higher education may
not be effective because students may not engage effectively with it,
particularly if they achieve a high grade. Taking into consideration the
important role that feedback plays in promoting learning, it is vital that
modes of feedback are used which students are likely to engage with.
Given the fact that students have different preferences, it is therefore
suggested that lecturers utilise a variety of modes of feedback. The
limitation of this study was the small sample size and therefore the
results are not generalisable.

Keywords: feedback; assessment; higher education; university; grading.

1. Introduction
This study explored students’ perspectives of feedback in higher education. It
also identifies implications for effective feedback practices within this sector. In
England the outcomes from the National Student Survey (NSS) consistently
demonstrate negative student perceptions of their feedback at undergraduate
level (Boud & Molloy, 2012; Nicol, Thomson & Breslin, 2014). Yet despite this,

©2019 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

 39

feedback is considered an essential part of the learning process in higher

education. Institutions in the UK have responded by making efforts to enhance
the quality of feedback that is provided by lecturers by focusing on increasing
the level of detail and improving the clarity, structure, promptness and
relevance of the feedback that they provide to students. However, there is little
evidence to suggest that these enhancements have improved student satisfaction
ratings in UK surveys (Nicol, Thomson & Breslin, 2014).

2. Key literature
The literature explores the characteristics of effective feedback and students’
perspectives on specific modes of feedback. These themes relate to the research
questions which are identified later in this paper.

Research demonstrates that feedback plays a critical role in enhancing student

learning (Ramsden, 2003). Effective feedback is timely and appropriate
(Ramsden, 2003) and personalised to the student (Knight & Yorke, 2003). Timely
and constructive feedback enhances student learning (Gibbs & Simpson, 2004),
provided that students engage with it by addressing the identified targets to
support their academic development and performance in future assessments
(Boud, 2007). Feedback which does not identify generic aspects for students’
academic development or feedback which is delivered too late is often perceived
by students as being less useful and is rarely actioned in subsequent assessments
(Bevan, Badge & Cann, 2008; Weaver, 2006).

The challenge for academics, it seems, is to get students to engage with feedback
because this is critical to successful student learning and achievement (Price,
Handley & Millar, 2010). Regardless, research suggests that students do not
always use their feedback to improve their future work (King, McGugan &
Bunyan, 2008). However, it cannot be assumed that students know how to
engage with, and learn from, feedback (Thompson & Lee, 2012). Research
suggests that students are more likely to learn from feedback if they analyse it,
reflect on it, ask questions about it and make connections with prior feedback
(Price, Handley & Millar, 2011).

Students should understand the assessment rationale and criteria to successfully

engage with feedback (Duncan, 2007). Hounsell (1997) stated that the feedback
provided by lecturers often does not lead to improvements as students find that
it does not connect to the assessment criteria. Research also suggests that when
students do not understand the assessment criteria, they are less likely to
produce good quality work (MacLellan, 2001). Therefore, to address this issue
Nicol (2010) proposes strategies. Examples include analysing assessments
completed by previous cohorts of students, identifying how well the assessment
criteria have been addressed and pinpointing the strengths and weaknesses of
the work. To help students succeed in future assessments lecturers should
provide feedback to address future development by including feed forward
(Garrison & Anderson, 2003; Price, Handley & Millar, 2010). Feed forward can
include looking at draft versions of students’ work, thus providing students

©2019 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

 40

with opportunities to learn from formative feedback prior to submitting a

summative assessment (Wheatley, McInch, Fleming & Lord, 2015).

Feedback is usually provided in a written format, which students find useful,

especially when it is word processed and easy to read (Hepplestone & Chikwa,
2014). One way of actively engaging students in written feedback is through
peer review (Cartney, 2010). Peer review provides opportunities for students to
evaluate and make judgements about their peers’ work using either a written or
verbal commentary (Nicol, Thomson & Breslin, 2014). Research on peer feedback
is largely positive, with students identifying peer feedback as more
comprehensible and helpful than lecturer feedback (Falchikov, 2005). Peer
feedback generally takes a non-directive approach in which students make
comments relating to the general strengths and weaknesses of the work of their
peers (Nicol, Thomson & Breslin, 2014). Students have also stated that the
process of evaluating their peers’ work triggers a reflective process for
themselves, allowing them to use the feedback they have generated for others to
update their own thinking and assessments (Nicol, Thomson & Breslin, 2014).
This supports Cowan (2010) who has argued that the ability to make judgements
of the work of others and produce a written evaluation of that work is a key skill
that underpins critical thinking and reflective capabilities. It is also a key
professional skill in the workplace.

Although most feedback is provided in a written format, feedback can take a

variety of forms including dialogic, audio and video modes. Nicol (2010) has
expressed concerns about the marginalisation of dialogic feedback in higher
education, with written feedback being more common. Despite being time-
consuming, dialogic feedback can facilitate negotiation, clarify confusions and
create discussion (Yang & Carless, 2013). Feedback dialogues have been
described as collaborative discussions between lecturers and students or
between students in relation to a piece of feedback, which facilitate a shared
understanding of the feedback and the points for subsequent academic
development (Blair & McGinty, 2013). Research has consistently emphasised the
importance of dialogic feedback to improve student learning (Black & Wiliam,
1998). Blair & McGinty (2013) found that students valued being able to discuss
feedback in one-to-one tutorials with a lecturer. These opportunities enable
students to ask questions, clarify their understanding and seek clarification. In
these instances, it is important for lecturers to communicate clearly with
students by explaining any content or assessment-related terminology (Clark &
Rimmershaw, 2000). Blair and McGinty (2013) introduced the concept of
‘feedback negotiation’, a two-way discussion between a lecturer and a student,
which reduces the power imbalances that are usually evident. Although
students are often happy for lecturers for be in control of feedback (Blair &
McGinty, 2013), it is important for students to take greater ownership of their
feedback during these discussions. Social constructivist approaches to
assessment are not new (Barr & Tagg, 1995). However, only recently are they
beginning to have an effect on feedback practices and there is still a gap in the
literature in relation to students’ perspectives on dialogic feedback (Blair &
McGinty, 2013).

©2019 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

 41

There is a growing interest in the use of audio feedback in higher education

(Morris & Chikwa, 2016). The use of technology creates an innovative
opportunity to provide students with different modes of feedback (Evans, 2013).
Merry and Orsmond (2008) reported that students find audio feedback easier to
understand and more genuine. This supports Lunt and Curran (2009) who
found that students are up to ten times more likely to open an audio file than
read written feedback. There are perceived benefits to audio feedback in
comparison with written feedback, including the ability to provide more
detailed and personalised feedback (King, McGugan & Bunyan, 2008;
McCullagh, 2011) through the mode of audio.

More recently, research has started to investigate the use of video as a means of
providing individual and personal feedback (Turner & West, 2013). Crook et al
(2012) examined student perspectives of video feedback and found that a
significant number of students felt that video feedback increased their
understanding of the feedback provided (Thompson & Lee, 2012). Video
feedback provides opportunities for students to listen at their own pace, recap
important parts and evaluate their assessed work (Brick & Holmes, 2008). West
and Turner (2016) found that nearly three times as many respondents preferred
video feedback in comparison with written feedback. This supports Turner and
West (2013) who explored final year undergraduate students’ perspectives of
feedback. They found that although first year students preferred written
feedback, final year students demonstrated a stronger preference for video
feedback. Video feedback does not provide dialogic exchanges, but West and
Turner (2016) found that students perceived it to represent a dialogue with their
lecturer, thus providing insight into how they achieved their grade. Video
feedback contains a combination of audio and visual modalities, thus supporting
an inclusive approach (Kerr & McLaughlin, 2008).

Despite the various formats that feedback can come in, how the student
interprets and goes on to address the feedback is critical, as is the effect of
feedback on their psychological state (Poulos & Mahony, 2008). Research
demonstrates that students prefer feedback that boosts their confidence and self-
esteem (Boud, 2007). Feedback which is interpreted to be critical rather than
developmental can have a detrimental effect on students’ motivation and self-
confidence (Dempsey, Driscoll & Litchfield, 1993). The impact of feedback on
students’ self-efficacy is also important (Hattie & Timperley, 2007) and the less
students believe in themselves, the more feedback they require (Knight & Yorke,
2003). Kluger and DiNisi (1996) found that both positive and negative feedback
can be beneficial to learning. However negative feedback can be more powerful
(Hattie and Timperley, 2007) than feedback which is too positive (Brunit,
Huguet & Monteil, 2000). Research demonstrates that unclear feedback that fails
to clearly specify how students did not meet the assessment criteria can
exacerbate negative outcomes and lead to poor future performance (Thompson
& Richardson, 2001).

©2019 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

 42

Research suggests that feedback is within the top ten influences of learning
(Hattie, 2009), and different forms of feedback can influence learning in various
ways. It is important that no matter what format feedback is given in, that there
are opportunities for feed forward (Morris & Chikwa, 2016). Overall, research
which examines students’ perspectives of feedback is limited (Poulos & Mahony,
2008). Therefore, this study explores students’ perspectives of feedback within
one higher education institution.

This study explored the following research questions:

 What were participants’ perspectives of specific modes of feedback?
 How well did participants engage with feedback to support their
academic development?
 How do participants characterise effective feedback?

3. Method
Focus groups were used to collect the data in one UK higher education
institution. Ethical approval was gained using the institutional process. Seven
undergraduate final year students were recruited to participate in the study. All
participants were studying a teacher education programme in primary
education which led to the award of qualified teacher status. All participants
were female and aged 20-25. No males were studying this course. Participants
provided informed consent and were assured of their right to anonymity. Two
focus groups were conducted, each lasting 20 minutes in duration. The focus
groups were recorded and digitally transcribed in line with Jefferson’s (1984)
transcription conventions. The audio files and transcriptions were stored
securely on a password protected electronic cloud. The data were subsequently
analysed using thematic analysis by following Braun and Clarke’s (2006) steps of
thematic analysis. The interview questions are shown in the appendix.

4. Results
Following the guidelines of Braun and Clarke (2006), the data were analysed.
The analysis led to the development of an overarching theme: ‘The use of
feedback in higher education’, as well as four interpretive themes. A list of the
themes and codes are shown in table 1 below.

Table 1: Themes and codes

The use of feedback in higher education
Interpretive theme Descriptive codes
Type of feedback Verbal feedback
Written feedback
Principles of feedback Components of good feedback
Personal impacts of feedback
Peer feedback Positive considerations
Lecturer knows best
“I think it’s a waste of time”
Future development “There’s still room for improvement”
Proactive approach
Course external support
Student recommendations

©2019 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

 43

Type of feedback
There are now many alternative types of feedback used within higher education,
including video and audio modes. However, the participants stated that they
had not experienced these modes during their three years of study:

Verbal feedback
Verbal feedback is a widely used approach in higher education. Research
suggests that verbal feedback is more personal than written feedback. The
participants stated that they generally favoured verbal feedback to written
feedback because it was more personal:

“It’s more personal as well so you know they’ve not just written that on
everybody’s feedback” [Participant 3; Focus Group 1].

For each participant, the work that they produced was ‘special’ to them as they
have invested time and effort into producing an individual piece of work.
Consequently, they sought personalised, detailed feedback rather than generic,
brief feedback. They expected the lecturer to invest the same degree of effort and
time when assessing their work as they had invested in producing it:

“I think well I have worked hard, so why shouldn’t they work hard and
put in the same effort when marking?” [Participant 4; Focus Group
2].

“I expect the feedback to relate to my work, my ideas, my arguments and

my content.” [Participant 1; Focus Group 1].

Written feedback
The participants in the study described disliking written feedback in comparison
with verbal feedback:

“Sometimes, when you get written feedback you can read it and
completely misunderstand it. Sometimes you get the opposite meaning
to that which was intended.” [Participant 1; Focus Group 1].

In addition, the students disliked receiving their feedback online:

“I don’t like it being online. I never ‘get’ it” [Participant 4; Focus

Group 2].

“It’s easier if you can go and collect it and then at least you’ve got it on
paper” [Participant 1; Focus Group 2].

Principles of feedback
This theme considers aspects that are important for feedback in higher
education. It presents the participants’ perspectives on ‘good’ feedback, as well
as the personal influences that feedback can have.

©2019 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

 44

Principles of good feedback

Participants characterised ‘good’ feedback as providing detailed comments on
their work:

“More in depth…not just a small sentence” [Participant 2; Focus

Group 2].

“Give an example of how you could do it better” [Participant 3; Focus

Group 2].

Participants stated that advice on how they might improve a piece of work was
important:

“Some tips for improvement like what we could do to improve”

[Participant 1; Focus Group 2].

“It’d be nice to have an opportunity to ask the lecturer questions about

the feedback…and say what would you suggest, looking at the feedback?
What pointers would you give me in terms of this feedback comment?”
[Participant 1; Focus Group 1].

Knowing how to use the feedback to make improvements is a difficult task for
many students. However, being provided with feedback that focuses on the
mistakes that were made, with no further guidance, will not help students
improve their work. Therefore, providing advice and guidelines on how to
improve can help students to identify the standard that they are currently
achieving, as well as developing their assessment literacy of the standard they
need to achieve to gain a higher grade in subsequent assessments. Students can
then address the guidance in the feedback to make improvements on future
work.

Personal impacts of feedback

This descriptive code examines the impact of feedback on participants. One
participant described the beneficial effects of feedback:

“I think it has a positive impact for me because I’ve used feedback and
developed my referencing a lot more” [Participant 3; Focus Group 1].

Some participants explained how their willingness to act on feedback was

dependent on how well they had performed in the assessment:

“Although I might get upset, I think I take it [feedback] on board more if

I’ve got a low grade” [Participant 2; Focus Group 2].

©2019 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

 45

“Sometimes it is clear that I have not understood the assessment task

and then I get negative feedback and I don’t read it” [Participant 2;
Focus Group 2].

“Sometimes I get annoyed when I get 68% because I wanted to get 70%
but I did not know what I needed to do to get over that grade boundary”
[Participant 3; Focus Group 1].

Participants described the use of grades as a motivator. They also described how
the practice of assigning grades impacted on their sense of self and their
resilience:

“No matter how you feel it went you never look at the feedback first, you
always look at the grade. If I get a low grade, I feel crushed.”
[Participant 2; Focus Group 1].

“Once I got 48% and I thought to myself I’m never going to be able to
do any better in this subject.”[Participant 1; Focus Group 1].

‘If I get a low grade in an assignment, I don’t feel like trying next time.
It knocks my confidence.” [Participant 3; Focus Group 2].

‘When I get a high grade, I don’t read the feedback. What is the point? I
have already got a first.” [Participant 3; Focus Group 1].

Some participants indicated that the grade takes a higher priority than the
feedback provided. Some suggested that poor performance damaged their
confidence, but also identified how high-performance on assessments can also
result in lack of engagement with feedback. This can have a detrimental impact
on their subsequent academic development.

Peer feedback
The use of peer feedback is a common strategy within higher education. It
provides students with the opportunity to offer constructive comments to their
peers by identifying strengths and weaknesses in their work. The participants
demonstrated mixed views on peer feedback:

Positive considerations
Participants discussed how peer feedback can support their academic
development:

“I think what’s nice is obviously they’re in your shoes but they can give
you ideas” [Participant 1; Focus Group 1].

“It makes you think, “Well what can I use in my essay that I haven’t?””
[Participant 3; Focus Group 1].

Participants also described the non-threatening nature of peer feedback:

©2019 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

 46

“It almost takes the pressure off things because you know it’s somebody
else who’s in your position” [Participant 2; Focus Group 1].

Being able to discuss the work with someone who is on the same level removes
the barriers that students may feel when they want to discuss feedback with a
lecturer. As the students are all completing the same assessment task, they can
discuss any issues amongst each other, which can support the development of
good team working and social connectivity.

Lecturer knows best

Some participants emphasised the importance of lecturers providing the
feedback rather than receiving feedback from their peers:

“They [lecturer] obviously know what they’re doing…they’ve read

thousands of assignments so they know what’s good and what’s not”
[Participant 1; Focus Group 2].

“I think it’s nice though to do it [peer feedback]. The lecturer can then go
through it with us and usually they’re kind of clarifying what maybe
your peer said” [Participant 1; Focus Group 2].

The lecturer was viewed as an expert within the field and some participants
sought lecturer validation before making important changes to their work. Some
participants sought validation from someone who they considered to be a
reliable source rather than their peers.

“I think it’s a waste of time” [Participant 2; Focus Group 2].

“We’re peer marking each other’s and no one knew whether the other
person was right” [Participant 2; Focus Group 2].

“I wouldn’t look at it if someone’s peer assessed mine because they don’t

know what they’re doing either” [Participant 4; Focus Group 2].

Future academic development

Participants’ described the role of feedback in promoting further academic
development.

“There’s still room for improvement” [Participant 2; Focus Group 1].

“Even if you get a really good mark there’s still room for improvement”
[Participant 3; Focus Group 1].

“I think when you do something wrong it kind of stays in your head and
then next time you know not to do it again” [Participant 4; Focus
Group 2].

©2019 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

 47

“I have got better at it [referencing] and from the feedback I got…so

yeah it does help” [Participant 2; Focus Group 2].

These participants recognised how feedback had been useful in shaping their
subsequent academic development. However, some also recognised the need to
be more proactive by addressing the points for improvement that had been
identified by the marker:

“I think it’s more of a proactive approach…it’s something that you can

do and act upon that’ll benefit you in the future” [Participant 3; Focus
Group 1].

“If you look at your positives you think, oh I did that really well but that
bit needs to be improved. You can then use the feedback in your next
assignment” [Participant 1; Focus Group 1].

To support future improvements some participants valued the support they

could gain from others outside of their course:

“I tend to make appointments with the academic skills advisers and we

look through the feedback. I ask, how can I act upon it? so then it’s more
of a practical approach…It’s a completely neutral person who is not a
part of our course, which helps” [Participant 3; Focus Group 1].

Participants suggested ways in which their lecturers can support their future
academic development:

“It’d be nice to have drop in sessions as well after feedback is provided”

[Participant 1; Focus Group 2].

“For them to actually annotate your assignment…rather than just

having a big summary at the end” [Participant 4; Focus Group 2].

5. Discussion
This study sought to consider students’ perspectives of their feedback within a
higher education institution in the UK. Conducting thematic analysis identified
four interpretive themes: type of feedback, principles of feedback, peer feedback
and future development, with the overarching theme being ‘Types of feedback
in higher education’. The conclusion taken from the analysis showed that the
participants held strong views about feedback, with a mixture of positive and
negative perspectives demonstrated.

The findings of this research suggest that students showed a preference for
verbal feedback over written feedback. Students perceived verbal feedback to be
more personal than written feedback. Participants felt that verbal feedback was
more detailed than written feedback. Regardless of the mode of feedback,

©2019 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

 48

participants indicated a strong preference for feedback which was personal

rather than generic and they expressed a preference for detailed feedback. They
expected their lecturers to invest the same amount of effort into formulating
feedback comments as they had invested in the assignment. They also valued
opportunities to discuss their feedback with their lecturer. The perspectives of
the participants align with the findings of research by Price, Handley and Millar
(2011) who found that students need opportunities to discuss the feedback and
ask questions. Some participants stated that receiving a high grade could result
in them not using the feedback to support their subsequent academic
development. However, if they received a low grade, they were more likely to
make greater use their feedback to ensure that they did not repeat their
mistakes.

The research also considered the participants’ perspectives on peer feedback. In

relation to peer feedback their views were mixed. Although peer feedback
provided some participants with valuable opportunities to share suggestions for
improvement, some preferred to get feedback from their lecturer due to the
perceived expertise and experience of the lecturer.

Regardless of the modes of feedback, there are important implications arising

from this research. Participants were more likely to not engage with the
feedback if they had not understood the assignment task or if it became clear to
them that they had not understood the expected standards required to achieve
specific grades. This demonstrates the need to develop students’ assessment
literacy skills prior to asking them to complete an assignment.

It is critical that students understand what the assessment task is asking them to
do. Lecturers can facilitate this by providing a verbal briefing in class to outline
the requirements of the assessment task. This can then be supplemented with an
online video in which the lecturer outlines the requirements of the assignment.
Students can then view this in their personal time. The value of using video is
that students can replay the video several times, particularly when they are
working on the assignment. In addition, the video becomes a permeant resource
which students can then access.

There are other ways of ensuring that students fully understand the
requirements of a specific assessment task. Providing students with writing
frames which outline the specific sections of an assignment can be helpful in the
early stages of an undergraduate degree. However, it is important that students
do not become dependent upon these and that they do not stifle students’
autonomy or creativity. As students progress through their degrees the writing
frame should be gradually removed to facilitate student independence and to
enable students to demonstrate that they are capable of interpreting an
assessment task. In addition, providing students with exemplars of an
assessment task is a particularly helpful way of demonstrating to students the
requirements of a specific assignment and the expected standard they need to
achieve but their use should not foster a dependency culture which restricts
independent thinking.

©2019 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

 49

It is critical that students understand the standards that need to be demonstrated

to achieve specific grades. This process should aim to make explicit the
standards that students must demonstrate to achieve specific outcomes.
Therefore, making explicit the requirements of an assessment task is not
sufficient in itself. Students need to have clarity not only on the content of the
task but also in relation to the standards that they must demonstrate to achieve
particular grades.

Developing students’ assessment literacy can be facilitated by ‘unpacking’ the

assessment criteria with them. Assessment criteria in higher education tend to be
vague and expressed in unhelpful academic jargon. This means that students are
often unable to use the criteria in any meaningful way to achieve the grade that
they are aiming to achieve. Lecturers can facilitate this by contextualising
generic assessment criteria for specific assignments so that students understand
precisely what they need to do in an assignment to achieve a particular
standard. Making explicit the standards to students can also be facilitated by
sharing exemplars of assignments which represent different standards and
asking students to apply the assessment criteria to these to identify the grade
which was achieved. If students have the opportunity to actively engage with
assessment criteria prior to completing an assignment, they are more likely to
utilise the assessment criteria when they work on their own assignment prior to
submission.

These suggested pedagogical approaches position students as active agents in

the process of assessment and reflect a social constructivist approach to
assessment. Assessment in higher education needs to be reconceptualised so that
students are active partners in the design of assessment tasks, assessment criteria
and the process of applying the assessment criteria to evaluate work.
Developing students’ assessment literacy skills will enable them to work on their
assessment tasks in an informed way rather than working on them blind. Once
they fully understand the requirements of the task, the assessment criteria and
the expected standards that they are aiming to achieve students have greater
assessment literacy and are therefore more likely to achieve a higher standard.

6. Conclusions
The study supports existing research on student feedback in higher education.
Overall research that considers students’ perspectives of feedback is thin and so
this study makes a distinct contribution to the field (Poulos & Mahony, 2008).
The study suggests that there is value in lecturers providing students with
verbal feedback, although implementing this strategy on courses with large
numbers of students in unlikely to be straightforward. In this case course teams
should consider providing audio feedback instead of written feedback when
marking work electronically. Opportunities for students to discuss feedback
with lecturers can support students’ academic development by providing them
with an opportunity to ask questions and clarify their understanding. Regardless
of mode of feedback, it would appear that the students assigned value to

©2019 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

 50

feedback which is detailed and personalised rather than generic forms of

feedback and therefore this has important implications for higher education
pedagogy. This study has a small sample size, and therefore the results cannot
be generalised beyond its sample. Future research in this area should examine
this aspect of pedagogy on a larger scale to aid generalisability of the findings.

References
Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning – a new paradigm for
undergraduate education. Change, 27, 12-25.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.1995.10544672
Bevan, R., Badge, J., & Cann, A. (2008). Seeing eye-to-eye? Staff and student views on
feedback. Bioscience Education, 12(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.3108/beej.12.1
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in
Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 5(1), 7-74.
Blair, A. A., & McGinty, S. (2013). Feedback-dialogues: exploring the student
perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(4), 466-476.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2011.649244
Boud, D. (2007). Reframing assessment as if learning were important. In D. Boud & N.
Falchikov. (Eds.) Rethinking assessment in higher education: Learning for the longer
term. 14-25. London: Routledge.
Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2012). Rethinking models of feedback for learning: The challenge
of design. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38, 698–712.
https://doi.org/10.1080/ 02602938.2012.691462
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative
Research in Psychology, 14, 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Brick, B., & Holmes, J. (2008). Using screen capture software for student feedback:
Towards a methodology. Paper presented at the IADIS International Conference on
Cognition and Explanatory Learning in Digital Age (CELDA 2008), Freiburg,
Germany.
Brunit, S., Huguet, P., & Monteil, J. M. (2000). Performance feedback and self-focused
attention in the classroom: When past and present interact. Social Psychology of
Education, 3, 277-293.
Cartney, P. (2010). “Exploring the Use of Peer Assessment as a Vehicle for Closing the
Gap Between Feedback Given and Feedback Used.” Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education, 35(5), 551-564. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602931003632381
Cowan, J. (2010). “Developing the Ability for Making Evaluative Judgements.” Teaching
in Higher Education, 15(3), 323-334. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510903560036
Crook, A., Mauchline, A., Maw, S., Lawson, C., Drinkwater, R., Lundqvist, K., & Park, J.
(2012). The use of video technology for providing feedback to students: Can it
enhance the feedback experience for staff and students? Computers & Education,
58, 386-396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.025
Dempsey, V. J., Driscoll, M. P., & Litchfield, B. C. (1993). “Feedback, retention,
discrimination, error and feedback study time.”. Journal of Research on Computing
in Education, 25(3), 303-326. https://doi.org/10.1080/08886504.1993.10782053
Duncan, N. (2007). Feed-forward: Improving students’ use of tutors’ comments.
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 32. 271-283.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930600896498
Evans, C. (2013). Making sense of assessment feedback in higher education. Review of
Educational Research, 83, 70-120. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312474350

©2019 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

 51

Falchikov, N. (2005). Improving Assessment through Student Involvement. London:

Routledge-Falmer.
Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-Learning in the 21st century: A framework for
research and practice. London, UK: Routledge/Falmer.
Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2004). Conditions under which assessment supports learning.
Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1(1), 3-31.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research,
77(1), 81-112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
Hattie, J. A. C. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of 800+ meta-analyses on achievement.
Oxford, UK, Routledge.
Hepplestone, S., & Chikwa, G. (2014). Understanding how students process and use
feedback to support their learning. Practitioner Research in Higher Education, 8(1),
41-53.
Hounsell, D. (1997). “Contrasting Conceptions of Essay-Writing.” In The Experience of
Learning, edited by F. Marton, D. Hounsell & N. Entwistle. 106-125. Edinburgh:
Scottish Academic Press.
Ivanic, R., Clark, R., & Rimmershaw, R. (2000). What am I supposed to make of this?
The messages conveyed to students by tutors’ written comments. In Student
writing in higher education. New Contexts, ed. M. R. Lea and B. Stierer. 47-65.
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Jefferson, G. (1984). Transcript Potation. In Structures of Social Action: Studies in
Conversation Analysis, eds. J Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage, IX XVI.
Kerr, W., & McLaughlin, P. (2008). The benefit of screen recorded summaries in feedback
for work submitted electronically. In F. Khandia (Ed.), 12th CAA International
Computer Assisted Assessment Conference: Proceedings of the Conference, 2008
(pp.153-168). Loughborough: Loughborough University.
King, D., McGugan, S., & Bunyan, N. (2008). Does it make a difference? Replacing text
with audio feedback. Practice and Evidence of scholarship of Teaching and Learning
in Higher Education, 3(2), 145-163.
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(2), 254-284. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-
2909.119.2.254.
Knight, P., & M. Yorke. (2003). Assessment, learning and employability. Maidenhead, UK:
SRHE/Open University Press.
Lunt, T., & Curran, J. (2009). Are you listening please? The advantages of electronic
audio feedback compared to written feedback. Assessment Evaluation in Higher
Education, 35(7), 759-769. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930902977772
MacLellan, E. (2001). “Assessment for Learning: The Differing Perceptions of Tutors and
Students.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(4), 307-318.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930120063466.
McCullagh, C. (2011). Talking about writing: Exploring the use of audio feedback in EAP
writing classes, media-enhanced feedback case studies and methods. In
Proceedings of the media-enhanced feedback event. Sheffield, 2010, pp. 2-16. Retrieved
from: http://ppp.chester.ac.uk/images/archive/4/43/20110329150
219!Middleton-Media-enhanced_feedback_proceedings-final.pdf
Merry, S., & Orsmond, P. (2008). Students’ attitudes to and usage of academic feedback
provided via audio files. Bioscience Education, 11(3), 1-11.
https://doi.org/10.3108/beej.11.3
Morris, C., & Chikwa, G. (2016). Audio versus written feedback: Exploring learners’
preference and the impact of feedback format on students’ academic

©2019 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

 52

performance. Active Learning in Higher Education, 17(2), 125-137.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787416637482
Nicol, D. (2010). “From Monologue to Dialogue: Improving Written Feedback in Mass
Higher Education.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 501-517.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602931003786559
Nicol, D., Thomson, A., & Breslin, C. (2014). Rethinking feedback practices in higher
education: a peer review perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education, 39(1), 102-122. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.795518.
Poulos, A., & Mahony, M. J. (2008). Effectiveness of feedback: The students' perspective.
Assessment & Evaluation In Higher Education, 33(2), 143-154.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930601127869
Price, M., Handley, K., & Millar, J. (2010). Feedback all that effort but what is the effect?
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(3), 277-289.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930903541007
Price, M., Handley, K., & Millar, J. (2011). “Feedback: Focusing Attention on
Engagement.” Studies in Higher Education, 36,(8), 879-896.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2010.483513
Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge/Falmer.
Thompson, T., & Richardson, A. (2001). Self-handicapping status, claimed self-handicaps
and reduced practice effort following success and failure feedback. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 151-170.
https://doi.org/10.1348/000709901158442
Thompson. R., & Lee, M. J. (2012). Talking with students through screen casting:
Experimentations with video feedback to improve student learning. Journal of
Interactive Technology and Pedagogy. Retrieved from:
http://jitp.commons.gc.cuny.edu/2012/talking-with-students-
throughscreencasting-experimentationswith-video-feedback-to-improve-
studentlearning/
Turner, W., & West, J. (2013). Assessment for ‘digital first language’ speakers: Online
video assessment and feedback in higher education. International Journal of
Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 25, 288-296.
Weaver, M. R. (2006). Do students value feedback? Student perceptions of tutors’ written
responses. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(3), 379-394.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930500353061
West, J., & Turner, W. (2016). Enhancing the assessment experience: Improving student
perceptions engagement and understanding using online video feedback.
Innovations In Education And Teaching International, 53(4), 400-410.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2014.1003954
Wheatley, L. I., McInch, A. A., Flemind, S. S., & Lord, R. R. (2015). Feeding back to feed
forward: Formative assessment as a platform for effective learning. Kentucky
Journal of Higher Education Policy & Practice, 3(2), 34-63.
Yang, M., & Carless, D. (2013). The feedback triangle and the enhancement of dialogic
feedback processes. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(3), 285-295.

©2019 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

View publication stats