Search

Praise and criticism have long been reported as central feedback designs in academic writing, yet their relative influences on students' reception have not been fully investigated. This study employed six feedback statements (2 valences * 3 writing areas) and collected students' (N = 56) ratings of each statement's perceived comprehension and usefulness. The results showed that while both feedback valences were well understood, praise was rated significantly higher than criticism in usefulness, especially for the abstract dimension of reasoning. The students also claimed that praise not only boosted motivation but also facilitated efforts to internalise and transfer the feedback knowledge. Suggestions were formulated to harness such emotional and cognitive advantages of praise in feedback design and academic writing pedagogy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper presents the findings of an experimental study which examines how effective peer feedback is as a substitute for teacher feedback in computer-mediated multiple-draft feedback provision on undergraduate EFL learners’ writing. Sixty-five university students were assigned to two comparison groups to receive different feedback treatments. The first group (N = 33) was given multiple-draft feedback on three subsequent drafts of the same text only by the teacher, while the second group (N = 32) was given feedback by three peers on the first draft, and by the teacher on the second and third drafts. The study adopted a quasi-experimental pre-test/post-test design, with two comparison groups which differed in the source of feedback they received on their writing. The data analysis was conducted by employing the Wilcoxon rank test to evaluate changes in writing quality scores after the treatments. Moreover, the paper discusses how learners in the comparison groups perceived teacher-only and combined peer-teacher feedback, specifically focusing on giving and receiving peer feedback. The findings of the study indicate that both peer-teacher and teacher-only feedback contributed to significant improvement in writing quality in both comparison groups regarding all three perspectives from which the writing quality was assessed – overall quality, genre, and register. The findings confirm learners’ strong preference for teacher feedback, but also show that peer feedback helps develop learners’ writing ability and performance, and aids learners with their own learning process.

To become proficient readers and writers, both multilingual and monolingual learners must engage with feedback – a precursor to learning and motivational outcomes. Given the importance of feedback to effective literacy learning, students' perceptions of literacy feedback are critical factors in feedback uptake. However, it is unclear how students perceive literacy feedback. We synthesized students' perceptions of feedback in reading and writing domains across kindergarten through higher education among both monolingual and multilingual learners. We systematically reviewed 138 empirical reports. We present descriptive characteristics, common conceptualizations and operationalizations of feedback perceptions, and themes across feedback perceptions results. Finally, we discuss how students' literacy feedback perceptions compare to research-based practices for providing literacy feedback, how feedback perceptions may fit into existing literacy and feedback theoretical frameworks, and how student identities, particularly those of multilingual learners, play a role in student feedback perceptions. The extant K-20 reading and writing feedback perceptions literature rarely conceptualize the construct in a clear manner. Additionally, students' feedback perceptions become more negative and critical as they progress through school. Lastly, students – especially multilingual learners – held positive perceptions of written, audio, and video formats of feedback that were provided by their instructor. • Feedback perceptions lack clear conceptualizations. • Students feedback perceptions become more negative as they progress through school. • Students have changing preferences for feedback. • Students often prefer one-on-one, face-to-face, instructor-delivered feedback. • MLs hold positive perceptions of audio and video forms of feedback. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This explanatory sequential mixed methods study investigated the writing feedback perceptions of middle and high school students ( N = 598). The predictive and mediational roles of writing self-efficacy and perceptions of writing feedback on student writing self-regulation aptitude were examined using mediation regression analysis. To augment the quantitative findings, the explanations students provided for either liking or disliking writing feedback were explored using open-ended questions. Quantitative findings revealed that students' perceptions of the feedback they receive about their writing partially mediated the relationship between writing self-efficacy and writing self-regulation aptitude. Qualitative data suggested ways in which students perceive writing feedback-both positive and negative. Collectively, the quantitative and qualitative data illustrate the influential role writing feedback perceptions plays in middle and high school student writing motivation and self-regulation beliefs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the powerful effect feedback often has on student writing success more research is needed on how students emotionally react to the feedback they receive. This study tested the predictive and mediational roles of college student writing self-efficacy beliefs and feedback perceptions on writing self-regulation aptitude. Results suggested that students' perceptions of the feedback they receive on their writing assignments partially mediated the relationship between writing self-efficacy and writing self-regulation beliefs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While it is commonly recognised that tutor feedback is central to student learning, a number of scholars and practitioners in higher education hold that tutor feedback is a waste of time because students are only interested in grades. Based on the results of a survey on 206 students at Aston University, this study finds that students ar e receptive to tutor feedback and act on it. It also discovers that the quality of tutor f eedback and the guidance on ho w to use tutor feedback students have received significantly encourages them to act on it and enhances their learning in gen eral. These findings have two significant implications. First, instead of assuming that students are indifferent to their feedback and, consequently, failing to give them sufficient feedback, tutors should take time and make the effort to offer them useful feedback. Second, to increase student reactions to their feedback, they should give students advice on how to use it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Student ratings of satisfaction with feedback are consistently lower than other teaching and learning elements within the UK higher education sector. However, reasons for this dissatisfaction are often unclear to teaching staff, who believe their students are receiving timely, extensive and informative feedback. This study explores possible explanations for this mismatch between staff and students’ perceptions of feedback quality. One hundred and sixty-six first year undergraduate students completed a questionnaire detailing their experiences of feedback on coursework before and throughout their first year at university. Results indicate that whilst procedural elements of feedback (timeliness and legibility) are considered satisfactory, past experiences (pre-university) may influence student expectations of feedback. Some students had a severe, negative emotional response to the feedback provided and few students engaged in self-help (independent learning) behaviours to improve their performance following feedback. We consider how changes in feedback practices could improve students’ use of, and satisfaction with, their feedback. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose – Theoretical explanations for the diverse reactive feedback from secretarial employees in different career phases are relatively unexplored. However, research examining age differences in the impact of feedback suggests that the effects of performance feedback may differ for employees in the early career phase and employees in the late career phase. This paper aims to address this issue. Design/methodology/approach – This contribution reports an experimental study on feedback perceptions and attribution by 173 secretarial employees of 12 Dutch organizations. Each participant responded to one of eight scenarios, which varied in terms of feedback content, sender status, and sender performance appraisal. Feedback perceptions were measured in terms of perceived fairness, acceptance, usefulness, willingness to improve and affect. An additional scale measured attribution. Findings – The results reveal that elaborated specific feedback is perceived as more adequate, irrespective of feedback sender status and appraisal. Complex three-way interaction effects were found for educational level on affect and attribution, and for career phase on willingness to improve and affect. Low-educated employees reacted more strongly to supervisor feedback. Employees in the late career phase were more oriented towards the content of the feedback than feedback sender status, whereas the latter was of more concern for employees in the early and middle career phase. Practical implications – In order for feedback to be considered as adequate, it is necessary to formulate the feedback as specific and as elaborated as possible. Employees in their late career phase especially react differently in comparison to employees in early and middle career phases. They are more inclined "to opt for quality" and appreciate elaborated feedback from a high experienced sender. Human resource managers should be aware of this in their policy towards employees in their late career phase Originality/value – The present study shows that feedback content and sender characteristics (status and performance appraisal) differentially affect feedback perceptions and attribution. In addition, the study reveals that perceptions and attributions of performance feedback might be mediated by educational level and career phase. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Peer-feedback content is a core component of peer assessment, but the impact of various contents of feedback is hardly studied. Participants in the study were 89 graduate students who were assigned to four experimental and a control group. Experimental groups received a scenario with concise general (CGF) or elaborated specific (ESF) feedback by a high or low competent peer. ESF by a high competent peer was perceived as more adequate, but led to more negative affect. Students in CGF groups outperformed ESF groups during treatment. Groups with a low competent peer outperformed groups with a high competent peer during the posttest. Feedback perceptions and performance were uncorrelated. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

• Structural validity of the Feedback Perceptions Questionnaire (FPQ). • Perceived fairness, usefulness, acceptance, willingness to improve, and affect. • FPQ is invariant for type of peer feedback, gender, grade level, and track. • Fairness, usefulness and acceptance predict willingness to improve and affect. Despite a growing interest in instructional feedback, students' feedback perceptions received limited attention. We examined the structural validity and measurement invariance of the Feedback Perceptions Questionnaire (FPQ). The FPQ measures feedback perceptions in terms of perceived fairness, usefulness, acceptance, willingness to improve, and affect. Secondary school students (N = 1486) received a fictional scenario containing Concise General Feedback or Elaborated Specific Feedback by a fictional peer. Students rated their perceptions as if they had received the feedback themselves. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) supports the structural validity of the FPQ and its invariance for the two types of peer feedback, gender, four grade-levels and two tracks. Perceived fairness of peer feedback was a strong positive predictor of willingness to improve and affect, whereas perceived usefulness and acceptance of peer feedback showed a more complex pattern in predicting willingness to improve and affect. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]