Skip to content
2018
Volume 73, Issue 3
  • ISSN: 0010-096X
  • E-ISSN: 1939-9006

Abstract

This social-constructionist review of research illuminates the ways in which feedback, reflection, and revision are all inherently relational processes. Research suggests that university students’ perceptions of feedback shape their revision processes, though it appears that their preferred types of feedback may not always lead them to make effective revisions.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.58680/ccc202231879
2022-02-01
2024-04-13
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bailey Richard Mark Garner “Is the Feedback in Higher Education Assessment Worth the Paper It is Written On? Teachers’ Reflections on Their Practices.” Teaching in Higher Education 15 2 2010 pp. 187 198
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bazerman Charles “What Do Sociocultural Studies of Writing Tell Us About Learning to Write?” Handbook of Writing Research 2nd ed. MacArthurCharles GrahamSteve FitzgeraldJill The Guilford Press 2016 pp. 11 23
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bevan Ruth et al. “Seeing Eye-to-Eye? Staff and Student Views on Feedback.” Bioscience Education 12 1 2008
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Blair Alasdair Samantha McGinty “Feedback-dialogues: Exploring the Student Perspective.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 38 4 2013 pp. 466 476
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bloxham Sue Amanda West “Understanding the Rules of the Game: Marking Peer Assessment as a Medium for Developing Students’ Conceptions of Assessment.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 29 6 2004 pp. 721 733
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Calver Michael James Tweedley “A Technique for Expediting Comprehensive Written Feedback on Assignments.” The American Biology Teacher 78 8 2016 pp. 684 686
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Can Gulfidan Andrew Walker “A Model for Doctoral Students’ Perceptions and Attitudes Toward Written Feedback for Academic Writing.” Research in Higher Education 52 5 pp. 508 536
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Carless David Robert “Differing Perceptions in the Feedback Process.” Studies in Higher Education 31 2 2006pp. 219 233
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Carroll Lee Ann Rehearsing New Roles: How College Students Develop as Writers Southern Illinois University Press 2002
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Chen Nian-Shing et al. “Effects of High Level Prompts and Peer Assessment on Online Learners’ Reflection Levels.” Computers and Education 52 2 2009 pp. 283 291
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Cho Kwangsu Charles MacArthur “Student Revision With Peer and Expert Reviewing.” Learning and Instruction 20 4 2010 pp. 328 338
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Connor Ulla Karen Asenavage “Peer Response Groups in ESL Writing Classes: How Much Impact on Revision?” Journal of Second Language Writing 3 3 1994 pp. 257 276
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Desmet Christy et al. “Reflection, Revision, and Assessment in First-Year Composition ePortfolios.” The Journal of General Education 57 1 2008 pp. 15 30
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Duncan Neil “‘Feed-forward’: Improving Students’ Use of Tutor Comments.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 32 3 2007 pp. 271 283
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Falchikov Nancy “Improving Assessment Through Student Involvement.” London Routledge-Falmer 2005
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Gibbs Graham Claire Simpson “Conditions Under Which Assessment Supports Students’ Learning.” Learning and Teaching in Higher Education 1 1 2004-2005 pp. 3 31
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Glazzard Jonathan Samuel Stones “Student Perceptions of Feedback in Higher Education.” International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research 18 11 2019 pp. 38 52
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Glover Chris Evelyn Brown “Written Feedback for Students: Too Much, Too Detailed or Too Incomprehensible to Be Effective?” Bioscience Education 7 3 2006
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Griffin Whitney et al. “Starting the Conversation: An Exploratory Study of Factors That Influence Student Office Hour Use.” College Teaching 62 3 2014 pp. 94 99
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Hamilton John “Attribution, Referencing and Commencing HE Students as Novice Academic Writers: Giving Them More Time To ‘Get It.’” Student Success 7 2 2016 pp. 43 49
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Harris John “Opinion: Revision as a Critical Practice.” College English 65 6 2003 p. 577
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Hattie John Helen Timperley “The Power of Feedback.” Review of Educational Research 77 1 2007 pp. 81 112
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Higgins Richard et al. “Getting the Message Across: The Problem of Communicating Assessment Feedback.” Teaching in Higher Education 6 2 2001 pp. 269 274
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Hillocks GeorgeJr. Research on Written Composition: New Directions for Teaching ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills 1986
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Huisman Bart et al. “Peer Feedback on Academic Writing: Undergraduate Students’ Peer Feedback Role, Peer Feedback Perceptions and Essay Performance.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 43 6 2018 pp. 955 968
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Hyland Fiona Ken Hyland “Sugaring the Pill: Praise and Criticism in Written Feedback.” Journal of Second Language Writing 10 2001 pp. 185 212
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Isnawati Ida et al. “Impacts of Teacher-Written Corrective Feedback with Teacher-Student Conferences on Students’ Revision.” International Journal of Instruction 12 1 2019 pp. 669 684
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Itua Imose et al. “Exploring Barriers and Solutions to Academic Writing: Perspectives from Students, Higher Education and Further Education Tutors.” Journal of Further and Higher Education 38 3 2014 pp. 305 326
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Jonsson Anders “Facilitating Productive Use of Feedback in Higher Education.” Active Learning in Higher Education 14 1 2013 63 76
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Lea Mary R. Street Brian V. “Student Writing in Higher Education: An Academic Literacies Approach.” Studies in Higher Education 23 2 1998 pp. 157 172
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Lee Icy “Teacher Written Corrective Feedback: Less is More.” Language Teaching 52 4 2019 pp. 524 536
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Lindenman Heather et al. “Revision and Reflection: A Study of (Dis)Connections Between Writing Knowledge and Practice.” College Composition and Communication 69 4 2018 581 611
    [Google Scholar]
  33. MacArthur Charles “Instruction in Evaluation and Revision.” Handbook of Writing Research (2nd ed.) MacArthurCharles GrahamSteve FitzgeraldJill The Guilford Press 2016 pp. 272 287
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Maclellan Effie “Pedagogical Literacy: What it Means and What it Allows.” Teaching and Teacher Education 24 2008 pp. 1986 1992
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Medonça Càssia Karen Johnson “Peer Review Negotiations: Revision Activities in ESL Writing Instruction.” TESOL Quarterly 28 4 745 769
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Nelson Melissa Christian Schunn “The Nature of Feedback: How Different Types of Peer Feedback Affect Writing Performance.” Instructional Science 37 2009 pp. 375 401
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Nicol David et al. “Rethinking Feedback Practices in Higher Education: A Peer Review Perspective.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 39 1 2014 pp. 102 122
    [Google Scholar]
  38. O’Donovan Berry et al. “Know What I Mean? Enhancing Student Understanding of Assessment Standards and Criteria.” Teaching in Higher Education 9 3 2004 pp. 325 335
    [Google Scholar]
  39. O’Farrell Clare Key Concepts Michel-Foucault.com 2021 www.michelfoucault.com/key-concepts/ 24 Sept. 2021
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Paulus Trena “The Effect of Peer and Teacher Feedback on Student Writing.” Journal of Second Language Writing 8 3 1999 pp. 265 289
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Poulos Ann Mary Jane Mahony “Effectiveness of Feedback: The Students’ Perspective.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 33 2 2008 pp. 143 154
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Price Margaret et al. “Feedback: All That Effort, But What is the Effect?” Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 35 3 2010 pp. 277 289
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Rahimi Mohammad “Is Training Student Reviewers Worth the While? A Study of How Training Influences the Quality of Students’ Feedback and Writing.” Language Teaching Research 17 1 2013 pp. 67 89
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Ruegg Rachael “Differences in the Uptake of Peer and Teacher Feedback.” RELC Journal 46 2 2015 pp. 131 145
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Schillings Marlies et al. “Peer-to-Peer Dialogue About Teachers’ Written Feedback Enhances Students’ Understanding on How to Improve Writing Skills.” Educational Studies 46 6 2020 pp. 693 707
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Shute Valerie. J. Focus on Formative Feedback A Research Report Issued by Educational Testing Service 2007 www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RR-07-11.pdf 24 Sept. 2021
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Shute Valerie. J. “Responding to Student Writing.” College Composition and Communication 33 2 1982 148 156
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Smith Holly et al. “Improving the Quality of Undergraduate Peer Assessment: A Case for Student and Staff Development.” Innovations in Education and Teaching International 39 1 2002 pp. 71 81
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Sommers Nancy “Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers.” College Composition and Communication 31 1980 pp. 378 388
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Tsui Amy Maria Ng “Do Secondary L2 Writers Benefit from Peer Comments?” Journal of Second Language Writing 9 2 2000 pp. 147 170
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Vygotsky Lev. S. “Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes.” Harvard University Press 1978
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Weaver Melanie R. “Do Students Value Feedback? Student Perceptions of Tutors’ Written Responses.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 31 3 2006 pp. 379 394
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Yang Yu-Fen “Students’ Reflection on Online Self-Correction and Peer Review to Improve Writing.” Computers & Education 55 2010 pp. 1202 1210
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Zellermayer Michael “The Study of Teachers’ Written Feedback to Students’ Writing: Changes in Theoretical Considerations and the Expansion of Research Contexts.” Instructional Science 18 1989 145 165
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.58680/ccc202231879
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error