How do we get students to act on the feedback we provide? When papers are returned, they look at the grade first and then (but not always) briefly peruse the comments. Do they read them more carefully at home? When asked, they say they do, but then the next paper comes in with little if any improvement in the areas targeted by the feedback. Do they need more comments? Fewer comments? Comments worded differently?
To continue reading, you must be a Teaching Professor Subscriber.
Please log in or sign up for full access.
How do we get students to act on the feedback we provide? When papers are returned, they look at the grade first and then (but not always) briefly peruse the comments. Do they read them more carefully at home? When asked, they say they do, but then the next paper comes in with little if any improvement in the areas targeted by the feedback. Do they need more comments? Fewer comments? Comments worded differently?
These questions don't have easy answers, but how the details relate is worth considering. In their study, Ackerman, Dommeyer, and Gross considered three factors related to feedback: (a) the amount (none, low, or high), (b) the source (from the instructor or provided by peers), and (c) the situation (whether revision was a possibility). They tested the interaction among these variables hypothetically. Students enrolled in introductory marketing courses from a broad range of business majors were asked to think about an assignment in a course they would be taking subsequently. They'd received a B– on a paper and it had been returned either with no feedback, just 2 comments, or 10 comments. The comments were from either the instructor or from peers, and students were told either that they could revise the paper or that revision wasn't an option.
The comments provided in the feedback were all critical and included statements like “no clear thesis statement,” “no evidence presented to support idea,” and “recommendations are not realistic.” They opted to provide only negative feedback because they had found in a prestudy the addition of positive comments “made no significant difference in student responses from the use of just negative comments” (p. 21).
Not surprisingly, their results suggest that “receiving critical feedback generally elicits a negative response when it comes from the instructor . . . . Students overall felt angrier and less happy when they received a large number of feedback comments than when they received a low number of comments” (p. 24). The high number of negative comments also made the students more likely to think the instructor had a negative impression of them, and they liked the instructor less.
However, if students got that high level of negative feedback with the opportunity to revise the paper, their response was different. They reacted less negatively to the instructor, reported less anger, and rated the feedback as more helpful. They were also less satisfied with their grades on the paper—perhaps because they thought they could use the feedback to rewrite and then receive a higher grade.
Some students got no, low, or high levels of critical feedback from peers instead of the instructor, and, in that case, students were more accepting of the feedback. “Students reacted less negatively to a high level of peer-provided feedback than to a high level of feedback provided by the instructor.” Perhaps that response reflects less concern with the implications of the feedback—peers aren't the ones giving the grades.
The design of this study was interesting. However, it is a work that raises more questions than it answers. Can an instructor give too much critical feedback? Does it matter if students respond negatively not just to the feedback, but also to the instructor? Students who lack basic skills and don't come to learning tasks with a great deal of confidence can find too much negative feedback debilitating. If they conclude they can't succeed, aren't they more likely to stop trying? So finding the right amount of critical feedback depends on the individual students. These researchers recommend limiting the amount and making careful choices about where to focus it.
Do these findings make the case for assignments with revise and resubmit options? The researchers cite another study, documenting that when students were allowed to revise their work, they tended to be more involved in their own learning, and they more actively used the feedback to make changes: “Feedback given only at the end of a learning cycle . . . is not effective for furthering student learning” (p. 20).
The fact that students responded better to negative feedback from peers also sounds promising, albeit challenging to implement. Students, especially beginning ones, are reluctant to offer critical feedback to peers—and if they do, will they provide the feedback that's needed to improve the work? In some studies they have, but in those cases, students were trained and used detailed rubrics, and grade incentives were involved—all of which entails more work for the instructor.
Feedback plays an essential role in learning, but few guidelines help teachers determine the amount and kind an individual learner needs.
Reference:
Ackerman, D. S., Dommeyer, C. J., & Gross, B. L. (2017). The effects of source, revision possibility and amount of feedback on marketing students' impressions of feedback on an assignment. Journal of Marketing Education, 39 (1), 17–29.
