What are students' needs and preferences for academic feedback in higher education? A systematic review

Nurse Education Today

Volumn 85, Issue , 2020, Pages

  Paterson, Catherine ^a   Paterson, Nathan ^b   Jackson, William ^c   Work, Fiona ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CANBERRA   (Australia)

^b AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^c ROBERT GORDON UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Feedback; Higher education; Needs; Preferences; Students; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

EDUCATION; FEEDING; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LEARNING; NARRATIVE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; REVIEW; SYNTHESIS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TIMELINESS; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; CONSUMER ATTITUDE; FEEDBACK SYSTEM; NEEDS ASSESSMENT; NURSING EDUCATION; NURSING STUDENT; PROCEDURES; PSYCHOLOGY;

CLINICAL COMPETENCE; CONSUMER BEHAVIOR; EDUCATION, NURSING; EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT; FEEDBACK; HUMANS; NEEDS ASSESSMENT; STUDENTS, NURSING;

EID: 85075052652     PISSN: 02606917     EISSN: 15322793     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.nedt.2019.104236     Document Type: Review

References (61)

1. Agius, N.M., Wilkinson, A., Students’ and teachers’ views of written feedback at undergraduate level: a literature review. Nurse Educ. Today 34 (2014), 552–559.
2. Agnello, V., Pikas, B., Agnello, A.J., Pikas, A., Today's learner, preferences in teaching techniques. Am. J. Bus. Educ. 4 (2011), 1–10.
3. Alamis, M., Evaluating students reactions and response to teachers written feedbacks. Philippine ESL Journal 5 (2010), 40–57.
4. Atmaca, Ç., Contrasting perceptions of students and teachers: written corrective feedback. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies 12 (2016), 166–182.
5. Ball, E.C., Annotation an effective device for student feedback: a critical review of the literature. Nurse Educ. Pract. 10 (2010), 138–143.
6. Ball, E., Franks, H., Jenkins, J., Mcgrath, M., Leigh, J., Annotation is a valuable tool to enhance learning and assessment in student essays. Nurse Educ. Today 29 (2009), 284–291.
7. Biggs, J., Tang, C., Teaching for Quality Learning at University, Berkshire. 2011, Open University Press.
8. Bijami, M., Pandian, A., Singh, M.K.M., The relationship between Teacher's written feedback and student's’ writing performance: sociocultural perspective. International Journal of Education and Literacy. Studies 4 (2016), 59–66.
9. Bourgault, A., Mundy, C., Joshua, T., Comparision of Audi vs. written Feedabck on clinical assignments of nursing students. Teaching with. Technology, 34, 2013.
10. Budge, K., A desire for the personal: student perceptions of electronic feedback. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 23 (2011), 342–349.
11. Burns, C., Foo, M., What are our international students telling us? Further explorations of a formative feedback intervention, to support academic literacy. Practitioner Research in Higher Education 8 (2014), 74–88.
12. Çakir, R., Korkmaz, Ö., Bacanak, A., Arslan, Ö., An exploration of the relationship between Students’ preferences for formative feedback and self-regulated learning skills. Malaysian Online. Journal of Educational Sciences 4 (2016), 14–30.
13. Çakir, R., Korkmaz, Ö., Bacanak, A., Arslan, Ö., An exploration of the relationship between students’ preferences for formative feedback and self-regulated learning skills. MOJES: Malaysian Online. Journal of Educational Sciences 4 (2016), 14–30.
14. Cakiroglu, U., Erdogdu, F., Kokoc, M., Atabay, M., Students’ preferences in online assessment process: influences on academic performances. Turk. Online J. Dist. Educ. 18 (2017), 132–142.
15. Carey, P., Milsom, C., Brooman, S., Jubb, E., Student views of assessment and feedback. Innovations in Practice 2 (2017), 123–131.
16. Chokwe, J., Students’ and tutors’ perceptions of feedback on academic essays in an open and distance learning context. Open Praxis 7 (2015), 39–56.
17. Chokwe, J.M., Students’ and Tutors’ perceptions of feedback on academic essays in an open and distance learning context. Open. Praxis 7 (2015), 39–56.
18. Chung, B., Written corrective feedback: the perception of Korean EFL learners. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of. Appl. Linguis. 19 (2015), 75–88.
19. Clark, I., Assessment is for learning: formative assessment and positive learning interactions. Florida Journal of Educational Administration & Policy 2 (2008), 1–16.
20. Crews, T.B., Wilkinson, K., Students’ perceived preference for visual and auditory assessment with E-handwritten feedback. Bus. Commun. Q. 73 (2010), 399–412.
21. Dawson, P., Henderson, M., Mahoney, P., Phillips, M., Ryan, T., Boud, D., Molloy, E., What makes for effective feedback: staff and student perspectives. Assess. Eval. High. Educ., 2018, 1–12.
22. Dixon-Woods, M., et al. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy 10 (2005), 45–53.
23. Douglas, T., Salter, S., Iglesias, M., Dowlman, M., Eri, R., The feedback process: perspectives of first and second year undergraduate students in the disciplines of education. Health Science and Nursing. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 13, 2016.
24. Duers, L.E., Brown, N., An exploration of student nurses’ experiences of formative assessment. Nurse Educ. Today 29 (2009), 654–659.
25. Edeiken-Cooperman, N., Berenato, C.L., Students’ perceptions of electronic feedback as an alternative to handwritten feedback: one University's inquiry. Journal of Education and. Learning 3 (2014), 79–85.
26. Galante, J., Dufour, G., Vainre, M., Wagner, A.P., Stochl, J., Benton, A., Lathia, N., Howarth, E., Jones, P.B., A mindfulness-based intervention to increase resilience to stress in university students (the mindful student study): a pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Lancet Public Health 3 (2018), e72–e81.
27. Ghilay, Y., Ghilay, R., FBL: feedback based learning in higher education. High. Educ. Stud. 5 (2015), 1–10.
28. Giles, T.M., Gilbert, S., McNeill, L., Do students want and need written feedback on summative assignments? Engaging students with the feedback process-a topic review activity. ergo, 3(1), 2014.
29. Gregory, M.S.-J., Lodge, J.M., Academic workload: the silent barrier to the implementation of technology-enhanced learning strategies in higher education. Distance Education 36 (2015), 210–230.
30. Gul, R.B., Tharani, A.J., Lakhani, A., Rizvi, N.F., Ali, S.K., Teachers’ perceptions and practices of written feedback in higher education. World Journal of Education 6 (2016), 10–20.
31. Hayes, C., Underpinning Patient Safety with Strategic Approaches to Health Sciences Pedagogy: Experiential and Situated Learning Environments. 2018.
32. Higgins, R., Hartley, P., Skelton, A., The Conscientious Consumer: Reconsidering the role of assessment feedback in student learning. Stud. High. Educ. 27:1 (2002), 53–64, 10.1080/03075070120099368.
33. Hounsell, D., McCune, V., Hounsell, J., Litjens, J., The quality of guidance and feedback to students. Higher Education Research & Development 27:1 (2008), 55–67, 10.1080/07294360701658765.
34. Iqbal, S., Gul, R., Lakhani, A., Rizvi, N.F., Teachers’ accounts of their perceptions and practices of providing written feedback to nursing students on their assignments. International Journal of Higher Education 3 (2014), 70–80.
35. Johnson, G.M., Cooke, A., Self-regulation of learning and preference for written versus audio-recorded feedback by distance education students. Distance Education 37 (2016), 107–120.
36. Kaivanpanah, S., Alavi, S.M., Sepehrinia, S., Preferences for interactional feedback: differences between learners and teachers. Lang. Learn. J. 43 (2015), 74–93.
37. Lizzio, A., Wilson, K., Feedback on assessment: students’ perceptions of quality and effectiveness. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 33 (2008), 263–275.
38. Mettiäinen, S., Electronic assessment and feedback tool in supervision of nursing students during clinical training. Electronic Journal of e-Learning 13 (2015), 42–56.
39. Mirriahi, N., Alonzo, D., Shedding Light on Students' Technology Preferences: Implications for Academic Development. J. Univ. Teach. Learn. Pract., 12(1), 2015.
40. Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., Stewart, L.A., Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic reviews, 4, 2015, 1.
41. Office for students. 2018. National Student Survey [Online]. Available: https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/advice-and-guidance/student-information-and-data/national-student-survey-nss/get-the-nss-data/ (Accessed September 2018).
42. Orrell, J., Feedback on learning achievement: rhetoric and reality. Teach. High. Educ. 11 (2006), 441–456.
43. Parker, M., Winstone, N.E., Students’ perceptions of interventions for supporting their engagement with feedback. Practitioner. Res. High. Educ. 10 (2016), 53–64.
44. Parkes, M., Fletcher, P., A longitudinal, quantitative study of student attitudes towards audio feedback for assessment. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 42 (2017), 1046–1053.
45. Paterson, C., Nabi, G., A model of consultation in prostate Cancer care: evidence from a systematic review. Cancer Nurs. 40 (2017), 276–288.
46. Paterson, C., Jensen, B., Jensen, J., Nabi, G., Unmet informational and supportive care needs of patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer: a systematic review of the evidence. Eur. J. Oncol. Nurs. 35 (2018), 92–101.
47. Perera, J., Lee, N., Win, K., Perera, J., Wijesuriya, L., Formative feedback to students: the mismatch between faculty perceptions and student expectations. Medical teacher 30 (2008), 395–399.
48. Pluye, R., Cargo, M., Barlett, G., O'cathain, A., Griffiths, F., Baoardman, F., Gagnon, M. & Rousseau, M. 2011. Proposal: A mixed methods apprasial tool for systematic mixed methods reviews [Online]. Available: http://mixedmethodsappraisaltoolpublic.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/84371689/MMAT%202011%20criteria%20and%20tutorial%202011-06-29updated2014.08.21.pdf (Accessed September 2018).
49. Pokorny, H., Pickford, P., Complexity, cue and relationships: students perceptions of feedback. Active Journal in Higher Education 11 (2010), 21–30.
50. Poulos, A., Mahony, M.J., Effectiveness of feedback: the students’ perspective. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 33 (2008), 143–154.
51. Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. 2018. Focus On: Feedback from Assessment [Online]. Available: http://www.qaa.ac.uk/scotland/focus-on/feedback-from-assessment [Accessed Spetember 2018].
52. Race, D.A., Williams, M.G., Digital audio feedback technology: nursing students’ perspectives. CIN. Computers, Informatics, Nursing 36 (2018), 63–67.
53. Shellenbarger, T., Gazza, E.A., Hunker, D.F., Advancing scholarly writing of baccalaureate nursing students using the knowledge, skills, and attitude self-assessment for writing development. Nurse Educ. Today 69 (2018), 109–112.
54. Siow, L.-F., Students’ perceptions on self- and peer-assessment in enhancing learning experience. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Sciences 3 (2015), 21–35.
55. Sulaiman, N., Muhammad, A.M., Ganapathy, N.N.D.F., Khairuddin, Z., Othman, S., Students’ perceptions on using different listening assessment methods: audio-only and video media. Engl. Lang. Teach. 10 (2017), 93–99.
56. Vygotsky, L.S., Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. 1978, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
57. Watkins, D., Dummer, P., Hawthorne, K., Cousins, J., Emmett, C., Johnson, M., Healthcare Students’ perceptions of electronic feedback through GradeMark®. J. Inf. Technol. Educ., 13, 2014.
58. Weaver, M., Do students value feedback? Students perceptions of tutors written responses. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 31 (2006), 379–394.
59. Weinstein, S.E., Wu, S.-W., Readiness assessment tests versus frequent quizzes: student preferences. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 21 (2009), 181–186.
60. Whittemore, R., Knafl, K., The integrative review: updated methodology. J. Adv. Nurs. 52 (2005), 546–553.
61. Wood, D., Bruner, J.S., Ross, G., The role of tutoring in problem solving. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 17 (1976), 89–100.