Methods in Feedback Research

The Cambridge Handbook of Instructional Feedback

Volumn , Issue , 2018, Pages 97-120

  Brown, Gavin T L ^a   Harris, Lois R ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND   (New Zealand)

^b CENTRAL QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85086200726     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/9781316832134.007     Document Type: Chapter

References (137)

1. Ajjawi, R., and Boud, D. (2017). Researching feedback dialogue: An interactional analysis approach. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(2), 252-265.
2. Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 227-257.
3. Autoimmunity Research Foundation. (2012). Differences between in vitro, in vivo, and in silico studies. Retrieved from http://mpkb.org/home/patients/assessing_litera ture/in_vitro_studies.
4. Bailey, R., and Garner, M. (2010). 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), 187-198.
5. Baker, S. E., and Edwards, R. (2012). How many qualitative interviews is enough? Expert voices and early career reflections on sampling and cases in qualitative research. Southampton, UK: National Centre for Research Methods. Retrieved from http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/2273/4/how_many_interviews.pdf.
6. Bandalos, D. L., and Finney, S. J. (2010). Factor analysis: Exploratory and confirmatory. In G. R. Hancock and R. O. Mueller (Eds.), The reviewer’s guide to quantitative methods in the social sciences (pp. 93-114). New York: Routledge.
7. Bartholomew, K., Henderson, A. J. Z., and Marcia, J. E. (2000). Coded semistructured interviews in social psychological research. In H. T. Reis and C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 286-312). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8. Bayerlein, L. (2014). Students’ feedback preferences: How do students react to timely and automatically generated assessment feedback? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(8), 916-931.
9. Bevan, R., Badge, J., Cann, A., Willmott, C., and Scott, J. (2008). Seeing eye-to-eye? Staff and student views on feedback. Bioscience Education, 12(1), 1-15.
10. Björklund Boistrup, L. (2010). Assessment discourse in mathematics classrooms: A multimodal social semiotic study. PhD dissertation, Stockholm University.
11. Brannen, J. (Ed.). (1992). Mixing methods: Qualitative and quantitative research. Aldershot, UK: Avebury Ashgate Publishing.
12. Braun, V., and Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
13. Brenner, M. E. (2006). Interviewing in educational research. In J. L. Green, G. Camilli, and P. B. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 357-370). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
14. Brewer, J., and Hunter, A. (1989). Multimethod research: A synthesis of styles. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
15. Brown, G. T. L. (2016). The qualitative secret within quantitative research: It’s not just about numbers. In C. J. McDermott and Kožuh, B. (Eds.), Modern approaches in social and educational research (pp. 33-42). Los Angeles, CA: Antioch University.
16. Brown, G. T. L., Harris, L. R., and Harnett, J. (2012). Teacher beliefs about feedback within an assessment for learning environment: Endorsement of improved learning over student well-being. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(7), 968-978.
17. Brown, G. T. L., Harris, L. R., O’Quin, C., and Lane, K. E. (2017). Using multi-group confirmatory factor analysis to evaluate cross-cultural research: Identifying and understanding non-invariance. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 40(1), 66-90.
18. Brown, G. T. L., Irving, S. E., and Peterson, E. R. (2009, August). The more I enjoy it the less I achieve: The negative impact of socio-emotional purposes of assessment and feedback on academic performance. Paper presented at biennial conference of the European Association for Research in Learning and Instruction, Amsterdam.
19. Brown, G. T. L., Peterson, E. R., and Yao, E. (2016). Student conceptions of feedback: Impact on self-regulation, self-efficacy, and academic achievement. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(4), 606-629.
20. Bruno, I., and Santos, L. (2010). Written comments as a form of feedback. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 36(3), 111-120.
21. Burnett, P. C. (2002). Teacher praise and feedback and students’ perceptions of the classroom environment. Educational Psychology, 22(1), 5-16.
22. Burnett, P. C., and Mandel, V. (2010). Praise and feedback in the primary classroom: Teachers’ and students’ perspectives. Australian Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 10, 145-154.
23. Butler, A. C., Godbole, N., and Marsh, E. J. (2013). Explanation feedback is better than correct answer feedback for promoting transfer of learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 290-298.
24. Campbell, D. T., and Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
25. Carless, D. (2006). Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 219-233.
26. Chase, J. A., and Houmanfar, R. (2009). The differential effects of elaborate feedback and basic feedback on student performance in a modified, personalized system of instruction course. Journal of Behavioral Education, 18(3), 245-265.
27. Chi, M. T. H. (1996). Constructing self-explanations and scaffolded explanations in tutoring. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 33-49.
28. Cho, K., and MacArthur, C. (2010). Student revision with peer and expert reviewing. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 328-338.
29. Corbalan, G., Kester, L., and van Merriënboer, J. G. (2009). Dynamic task selection: Effects of feedback and learner control on efficiency and motivation. Learning and Instruction, 19(6), 455-465.
30. Crocker, L. (2006). Introduction to measurement theory. In J. L. Green, G. Camilli, and P. B. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 371-384). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
31. de Leeuw, E. (2008). Self-administered questionnaires and standardized interviews. In P. Alasuutari, L. Bickman, and J. Brannen (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of social research methods (pp. 313-327). London: SAGE.
32. Dempsey, N. P. (2010). Stimulated recall interviews in ethnography. Qualitative Sociology, 33(3), 349-367.
33. Earp, B. D., and Trafimow, D. (2015). Replication, falsification, and the crisis of confidence in social psychology. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(621).
34. Elo, S., and Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107-115.
35. Ericsson, K. A., and Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87(3), 215-251.
36. Field, A. (2016). An adventure in statistics: The reality enigma. London: Sage.
37. Flores, M. A., Veiga Simão, A. M., Barros, A., and Pereira, D. (2015). Perceptions of effectiveness, fairness and feedback of assessment methods: A study in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 40(9), 1523-1534.
38. Furneaux, C., Paran, A., and Fairfax, B. (2007). Teacher stance as reflected in feedback on student writing: An empirical study of secondary school teachers in five countries. IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45(1), 69-94.
39. Gamlem, S. M., and Smith, K. (2013). Student perceptions of classroom feedback. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 20(2), 150-169.
40. Gan, M. J. S., and Hattie, J. (2014). Prompting secondary students’ use of criteria, feedback specificity and feedback levels during an investigative task. Instructional Science, 42(6), 861-878.
41. Gielen, S., Peeters, E., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., and Struyven, K. (2010). Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 304-315.
42. Groenewald, T. (2004). A phenomenological research design illustrated. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3(1), 1-26.
43. Guénette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 40-53.
44. Hamer, J., Purchase, H., Luxton-Reilly, A., and Denny, P. (2015). A comparison of peer and tutor feedback. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(1), 151-164.
45. Handley, K., Price, M., and Millar, J. (2011). Beyond “doing time”: Investigating the concept of student engagement with feedback. Oxford Review of Education, 37(4), 543-560.
46. Harber, K. D., Gorman, J. L., Gengaro, F. P., Butisingh, S., Tsang, W., and Ouellete, R. (2012). Students’ race and teachers’ social support affect the positive feedback bias in public schools. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 1149-1161.
47. Hargreaves, E. (2013). Inquiring into children’s experiences of teacher feedback: Reconceptualising assessment for learning. Oxford Review of Education, 39(2), 229-246.
48. Harks, B., Rakoczy, K., Hattie, J., Besser, M., and Klieme, E. (2014). The effects of feedback on achievement, interest and self-evaluation: The role of feedback’s perceived usefulness. Educational Psychology, 34(3), 269-290.
49. Harper, A., and Brown, G. T. L. (2017). Students’ use of online feedback in a first year tertiary biology course. Assessment Matters, 11, 99-121.
50. Harris, L. R. (2011). Phenomenographic perspectives on the structure of conceptions: The origins, purposes, strengths, and limitations of the what/how and referential/structural frameworks. Educational Research Review, 6(2), 109-124.
51. Harris, L. R., and Brown, G. T. L. (2010). Mixing interview and questionnaire methods: Practical problems in aligning data. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 15(1). Retrieved from http://pareonline.net/pdf/v15n11.pdf.
52. Harris, L. R., and Brown, G. T. L. (2013). Opportunities and obstacles to consider when using peer- and self-assessment to improve student learning: Case studies into teachers’ implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 36, 101-111.
53. Harris, L. R., and Brown, G. T. L. (2016, April). “Everything you do is giving them feedback”: A phenomenographic study of teacher conceptions of feedback. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association annual meeting, Washington, DC.
54. Harris, L. R., Harnett, J. A., and Brown, G. T. L. (2009). “Drawing” out student conceptions: Using pupils’ pictures to examine their conceptions of assessment. In D. M. McInerney, G. T. L. Brown, and G. A. D. Liem (Eds.), Student perspectives on assessment: What students can tell us about assessment for learning (pp. 321-330). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
55. Harris, L. R., Brown, G. T. L., and Harnett, J. (2014a). Analysis of New Zealand primary and secondary student peer- and self-assessment comments: Applying Hattie and Timperley’s feedback model. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 22(2), 265-281.
56. Harris, L. R., Brown, G. T. L., and Harnett, J. (2014b). Understanding classroom feedback practices: A study of New Zealand student experiences, perceptions, and emotional responses. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 26(2), 107-133.
57. Harris, L. R., Harnett, J., and Brown, G. T. L. (2013, April). Exploring the content of teachers’ feedback: What are teachers actually providing to students? Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
58. Hattie, J., and Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112.
59. Higgins, R., Hartley, P., and Skelton, A. (2002). The conscientious consumer: Reconsidering the role of assessment feedback in student learning. Studies in Higher Education, 27(1), 53-64.
60. Hofferth, S. L., Moran, E. F., Entwistle, B., Aber, J. L., Brady, H. E., Conley, D.,… and Hubacek, K. (2017). Introduction: History and motivation. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 669(1), 6-17.
61. Hoyle, R. H. (1995). The structural equation modeling approach: Basic concepts and fundamental issues. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 1-15). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
62. Hunter, J. E. (2001). The desperate need for replications. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), 149-158.
63. Hyland, F. (2003). Focusing on form: Student engagement with teacher feedback. System, 31(2), 217-230.
64. Hyland, F., and Hyland, K. (2001). Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 185-212.
65. Irving, S. E., Harris, L. R., and Peterson, E. R. (2011). “One assessment doesn’t serve all the purposes” or does it?: New Zealand teachers describe assessment and feedback. Asia-Pacific Education Review, 12(3), 413-426.
66. Irving, S. E., Petersen, E. R., and Brown, G. T. L. (2007, August). Student conceptions of feedback: A study of New Zealand secondary students. Paper presented at the biannual conference of the European Association for Research in Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Budapest, Hungary.
67. Irving, S. E., Peterson, E. R., and Brown, G. T. L. (2008, July). Feedback and academic achievement: The relationship between students’ conceptions of feedback and achievement. Paper presented at the sixth biennial conference of the International Test Commission, Liverpool, UK.
68. Jodaie, M., Farrokhi, F., and Zoghi, M. (2011). A comparative study of EFL teachers’ and intermediate high school students’ perceptions of written corrective feedback on grammatical errors. English Language Teaching, 4(4), 36-48.
69. Johnson, R. B., and Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
70. Kawulich, B. B. (2005). Participant observation as a data collection method. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6(2). Retrieved from www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/466/996.
71. Kember, D., Leung, D. Y. P., and Kwan, K. P. (2002). Does the use of student feedback questionnaires improve the overall quality of teaching? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(5), 411-425.
72. Kerssen-Griep, J., and Witt, P. L. (2012). Instructional feedback II: How do instructor immediacy cues and facework tactics interact to predict student motivation and fairness perceptions? Communication Studies, 63(4), 498-517.
73. Kluger, A. N., and 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.
74. Kim, S.-I., Lee, M.-J., Chung, Y., and Bong, M. (2010). Comparison of brain activation during norm-referenced versus criterion-referenced feedback: The role of perceived competence and performance-approach goals. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(2), 141-152.
75. Kitzinger, J. (1994). The methodology of focus groups: The importance of interaction between research participants. Sociology of Health and Illness, 16(1), 103-121.
76. Kuusela, H., and Paul, P. (2000). A comparison of concurrent and retrospective verbal protocol analysis. American Journal of Psychology, 113(3), 387-404.
77. Kvale, S. (2002, March 7-9). Dialogue as oppression and interview research. Paper presented at the Nordic Educational Research Association Conference Tallinn, Estonia. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/2mROjhH.
78. Lee, I. (2007). Feedback in Hong Kong secondary writing classrooms: Assessment for learning or assessment of learning? Assessing Writing, 12(3), 180-198.
79. Li, J., and Barnard, R. (2011). Academic tutors’ beliefs about and practices of giving feedback on students’ written assignments: A New Zealand case study. Assessing Writing, 16(2), 137-148.
80. Lindsay, D. S. (2015). Replication in psychological science. Psychological Science, 26(12), 1827-1832.
81. Lipnevich, A. A., and Smith, J. (2009a). “I really need feedback to learn”: Students’ perspectives on the effectiveness of the differential feedback messages. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(4), 347-367.
82. Lipnevich, A. A., and Smith, J. K. (2009b). Effects of differential feedback on students’ examination performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15(4), 319-333.
83. Lipnevich, A. A., Berg, D. A. G., and Smith, J. K. (2016). Toward a model of student response to feedback. In G. T. L. Brown and L. R. Harris (Eds.), The handbook of human and social conditions in assessment (pp. 169-185). New York: Routledge.
84. Lizzio, A., and Wilson, K. (2008). Feedback on assessment: Students’ perceptions of quality and effectiveness. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(3), 263-275.
85. Maier, U. (2010). Accountability policies and teachers’ acceptance and usage of school performance feedback: A comparative study. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21(2), 145-165.
86. Makel, M. C., Plucker, J. A., and Hegarty, B. (2012). Replications in psychology research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 537-542.
87. Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., Balla, J. R., and Grayson, D. (1998). Is more ever too much? The number of indicators per factor in confirmatory factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 33(2), 181-220.
88. Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography: Describing conceptions of the world around us. Instructional Science, 10, 177-220.
89. Matsumura, L. C., Patthey-Chavez, G. G., Valdes, R., and Garnier, H. (2002). Teacher feedback, writing assignment quality, and third-grade students’ revision in lower- and higher-achieving urban schools. Elementary School Journal, 103(1), 3-25.
90. Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2). Retrieved from www.qualitativeresearch.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1089/2385.
91. McLean, A. J., Bond, C. H., and Nicholson, H. D. (2015). An anatomy of feedback: A phenomenographic investigation of undergraduate students’ conceptions of feedback. Studies in Higher Education, 40(5), 921-932.
92. Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd edn.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
93. Narciss, S., Sosnovsky, S., Schnaubert, L., Andrès, E., Eichelmann, A., Goguadze, G., and Melis, E. (2014). Exploring feedback and student characteristics relevant for personalizing feedback strategies. Computers and Education, 71, 56-76.
94. National Research Council. (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
95. Nelson, M. M., and Schunn, C. D. (2009). The nature of feedback: How different types of peer feedback affect writing performance. Instructional Science, 37(4), 375-401.
96. Nesbit, P. L., and Burton, S. (2006). Student justice perceptions following assignment feedback. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(6), 655-670.
97. Neuliep, J. W. (1990). Editorial bias against replication research. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5(4), 85.
98. NIST/SEMATECH. (2003). e-Handbook of statistical methods. Retrieved from www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook.
99. Orsmond, P., and Merry, S. (2011). Feedback alignment: Effective and ineffective links between tutors’ and students’ understanding of coursework feedback. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(2), 125-136.
100. Parr, J. M., and Timperley, H. S. (2010). Feedback to writing, assessment for teaching and learning and student progress. Assessing Writing, 15, 68-85.
101. Pekrun, R., Cusack, A., Murayama, K., Elliot, A. J., and Thomas, K. (2014). The power of anticipated feedback: Effects on students’ achievement goals and achievement emotions. Learning and Instruction, 29, 115-124.
102. Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W., and Perry, R. P. (2002). Academic emotions in students’ self-regulated learning and achievement: A program of qualitative and quantitative research. Educational Psychologist, 37(2), 91-105.
103. Peterson, E. R., and Irving, S. E. (2008). Secondary school students’ conceptions of assessment and feedback. Learning and Instruction, 18(3), 238-250.
104. Pond, K., and Ul-Haq, R. (1997). Learning to assess students using peer review. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 23(4), 331-348.
105. Poulos, A., and Mahony, M. J. (2008). Effectiveness of feedback: The students’ perspective. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(2), 143-154.
106. Price, M., Handley, K., Millar, J., and O’Donovan, B. (2010). Feedback: All that effort, but what is the effect? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(3), 277-289.
107. Rabiee, F. (2004). Focus group interview and data analysis. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 63(4), 655-660.
108. Rakoczy, K., Harks, B., Klieme, E., Blum, W., and Hochweber, J. (2013). Written feedback in mathematics: Mediated by students’ perception, moderated by goal orientation. Learning and Instruction, 27, 63-73.
109. Raosoft. (2017). Sample size calculator. Retrieved from www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html.
110. Richardson, J. T. E. (2005). Instruments for obtaining student feedback: A review of the literature. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(4), 387-415.
111. Robinson, S., Pope, D., and Holyoak, L. (2013). Can we meet their expectations? Experiences and perceptions of feedback in first year undergraduate students. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(3), 260-272.
112. Ruiz-Primo, M. A., and Li, M. (2013). Analyzing teachers’ feedback practices in response to students’ work in science classrooms. Applied Measurement in Education, 26(3), 163-175.
113. Schildkamp, K., and Visscher, A. (2010). The use of performance feedback in school improvement in Louisiana. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1389-1403.
114. Sendziuk, P. (2010). Sink or swim? Improving student learning through feedback and self-assessment. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 22(3), 320-330.
115. Shadish, W. R., and Luellen, J. K. (2006). Quasi-experimental design. In J. L. Green, G. Camilli, and P. B. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 539-550). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
116. Sijtsma, K. (2009). On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s alpha. Psychometrika, 74(1), 107-120.
117. Simons, D. J. (2014). The value of direct replication. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(1), 76-80.
118. Smith, J. K., Smith, L. F., and Smith, B. K. (2017). The reproducibility crisis in psychology: Attack of the clones or phantom menace? In M. C.Makel and J. A. Plucker (Eds.), Toward a more perfect psychology: Improving trust, accuracy, and transparency in research (pp. 273-287).Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
119. Smith, M. L. (2006). Multiple methodology in education research. In J. L. Green, G. Camilli, and P. B. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 457-475). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
120. Stemler, S. E. (2004). A comparison of consensus, consistency, and measurement approaches to estimating interrater reliability. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 9(4). Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/m7grwph.
121. Strijbos, J.-W., Narciss, S., and Dünnebier, K. (2010). Peer feedback content and sender’s competence level in academic writing revision tasks: Are they critical for feedback perceptions and efficiency? Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 291-303.
122. Tang, J., and Harrison, C. (2011). Investigating university tutor perceptions of assessment feedback: Three types of tutor beliefs. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(5), 583-604.
123. Teo, T., and Fan, X. (2013). Coefficient alpha and beyond: Issues and alternatives for educational research. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 22(2), 209-213.
124. Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237-246.
125. Tjeerdsma, B. L. (1997). Comparison of teacher and student perspectives of tasks and feedback. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 16(4), 388-400.
126. Tseng, S.-C., and Tsai, C.-C. (2007). On-line peer assessment and the role of the peer feedback: A study of high school computer course. Computers and Education, 49(4), 1161-1174.
127. Tunstall, P., and Gipps, C. (1996a). “How does your teacher help you to make your work better?" Children’s understanding of formative assessment. Curriculum Journal, 7(2), 185-203.
128. Tunstall, P., and Gipps, C. (1996b). Teacher feedback to young children in formative assessment: A typology. British Educational Research Journal, 22(4), 389-404.
129. Van der Kleij, F., Adie, L., and Cumming, J. (2016). Using video technology to enable student voice in assessment feedback. British Journal of Educational Technology. Advanced online publication. doi:10.1111/bjet.12536.
130. Voerman, L., Meijer, P. C., Korthagen, F. A. J., and Simons, R. J. (2012). Types and frequencies of feedback interventions in classroom interaction in secondary education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(8), 1107-1115.
131. Vollmeyer, R., and Rheinberg, F. (2005). A surprising effect of feedback on learning. Learning and Instruction, 15(6), 589-602.
132. Vul, E., Harris, C., Winkielman, P., and Pashler, H. (2009). Puzzlingly high correlations in fMRI studies of emotion, personality, and social cognition. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(3), 274-290.
133. Weaver, M. R. (2006). Do students value feedback? Student perceptions of tutors’ written responses. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(3), 379-394.
134. Webb, E. J., Campbell, D. T., Schwartz, R. D., Sechrest, L., and Grove, J. B. (1981). Nonreactive Measures in the Social Sciences (2nd edn.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
135. Werner, O., and Campbell, D. T. (1973). Translating, working through interpreters, and the problem of decentering. In R. Naroll and R. Cohen (Eds.), A handbook of method in cultural anthropology (pp. 398-420). New York: Columbia University Press.
136. Yin, R. K. (2006). Case study methods. In J. Green, G. Camilli, and P. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 111-122). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
137. Zumbo, B. D. (2015). Consequences, side effects and the ecology of testing: Keys to considering assessment in vivo. Paper presented at the plenary address to the 2015 annual conference of the Association for Educational Assessment -Europe, Glasgow, Scotland.