Toward a paradigm shift in feedback research: Five further steps influenced by self-regulated learning theory

Educational Psychologist

Volumn 58, Issue 3, 2023, Pages 193-204

  Panadero, Ernesto ^a,b,c  

^a DUBLIN CITY UNIVERSITY   (Ireland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF DEUSTO   (Spain)

^c BASQUE FOUNDATION FOR SCIENCE   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85164524932     PISSN: 00461520     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2023.2223642     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Allal, L. (2020). Assessment and the co-regulation of learning in the classroom. Assessment in Education, 27 (4), 332–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2019.1609411
2. Alqassab, M., Strijbos, J. W., & Ufer, S. (2018). The impact of peer solution quality on peer-feedback provision on geometry proofs: Evidence from eye-movement analysis. Learning and Instruction, 58, 182–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.07.003
3. Andrade, H. L., & Brookhart, S. M. (2020). Classroom assessment as the co-regulation of learning. Assessment in Education, 27 (4), 350–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2019.1571992
4. Arbel, Y., Feeley, E., & He, X. (2020). The effect of feedback on attention allocation in category learning: An eye tracking study. Frontiers in Psychology, 11 (3114), 559334. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.559334
5. Azevedo, R., Taub, M., & Mudrick, N. V. (2018). Understanding and reasoning about real-time cognitive, affective, and metacognitive processes to foster self-regulation with advanced learning technologies. In D. H. Schunk & J. A. Greene (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 254–270). Routledge.
6. Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, C. L. C., Kulik, J. A., & Morgan, M. T. (1991). The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research, 61 (2), 213–238. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543061002213
7. Berndt, M., Strijbos, J. W., & Fischer, F. (2018). Effects of written peer-feedback content and sender’s competence on perceptions, performance, and mindful cognitive processing. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 33 (1), 31–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-017-0343-z
8. Boekaerts, M., & Corno, L. (2005). Self-regulation in the classroom: A perspective on assessment and intervention. Applied Psychology, 54 (2), 199–231. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2005.00205.x
9. Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013). Rethinking models of feedback for learning: The challenge of design. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38 (6), 698–712. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2012.691462
10. Brewer, J., & Hunter, A. (1989). Multimethod research: A synthesis of styles. SAGE.
11. Brown, G. T. L., & Harris, L. R. (2018). Methods in feedback research. In A. A. Lipnevich & J. K. Smith (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of instructional feedback. Cambridge University Press.
12. Brown, Zhao. (2023). In defence of psychometric measurement: a systematic review of contemporary self-report feedback inventories. Educational Psychologist, 58 (3), 178–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2023.2208670
13. Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65 (3), 245–281. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543065003245
14. Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43 (8), 1315–1325. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354
15. Creswell, J. W., & Plano-Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE.
16. Cutumisu, M., Turgeon, K. L., Saiyera, T., Chuong, S., González Esparza, L. M., MacDonald, R., & Kokhan, V. (2019). Eye tracking the feedback assigned to undergraduate students in a digital assessment game. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1931. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01931
17. Educational Endowment Foundation. (2018). Teaching & Learning Toolkit. https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/public/files/Toolkit/complete/EEF-Teaching-Learning-Toolkit-October-2018.pdf
18. Eteläpeltoa, A., Kykyria, V. L., Penttonena, M., Hökkäa, P., Paloniemia, S., Vähäsantanena, K., Eteläpeltob, T., & Lappalainenb, V. (2018). A multi-componential methodology for exploring emotions in learning: Using self-reports, behaviour registration, and physiological indicators as complementary data. Frontline Learning Research, 6 (3), 6–36. https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v6i3.379
19. Fong, C. J., & Schallert, D. L. (2023). “Feedback to the future”: Advancing motivational and emotional perspectives in feedback research. Educational Psychologist, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2022.2134135
20. Fong, C. J., Schallert, D. L., Williams, K. M., Williamson, Z. H., Lin, S., Kim, Y. W., & Chen, L. H. (2021). Making feedback constructive: The interplay of undergraduates’ motivation with perceptions of feedback specificity and friendliness. Educational Psychology, 41 (10), 1241–1259. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2021.1951671
21. Fryer, L. K., & Dinsmore, D. L. (2020). The promise and Pitfalls of self-report. Frontline Learning Research, 8 (3), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v8i3.623
22. Fyfe, E. R., Borriello, G. A., & Merrick, M. (2022). A developmental perspective on feedback: How corrective feedback influences children’s literacy, mathematics, and problem solving. Educational Psychologist, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2022.2108426
23. Greene, J. A. (2020). Building upon synergies among self-regulated learning and formative assessment research and practice. Assessment in Education, 27 (4), 463–476. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2020.1802225
24. Greene, J. A. (2022). What can educational psychology learn from, and contribute to, theory development scholarship? Educational Psychology Review, 34 (4), 3011–3035. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-022-09682-5
25. Gregory, S. E. A., Winstone, N. E., Ridout, N., & Nash, R. A. (2020). Weak memory for future-oriented feedback: Investigating the roles of attention and improvement focus. Memory, 28 (2), 216–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2019.1709507
26. Harber, K. D. (2004). The positive feedback bias as a response to outgroup unfriendliness. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34 (11), 2272–2297. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb01977.x
27. Harber, K. D. (2023). The model of threat-infused intergroup feedback: Why, when, and how feedback to ethnic minority learners is positively biased. Educational Psychologist, 2023, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2023.2170377
28. Harber, K. D., Reeves, S., Gorman, J. L., Williams, C. H., Malin, J., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2019). The conflicted language of interracial feedback. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111 (7), 1220–1242. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000326
29. Harber, K. D., Stafford, R., & Kennedy, K. A. (2010). The positive feedback bias as a response to self-image threat. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 49 (Pt 1), 207–218. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466609X473956
30. Harris, L. R., & Brown, G. T. L. (2010). Mixing interview and questionnaire methods: Practical problems in aligning data. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 15 (1). http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=15&n=1
31. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77 (1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
32. Jonsson, A. (2013). Facilitating productive use of feedback in higher education. Active Learning in Higher Education, 14 (1), 63–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787412467125
33. Karoly, P., Boekaerts, M., & Maes, S. (2005). Toward consensus in the psychology of self-regulation: How far have we come? How far do we have yet to travel? Applied Psychology-an International Review-Psychologie Appliquee-Revue Internationale, 54 (2), 300–311. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2005.00211.x
34. Kluger, A. N., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254
35. Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77 (6), 1121–1134. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121
36. Lipnevich, A. A., & Panadero, E. (2021). A review of feedback models and theories: Descriptions, definitions, and conclusions. Frontiers in Education, 6 (481), 720195. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.720195
37. Lui, A. M., & Andrade, H. L. (2022). The Next Black Box of formative assessment: A model of the internal mechanisms of feedback processing [Hypothesis and Theory]. Frontiers in Education, 7, 51548. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.751548.
38. Máñez, I., Vidal-Abarca, E., Kendeou, P., & Martínez, T. (2019). How do students process complex formative feedback in question-answering tasks? A think-aloud study. Metacognition and Learning, 14 (1), 65–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-019-09192-w
39. Narciss, S., Sosnovsky, S., Schnaubert, L., Andrès, E., Eichelmann, A., Goguadze, G., & Melis, E. (2014). Exploring feedback and student characteristics relevant for personalizing feedback strategies. Computers & Education, 71, 56–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.011
40. Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane‐Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31 (2), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090
41. Nugteren, M. L., Jarodzka, H., Kester, L., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2018). Self-regulation of secondary school students: Self-assessments are inaccurate and insufficiently used for learning-task selection. Instructional Science, 46 (3), 357–381. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-018-9448-2
42. Panadero, E., Brown, G. T. L., & Strijbos, J. W. (2016). The future of student self-assessment: A review of known unknowns and potential directions. Educational Psychology Review, 28 (4), 803–830. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9350-2
43. Panadero, E., García-Pérez, D., Fernández-Ruiz, J., Fraile, J., Sánchez-Iglesias, I., & Brown, G. T. L. (2022). University students’ strategies and criteria during self-assessment: Instructor’s feedback, rubrics, and year level effects. European Journal of Psychology of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-022-00639-4
44. Panadero, E., Klug, J., & Järvelä, S. (2016). Third wave of measurement in the self-regulated learning field: When measurement and intervention come hand in hand. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 60 (6), 723–735. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2015.1066436
45. Panadero, E., & Lipnevich, A. A. (2022). A review of feedback typologies and models: Towards an integrative model of feedback elements. Educational Research Review, 35, 100416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100416
46. Paulus, T. M. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8 (3), 265–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80117-9
47. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & Mckeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53 (3), 801–813. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164493053003024
48. Reisenzein, R., Junge, M., Studtmann, M., & Huber, O. (2014). Observational approaches to the measurement of emotions. In R. Pekrun & L. Linnenbrink-Garcia (Eds.), International handbook of emotions in education (pp. 580–606). Routledge.
49. Schmitz, B., Klug, J., & Schmidt, M. (2011). Assessing self-regulated learning using diary measures with university students. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance. (pp. 251–266). Routledge.
50. Schunk, D. H., & Greene, J. A. (2018). Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance. Routledge.
51. Smith, M. L. (2006). Multiple methodology in education research. Handbook of Complementary Methods in Education Research, 457–475.
52. Vanderhasselt, M. A., De Raedt, R., Nasso, S., Puttevils, L., & Mueller, S. C. (2018). Don’t judge me: Psychophysiological evidence of gender differences to social evaluative feedback. Biological Psychology, 135, 29–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2018.02.017
53. Vanderhasselt, M. A., Remue, J., Ng, K. K., Mueller, S. C., & De Raedt, R. (2015). The regulation of positive and negative social feedback: A psychophysiological study. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 15 (3), 553–563. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-015-0345-8
54. Veenman, M. (2011). Alternative assessment of strategy use with self-report instruments: A discussion. Metacognition and Learning, 6 (2), 205–211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-011-9080-x
55. Wiliam, D. (2018). Feedback: At the heart of -but definitely not all of- formative assessment. In A. A. Lipnevich & J. K. Smith (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of instructional feedback (pp. 3–28). Cambridge University Press.
56. Winne, P. H., & Perry, N. E. (2000). Measuring self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 531–566). Academic Press.
57. Winstone, N. E., & Nash, R. A. (2023). Toward a cohesive psychological science of effective feedback. Educational Psychologist, 58 (3), 111–129.
58. Winstone, N. E., Nash, R. A., Parker, M., & Rowntree, J. (2017). Supporting learners’ agentic engagement with feedback: A systematic review and a taxonomy of recipience processes. Educational Psychologist, 52 (1), 17–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1207538
59. Yan, Z., & Brown, G. T. L. (2017). A cyclical self-assessment process: Towards a model of how students engage in self-assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42 (8), 1247–1262. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2016.1260091
60. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41 (2), 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2