Research School Network: Go-to Guidance Reports: Teacher Feedback To Improve Learning In this series of blogs we will be looking at our go-to guidance reports. We will be starting with a dive into feedback.

In this series of blogs, we are exploring some of our go-to guidance reports from the EEF resources hub. Feedback has consistently been one of the highest-ranking approaches in the EEF’s teaching learning toolkit when considering both impact and strength of evidence.

The guidance report, acknowledges that feedback is multifaceted and can come from many sources. However, it focuses predominantly on teacher feedback, and this blog will do the same by concentrating on Recommendation 1.

Feedback is defined as the ​“information given by a teacher to pupil(s) about their performance that aims to improve learning.” To make this effective, teachers must consider the content of their feedback, how it will be delivered, who it is directed to, and when it should be given. Feedback must build on what students already know or can do; otherwise, it risks becoming redundant (Hattie and Timperley, 2007). Recommendation 1 therefore highlights the importance of laying strong foundations for feedback and suggests teachers:

• build on pupils’ prior knowledge and experience;
• avoid overloading pupils’ working memory by breaking down complex material into smaller steps;
• encourage retention by using repetition, practice, and retrieval of key knowledge and skills;
• deliver a carefully sequenced curriculum that teaches essential concepts, knowledge, skills, and principles;
• use powerful analogies, illustrations, examples, explanations, comparisons, and demonstrations;
• anticipate common misconceptions and plan strategies to address them;
• plan effective lessons that make purposeful use of modelling, explanations, and scaffolds;
• adapt teaching responsively to support both struggling and excelling learners while maintaining high expectations for all (Early Career Framework);
• provide pupils with tools and strategies to plan, monitor, and evaluate their learning.

Put simply, Recommendation 1 emphasises that for feedback to be meaningful to pupils, it must be timely and actionable. This leads us to several important questions:

What should we give feedback on?

Feedback should be provided when a teacher identifies a specific learning gap. This depends on having a strong understanding of how to elicit evidence of learning. The guidance report highlights a range of strategies for this, including effective questioning, all-student response systems, and carefully designed tasks.

When should we give feedback?

Given the mixed evidence on timing, the report suggests that decisions about when to give feedback should be left to the professional judgement of the classroom teacher.

How should we give feedback?

Feedback should be designed to move learning forward and support pupils in developing self-regulation. Personal praise such as ​“Well done, you are brilliant at maths” is less effective because it is unlikely to improve learning and can imply fixed ability.

Instead, consider this example:
​“In maths, pupils have been set a problem to solve. One child does not know where to start. The teacher prompts them: ​‘Look at our display of strategies we’ve used to solve similar problems. I think one of those could help you here.’”
This type of prompt helps pupils learn how to plan, monitor, and evaluate their own learning — key elements of self-regulation.

How do we ensure feedback is used effectively?

Recommendation 3 highlights several factors that influence whether pupils use feedback well: their motivation and desire for feedback, their self-confidence and self-concept, their trust in the teacher, and their working memory. Teachers can support these by discussing the purpose of feedback, modelling how to use it, providing clear and concise guidance, and ensuring pupils understand what the feedback means.

Dylan Wiliam (2018) summarises the essence of effective feedback:
​“The important point is that feedback is more work for the recipient than the donor, and causes thinking rather than an emotional reaction.”