Research School Network: Thinking About Feedback In this final blog in our series we explore the complex but crucial research evidence that underpins the principle of feedback.

According to the EEF Toolkit, feedback is ranked as number one in terms of its potential to improve learning outcomes for students, in particular those who come from disadvantaged backgrounds. The Toolkit suggests that effective feedback can add, on average, 8 months progress for relatively low cost: This is because effective feedback will mostly occur in the classroom and therefore not incur extra costs in terms of staffing etc. However, embedding effective feedback will need sustained professional development in order to improve practice.

Research evidence never provides silver bullets. Accordingly, one challenge presented by the evidence rating for feedback from the EEF derives from the source of the research evidence. The EEF’s rating originates from seven meta-analyses, and of these only two have been conducted in the last ten years. Additionally, many of the studies that demonstrate high average effects of feedback stem from small-scale studies in the field of psychology, meaning that the theoretical principles can be difficult to replicate in the messy arena of the classroom (although see Shaun Allison’s blog for practical ideas for how to implement feedback in the classroom). There have been some larger-scale educational studies but these tend to demonstrate lower effects.

Hattie’s meta-analysis, in which he synthesises various influences on learning outcomes, also pinpoints feedback as having huge potential on students’ outcomes. Hattie found that the average effect size of all the strategies in his meta-analyses is 0.4 whereas the effect size of feedback is 0.7. This means that according to Hattie’s research, feedback can improve the rate of learning in one year by at least 50%.

Likewise, in 1996, Kluger and DeNisi reviewed 3000 research reports on the effect of feedback. Out of these 3000 papers some were excluded as they did not reach the research criteria. This left 131 reports and 607 effect sizes involving 12653 individuals. Their findings demonstrated that, on average, feedback increases achievement but effect sizes are highly variable. For example, 38% (231 out of 607) of the effect sizes were negative.

What does this mean in educational reality? Ultimately, it can and really does matter if a teacher gives poor feedback. As feedback has such a large range of effects it means that sometimes feedback can have negative effects and make things worse. It is, therefore, crucial to understand the potential benefits and possible limitations of feedback as a teaching and learning approach.

The concept behind feedback is fairly simple. The teacher has identified a gap in terms of what a student can do and then provides feedback to help close this gap. This is the key message conveyed by Hattie and Timperley in their 2007 paper ​‘The Power of Feedback’. In this paper, Hattie and Timperley present a model in which feedback is categorised into four different types. The model is predicated on the principle that effective feedback is a reciprocal process in which both the teacher and student give and receive information to help close the learning gap.

The first feedback category is feedback on the task. This is where the student finds out if the work is correct or incorrect, or in other words if their answers are right or wrong. Examples of feedback on the task could include checking the accuracy of historical facts, the plot of a story or the correct chemical symbols for elements on the periodic table. This type of feedback builds surface-level knowledge that is essential for deeper learning.

The second feedback category is feedback on the process. This refers to providing feedback on the process or procedure used to create a product, be it a piece of writing, a calculation or a type of pass in basketball. Providing feedback on the process supports the student to complete the task in the right way by spotting mistakes and giving immediate corrections. Examples of this type of feedback could include asking students to rewrite a sentence using more tentative language or instructing a student to bend their knee in line with their elbow when they shoot.

The third type of feedback is feedback on self-regulation. This type of feedback involves eliciting information on how well the student is planning, monitoring and evaluating their work, and how successfully they are taking control of their own learning behaviour. An example of feedback on self-regulation might be helping the student to appraise the process they have gone through to complete a task and identify how this will help in future tasks, for example ​‘You’ve used the procedure we practised in class to break down the question. How will this help you with the 20 mark questions in the exam?’

The three types of feedback outlined above can be challenging to get right in the classroom but if used accurately will more than likely have a positive impact on students’ outcomes. The fourth type of feedback – feedback aimed at the self on a personal level – however, can be very damaging. Hattie and Timperley describe this type of feedback as that which is aimed at the student rather than the learning, for example comments such as ​‘You’re really good at geography’ or ​‘You’ve tried your best. Well done!’ It is difficult, and potentially dangerous, to try to control how a student will interpret feedback aimed at their personal qualities. To be effective, feedback should focus on the process and outcomes of the student’s learning rather than their innate qualities or talents.

Dylan Wiliam states that the fundamental principle of effective classroom feedback is that it should be more work for the recipient than the donor. Secondly, Wiliam reminds us that most of the time, the purpose of feedback is to improve the work of students on tasks they have not yet completed. The EEF’s 2016 paper ​‘A Marked Improvement?’ helps to elucidate how these principles can be turned into practice whilst keeping an eye on teacher workload. The EEF reports that written marking plays a central role in teachers’ work and that it can indeed provide important feedback to students whilst also helping to identify students’ misunderstandings. However, the government’s 2014​‘Workload Challenge’ survey identified the frequency and extent of marking requirements as a key driver of large teacher workloads. Consequently, there is a clear need for schools to strike a balance.

Overall, ​‘A Marked Improvement?’ reports that the quality of existing evidence specifically on written marking is low, meaning that there is nothing at the moment that isolates marking as an effective form of feedback. Considering that written marking has been identified as contributing significantly to teacher workload, there seems to be an obvious need to explore different methods for written and non-written feedback. We need effective feedback to be happening in our classrooms but not to the detriment of the teaching workforce, which ultimately will be to the detriment of students as well. To help decide what these approaches could be, the EEF summarises its further findings on what enables effective and not-as-effective written marking:

• Careless mistakes should be marked differently to errors resulting from misunderstanding.

• Awarding grades for every piece of work may reduce the impact of marking.

• Using targets that are specific and actionable is likely to improve student progress.

• Students are unlikely to benefit from marking unless time is set aside for them to respond.

• Acknowledgment marking is unlikely to have any positive impact.

The EEF encapsulate their findings in the pithy phrase mark less but mark better. Although the research evidence behind feedback can seem vast, overwhelming and at times contradictory, a simple but well-informed principle like this is undoubtedly the way forward with feedback.