Research School Network: Effective Feedback What is and isn’t effective
—
Effective Feedback
What is and isn’t effective
Share on:
by Sandringham Research School
on the
by Karen Roskilly, Research Lead
We were delighted to welcome delegates to our first (sold out!) course of the year today: Effective Feedback to Maximise Progress.
The aims for the day were to:
a) Examine different types of feedback
b) Consider what effective feedback looks like, including student response
c) Consider workload
d) Examine how evidence can be used to support feedback policies
A key session was looking at a number of factors which impact on the effectiveness of feedback:
Feedback level:
Hattie and Timperley (2007:86) identify four levels of feedback: task level, process level, self-regulation level and self level. The most useful levels – subject and self-regulation. Feedback which links the levels may help students to recognise how feedback from one task can be applied to another.
The diagram below illustrates each of the four levels.
Grading:
According to Kohn (1994:41)), ‘Never grade a student while they are still learning’, as the learning stops as soon as they get a grade! Similarly, Butler (1988) investigated the effectiveness of different kinds of feedback, comparing the impact of grade only marking, comment only marking and comment and grade marking. The outcome of the study was that the students who received comment only marking produced a 30% improvement in their scores from the beginning to the end of the research period, The effect of giving both comments and grades was the same as just giving a grade, suggesting that giving a grade negates any benefits the comments could have.
Timing:
The research in this area reveals a complex picture. Obviously students don’t learn a great deal if feedback comes too long after the completion of a piece of work. Research suggests that immediate feedback can be particularly useful when students are learning complex concepts or processes where there is a risk of developing misconceptions. However, feedback that is too immediate may cause students to rely on teachers for answers rather than persevering and figuring out problems on their own (Bangert-Drowns, Kulik, Kulik, & Morgan, 1991).
Therefore, the timing of feedback seems to be related to the task. Where there is risk of misconception developing, immediate feedback can be central to preventing this. However, a task that involves the application of knowledge and understanding, such as an essay, may benefit from more delayed feedback. Just not too delayed! Wiggins (2012) suggests that it is more precise to say that effective feedback should be timely rather than necessarily immediate.
Volume:
If feedback is too long or too complicated, many learners will simply not pay attention to it, rendering it useless. Lengthy feedback can also diffuse or dilute the message you are trying to give to students (Hattie and Timperley, 1997). Research suggests that elaborated feedback should be given in small chunks so that it is not overwhelming and/or discarded (Sweller et al., 1998) and that presenting too much information may not only result in a superficial learning, but also result in cognitive overload (Mayer & Moreno, 2002).
Praise:
Hattie and Timperley (1997) identify feedback about the self as the least effective form of feedback teachers can provide as it does not help to answer three vital feedback questions: Where am I going? How am I going? Where to next? Personal feedback such as ‘good girl’ or ‘great effort’ typically expresses positive (or negative) evaluations about a student and does not focus on providing task specific feedback to support improvement.
Indeed, Kluger and DeNisi (1996) found that feedback effectiveness decreases as feedback moves closer to the self and further from the task. Praise had a very low effect size and, indeed, no praise had a greater impact on achievement (Kluger and DeNisi, 1998), suggesting that the use of praise decreases the effectiveness of the other feedback given.
However, narrowly focusing on the formative function of feedback ignores the potentially positive impact that comments such as ‘excellent’ or ‘good’ can have on students’ self-esteem and motivation (Cowie, 2005). But use it with caution. According to Willingham (2010), you should praise process rather than ability and avoid insincere praise. Dishonest praise is seen as destructive and can result in a teacher losing credibility.
Classroom climate:
Hattie and Timperley (2007:100) note that ‘the climate of the classroom is critical, particularly if disconfirmation and corrective feedback at any level is to be welcomed and used by the students’. Students are more likely to actively engage with, and act upon, corrective feedback in an environment of trust and support.
A recent Sutton Trust report (Coe, Aliosi, Higgins and Major, 2014) also highlights classroom climate as one of six components of great teaching. Indeed, Cowie (2005) stated that a lack of trust and mutual respect would limit the effectiveness of any feedback given and received.
Creating a climate in which there is no fear of failure seems to be central to this. Feedback becomes more effective when a student is receptive to taking a risk and making a change and the relationship the student has with the teacher is key.
According to Wiliam (2016:15), ‘To give effective feedback, the teacher needs to know the student — to understand what feedback the student needs right now. And to receive feedback in a meaningful way, the student needs to trust the teacher — to believe that the teacher knows what he or she is talking about and has the student’s best interests at heart. Without this trust, the student is unlikely to invest the time and effort needed to absorb and use the feedback.’
We really enjoyed the day and are looking forward to the other courses we are facilitating this term. More details about our courses can be found here: https://researchschool.org.uk/sandringham/events/
