CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 64Innovations in Medical EducationStudent Assessment and FeedbackClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills

What attributes guide best practice for effective feedback? A scoping review

Open access
Ossenberg, Christine, Henderson, Amanda, Mitchell, Marion·2019·Advances in Health Sciences Education
DOI 10.1007/s10459-018-9854-x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

There has been an observed increase in literature concerning feedback within the last decade, with the importance of feedback well documented. Current discourse promotes feedback as an interactive, dialogic process between the learner and the learning partner. While much has been written about effective feedback, less is known about key elements that support dialogic feedback. It is therefore important to investigate what is known about the elements that guide best practice for effective feedback. A scoping review of the extant literature following Arksey and O'Malley's methodology was conducted. A search of literature published in English identified sixty-one publications eligible for this review. Publications were representative of the international literature from both empirical and non-empirical sources. Feedback elements were extracted from the included publications and categorised into 11 core attributes. The attributes identified feedback as: being a process; criteria-based; requiring multiple forms and sources of data/evidence; needs to be desired by the recipient (i.e. invited and welcomed); timely; responsive to the learner (i.e. tailored to developmental needs/learning preferences of the learner); frequent; future-focussed; reciprocal (i.e. two-way); involves skilful interaction; and is multidimensional (i.e. engages the learner in more than one way). Despite the rhetoric on feedback as a 'dialogic process', a gap remains in our understanding around what is require…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10459-018-9854-x

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The efficacy of peer assessment, like traditional feedback, is likely to be contingent on a range of factors including characteristics of the learning environment, the student, and the assessment itself.

    “However, the efficacy of peer assessment, like traditional feedback, is likely to be contingent on a range of factors including characteristics of the learning environment, the student, and the assessment itself (Kluger and DeNisi 1996; Ossenberg et al. 2018).”

    From The Impact of Peer Assessment on Academic Performance: A Meta-analysis of Control Group Studies (2020) · cites this paper as Ossenberg et al. 2018

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 54 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Ossenberg, C., Henderson, A., & Mitchell, M.
Affiliations
Griffith University (AU)
Corresponding author
Ossenberg, Christine
ORCID
Venue
Advances in Health Sciences Education
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2018-10-03
Volume
24
Issue
2
Pages
383-401
ISSN
  • 1382-4996 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-1677
DOI
10.1007/s10459-018-9854-x
OpenAlex
W2895471274
Cited by
60
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 1
FWCI
1.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Advances in Health Sciences Education (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Acquire (CQUniversity) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Metro South Health
  • Australian Government
  • Department of Education and Training
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Keywords
feedback, dialogic feedback, best practices, student engagement, timely feedback, reciprocal feedback, feedback mechanisms
MeSH terms
Formative Feedback, Clinical Competence, Environment, Health Occupations, Humans, Learning, Teaching, Time Factors, Models, Educational

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review