Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 262

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Understanding feedback: A learning theory perspective

Open access
Thurlings, Marieke, Vermeulen, Marjan, Bastiaens, Theo, Stijnen, Sjef·2013·Educational Research Review

Abstract

This article aims to review literature on feedback to teachers. Because research has hardly focused on feedback among teachers, the review’s scope also includes feedback in classrooms. The review proposes that the effectiveness of feedback and feedback processes depend on the learning theory adhered to. Findings show that regardless of the learning theory effective feedback is goal- or task-directed, specific, and neutral. In addition, four rules of thumb were formulated that reflect what a majority of learning theories suggested as effective for learning. Finally, some feedback characteristics were considered effective from only one learning theory. The article shows that feedback processes are complicated and many variables influence and mediate the processes. Most reviewed studies did not investigate the whole feedback processes, and therefore, we suggest that future research is needed to further understand feedback.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.edurev.2012.11.004

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 9 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Thurlings, M., Vermeulen, M., Bastiaens, T., & Stijnen, S.
Venue
Educational Research Review
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-06
Volume
9
Pages
1-15
ISSN
1747-938X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2018058615
Cited by
262
References
9
FWCI
33.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.