The eye-mind of processing written feedback: Unraveling how students read and use feedback for revision
Open accessAbstract
This research aims to promote our understanding of feedback engagement processes in writing tasks using a combination of online and offline measures, including eye-tracking, thinking-aloud, and text-analyses. Study 1 explored how sixteen students read, evaluate, and use feedback for revision. Results revealed three feedback processing strategies: (1) superficial processing (n = 6), which is characterized by reading feedback in a linear way, without critically rereading or revising the text, (2) local processing (n = 6) in which students switched between reading the comments and the commented text, and (3) deep processing (n = 4) in which students integrated the feedback with both commented and uncommented parts of the text and made more substantial revisions. In Study 2, we investigated the local and deep feedback reading strategy in more detail with 41 students using a within-subject design with different types of feedback. Results demonstrated the same strategies among students, but also that the focus of feedback affected students' revision behavior, above and beyond an individual feedback processing strategy. This finding is in line with previous research that emphasized the effects of feedback characteristics on students’ use of feedback. By triangulating various process measures, this research is one of the first that provides empirical evidence for different feedback processing strategies among students. These novel insights in individual feedback engagement processing…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Students almost never read feedback fully.
“students almost never read the feedback fully (Bouwer and Dirkx, 2023)”
From Using version control to document genuine effort in written assignments: a protocol with examples for universities (2023) · cites this paper as Bouwer and Dirkx, 2023
Cites
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/003465430298487 · Cited by 12,905 · see citing works
McCambridge, J., Witton, J., & Elbourne, D. R. (2014) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.08.015 · Cited by 2,748 · see citing works
The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback
Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354 · Cited by 2,428 · see citing works
The Power of Feedback Revisited: A Meta-Analysis of Educational Feedback Research
Wisniewski, B., Zierer, K., & Hattie, J. (2020) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03087 · Cited by 1,199 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Although feedback is seen as an invaluable part of the writing process, it does not necessarily always lead to improved writing performance (Graham, 2018; Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Wisniewski et al., 2020).”
BackgroundWinstone, N. E., Nash, R. A., Parker, M., & Rowntree, J. (2017) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2016.1207538 · Cited by 884 · cited 4× · see citing works
“Yet, most of the research that has been conducted on students ’ judgments of feedback used self-report surveys or retrospective interviews (Winstone, Nash, Parker, & Rowntree, 2017).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialRevision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers
Sommers, N. (1980) · College Composition & Communication · doi:10.2307/356588 · Cited by 749 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Without any feedback, students revise only little, and their revisions are primarily focused on surface-level aspects such as spelling, grammar, and genre conventions, instead of making substantial changes in the content and structure of the text (Faigley & Witte, 1981; Sommers, 1980).”
BackgroundDeveloping a learning-centred framework for feedback literacy
Molloy, E., Boud, D., & Henderson, M. (2020) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2019.1667955 · Cited by 555 · cited 2× · see citing works
“The current findings can be placed in a more general discussion evolving around the concept of feedback literacy (De Kleijn, 2021; Molloy et al., 2020).”
BackgroundThe effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing
Paulus, T. M. (1999) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/s1060-3743(99)80117-9 · Cited by 522 · see citing works
Winstone, N. E., Nash, R. A., Rowntree, J., & Parker, M. (2017) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075079.2015.1130032 · Cited by 417 · see citing works
The Cambridge Handbook of Instructional Feedback
(2018) · doi:10.1017/9781316832134 · Cited by 144 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
On the role of engagement in automated feedback effectiveness: Insights from keystroke logging
Schiller, R., Fleckenstein, J., Höft, L., Horbach, A., & Meyer, J. (2025) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2025.105386 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Orbán, L. L. (2023) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2023.1169938 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
- Authors
- Bouwer, R., & Dirkx, K.
- Affiliations
- Utrecht University (NL)
- Zuyd University of Applied Sciences (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Bouwer, Renske
- Venue
- Learning and Instruction
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2023-06
- Volume
- 85
- Pages
- 101745
- ISSN
- 0959-4752 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4319780857
- Cited by
- 37
- References
- 10
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 3
- FWCI
- 27.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Learning and Instruction (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Universiteit Utrecht
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
- Keywords
- written feedback, revision behavior, student writing, feedback engagement, local processing, deep processing, eye tracking, think-aloud, feedback characteristics
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
