Students' and teachers' views of written feedback at undergraduate level: A literature review
Abstract
Objectives To explore undergraduate students' expectations and teachers' views of written feedback. Design Narrative literature review. Data sources Seven electronic databases were searched for primary research published in English with additional manual searches and reference tracking. Review methods Systematic approach to search strategy, selection and appraisal of papers, data extraction and synthesis following Hawker et al.'s (2002) guidelines. Results 21 studies met the inclusion criteria. Four student themes were identified concerning written feedback: quality, quantity and location of feedback, feed-forward and timeliness. Teachers reported that time pressures, institutional policies, and administrative issues affect feedback provision. Conclusions Rigorous research is needed to gain a better understanding of students' expectations of written feedback. Strategies need to be adopted to meet students' expectations and educate students to take an active role and reflect on the feedback received.
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 need illustration and guidance in order to make productive use of feedback.
“As well, students need illustration and guidance in order to make productive use of feedback (Agius & Wilkinson 2014; Bailey 2009; Doan 2013; Douglas et al 2016; Pokorny & Pickford 2010; Robinson et al., 2013; Winstone et al 2017),”
From Drawing on Readerly Intuition in Sentence Level Feedback (2022) · cites this paper as Agius & Wilkinson 2014
Cites
Assessment and Classroom Learning
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998) · Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice · doi:10.1080/0969595980050102 · Cited by 8,152 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Bone (2006) conducted FG interviews with students (n = 65) and tutors (n = 12, 11 HEIs), to explore their perceived benefits of formative assessment on learning.”
BackgroundKluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254 · Cited by 5,882 · see citing works
Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane‐Dick, D. (2006) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075070600572090 · Cited by 5,846 · see citing works
Greenhalgh, T., & Peacock, R. (2005) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.38636.593461.68 · Cited by 2,045 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Using Greenhalgh and Peacock's (2005) snowball sampling technique, key journals were scrutinised for other relevant publications.”
BackgroundMethodAppraising the Evidence: Reviewing Disparate Data Systematically
Hawker, S., Payne, S., Kerr, C., Hardey, M., & Powell, J. (2002) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732302238251 · Cited by 1,216 · see citing works
Beyond feedback: developing student capability in complex appraisal
Sadler, D. R. (2010) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602930903541015 · Cited by 1,138 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Patchan, M. M., Schunn, C. D., & Correnti, R. J. (2016) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/edu0000103 · Cited by 165 · see citing works
Instructors’ Perspectives of Challenges and Barriers to Providing Effective Feedback
Paris, B. (2022) · Teaching and Learning Inquiry · doi:10.20343/teachlearninqu.10.3 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
Drawing on Readerly Intuition in Sentence Level Feedback
Kaler, M. J., Vroom, J., & Richter, C. (2022) · Discourse and Writing/Rédactologie · doi:10.31468/dwr.913 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Agius, N. M., & Wilkinson, A.
- Affiliations
- King's College London (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Agius, Natalie M.
- Venue
- Nurse Education Today
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2014-04
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 552-559
- ISSN
- 0260-6917 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1994570468
- Cited by
- 72
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2
- FWCI
- 2.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Nurse Education Today (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Strategic Educational Pathways Scholarship (Malta)
- European Union-European Social Fund (ESF)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
- Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
- Keywords
- written feedback, student expectations, teacher perceptions, undergraduate students, feedback quality, feedforward, feedback provision, nursing education, student reflection
- MeSH terms
- Education, Nursing, Baccalaureate, Educational Measurement, Faculty, Nursing, Feedback, Humans, Students, Nursing, Writing
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
