Student – Feedback Interaction Model: Revised
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?
The effectiveness of feedback depends not only on its content and timing but also on students' receptivity and ability to implement suggested improvements.
“The feedback component, in particular, requires careful consideration in its design and delivery, as its effectiveness depends not only on the content and timing but also on students' receptivity and ability to implement suggested improvements [8][9][10].”
From Formative assessment and feedback in medical education: A practical guide: AMEE Guide No. 189 (2026) · cites this paper as [8]
Feedback is a cornerstone of formative assessment, providing learners with essential insights into their performance and guiding their development.
“Feedback is a cornerstone of formative assessment, providing learners with essential insights into their performance and guiding their development [8,72].”
From Formative assessment and feedback in medical education: A practical guide: AMEE Guide No. 189 (2026) · cites this paper as [8]
Structured tools such as reflective journals, guided self-assessment forms, and annotated exemplars can effectively scaffold the self-reflection process.
“Structured tools such as reflective journals, guided self-assessment forms, and annotated exemplars can effectively scaffold the self-reflection process [8,112,113].”
From Formative assessment and feedback in medical education: A practical guide: AMEE Guide No. 189 (2026) · cites this paper as [8]
The phase of receiving feedback is more complex than providing feedback.
“In contrast, the phase of receiving feedback appears to be more complex (e.g., Lipnevich & Smith, 2022;Winstone et al., 2017)”
From Enhancing the Peer-Feedback Process Through Instructional Support: A Meta-Analysis (2025) · cites this paper as Lipnevich & Smith, 2022
Cites
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/003465430298487 · Cited by 12,905 · see citing works
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254 · Cited by 5,882 · see citing works
Pekrun, R. (2006) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-006-9029-9 · Cited by 5,566 · see citing works
Shute, V. J. (2008) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/0034654307313795 · Cited by 4,631 · see citing works
Richardson, M., Abraham, C., & Bond, R. (2012) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0026838 · Cited by 3,646 · see citing works
Folkman, S., & Moskowitz, J. T. (2004) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141456 · Cited by 3,485 · see citing works
The Impact of Classroom Evaluation Practices on Students
Crooks, T. J. (1988) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543058004438 · Cited by 1,369 · see citing works
The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events.
Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, C.-L. C., Kulik, J. A., & Morgan, M. (1991) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543061002213 · Cited by 1,313 · see citing works
Cognitive load theory and educational technology
Sweller, J. (2020) · Educational Technology Research and Development · doi:10.1007/s11423-019-09701-3 · Cited by 911 · see citing works
Winstone, N. E., Nash, R. A., Parker, M., & Rowntree, J. (2017) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2016.1207538 · Cited by 884 · see citing works
Developing sustainable feedback practices
Carless, D., Salter, D., Yang, M., & Lam, J. (2011) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075071003642449 · Cited by 869 · see citing works
Feedback in Written Instruction
Kulhavy, R. W. (1977) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543047002211 · Cited by 571 · see citing works
The feedback triangle and the enhancement of dialogic feedback processes
Yang, M., & Carless, D. (2013) · Teaching in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/13562517.2012.719154 · Cited by 414 · see citing works
The power of internal feedback: Exploiting natural comparison processes
Nicol, D. (2021) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2020.1823314 · Cited by 402 · see citing works
A review of feedback models and typologies: Towards an integrative model of feedback elements
Panadero, E., & Lipnevich, A. A. (2022) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100416 · Cited by 389 · see citing works
Self-citationCorbett, A. T., & Anderson, J. R. (2001) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/365024.365111 · Cited by 280 · see citing works
Panadero, E., & Alqassab, M. (2019) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2019.1600186 · Cited by 232 · see citing works
Panadero, E., Jonsson, A., & Strijbos, J.-W. (2016) · The Enabling Power of Assessment · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-39211-0_18 · Cited by 212 · see citing works
Goetz, T., Lüdtke, O., Nett, U. E., Keller, M. M., & Lipnevich, A. A. (2013) · Contemporary Educational Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.08.001 · Cited by 211 · see citing works
Self-citationStudent Perceptions of Assessment Feedback: A Critical Scoping Review and Call for Research
Van der Kleij, F. M., & Lipnevich, A. A. (2021) · Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability · doi:10.1007/s11092-020-09331-x · Cited by 189 · see citing works
Self-citationGielen, S., Tops, L., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., & Smeets, S. (2010) · British Educational Research Journal · doi:10.1080/01411920902894070 · Cited by 160 · 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
Schiller, R., Fleckenstein, J., Mertens, U., Horbach, A., & Meyer, J. (2024) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105163 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Tomazin, L., Lipnevich, A. A., & Lopera-Oquendo, C. (2023) · Studies in Educational Evaluation · doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2023.101262 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Self-citationEnhancing the Peer-Feedback Process Through Instructional Support: A Meta-Analysis
Hornstein, J., Keller, M. V., Greisel, M., Dresel, M., & Kollar, I. (2025) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-025-10017-3 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
“In contrast, the phase of receiving feedback appears to be more complex (e.g., Lipnevich & Smith, 2022; Winstone et al., 2017): For feedback to be used efficiently, the feed-back receiver must understand it in the first place.”
Anchored in praise? Potential manifestation of the anchoring bias in feedback reception
Lipnevich, A. A., Eßer, F. J., Park, M. J., & Winstone, N. (2023) · Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice · doi:10.1080/0969594x.2023.2179956 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
“It is safe to assume that the manner in which feedback is presented elicits biases (Lipnevich & Smith, 2022).”
BackgroundMethodSelf-citationOn 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
- Authors
- Lipnevich, A. A., & Smith, J. K.
- Affiliations
- Queens College, CUNY (US)
- University of Otago (NZ)
- Corresponding author
- Lipnevich, Anastasiya A.
- Venue
- Studies in Educational Evaluation
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2022-12
- Volume
- 75
- Pages
- 101208
- ISSN
- 0191-491X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4307568461
- Cited by
- 125
- References
- 22
- Citations by year
- 2026: 46 · 2025: 43 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 14
- FWCI
- 42.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Studies In Educational Evaluation (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
- Keywords
- feedback, student self-regulation, self-assessment, affective learning, performance outcomes, learning outcomes
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
