CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 73Student Assessment and FeedbackEvaluation of Teaching PracticesEducational Technology and E-Learning

"Check the Grade, Log Out": Students' Engagement with Feedback in Learning Management Systems

Open access
Winstone, Naomi, Bourne, Jessica, Medland, Emma, Niculescu, Irina, Rees, Roger·2021·Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education
DOI 10.1080/02602938.2020.1787331
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

There is growing recognition that socio-constructivist representations of feedback processes, where students build their own understanding through engaging with and discussing feedback information, are more appropriate than cognitivist transmission-oriented models. In parallel, practice has developed away from hard-copy handwritten or typed feedback comments, towards the provision of e-feedback in learning management systems (LMS). Through thematic analysis of activity-oriented focus groups with 33 undergraduate students, the present study aimed to explore 1) students’ experience of engaging with feedback in the LMS; 2) barriers to students’ engagement; and 3) students’ perceptions of the potential for technology to ameliorate these barriers. The data reveal particular barriers to engagement created by the LMS environment; grades and feedback are commonly separated spatially, limiting attention to the latter. Additionally, the distributed location of feedback from different tasks limits synthesis of feedback. Nevertheless, students perceived that the LMS environment affords opportunities for addressing such challenges, particularly in relation to the potential for a tool to synthesise feedback information across modules, and to direct students to resources to develop their skills. The findings are discussed in the context of cycles of engagement with feedback, and implications for the principled use of technology in feedback processes are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/02602938.2020.1787331

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

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

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Winstone, N., Bourne, J., Medland, E., Niculescu, I., & Rees, R.
Affiliations
  • University of Surrey (GB)
  • University of Bristol (GB)
Corresponding author
Winstone, Naomi
ORCID
Venue
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2020-07-06
Volume
46
Issue
4
Pages
631-643
ISSN
  • 0260-2938 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-297X
DOI
10.1080/02602938.2020.1787331
OpenAlex
W3038632104
Cited by
73
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 12
FWCI
11.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education (publishedVersion)
  • Explore Bristol Research (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • Deakin Research Online (Deakin University) (submittedVersion)
  • Surrey Research Insight Open Access (The University of Surrey) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Educational Technology and E-Learning
Keywords
feedback, virtual learning environments, student engagement with feedback, socio-constructivist learning, feedback synthesis, undergraduate students

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