The DOI matches its Crossref record; 80 of the 81 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Beyond ‘doing time’: investigating the concept of student engagement with feedback
Abstract
Feedback on students’ assignments may be comprehensive and well-constructed as a result of careful thought from tutors trying to identify and address students’ needs. However, feedback’s utility ultimately depends on the way students engage with it. ‘Doing time’ by complying with a norm of collecting, but then only skim-reading, feedback is a long way from the ‘mindful’ engagement associated with reflection, interpretation, deepening understanding and changes in later behaviour. This article argues that the literature’s traditional focus on experimental studies of feedback attributes (whilst ignoring students’ engagement) is misplaced, particularly given the methodological problems and inconsistent findings associated with these studies. These limitations suggest the need for an alternative line of enquiry. In this article, we develop a conceptual framework intended to illuminate the process of student engagement with feedback. We further propose a research agenda which can convey the variety of student experiences and generate analytic insights about students’ evolving engagement as a result of multiple feedback encounters in an educational setting. We suggest that this research agenda can lead to policies and practices to enhance student engagement with feedback, which may build students’ sense of responsibility and ownership for their learning.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
In the citing paper
“Beyond the refinement of students’ feedback skills, an equally pivotal aspect is the cultivation of their feedback literacy, which ultimately determines their ability to reap the full benefits of peer feedback activities (Handley et al., 2011).”
From Incorporating peer feedback in academic writing: a systematic review of benefits and challenges (2024) · cites this paper as Handley et al., 2011
In the citing paper
“Student engagement with feedback, however, has been an under-researched area in L2 writing, although it has been shown to play a pivotal role in learning in studies of evaluation in higher education (Handley, Price & Millar, 2011;Price, Handley & Millar, 2011).”
From Student engagement with teacher and automated feedback on L2 writing (2018) · cites this paper as Handley, Price & Millar, 2011
In the citing paper
“although it has been shown to play a pivotal role in learning in studies of evaluation in higher education (Handley, Price & Millar, 2011;Price, Handley & Millar, 2011).”
From Student engagement with teacher and automated feedback on L2 writing (2018) · cites this paper as Handley, Price & Millar, 2011
Citations
Cites
Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change
Bandura, A. (1977) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.191 · Cited by 43,925
Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation.
Bloch, M. E. F., Lave, J., & Wenger, É. (1994) · Man · doi:10.2307/2804509 · Cited by 39,362
Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511815355 · Cited by 35,324
(1993) · Journal of the American Dietetic Association · doi:10.1016/0002-8223(93)91697-o · Cited by 18,452
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/003465430298487 · Cited by 12,905
School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543074001059 · Cited by 12,581 · cited 6×
“…studied—such as student conduct, attitudes and self-regulated learning—but argue that ‘engagement has considerable potential as a multidimensional construct that unites the three components in a meaningful way . . . and can be thought of as a meta construct’ (Fredricks et al., 2004, p. 60).”
BackgroundInfluentialThe critical incident technique.
Flanagan, J. C. (1954) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0061470 · Cited by 8,191
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254 · Cited by 5,882
Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement
Saks, A. M. (2006) · Journal of Managerial Psychology · doi:10.1108/02683940610690169 · Cited by 5,577
Expansive Learning at Work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization
Engeström, Y. (2001) · Journal of Education and Work · doi:10.1080/13639080020028747 · Cited by 5,436
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- Boud D. 2009. Assessment for real-world learning. Seminar at Oxford Brookes University 21 January 2009.
- 10.3102/00346543059002117 · DOI · Paper page
- Hawkridge , D. and Edirisingha , P. 2002 . Interaction through media, texts and technologies, course material for H802, Applications of Information Technology in Open and Distance Education , 5th edn. , Milton Keynes : The Open University .
- Marton , F. and Saljo , R. 1984 . “ Approaches to learning ” . In The experience of learning , Edited by: Marton , F. , Hounsell , D. and Entwistle , N. Edinburgh : Scottish Academic Press .
- Willis , P. 1977 . Learning to labour , Farnborough : Saxon House .
- Willms , J. 2003 . Student engagement at school: a sense of belonging and participation , Paris : Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development .
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Winstone, N. E., Nash, R. A., Parker, M., & Rowntree, J. (2017) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2016.1207538 · Cited by 884
Student engagement with teacher and automated feedback on L2 writing
Zhang, Z. (., & Hyland, K. (2018) · Assessing Writing · doi:10.1016/j.asw.2018.02.004 · Cited by 546
Winstone, N. E., Nash, R. A., Rowntree, J., & Parker, M. (2017) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075079.2015.1130032 · Cited by 417
“As noted earlier, for feedback to be put into action, students have to be ‘ready to engage’ (Handley et al. 2011); our data show that this implementation can be impeded by a lack of proactivity and receptiveness.”
BackgroundFostering student engagement with feedback: An integrated approach
Zhang, Z., & Hyland, K. (2021) · Assessing Writing · doi:10.1016/j.asw.2021.100586 · Cited by 351
Zhang, Z. (. (2020) · Assessing Writing · doi:10.1016/j.asw.2019.100439 · Cited by 256
Metadata
- Authors
- Handley, K., Price, M., & Millar, J.
- Affiliations
- Oxford Brookes University (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Handley, Karen
- Venue
- Oxford Review of Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2011-08
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 543-560
- ISSN
- 0305-4985 (ISSN-L)
- 1465-3915
- OpenAlex
- W2027126099
- Cited by
- 181
- References
- 81
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 4 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 10.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Oxford Review of Education (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
- Social Sciences › Education › Higher Education Practises and Engagement
- Keywords
- student engagement with feedback, assignment feedback, student reflection, conceptual framework, research agenda, student ownership of learning
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
