Students’ feedback literacy in higher education: an initial scale validation study

“The sample size was deemed sufficient, as a 1:5 item-to-partici-pant ratio (Kyriazos 2018) yields a minimum sample size of 205 for exploratory factor analysis and Rasch analysis for polytomous items requires a minimum of 100 participants for most purposes (Chen et al. 2014; Linacre 1994).”

“…under the umbrella term feedback hides an array of possible feedback designs, which can be more or less elaborate, detailed, or motivating; a variety which may also explain the high degree of heterogeneity in the effects of feedback (Hattie and Timperley 2007; Wisniewski, Zierer, and Hattie 2020).”

“Specifically, Winstone et al. (2017) refer to the notion of proactive engagement, resonating with the conclusions of Garino (2020) that feedback engagement implies students being ready, willing, and able to learn from feed-back.”

“The qualitative work by Molloy, Boud, and Henderson (2020) was chosen as a starting point, as it empirically builds upon the conceptual groundwork of Carless and Boud (2018).”

“…attitudes toward feedback have been explored through the lens and terms of feedback orientation (Kasch et al. 2022; King et al. 2009; Linderbaum and Levy 2010), feedback conception (Brown et al. 2016), feedback perception (Strijbos et al. 2021), and feedback receptivity (Lipnevich et al. 2021).”