Cited by 105Student Assessment and FeedbackEvaluation of Teaching PracticesTeacher Education and Assessments

Quality of Feedback in Higher Education: A Review of Literature

Open access
Haughney, Kathryn, Wakeman, Shawnee, Hart, Laura·2020·Education Sciences

Abstract

In raising the standards for professional educators, higher educators must be prepared to provide the highest quality feedback on student performance and work products toward improved outcomes. This review of the literature examined the major findings of 70 quantitative, mixed methods, or qualitative studies found in higher education journals across a range of disciplines. Multiple recommendations and results for feedback emerged which fall into the categories described by Susan Brookhart. This review found research for each of Brookhart’s categories, with results indicating differences between the perceptions of adherence to sound feedback practices versus the reality of implementation, the potential for innovative tool use, and a disagreement about the effectiveness of peers for providing effective feedback. Indicators for quality within the research confirmed the importance of commonly accepted standards such as positivity, specificity, timeliness, and encouraging active student participation. Additionally, trends and themes indicated a need for the consistent implementation of the feedback exchange process and flexibility to account for student input/preferences. Greater consistency toward the application of these quality indicators should be undertaken when determining the quality of higher education feedback for preservice teachers prior to undertaking summative licensure assessments.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/educsci10030060

Cites

110 of 110 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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 quality of feedback comments is shaped by teachers' feedback literacy, quality assurance expectations, and disciplinary norms.

    “The quality of feedback comments is also shaped by teachers' feedback literacy, quality assurance expectations, and disciplinary norms, which influence what counts as useful, appropriate, and actionable feedback comments in different contexts [7-9].”

    From Making AI-Generated Feedback Matter: A Large-Scale Study of Feedback Workflows and Student Enactment (2026) · cites this paper as [7]

    The ‘Instructor Perception vs. Implementation’ section links instructors’ beliefs and practices to feedback quality and describes feedback aimed at disciplinary standards. Section 4.1.2 says that understanding high-quality feedback does not always translate into effective implementation. The Introduction discusses accountability pressures, but the paper does not establish that quality assurance expectations shape feedback comments; nor does it explicitly frame the other factors as teachers’ feedback literacy. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Feedback quality indicators are used by stakeholders in higher education to encourage active student participation.

    “Feedback quality indicators are used by stakeholders in HE to encourage active student participation [71,72].”

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Polly, D., Ed.; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2016; pp. 80-92.
  2. Wu, R. Feedback in Distance Education: A Content Analysis of Distance Education, a Doctoral Dissertation from Proquest Diss. Theses Glob. Available online: https://librarylink.uncc.edu/login?url=https://search- proquest-com.librarylink.uncc.edu/docview/1905845256?accountid=14605 (accessed on 1 August 2018).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Haughney, K., Wakeman, S., & Hart, L.
Affiliations
  • Georgia Southern University (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Charlotte (US)
Corresponding author
Haughney, Kathryn
Venue
Education Sciences
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2020-03-05
Volume
10
Issue
3
Pages
60
ISSN
2227-7102 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3009323180
Cited by
104
References
110
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 1
FWCI
14.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Education Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
  • Social Sciences › Education › Teacher Education and Assessments
Keywords
feedback quality, higher education, student performance feedback, peer feedback, pre-service teachers, teacher professional development, student participation

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