Towards more sustainable feedback to students
Abstract
Anyone engaged in a demanding activity, however experienced they are, can from time to time benefit from constructive and well-targeted feedback – the counsellor advising needy clients, the coordinator of a large and interprofessional team of colleagues, the help desk manager who constantly has to prioritise enquiries and requests for assistance. In such situations, periodic feedback can help individuals take stock of how well they are doing, and consider ways in which, for example, their effectiveness might be increased, their workload made more manageable, or their job satisfaction heightened. But when the activity concerned is not a wholly familiar one but involves significant new learning, as in educational settings, the role of feedback is particularly powerful. Indeed, in higher education, which is our focus here, well-crafted feedback can enhance learning in three significant ways: • by accelerating learning, i.e., speeding up what can be learned by the students concerned within a given period of time, and so enabling learning to take place more rapidly, or in greater depth or scope, than would otherwise be the case; • by optimising the quality of what is learned, i.e., helping to ensure that the learning outcomes achieved and evinced by the students meet the standards hoped for or required (e.g., in terms of precision, appreciation of complexity, applicability to real-world problems and so on); • by raising individual and collective attainment, through enabling the students to attain standards or levels of achievement higher than those which they might otherwise have reached, i.e., without recourse to the scaffolding afforded by feedback.
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 shift towards modularized structures has reduced opportunities for feedback as tasks get squeezed into fewer and fewer weeks.
“The shift towards modularized structures has also reduced opportunities for feedback as tasks get squeezed into fewer and fewer weeks (Hounsell 2007).”
From Rethinking models of feedback for learning: the challenge of design (2013) · cites this paper as Hounsell 2007
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Rethinking models of feedback for learning: the challenge of design
Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2012.691462 · Cited by 1,636 · see citing works
Making Sense of Assessment Feedback in Higher Education
Evans, C. (2013) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/0034654312474350 · Cited by 1,143 · 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
Winstone, N. E., Nash, R. A., Rowntree, J., & Parker, M. (2017) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075079.2015.1130032 · Cited by 417 · see citing works
Reconceptualising assessment feedback: A key to improving student learning?
Beaumont, C., O’Doherty, M., & Shannon, L. (2011) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075071003731135 · Cited by 291 · see citing works
“We learn from each other”: peer review writing practices in English for academic purposes
Kostopoulou, S., & O’Dwyer, F. (2021) · Language Learning in Higher Education · doi:10.1515/cercles-2021-2006 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Drawing on Readerly Intuition in Sentence Level Feedback
Kaler, M. J., Vroom, J., & Richter, C. (2022) · Discourse and Writing/Rédactologie · doi:10.31468/dwr.913 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Hounsell, D.
- Corresponding author
- Dai Hounsell
- ORCID
- Dai Hounsell
- Venue
- Rethinking Assessment in Higher Education
- Publisher
- Routledge
- Published
- 2007-03-28
- Pages
- 111-123
- OpenAlex
- W2922568719
- Cited by
- 150
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 14
- FWCI
- 24.99
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Routledge eBooks (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
- feedback, student feedback, higher education, accelerated learning, learning quality, academic performance, scaffolding
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