CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 373Student Assessment and FeedbackEvaluation of Teaching PracticesHigher Education Practises and Engagement

Designing Effective Feedback Processes in Higher Education: A Learning-Focused Approach

Winstone, Naomi, Carless, David·2019·Routledge eBooks
DOI 10.4324/9781351115940
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Feedback is one of the most powerful influences on student achievement, yet it is difficult to implement productively within the constraints of a mass higher education system. Designing Effective Feedback Processes in Higher Education: A Learning-Focused Approach addresses the challenges of developing effective feedback processes in higher education, combining theory and practice to equip and empower educators. It places less emphasis on what teachers do in terms of providing commentary, and more emphasis on how students generate, make sense of, and use feedback for ongoing improvement. Including discussions on promoting student engagement with feedback, technology-enabled feedback, and effective peer feedback, this book: Contributes to the theory and practice of feedback in higher education by showcasing new paradigm feedback thinking focused on dialogue and student uptake Synthesises the evidence for effective feedback practice Provides contextualised examples of successful innovative feedback designs analysed in relation to relevant literature Highlights the importance of staff and student feedback literacy in developing productive feedback partnerships Supports higher education teachers in further developing their feedback practice. Designing Effective Feedback Processes in Higher Education: A Learning-Focused Approach contributes to the theory and practice of higher education pedagogy by re-evaluating how feedback processes are designed and managed. It is a must-read for…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4324/9781351115940

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Feedback comments in higher education are frequently delayed, generic, or insufficiently detailed to support meaningful revision.

    “As a consequence, feedback comments in higher education are frequently delayed, generic, or insufficiently detailed to support meaningful revision [10].”

    From Making AI-Generated Feedback Matter: A Large-Scale Study of Feedback Workflows and Student Enactment (2026) · cites this paper as [10]

  • Feedback literacy is not a fixed attribute but a developmental capacity that emerges through participation in purposefully structured feedback encounters that require active engagement with evaluative processes.

    “Critically, feedback literacy is not a fixed attribute that students either possess or lack, but a developmental capacity that emerges through participation in purposefully structured feedback encounters that require active engagement with evaluative processes rather than passive receipt of commentary [3, 10, 19].”

    From Making AI-Generated Feedback Matter: A Large-Scale Study of Feedback Workflows and Student Enactment (2026) · cites this paper as [10]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Winstone, N., & Carless, D.
Affiliations
University of Surrey (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Routledge eBooks
Publisher
Routledge
Published
2019-06-27
DOI
10.4324/9781351115940
OpenAlex
W4238768825
Cited by
373
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 77 · 2025: 72 · 2024: 63 · 2023: 60 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 42 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 6
FWCI
43.65
Type
book
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 in higher education, feedback control design, student engagement with feedback, peer feedback, feedback literacy, academic performance, assessment and feedback, feedback dialogue, academic development

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