How does the medium affect the message? Architecture students’ perceptions of the relative utility of different feedback methods
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 19378425 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Charlie Smith (0000-0002-4586-4924, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, United Kingdom, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2021 |
| Volume | 46 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 54-67 |
| Publication date | 2021-01-02 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0260-2938 • E-ISSN: 1469-297X |
| Publisher | Informa UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/02602938.2020.1733489 |
| OpenAlex | W3007769310 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 8 |
| References cited | 24 |
Pedagogic discourse on feedback has shifted away from teachers’ actions towards how it is used by students to improve their work and learning strategies. In architecture programmes feedback occurs through a combination of methods; this paper presents the outcomes of a questionnaire study researching undergraduate and postgraduate students’ perceptions of which they considered most and least useful, and how they could be enhanced. With increased attention on dialogic approaches to feedback, the study provides insight into students’ views of the relative utility of several dialogic feedback methods. Key themes that emerged which affect feedback utility are the environment in which feedback takes place, feedback discourse and message content. Although the signature pedagogy is centred on verbal dialogue, the perceived value of that dialogue varied significantly; some methods were considered much more useful, others left students uncertain and seeking greater clarification within the feedback message. The study suggests contact time be considered qualitatively as well as quantitatively. Another significant finding is students’ desire for more visual feedback, which may be salient to disciplines across the art and design subject area. Other implications for practice are discussed
Dialogic · Mathematics education · Pedagogy · Perception · Salient · Communication · Computer Science · Evaluation of Teaching Practices · Psychology · Reflective Practices in Education · Student Assessment and Feedback
What matters in the cultivation of student feedback literacy
Disciplinary perspectives on feedback processes
Teacher feedback literacy and its interplay with student feedback literacy
Mapping supervisors’ emotional landscape in undergraduate thesis supervision
Architecture students’ uptake and use of formative and summative feedback
Cultivating learners’ technology-mediated dialogue of feedback in writing
Feedback literacy in design-based settings
Dialogism in feedback literacies
Supporting Learners' Agentic Engagement With Feedback
Conceptualizing feedback literacy
Social Constructivist Perspectives on Teaching and Learning
Facilitating productive use of feedback in higher education
Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems
Dialogic feedback and potentialities for student learning
Improving the student learning experience through dialogic feed-forward assessment
What do students want most from written feedback information? Distinguishing necessities from luxuries using a budgeting methodology
Are they using my feedback? The extent of students’ feedback use has a large impact on subsequent academic performance
Biology students’ utilization of tutors’ formative feedback
Rethinking models of feedback for learning
A scholarly approach to solving the feedback dilemma in practice
A social constructivist assessment process model
Unpacking the feedback process
Lost in translation
The development of student feedback literacy
Do students value feedback? Student perceptions of tutors’ written responses
Using thematic analysis in psychology
The Power of Feedback
Formative assessment and self-regulated learning
It'd be useful, but I wouldn't use it
Feedback
Developing sustainable feedback practices
| Unique citing works | 8 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 2 |
| Citation span | 2022 - 2026 (5) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 8 |