Análisis e interpretación en la etapa de diagnóstico

A major consensus in feedback literature is that providing feedback does not guarantee improved learning (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Kluger & DeNisi, 1996; Sadler, 2010). Literature reviews and meta-analyses of feedback studies (e.g., Evans, 2013; Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Jonsson, 2012; Kluger & DeNisi, 1996; Shute, 2008; Van der Kleij, Feskens, & Eggen, 2015) all revealed contradicting findings of the positive impact of feedback on learning. Some feedback can even be detrimental to learning. Despite the importance of feedback to learning, students can ignore or not use the feedback information provided to them (Butler & Winne, 1995). Narciss and Huth (2004) proposed three main factors that influence the effect of feedback on performance which are related to (a) the feedback message characteristics, (b) the characteristics of the learning context, and (c) the student’s individual characteristics. These factors are, also, likely to influence PF and are consequently discussed in detail next.

1.3.2.1. Feedback message characteristics

According to Narciss and Huth (2004), the impact of the feedback message depends on three main characteristics: (1) the functions of feedback (i.e., processes targeted by the feedback: cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational), (2) the contents of feedback (evaluative vs. informative), and (3) presentation of the feedback contents (e.g., timing, frequency, etc.). The functions of feedback are closely related to the instructional goals; whether they are information or motivational oriented (e.g., knowledge acquirement vs. reinforcing correct

answers) (Narciss & Huth, 2004). The content of feedback consists of two components (evaluative or informative). These two components resemble the most common feedback types namely outcome (also referred to as verification) and elaborated feedback. The outcome feedback provides information about the learning product; whether it is correct or incorrect without providing any information about the processes involved in producing the outcome (Butler & Winne, 1995). Researchers frequently use variants of outcome feedback such as knowledge of results (KR), knowledge of performance (KP), and knowledge of the correct response (KCR) (Kluger & Denisi, 1996; Narciss, 2008). KR feedback provides information to the students about the correctness of their answers, whereas KP provides information about how well they performed in terms of the scores they achieved. In KCR feedback the correct answer is provided to the students (Narciss, 2008). Other types of less frequently used outcome feedback mentioned by Narciss (2008) are: answer until correct (AUC) feedback – which combines KR with the opportunity to revise work until the correct answer is reached – or having a limited number attempts to revise work in the case of multiple try feedback (MTF). Outcome feedback resembles task-level feedback in Hattie and Timperley’s (2007) model. Since outcome feedback does not provide information to the students about how to proceed or what to do to reach the right answer (Butler & Winne, 1995), it therefore has less positive impact on learning compared to the elaborated feedback which provides such information to the students (Narciss, 2008; Shute, 2008). Elaborated feedback can have different targets; it can be about a response, task, discussion of error, providing guidance/prompts, and providing some examples (Shute, 2008). A third feedback type that is not related to the learning task and is mostly used for motivational purposes is praise, or what is referred to as self-level feedback by Hattie and Timperley (2007). Importantly, very complex feedback is assumed to impose high cognitive demand regardless whether it is an outcome or an elaborated feedback and may confuse the

students and lead to lower performance (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Kluger & Denisi, 1996; Shute, 2008).

The presentation of the feedback contents involves aspects related to the delivery of feedback such as frequency, timing, mode and format (Narciss & Huth, 2004). Feedback can be provided immediately after the student has completed a small step of a learning task, or it can be delayed until the student is done with the task. Findings about the impact of immediate

versus delayed feedback appear to be mixed with field studies supporting immediate feedback and lab studies supporting delayed feedback (for a review see Shute, 2008). How frequent the feedback is delivered and whether it is written or verbal makes a difference. For instance, Van den Berg, Admiraal and Pilot (2006a) reported that feedback by students involved more comments about structure when it was written, but more comments on style when it was oral. Jolly and Boud (2013) suggested that oral feedback is more optimal in cases where frequent and timely feedback is required, for instance when students are working on a complex task or performing design or physical activities. In general, it is quite apparent that different feedback message characteristics (i.e., function, content, and presentation) are related the characteristics of the learning context and those of students, which will be outlined next.

1.3.2.2. Characteristics of the learning context

Many factors within the learning context influence the effect of feedback on performance, for example, the learning goals, the learning task, and sources of problems or errors (Narciss & Huth, 2004). Narciss and Huth (2004) stressed the importance of these three factors because the feedback message should be designed in accordance with them. It is well- established in the literature that teachers and students should have clear pre-defined learning goals, and the feedback should be crafted based on the learning goals (see Black & Wiliam, 2009; Sadler, 1989). The learning task is also central to the impact of feedback on performance, as it interacts with all of the other feedback and individual characteristics. The review by Shute

(2008) revealed that providing feedback on a complex learning task had a negative or no effect on performance. Furthermore, student’s individual characteristics (e.g., domain knowledge, affect, and beliefs) can moderate the effect of feedback on performance when a complex learning task is used.

1.3.2.3. Student’s individual characteristics

Student’s individual characteristics that are suggested to influence the effectiveness of feedback include: domain knowledge, motivational-beliefs, academic self-efficacy, meta- motivational skills (Narciss & Huth, 2004), self-related beliefs (e.g., Miller & West, 2010), feedback related beliefs (e.g., Price, Handley, Millar, & O’Donovan, 2010), and emotions (Molloy, Borrell-Carrió, & Epstein, 2013; Ilgen & Davis, 2000). Since the processing of feedback can only be done by the recipient, no matter how clear and elaborated the feedback is, it will have no effect on student’s learning if the student, for example, lacks the motivation to invest effort, or does not have sufficient domain knowledge to process the feedback. The impact of feedback on students’ learning is expected to depend to a large extent on how that external information is filtered through students’ pre-existing beliefs and motivation (Molloy, et al., 2013), which might trigger different cognitive and affective reactions. As a conclusion of their literature review on feedback provided in computer-supported instruction, Mason and Bruning (2001) suggested that the domain knowledge of students may influence how students benefit from different feedback and learning context characteristics. They proposed that low domain knowledge students may profit more from timely feedback when the learning task is easy or complex, but for high domain knowledge students delayed feedback may be more beneficial especially when the learning task is complex. Moreover, in a study by Miller and West (2010) elderly participants with high control beliefs were more engaged with a reading task after receiving positive feedback (i.e., verification of high-performance) compared to those with low control beliefs.

To summarize, students appear to benefit differentially from feedback depending on various individual cognitive, metacognitive, and affective factors. These individual characteristics interact with the characteristics of the feedback and the learning context to shape how students choose to process and act upon the feedback message. Potentially, this complexity may partly explain why there is no single magic recipe for effective feedback, and why students often ignore the feedback provided to them.

In teacher feedback models and studies, students are mainly addressed as feedback recipients. However, In PF students can be involved as providers and recipients, and their individual characteristics may have different effects on their learning depending on the role(s) of the students. The nature of PF necessitates the need for a process-based theoretical framework that illustrates PF as a PA activity and addresses the role of the PF provider, the PF recipient together with their individual characteristics, and the characteristics of the PF message. The next section discusses two theoretical perspectives on PA as well as an attempt to construct an integrative theoretical framework of PA that explicitly includes PF provision which is the focus of the current dissertation.