Constructive feedback as a learning tool to enhance students’
self-regulation and performance in higher education

ERNA DU TOIT
University of the Free State

If feedback is provided in a way that can develop students’ self-regulatory skills, it could enhance
learning and, consequently, lead to improved performance. To improve teaching and learning in higher
education (HE), this study sought to determine whether the feedback to first-year students affords them
an opportunity to learn from it. A theoretical framework on constructive feedback, self-regulated learning
and the expectations of students was synthesised from literature which formed the basis of the research.
This was followed by empirical research using a questionnaire to capture students’ perspectives regarding
feedback. Students experienced the feedback as not contributing towards improving their performance
but are convinced that, if they receive feedback that is focused on the task level, it can improve their
performance. Suggestions are provided that emphasise the need to use feedback at both task and process
level as a learning tool.

Keywords: constructive feedback, task-related feedback, self-regulated learning, self-assessment

Introduction
The current nature of the feedback given to students does not afford them the opportunity to enhance
their learning. Worldwide higher education institutions are facing problems such as increasing numbers
of students, heterogeneous student populations, a lack of resources, and considerable teaching pressure
on staff, which have resulted in reduced opportunities for feedback (Masiu & De Corte, 2005). Nicol and
McFarlane-Dick (2006) reiterate that the lecturers’ workload can affect the quality of both feedback and
learning in relation to students’ progress and academic experience. Students appear to be in greater need of
detailed feedback despite the fact that some value the grade more than the feedback and do not necessarily
learn from comments on their marked work (Weaver, 2006). This therefore necessitates an investigation
into how feedback is provided and how it can be altered to enhance learning.

Irons (2008) regards the utilisation of quality feedback to be a constructive learning tool with which
to improve teaching and learning in higher education. He maintains that feedback could empower students
as self-regulated learners; thus, encourage their motivational beliefs and develop self-esteem. Extensive
literature on the value of self-regulated learning (SRL) and the structure and function of self-regulatory
processes confirms that self-regulated behaviour is associated with academic achievement (Zimmerman,
2002). Zimmerman (2002) asserts that “self-regulation is not a mental ability or an academic performance
skill but a self-directive process by which learners transform their mental abilities into academic skills”.
This implies that, if students learn from the feedback they receive and engage in various activities in a
“[p]roactive way rather than as a covert event that happens to them as a reaction to teaching”, it should
improve performance. Garcia and Pintrich (1994) explain that the implementation of this strategy has no
significant value if students are unable to integrate feedback with prior knowledge. Students will only be
successful if they make meaning of the feedback they receive. Butler and Winne (1995) regard seeking
feedback as pivotal to SRL, and it can be assumed that, if opportunities to provide feedback in a way that
can develop self-regulatory skills are created and used, it could enhance learning and consequently lead
to improved performance.

It is argued that feedback is under-conceptualised, with the focus merely on ‘transmitting’ to students
information about their strengths and weaknesses, which does not portray the active construction of
students’ own understanding of the feedback message from tutors or lecturers or engaging in a dialogue
about their work. Havnes and McDowell (2008) refer to the emergence of an assessment culture and of

33DU TOIT — Constructive feedback as a learning tool to enhance students’ self-regulation

an alternative ranking of students that will not focus on a single score. They link this to an envisaged new
culture of assessment that will provide multidimensional feedback, which could foster effective learning.
Irons (2008) raises the concern that universities are not altering their teaching and learning approaches,
and can thus face an uncertain future. A cause for concern in this article is how feedback – as part of a
culture of learning – plays out in relation to the enhancement of learning and specifically SRL. Pellegrino
(cited in Irons, 2008) views learning as a process of “continuously modifying knowledge and skills and
that feedback is essential to guide, test, challenge, or redirect the learner’s thinking”. It is suggested that
an altered learning environment will encourage dialogue, motivate students to learn and, ultimately, allow
students to take responsibility for and ownership of their learning. However, changes in the learning
environment do not guarantee changes in feedback that will enhance learning. This article examines
whether the feedback that students receive affords them the opportunity for SRL. The application of SRL
skills could be regarded as the impetus behind using feedback as a learning tool that warrants success. This
allows students to be actively involved during the feedback process; thus, increasing their sense of being
responsible for their own learning.

Quality feedback as a constructive learning tool
Nicol and McFarlane-Dick (2006) capture the importance of providing quality feedback and improved
learning in a self-regulated model and place the students in the centre as active role players during the
feedback process. They elaborate by adding that students should monitor and regulate their performance
through the learning process, which involves the application of a variety of sources, strategies, goal-setting,
collaborative groups, as well as internal and external feedback. According to Butler and Winne (1995),
feedback is inherent and a prime determiner of processes that contribute to self-regulation, allowing for
active engagement. The quality therefore depends on the cognitive processes involved. Sadler (in Nicol &
McFarlane-Dick, 2006) and Irons (2008) maintain that feedback can only benefit students if they:
• are certain of what is expected of them and of the level at which they should perform;

• can compare their actual level of performance with the intended level or standard; and

• are actively engaged in a specific action that will improve their situation or close the gap between
their current level and the intended level of performance.

It is imperative that students make sense of the acquired knowledge and use feedback information
constructively. The appropriateness of effective feedback also affects the quality of learning and student
achievement. Quinton and Smallbone (2010) support this view, adding that feedback is a “socially
constructed process affected by the conditions in which it was produced”.

Students need support in linking the feedback they received and in ways to use the feedback in
order to improve their performance. Black and William (1999) and McMillan (2011) refer to this as
the facilitation of the development of self-assessment. Nicol and MacFarlane-Dick (2006) argue that
providing students with self-assessment tasks can improve their capacity for self-regulation if “formal
and structured” opportunities are created to monitor themselves, judge their own progress towards goals,
and encourage them to reflect on their processes. As an aspect of self-assessment, self-appraisal refers to
a person’s capacity to review and evaluate his/her ability, knowledge and cognitive strategies by means of
a variety of self-monitoring processes. As another aspect of learning, self-management refers to a person
monitoring and regulating his/her own ongoing performances by planning, correcting mistakes, and using
the correct strategies (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Paris & Winograd, 2001). Therefore, in managing self-
assessment, Nicol and McFarlane-Dick (2006) propose that facilitation can be strengthened if structured
opportunities are provided to monitor the gaps between current and intended performance and if, according
to Frey, Kettering and Marshall (2009), peers are involved in the reflection process.

Hattie and Timperley (2007) claim that when students have the meta-cognitive skills of self-
assessment, “they can evaluate their levels of understanding, their effort and strategies used on tasks,
their attributions and opinions of others about their performance, and their improvement in relation
to their goals and expectations … [m]ost important, students know how and when to seek and receive

34 Perspectives in Education, Volume 30(2), June 2012

feedback from others”. Sadler (1983) concurs that the goal of many instructional systems is to “facilitate
the transition from feedback to self-monitoring”. Nicol and McFarlane-Dick (2006) concur with De Corte
(2000) that there should be a good balance between external regulation and self-regulation. This implies
that students must be actively involved in controlling and managing their own learning, independently
assessing themselves to correct their own mistakes, and monitoring the gaps between internally set tasks
and intended goals.

Black and William (1999) attest that learning can be enhanced if students recognise their desired goal
and have evidence about their present position. They postulate that the implementation of the mentioned
aspects can produce some understanding of closing the gap between achieving the desired goal and
the present position. Attaining the goal should follow once feedback has been provided in response to
students’ performance and attempts to demonstrate mastery of a learning goal. Information should thus
be provided on attaining goals and competencies and on correcting misconceptions by giving students
“specific corrective information” (Thalheilmer, 2008). Feedback should explicitly describe what the
student did and did not do, based on what was communicated. Clark (in Black & William, 1999) refers to
this as “closing the gaps” to improve learning by means of reminders, suggestions and questions to aid the
student. Feedback should support students to develop “mental models” of the concepts they have learnt.
Quality feedback is beneficial, especially when students are developing an understanding of complex
tasks. The correct response, together with an explanation of why it is correct, will support the student
in further learning (Thalheilmer, 2008). Students should not only learn from feedback, but also be able
to evaluate their progress and compare it with their goals (Nicol & McFarlane-Dick, 2006). McDowell
(2008) states that there should be a mutual understanding between the outcomes set by both the lecturer
and the student before assessment procedures are instituted. Nicol and McFarlane-Dick (2006) allude that
students do not always understand the feedback provided by tutors because of discrepancies between the
various parties’ intended goals. The emphasis is too often on what the lecturer expects rather than on trying
to understand how the student thinks (Chambers, 1993).

Feedback should be transmitted in a way that enables students to engage actively with a view to
improving their learning and communicating their understanding. Black and William (1998) as well
as Hattie and Timperley (2007) capture this aim in challenging tasks that provide the opportunity for
students to gain understanding of the intended goal, be committed to achieving it, be confident that they
will succeed in improving their learning, be able to seek alternative strategies to complete the task, and
display their willingness to enhance their learning. Thalheilmer (2008) refers to the timing of feedback
that should allow for opportunities to engage in cognitive processes and develop additional retrieval routes
to store information. If feedback is directed at task level, immediate feedback can result in faster rates of
acquisition. However, feedback at the processing level can develop a variety of learning strategies that can
be utilised and that will improve future learning (Hattie & Timperley, 2007).

Active involvement during feedback
To improve performance after feedback, close communication between lecturers, tutors, peers and the
students is necessary in order to develop the students’ capacity for self-assessment (McDowell, 2008).
Without this communication students might not be able to either internalise the feedback they receive
or identify the gap between intended goals and their performance. In conceptualising the feedback
dialogue or questioning, it is necessary to provoke both reflection and action. Learning environments that
provide for structured discussions directly or via technology (Irons, 2008) and for peer assessment expose
students to a variety of alternative perspectives that enable them to make objective judgements about their
performance and thus motivate them. With increasing student numbers at tertiary institutions dialogue as
a means of feedback can be difficult. However, Nicol and McFarlane-Dick (2006) propose that students
divide into small groups to discuss feedback. Dialogue with peers was also found to enhance a sense of
self-control and persistence because students find it easier to accept criticism from peers than from tutors
(Irons 2008).

35DU TOIT — Constructive feedback as a learning tool to enhance students’ self-regulation

Based on the premise that feedback has as its purpose the engagement of the student in both a formal
and an informal way, Yorke (2003) states that feedback is under-conceptualised and that the “disciplinary
epistemology theories of intellectual and moral development, stages of development and the psychology
of giving and receiving feedback” should be taken into account. Feedback should remain focused on
enhanced learning that will facilitate self-assessment by:
• clarifying, informing or describing to students regarding their performance;

• identifying students’ strengths and weaknesses by diagnosing, differentiating and remediation;

• supporting students by motivating and empowering them;

• indicating to the students their level of competence and predicting their personal outcome; and

• assisting students with the evaluation and monitoring of the programme.
Active involvement allows students to make sense of the “diagnostic prescription” of the lecture (Black
& William, 1999). This equips students gradually with the evaluative skills they need to make them less
dependent on others, develop the ability to assess themselves, and monitor the gaps between internally
set tasks and personal goals. McDonald and Boud (2003) affirm that self-assessment and the provision
of frequent opportunities to reflect on goals, strategies and outcomes are highly effective in enhancing
learning and achievement. Nicol and McFarlane-Dick (2006) regard feedback to be a holistic process with
coherent arguments supporting the evidence. Frey et al. (2009) concur, adding that the online provision of
prioritising areas of improvement by means of personal response systems to provide immediate feedback
can enhance learning.

Hattie and Timperley (2007) and Stiggens (2002) refer to the powerful influence of feedback on
learning and achievement which can either be positive or negative. Leathwood (2005) links progress to
performance and goal setting, and warns that constant exposure to low marks can have a negative impact
on students’ motivation to learn. On the other hand, Frey et al. (2009) allude that positive written feedback
can create a climate to promote self-esteem, which could lead to improved performance.

Research methodology
The positivistic paradigm was chosen to capture the perceptions of first-year students at the University of
the Free State regarding the feedback they receive and to explore the practice of feedback. A questionnaire
with closed-ended questions was used (Pietersen & Maree, 2007). The data was collected from a sample of
92 first-year students in the Faculty of Education who participated voluntarily. The questionnaire focused
on their perceptions of the feedback they receive in this Faculty. The quantitative data is presented by
means of descriptive statistics, in terms of the mean (x), standard deviation (s), aggregate mean (xc) and
aggregate standard deviation (sc) of the items per category (Pietersen & Maree, 2007).

The measurement content validity was strengthened by means of the disciplinary epistemology
of good feedback as suggested by the literature presented earlier. Questions in the questionnaire were
categorised as follows to determine whether the feedback that students receive:
• will enhance their performance if they set goals and are provided with criteria;

• supports the facilitation and development of self-assessment;

• provides students with high-quality information about their learning;

• encourages peer and lecturer dialogue;

• encourages motivational beliefs and self-esteem; and

• provides opportunities to close the gap between their current and desired performance.
Thirty-two questions were formulated to address these categories. Respondents rated themselves on their
perceptions regarding feedback using a 4-point Likert scale, with 1 indicating very positive, 2 indicating
positive, 3 indicating negative and 4 indicating very negative. Statistical evidence in terms of the mean

36 Perspectives in Education, Volume 30(2), June 2012

value x can be classified as being very positive to positive (i.e. x < 2.0), and negative to very negative (i.e.
x > 2.0). A standard deviation (s) ranging from 0.708 to 1.124 gives an indication of the distribution of
variance around the mean if the majority of the students answered in either a positive or a negative manner.
Because no single item is a perfect measure of concept the researcher relied on a series of measures to
assess internal consistency. The first measure is item-to-total correlation which is effected by the number
of test items in each construct as well as the intercorrelation among these items (Murphy & Davidshofer,
2004; Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson & Tatham, 2005). The second measure is the reliability coefficient
that assesses the consistency of the entire scale, with Cronbach’s alpha being the most widely used. Hair et
al. (2005) refer to Cronbach’s alpha of 0.7 as reliable, which can decrease to 0.6 in exploratory research.
In this research a total reliability of 0.828 was obtained for the total questionnaire, which indicates the
internal consistency of the responses and makes the data reliable. It is worth mentioning that individual
constructs were affected by the low number of items and the degree of intercorrelation between the items
(Hair et al., 2005). The Cronbach’s alpha reliability value in table 3 depicts a value of 0.79 with nine items
and 0.6 for table 2 with four items.

Discussions of findings
Data in table 1 indicates that the majority of the students (sc of 0.886) were negative (xc = 2.27) on
the aspects of feedback they receive. However, students were positive (x = 1.70) that the feedback they
receive covers some aspects of their work. They returned a response of negative in respect of whether
the feedback provided information to enhance their performance if it covers all aspects of their work and
relates to the assessment criteria. The findings concur with McDowell (2008) who states that, for students
to enhance their learning, there should be a mutual understanding between outcomes and criteria set by
the lecturer and the student because different conceptions can exist among students and lecturers when
ranking assessment criteria for a specific task. This could have an effect on the outcomes of feedback,
influence performance, and inhibit the encouragement of self-assessment.

All the students, as indicated in table 2, responded negatively with regard to aspects of facilitation
and development of self-assessment. In support of enhancing learning, an environment that allows
students to develop the capacity for self-assessment and opportunities to monitor themselves as well as
reflect on their own processes can result in improved performance. In this regard, Stiggens (2008) refers to
the active involvement of a variety of cognitive processes. McDowell (2008) emphasises the importance
of conceptualising and internalising what has been learnt from the feedback so that it can develop self-
regulation skills and result in improved performance.

Concerning the items relating to whether the feedback provides high-quality information during
feedback to students about learning (see table 3), the majority of the students (sc of 0.878 and an s that
varies from 0.708 to 1.024 and xc = 2.25) responded negatively. Inappropriate feedback that students
received strengthens Thalheilmer’s (2008) argument that “specific corrective information” cannot only
eliminate misconceptions, but will also allow for opportunities to develop an understanding of the task at
hand and enable students to monitor and evaluate their progress that can result in improved performance.
The findings in table 4 indicate that the majority of the students (sc = 0.849) required tutorial support and
verbal discussions that would improve their performance. By contrast, most (s = 0.895 and x = 2.25) of
the students indicated that they do ask for tutorial help but are of the opinion (x =1.67) that a discussion
after feedback can enhance their learning. Hattie and Timperley (2007) affirm that understanding what is
expected in relation to a specific task, is a crucial requirement for self-regulation.

Black and William (1998) allude that feedback can have either a negative or a positive influence on
students, and can affect their performance. It is clear from the findings in table 5 that students experience
the feedback negatively regarding their marks, the critique and the written comments. However, they
feel positive (x = 1.79) that constructive criticism, which focuses on the mistakes and clarifies their
misconceptions, will improve their learning. The students were also positive (x = 1.84) that a balance
between formative and summative assessment will guide them through the learning process.

37DU TOIT — Constructive feedback as a learning tool to enhance students’ self-regulation

As indicated in table 6, students responded negatively with regard to the timely aspect that will
improve their performance but were positive that, if the feedback focused on the outcomes, it will enhance
their learning. This is an indication that students are eager to rectify the mistakes if the misconceptions have
been identified, and that they want to strengthen their weaknesses. Feedback directed at misconceptions
about the task, as Hattie and Timperley (2007) argue, will not leave incorrect “mental traces” but instead
provide the opportunity for students to engage in cognitive processes to improve their learning. The
majority (sc = 0905) of the students feel positive (xc = 1.97) that, if opportunities are provided to close the
gap between current and desired performance, it can enhance learning.

Conclusion
The literature consulted revealed that learning can be enhanced by means of constructive feedback that
focuses on both the task and the process. However, the findings indicated that the feedback students receive
does not allow for the opportunity to develop their self-regulation skills and does not always improve their
performance. As pointed out in the findings, students feel positive that feedback, which focuses on closing
the gap between current and desired performance that affords the opportunity to monitor and regulate their
learning, can contribute towards improving their performance. The role of feedback is to inform students
about their strengths and weaknesses and for them to actively engage with the information they receive.
Several challenges confront the lecturers if they want to ensure improvement in students’ performances
that will result in effective learning and, most likely, increase the throughput rate of students. The main
aim of tertiary institutions is to ensure that students progress. Providing effective task- and process-
related feedback can support students in becoming more independent learners who know how to use their
mental abilities to develop their academic skills. While feedback is viewed as the pivot around which
self-regulation turns, it can be assumed that constructive feedback, which relates to both the task and the
process, could enhance self-regulatory skills that will ultimately lead to improved performance.

This study indicated that the manner in which feedback is provided to students does not afford
students the opportunity to actively engage in and regulate their learning or to engage in self-assessment
activities. By constructive feedback we have realised that we will have to understand not only the “technical
structure of feedback such as accuracy, comprehensiveness and appropriateness, but also the accessibility
to the student’s thinking processes” (Sadler, 1983). This can only be achieved by discussions with students
after feedback has been provided. To improve the students’ performance, lecturers will have to constantly
reflect on their own assessment and feedback practices to seek causes as to why students in many cases are
not utilising the feedback they receive and are not progressing as they should.

References
Black P & William D 1998. Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, Principles,

Policy and Practice, 9(5):7-73.
Black P & William D 1999. Assessment and classroom learning: Beyond the black box. Cambridge,

Assessment Reform Group, University of Cambridge, pamphlet 371.26 ASS. Retrieved on 23 March
2011 from http:// www.assessment-reform-group orh.uk/Assess Insides.pdf.

Butler L & Winne PH 1995. Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of
Educational Research, 65(3):245-281.

Chambers DL 1993. Integrating assessment and instruction. In: NL Webb & AF Coxford (eds), Assessment
in the mathematics classroom. 1993 Yearbook NCTM, 17-25. Reston. VA: NCTM.

De Corte E 2000. Marrying theory building and the improvement of school practice: A permanent challenge
for instructional psychology. Learning and Instruction, 10:249-266.

Frey H, Kettering S & Marshall S 2009. Teaching and learning in higher education. Enhancing academic
practice. New York: Routledge.

Garcia T & Pintrich PR 1994. Self-schemes and self-regulatory strategies. In: DH Schunk & BJ Zimmerman
(eds), Self-regulation of learning and performance. Issues and educational applications. 127-149.
Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

38 Perspectives in Education, Volume 30(2), June 2012

Hair JF, Black B, Babin B, Anderson RE & Tatham RL 2005. Multivariate data analysis. 6th ed Upper
Saddle River, N.J. Pearson Prentice Hall.

Havnes A & McDowell L 2008. Assessment dilemmas in contemporary learning cultures. In: A Havnes
& L McDowell (eds), Balancing dilemmas in assessment and learning in contemporary education.
3-14. New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

Hattie J & Timperley H 2007. The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1):81-112.
Irons A 2008. Enhancing learning through formative assessment and feedback. London: Routledge Taylor

& Francis Group.
Leathwood C 2005. Assessment policy and practise in higher education: Purpose, standards and equity.

Assessment Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(30):307-324.
Masiu C & De Corte E 2005. Learning to reflect and to attribute constructively as basic components of

self-regulated learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75:351-372.
McDonald B & Boud D 2003. The impact of self-assessment on achievement: The effects of self-

assessment training on performance in external examinations. Assessment Education, 10(2):209-220.
McDowell L 2008. Students’ experience of feedback on academic assignments in Higher Education. In:

A Havnes & L McDowell (eds), Balancing dilemmas in assessment and learning in contemporary
education, 237-249. New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

McMillan JH 2011. Classroom assessment. London: Ally & Bacon.
Murphy KR & Davidshofer CO 2004. Psychological testing: Principles and applications. 6th ed. Canada:

Pearson Education.
Nicol DJ & McFarlane-Dick D 2006. Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and

seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2):199-218.
Paris GS & Winograd P 2001. The role of self-regulated learning in contextual teaching. Principles and

practices for teachers’ preparation. Retrieved on 27 March 2011 from http://www.Ciera.org.library.
Pietersen J & Maree K 2007. Standardisation of a questionnaire. In: K Maree, First steps in research,

183-196. Pretoria: Van Schaik.
Quinton S & Smallbone T 2010. Feedback forward: Using feedback to promote student reflection and

learning-teaching model. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(1):125-135.
Sadler DR 1983. Evaluation and improvement of academic learning. Journal of Higher Education,

5(4):60-79.
Stiggens RJ 2002. Assessment crisis: The absence of assessment for learning. The Phi Delta Kappan,

83(10):758-765.
Stiggins RJ 2008. Assessment for learning, the achievement gap, and truly effective schools. Paper

presented at the Educational Testing Service and College Board Conference, held at the ETS
Assessment Training Institute in Portland, 8 September 2008.

Thalheilmer W 2008. Providing learners with feedback – Part 1: Research-based recommendations for
training, education, and e-learning. Retrieved on 17 June 2011 from http://www.work-learning.com/
catalog/.

Weaver MR 2006. Do students value feedback? Student perceptions of tutors’ written responses.
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(3):379-394.

Yorke M 2003. Formative assessment in higher education: Moves towards theory and the enhancement of
pedagogic practice. Higher Education, 45:477-507.

Zimmerman BJ 2002. Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(2):64-70.

39DU TOIT — Constructive feedback as a learning tool to enhance students’ self-regulation

Table 1: Aspects of good feedback

Question Indicator N s

1 When I am being assessed on work done, I understand what it is that I am expected to do 90 2.47 0.864

3 The feedback I receive is easy to understand 90 2.34 0.938
4 The feedback I receive covers all aspects of my work 89 2.25 0.816
5 The feedback I receive relates to the assessment criteria 90 2.21 0.910

15 The feedback focuses on the outcomes not achieved 90 2.66 0.863

32 The feedback I receive covers some aspects of my work 89 1.70 0.922

2.27

sc 0.886

c – aggregate average mean; sc – aggregate average standard deviation

Table 2: Aspects of facilitation and development of self-assessment

Question Indicator N s
8 The feedback I receive tells me how I can improve next time 90 2.06 1.032

16 The feedback is constructive and tailored to meet my needs 85 2.33 0.905

18
The feedback provides opportunities for me to reflect on the
feedback and develop action plans for recovery or for future
work

87 2.29 0.834

21 When self-assessment is used does it provide opportunities for you to validate/verify your assessment? 89 2.11 0.804

2.2
sc 0.894

Table 3: Promoting high-quality information to students about learning

Question Indicator N S
2 The feedback I receive is easy to read 90 2.26 0.881
6 The feedback I receive tells me what I have done well 90 2.16 0.935
7 The feedback I receive tells me how I can improve next time 90 2.32 0.918

10 The feedback I receive highlights action points for future development 89 2.21 0.859

11 The feedback I receive offers an explanation of where I have gone wrong 90 2.12 0.859

12 The feedback gives me clear guidance on how I can improve my work 90 2.13 1.024

19 The feedback indicates the essential or priority aspects where there is much to be improved 90 2.12 0.872

22 Are some of the comments considered during feedback referred to a database of comments? 88 2.64 0.847

23 Is feedback given via e-mail or generated by computer, for example, after a computer-delivered test? 75 2.28 0.708

2.25
sc 0.878

40 Perspectives in Education, Volume 30(2), June 2012

Table 4: Peer and teacher dialogue

Question Indicator N S
14 I ask the tutor for further guidance on the module 89 2.25 0.895

20
When peer assessment is used, it is clearly defined in what way
the grades are used to inform the final mark awarded and to
ensure consistent practice

90 2.21 0.807

29 If I receive tutorial support after feedback, it will enhance my learning 90 1.67 0.807

31 Verbal discussion with markers can help you identify your mistakes and way of thinking 92 1.96 0.886

2.02
sc 0.849

Table 5: Encouraging positive motivational beliefs and build self-esteem

Question Indicator N s
13 I feel that the mark I receive is fair and appropriate 90 2.30 0.958

17 The feedback is an appropriate balance between criticism and advice 89 2.28 0.754

24 Is the feedback provided legible and expressed in such a way that the student will understand and be motivated by it? 90 2.92 1.124

27 Constructive criticism during feedback helps me learn from my mistakes 90 1.79 0.906

30 A balance between the feedback for formative and summative assessment will guide me during the learning process 90 1.84 0.847

2.23
sc 0.918

Table 6: Providing opportunities to close the gap between current and desired performance

Question Indicator N s

9 If I get the feedback in time, I will correct my mistakes before the next tests and/or assignments 90 2.28 0.924

25 If I receive feedback from tests and/or assignments in time, it will improve my learning 90 2.21 1.022

26 Focusing on the outcomes during feedback will enhance my learning 90 1.66 0.889

28 I compare my assignments and/or tests with the feedback received and then correct the mistakes 89 1.71 0.786

1.97
sc 0.905