Professor David Carless discusses designing feedback processes that promote student uptake and self-monitoring. He argues feedback should prioritize students' needs over teachers' priorities by flipping sequences to provide guidance during assessments rather than just comments afterwards. Technology can support feedback if used to design processes where students generate and actively use feedback from multiple sources, like peers, to improve. The goal is developing student feedback literacy through curriculum and assessments that position students as active feedback seekers and users.

1. Beyond teacher comments:
Designing for student uptake of
feedback
Professor David Carless,
@CarlessDavid
Faculty of Education,
CETL Feedback Series, HKU,
March 12, 2019
The University of Hong Kong

2. Overview
1. From telling to student involvement
2. Meeting students’ needs
3. Flipping feedback sequences
4. Designs for large classes
The University of Hong Kong

3. Feedback is for students
Students’ needs and preferences should be
prioritized
The University of Hong Kong

4. Student growth
What are we hoping to achieve through
feedback processes?
The University of Hong Kong

5. Key aim of feedback processes
To enhance student
ability to self-monitor
their work in
progress
The University of Hong Kong

6. The University of Hong Kong

7. Feedback challenges
Too much feedback as telling
Lack of engagement with feedback
Lack of strategies for using feedback
The way modules/feedback are organized
The University of Hong Kong

8. Limits of Feedback as telling
“Learners do not always
learn much purely from
being told, even when
they are told repeatedly in
the kindest possible way”
(Sadler, 2015, p. 16)
The University of Hong Kong

9. Student frustrations
Feedback often comes at the end of teaching
sequences and it is too late for students to act
The University of Hong Kong

10. Survey evidence
Students consistently express
dissatisfaction with university feedback
practices
SLEQ SETL
The University of Hong Kong

11. Feedback often seems like …
… a perversely belated revelation of things
that should have been made clear earlier
(Crook, Gross & Dymott, 2006)
The University of Hong Kong

12. Feedback graveyards
The University of Hong Kong

13. DEFINING FEEDBACK
The University of Hong Kong

14. Feedback as information
Information about performance or
understanding (Hattie & Timperley, 2007)
The University of Hong Kong

15. Feedback as interaction
All dialogue to support learning in both
formal and informal situations
(Askew & Lodge, 2000)
The University of Hong Kong

16. Feedback as action
Learners making sense of comments &
using them for improvement (Boud & Molloy,
2013; Carless & Boud, 2018)
The University of Hong Kong

17. Closing feedback loops
It’s only feedback
if students take
some action
The University of Hong Kong

18. Social constructivism
Action on feedback is developed through
learner agency, dialogue & co-construction
The University of Hong Kong

19. Information  action
(Winstone & Carless, 2019)
The University of Hong Kong

20. The University of Hong Kong

21. RESEARCH BASE
The University of Hong Kong

22. Differing perceptions
Study 1. Questionnaire data from 460 staff &
1740 students
Teachers thought their feedback was more
useful than students did (Carless, 2006)
The University of Hong Kong

23. Sustainable feedback
Study 2. Interviews with 10 award-winning
teachers from 10 different Faculties
Sustainable feedback:
Enhancing student role to generate & use
feedback (Carless et al. 2011)
The University of Hong Kong

24. Sustainable feedback defined
Activities in which students generate & use
feedback from peers, self or others as part
of self-regulation (Carless, 2013)
The University of Hong Kong

25. 5-year longitudinal inquiry
Study 3. Longitudinal tracking of four
students’ experiences of feedback
(Carless, 2018)
The University of Hong Kong

26. FOCUS ON THE STUDENTS
The University of Hong Kong

27. Teacher-centred feedback
Too much feedback is not aligned with
students’ needs and interests
The University of Hong Kong

28. Helping Students
“Teachers could do more to identify
students’ needs and find out how they can
help us”. (Philippa, year 5)
The University of Hong Kong

29. Feedback for better grades
The main student consideration is the grade
The University of Hong Kong

30. Centrality of grades
“Teachers don’t see grades as being as
important as students do.” (Philippa, year 5)
The University of Hong Kong

31. Flipped feedback
Inverting the sequence of guidance
Students want more support during the
assessment process … & less at its end
The University of Hong Kong

32. Timing of critique
“I welcome critical feedback when I can use
it to improve my grade but critical feedback
at the end is no use” (Candice, year 5)
The University of Hong Kong

33. FEEDBACK LITERACY
The University of Hong Kong

34. Defining student feedback literacy
Understandings, capacities & dispositions
needed to use feedback for improvement
(Carless & Boud, 2018).
The University of Hong Kong

35. Student feedback literacy
The University of Hong Kong
Making
Judgments
Appreciating
Feedback
Managing
Affect
Taking Action
(Carless & Boud, 2018)

36. Teacher role
Curriculum & assessment design to promote
generating and using feedback
The University of Hong Kong

37. Feedback designs
Task 1  feedback  interlinked task 2
Position students as active feedback
seekers & users
The University of Hong Kong

38. Designs for large classes
• Peer tutoring
• Exemplars as guidance
• Automated feedback e.g. quizzes
• Group projects
• Integrated sequences of rich tasks
The University of Hong Kong

39. TECHNOLOGY-ENABLED
FEEDBACK STRATEGIES
The University of Hong Kong

40. Technology & feedback
Pros: Immediacy, attractiveness,
convenience, innovativeness
Cons: Failure to implement sound
feedback designs
The University of Hong Kong

41. Screencast feedback
Digital recording of users’ screen combined
with voice narration
The University of Hong Kong

42. Audio & Video feedback
Rapport
Nuance
Personalisation
Uptake & impact?
The University of Hong Kong

43. Peer video feedback
Peer-to-peer video feedback
delivered via Facebook
Hung (2016)
The University of Hong Kong

44. Composing peer feedback
Providing feedback more cognitively engaging
than receiving feedback (e.g. Nicol et al., 2014)
The University of Hong Kong

45. Implications
The University of Hong Kong

46. Shifts in priorities
The University of Hong Kong
Increase Decrease
Feedback on students’ needs Feedback on teachers’ priorities
Within module guidance Terminal comments
Comments on first task Comments on final task
Feedback for first years Feedback for final year

47. Use resources wisely
Reduce teacher commentary at times when
it cannot reasonably be taken up (Boud &
Molloy, 2013)
The University of Hong Kong

48. (Wiliam, 2015)
https://www.dylanwiliamcenter.com/feedback-for
The University of Hong Kong
“Feedback should
be more work for
the recipient than
the donor”

49. Key recommendations
Focus on learners’ needs
Flip feedback processes
Design for student uptake
The University of Hong Kong

50. QUESTIONS
&
COMMENTS
The University of Hong Kong

51. References
Askew, S., & Lodge, C. (2000). Gifts, ping-pong and loops - linking feedback and learning. In S.
Askew (Ed.), Feedback for Learning (pp.1-18). London: Routledge Falmer.
Boud, D. & Molloy, E. (2013). Rethinking models of feedback for learning: The challenge of design.
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(6), 698-712.
Carless, D. (2006). Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2),
219-233.
Carless, D. (2013). Sustainable feedback and the development of student self-evaluative capacities.
In S. Merry, M. Price, D. Carless & M.. Taras, (Eds.), Reconceptualising Feedback in Higher
Education. London: Routledge.
Carless, D. (2015). Excellence in University Assessment: Learning from award-winning practice.
London: Routledge.
Carless, D. (2018). Feedback loops and the longer-term: Towards feedback spirals. Assessment and
Evaluation in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1531108
Carless, D. & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of
feedback. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education,
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354.
The University of Hong Kong

52. References (continued)
Carless, D., Salter, D., Yang, M. & Lam, J. (2011). Developing sustainable feedback practices.
Studies in Higher Education, 36(4), 395-407.
Crook, C., Gross, H. & Dymott, R. (2006). Assessment relationships in higher education: The tension
of process and practice. British Educational Research Journal, 32(1), 95-114.
Hung, S.-T. A. (2016). Enhancing feedback provision through multimodal video technology.
Computers & Education, 98, 90-101.
Nicol, D. (2010). From monologue to dialogue: Improving written feedback processes in mass higher
education. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 501-517.
Nicol, D., Thomson, A. & Breslin, C. (2014). Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: A
peer review perspective. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(1), 102-122.
Sadler, D. R. (2010). Beyond feedback: Developing student capability in complex appraisal.
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 535-550.
Sadler, D.R. (2015). Backwards assessment explanations: Implications for teaching and assessment
practice. In D. Lebler et al. (Eds.), Assessment in music education: From policy to practice (pp.9-
19). Cham: Springer.
Winstone, N. & Carless, D. (2019, in press). Designing effective feedback processes in higher
education: A learning-focused approach. London: Routledge.
The University of Hong Kong

53. THANK YOU
The University of Hong Kong