The Role of Student Conceptions of Feedback and Marker Comments on Student Performance

Exploring the efficacy of feedback is a constant challenge for practitioners, who frequently observe that students do not use feedback. Early areas of feedback research focussed on feedback information and contexts, while more recent theory places a strong emphasis on what students bring to the interaction. How students conceive of the purpose and sources of feedback moderates how they interpret and use feedback. Student conceptions of feedback seem to impact achievement, but mechanisms are not well understood. This study investigated student conceptions of feedback in parallel with specific feedback and assessment events to determine if different conceptions are linked to different academic outcomes. Using self-reported survey responses within an introductory science course, student conceptions of feedback (SCoF) were mapped to observed uses of feedback, and subsequent performance, constrained by marker comments and prior academic performance. Within a well-fitting structural equation model, the conception Feedback tells me if I am meeting expectations loaded on improved performance (β = .21) but did not relate to self-reported use of feedback, which was somewhat explained by the conception I enjoy getting feedback (β = .17). Greater academic performance prior to the course reduced enjoyment of feedback (β = -.14) and created fewer marker comments on work (β = -.49). Overall course performance was weakly explained by three conceptions of feedback (i.e., Feedback tells me if I am meeting expectations, β = .15; Feedback is tutor comments, β = .11; Peer feedback helps, β = -.13) and strongly by prior educational performance (β = .29). These results show that conceptions of feedback weakly contribute to feedback usage and better performance, but clearly show the challenge of providing usable feedback to academically able students. This study provides insights into previously undocumented interactions between moderators of feedback processes.