Where it is used
Each entry identifies the volume, edition, chapter or appendix in which the work appears.
The evidence behind the series
Follow the research.
Explore every source.
Browse the scientific research and professional literature used across all seven volumes of The Science of Learning for Educators.
7book volumes
8author ranges
1searchable library
Search the collection
Find a paper, author or idea.
Choose an author range, search a title or concept, or narrow the collection by source type. Open any result to see where it appears in the books, read its evidence summary and follow available source links.
8 references
-
- Vol 5 RE: Chapters 1, 3, 5, App B
- Vol 5 TE: App C
formative assessmentfeedback usequality criteriaself-monitoringevaluative expertiseassessment exemplarsfeedback-based revisionself-regulated learningJournal article Evidence summaryAt a glance
Sadler develops a theory of formative assessment for complex work judged against multiple criteria. Feedback becomes formative only when information about performance is used to reduce the gap between a learner’s current work and a desired standard.
Key ideas
To do this independently, students must understand what quality means, compare their own work with that standard, and possess strategies for closing the gap. Teacher comments alone cannot produce self-monitoring if standards remain tacit or students lack evaluative expertise. Exemplars, comparison, discussion of criteria, and authentic experience making judgements can help learners develop a concept of quality, including aspects not readily captured by analytic rubrics. The account applies most strongly to open, qualitative performances rather than tasks scored simply right or wrong.
Why it matters
For educators, formative design should move beyond delivering corrections: make quality visible through varied examples, involve students in justified judgements, connect feedback to revision, and create repeated cycles of production and improvement. The long-term aim is not permanent teacher dependence but the learner’s growing ability to monitor and regulate work while it is being produced.
-
- Vol 7 RE: Chapter 10, App D
learning analyticsstudent expectationsstudy planningself-assessmentadaptive recommendationspersonalized feedbackdata privacyJournal article Evidence summaryAt a glance
Schumacher and Ifenthaler investigate what university students want from learning-analytics systems and whether they believe particular features would support their learning. An exploratory qualitative study with 20 students generated a set of expected functions, followed by a quantitative study in which 216 students rated 15 features, their willingness to use them, and perceived learning value.
Key ideas
Students especially valued tools for planning and organizing study, self-assessment, adaptive recommendations, and personalized analysis of learning activity. These expectations map onto phases of self-regulated learning, including preparation, performance monitoring, and reflection. Participants saw potential benefits in timely feedback and individualized support, yet also worried that analytics might become invasive or reduce autonomy. The findings show why dashboard design should begin with learner needs and educational theory rather than the data that happen to be available.
Why it matters
The authors recommend aligning features with self-regulation, feedback, and instruction, while making data practices and purposes transparent. Meaningful user involvement is therefore both a design requirement and a condition for acceptance.
View or buy the cited work >>Read a similar article free online >>
-
- Vol 4 RE: Chapter 6
self-regulated learningsocially shared regulationcollaborative learningadaptive learning environmentslearning analyticsfeedback scaffoldinghelp seekinglearner agencyJournal article Evidence summaryAt a glance
Sharma, Nguyen, and Hong systematically review empirical studies connecting adaptive digital learning environments with self-regulated and socially shared regulation in collaborative learning. Their search and coding identify seven recurring objectives: feedback and scaffolding, regulatory skills and strategies, learning trajectories, collaborative processes, adaptation and regulation, self-assessment, and help seeking.
Key ideas
Adaptive systems can personalize prompts, representations, feedback, and paths, while collaboration introduces collective planning, monitoring, control, and reflection that cannot be inferred from individual traces alone. The literature uses heterogeneous theoretical models, settings, technologies, and measures, limiting cumulative conclusions. Important gaps include few informal-learning studies, weak theoretical convergence between individual and shared regulation, and difficulty monitoring how regulation is coordinated across group members. The authors call for clearer constructs, multimodal and process-sensitive measures, and designs that support rather than automate learner agency.
Why it matters
The review provides a map of opportunities but does not establish that adaptation by itself improves regulation or collaboration.
-
- Vol 5 TE: App C
formative assessmentassessment for learningconstructivist assessmentsociocultural assessmentself-assessmentfeedbackopportunity to learnassessment equityJournal article Evidence summaryAt a glance
Shepard argues that assessment should be reconceived as part of a learning culture rather than as a separate apparatus for ranking and control. Earlier measurement traditions were shaped by behaviourist and differential-psychology assumptions that treated ability as relatively fixed, separated tests from instruction, and favoured decontextualised items.
Key ideas
Contemporary cognitive, constructivist, and sociocultural research instead portrays learning as building understanding through prior knowledge, participation, language, tools, and disciplinary practice. Assessment should therefore make thinking visible, support feedback and self-assessment, use meaningful tasks, and help teachers adapt instruction. Classroom assessment and external accountability serve different purposes and should not be allowed to distort one another. Equity requires attention to opportunity to learn, cultural and linguistic context, and the consequences of assessment use.
Why it matters
For educators, the article supports eliciting explanations and strategies, discussing criteria and exemplars, involving learners in judgement, and using evidence while learning is still changeable. A learning culture maintains high expectations but treats error as information and assessment as a reciprocal process embedded in teaching, not merely a score delivered afterward.
-
- Vol 5 RE: Chapters 2, 8
- Vol 5 TE: App C
- Vol 7 PE: App D
formative feedbackelaborated feedbackfeedback timingfeedback specificityself-regulationworked examplestask-oriented feedbackfeedback overloadJournal article Evidence summaryAt a glance
Shute reviews formative feedback, defined as information communicated to change a learner’s thinking or behaviour for improved learning. Feedback can verify accuracy, identify errors, supply the correct answer, offer hints, explain principles, or present worked examples; its effectiveness depends on the learner, task, timing, and level of detail.
Key ideas
Elaborated feedback that addresses what, how, and why is often more useful than simple right–wrong confirmation, but too much information can overwhelm learners. Effective feedback is generally specific, credible, supportive, and focused on the task, process, or self-regulation rather than personal traits or comparisons with peers. Immediate feedback can help difficult or procedural tasks and prevent persistent error, while delayed feedback may sometimes support transfer or fluency; no single timing rule fits all conditions. For educators and designers, feedback should be manageable, aligned with goals, and usable in a next action.
Why it matters
Avoid grades or praise that divert attention to the self, overly controlling language, vague comments, and hints that let students bypass thinking. The review offers conditional guidelines rather than a universal feedback formula.
-
- Vol 1 RE: Chapters 1, 2, 3, 10
- Vol 2 RE: App D
learning versus performanceretrieval practicespacing effectinterleavingdelayed feedbacktransfer tasksJournal article Evidence summaryAt a glance
Soderstrom and Bjork distinguish performance—temporary, observable success during instruction—from learning, the relatively durable changes that support later retention and transfer. The two can dissociate: conditions that produce rapid, fluent performance may create weak long-term learning, while conditions that introduce errors or difficulty during practice can strengthen later capability.
Key ideas
The review traces this distinction from latent learning and motor research through contemporary verbal and skill learning. Massed practice, blocked schedules, immediate feedback, and repeated study often improve acquisition performance. Spacing, interleaving, delayed or reduced feedback, retrieval practice, variable practice, and generation can impair or slow practice yet enhance delayed tests, provided the difficulty is desirable rather than overwhelming. Learners and instructors may misjudge effectiveness because fluency and confidence are salient. For educators, training should be evaluated with delayed, unfamiliar, and transfer tasks, not practice scores alone.
Why it matters
Support can be reduced as expertise grows, and challenge should remain achievable with feedback. The article does not claim that poor performance is always productive; difficulty benefits learning only when it engages relevant processes and successful encoding or retrieval remains possible.
-
- Vol 5 RE: Chapters 6, 9, 11, 14
- Vol 5 TE: App C
peer assessmentassessment criteriaformative feedbackpeer judgmentassessment reliabilitywriting assessmentfeedback literacyassessment safeguardsJournal article Evidence summaryAt a glance
Topping defines peer assessment as arrangements in which learners consider and specify the level, value, or quality of products or performances by equal-status peers. The review proposes a detailed typology showing that designs differ by subject, objectives, output, participant level, matching, directionality, anonymity, assessment format, and whether feedback or grades are involved.
Key ideas
Reviewing higher-education studies, it finds peer marks can reach adequate reliability and validity across many settings, although agreement depends on training, criteria, task, and aggregation. Evidence was strongest for positive formative effects in writing and in uses involving marks, grades, or tests; evidence for presentations, group projects, and professional skills was then more limited. Potential learning mechanisms include clarifying standards, comparing approaches, articulating judgement, receiving more feedback, and developing responsibility. Risks include friendship bias, collusion, status effects, anxiety, superficial comments, and use of peer scores for high-stakes decisions without sufficient safeguards.
Why it matters
Effective implementation requires explicit criteria, modelling and practice, constructive feedback, transparency about purpose, monitoring, and opportunities to act on feedback. The article frames peer assessment as a learning process, not simply inexpensive substitute marking.
View or buy the cited work >>Read a similar article free online >>
-
- Vol 3 RE: Chapter 14
- Vol 3 TE: App C
peer assessmentformative feedbackassessment criteriaself-regulated learningpeer judgmentfeedback qualityassessment reliabilityrevision practicesJournal article Evidence summaryAt a glance
This practice-oriented article explains peer assessment as learners judging work by peers of similar status, usually with formative purposes extending beyond a mark. Topping distinguishes qualitative comments or scores, anonymous or identified review, same- or cross-ability matching, reciprocal or one-way roles, individual or group products, and formative or summative use.
Key ideas
Peer assessment may increase feedback while helping students internalise criteria, compare strategies, explain judgements, and reflect on their own work. Reliability can be acceptable, particularly when multiple judgements are combined, but accuracy is not automatic. Students may lack domain knowledge, misunderstand standards, avoid criticism, favour friends, or distrust peer grades. Preparation therefore matters: teachers should clarify purposes and criteria, model examples, involve students in criteria where appropriate, train them to give specific constructive feedback, rehearse with low stakes, monitor exchanges, and provide opportunities for revision.
Why it matters
The teacher remains responsible for design and quality assurance. The central implication is that making and discussing judgements can itself produce learning; peer assessment should be reciprocal participation in evaluative practice, not merely delegated grading.
View or buy the cited work >>Read a similar article free online >>
A transparent research trail
More than a bibliography.
What it contributes
Evidence summaries explain the central idea and why the source matters to educators.
How to access it
Entries link to lawful full text where available, or to a publisher, library or purchase page.
Edition abbreviations
- TE
- Teacher Edition
- PE
- Practice Edition
- RE
- Research Edition
Citation checks
References are checked against publisher records, scholarly indexes, DOI or ISBN metadata, repositories and author records where available. An entry marked [Citation not verified] preserves the wording found in the relevant volume without attributing findings to an unconfirmed work.
From sources to a coherent pathway