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.
3 references
-
- 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 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