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 12, App C
authentic assessmenthigher education assessmentemployability skillscomplex performance tasksfeedback literacylearner agencyassessment alignmentinclusive assessmentJournal article Evidence summaryAt a glance
Vlachopoulos and Makri review 94 articles on authentic assessment in higher education, focusing on implementation, development of employability-oriented “21st-century” skills, and implications for students, educators, institutions, and policy. Authentic tasks ask learners to apply knowledge, skills, and attitudes in complex situations resembling relevant professional or real-world practice rather than reproduce information in decontextualised tests.
Key ideas
Across disciplines, reported benefits include problem solving, critical and creative thinking, collaboration, communication, self-regulation, engagement, feedback literacy, and links between academic learning and future work. Effective designs use clear criteria, realistic complexity, meaningful audiences or products, iterative feedback, reflection, learner agency, and alignment among outcomes, teaching, and assessment. Challenges include workload, scalability, consistency and reliability, student resistance, unfamiliarity, unequal resources, accessibility, technology, academic integrity, staff expertise, and institutional rules. The review calls for training, adequate time and infrastructure, stakeholder involvement, inclusive design, quality assurance, and policies flexible enough to support disciplinary variation.
Why it matters
Because the evidence consists largely of heterogeneous reports and perceptions, authentic appearance alone should not be assumed to cause transferable skills; designs need explicit goals and credible evaluation of learning, equity, and longer-term outcomes.
-
- Vol 4 RE: Chapter 12
feedback literacyevaluative judgementfeedback uptakedialogic feedbackpeer feedbackassessment designlearner agencyfeedback processesBook Evidence summaryAt a glance
Winstone and Carless shift feedback from information delivered by teachers to a process in which students interpret, judge, and use information to improve work. Effective feedback depends on student feedback literacy, opportunities for uptake, and assessment designs making action possible.
Key ideas
The book examines how educators can develop evaluative judgement, enable dialogue, connect internal feedback with external comments, use technology purposefully, and organise peer feedback as learning rather than editing. It foregrounds relationships: trust, tone, emotion, credibility, and agency affect whether information is engaged with. Teacher feedback literacy includes designing for uptake while managing disciplinary, institutional, time, and workload constraints. The volume synthesises theory, research, and cases; it is not one comparative trial and does not imply that more comments produce more learning.
Why it matters
Useful designs create cycles in which learners compare work with criteria and exemplars, discuss interpretations, revise, and carry insights into later tasks. Educators should evaluate feedback by the quality of resulting learner action, not only message timeliness or volume, while ensuring that peer, automated, and teacher inputs serve coherent learning purposes.
View or buy the cited work >>Read a similar article free online >>
-
- Vol 5 RE: Chapter 15
generative artificial intelligencefeedback engagementfeedback literacystudent agencyfeedback processingfeedback enactmentcritical ai literacyJournal article Evidence summaryAt a glance
Zhan, Boud, Dawson, and Yan develop a conceptual framework for understanding student engagement with feedback in generative-AI environments. Drawing on feedback research and an ecological perspective, they examine three stages: eliciting feedback, processing it, and enacting it in subsequent work.
Key ideas
Generative AI can reduce barriers of time, access, and social anxiety by providing rapid, repeatable, personalized responses. Yet useful engagement depends on students’ feedback literacy: they must formulate productive requests, judge credibility and relevance, compare advice with standards, and decide what to implement. Risks include fabricated or biased information, weak prompts, passive acceptance, reduced human dialogue, and ethical concerns. The authors propose a cyclical model of feedback forethought, control, and retrospect, emphasizing interaction between the opportunities a tool affords and a learner’s capacity to recognize and use them.
Why it matters
This is a theory-building synthesis, not an experimental test of learning gains. Its practical message is that institutions should design feedback environments and teaching activities that develop judgment, agency, and critical AI literacy while preserving meaningful teacher and peer relationships.
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