Reading and Writing Feedback Perceptions Across K-20 Contexts: A Systematic Review

• In Event: Advancements in Feedback Research: Beyond Perceptions to Learning Impact

Abstract

Objectives and Framework
The development of literacy skills, or learning to read and write (Ryokai et al., 2003), are critical precursors to lifelong learning (Neuman et al., 2000). Further, to become proficient readers and writers, students must first engage with academic feedback. Moreover, the challenges of developing literacy skills and the intake of feedback are exacerbated for those who can communicate in more than one language (i.e., multilingual learners; Wei, 2008). Thus, students’ reading and writing feedback perceptions, or understanding and interpretations of feedback, are critical factors in feedback uptake (Ekholm et al., 2015; Zumbrunn et al., 2016). For example, feedback must be perceived as useful for students to optimally engage with it (Lipnevich & Smith, 2022). However, it remains unclear how students perceive literacy feedback. Guided by the Student-Feedback Interaction model, which posits that how students encounter feedback is influenced by their individual differences and their cognitive, affective, and behavioral processing of it (Lipnevich & Smith, 2022), we conducted a systematic review of 138 reports to synthesize feedback perceptions in reading and writing domains among K-20 students. The following overarching research question guided our review (see Table 1 for all research questions):
What are students’ feedback perceptions related to reading and writing tasks across K-20 contexts and are there differences between monolingual and multilingual learners' perceptions?

Method
Following PRISMA guidelines (Page et al., 2021; see Figure 1) we conducted a comprehensive literature search. Our search produced 5,058 reports. We screened abstracts followed by full-texts using inclusion criteria (see Table 2), resulting in k = 138 reports. Next, we coded for context and sample descriptives, feedback characteristics, and feedback perceptions.

Results
Results (see Table 1) yielded meaningful insights regarding how (a) students’ perceptions of literacy feedback have been operationalized and (b) these perceptions change across development, contexts, and identities. For example, researchers commonly operationalized feedback perceptions as the level of perceived feedback helpfulness (k = 98, 71%). Additionally, we found that students’ feedback perceptions generally become more negative as they progress through school, with a sharp decline during middle school. Moreover, students held the most positive perceptions of written, audio, and video instructor feedback. Audio and video feedback were especially perceived as helpful among MLs, given the added personalization and understandability. Finally, few studies explicitly considered students’ social identities alongside their literacy feedback perceptions.

Significance
Theoretically, our findings align with the Student-Feedback Interaction model by pointing to the central role of feedback perceptions in fostering two core pillars in the model: cognitive and affective feedback processing (Lipnevich & Smith, 2022). They also highlight opportunities for extending the model through more explicit elaboration of students’ sociocultural characteristics. Practically, findings point to the value of educators soliciting their students’ feedback preferences in literacy domains. Additionally, findings suggest providing students with one-on-one, instructor-delivered, and detailed feedback when feasible. Future research on students’ literacy feedback perceptions should center (a) its place in existing models of feedback, (b) longitudinal exploration, (c) intervention work at critical transitions, and (d) the influence of students’ sociocultural characteristics.

Authors

• Danielle N. Berry, University of Oklahoma

• Molly L. Taylor, Virginia Commonwealth University

• Korinthia D. Nicolai, Indiana University

• Alison C. Koenka, University of Oklahoma

• Nicole Barnes, American Psychological Association

• Luciana C. de Oliveira, Virginia Commonwealth University

• Sharon Zumbrunn, Virginia Commonwealth University