Jennifer Meyer , Thorben Jansen , Johanna Fleckenstein
{"title":"初中教育中的不参与和不成功参与反馈:学生特点的作用","authors":"Jennifer Meyer , Thorben Jansen , Johanna Fleckenstein","doi":"10.1016/j.cedpsych.2025.102363","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Feedback can be a powerful learning intervention and learners’ active engagement is assumed to be one of the most important determinants of feedback effectiveness. But not all students successfully engage with feedback. In the present study, we aimed to make students’ engagement with feedback visible by focusing on their text revisions as an indicator of feedback response. On the basis of theoretical models of feedback processing, we differentiated between behavioral nonengagement (i.e., not revising at all after receiving feedback) and unsuccessful engagement (i.e., revising after receiving feedback, but not improving in the process). Capitalizing on this distinction, we compared the characteristics of students in both groups with those of students who (successfully) engaged with the feedback. We provided automated computer-based feedback on a writing task to a sample of 937 students in lower secondary education in Germany (49% female, Grades 7[28%], 8 [29%], and 9[43%]), asking students to revise their texts according to the feedback. We found that 20% of the students did not make any revisions to their text after receiving feedback (nonengagement) and that 47% of the students did not improve their performance after working with the feedback during a text revision (unsuccessful engagement). Male students and students with lower cognitive abilities were more likely to show nonengagement. For unsuccessful engagement, cognitive abilities and the English grade were relevant predictors, hinting at the role that domain-specific competencies play in translating feedback into effective revision. We also found significant positive associations of intrinsic task value with successful feedback engagement. We discuss how future research could advance understanding of feedback processing by taking a more fine-grained approach to investigating feedback response.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":10635,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Educational Psychology","volume":"81 ","pages":"Article 102363"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Nonengagement and unsuccessful engagement with feedback in lower secondary education: The role of student characteristics\",\"authors\":\"Jennifer Meyer , Thorben Jansen , Johanna Fleckenstein\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cedpsych.2025.102363\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Feedback can be a powerful learning intervention and learners’ active engagement is assumed to be one of the most important determinants of feedback effectiveness. But not all students successfully engage with feedback. In the present study, we aimed to make students’ engagement with feedback visible by focusing on their text revisions as an indicator of feedback response. On the basis of theoretical models of feedback processing, we differentiated between behavioral nonengagement (i.e., not revising at all after receiving feedback) and unsuccessful engagement (i.e., revising after receiving feedback, but not improving in the process). Capitalizing on this distinction, we compared the characteristics of students in both groups with those of students who (successfully) engaged with the feedback. We provided automated computer-based feedback on a writing task to a sample of 937 students in lower secondary education in Germany (49% female, Grades 7[28%], 8 [29%], and 9[43%]), asking students to revise their texts according to the feedback. We found that 20% of the students did not make any revisions to their text after receiving feedback (nonengagement) and that 47% of the students did not improve their performance after working with the feedback during a text revision (unsuccessful engagement). Male students and students with lower cognitive abilities were more likely to show nonengagement. For unsuccessful engagement, cognitive abilities and the English grade were relevant predictors, hinting at the role that domain-specific competencies play in translating feedback into effective revision. We also found significant positive associations of intrinsic task value with successful feedback engagement. We discuss how future research could advance understanding of feedback processing by taking a more fine-grained approach to investigating feedback response.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10635,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Contemporary Educational Psychology\",\"volume\":\"81 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102363\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Contemporary Educational Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0361476X25000281\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary Educational Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0361476X25000281","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Nonengagement and unsuccessful engagement with feedback in lower secondary education: The role of student characteristics
Feedback can be a powerful learning intervention and learners’ active engagement is assumed to be one of the most important determinants of feedback effectiveness. But not all students successfully engage with feedback. In the present study, we aimed to make students’ engagement with feedback visible by focusing on their text revisions as an indicator of feedback response. On the basis of theoretical models of feedback processing, we differentiated between behavioral nonengagement (i.e., not revising at all after receiving feedback) and unsuccessful engagement (i.e., revising after receiving feedback, but not improving in the process). Capitalizing on this distinction, we compared the characteristics of students in both groups with those of students who (successfully) engaged with the feedback. We provided automated computer-based feedback on a writing task to a sample of 937 students in lower secondary education in Germany (49% female, Grades 7[28%], 8 [29%], and 9[43%]), asking students to revise their texts according to the feedback. We found that 20% of the students did not make any revisions to their text after receiving feedback (nonengagement) and that 47% of the students did not improve their performance after working with the feedback during a text revision (unsuccessful engagement). Male students and students with lower cognitive abilities were more likely to show nonengagement. For unsuccessful engagement, cognitive abilities and the English grade were relevant predictors, hinting at the role that domain-specific competencies play in translating feedback into effective revision. We also found significant positive associations of intrinsic task value with successful feedback engagement. We discuss how future research could advance understanding of feedback processing by taking a more fine-grained approach to investigating feedback response.
期刊介绍:
Contemporary Educational Psychology is a scholarly journal that publishes empirical research from various parts of the world. The research aims to substantially advance, extend, or re-envision the ongoing discourse in educational psychology research and practice. To be considered for publication, manuscripts must be well-grounded in a comprehensive theoretical and empirical framework. This framework should raise critical and timely questions that educational psychology currently faces. Additionally, the questions asked should be closely related to the chosen methodological approach, and the authors should provide actionable implications for education research and practice. The journal seeks to publish manuscripts that offer cutting-edge theoretical and methodological perspectives on critical and timely education questions.
The journal is abstracted and indexed in various databases, including Contents Pages in Education, Australian Educational Index, Current Contents, EBSCOhost, Education Index, ERA, PsycINFO, Sociology of Education Abstracts, PubMed/Medline, BIOSIS Previews, and others.