Feedforward practices: a systematic review of the literature

Sadler, I.; Reimann, N.; Sambell, K.

Abstract

The notion of ‘feedforward’ has emerged as popular with practitioners, and there has been an upsurge in publications which include this term. This interpretivist and conceptual systematic review sought to consider the different forms of educational practices that are framed in relation to feedforward. The initial search of four electronic databases found 1076 articles published between 2007 and 2019, which were reduced to 68 once duplicates had been removed and exclusion/inclusion criteria applied during screening and eligibility procedures. An iterative meta-ethnographic approach to analysis resulted in the identification of five main practices, framed as feedforward. These were: alignment and timing (41%); use (25%); comments (18%); self-review (9%); and teaching (7%). The vast majority involved a process where student improvement was a key goal, but the design of this process differed between practices. A large proportion supported improvement from one task to the next, almost exclusively within the ‘future horizon’ of the module/study unit, while only a small proportion of articles focuses on improving the amount, nature or quality of the information delivered to learners. Evidence of student sense-making and uptake was rarely sought, and few practices offered genuine opportunities for student agency, self-regulation and the development of evaluative judgment.

Citation

Sadler, I., Reimann, N., & Sambell, K. (2023). Feedforward practices: a systematic review of the literature. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 48(3), 305-320. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2022.2073434

• Journal Article Type: Article
• Acceptance Date: Apr 13, 2022
• Online Publication Date: May 9, 2022
• Publication Date: 2023
• Deposit Date: May 18, 2022
• Publicly Available Date: May 18, 2023
• Journal: Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education
• Print ISSN: 0260-2938
• Electronic ISSN: 1469-297X
• Publisher: Taylor and Francis Group
• Peer Reviewed: Peer Reviewed
• Volume: 48
• Issue: 3
• Pages: 305-320
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2022.2073434
• Public URL: https://durham-repository.worktribe.com/output/1207746