Learn With Jesse
Menu

Feedback, assignments, and assessment

Feedback with a next step

Comments that are about the work, specific, early enough to act on, and end with something the student can do next. Feedback is among the most influential things instructors do, and also one of the easiest to do badly.

Moderate evidenceWorks with or without AIIn personLive onlineSelf-paced onlineAny class sizeA few hours to set up

What it is

Formative feedback is information students get while they are still learning, meant to help them change their thinking or their work. The research describes the useful kind as non-evaluative, supportive, timely, and specific.1 The version recommended here adds one step: every comment ends with a next action, and students get time to do it before the next graded task.

The research also warns that feedback is not automatically helpful. In one large meta-analysis, over one-third of feedback interventions decreased performance, especially when the feedback pulled attention away from the task and toward the student's self-image.2

Evidence and fit at a glance

Moderate evidence

Feedback is associated with learning gains on average, but results vary widely and some feedback hurts. The commonly quoted formative assessment effect size of about 0.70 is not supported by a careful meta-analysis, which found about 0.20 in K-12 studies. This page labels the evidence moderate.

How evidence is labeled

  • Set-upA few hours to set up criteria and comment banks. Ongoing time cost depends on class size.
  • Class timeFeedback time per assignment; building in a revision step takes class or homework time.
  • DeliveryIn person, Live online, Self-paced online
  • Class sizeAny class size. Works best with under 25 students or 25 to 60 students
  • AI roleWorks with or without AI

When it works, and when it doesn’t

Best when

  • Students will do more work on the same skill soon, so they can use the comments before the next graded task.
  • The comments can focus on the task and its criteria rather than on the student as a person.
  • You can schedule time for revision, a redo, or an applied follow-up problem.
  • Your class size allows individual comments, or you can use whole-class feedback and structured peer feedback instead.

Weak when

  • Comments arrive after the course has moved on or after the final grade, so nothing can be done with them.
  • Feedback is mostly praise or criticism of the person. Effectiveness fell as attention shifted from the task toward the self.2
  • Feedback only justifies a grade. Information content shapes the effect, and feedback that tells students nothing to act on does little.3
  • The class is too large for individual comments and there is no plan for whole-class feedback or trained peer feedback.

How to do it

  1. Choose one or two criteria that matter.Comment on those, not on everything. Tie them to the learning outcome for the task.
  2. Return feedback while it is still useful.Before the next related assignment, not after the final.
  3. Write about the work, then give a next step.Name what is working, name one gap, and say what to do about it: revise this paragraph, redo this step, try this kind of problem.
  4. Give students time to use it.A short revision, a corrected problem, or a similar problem on the next set. Ask students to write one sentence about what they changed.
  5. At scale, go class-level.Summarize the two or three most common errors for the whole class and give the next step to all, then add individual comments only where they matter most.

With AI and without

Without AI

Rubrics with reusable comment banks and whole-class feedback save time without any AI.

With AI

AI can draft first-pass comments or expand a comment bank from your rubric, which you then edit and own. Do not paste identifiable student work into tools your college has not approved. If students ask AI for feedback on their drafts, require them to say what they changed and why, so the AI's comment doesn't replace their judgment.

What the research says

What the studies found

An influential review concluded that innovations that strengthen frequent feedback to students produce substantial learning gains, and went on to discuss self-assessment, teachers' formative strategies, and models of formative assessment.4

A later meta-analysis of 435 studies (994 effects, over 61,000 participants) found a medium average effect of feedback (d = 0.48) with substantial variability. The information content of the feedback strongly shaped its effect, and feedback affected cognitive and motor outcomes more than motivational and behavioral ones.3

When feedback backfires

A meta-analysis of 607 effect sizes and 23,663 observations found that feedback improved performance on average (d = .41), but over one-third of the interventions decreased it. The authors argue that effectiveness drops as attention shifts from the task toward the self.2

A conceptual analysis of feedback agrees that it is among the most powerful influences on learning and achievement, and that its effects can be positive or negative depending on how it is given.5

What good feedback looks like

A review of formative feedback describes it as non-evaluative, supportive, timely, and specific, and notes that it can take many forms, such as hints, worked examples, or explanations. Learner characteristics and task features affect how well it works.1 A model of self-regulated learning proposes seven principles of good feedback practice and argues that higher education should build on students' own capacity to generate feedback for themselves.6

A caution about the numbers

A meta-analysis of K-12 formative assessment studies reported that the effect size often credited to formative assessment, about .70, is not supported by the research. Of more than 300 studies reviewed, only 13 gave enough information to calculate effect sizes. Across 42 effect sizes, the weighted mean was .20 (.32 in English language arts, .17 in mathematics, .09 in science).7 A critical review adds that formative assessment does not yet describe a well-defined set of practices, so effects should be expected to vary widely.8

Pedagogical justification, ready to paste

Use this in a lesson plan, syllabus, or course-design form. Replace the [bracketed] parts with your own course details. Check the claims against the references before you submit.

One-sentence version

Students receive task-focused written feedback that ends with a specific next step, returned before the next graded task, because feedback can be among the most powerful influences on learning but its effects vary widely: a meta-analysis of 435 studies found a medium average effect (d = 0.48) with substantial variability,3 and over one-third of feedback interventions in an earlier meta-analysis lowered performance, especially when attention shifted from the task to the self.2

Full rationale

Feedback in this course is designed to be used. Comments focus on the task and the stated criteria, name one thing that is working and one gap, and end with a specific next step. They are returned before the next related assignment, and students complete a short revision or follow-up problem and write one sentence about what they changed. This design responds to a mixed evidence base. A meta-analysis of 435 studies found a medium average effect of feedback (d = 0.48), with substantial variability and with the information content of the feedback shaping its impact.3 An earlier meta-analysis found that over one-third of feedback interventions decreased performance, and that effects fell as attention moved from the task toward the self.2 Reviews of formative feedback describe effective feedback as non-evaluative, supportive, timely, and specific.1 Because widely quoted effect sizes for formative assessment have been challenged,7 the course evaluates its own feedback process by checking whether students' revisions improve.

Learning outcome
Students will be able to [verb + skill] to the stated criteria on the next assignment.
Evidence of learning
[Next graded task] scored with the same rubric, plus the share of students whose revision improved on the targeted criterion.
Learning activity
Task-focused comments with a next step, returned before [next task], followed by a [short revision or follow-up problem] and a one-sentence reflection.

The copy buttons paste plain text. The pasted version renumbers the references from 1 and includes them with a source line, so it works on its own. The numbers shown here match the reference list below.

Limits of the evidence

  • Average effects are moderate, and variability is large. Some feedback lowers performance.2,3
  • The widely quoted formative assessment effect size of about .70 is not supported by a careful meta-analysis, which found .20 in K-12 studies.7 Much of that evidence is from K-12, not college.
  • Formative assessment is loosely defined, so results depend on exactly what is done.8
  • Feedback costs instructor time that grows with class size. Whole-class feedback and structured peer feedback are practical alternatives, but this page does not review the evidence for them.

Questions faculty ask

Does feedback always improve learning?

No. In one meta-analysis of 607 effect sizes, over one-third of feedback interventions decreased performance, particularly when feedback focused attention on the self instead of the task.2

How big is the effect of formative assessment?

Less than often claimed. A meta-analysis of K-12 studies found a weighted mean of about .20, not the .70 often quoted.7 Feedback in general averaged d = 0.48 across 435 studies, with wide variation.3

How do I give feedback in a big class?

Summarize the most common errors for the whole class and give the next step to everyone, then add individual comments where they matter most. This is a practical suggestion rather than a research finding.

References

  1. Shute VJ. Focus on formative feedback. Rev Educ Res. 2008;78(1):153-189. doi:10.3102/0034654307313795
  2. Kluger AN, DeNisi A. The effects of feedback interventions on performance: a historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychol Bull. 1996;119(2):254-284. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254
  3. Wisniewski B, Zierer K, Hattie J. The power of feedback revisited: a meta-analysis of educational feedback research. Front Psychol. 2020;10:3087. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03087
  4. Black P, Wiliam D. Assessment and classroom learning. Assess Educ Princ Policy Pract. 1998;5(1):7-74. doi:10.1080/0969595980050102
  5. Hattie J, Timperley H. The power of feedback. Rev Educ Res. 2007;77(1):81-112. doi:10.3102/003465430298487
  6. Nicol DJ, Macfarlane-Dick D. Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Stud High Educ. 2006;31(2):199-218. doi:10.1080/03075070600572090
  7. Kingston N, Nash B. Formative assessment: a meta-analysis and a call for research. Educ Meas Issues Pract. 2011;30(4):28-37. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.2011.00220.x
  8. Bennett RE. Formative assessment: a critical review. Assess Educ Princ Policy Pract. 2011;18(1):5-25. doi:10.1080/0969594X.2010.513678

About this page

Written by Jesse Rogers, Learning Lab Coordinator, Palm Beach State College. Last updated October 15, 2026.

AI disclosure. Model used for research, drafting, editing, and verification: claude-sonnet-5-5 (Claude, by Anthropic). The author is responsible for every claim and citation.

How it was checked. Bibliographic details were checked against DOI records. Numbers and findings were checked against abstracts or open full texts. Where that was not possible, the page says so. See the method page.

License. CC BY 4.0. Share and adapt it with credit. This is an independent project and is not an official resource of Palm Beach State College.

Corrections. If you find an error, message me on LinkedIn and I will check it and fix it.

Cite this page (AMA). Rogers J. Feedback with a next step. Learn With Jesse. Published October 15, 2026. Updated October 15, 2026. Accessed [date]. https://learnwithjesse.com/techniques/formative-feedback/