On Feedback and Emotional Labour
Keywords:assessment and feedback, emotional labour, compassion, emotions, workload
This opinion piece argues that educators are performing emotional labour when giving feedback to students. I propose that this emotional labour is performed due to the desire to balance the promotion of student learning with the increasing need for efficiency and quality control. This attempt to balance an abundance of care with a dearth of time leaves a gap between the compassion an educator wants to provide, the guidelines that must be followed, and what is feasible from a workload perspective. Are we equipped to give effective feedback at scale, and what are the emotional strategies used for, and consequences of, doing so?
Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218.
Ogbonna, E., & Harris, L. C. (2004). Work Intensification and Emotional Labour among UK University Lecturers: An Exploratory Study. Organization Studies, 25(7), 1185–1203.
Pekrun, R. (2006). The Control-Value Theory of Achievement Emotions: Assumptions, Corollaries, and Implications for Educational Research and Practice. Educational Psychology Review, 18(4), 315–341.
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Frenzel, A. C., Barchfeld, P., & Perry, R. P. (2011). Measuring emotions in students' learning and performance: The Achievement Emotions Questionnaire (AEQ). Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(1), 36–48.
Rowe, A. D., Fitness, J., & Wood, L. N. (2014). The role and functionality of emotions in feedback at university: a qualitative study. The Australian Educational Researcher, 41(3), 283–309.
Office for Students (2018). National Student Survey 2018 shows high satisfaction levels but still more to do - Office for Students. Retrieved from https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/news-blog-and-events/news-and-blog/national-student-survey-2018-shows-high-satisfaction-levels-but-still-more-to-do/
Winstone, N. E., Nash, R. A., Parker, M., & Rowntree, J. (2016a). Supporting Learners' Agentic Engagement With Feedback: A Systematic Review and a Taxonomy of Recipience Processes. Educational Psychologist, 52(1), 17–37.
Winstone, N. E., Nash, R. A., Rowntree, J., & Parker, M. (2016b). “It‘d be useful, but I wouldn’t use it”: barriers to university students’ feedback seeking and recipience. Studies in Higher Education, 42(11), 2026–2041.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice has made best effort to ensure accuracy of the contents of this journal, however makes no claims to the authenticity and completeness of the articles published. Authors are responsible for ensuring copyright clearance for any images, tables etc which are supplied from an outside source.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.