Exploring adults learners' views on summative feedback and the developmental priority model

Abstract

Feedback is consistently recognised as one of the most significant factors influencing student learning, with its effectiveness repeatedly evidenced across meta-analyses and empirical research (Black & Wiliam, 1998; Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Gibbs, 2010; Shute, 2008; Marzano, 2012; Carless & Boud, 2018; Nicol, 2021). Gibbs (2010) argues that feedback exerts a stronger impact on achievement than almost any other pedagogical intervention, while the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF), an independent charity established in 2011 to evaluate teaching practices in England, identifies feedback as one of the most cost-effective strategies, typically associated with eight months’ additional progress in a single academic year (EEF, 2021). Yet both Gibbs and the EEF caution that the potential of feedback is often under-realised in practice. Poorly designed or delayed feedback can be inconsistent, vague, or even counterproductive, a concern supported by Hattie’s (2009) finding that up to 40% of feedback interventions yield null or negative effects. The enduring challenge is to structure feedback, most notably summative feedback, so that it fosters development
instead of perpetuating the view that it is merely backwards-looking and final.

To address this question, the study investigates the Developmental Priority Model (DPM), a framework that reconfigures summative assessment into a developmental cycle through three interlocking elements: (1) the articulation of clear, forward-facing developmental priorities, (2) opportunities for dialogic clarification, and (3) structured enactment requiring learners to demonstrate how feedback is applied across modules. Eight adult learners enrolled on a Level 5 Diploma in Education and Training participated in semi-structured interviews exploring their perceptions of summative assessment, their engagement with the DPM, and the enabling and constraining conditions surrounding their use. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis to identify patterns of meaning across cases.

Findings demonstrate that the DPM consistently shifted summative feedback away from retrospective judgement towards a cyclical and sustainable process. Learners valued the clarity and actionability of the three priorities, reported enacting them in subsequent assignments and professional practice, and highlighted the motivational role of accountability mechanisms requiring evidence of progress. Participants contrasted these experiences with prior programmes, where feedback had often been delayed, generic, or inconsistent, thereby emphasising the distinctiveness of the DPM’s clarity, timeliness, and continuity. Beyond academic improvement, learners described affective and professional benefits, including enhanced confidence, self-efficacy, and the consolidation of professional identity.

The study concludes that summative feedback can function as a sustainable feedback cycle when clarity, dialogue, and accountability are systematically embedded. Its contribution lies in three domains: theoretically, it challenges the entrenched formative–summative divide by demonstrating how summative processes can serve developmental functions; empirically, it offers evidence of how adult learners enact and value feedback when supported by structured mechanisms; and practically, it provides a replicable model with implications for programme design and institutional policy.

Date of Award	2026
Original language	English
Awarding Institution	Canterbury Christ Church University