How can comparative judgement become an effective means toward providing clear formative feedback to students to improve their learning process during their product-service-system design project

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by nayy☆

This study examines how Comparative Judgement (CJ) can deliver clear, formative feedback for students in higher education, specifically within a partly on-campus, partly online semester-long Product-Service System (PSS) design project for first Master students. Using the Hattie & Timperley (2007) feedback model, it identifies three feedback types (feeding up, back, forward) and four levels (task, process, self-regulatory/self). The study evaluates how 72 students and 4 lecturers apply CJ and how feedback is formulated and received, then summarizes strengths and weaknesses, improvement opportunities, and impacts on learning, self-assessment, and metacognition.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages18

Reading Time45 min

AccessFree to download

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Teaching and learning context: Product-service systems

How can comparative judgement become an effective means toward providing clear formative feedback to students to improve their learning process during their product-service-system design project? Ivo Dewit, University of Antwerp, Belgium Sarah Rohaert, University of Antwerp, Belgium David Corradi, University of Antwerp, Belgium Abstract This study responds to calls to further investigate ways to make feedback more effective for students in the context of higher education. More specifically it scrutinizes the feedback practice, adapted to the exceptional reality of a partly on Campus, partly online semester–long Product-Service System (PSS) design project for first Master students of X at the University of Y. To do so, an established model of feedback (Hattie & Timperley, 2007) is used as a framework to seek answers to the research question: which types (and levels) of feedback are generated when applying Comparative Judgement (CJ) to guide the students’ and teachers’ feedback formulation? Following the model, first three types of feedback: feeding up; feeding back; and feeding forward and second, four levels of feedback are discerned: task; process; selfregulatory and self. The current study describes how first year Master students (n=72) and lecturers (n=4) apply CJ to formulate feedback. We evaluate which types and levels of feedback are formulated and received by the students, both towards and from their peers and teachers. Additionally, based on a post hoc survey and reflection paper, we list the strengths and weaknesses of CJ as a method to help students to formulate, interpret and receive feedback. Finally, we identify various opportunities to improve CJ based feedback during product development cycles and its impact on learning and self–assessment of the own project process and (intermediate) results quality, and metacognitive strategies for learning. Keywords design education, formative feedback, product-service systems, comparative judgement, metacognition and learning Introduction Kluger and De Nisi’s (1996) meta-analysis of feedback was a catalyst for acknowledging and investigating the highly variable effects of feedback on learning, both positive and negative. Further research demonstrated that a large amount of feedback by teachers is rarely used and implemented by students (Carless, 2006) . This study responds to calls to further investigate ways to make feedback more effective for students (Brooks et al., 2019; Hattie et al., 2016; Shute, 2008) . Hereto we explore if and how Comparative Judgement (CJ), i.e., comparing and ranking 2 or more products, can support the formulation of effective formative feedback. We do so in the context of a partly on campus, partly online semester–long Product-Service System (PSS) design project for first master students of X at the University of Y during the exceptional fall of 2020, profoundly marked by the second wave of the Covid-19 pandemic. Teaching and learning context: Product-service systems This paper discusses the findings of a research study focusing on the question of whether CJ can support the formulation of clear, actionable formative feedback to guide the students’ learning process. Specifically, this question will be framed within the context of guiding a PSS design learning process. Now what does a PSS design project entail and which kind and frequency of feedback does it call for? PSS design projects seek to create systems in which products and services are designed in unison and reinforce each other. As such, PSS design requires a structured process with a broad scope to embrace the integral nature of complex system–level challenges and potential solutions. As such, it fits well with a design pedagogy vision, supported by Tovey (2015), who claims that designers should become generalists in as wide a range of content as possible, as the wider the reach of their knowledge base, the more likely the creative inspiration to address complex challe

FAQs

What research question does the study address about Comparative Judgement (CJ)?

It asks whether and how Comparative Judgement can support the formulation of clear, actionable formative feedback that guides students’ learning during a PSS design learning process.

How is feedback conceptualized in the study framework?

It applies the Hattie & Timperley (2007) model to categorize feedback into three types (feeding up, feeding back, feeding forward) and four levels (task, process, self-regulatory and self).

Who participated in the Comparative Judgement feedback process and how was it evaluated?

First-year Master students (n=72) and lecturers (n=4) applied CJ to formulate feedback. The study evaluates which types and levels were formulated and received by students from peers and teachers, using a post hoc survey and reflection paper to assess strengths and weaknesses.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by nayy☆