Teacher Feedback and Cooperative Learning in the University Context: A Systematic Review
Main Article Content
Abstract
In the university context, teacher feedback and cooperative learning stand out as fundamental pedagogical strategies with the potential to optimize the teaching and learning process. The purpose of this research is to conduct a systematic review of the available literature to delve into the analysis of the impact that these practices have on academic performance and the experiences of students in university settings, both in specifying the processes of teacher feedback and analyzing the process of cooperative learning, based on the objective of each of the consulted studies, the methodological type of each study, considering sample and instrument, as well as the main result and highlighted conclusion. A systematic literature review was conducted based on PRISMA guidelines, analyzing 22 scientific articles published between 2016 and 2024, using the Scopus database. The results show that in these publications there is a predominance of qualitative and mixed approaches. Based on the relationship between the two initial categories, it is observed that their results and conclusions are mostly positive, highlighting aspects such as academic performance, communication skills, attitude toward learning, adaptability, and active student participation.
Downloads
Article Details
Section

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The authors transfer the publication rights to the journal in all its formats and digital media.
Regarding Copyright CC BY-NC-SA 4.0, this journal is under a license of https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/.
You are free to:
Share: copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
Adapt: remix, transform, and build upon the material
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
1. Attribution: You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
2.Non-Commercial:You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
3. ShareAlike: If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.
4.No additional restrictions: You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or when your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation.
No warranties are given. The license may not grant you all the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
LEGAL CODE CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
How to Cite
References
Evans, C. (2013). Making sense of assessment feedback in higher education. Review of Educational Research, 83(1), 70–120. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312474350
Hoo, H.-T., Deneen, C., & Boud, D. (2022). Developing student feedback literacy through self and peer assessment interventions. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(3), 444–457. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1925871
Suárez-Guerrero, C., Gutiérrez-Esteban, P., & Ayuso-Delpuerto, D. (2024). Digital pedagogy. Systematic review of the concept. Teoría de la Educación. Revista Interuniversitaria, 36(2), 157–178. https://doi.org/10.14201/teri.31721
Revilla-Cuesta, V., Skaf, M., Manso, J. M., & Ortega-López, V. (2020). Student perceptions of formative assessment and cooperative work on a technical engineering course. Sustainability, 12(11), 4569. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114569
Zhang, D., Tan, J. T. A., & Roy, S. S. (2023). A systematic review of interventions improving university students’ EFL writing competence. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 22(10), 93–112. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.22.10.6