Feedback and focus: Exploring post-secondary students’ perceptions of feedback, mindfulness, and stress
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Addressing feedback-associated stress as a barrier to learning is increasingly relevant to student success and well-being. Mindfulness practices support stress management for students during the academic feedback process. Even if students receive high-quality feedback, the receiving end of feedback can be stressful, perhaps raising feelings of anxiety, confusion, or inadequacy. Feedback literacy and mindfulness practices complement one another. Mindfulness can potentially support feedback literacy by focusing one’s attention on the tasks needed to address feedback, instead of being distracted by emotions triggered by feedback. This study, comprised of an online survey (n = 237) and focus groups (n = 6), assesses post-secondary students’ perceptions concerning feedback literacy, mindfulness, and stress, and their thoughts about digital mindfulness tools intended to support students experiencing feedback-associated stress. Recruitment of students was from courses in Health Sciences, Medical Sciences, Media Studies, and Law. The survey data demonstrate that students with greater mindfulness have significantly greater feedback literacy as well as lower stress. Focus group data shows that a broad range of affective and behavioral responses are shaped by students’ perceptions of their abilities, circumstances, and feedback itself. Although students expressed familiarity with mindfulness practices, few considered explicitly linking mindfulness to their feedback process. Nevertheless, students expressed interest regarding the development of digital mindfulness tools to alleviate feedback-associated stress and offered recommendations for implementation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it