Available via license: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Waikato Journal
of
Education
ISSN 2382-0373
Website: http://wje.org.nz
Waikato Journal of Education
Te Hautaka M¯atauranga o Waikato
School of Education
Te Kura Toi Tangata
Waikato Journ al o f Educ atio n
Title of Issue/section: Volume 23, Issue 2, 2018
Guest Editor: Dianne Forbes
Editor: Noeline Wright
To cite this article: Bowker, N. (2018). Loss management and agency: Undergraduate students’ online psychological
processing of lower-than-expected assessment feedback. Waikato Journal of Education, 23(2), 25-41. doi:
10.15663/wje.v23i2.653.
To link to this volume: 10.15663/wje.v23i2
Copyright of articles
Creative commons license: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/
Authors retain copyright of their publications.
Author and users 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.
• 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
• NonCommercial—You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
• ShareAlike—If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under
the same license as the original.
Terms and conditions of use
For full terms and conditions of use: http://wje.org.nz/index.php/WJE/about/editorialPolicies#openAccessPolicy
and users 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.
Waikato Journal of Education
Te Hautaka Mātauranga o Waikato
Volume 23, Issue 2: 2018
Wilf Malcolm Institute of Educational Research, Te Kura Toi Tangata Faculty of Education, University of Wai kato,
Hamilton, New Zealand
ISSN: 2382-0373
Contact details: Natilene Bowker Email natilene.bowker@openpolytechnic.ac.n z
(pp. 25–41)
Waikato Journal of Education
Te Hautaka M¯atauranga o Waikato
School of Education
Te Kura Toi Tangata
Waikato J ourn al of Educ ation
Loss management and agency: Undergraduate students’ online psychological
processing of lower-than-expected assessment feedback
Natilene Bowker
Open Polytechnic of New Zealand
Keywords
Online learning; online teaching; assessment feedback; emotion; psychological loss; agency
Abstract
Identifying how students can manage the psychological complexity of receiving assessment feedback is
important to gain maximum learning and for teachers to facilitate empowering online learning
environments. This study discursively explores how a group of students, learning online,
psychologically process assessment feedback. Data comprised 29 posts from a student-initiated
asynchronous discussion in a first-year undergraduate online distance psychology course. Posts
centre around different ways of managing loss over lower-than-expected assessment feedback
involving three repertoires: distress, discord and review; facing the difficulties; and ways forward
comprising three resources: acknowledgement and solutions, lessons learnt, and accommodating
challenges. The psychological loss arising from the removal of a psychological attachment to a grade
aspiration is theorised. Findings show how students’ discourse functioned to (legitimately) challenge
the teacher’s power while also creating constructive solutions, including exercising agency over one’s
online learning. Teaching strategies for managing the psychology of receiving assessment feedback
online are shared.
Introduction
This study aims to understand how a group of students, who are learning online, psychologically
experience assessment feedback. Receiving assessment feedback is a complex emotional process, in
that “students’ emotions greatly influence the way in which they are able to receive and process
feedback” (Värlander 2008, p. 146). Dowden, Pittaway, Yost, and McCarthy’s (2013) study of first
and second-year distance and on-campus students’ perceptions of feedback found that “emotions
strongly mediated” (p. 349) perceptions, with strong negative emotional reactions eliminating the
potential to use assessment feedback constructively. If students can maintain motivation while
experiencing negative emotions, this is likely to improve their academic success (Burleson & Picard,
2004; Kort, Reilly, & Picard, 2001).
Higgins, Hartley, and Skelton (2001) argue that the process of communicating assessment
feedback is “problematic because of the particular nature of the power relationship” that exists
26 Natilene Bowker
between teacher and student, whereby the teacher “occupies the dual role of both assisting and passing
judgement on the student” (p. 273). The teacher’s ability to bestow judgement simultaneously
communicates their expert status and authority. This increases the value attached to the judgement and
the subsequent “power of these judgements to invoke feelings…within students” (Higgins et al., 2001,
p. 273). Hence, the assessment feedback process integrates power, emotion and discourse, which
impact on students’ capacity to benefit from the process (Carless, 2006). Identifying ways in which
students can manage and navigate the psychological complexity of receiving assessment feedback is
important for students to gain the most learning from their assessment (Rae & Cochrane, 2008; Yorke,
2003) and for teachers to facilitate empowering learning environments.
Added to this mix of complex factors is online learning, where students are not bound by distance,
time and location (Ally, 2008). Using data from a student discussion forum within an online course,
this study investigates how a group of students learning online psychologically process assessment
outcomes. This study offers a unique discursive lens on emotional reactions to assessment feedback
online through loss management. The psychological (or symbolic) loss arising from the removal of a
psychological attachment to a grade aspiration or expected assessment outcome is theorised, with
findings compared to stage and task-based theories of loss. Findings also show how students’ online
discourse functioned to (legitimately) challenge the teacher’s power while also creating constructive
solutions. Some teaching strategies for managing the psychology of receiving assessment feedback
online are shared.
Online learning environments, power and emotion
On the one hand, online learning environments may impede students’ freedom to provide feedback
about their assessment feedback. Drawing upon Foucault (1977, cited in Kitto, 2003), Kitto relates
online learning environments to a panopticon, a disciplining power that imposes standards and
regulates behaviour. Kitto (2003) explains how surveillance can operate within an online course
because everywhere a student goes is traceable. Any posts made by students are also visible to every
other student. Hierarchy is embedded within the system with only the lecturer having access rights to
each student’s movements, participation and performance. In Anderson’s (2006, p. 118) analysis of
distance students’ perceptions of online interactions, participants disliked always being “under
surveillance”, including the lecturer having access to their small group discussions, viewed by some as
private spaces. For others, the lecturer’s “authoritative gaze” (Anderson, p. 118) was oppressive and
prevented them from voicing their opinion.
Alternatively, online learning environments may have the capacity to facilitate students’
viewpoints, including students’ ability to challenge the status quo. Peach and Bieber (2015) found that
“online education affords participants opportunities to circumvent traditional mechanisms of control”
(p. 38). Anderson’s (2006) interviews with distance students experienced in employing asynchronous
text-based forums identified how everyone has the capacity to give voice to their viewpoint. This was
counter to face-to-face classrooms where some individuals overpower others. Anderson (2006, p. 110)
argues that in online learning environments, students can actively structure their encounters to suit
their intentions and “create their own political space”. This may have implications for how students
choose to manage their emotional reactions to assessment feedback and students’ capacity to fully
participate in online learning.
For effective online learning environments, emotion regulation has also been deemed critical (Zu,
Du, & Fan, 2014; Tseng & Yeh, 2013). Zembylas’ (2008) literature review found that negative
emotions experienced while learning online could inhibit the learning process. Zu et al. (2014, p. 803)
found that the capacity to manage emotion within online group work incorporated strategies for
“down-regulating unpleasant emotions” such as telling others not to dwell on their mistakes, and “up-
regulating positive emotions”. O’Shea, Stone, and Delahunty (2015) found that the most crucial factor
in sustaining online learning was receiving good marks because this represented and affirmed the
suitability of students’ subject choice and online learning mode. These authors suggest that engaging
Loss management and agency: Undergraduates students’ online psychological processing 27
online may involve more challenges, compared to face-to-face contexts, arising from the lack of face-
to-face interaction and subsequent feelings of isolation and alienation. Subsequently, the nature of
online learning environments may have the potential to incur significant emotional challenges. How
some students navigate these emotional learning challenges with respect to assessment feedback
online is a focus of this article.
Grade expectations and emotional reactions to assessment feedback
Grade expectations can influence how students psychologically react to their course and assessment
feedback experience. Remedios, Lieberman, and Benton (2000) measured 242 psychology
undergraduates’ grades, grade expectations and course enjoyment. They concluded that grade
expectations, as opposed to actual grades, influenced students’ judgements about their course
experience. The authors suggest a fundamental factor in shaping the “emotional reactions to grades”
(p. 366) is students’ grade aspirations, defined as being hoped-for-grades or grades students felt they
deserved.
Some students who experience lower-than-expected outcomes may feel a sense of lost
entitlement. In cases of unmet grade aspirations, assessment feedback may represent the gap between
how one hopes to perform and immediate performance (Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006; DeNisi &
Kluger, 2000). Higgins et al. (2001, p. 272) assert that “the student makes an emotional investment in
an assignment and expects some ‘return’ on that investment”. Research has found that students
“expect their hard work to pay off with a high grade” (Best, Jones-Katz, Smolarek, Stolzenburg, &
Williamson, 2015, p. 342). Nesbit and Burton (2006, p. 657) argue that the effort put into assignments
will be highly visible to students, and, subsequently, effort will be central in students’ “equity
calculations” of their input relative to the reward obtained. Nesbit and Burton (2006) found that
students, who received lower marks and where these marks were lower-than expected, were more
likely to view the mark and the marking process as unjust. Subsequently, the effort and emotional
investment already made in an assignment may lead some students to attach a sense of entitlement or
right to an expected result, especially as the work has already been produced, despite the result not yet
being awarded.
These intersecting factors, including emotions, grade expectations, the teacher-student power
relationship, and the power and emotion dynamics of online learning environments highlight the
psychological complexity around students’ assessment feedback experience and the importance of
understanding how students are managing this experience online. While there is a growing body of
literature on emotions, learning and assessment (Best et al., 2015; Cramp, Lamond, Coleyshaw, &
Beck, 2012; Crossman, 2007; Dowden et al., 2013; Gilmore & Anderson, 2016; Pekrun, Goetz, Titz,
& Perry, 2002; Storrs, 2012; Värlander, 2008) few studies appear to base their theorising on data
simultaneously initiated by students within an online learning context. The current study aims to
discursively explore how a group of students, who were learning online, psychologically processed
assessment feedback online, by analysing stage 1 students’ discussion posts about their first
assessment feedback. Discourse analysis was used because it provides direct access to the construction
of people’s online experience (Bowker & Tuffin, 2009).
A discursive methodology
A discursive psychological approach (Billig, 2012) comprising discourse analysis was deployed where
language is seen as taking an active part in experience. Discourse analysis has developed from
semiotics, ethnomethodology and linguistic philosophy (Potter & Wetherell, 1987; Wittgenstein,
1953; Austin, 1962). What one attends to within an experience is guided by taken-for-granted
assumptions and culturally appropriate conventions for constructing accounts, justifications and
explanations (Edwards, 2012; Burr, 1995). How one chooses to conceptualise and construct their
experience is integrally linked to the linguistic resources available. For example, constructing an event
28 Natilene Bowker
involving the activity of complaining is inextricably connected to how one comes to conceptualise,
interpret, and experience that event (Edwards, 2012).
Language is embedded within a particular social and historical context and meaning is bound
within that context (Gergen, 1985). Discourse analysis uses people’s textual constructions as the
focus, where the primary goal is understanding how discourse functions within a particular context
(Tuffin, 2005). For example, people may talk about a situation to lay or allay blame. They may accept,
resist or challenge how they are positioned within a socially constructed category. These categories
and their associated practices offer subject positions (subjectivities), which people take-up in varying
ways in social interaction (Davies & Harré, 1999).
Context of the data
Data comprised posts from an asynchronous discussion thread in a stage 1 undergraduate psychology
course at Open Polytechnic of New Zealand, an online distance learning institution. The majority of
Open Polytechnic students are adult learners, 25 years or over (75%), part-time (93%) including
studying while working (68%), and female (59%) (Open Polytechnic of New Zealand, 2013). The
course operated via a Moodle page, providing online assessment submission with printed course
materials posted to students. Forum participation was optional with each post accessible to everyone,
including teaching staff.
The discussion thread consisted of 29 posts exclusively from students, with 83% of posts
occurring after institutional opening hours, from 7.50pm Friday to 6.03pm Sunday. The thread was
located within a forum called ‘Questions (Around the Kitchen Table)’, where students posted queries
about the assessments and other coursework. The thread was called ‘Marking of Lab 1’ and focused
on feedback for the first assignment, a 20% laboratory report. This was an abbreviated version of a full
report, where students could apply their feedback to a more advanced laboratory report. Students were
supplied with a detailed marking rubric and an exemplar.
The first post identified feedback about the expression of numbers (e.g., two versus 2), counter to
advice previously provided. The student was satisfied with their assignment mark and wished to
clarify the inconsistency. The feedback had occurred through the application of a general versus
specific rule by one of the markers, although assignment marks were not affected. The error was
acknowledged by the course leader and students were reassured that no marks had been deducted.
Ethical process
The author was also the course leader for the trimester in which the forum posts, used for this
research, occurred. The course leader had marked approximately 10% of the assignments in the class,
with the majority marked by adjunct markers. There was a significant time gap of five years between
the official undertaking of this research and the occurrence of the course posts. The nature of this
research grew from an exploratory idea about how students manage assessment feedback online,
which evolved over a five year period. Ethical approval was gained from the Open Polytechnic’s
Ethics Committee, with informed consent obtained for the inclusion of students’ posts.
The extracted posts presented in this analysis came from 10 students, most of whom were no
longer studying at the Open Polytechnic either because they had finished their qualification or had
exited. The majority were contacted initially by telephone to introduce the purpose of the research and
the inclusion of their forum post(s). If they expressed interest, a follow-up email was sent with a
participant information sheet, a consent form outlining their rights as participants, and a copy of their
forum post(s). If they agreed, they replied with ‘I agree’ in the subject line. Of the 10 participants,
three were contacted solely by email due to out-of-date telephone details. All 10 participants replied
with ‘I agree’ in the subject line.
Loss management and agency: Undergraduates students’ online psychological processing 29
Analysis process
Nineteen students had contributed to the 29 posts, with some students contributing more than one post.
Posts were read multiple times to look for patterns. A preliminary, yet detailed analysis identified
loose themes around negative (and positive) emotions, agreement and disagreement, and conflict.
Posts which talked about specific issues in similar ways were grouped together and refined into
overarching categories (interpretative repertoires) and their component parts (linguistic resources).
Initially, two draft repertoires were identified: unmet expectations and acceptance. Gilbert and
Mulkay’s (1984) concept of an interpretative repertoire emphasises the flexibility in linguistic
resources available to speakers (Burr, 1995). Interpretative repertoires are built from linguistic
resources or “internally consistent” (Wetherell & Potter, 1988, p. 172) regularities in discourse.
Linguistic resources are basic building blocks that provide support for the operation of an
interpretative repertoire, which functions to summarise explanations available in culture to make sense
of everyday interactions (Wetherell & Potter, 1988).
From the 29 posts, 12 were selected because they best illustrate the diverse range of students’
assessment feedback experiences. Refinements in analysis narrowed this down to 10 represented in
this chronologically numbered sequence of forum posts: 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 11, 14, 16, 20, and 25, from a
total of 29. Each post (or extract from the post) is supported by the analysis, regarded as a form of
reading, where many versions are possible. The researcher’s partial interpretation is fully
acknowledged. Errors remain to ensure data integrity. Pseudonyms were used to maintain
confidentiality, with other identifying details altered or removed. ‘APA’ refers to the American
Psychological Association referencing and formatting system used in psychology.
Analytic Findings
Posts were organised around different ways of experiencing and managing loss over lower-than-
expected assessment outcomes. Three repertoires were identified: ‘distress, discord and review’;
‘facing the difficulties’; and ‘ways forward’ comprising three resources: ‘acknowledgement and
solutions’, ‘lessons learnt’, and ‘accommodating challenges’.
Distress, discord and review
When the outcome received falls well short of expectations, students experience distress involving
shock and disappointment. This is justified because of the discord arising from incongruence between
their expectations versus the marker’s actions. The discord, in turn, justifies the review.
In post 2, Abbey constructs an experience of disappointment and shock upon receiving her mark.
Friday 24 April, 7.59pm
I was actually very disappointed in my grade. I passed, but (by my standards) hardly. I
too thought that some of the things I had been marked incorrectly and should have
been correct. I also noticed that (because I took G & A psychology last yr 2nd
semester) some of the things my tutors have previously told me I should include or not
include (which I made sure I did/didn’t do for this assignment) were also commented
on as being wrong. Also, because I have already learnt to write APA and to write lab
reports last year I was expecting a nice high grade for this and was very shocked when
I saw what I’d received.
I have contacted the tutors about this and they have said they will look into the topic
(getting a remark for my assignment) next week for me. It might be a good idea you
do this too? Perhaps if the tutors do spot a problem with my/our reports they will look
30 Natilene Bowker
into this further? – or maybe we just have the wrong idea… I guess we will find out
!
Sooo pleased to hear someone else feels the same way though!
Although Abbey meets the pass criteria, the result is well below her standards. Her distress is
vindicated by a three-part list, creating representation and completeness for rhetorical effect (Edwards
& Potter, 1992). The list comprises marking errors in which the incorrect things ‘should have been
correct’, the discord between previous teaching and current feedback received, and lab report writing
knowledge already achieved validating her high grade expectations. These build a logical and factual
account, challenging her assessment outcome’s validity. Abbey’s construction simultaneously
objectifies her complaint and minimises her positioning as someone who whinges (Edwards, 2012).
The account focuses on seeking a review, justified by the preceding events. This functions to
remove Abbey from being responsible for her mark and unmet expectations, with responsibility
directed at the marker and the remarking process. (Abbey applied for a remark, which did not result in
a grade change.) Abbey remains open to a different outcome, constructing her and others as having
‘the wrong idea’, safeguarding her against being proven wrong by the remark. The final statement
activates a shared consistency in experience.
In post 4, Jason identifies the discord between the reality of his report and the marker’s
comments.
Saturday 25 April, 10.08am
Sadly I got a really shocking mark (to be honest I am a little disapointed with the
markers comments and don’t really feel that my mark reflects the actual content of my
report etc … but that is never here nor there) […]
I have asked my tutor about having it re-marked so heres hoping!
A ‘really shocking mark’ suggests the outcome was grossly unacceptable and clearly distressing. The
marker’s work (in parentheses) fails to reflect the reality of Jason’s report compounding the shock
received. Appraisal of the marker’s work functions to remove blame from Jason for the mark received
and his unmet expectations, repositioning responsibility upon the marker. The discrepancy between
the reality of his report and the marker’s comments, together with receiving the shocking mark
warrant Jason’s remark. (Jason did not subsequently apply for a remark.) Simultaneously, while Jason
downplays his view of reality with it is neither ‘here nor there’, opening his appraisal on ‘to be honest’
terms positions this part of his account within a personalised realm, where honesty strengthens the
authenticity and validity of his experience.
Facing the difficulties
This repertoire is about facing the losses arising from the outcome despite the difficulties. This
involves confronting one’s weaknesses. Although a pathway to improvement is identified, the journey
is fraught with difficulties.
In post 3, John constructs the difficulties faced on many levels:
Saturday 25 April, 8.25am
I passed too, but still much less than I wanted. Seemed to have crashed out on the
APA formatting for headings etc and the results /graphs. One of the reasons was the
lack of comment about the results which I thought would go in the discussion section.
Now I know what the tutors want, will go back to the drawing board and into Burton
with more depth before submitting next assignment.
Loss management and agency: Undergraduates students’ online psychological processing 31
Be interesting how I am supposed to fit all the required information into 2000 words
though.
The requirements for APA formatting are much harder here, but I guess that it is a
Psychology course!
John constructs having ‘crashed out’, which positions him as being responsible for the mark received
and evokes a destructive and tragic sense of loss. Deployment of ‘seemed to have’ minimises his
accountability for the outcome, repositioning it as something occurring without his involvement as
owner of the action. A performance weakness is identified, which is challenged by his prior
interpretation of events. As a result of the feedback, he now possesses the knowledge needed to satisfy
the tutors’ criteria. Yet, the tutors’ wishes dictate the criteria, rather than Jason alone having this
agency.
Significant work is still required; going ‘back to the drawing board’ means starting back at the
beginning and trying a different approach. More difficulties arise with bringing in ‘all the required
information’ and facing the word limit constraints, indicating a struggle between opposing forces
which tests the limits of what is realistically achievable. Realisation of standards being ‘much harder’
to meet is acknowledged. These standards are warranted because of the subject, which also positions
responsibility for these standards (and associated difficulties) on the course.
In post 5, Lalitha constructs a rationale for viewing her assignment outcome positively: it is her
‘first paper’. Her weaknesses are also framed positively: the feedback received was ‘constructive’
suggesting a practical application.
Saturday 25 April, 11.54am
As this is my first paper I guess I should be happy with a pass, the constructive
comments where I went wrong was good. As usual am always hard on myself but
there is definitely room for improvement which I know I can achieve. Hence, why I
post for advice/clarification and am frustrated and disheartened when I don’t get a
response from anyone. However I do understand people have limited time as I am the
same but please we are all here to pass and especially those who have been there and
done that (have experience/knowledge) in report writing and the course in general
PLEASE PLEASE take a few minutes to help those like myself who doesnt find this
easy and needs help. This is my only source of getting info, I guess this may be a
disadvantage instead of a classroom setting. I have also contacted tutor but have not
heard back and I assume (there I go again) that with the holidays/markings she may be
back-logged with emails. I also contacted another tutor who has just posted a
response…YAY!!!
Lalitha is faced with a weakness that is difficult to overcome: being ‘hard’ on herself. She is highly
critical of her inability to meet a standard above a pass. This standard is a barrier towards positive
acceptance. In contrast, she regards a positive reaction as an obligation, evident in ‘I should be happy
with a pass’. Being ‘hard’ on herself is a usual practice, adding to the difficulties experienced.
Lalitha’s account turns briefly to the outcome of improvement, not only possible but personally
achievable. Yet her pathway, including requesting advice from others, is fraught with difficulties. No
responses are offered. This is frustrating and disheartening. Lalitha’s pleas for help continue and are
loosely framed around a three-part list. There is an appeal to passing the course as a collective.
Secondly, help is justified according to course experience and assignment writing. Thirdly, Lalitha
draws on the scarcity of information access: the forum is her only information source. Lack of tutor
response reinforces the scarcity. All of these reasons function to mitigate Lalitha’s responsibility for
the outcome, repositioning responsibility on external factors.
32 Natilene Bowker
Ways forward
This repertoire offers a range of strategies to constructively manage the experience of lower-than-
expected outcomes. Three resources emerge: ‘acknowledgement and solutions’, ‘lessons learnt’, and
‘accommodating challenges’.
Acknowledgement and solutions
An important part of moving forward is acknowledging the difficulties faced. Acknowledgement
serves to highlight the achievements made and mitigates the burden of unmet expectations. Solutions
follow, namely, learning from the feedback and application to the next assessment, and deploying the
human fallibility of markers. These solutions are positioned as moving forward by giving hope for a
better outcome.
In post 14, Karen identifies with lower-than-expected outcomes experienced by others.
Saturday 25 April, 6.47pm
If this is first lab report you have ever done then i think we shouldn’t be too hard on
ourselves. I too expected more from myself but also appreciate that they are not easy
things to grasp. As long as we take comments on board and endeavour to improve on
the 2nd one then thats all we can ask of ourselves.
I too will watch with interest with regard to the APA formatting, even the markers can
get things wrong and i am sure that the tutors will be discussing this with an idea to
making things as clear as possible for us before long.
Karen counterbalances lower-than-expected outcomes with logical reasons: it is the first encounter
with this type of assessment and these ‘are not easy’ assessments. This mitigates the burden of unmet
expectations. For those who might be dwelling on their losses, Karen’s account constructs a sense of
closure because gains can still be made by applying the feedback to another assessment. There is a
conditional expectation that ‘as long as’ one applies the feedback, by learning from the comments for
use in the second assignment (c.f., Duncan’s [2007, p. 271] ‘feed-forward’), that is ‘all’ that can be
reasonably achieved.
Karen acknowledges that ‘even the markers can get things wrong’, locating markers’ errors within
the realm of human fallibility. This removes blame from the students, repositioning it upon the
markers. The account ends with optimism and hope for the future where issues will be resolved.
In post 16, Isabella constructs annoyance and misery generated by APA.
Saturday 25 April, 7.44pm
Congrats to all who passed. APA is a b**ch. I hate it. it is the bain of all my lab
reports. No matter how many edits and read throughs I do, I always lose a couple of
points on APA. Grrrrrrrr. anyway, like phil said, even tutors/markers make mistakes
and some things are also opinion so can change from tutor to tutor. I would be happy
to post my marked lab report. I’m also really nosey and want to read everyone elses
too hehehe. good luck with the remarking. I hope you all get what you want. Take the
comments and make your lab 2 awesome!
APA is an aspect of assessment that is hated. Repeated efforts to ensure all APA requirements are
met are futile because of the inevitable loss of marks. Such struggles increase the significance of
passing and mitigate the burden of unmet expectations because these struggles are so difficult and
appear impossible to overcome. Simultaneously, the struggles help alleviate students’ accountability
for meeting these requirements.
Loss management and agency: Undergraduates students’ online psychological processing 33
Isabella’s account turns towards the possibility of incorrect judgements by tutors/markers. Isabella
absolves students of blame and positions the responsibility on the tutors/markers and simultaneously
locates the tutors’/markers’ errors within human fallibility. Assessment judgements are also
constructed as being open to alteration, depending on the opinion of individual tutors, positioning the
judgements away from an absolute outcome toward negotiable outcomes. These points offer some
hope for all seeking a remark. The account ends with constructing extreme optimism for the second
assignment by applying feedback from the first.
Lessons learnt
This centres on learning gained from others’ observations or first-hand experiences regarding
assessment remarking. The learning presents a benefit for future use by incorporating alternative
interpretations of events.
In post 8, Gordon constructs his observations of others’ assessment feedback reactions.
Saturday 25 April, 1.52pm
cant resist the irony in this. Behaviour when things go our way we tend to think its due
to our internal attributes when they dont its due to external attributes. Going to use the
perception as part of my discussion lab report 2 which goes a long way to prove part
of the hypothesis. Anyway theres always a positive side seeya.
Gordon presents an alternative interpretation of people’s reactions toward their feedback, differing
from the mainstream. Gordon’s observations are aligned with the psychological concept of
attributions: explanations people give for why things happen (Kelley & Michela, 1980). Accordingly,
‘when things go our way’ we assume this is because of our internal attributes. Conversely, when the
result is unfavourable to us, the reasons are external. Deployment of ‘we’ positions Gordon as not
being immune from these biases. Gordon’s account moves the discussion beyond personalised and
emotive reactions to extrapolating broader lessons for future use, namely attributions. This is also a
concept that students have information about, as it is central to the second assignment. Like
acknowledgement and solutions, Gordon constructs the action of applying what he has learnt (and
observed) to the next assignment. Gordon offers a potentially positive interpretation countering the
construction of loss over unmet expectations.
In post 11, Phil constructs passing as a noteworthy achievement, legitimising a positive reaction.
Phil then offers advice about remarks based on personal experience.
Saturday 25 April, 4.04pm
Well done to everyone for passing, you should be rightly chuffed. don’t be sad.
Please don’t take this the wrong way anyone (pleeeese), but my theoretically allowed
2 cents worth is to advise that in my experience there are two sets of markers, ones
that are fair, and ones that are {fair+kind}. (about 30% kind in the case of my rubbish
lab1 report). Now, everyone makes mistakes including markers, that’s why its always
fair and right to be able to challenge any exam or test’s marking (& I too will be doing
so meself in another course), BUT please bear in mind that when challenged to re-
mark exams even the {fair+kind} marker will become just {fair}. And that’s fair
’nuff, lol. just an opinion. (56 tertiary courses and a lot of rubbish talked, but its all
meant kindly).
Phil’s argument is based on two categories of markers: ‘fair’ and ‘fair+kind’. When a marker is
‘challenged’ with a re-mark, kindness is removed from the equation. This loss is constructed as
reasonable because the ‘challenge’ of remarking is counter-balanced by the removal of kindness.
Like acknowledgement and solutions, markers can make mistakes. Conversely, Phil’s account
does not necessarily absolve responsibility from students for unmet expectations. Mistakes are framed
34 Natilene Bowker
as affecting ‘everyone’, legitimising the ‘right’ of a remark. Simultaneously, expecting a mark
increase from the remark is counterbalanced by the removal of kindness exercised in the remarking
process.
Phil’s account carefully negotiates the line between advising and offering advice others may not
wish to hear. He opens with an appeal and disclaimer, preparing the reader for an unwelcome or
unexpected opinion, which protects Phil from those interpreting his account incorrectly. Phil backs-up
his opinion according to his experience based on ‘56 tertiary courses’. Phil’s self-deprecating
acknowledgement of kindness contributing 30% to his mark positions his own academic performance
as also needing advice.
Accommodating challenges
This acknowledges the challenges that accompany learning, which are positioned as something to be
accommodated within the learning journey. This accommodation involves learning from one
assessment to the next.
In post 20, Alicia deploys her ‘2 cents’ entitlement to the discussion.
Saturday 25 April, 9.43pm
Hey everyone, thought I would put my 2 cents in lol!! this is my third lab report and
APA is not much easier this time around, especially when your trying to retain all the
other info to!! I had problems with my graphs and and am hoping that this time I got
at least that right!!! by the way i havent got my assignment back yet, i had an
extension as i had urgent surgery 3 weeks ago and i have a 2 year old, so things have
been very difficult, this time round with all my setbacks, i’m just hoping I passed!!
don’t stress the mark too much especially if it is your first lab report. By the next
report im sure you will feel like a pro!!
Despite this being her third lab report, Alicia has encountered a range of challenges comprising a
three-part list: efforts made to remember ‘all the other info’ have involved minimal gains in managing
APA, problems with graphs, and personal circumstances providing further challenges managed
through an extension. In contrast to facing the difficulties, these challenges are not deployed to
challenge lower-than-expected outcomes. These challenges are factored into Alicia’s expectations, and
her end goal is adjusted accordingly. Consequently, these challenges legitimise her ‘just hoping i
passed’ expectation.
Alicia advises against focusing on the mark, and any stress from this. First encounters with lab
reports are constructed as another way to judge performance, and thus mitigate the burden of lower-
than-expected outcomes. This construction also appears in acknowledgement and solutions. Worry
over the mark is transformed into fruitful learning for application to the next assignment. There is
great optimism that the experience gained will lead to future expertise.
Ann’s account (post 25) occurred after the course leader’s response (providing a detailed
explanation of the marking process and mark allocation), located in a general news forum (restricted
to one-way communication from teaching staff) on Monday morning. Ann’s post may not have arisen
without access to the course leader’s post.
Monday 27 April, 12.05pm
Just wanted to say thank you for the excellent example of a lab report provided in our
reading materials. I haven’t seen anything as thorough as this before in my studies and
found it incredibly helpful. Also I felt the different stages were well set out in the
assignment notes and the marking sheet was also a very good guide. Like everyone
else, the lab report is a learning curve for me and I appreciated the support given,
Loss management and agency: Undergraduates students’ online psychological processing 35
particularly in the comments provided during marking. It’s great to have that back
before we launch into the next Lab report.
The beginning of the account is directed at those teaching. The focus is on praising the quality of
the resources provided to support the assignment. This is in contrast to previous posts. Ann then
repositions her experience in alignment with ‘everyone else’. Her experience is constructed as a
‘learning curve’, positioning the difficulties faced as belonging to the learning process.
Simultaneously, the learning curve is both collective and individual because it is aligned with
‘everyone else’ and it is also her learning curve. Consequently, Ann is constructing agency over her
learning. The final sentence implies progress will occur by applying the first assessment’s comments
to the next.
Discussion
An obvious limitation of the study is the fact that the student discussion thread arose because of a
feedback error by one of the markers. Clearly, if the error had not occurred, this discussion and
subsequent analysis involving loss management would not have arisen. Simultaneously, the erroneous
event opened an opportunity for interpreting students’ experience of assessment feedback online.
The online accounts showed students actively working through their psychological reactions to
assessment feedback. When the feedback received fell short of expectations, students experienced
distress. This was justified because of discord arising from incongruence between their expectations
versus the marker’s actions and subsequently justified their assessment feedback review. Contrary to
challenging the assessment feedback, other students faced the losses despite the difficulties, including
inextricably connected emotional challenges surrounding un-learning and re-learning. Further, other
students identified specific strategies for psychologically moving forward. One of these strategies
involved acknowledging the difficulties faced, which helped mitigate the burden of unmet assessment
expectations, followed by solutions: learning from the feedback and then applying it to the next
assessment and deploying the human fallibility of markers. These solutions allowed students to move
forward by giving hope for a better outcome. A second strategy centred on others’ alternative
interpretations of existing students’ reactions to their assessment feedback, from which all students
could benefit. The third strategy highlighted accommodating learning challenges within one’s own
learning journey.
Students’ online discourse was structured around managing, in different ways, the loss arising
from lower-than-expected assessment outcomes. The concept of psychological or symbolic loss
(Walsh, 2012, p. 10) involves the loss of “dreams for the future”, including “the loss of
anticipated…accomplishments” (p. 11). These kinds of losses arise from losing psychological
attachments to intangible phenomena, including aspirations, wishes, and goals (Levinson, 1972).
Drawing on the work of Wain et al. (2004), Walsh (2012) argues that just as one experiences feelings
of anger and sadness from death loss, these reactions can be experienced for symbolic loss. A degree
of psychological (or symbolic) loss could, therefore, arise from the removal of a psychological
attachment to a grade aspiration or expected assessment outcome.
Students’ online psychological reactions organised through the discursive repertoires may reflect
similar psychological reactions embedded within theories of loss. Kübler-Ross and Kessler’s (2005)
stage-based theory of loss begins with shock and denial, followed by anger (which can appear in other
stages), bargaining, sadness, and acceptance, with hope persisting throughout. Flexibility is identified
regarding the ordering of stages because of individual variation including overlapping and reordered
stages (Kübler-Ross, 1969; Kübler-Ross & Kessler, 2005; Corr & Corr, 2013). Within distress,
discord, and review, which deployed the earlier posts, shock and denial were evident. Denial emerged
later through the deployment of markers’ mistakes in acknowledgement and solutions. Clearly, denial
was legitimately based on the feedback error regarding the expression of numbers, although this error
did not affect students’ marks. Anger was most clearly constructed in post 16 (‘APA is a b**ch. I hate
it…grrr’) and post 3 (‘crashed out on the APA’). Bargaining, involving the possibility of arriving at an
36 Natilene Bowker
agreement, which may alter the immediate outcome (Kübler-Ross, 1969), was constructed in
requesting a review. Sadness was reflected through disappointment (distress, discord and review) and
the tragedy of loss and disheartened feelings (facing the difficulties).
Acceptance (the final stage) was most apparent in ways forward, which deployed some of the
later posts (e.g., 20 and 25 out of 29). This final stage requires accepting the loss as the new,
permanent reality (Kübler-Ross & Kessler, 2005). It appears most vividly in lessons learnt and
accommodating challenges. Lessons learnt redefines the experience of lower-than-expected
assessment feedback and seeking a remark as potential learning opportunities. Accommodating
challenges constructs the lower-than-expected outcome received as a legitimate part of the learning
journey.
Consistent with Kübler-Ross (1969), hope persists throughout. Hope for a better outcome where
others are responsible for change occurs when requesting an assignment review (distress, discord and
review), and via the mistakes of markers (acknowledgement and solutions). Hope, involving the
student as the change agent (acknowledgement and solutions, accommodating challenges), appears
through learning from the feedback and applying it to the next assignment. Hope also features
indirectly via the practice of acknowledging the struggles faced (acknowledgement and solutions),
which justifies the significance of the mark achieved, and positively reframes the outcome irrespective
of expectations.
Students’ posts also reflected features of a task-based theory of loss (Worden & Winokuer, 2011).
The task of acknowledging “the reality of the loss” (Worden & Winokuer, 2011, p. 58) occurred in
facing the difficulties, which addresses what has been lost: the inability to attain a desirable mark, and
the loss of not reaching one’s standards. The substantial work required to reach an acceptable standard
adds to the scale of the reality and difficulties. The task of processing painful feelings is reflected
throughout: distress, shock, and disappointment (distress, discord and review); destructive and tragic
sense of loss and pleas for help (facing the difficulties); and hatred directed at APA (Isabella’s account
in acknowledgement and solutions).
The task of adjusting to the loss involves constructive coping strategies, like “redefining the loss”
and generating alternative meanings that create benefits (Worden, 2001, p. 33). This was most
apparent in the ways forward repertoire: the mark received was repositioned as an achievement
(acknowledgement and solutions); unmet assessment expectations were accommodated as a legitimate
part of the learning journey (accommodating challenges); feedback received holds benefits for future
assignments (acknowledgement and solutions, accommodating challenges); and alternative
perspectives construct the outcome as one that creates learning opportunities for the next assessment,
applications for remarking, and even future life lessons (lessons learnt).
The central process underlying the management of loss is ‘meaning reconstruction’ (Neimeyer
2001,p. 4). Dealing with loss is about a process of relearning hopes, interpretations, understandings,
and experiences (Attig, 2001). When students experience lower-than-expected assessment outcomes,
they may need to reconstruct their immediate beliefs about themselves (facing the difficulties),
recalibrate their grade aspirations (accommodating challenges), as well as find meaning in the
feedback received by applying it to the next assignment.
Boud and Molloy (2013, p. 705) argue that for students to constructively receive assessment
feedback, they need to “see themselves as agents of their own change, and develop an identity as a
productive learner”. This involves exercising ownership over one’s learning, including effectively
interpreting feedback and judging how to make the best use of it. This was most evident in ways
forward involving a range of constructive solutions for conceptualising and using assessment
feedback. Accommodating challenges showed how students took direct ownership over their
assessment feedback online, incorporating learning challenges within their online learning journey.
A learner agency approach to feedback requires a “learning milieu” (Boud & Molloy, 2013, p.
708). This incorporates a “climate of cooperation between students” where dialogue is central. Such
features were evident through students’ online posts, which illustrated problem-based and
Loss management and agency: Undergraduates students’ online psychological processing 37
collaborative learning, interaction and interdependency, key practices required to promote and
maintain online learning communities (Hung, Flom, Manu, & Mahmoud, 2015).
In taking control of their learning, students’ posts also mirrored sustainable feedback practices
identified by Carless, Salter, Yang, and Lam (2011). The online learning community facilitated
dialogue where students reflected on their assessment feedback experience. This led to students self-
evaluating their abilities (e.g., facing the difficulties and ways forward). This, in turn, led to self-
directed learning where students’ feedback to each other directed the learning environment.
Simultaneously, the effect of sharing in the forum and the overall tone of questioning, restraint, and
encouragement may have also created a moderating effect on individual responses to assessment
feedback. Within Evans’ (2013, p. 97) conceptualisation of a ‘feedback landscape’, learning
communities or ‘feedback networks’ can serve to buffer or mediate feedback. Together, these actions
highlight students’ operation of self-regulation (Carless et al., 2011; Evans, 2013) occurring at
collective and individual levels within their online learning community.
Students’ ability to voice their opinions and emotional reactions to assessment feedback online
may also illustrate how they were establishing “their own political space” (Anderson, 2006, p. 110).
Some of the accounts showed how students were able to resist the marker’s decision-making process.
This arose legitimately because of an error in the marking feedback. Nevertheless, the asynchronous
forum may have allowed students to participate outside of traditional (9am-5pm) teaching hours,
circumventing the course leader’s “authoritative gaze” (Anderson, 2006, p. 118). The findings may
suggest some support for the argument that online learners are “more in control of the rhetorical
process” because of the asynchrony, permitting “a more reflective dynamic” (Mersham, 2009, p. 63).
Teaching strategies
Understanding the emotional processes students experience, when encountering lower-than-expected
assessment outcomes, have enabled the development of teaching strategies to manage the psychology
of receiving assessment feedback online. These revolve around advising students collectively on how
to self-regulate their learning upon receiving assessment feedback online. This includes
acknowledging students’ efforts expended in producing an assignment, yet distinguishing this from the
online marking process, which can only base its outcome on the product received. This strategy also
makes explicit the objectivity embedded in the online marking process, while simultaneously
communicating empathy with the efforts expended.
Empathy is further communicated by acknowledging feelings of disappointment if results do not
reflect mark aspirations. Advice is offered on how students can constructively manage the negative
affective state of disappointment arising from lower-than-expected assessment outcomes. Distancing
themselves from the assignment outcome through time to reflect, followed by moving forward by
focusing on how they can improve for the next assignment are psychological strategies identified. The
distancing strategy incorporates Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick’s (2006) good feedback practice principle
of reflection. Using the feedback for the next assessment applies Duncan’s (2007) feeding-forward
approach and the “overt behaviour” in Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick’s (2006, p. 202) self-regulated
learning model.
Students are also advised to evaluate their performance on the basis of their own individual
circumstances, taking into account their other commitments outside of study, reflective of a choice to
study online, as well as their previous educational experiences. This is, in contrast, to solely focusing
on the grade awarded independent of the student’s life-study circumstances and experiences. This
provides a buffer for any negative emotions, which may impair online learning because of lower-than-
expected assessment outcomes.
Well in advance of students’ receipt of assessment feedback, the online assessment feedback
process is fully explained to minimise uncertainty and increase transparency (Poulos & Mahony,
2008). This includes providing clarity around the timeframes students can expect for the return of their
38 Natilene Bowker
work, and identifying and explaining the moderation process (Carless, 2006) to ensure equity and
fairness in the online marking process (Nesbit & Burton, 2006). Further, a key criterion for selecting
online markers is a tactful communication style, sensitive to the range of student reactions to
assessment feedback online.
Conclusion
This research demonstrates how students collectively managed online their own and/or other’s
emotional trajectories arising from the psychological complexity of receiving lower-than-expected
assessment feedback online. For some, this involved processing a degree of psychological loss arising
from loss of attachment to a higher grade entitlement. The most effective way of managing lower-
than-expected assessment feedback involved adjustment by accommodating the loss within their
online learning journey and exercising ownership over one’s learning. Effective management also
involved repositioning the feedback as something containing benefits for improving the next
assignment. The psychological processes students used for working through lower-than-expected
assessment outcomes may have application to other learning contexts. Teaching strategies, which
integrate advising students on how to self-regulate their online learning upon receiving assessment
feedback balanced with communicating moderation processes for improved consistency and online
assessment feedback processes, may have application to other digital learning contexts.
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank the students, who gave consent for their forum posts to be used in this
research. The author also wishes to thank the two anonymous reviewers as well as all previous
reviewers for their extremely valuable feedback.
References
Ally, M. (2008). Foundations of educational theory for online learning. In T. Anderson (Ed.), The
theory and practice of online learning (2nd ed., pp. 15-44). Edmonton, Canada: Athabasca
University Press.
Anderson, B. (2006). Writing power into online discussion. Computers and Composition, 23(1), 108-
124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2005.12.007
Attig, T. (2001). Relearning the words: Making and finding meanings. In R. A. Neimeyer (Ed.),
Meaning reconstruction and the experience of loss (pp. 33-53). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Best, K., Jones-Katz, L., Smolarek, B., Stolzenburg, M., & Williamson, E. (2015). Listening to our
students: An exploratory practice study of ESL writing students’ views of feedback. TESOL
Journal 6(2), 332-357. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.152
Billig, M. (2012). Undisciplined beginnings, academic success, and discursive psychology. British
Journal of Social Psychology, 51(3), 413-424. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-
8309.2011.02086.x
Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013). Rethinking models of feedback for learning: The challenge of design.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(6), 618-712.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2012.691462
Burleson, W., & Picard, R. W. (2004). Affective agents: Sustaining motivation to learn through failure
and state of "stuck". In The 7th Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems: Workshop on
Social and Emotional Intelligence in Learning Environments. Maceio, Brasil. https://dam-
prod.media.mit.edu/x/files/pdfs/04.burleson-picard.pdf
Burr, V. (1995). An introduction to social constructionism. London, UK: Routledge.
Loss management and agency: Undergraduates students’ online psychological processing 39
Bowker, N., & Tuffin, K. (2009). Using the online medium for discursive research about people with
disabilities. In N. Feilding (Ed.), Interviewing II (Vol 1, pp. 255-271). London, UK: Sage.
(Reprinted from Sociology and Computing Special Issue of Social Science Computer
Review, 22(2), 228-241.)
Carless, D. (2006). Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2),
219-233. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572132
Carless, D., Salter, D., Yang, M., & Lam, J. (2011). Developing sustainable feedback practices.
Studies in Higher Education, 36(4), 395-407. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075071003642449
Corr, C. A., & Corr, D. M. (2013). Death and dying, life and living (7th ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
Cramp, A., Lamond, C., Coleyshaw, L., & Beck, S. (2012). Empowering or disabling? Emotional
reactions to assessment amongst part-time adult students. Teaching in Higher Education,
17(5), 509-521. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2012.658563
Crossman, J. (2007). The role of relationships and emotions in student perceptions of learning and
assessment. Higher Education Research & Development, 26(3), 313-327.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360701494328
Davies, B., & Harré, R. (1999). Positioning and personhood. In R. Harré & L. Van Langenhove (Eds.),
Positioning theory (pp. 32-52). Oxford, MA: Blackwell.
DeNisi, A. S., & Kluger, A. N. (2000). Feedback effectiveness: Can 360-degree appraisals be
improved? Academy of Management Executive, 14(1), 129-139.
https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2000.2909845
Dowden, T., Pittaway, S., Yost, H., & McCarthy R. (2013). Students’ perceptions of written feedback
in teacher education: Ideally feedback is a continuing two-way communication that
encourages progress. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(3), 349-362.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2011.632676
Duncan, N. (2007). ‘Feed-forward’: Improving students’ use of tutors’ comments. Assessment and
Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(3), 271-283.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930600896498
Edwards, D. (2012). Discursive and scientific psychology. British Journal of Social Psychology,
51(3), 425-435. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2012.02103.x
Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (1992). Discursive psychology. London, UK: Sage.
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
Gergen, K. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. American
Psychologist, 40(3), 266-275. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.40.3.266
Gilbert, G., & Mulkay, M. (1984). Opening Pandora’s box: A sociological analysis of scientist’s
discourse. Cambridge, UK: University Press.
Gilmore, S., & Anderson, V. (2016). The emotional turn in higher education: A psychoanalytic
contribution. Teaching in Higher Education, 21(6), 686-699.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2016.1183618
Higgins, R., Hartley, P., & Skelton, A. (2001). Getting the message across: The problem of
communicating assessment feedback. Teaching in Higher Education, 6(2), 269-274.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510120045230
Hung, W., Flom, E., Manu, J., & Mahmoud, E. (2015). A review of the instructional practices for
promoting online learning communities. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 26(3),
229-252. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/130598/
Kelley, H.H., & Michela, J.L. (1980). Attribution theory and research. Annual Review of Psychology,
31, 457-501. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.31.020180.002325
Kitto, S. (2003). Translating an electronic panopticon: Educational technology and the re-articulation
of lecturer-student relations in online learning. Information, Communication and Society,
6(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118032000068796
Kort, B., Reilly, R., & Picard, R.W. (2001). An affective model of interplay between emotions and
learning: Reengineering educational pedagogy – building a learning companion. In T.
40 Natilene Bowker
Okamoto, R. Hartley, & J. P. Klus (Eds.), Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference
on Advanced Learning Technologies: Issues, Achievements, and Challenges (pp. 43-48). Los
Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.
http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/ICALT.2001.943850
Kübler-Ross, E. (1969). On death and dying. London, UK: Tavistock.
Kübler-Ross, E., & Kessler, D. (2005). On grief and grieving: Finding the meaning of grief through
the five stages of loss. New York, NY: Scribner.
Levinson, H. (1972). Easing the pain of personal loss. Harvard Business Review, 50(5), 80-88.
Mersham, G. (2009). Reflections on e-learning from a communication perspective. Journal of Open,
Flexible and Distance Learning, 13(1), 51-70. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/148007/
Neimeyer, R.A. (2001). Introduction: Meaning reconstruction and loss. In R. A. Neimeyer (Ed.),
Meaning reconstruction and the experience of loss (pp. 1-9). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Nesbit, P.L., & S. Burton. (2006). Student justice perceptions following assignment feedback.
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(6), 655-670.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930600760868
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090
Open Polytechnic of New Zealand. (2013). Annual Report 2013. Lower Hutt, New Zealand: Author.
O’Shea, S., Stone, C., & J. Delahunty. (2015). “I ‘feel’ like I am at university even though I am
online”: Exploring how students narrate their engagement with higher education institutions
in an online learning environment. Distance Education, 36(1), 41-58.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2015.1019970
Poulos, M., & Mahony, M. J. (2008). Effectiveness of feedback: The students’ perspective.
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(2), 143-154.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930601127869
Peach, H. G., Jr., & Bieber, J. P. (2015). Faculty and online education as a mechanism of power.
Distance Education, 36(1), 26-40. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2015.1019971
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W., & Perry, R. (2002). Academic emotions in students’ self regulated
learning achievement: A programme of qualitative and quantitative research. Educational
Psychologist, 37(2), 91-105. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3702_4
Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour.
London, UK: Sage.
Rae, A.M., & Cochrane, D.K. (2008). Listening to students: How to make written assessment
feedback useful. Active Learning in Higher Education, 9(3), 217-230.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787408095847
Remedios, R., Lieberman, D.A., & Benton, T.A. (2000). The effects of grades on course enjoyment:
Did you get the grade you wanted? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(3), 353-
368. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709900158173
Storrs, D. (2012). “Keeping it real” with an emotional curriculum. Teaching in Higher Education,
17(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2011.590976
Tseng, H.W., & Yeh. H. (2013). Team members’ perceptions of online teamwork learning experiences
and building teamwork trust: A qualitative study. Computers and Education, 63, 1-9.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.013
Tuffin, K. (2005). Understanding critical social psychology. London, UK: Sage.
Värlander, S. (2008). The role of students’ emotion in formal feedback situations. Teaching in Higher
Education, 13(2), 145-156. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510801923195
Wain, H. J., Cozza, S. J., Grammer, G. G., Oleshansky, M. A., Cotter, D. M., Owens, M. F., DeBoer,
C. M., … Kogan, R. M. (2004). Treating the traumatized amputee. In National Center for
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder & Walter Reed Army Medical Center (Eds.), Iraq War
clinician guide (2nd ed., pp. 50-57).
http://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/materials/manuals/iraq-war-clinician-guide.asp
Loss management and agency: Undergraduates students’ online psychological processing 41
Walsh, K. (2012). Grief and loss: Theories and skills for the helping professions (2nd ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Wetherell, M., & Potter. J. (1988). Discourse analysis and the identification of interpretive repertoires.
In C. Antaki (Ed.), Analysing everyday explanation (pp. 168-183). London, UK: Sage.
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Worden, W. J. (2001). Grief counselling and grief therapy: A handbook for the mental health
practitioner (3rd ed.). Hove, UK: Brunner-Routledge.
Worden, J.W., & Winokuer, H.R. (2011). A task-based approach for counselling the bereaved. In R.A.
Neimeyer, D.L. Harris, H.R. Winokuer, & G.F. Thornton (Eds.), Grief and bereavement in
contemporary society: Bridging research and practice (pp. 57-67). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Yorke, M. (2003). Formative assessment in higher education: Moves towards theory and the
enhancement of pedagogic practice. Higher Education, 45(4), 477-501.
https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1023967026413
Zembylas, M. (2008). Adult learners’ emotions in online learning. Distance Education, 29(1), 71-87.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910802004852
Zu, J., Du, J., & Fan, X. (2014). Emotion management in online groupwork reported by Chinese
students. Educational Technology Research & Development, 62(6), 795-819.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9359-0
