Examining the nature and effects of feedback dialogue

Abstract

Full bibliographic details must be given when referring to, or quoting from full items including the author's name, the title of the work, publication details where relevant (place, publisher, date), pagination, and for theses or dissertations the awarding institution, the degree type awarded, and the date of the award.

Dialogic feedback and potentialities for student learning

“…Many of these challenges concern the one-way manner in which it is delivered . The findings from this study indicate that the students perceive the written feedback in a monologic way, similar to the information transmission approach (Ajjawi & Boud, 2018). Feedback is given in the form of a written text, delivered to the students, directed at the level of task and without any possibilities to ask questions or clarify misunderstandings; in other words, to engage in a dialogue around the feedback.…”

“…The same applies to the students in this study, as described in a previous chapter (2.5). The findings indicate that the way in which the written feedback is provided, makes the feedback more transmissive and monologic than dialogic (Ajjawi & Boud, 2018). Since students' sense making of feedback is an interactional process, developed in and through dialogue , and specified with the contributions of others , the monologic delivery of written feedback is not conducive to student understanding.…”

Quality of Feedback in Higher Education: A Review of Literature

“…In addition to the tailoring of feedback to address individual student goals, audience considerations include factors about the students that may impact the utilization of the feedback, such as level of study (undergraduate versus master's level students; e.g., Poulos and Mahony [35]) or previous preparation (initial licensure/lateral entry students versus students who have previous lesson plan writing experience). This aspect of high-quality feedback seems largely absent in the literature, however evaluations of the dynamic dimensions of feedback (cognitive, social-affective, and structural) suggest that the conceptualization of feedback as dialogue includes the audience as an active participant [55]. Future examinations should include the recent literature themes of the audience and the impact of recipient participation in the feedback discussion, moving beyond feedback type, provider, and mode as basic descriptors for quality (e.g., Wu [56]).…”

Can a rubric do more than be transparent? Invitation as a new metaphor for assessment criteria

“…By explicating how they have responded to the criteria, students focus on the nature of their contribution, not the 'right answer'. We already have effective and productive self-assessment task designswhere students articulate why and how their work has met the criteria and how this relates to professional practice broadly (Barton et al 2016;Ajjawi and Boud 2018) or articulate why and how their judgements differ from expert judgements (Boud, Lawson, and Thompson 2015). However, these approaches provide the student with limited opportunities to generate further understandings of the criteria themselves.…”