What matters for productive feedback? Disciplinary practices and their relational dynamics
Open accessAbstract
Most research on feedback has paid limited attention to the role of disciplines and their relational dynamics. This article addresses this limitation by offering a conceptualisation of feedback as a relational process that emerges through feedback encounters shaped by the educational and professional practices of the discipline. Using data from a qualitative case study of an undergraduate software engineering course unit, it explores the relational dynamics between different elements of the course and how these dynamics matter for the emergence of productive feedback encounters. The findings show that a wide range of productive feedback encounters occurred between students and both human and material sources throughout the course. Feedback encounters were productive when students had the opportunity to navigate the tools and conventions necessary to participate in the educational practices of the course and, by extension, the discipline’s professional practices. Different learning activities were characterised by distinctive relational dynamics that provided various opportunities and constraints for productive feedback encounters to emerge. The findings demonstrate the importance of accounting for disciplinary practices and their relational aspects when designing for learning activities that aim to enable students to productively seek out and engage with feedback.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Cites
Shute, V. J. (2008) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/0034654307313795 · Cited by 4,631 · see citing works
Rethinking models of feedback for learning: the challenge of design
Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2012.691462 · Cited by 1,636 · cited 4× · see citing works
“Boud and Molloy (2013) argue that we should view feedback as a process in which students make meaning of information about their performance, and use this information to enhance the quality of their work.”
BackgroundInfluentialWinstone, N. E., Nash, R. A., Parker, M., & Rowntree, J. (2017) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2016.1207538 · Cited by 884 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Comparing Generative AI and teacher feedback: student perceptions of usefulness and trustworthiness
Henderson, M., Bearman, M., Chung, J., Fawns, T., Buckingham Shum, S., Matthews, K. E., & de Mello Heredia, J. (2026) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2025.2502582 · Cited by 145 · see citing works
“If a student is in an environment rich with social and material interactions, as Esterhazy (2018) describes in her eth-nography of student feedback interactions, then GenAI will be just one part of many feedback experiences.”
Quality of Feedback in Higher Education: A Review of Literature
Haughney, K., Wakeman, S., & Hart, L. (2020) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci10030060 · Cited by 104 · see citing works
Feedback encounters: Towards a framework for analysing and understanding feedback processes
Jensen, L. X., Bearman, M., & Boud, D. (2023) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2022.2059446 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
Walton, J., Bearman, M., Crawford, N., Tai, J., & Boud, D. (2026) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2025.2570328 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
“We have been inspired by Esterhazy’s notion of a feedback encounter (Esterhazy 2018; see also Jensen, Bearman, and Boud 2023), which expands feedback to include all student and teacher activity around a particular exchange of information.”
Feedback encounters in doctoral supervision: the role of generative AI chatbots
Jensen, L. X., Bearman, M., Boud, D., & Konradsen, F. (2026) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2025.2478155 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
- Authors
- Esterhazy, R.
- Affiliations
- University of Oslo (NO)
- Corresponding author
- Esterhazy, Rachelle
- ORCID
- Esterhazy, Rachelle
- Venue
- Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2018-10-03
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1302-1314
- ISSN
- 0260-2938 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-297X
- OpenAlex
- W2895162375
- Cited by
- 72
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 5
- FWCI
- 21.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Licence
- other-oa
- Locations
- Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education (publishedVersion)
- NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- Norges Forskningsråd (237960)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
- Social Sciences › Education › Higher Education Practises and Engagement
- Keywords
- disciplinary practices, relational dynamics, software engineering education, teaching practice, professional practice, learning activity design
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review