A collaborative learning approach to dialogic peer feedback: a theoretical framework
Open accessAbstract
Feedback has a powerful influence on learning. However, feedback practices in higher education often fail to produce the expected impact on learning. This is mainly because of its implementation as a one-way transmission of diagnostic information where students play a passive role as the information receivers. Dialogue around feedback can enhance students’ sense making from feedback and capacities to act on it. Yet, dialogic feedback has been mostly implemented as an instructor-led activity, which is hardly affordable in large classrooms. Dialogic peer feedback can offer a scalable solution; however, current practices lack a systematic design, resulting in low learning gains. Attending to this gap, this paper presents a theoretical framework that structures dialogic feedback as a three-phase collaborative activity, involving different levels of regulation: first, planning and coordination of feedback activities (involving socially shared regulation), second, feedback discussion to support its uptake (involving co-regulation), and last, translation of feedback into task engagement and progress (involving self-regulation). Based on the framework, design guidelines are provided to help practitioners shape their feedback practices. The application of the principles is illustrated through an example scenario. The framework holds great potential to promote student-centred approaches to feedback practices in higher education.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Peer assessment promotes a higher level of learning compared to one-way instructor assessment.
“it has also been demonstrated to promote a higher level of learning compared to one-way instructor assessment (Er, Dimitriadis, & Gašević, 2020).”
From Assessment in the age of artificial intelligence (2022) · cites this paper as Er, Dimitriadis, & Gašević, 2020
Cites
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/003465430298487 · Cited by 12,905 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Feedback aiming at guiding learning processes (i.e. process level) and feedback aiming at self-regulatory proficiencies (i.e. self-regulation level) are the most effective for learning (Hattie and Timperley 2007).”
BackgroundNicol, D. J., & Macfarlane‐Dick, D. (2006) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075070600572090 · Cited by 5,846 · see citing works
Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems
Sadler, D. R. (1989) · Instructional Science · doi:10.1007/bf00117714 · Cited by 4,285 · see citing works
The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback
Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354 · Cited by 2,428 · 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
“In the framework, students are placed as learning agents who negotiate meaning from feedback through a dialogue with peers, which is a recommended practice in the recent literature (Boud and Molloy 2013; Zhu and Carless 2018).”
BackgroundInfluentialDeveloping sustainable feedback practices
Carless, D., Salter, D., Yang, M., & Lam, J. (2011) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075071003642449 · Cited by 869 · see citing works
The feedback triangle and the enhancement of dialogic feedback processes
Yang, M., & Carless, D. (2013) · Teaching in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/13562517.2012.719154 · Cited by 414 · cited 3× · see citing works
“One framework in this regard is the feedback triangle, proposed by Yang and Carless (2013), which suggests three dimensions for effective feedback implementation: cognitive, social-affective and structural dimensions.”
BackgroundDoes student engagement in self-assessment calibrate their judgement over time?
Boud, D., Lawson, R., & Thompson, D. G. (2013) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2013.769198 · Cited by 221 · see citing works
Designing and implementing peer formative feedback within online learning environments
Gikandi, J. W., & Morrow, D. (2016) · Technology, Pedagogy and Education · doi:10.1080/1475939x.2015.1058853 · Cited by 84 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Assessment in the age of artificial intelligence
Swiecki, Z., Khosravi, H., Chen, G., Martinez-Maldonado, R., Lodge, J. M., Milligan, S., Selwyn, N., & Gašević, D. (2022) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100075 · Cited by 409 · see citing works
Self-citationOnline peer feedback in higher education: A synthesis of the literature
Kerman, N. T., Banihashem, S. K., Karami, M., Er, E., van Ginkel, S., & Noroozi, O. (2024) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-023-12273-8 · Cited by 109 · see citing works
Self-citationA systematic review of the key components of online peer feedback practices in higher education
Gao, X., Noroozi, O., Gulikers, J., Biemans, H. J. A., & Banihashem, S. K. (2024) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100588 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
Dialogism in feedback literacies: a critical review
Myers, T., & Buchanan, J. (2025) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2025.2478159 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Making AI-Generated Feedback Matter: A Large-Scale Study of Feedback Workflows and Student Enactment
Alsaiari, O., Baghaei, N., Lodge, J. M., Gaševi'c, D., Winstone, N., & Khosravi, H. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.11625
“…AI-generated feedback comments without structured support for their use, establishing a baseline for the presentation of comments alone [3, 26–28 In the second condition, Self-Directed Feedback , students had access to optional AI assistance, but all interaction remained entirely…”
- Authors
- Er, E., Dimitriadis, Y., & Gašević, D.
- Affiliations
- Universidad de Valladolid (ES)
- Monash University (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Er, Erkan
- Venue
- Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2020-07
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 586-600
- ISSN
- 0260-2938 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-297X
- OpenAlex
- W3039256503
- Cited by
- 133
- References
- 9
- Citations by year
- 2026: 36 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 6
- FWCI
- 15.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Licence
- cc-by-nc-nd
- Locations
- Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education (publishedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion)
- OpenMETU (Middle East Technical University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- UVaDOC UVaDOC University of Valladolid Documentary Repository (University of Valladolid) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
- Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
- Keywords
- cooperative learning, feedback practices, student self-regulation, co-regulation, socially shared regulation, student-centered learning, feedback uptake, design guidelines, higher education assessment, large classes
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
