The DOI matches its Crossref record; 58 of the 60 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The feedback triangle and the enhancement of dialogic feedback processes
Abstract
This article explores some of the main barriers to the enhancement of feedback processes and proposes a framework for using dialogic feedback to foster productive student learning in the discipline. The framework suggests a feedback triangle focused on the content of feedback (cognitive dimension), the interpersonal negotiation of feedback (social-affective dimension) and the organisation of feedback provision (structural dimension). The interplay between these three elements is central to prospects for the enhancement of feedback processes. Derived from the framework is a set of six key features of optimal feedback practice which we represent as building blocks of an architecture of dialogic feedback. The paper concludes with a research agenda which suggests issues to be further explored in the cognitive, social-affective and structural dimensions.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
In the citing paper
“These chatbots could facilitate dialogic feedback, which is associated with improved learner productivity and engagement [45].”
From Promises and challenges of generative artificial intelligence for human learning (2024) · cites this paper as [45]
Citations
Cites
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/003465430298487 · Cited by 12,905
Assessment and Classroom Learning
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998) · Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice · doi:10.1080/0969595980050102 · Cited by 8,152
Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane‐Dick, D. (2006) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075070600572090 · Cited by 5,846
Learning to Teach in Higher Education
Ramsden, P., & Ramsden, P. (2003) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203507711 · Cited by 5,148
Shute, V. J. (2008) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/0034654307313795 · Cited by 4,631
Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems
Sadler, D. R. (1989) · Instructional Science · doi:10.1007/bf00117714 · Cited by 4,285
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W., & Perry, R. P. (2002) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3702_4 · Cited by 3,931
Feedback and Self-Regulated Learning: A Theoretical Synthesis
Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543065003245 · Cited by 3,334
Understanding Learning and Teaching: the experience in higher education
Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999) · Cited by 2,180
Topping, K. J. (2005) · Educational Psychology · doi:10.1080/01443410500345172 · Cited by 1,597
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Askew S., 2000, Feedback for learning, 1
- Barnett R., 2007, Rethinking assessment in higher education, 29
- Falchikov N., 2007, Rethinking assessment in higher education, 144
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 401–413 of 413
Peng, D., Fejes, J. B., & Vígh, T. (2026) · Thinking Skills and Creativity · doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2026.102332
Susanti, R., Parr, G., & Keary, A. (2026) · Learning Culture and Social Interaction · doi:10.1016/j.lcsi.2026.101052
Zhang, Y., Huang, J., & Kumar, J. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1872569
“…feedback, and feedback literacy Feedback has been described both as information about the gap between current and desired performance and as a process in which learners generate, interpret, discuss, and use information (Boud and Molloy, 2013; Hattie and Timperley, 2007; Yang and Carless, 2013).”
Triantafyllaki, A., & Makrinou, P. (2026) · International Journal of Music Education · doi:10.1177/02557614261483230
Lu, X., Lu, Y., Ren, S., & Zhang, D. (2026) · International Journal of Science Education · doi:10.1080/09500693.2026.2701381
Court, A., Francis, N., Shore, A. M., & Rutherford, S. (2026) · FEBS Open Bio · doi:10.1002/2211-5463.70339
“This interaction should ideally be interactive, dialogic and provide the basis for iterative improvements on the work [16].”
Fatima, N. (2026) · doi:10.65758/isbn.9786277813611
Retroalimentación para el Aprendizaje de la Traducción: Estudio de Caso Exploratorio
Pujols, M. D. C., & Moreno, G. A. (2024) · Revista Iberoamericana de Evaluación Educativa · doi:10.15366/riee2024.17.2.002
Estudio de casos y evaluación formativa: una práctica de enseñanza situada en Cali, Colombia
Serrano, M. V., & Franco-Vélez, P. (2026) · Voces y Silencios Revista Latinoamericana de Educación · doi:10.18175/vys17.3.2026.10
Mak, P. (2026) · Assessing Writing · doi:10.1016/j.asw.2026.101131
Unpacking Barriers to Supervisor Feedback on L2 Graduate Students’ Theses/Dissertations
Hoomanfard, M. H. (2026) · International Journal of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1111/ijal.70392
Xilin, X. U., Xu, G., & Li, D. (2026) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2026.101373
Metadata
- Authors
- Yang, M., & Carless, D.
- Affiliations
- Education University of Hong Kong (HK)
- University of Hong Kong (HK)
- Corresponding author
- Yang, Min
- Venue
- Teaching in Higher Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2013-04
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 285-297
- ISSN
- 1356-2517 (ISSN-L)
- 1470-1294
- OpenAlex
- W2111497108
- Cited by
- 414
- References
- 60
- Citations by year
- 2026: 40 · 2025: 43 · 2024: 58 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 47 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 3
- FWCI
- 37.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Teaching in Higher Education (publishedVersion)
- The HKU Scholars Hub (University of Hong Kong) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
- Social Sciences › Education › Higher Education Practises and Engagement
- Keywords
- dialogic feedback, feedback mechanisms, student learning, feedback architecture, barriers to feedback, university teaching
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
