A Review of Feedback Models and Theories: Descriptions, Definitions, and Conclusions
Abstract
The positive effect of feedback on students’ performance and learning is no longer disputed. For this reason, scholars have been working on developing models and theories that explain how feedback works and which variables may contribute to student engagement with it. Our aim with this review was to describe the most prominent models and theories, identified using a systematic, three-step approach. We selected 14 publications and described definitions, models, their background, and specific underlying mechanisms of feedback processes. We concluded the review with eight main points reached from our analysis of the models. The goal of this paper is to inform the field and to help both scholars and educators to select appropriate models to frame their research and intervention development. In our complementary review ( Panadero and Lipnevich, 2021 ) we further analyzed and compared the fourteen models with the goal to classify and integrate shared elements into a new comprehensive model.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/003465430298487 · Cited by 12,905 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Kluger and DeNisi further proposed that individuals may have varying goals activated at the same time. For example, they could be comparing their performance to an external standard, to their own prior performance, performance of other reference groups, and their ideal goals. These discrepancies may be averaged or sum…”
BackgroundAssessment and Classroom Learning
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998) · Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice · doi:10.1080/0969595980050102 · Cited by 8,152 · cited 6× · see citing works
“different subgroups of students, and to help teachers to adjust their instruction (Bloom, 1971). Hence, extending ideas of Scriven (1967) who proposed the dichotomy of formative and summative evaluation, Bloom deserves the credit for introducing the concept of formative assessment (Guskey, 2018). Importantly, the arri…”
BackgroundInfluentialMotivational processes affecting learning.
Dweck, C. S. (1986) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.41.10.1040 · Cited by 6,971 · see citing works
Social cognitive theory of self-regulation
Bandura, A. (1991) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90022-l · Cited by 6,875 · see citing works
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254 · Cited by 5,882 · see citing works
Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane‐Dick, D. (2006) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075070600572090 · Cited by 5,846 · see citing works
Shute, V. J. (2008) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/0034654307313795 · Cited by 4,631 · cited 14× · see citing works
“(2016) used came from Shute (2008) who defined feedback as “information communicated to the learner that is intended to modify his or her thinking or behavior for the purpose of improving learning” (p.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialFormative assessment and the design of instructional systems
Sadler, D. R. (1989) · Instructional Science · doi:10.1007/bf00117714 · Cited by 4,285 · see citing works
A Review of Self-regulated Learning: Six Models and Four Directions for Research
Panadero, E. (2017) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00422 · Cited by 2,915 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Butler and Winne (1995) model served a twofold purpose: it explained differential effects of feedback at the cognitive processing level and, at the same time, it represented one of the widely cited SRL models (for a comparison of SRL models see Panadero, 2017).”
BackgroundSelf-citationThe 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
A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description.
Block, J. (1995) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.2.187 · Cited by 1,682 · 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 3× · see citing works
“One of the definitions presents a notable exception: Carless and Boud (2018), building upon Boud and Molloy (2013) definition, argue that information is not feedback in itself but feedback is what students do with that information.”
BackgroundThe instructional effect of feedback in test-like events.
Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, C.-L. C., Kulik, J. A., & Morgan, M. (1991) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543061002213 · Cited by 1,313 · see citing works
What is assessment for learning
Wiliam, D. (2011) · Studies in Educational Evaluation · doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2011.03.001 · Cited by 1,282 · see citing works
Winstone, N. E., Nash, R. A., Parker, M., & Rowntree, J. (2017) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2016.1207538 · Cited by 884 · cited 2× · see citing works
“, 2010), and what key elements influence students’ use of feedback (Winstone et al., 2017; Jonsson and Panadero, 2018).”
BackgroundDeveloping 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
Learning Versus Performance: An Integrative Review
Soderstrom, N. C., & Bjork, R. A. (2015) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691615569000 · Cited by 651 · see citing works
Feedback in Written Instruction
Kulhavy, R. W. (1977) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543047002211 · Cited by 571 · cited 6× · see citing works
“…(1989) . . .any of the numerous procedures that are used to tell a learner if an instructional response is right or wrong We assume they adhered to Kulhavy, 1977, p. 211 Sadler, (1989) . . .a key element in formative assessment. . . usually defined in terms of information about how successfully…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialEffective peer assessment processes: Research findings and future directions
van Zundert, M., Sluijsmans, D., & van Merriënboer, J. (2010) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.004 · Cited by 536 · see citing works
A metacognitive view of individual differences in self-regulated learning
Winne, P. H. (1996) · Learning and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/s1041-6080(96)90022-9 · Cited by 486 · see citing works
Feedback: Focusing attention on engagement
Price, M., Handley, K., & Millar, J. (2011) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075079.2010.483513 · Cited by 442 · 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 1× · see citing works
“Carless and Boud (2018): A Proposal for Students’ Feedback Literacy Carless’ work was voted in favor of inclusion by three experts but it was difficult to decide on a specific model, because he had proposed four (Carless et al., 2011; Yang and Carless, 2013; Carless, 2018; Carless and Boud, 2018).”
BackgroundThe power of internal feedback: Exploiting natural comparison processes
Nicol, D. (2021) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2020.1823314 · Cited by 402 · see citing works
A review of feedback models and typologies: Towards an integrative model of feedback elements
Panadero, E., & Lipnevich, A. A. (2022) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100416 · Cited by 389 · see citing works
Self-citationPanadero, E., Andrade, H., & Brookhart, S. (2018) · The Australian Educational Researcher · doi:10.1007/s13384-018-0258-y · Cited by 346 · see citing works
Feedback loops and the longer-term: towards feedback spirals
Carless, D. (2019) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2018.1531108 · Cited by 328 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Carless and Boud (2018): A Proposal for Students’ Feedback Literacy Carless’ work was voted in favor of inclusion by three experts but it was difficult to decide on a specific model, because he had proposed four (Carless et al., 2011; Yang and Carless, 2013; Carless, 2018; Carless and Boud, 2018).”
BackgroundEffects of differential feedback on students’ examination performance.
Lipnevich, A. A., & Smith, J. K. (2009) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied · doi:10.1037/a0017841 · Cited by 199 · see citing works
Self-citationPanadero, E., Broadbent, J., Boud, D., & Lodge, J. M. (2019) · European Journal of Psychology of Education · doi:10.1007/s10212-018-0407-8 · Cited by 190 · see citing works
Self-citationThe Cambridge Handbook of Instructional Feedback
(2018) · doi:10.1017/9781316832134 · Cited by 144 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A review of feedback models and typologies: Towards an integrative model of feedback elements
Panadero, E., & Lipnevich, A. A. (2022) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100416 · Cited by 389 · see citing works
Self-citationLarge language models meet user interfaces: The case of provisioning feedback
Pozdniakov, S., Brazil, J., Abdi, S., Bakharia, A., Sadiq, S., Gašević, D., Denny, P., & Khosravi, H. (2024) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100289 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
Tomazin, L., Lipnevich, A. A., & Lopera-Oquendo, C. (2023) · Studies in Educational Evaluation · doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2023.101262 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Self-citationThe impact of feedback on metacognition: Enhancing in easy tasks, impeding in difficult ones
Luo, T., & Liu, C. (2023) · Consciousness and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.concog.2023.103601 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Moltudal, S. H., Gamlem, S. M., Segaran, M., & Engeness, I. (2025) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2025.1509904 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Görtzen, J. J. H., Stollman, S. H. M., Schellings, G. L. M., Vermunt, J. D., & Nieveen, N. M. (2025) · Studies in Educational Evaluation · doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2025.101483 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
- Authors
- Lipnevich, A. A., & Panadero, E.
- Venue
- Frontiers in Education
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2021-12-31
- Volume
- 6
- ISSN
- 2504-284X
- Cited by
- 212
- References
- 29
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
