From monologue to dialogue: improving written feedback processes in mass higher education

By David J. Nicol. 2010

1,017 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/78787f1bf7712c3fd3a298d2dc3ef1784556a665

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Education

Citations in the corpus

Facilitating productive use of feedback in higher education (2013, background): “Since producing feedback is likely to be more demanding than just receiving it, this could enhance student engagement—including engagement with assessment criteria—and responsibility in the feedback process (Hounsell, 2003; Nicol, 2010).”
The Value and Effectiveness of Feedback in Improving Students’ Learning and Professionalizing Teaching in Higher Education (2016, background): “(p. 118) Although there is a large indication supporting the usefulness of feedback to promote student learning however, different student surveys across the world have also emphasized that students are dissatisfied with the feedback they receive on their course works (David Nicol, 2010).”
The effectiveness of formative assessment: student views and staff reflections (2020, background): “For the feedback process to be effective, students must decode information received and take action (Nicol 2010; Carless and Boud 2018).”
The feedback triangle and the enhancement of dialogic feedback processes (2013, background): “Tutors write the same quantity of feedback, so importantly workload is not increased, but it is more focused and dialogic because it is addressing students’ perceived needs and may reduce unproductive comments from teachers (Nicol 2010).”
Exploring learning-oriented assessment processes (2014, background): “…is to support students in developing their self-regulative capacities (Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick 2006); and feedback needs to be re-engineered to encourage dialogues of different forms: peer feedback; internal feedback to the self; as well as external feedback from the teacher (Nicol 2010).”
Assessment in higher education: drivers, barriers and directions for change in the UK (2016, background): “…(van Zundert, Sluijsmans, and Van Merriënboer 2010; Nulty 2011), the development of learning communities (Price et al. 2008), dialogic feedback (Nicol 2010; Carless et al. 2011), developing shared understanding of the often tacit knowledge underpinning assessment (Rust, Price, and O’Donovan…”
What feedback literate teachers do: an empirically-derived competency framework (2021, background): “Develops student feedback literacy Participants described working to improve various facets of their students’ feedback literacy. explanation and expectation-setting with students was common, with teachers seeking to change meso 8 maximises effects of limited opportunities for feedback • uses feedba”
Using learning analytics to scale the provision of personalised feedback (2019, background): “into a one-way; one to many communication process (Nicol, 2010).”
Thanks, but no-thanks for the feedback (2017, background): “At the very least, we owe our students a strategy for improvement and sense-making, not a set of diagnostic criteria highlighting what the student has done wrong (Nicol 2010).”
The whole is greater than the sum of its parts: a large-scale study of students’ learning in response to different programme assessment patterns (2014, background): “Some students felt an erratic and unreliable flow of communication between themselves and lecturers, and in several cases described feeling alienated in the face of an ‘impoverished dialogue’ (Nicol 2010).”
Dialogue within peer feedback processes: clarification and negotiation of meaning (2018, background): “Opportunities for dialogue between teachers and students are reduced in massified higher education (Nicol, 2010), so expanding peer feedback dialogues could be both an educational and a pragmatic way forward.”
Supporting Learners' Agentic Engagement With Feedback: A Systematic Review and a Taxonomy of Recipience Processes (2017, background): “As such, difficulties in implementing feedback might arise when the sender’s intended meaning is not the same meaning interpreted by the receiver (Bailey & Garner, 2010; Nicol, 2010).”
Peer Feedback Improves Students’ Academic Self-Concept in Higher Education (2020, background): “In summary, there is cumulative evidence that peer feedback is positively associated with academic achievement in higher education (e.g., Cartney 2010; Falchikov 2001; Nicol 2010; Rust 2002; Sluijsmans et al.”
‘Only true friends could be cruelly honest’: cognitive scaffolding and social-affective support in teacher feedback literacy (2017, background): “The centrality of feedback to student learning is well established (Hattie and Timperley 2007; Nicol 2010).”