The feedback triangle and the enhancement of dialogic feedback processes

By Min Yang, D. Carless. 2013

380 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Education

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/fa31b05af2a70ca295c9d758f55877ad8d173962

How researchers see this paper

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

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Education

Citations in the corpus

The need to disentangle assessment and feedback in higher education (2020, background): “This becomes problematic given further evidence that where students have to wait a long time for feedback information on their work, their engagement with that information is limited (Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006; Yang & Carless, 2013).”
Using learning analytics to scale the provision of personalised feedback (2019, background): “…definition of feedback away from the mere provision of information towards a dialogic framework (Hounsell, 2007; Nicol, 2010; Sadler, 2010; Yang & Carless, 2013) and Boud and Molloy (2013b) finally redefined it as a process in which learners obtain information that helps them appreciate the…”
Dialogue within peer feedback processes: clarification and negotiation of meaning (2018, background): “Underpinning the study are emphases on the potential of feedback dialogues as a means of negotiating meaning and potentially empowering learners (Ajjawi & Boud, 2017; Yang & Carless, 2013).”
Longitudinal perspectives on students’ experiences of feedback: a need for teacher–student partnerships (2020, background): “A barrier to student agency is the power imbalances between teachers and students that can impede effective feedback exchanges (Small & Attree, 2016; Yang & Carless, 2013).”
Developing student feedback literacy through self and peer assessment interventions (2021, background): “…the digitalisation of feedback provides for traceability and accessibility – the fourth principle of embedding feedback literacy in the curriculum. such technology-enabled feedback is a promising direction that offers prospects for flexible assessment and feedback provision (Yang and Carless 2013).”
A collaborative learning approach to dialogic peer feedback: a theoretical framework (2020, background): “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.”
Teacher feedback literacy and its interplay with student feedback literacy (2020, neutral): “Partnerships in feedback require reduction in power-differentials with teachers relinquishing some power, and students taking increased responsibilities (Yang and Carless 2013).”
Enhancing the assessment experience: improving student perceptions, engagement and understanding using online video feedback (2016, background): “Yang and Carless (2013) suggest that the limitations of one-way transmissive feedback, described by Sadler (2010) as ‘telling’, can be circumvented by adopting a dialogic approach.”
Promises and challenges of generative artificial intelligence for human learning (2024, positive): “These chatbots could facilitate dialogic feedback, which is associated with improved learner productivity and engagement 45 .”
Examining the nature and effects of feedback dialogue (2018, background): “Yang and Carless (2013) argued that the social affective dimension – for establishing and maintaining social relationships – is foundational to the content of the feedback not being derailed.”
Supporting Learners' Agentic Engagement With Feedback: A Systematic Review and a Taxonomy of Recipience Processes (2017, background): “Theoretical contributions to this literature proposed that the imbalance of power between senders and receivers might force learners to adopt passive roles in the feedback process (e.g., Jonsson, 2013; Yang & Carless, 2013).”
‘Ignoring me is part of learning’: Supervisory feedback on doctoral writing (2017, positive): “…(2007) found four levels of feedback for school children’s learning in general; with doctoral writing, there are three main levels of feedback (Yang & Carless, 2013): cognitive dimension which focuses on the content, socio-affective dimension which focuses on the interpersonal negotiations…”
‘Only true friends could be cruelly honest’: cognitive scaffolding and social-affective support in teacher feedback literacy (2017, background): “…engagement (Boud and Molloy 2013; Price, Handley, and Millar 2011) to increase utilisation of feedback; and the other re-engineers a more dialogic orientation (Beaumont, O’Doherty, and Shannon 2011; Nicol 2010; Yang and Carless 2013) to reduce the limitations of unidirectional written feedback.”
The development of student feedback literacy: enabling uptake of feedback (2018, positive): “Input from peers can strengthen the social-relational aspects of feedback and reduce the power-differentials and negative emotional reactions which can arise from teacher feedback (Yang and Carless 2013).”
Authentic assessment: creating a blueprint for course design (2018, background): “They posit students as active agents, inducted into their role in creating and using feedback to help them improve their understanding of quality and to self-regulate their own work accordingly (Sadler 1989; Boud and Molloy 2013; Carless and Yang 2013).”
Academics’ perceptions of the benefits and challenges of self and peer assessment in higher education (2018, background): “Such a focus on grades and grading privileges assessment’s summative purposes, rather than the potential learning benefits of self and peer assessment which are ultimately more useful to students (Nicol 2010; Yang and Carless 2013; Ajjawi and Boud 2017).”
‘Now that’s the feedback I want!’ Students’ reactions to feedback on graded work and what they do with it (2017, background): “…2015; Crimmins et al. 2016), but students’ preferences differ (Hepplestone and Chikawa 2014), with some students favouring written comments only (Yang and Carless 2013) and others appreciating a combination of written comments alongside one-to-one meetings with their lecturers (Blair and…”