By Henry Qian, Academic Support Coordinator & Lecturer in Health at FSB Croydon 

 

When I was doing my BA and received a grade for my very first university assignment, I felt lost. The feedback—”Needs more critical engagement”—left me unsure of what to do next. It was not until my lecturer invited me to a one-to-one feedback session that things began to shift. The lecturer did not just point out what was missing; they walked me through examples, discussed alternative interpretations of what I had written about, and asked questions that challenged my assumptions. By the end of the meeting, I was not just clearer on what to fix—I felt like a partner in my own academic development. 

 

Feedback is commonly and popularly perceived as a critical pedagogical tool in education (Jensen et al., 2021; Zhang & Zheng, 2018). A notably growing body of literature within the field of education indicates that feedback has been gradually recognised as a crucial component of the assessment process and practice (Evans, 2013; Pereira et al., 2016; Schartel, 2012; Thomas & Arnold, 2011; Winstone & Boud, 2020).  

 

While the perceptions and definitions vary, it is widely believed that feedback is beneficial to teaching and learning (Evans, 2013; Schartel, 2012). Thomas and Arnold (2011), for instance, argue that feedback, if implemented adequately, can assist learners in continuously attaining a higher level of performance. Given the significance of feedback in education, reviewing this concept can be useful as it would address a core element of pedagogy that might directly impact the quality of educational outcomes.  

 

This article reviews and explores the history and development of ‘feedback’ as a concept and a tool to provide insights of its nature, analyse how it evolves to adapt to different education needs and philosophies, and how the findings could be beneficial to our teaching and learning in higher education context by using the example of the Socratic Method. 

 

Defining Feedback 

It is important to acknowledge that there does not seem to be a universal definition of feedback. Feedback can, for example, be a “supported sequential process” (Archer, 2010, p.101), or be seen as a piece of information provided regarding performance by an agent (e.g. teacher) (Hattie & Timperley, 2007). From reviewing relevant literature, it can be argued that the diversity in defining feedback in education is mainly an outcome of different educational contexts and various functions and purposes of feedback per se. For this article, feedback is defined in light of a number of literatures and interpretations, as the aim of the article is to discuss how the multifaceted nature of feedback can contribute to education diversely and comprehensively. 

 

Tool for Correction 

One of the most widely recognised understandings of feedback is its corrective role in reducing and closing the gap between one’s current performance and a desired standard. Fundamentally and historically, teachers have long been ‘correcting’ students throughout the history of education before the actual systematic recognition of ‘feedback’ as a concept. Marking, for example, is indeed a traditional way of ‘correction’ (e.g. “right” or “wrong”) using a certain type of information (e.g. standard/correct answers). The process of correction in this case, however, does not involve much emphasis on possibilities of further actions, or say, improvements, for either teachers or students: it is merely a rejection of wrong answers and an approval of the right ones. 

 

Despite not originally being a pedagogical tool, the concept of “corrective feedback” was later introduced during the Industrial Revolution as an essential component of steam engines and other mechanical systems, monitoring their output and applying such information to regulate and manipulate their functioning (Boud & Molloy, 2013; Bunch & Hellemans, 2004). For instance, the governor mechanism invented by James Watt in the 18th century could automatically adjust the engine’s fuel supply in response to its speed, correcting deviations to make the speed constant (Hannavy, 2022). This can be perceived as an early model of feedback, although not particularly within the context of education, where relevant information was obtained through a certain process of ‘monitoring’ and used to correct and improve particular aspects. 

 

Tool for Gap-Reduction 

In the context of management, Ramaprasad (1983) defines that feedback is “information about the gap between the actual level and the reference level” (p.4). He emphasises that a piece of information can be considered as a sort of “feedback” only when it can be used to alter such gap. This understanding, prominently discussed and supported by Sadler (1989) later within the field of educational assessment, also suggests that feedback serves as a corrective tool, providing learners with specific information regarding their performance (one side of the gap) and offering instruction on improvement (approaches of moving to the other side of the gap). The gap-reduction model has significantly shaped the formative assessment practices nowadays, as many teachers are trained and advised to design and provide feedback for correcting and guiding purposes. 

 

This gap-reduction model, however, can be critiqued for its somewhat narrow focus on merely correcting errors and providing instructions in that regard. The model might not be able to fully address the broader needs of learning, for example, encouraging critical thinking and self-motivation, both of which are considered to be crucial to promote individuals to become ‘capable learners’, an important goal of education in recent decades (Claxton, 2006). Hattie and Timperley (2007) do provide a similar interpretation of feedback to Ramaprasad’s and Sadler’s works that a major purpose of feedback is “to reduce discrepancies between current understandings and performance and a goal” (p.86), yet they have also further expanded by identifying different levels of feedback (e.g. task level, process level etc.) that address not only immediate gap but also the process underlying learning and relevant metacognitive skills. 

 

Tool for Self-Regulation 

Hattie and Timperley’s (2007) interpretation can be perceived as an extension and further development of Ramaprasad’s (1983) and Sadler’s (1989) gap-reduction model, where the recognition of the significance of being a capable and lifelong learner has been both directly and indirectly portrayed. While the latter is primarily concerned with immediate correction and improvement, Hattie and Timperley highlight that effective feedback must also develop the learner’s ability to think critically about their own learning process and develop strategies for self-improvement. This extension of ideas represents a more comprehensive recognition of feedback as a formative tool that not only contributes to immediate effect but also to the long-term growth of autonomous, self-regulated learners. 

 

Several popular assessment approaches have proved such shifting emphasis and recognition of feedback in education, including assessment for learning and assessment as learning (Hume & Coll, 2009; Wiliam, 2011). Ibarra-Sáiz et al. (2020) point out that a notable pattern behind these approaches is the increasing importance of “participatory modalities of assessment” (p. 138). This can be interpreted from the example of self-assessment, a powerful approach in advancing the notion of assessment as a tool for self-regulation. Within the framework of self-assessment, students are encouraged to reflect critically on their performance, identify their own areas for improvement, and make autonomous adjustments accordingly. This approach evidently diverges from the traditional hierarchy of assessment, in which feedback is externally provided by teachers, normally without encouraging students to engage meaningfully with the assessment process. 

 

It can be further argued that students have become active participants rather than passive recipients in the assessment process under self-assessment, and on this basis, it is likely that they will shift their mindset and learning patterns as well from being dependent on external validation to becoming self-directed learners capable of monitoring and adjusting their own process. Feedback in this case is provided by both teachers and students themselves, which becomes more than merely an external intervention but a mechanism that students can internalise and use to guide their own learning and hence can be considered as a tool for self-regulation. 

 

Tool for Knowledge Co-Construction 

Unlike traditional perceptions that consider feedback in education merely as a process of information transmission from teacher to student, feedback might be able to not only facilitate (and be) a dialogue as previously argued, but also promote knowledge sharing and collaboration, that is, serve as a tool for knowledge co-construction. 

 

This interpretation can be traced back to the concept of Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) by Vygotsky (Gredler, 2012). The concept portrays a space between what a learner can accomplish independently and with guidance. The guidance under the framework, often understood and delivered as feedback, provides scaffolding that supports learners in progressing toward higher levels of autonomy and understanding of certain knowledge (Wood et al., 1976).  

 

ZPD evidently encourages learners to engage in tasks beyond their immediate capabilities through interaction with another individual with more knowledge, for instance, a teacher. Say, assuming there is an English literature teacher working with a student struggling with literary analysis of poems. Instead of directly providing the standard interpretations, the teachers might ask the guiding questions like “Can you identify any words or phrases that seem particularly important?”, and after the student responds, the teacher might adjust the questions to scaffold further, for example, “Why do you think the poet chose these specific words or phrases?”. In this case, feedback serves as a dialogic tool that is both dynamic and interactive, encouraging the student to arrive at a deeper understanding while engaging in dialogue that lies within their ZPD through scaffolded questions. 

 

Despite the previous critique on the limited focus of Sadler’s (1989) gap-reduction model of feedback, it is evident that the model also emphasises the significance of making feedback as an interactive process, which engages both the teacher and the student in a continuous exchange with the objective of bridging the gap. According to Sadler, feedback is most effective when students not only receive information regarding their progress but also actively engage with it to understand where and how to develop.  

 

A similar interpretation and use of feedback practices can be seen in later works within the field of education. Mercer et al. (1999), for instance, expand further based on Vygotsky’s work and introduce the concept of “exploratory talk”. The concept illustrates a dialogue between the instructor (teacher) and the learner (student) that is open-ended and designed to enhance understanding of certain knowledge. With the empirical evidence of a teaching programme integrated with exploratory talk, Mercer et al. highlight that learners are more likely to internalise new concepts when they are encouraged to express their reasoning through dialogues and questions – the understanding of learners in this case is not only directed by the instructors in this process but also autonomously fostered. Both scholarly works reflect the understanding that feedback can be applied as a tool for co-constructing knowledge, where its effectiveness and impact is enhanced through discussion and questioning. 

 

The previously discussed model by Hattie and Timperley (2007) also reflects and echoes the perception of feedback as a knowledge co-construction tool. The model shows the categorisation of feedback into four different levels, while each level encourages different types of dialogue and cognitive engagement, supporting either immediate development or the development of metacognitive skills. Process-level feedback, in particular, is alignment with Mercer et al.’s concept of exploratory talk, as it emphasises the development of the learner’s strategies and approaches of learning rather than the provision of direct answers. This level of feedback improves learners’ skills to self-regulate and learn independently by facilitating reflective discussion on their problem-solving methods. 

 

Feedback and Pedagogical Approaches: An Example of the Socratic Method 

The application of feedback as a pedagogical tool has experienced significant evolution over time, reflecting broader developments and changes in educational philosophy, psychology, and pedagogical approaches. The history of feedback in education can be traced back to early educational practices in ancient Greece and Rome, through the emergence of behaviourism in the early 20th century, to the current focus on student-centred learning, formative assessment, and assessment for learning (AfL). In this section, I would like to share one of my favourite pedagogical approaches, ‘Socratic Method’, where the feedback is implemented and integrated as a powerful tool to promote students’ learning and development. 

 

In the early stages of formal education, feedback was predominantly informal and implicit, typically provided through oral instruction, rote memorisation, and correction from teachers. In ancient Greek education systems, feedback was commonly integrated into the ‘Socratic Method’, wherein teachers actively involved students in discussion, applying probing questioning techniques to direct them toward correct answers, adequate responses, and deeper understanding (Chesters, 2012; Knezic et al., 2010). Despite the long history, Socratic Method, particularly ‘Modern Socratic Method’ (named by its usage in modern days, but not invented recently), is still commonly used in nowadays, which framework is built upon the belief that students can continuously obtain knowledge through continuous questions from both teachers and themselves, and eventually develop stronger critical thinking and own comprehension of certain topics (Delic & Bećirović, 2016).  

 

It can be argued from Delic and Bećirović’s discussion that, with a strong flavour of flexibility, encouragement on critical thinking, and an instructive nature, the Socratic Method can indeed provide helpful implications on modern-day feedback practice. Notably, the Socratic Method highlights the significance of perceiving feedback as an interactive process that involves questioning, reflection, and discussion instead of a one-way transmission of information. This is reflected in the earlier review and discussion of the definitions of feedback in this article, with Sadler’s (1989) and Hattie and Timperley’s (2007) emphasis on the importance of holding dialogues between teachers and students to shape effective feedback, as well as Black and William’s (1998) argument that quality feedback should be interactive and part of an ongoing conversation. 

 

The application of the Socratic Method in higher education classrooms, from my observation and experience, can greatly contribute to the interactivity of the classroom and, therefore the engagement and academic understanding of students. At FSB, through encouraging dialogue via open-ended questions it prompts students to articulate their thoughts, challenge assumptions, and critically engage with the material. The method transforms the classroom from a passive lecture space into a dynamic forum of discussion, where students are not merely recipients of knowledge but active participants in constructing their understanding.  

 

As the students engage with complex ideas, justify their viewpoints, and respond to their peers’ perspectives, their cognitive processes are sharpened, leading to deeper academic comprehension. Furthermore, the Socratic Method nurtures an atmosphere of inquiry and intellectual curiosity, motivating students to question rather than simply accept information. This not only enhances engagement but also strengthens essential skills such as critical thinking, reasoning, and effective communication – all of which are crucial for academic success and further professional environments. Consequently, its application goes beyond content delivery, fostering a culture of reflective learning and active participation. 

 

As educators, we must embrace and integrate feedback into our teaching practices, creating spaces where students feel empowered to think independently, question boldly and engage meaningfully with their learning.  

 

Let us foster a teaching and learning environment that inspires curiosity through feedback and cultivates the critical thinkers of tomorrow. 

 

References 

Archer, J.C. (2010). State of the Science in Health Professional education: Effective Feedback. Medical Education, [online] 44(1), pp.101–108. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03546.x. 

Black, P. and Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and Classroom Learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, [online] 5(1), pp.7–74. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102. 

Boud, D. and Molloy, E. (2013). Rethinking Models of Feedback for learning: the Challenge of Design. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(6), pp.698–712. 

Bunch, B.H. and Hellemans, A. (2004). The history of science and technology : a browser’s guide to the great discoveries, inventions, and the people who made them, from the dawn of time to today. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 

Chesters, S.D. (2012). The Socratic Classroom : Reflective Thinking Through Collaborative Inquiry. Rotterdam: Sensepublishers. 

Claxton, G. (2006). Expanding the Capacity to Learn: A new end for education? [online] British Educational Research Association. Available at: https://www.buildinglearningpower.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/19.pdf [Accessed 4 Sep. 2024]. 

Delic, H. and Bećirović, S. (2016). Socratic Method as an Approach to Teaching. European Researcher, 111(10), pp.511–517. doi:https://doi.org/10.13187/er.2016.111.511. 

Evans, C. (2013). Making Sense of Assessment Feedback in Higher Education. Review of Educational Research, [online] 83(1), pp.70–120. doi:https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312474350. 

Gredler, M.E. (2012). Understanding Vygotsky for the Classroom: Is It Too Late? Educational Psychology Review, [online] 24(1), pp.113–131. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9183-6. 

Hannavy, J. (2022). The Governor: Controlling the Power of Steam Machines. Pen and Sword Transport. 

Hattie, J. and Timperley, H. (2007). The Power of Feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), pp.81–112. doi:https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487. 

Hume, A. and Coll, R.K. (2009). Assessment of learning, for learning, and as learning: New Zealand case studies. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, [online] 16(3), pp.269–290. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09695940903319661. 

Ibarra-Sáiz, M.S., Rodríguez-Gómez, G. and Boud, D. (2020). Developing student competence through peer assessment: the role of feedback, self-regulation and evaluative judgement. Higher Education, 80(1), pp.137–156. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00469-2. 

Jensen, L.X., Bearman, M. and Boud, D. (2021). Understanding feedback in online learning – A critical review and metaphor analysis. Computers & Education, 173, p.104271. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104271. 

Knezic, D., Wubbels, T., Elbers, E. and Hajer, M. (2010). The Socratic Dialogue and teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, [online] 26(4), pp.1104–1111. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.11.006. 

Mercer, N., Wegerif, R. and Dawes, L. (1999). Children’s Talk and the Development of Reasoning in the Classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 25(1), pp.95–111. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/0141192990250107. 

Pereira, D., Flores, M.A., Simão, A.M.V. and Barros, A. (2016). Effectiveness and relevance of feedback in Higher Education: A study of undergraduate students. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 49, pp.7–14. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2016.03.004. 

Ramaprasad, A. (1983). On the definition of feedback. Behavioral Science, 28(1), pp.4–13. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830280103. 

Sadler, D.R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), pp.119–144. 

Schartel, S.A. (2012). Giving feedback – An integral part of education. Best Practice & Research Clinical Anaesthesiology, [online] 26(1), pp.77–87. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpa.2012.02.003. 

Thomas, J.D. and Arnold, R.M. (2011). Giving Feedback. Journal of Palliative Medicine, 14(2), pp.233–239. doi:https://doi.org/10.1089/jpm.2010.0093. 

Wiliam, D. (2011). What Is Assessment for learning? Studies in Educational Evaluation, [online] 37(1), pp.3–14. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2011.03.001. 

Winstone, N.E. and Boud, D. (2020). The need to disentangle assessment and feedback in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 47(3), pp.1–12. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1779687. 

Zhang, L. and Zheng, Y. (2018). Feedback as an assessment for learning tool: How useful can it be? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(7), pp.1120–1132. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1434481.