810663

research-article2018
ALH0010.1177/1469787418810663Active Learning in Higher EducationSchillings et al.

Article
Active Learning in Higher Education
2023, Vol. 24(2) 95­–108
A review of educational dialogue © The Author(s) 2018

strategies to improve academic Article reuse guidelines:

https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787418810663
writing skills sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1469787418810663
journals.sagepub.com/home/alh

Marlies Schillings
Maastricht University, The Netherlands

Herma Roebertsen
Maastricht University, The Netherlands

Hans Savelberg
Maastricht University, The Netherlands

Diana Dolmans
Maastricht University, The Netherlands

Abstract
Written feedback plays a key role in the acquisition of academic writing skills. Ideally, this feedback should
include feed up, feed back and feed forward. However, written feedback alone is not enough to improve
writing skills; students often struggle to interpret the feedback received and enhance their writing skills
accordingly. Several studies have suggested that dialogue about written feedback is essential to promote the
development of these skills. Yet, evidence of the effectiveness of face-to-face dialogue remains inconclusive.
To bring this evidence into focus, we conducted a literature review of face-to-face dialogue intervention
studies. The emphasis was on key elements of the interventions and outcomes in terms of student
perceptions and other indicators, and the methodological characteristics of the studies. Subsequently, we
analysed each selected intervention for the presence of feed-up, feed-back and feed-forward information.
Most interventions used all three feedback elements – notably assessment criteria, student feedback, and
revision, respectively – and combined lecturer–student as well as student–student dialogue. Students
generally perceived the interventions as beneficial; they appreciated criteria and exemplars because they
clarified what was expected of them and how they would be assessed. With regard to student outcomes,
most interventions positively affected performance. The literature review suggests that feedback dialogue
shows promise as an intervention to improve academic writing skills, but also call for future research into
why and under which specific conditions face-to-face dialogue is effective.

Corresponding author:
Marlies Schillings, Department of Nutrition and Movement Sciences and School of Health Professions Education (SHE),
Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Email: [email protected]
96 Active Learning in Higher Education 24(2)

Keywords
Feed back, feed forward, feed up, higher education, student learning

Acquisition of academic writing skills

Students need academic skills to be able to carry out academic tasks and prepared for lifelong
learning. One of the key academic skills is communication, including writing skills, such as essay
or report writing, and oral skills, such as presentations (Qualifications and Curriculum Authority
(QCA), 2000; Wingate, 2006). According to Sultan (2013),

academic writing, at least in contemporary Western society, is a distinct style of writing used by those in
academia and research communities that is noted for its detached objectivity, its use of critical analysis and
its presentation of well-structured, clear arguments based on evidence and reason. (p. 139)

Hence, academic writing is an essential means of communication (Lillis and Turner, 2001;
Murray, 2001; Sultan, 2013; Zhu, 2004). Examples of academic writing products can range from
essays, bibliographies and theses up to scientific papers (Ganobcsik-Williams, 2004). However,
acquiring academic writing skills is complicated for students in higher education (Carless, 2006;
Elander et al., 2006).
The literature describes various approaches to academic writing instruction (Lea and Street,
2006; Wingate and Tribble, 2012). Many approaches address teaching academic writing skills
outside the specific subject content, in extracurricular ‘study skills’ courses. These generic or
bolt-on approaches assume that common features in academic writing can be taught separately
(Etherington, 2008). However, other studies on effective academic writing methods show that
enhancing student learning in this manner is ineffective (Ganobcsik-Williams, 2004; Tribble and
Wingate, 2013; Wingate, 2006, 2012). The main argument is that learning to study well at uni-
versity cannot be separated from subject content and the process of learning. In addition, many
students begin their studies with little or no knowledge of the principles underpinning discipline-
dependent academic discourse regarding academic writing. These principles are rarely explicitly
documented by subject lecturers who often assume students understand what is required of them
(Elton, 2010; Hunter and Tse, 2013). Knowing that learning to write well is difficult is convinc-
ing to realize that university students need support with academic writing (Wingate, 2006, 2012,
2014). Developing disciplinary writing requires an understanding of a distinct discourse on sub-
ject knowledge and tacit writing (Elton, 2010; Hunter and Tse, 2013; Wingate, 2006). Another
argument against separate writing courses is that rising numbers of student are accessing higher
education and their heterogeneous educational backgrounds require other ways to teach complex
academic writing skills (Boscolo et al., 2007; Lillis and Turner, 2001; Tribble and Wingate,
2013; Wingate, 2006). Therefore, researchers are considering effective approaches that will
enhance learning academic writing skills and also serve lifelong development. There is need to
introduce student input into embedded subject-specific discourse and instruction, known as the
built-in approach, in contrast to generic and often extracurricular teaching (Hunter and Tse,
2013; Lillis, 2001; Wingate, 2006; Wingate et al., 2011).
Academic writing support has already been studied extensively. Research on academic writ-
ing support ranges across, for example, the use of exemplars or worked examples (Carless and
Chan, 2017; To and Carless, 2016; Yucel et al., 2014), the use of assessment criteria (Elander,
2002; Elander et al., 2006), the implementation of training or instruction (Taras, 2001, 2003), the
Schillings et al. 97

use of different modes of feedback provision (McCarthy, 2017; Morris and Chikwa, 2016), the
role of feedback in revision of writing products (Jonsson, 2012), the role of self and/or peer
assessment (Taras, 2001, 2003), and the importance of the writing process itself (Cloutier, 2016).
Each research direction contributes to improved insight into academic writing skills develop-
ment. However, one of the most powerful single influences on achievement is feedback (Hattie
and Timperley, 2007).

The role of feedback in development of academic writing skills

Hattie and Timperley (2007) define feedback as ‘a process through which learners make sense
of information from various sources and use it to enhance their work of learning strategies’
(Carless and Boud, 2018: 2). Various studies have established the perceived value of feedback
by lecturers and/or peers for students in the development of academic writing skills (Carless
and Boud, 2018; Chalmers et al., 2017; Mulder et al., 2014; Ruegg, 2015; Sritrakarn, 2018). As
feedback plays a powerful role in learning, it is an essential tool for improving academic writ-
ing practice (Carver, 2017; Schartel, 2012; Thurlings et al., 2013). To stimulate students to take
responsibility in their own learning process and to become self-regulated learners, as indicated
by Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick (2006), the uptake of feedback should be enabled in the develop-
ment of so-called student feedback literacy (Carless and Boud, 2018). Carless and Boud (2018)
define student feedback literacy as ‘the understandings, capacities and dispositions needed to
make sense of information and use it to enhance work or learning strategies’ (p. 2). They for-
mulate four-interrelated features of student feedback literacy: appreciating feedback, making
judgements, managing affect and taking action. Appreciating feedback refers to the student’s
recognition of the value of feedback and understanding their active role in the feedback process
(Bunce et al., 2017; McLean et al., 2015). Making judgements denotes the student’s need to
develop the competence to make decisions about the quality of work (Boud et al., 2013, 2015;
Tai et al., 2017). Managing affect deals with the student’s control of affective responses when
receiving feedback (Pitt and Norton, 2017; To, 2016) and, finally, taking action refers to the
student engaging actively in making sense of feedback information and using it in subsequent
work, thereby closing a feedback loop (Boud and Molloy, 2013; Price et al., 2011; Robinson
et al., 2013; Shute, 2008).
Both lecturers and students consider written feedback instrumental in successfully acquiring
academic writing skills (Carless et al., 2011; Price et al., 2010; Rae and Cochrane, 2008). The
provision and receipt of written feedback has been suggested to enhance this learning process
(Baker, 2016; Huisman et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2017). Yet, written feedback alone is not strong
enough to effect learning improvements because students do not always apply the feedback they
receive (Carless et al., 2011; Duncan, 2007; Jonsson, 2012; Pokorny and Pickford, 2010).
Jonsson (2012) offers two explanations for this: lecturers’ written feedback often lacks clarity
and students lack strategies for productive use of feedback. These explanations are consistent
with Hattie and Timperley’s (2007) theory that states that to enhance student learning effectively,
feedback must be useful, of high quality and contain feed-back, feed-forward and feed-up infor-
mation. By ‘feed-up information’, they mean making explicit what is expected from the learner,
for instance, by providing assessment criteria; ‘feed-back information’ aims to inform students
about their current performance, by specifying what is done well and what needs improvement;
and ‘feed-forward information’ directs the learner as to how to proceed and improve. Black and
Wiliam (2009) add to this discourse by arguing that it requires dialogue between student and
lecturer and/or with student peers for feedback to be effective. The aim of this dialogue is to
98 Active Learning in Higher Education 24(2)

improve the students’ understanding of the feedback and help them move forward (Black and
Wiliam, 2009; Hattie and Timperley, 2007). Peer-to-peer dialogue is considered particularly
helpful because peers speak each other’s language, and they can motivate and help each other to
move forward (Bloxham and Campbell, 2010; Bloxham and West, 2007; Cloutier, 2016; Elton,
2010; Nicol, 2010; Rae and Cochrane, 2008; Zhu and Carless, 2018).
What remains unclear, however, is whether students actually find face-to-face dialogue useful
in improving their academic writing skills and, if so, why. Neither is it clear whether other out-
comes, such as the quality of academic writing products, improve with the introduction of dia-
logue. There is therefore a need to further explore the following:

1. Which feedback elements (feed up, feed back and feed forward) do face-to-face dialogue
interventions use and who are the participants in such interventions?
2. What are the outcomes of interventions in terms of student perceptions and other indicators
and how can these be explained?
3. What are the main methodological characteristics of studies analysing the effectiveness of
face-to-face dialogue interventions?

Methods
Search strategy
In April 2017, we searched the following online databases: Web of Science, EMBASE, ERIC,
CINAHL, PsycINFO and Google Scholar. At first, we searched on ‘feed up’, ‘feed back’ and ‘feed
forward’, but this strategy did not produce enough suitable articles so we added the term ‘feed-
back’. To minimize the chance of missing relevant articles, the scope was broad and included the
following string of keywords and Boolean operators: ‘dialogue OR discussion OR conversation’
AND ‘feedback’ AND ‘writing’.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The electronic literature search was limited to English full-text studies published since 1990. Only
articles that met the following inclusion criteria were selected: peer-reviewed, empirical studies
with a particular focus on academic writing, published in the field of academic education, includ-
ing all disciplines that discussed interventions employing face-to-face feedback dialogue. We
excluded literature reviews and case studies, studies that did not focus on academic writing or
studies that only addressed the online, digital or ICT aspects of the main topics.

Data extraction
The first author performed the search, yielding 1508 records. After removal of duplicates, the
titles and abstracts of the remaining records (N = 1182) were screened on the inclusion and
exclusion criteria. The resulting records (N = 304) contained the topics ‘dialogue’, ‘feedback’
and ‘writing’. Further eligibility was subsequently assessed by reading the full articles on this
list. After this phase, 102 articles remained for consideration. Of those, only articles that dis-
cussed a feedback intervention involving ‘face-to-face dialogue’ before submission of an aca-
demic writing assignment were included. As a result, the final review was based on 19 studies
(Figure 1).
Schillings et al. 99

Records identified through

Identification
database search

(N = 1508)

Duplicates removed
Records remaining after
(N = 326)
Identification

removal of duplicates
(N = 1182)

Records excluded
Records (i.e. their titles and
abstracts) screened based on
Screening

(N = 878)
inclusion and exclusion criteria
(N = 304)

Non-eligible records
excluded
Records further assessed for
Eligibility

eligibility (N = 202)
(N = 102)

Records excluded

Studies included in the final (N = 83)

Inclusion

analysis
(N = 19)

Figure 1. Flow chart depicting the process of study selection.

Data analysis
We scrutinized each intervention for the presence of feed-up, feed-back and feed-forward informa-
tion (Black and Wiliam, 2009; Hattie and Timperley, 2007; Jonsson, 2012; Nicol and Macfarlane-
Dick, 2006; Price et al., 2010; Rae and Cochrane, 2008). For the purpose of this review, we
considered educational strategies such as assessment criteria, exemplars, worked examples and
training (e.g. instructions or workshops) as expressions of feed-up information, written lecturer
feedback and written peer review/assessments as feed-back information, and instructions to revise
draft products as feed-forward information. In the next step, we checked which and how many
100 Active Learning in Higher Education 24(2)

participants were involved in the dialogue (student–student, lecturer–student or a combination of

both). Since the studies did not describe the content of the face-to-face dialogues, we did not cat-
egorize them in terms of feed-up, feed-back and/or feed-forward. Third, we operationalized inter-
vention outcomes in terms of students’ perceptions of the intervention, their marks and by text/
dialogue analysis. Finally, in assessing the effectiveness of each intervention, we took into account
the methodological characteristics of each study, including their study design, data sources and
data collection methods (Creswell, 2014).

Results
Feedback elements used in the interventions and the participants in the dialogue
All the interventions focused on improving students’ writing products, such as an essay, paper or
bibliography (see Table 1). In nine of the studies, the feedback students received contained all three
feedback elements: feed up, feed back and feed forward. As regards feed-up information, assess-
ment criteria were the tools most often used (N = 12), followed by training/instruction (N = 9) and
exemplars or worked examples (N = 8). Written feed-back information was most often provided by
peers during peer review or peer assessment (N = 13) and in eight interventions by lecturers; five
interventions combined both strategies. All the interventions that provided feed-forward informa-
tion instructed students to revise their drafts (N = 13).
Finally, with respect to the participants in the dialogue, most interventions used the student–
lecturer format (N = 17), although the peer-to-peer dialogue was also used frequently (N = 15); the
majority of the studies applied both formats (N = 13). Of the nine studies that provided students
with all three feedback elements, seven used both the lecturer–student and the peer-to-peer dia-
logue format.

Outcomes of the intervention

Intervention outcomes were measured mainly in terms of student perceptions (N = 14). Nearly half
of the studies (N = 10), however, also used other indicators, such as marks or text/dialogue analysis.
These results are also presented in Table 1; Table 2 outlines the data collection methods used.

Student perceptions of the overall effectiveness of interventions

All 14 studies that discussed student perceptions reported that students experienced the interven-
tions as predominantly positive. A few studies explained why students perceived interventions – or
parts thereof – as useful, helpful and valuable (Cartney, 2010; Hendry et al., 2011, 2012; Tsui and
Ng, 2000; Vickerman, 2009). Tsui and Ng (2000), for instance, observed that ‘peer comments
enhance a sense of audience, raise learners’ awareness of their own strengths and weaknesses,
encourage collaborative learning, and foster the ownership of text’. Yucel et al. (2014) explained
that criteria and exemplars help clarify expectations and assessment procedures, thereby facilitat-
ing the provision of meaningful feedback and revision processes. Other studies demonstrated that
understanding in students improved because of the clarity and constructiveness of written lecturer
or peer feedback (Reese-Durham, 2005; Vickerman, 2009). A final reason for a positive perception
of the intervention was that students felt it helped them to improve their products not only during
the revision process, but also in future assignments (Cartney, 2010; Reese-Durham, 2005; Yucel
et al., 2014). Despite these positives, four studies also reported negative aspects of the intervention,
such as assessment anxiety (Cartney, 2010) or less useful marking sheets (Hendry et al., 2012).
Table 1. Overview of the feedback elements used in the interventions, the participants in the face-to- face dialogue and the main outcomes in terms of
student perceptions and other indicators.
Authorsa Writing product Feed up Feed back Feed Participants in face-to-face dialogue Student perceptions Other outcome
forward indicators
Schillings et al.

Criteria Exemplars Training or Written Written Revision Student – Lecturer – Combined + - 0 Mab TAb DAb
or worked instruction feedback from feedback of draft Student Students
examples lecturer from peers

Cartney (2010) Essay            

n=5
Hunter and Tse (2013) Essays         +
Boscolo et al. (2007) Writing task         +/-
n =?
Crossman and Kite (2012) Pro-posal        +
n=2
Connor and Asenavage (1994) Essay       +
n=4
Reese-Durham (2005) Paper      V  
n=3
Van den Berg et al. (2006) Writing products        +
n = 2–4
Yucel et al. (2014) Report         +/-
n =?
Hedgcock and Lefkowitz (1992) Essay     +
n=3
Tsui and Ng (2000) Paper       
n = 3–4
To and Carless (2016) Essay       
n = 3–4
Hendry et al. (2016) Review        +
n =?
Caffarella and Barnett (2000) Paper     n = 1   
n =?
Hendry et al. (2012) Letter      
Hendry et al. (2011) Exem-plar letters     
Vickerman (2009) Biblio-gra-phies      
n =?
Liu and Sadler (2003) Paper      +
n=3
Van der Schaaf et al. (2013) Writing product   n = 1  +
Krych-Appelbaum and Musial Paper    
(2007) n=2
Total N = 12 N=8 N=9 N=8 N = 13 N = 13 N = 15 N = 17 N = 13 N = 14 N=4 N=1 N=5 N=1 N=4

Other notes: = present; n = number of participants. N = number of elements; ? = information not available. + = positive outcomes; - = negative outcomes; 0 = no effect.
aOrdered from most to least feedback elements used (per feed-up, feed-back and feed-forward).
101

bMa = Marks, TA = Text analysis; DA = Dialogue analysis.

102 Active Learning in Higher Education 24(2)

Table 2. Overview of the data collection methods used to capture student perceptions and other
student outcomes (N = 19).

Student perceptions 84% (N = 16)

Quantitative:
  Questionnaires 63% (N = 12)
Qualitative:
  Focus groups 32% (N = 6)
  Interviews 16% (N = 3)
  Observations 11% (N = 2)
Other outcome indicators 53% (N = 10)
Marks 26% (N = 5)
Text analysis 5% (N = 1)
Dialogue analysis 21% (N = 4)

Student perceptions of the effectiveness of dialogue

Of the 14 studies, 11 specifically addressed student perceptions of face-to-face-dialogue
(Caffarella and Barnett, 2000; Cartney, 2010; Hendry et al., 2011, 2012, 2016; Hunter and Tse,
2013; Krych-Appelbaum and Musial, 2007; To and Carless, 2016; Van der Schaaf et al., 2013;
Vickerman, 2009; Yucel et al., 2014). All but one study reported that these sessions helped
students understand the reasoning behind the assignment and were therefore considered use-
ful. According to Vickerman (2009), they helped students gain confidence in student-led dis-
cussion. In Cartney’s (2010) study, however, some students felt very uncomfortable providing
oral feedback and thus preferred online discussions to the face-to-face dialogue. Yet, other
students rather gave feedback orally, because that enabled them to clear up any misunder-
standings and save time.

Other outcome indicators

Ten studies used other indicators alongside or instead of student perceptions to assess the effective-
ness of the intervention. These studies measured outcomes on students’ marks or an analysis of
texts or dialogues (Table 1). In four studies, students achieved significantly better marks for their
written assignments (Crossman and Kite, 2012; Hedgcock and Lefkowitz, 1992; Hendry et al.,
2016; Hunter and Tse, 2013), while in one study the opposite was true (Yucel et al., 2014). Crossman
and Kite (2012) suggest that the improved results could be due to students reviewing the criteria
repeatedly when writing papers and reviewing their peers’ work, thus coming to understand the
criteria more fully. By contrast, Yucel et al. (2014) argue that poor results could be down to
improved marker reliability, high-study workloads from other subjects and variations in perfor-
mance levels across student cohorts.
Of the studies that used text or dialogue analysis as part of the intervention, three reported that
oral discussion enhanced understanding in students (Liu and Sadler, 2003; Van den Berg et al.,
2006; Van der Schaaf et al., 2013). Other reported beneficial effects were more explanations and
revisions by students (Van den Berg et al., 2006) and more thinking activities in students (Van der
Schaaf et al., 2013). One study, however, also produced contradictory findings: while some aspects
of the text did improve, others did not (Boscolo et al., 2007). Overall, the intervention outcomes
were generally positive in all 10 studies, with eight reporting clear benefits and two showing con-
tradictory results.
Schillings et al. 103

Methodological characteristics of studies

In terms of methodology, 84% (N = 16) of the studies used a post-test-only design, 58% (N = 11)
of which involved a single group (Table 3). Students were the main data source in all included
studies.

Table 3. Overview of the methodological characteristics of included studies (N = 19).

Study design
Single group, post-test-only 58% (N = 11)
Two groups, post-test-only 26% (N = 5)
Single group, pre- and post-test 11% (N = 2)
Two groups, pre- and post-test 5% (N = 1)
Data sources
Students 100% (N = 19)
Lecturers 11% (N = 2)

Discussion and conclusion

Based on this review, it can be concluded that most studies used assessment criteria, worked exam-
ples and training/instruction as feed-up information. Peer review and written feedback by lecturers
were frequently used as feed-back information. Most studies reported on interventions that asked
students to revise text; this was considered to provide feed-forward information. Students gener-
ally perceived the interventions as positive. Most of the interventions dealing with other outcome
measurements resulted in better outcomes as evidenced by marks or writing products. Using crite-
ria and exemplars was considered beneficial, because they seemed to be especially important to
clarify expectations. In general, a mix of feed-up, feed-back and feed-forward features seems to
help improve academic writing skills. Face-to-face dialogue helped meaningful feedback and sup-
ported revision of writing products.
Our focus was to provide a review of studies that investigated feedback dialogue interventions
and their outcomes in terms of student perceptions and other measurements in the context of aca-
demic writing. The added value of this review is the fresh insight into key features of the interven-
tions it offers in terms of feed up, feed back and feed forward and the outcome of face-to-face
dialogue interventions. This insight is necessary to enhance student learning in this context accord-
ing the theoretical feedback model of Hattie and Timperley (2007). Face-to-face dialogue is sup-
portive because it gives students the opportunity to ask for clarifications and explanations from
lecturer and/or peers. This finding supports the role peers can play in the process of self-regulated
learning, as described earlier by Zhang et al. (2017), who state that peer comments alone appeared
to make the largest contribution to the revision of writing products.
Although the interventions contained dialogue between peers and/or students with lecturer,
hardly any information was available about the content, tone and thus the quality of these dialogues.
A reason for this finding could be that the dialogue was not the specific aim of the particular research.
For example, some studies explicitly investigated the use of exemplars (Hendry et al., 2011, 2012;
To and Carless, 2016), and therefore focused on feed up. On the other hand, Tsui and Ng (2000)
focused on feed-back information and researched the use of written lecturer and peer feedback in the
intervention. Revision as an example of feed-forward information is a crucial element in the writing
process, which supports Jonsson’s (2012) claim that it provides opportunities for students to use
feedback in order to improve writing skills. As for the methodological characteristics, the studies in
104 Active Learning in Higher Education 24(2)

this review were predominantly post-test designs, using a single group, possibly because most stud-
ies investigated the intervention in the course of a running educational programme. Potential ethical
issues, such as offering the same programme or the same quality of education to each student, could
have prevented the use of pre-test/post-test designs. Post-test designs, however, make it hard to
determine the effectiveness of the intervention, because it is not clear what the pre-test conditions
were (Creswell, 2014). Although the review shows predominantly positive self-perception, one
needs to be careful in interpreting this finding. The positive perceptions might not be related to con-
crete improved academic writing skills.
This review has two major limitations. The first is the inadequate provision of relevant informa-
tion in the included articles. Although this review provides improved insight into interventions
containing face-to-face dialogue, it could not establish the effectiveness of the separate feed-up,
feed-back and feed-forward features of the interventions and more exclusively the content and
effectiveness of the face-to-face dialogue. While this review shows that interventions specifically
including face-to-face dialogues mostly work well, the investigated studies provide very little
insight into why and under what conditions this may be the case. Second, categorizing various
educational strategies as feed-up, feed-back or feed-forward information is to some extent arbi-
trary. For example, criteria and exemplars were categorized as feed up, but criteria and exemplars
could also give students suggestions on how to revise their text or move forward (feed-forward
information). Furthermore, revision was categorized as feed forward, however, in practice revision
can also be seen as the way or the result of how to proceed or improve. So, there might be some
overlap between the various feed-up, feed-back and feed-forward strategies.
For future research, we recommend specifically investigating the content and effectiveness of
face-to-face dialogue in the process of improving academic writing skills. More experimental
study designs, for example, two group, pre-test/post-test designs including qualitative methods
could establish why and under what conditions these dialogues work best. Besides measuring stu-
dent perceptions, other outcome measurements such as marks or dialogue content analysis should
be considered. An interesting aspect for future study could be the long-term impact of face-to-face
dialogue on students’ writing skills. Finally, to determine the instructiveness of face-to-face dia-
logue, it is necessary to investigate the related instruction or facilitation method.
The implications of our findings for educational practice in higher education, especially for
course designers, are twofold. First, from the student’s perspective, face-to-face dialogue in an
intervention that includes feed up, feed back and/or feed forward seems to help the process of
learning to write academic material. Second, this review provides concrete examples of feed-up,
feed-back and feed-forward strategies including face-to-face dialogue that can be helpful when
designing educational interventions to enhance student learning of academic writing skills, particu-
larly the use of criteria and/or worked examples.
To conclude, our review has demonstrated that feedback dialogue interventions in the context of
academic writing are helpful in most cases according to student perceptions and other outcome meas-
urements such as marks or text analysis. Although face-to-face dialogue appears to support this pro-
cess, the question of why and under which specific conditions it is effective needs further research.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the thoughtful critique offered by the reviewers and editor of this
article. Furthermore, we thank Angelique van den Heuvel and Ragini Werner for editing this manuscript.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Schillings et al. 105

References
Baker KM (2016) Peer review as a strategy for improving students’ writing process. Active Learning in
Higher Education 17(3): 179–92.
Black P and Wiliam D (2009) Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment
Evaluation and Accountability 21(1): 5–31.
Bloxham S and Campbell L (2010) Generating dialogue in assessment feedback: Exploring the use of interactive
cover sheets. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 35(3): 291–300.
Bloxham S and West A (2007) Learning to write in higher education: Students’ perceptions of an intervention
in developing understanding of assessment criteria. Teaching in Higher Education 12(1): 77–89.
Boscolo P, Arfé B and Quarisa M (2007) Improving the quality of students’ academic writing: An intervention
study. Studies in Higher Education 32(4): 419–38.
Boud D and Molloy E (2013) Rethinking models of feedback for learning: The challenge of design. Assessment
& Evaluation in Higher Education 38(6): 698–712.
Boud D, Lawson R and Thompson D (2013) Does student engagement in self-assessment calibrate their
judgement over time? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 38(8): 941–56.
Boud D, Lawson R and Thompson D (2015) The calibration of student judgement through self-assessment:
Disruptive effects of assessment patterns. Higher Education Research & Development 34(1): 45–59.
Bunce L, Baird A and Jones S (2017) The student-as-consumer approach in higher education and its effects
on academic performance. Studies in Higher Education 42(11): 1958–78.
Caffarella RS and Barnett BG (2000) Teaching doctoral students to become scholarly writers: The importance
of giving and receiving critiques. Studies in Higher Education 25(1): 39–52.
Carless D (2006) Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in Higher Education 31(2): 219–33.
Carless D and Boud D (2018) The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 43: 1315–25.
Carless D and Chan KKH (2017) Managing dialogic use of exemplars. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education 42(6): 930–41.
Carless D, Salter D, Yang M, et al. (2011) Developing sustainable feedback practices. Studies in Higher
Education 36(4): 395–407.
Cartney P (2010) Exploring the use of peer assessment as a vehicle for closing the gap between feedback
given and feedback used. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 35(5): 551–64.
Carver M (2017) Limitations of corrective feedforward: A call for resubmission practices to become learning-
oriented. Journal of Academic Writing 7(10): 1–15.
Chalmers C, Mowat E and Chapman M (2017) Marking and providing feedback face-to-face: Staff and stu-
dent perspectives. Active Learning in Higher Education 19(1): 35–45.
Cloutier C (2016) How I write: An inquiry into the writing practices of academics. Journal of Management
Inquiry 25(1): 69–84.
Connor U and Asenavage K (1994) Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: How much impact on
revision? Journal of Second Language Writing 3(3): 257–76.
Creswell JW (2014) Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and
Qualitative Research. Harlow: Pearson Education.
Crossman JM and Kite SL (2012) Facilitating improved writing among students through directed peer review.
Active Learning in Higher Education 13(3): 219–29.
Duncan N (2007) ‘Feed-forward’: Improving students’ use of tutors’ comments. Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education 32(3): 271–83.
Elander J (2002) Developing aspect-specific assessment criteria for examination answers and coursework
essays in psychology. Psychology Teaching Review 10: 31–51.
Elander J, Harrington K, Norton L, et al. (2006) Complex skills and academic writing: A review of evidence
about the types of learning required to meet core assessment criteria. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education 31(1): 71–90.
Elton L (2010) Academic writing and tacit knowledge. Teaching in Higher Education 15(2): 151–60.
Etherington S (2008) Academic writing and the disciplines. In: Friedrich P (ed.) Teaching Academic Writing.
London: Continuum, pp. 26–58.
106 Active Learning in Higher Education 24(2)

Ganobcsik-Williams L (2004) Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lisa_Ganobcsik-Williams

/publication/253050287_A_Report_on_the_Teaching_of_Academic_Writing_in_UK_Higher
_Education/links/54784f210cf293e2da28b6ee/A-Report-on-the-Teaching-of-Academic-Writing-in-UK
-Higher-Education.pdf.
Hattie J and Timperley H (2007) The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research 77(1): 81–112.
Hedgcock J and Lefkowitz N (1992) Collaborative oral/aural revision in foreign language writing instruction.
Journal of Second Language Writing 1(3): 255–76.
Hendry GD, Armstrong S and Bromberger N (2012) Implementing standards-based assessment effectively:
Incorporating discussion of exemplars into classroom teaching. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education 37(2): 149–61.
Hendry GD, Bromberger N and Armstrong S (2011) Constructive guidance and feedback for learning: The
usefulness of exemplars, marking sheets and different types of feedback in a first year law subject.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 36(1): 1–11.
Hendry GD, White P and Herbert C (2016) Providing exemplar-based ‘feedforward’ before an assessment:
The role of teacher explanation. Active Learning in Higher Education 17(2): 99–109.
Huisman B, Saab N, Van Driel J, et al. (2017) Peer feedback on college students’ writing: Exploring the
relation between students’ ability match, feedback quality and essay performance. Higher Education
Research & Development 36(7): 1433–47.
Hunter K and Tse H (2013) Making disciplinary writing and thinking practices an integral part of academic
content teaching. Active Learning in Higher Education 14(3): 227–39.
Jonsson A (2012) Facilitating productive use of feedback in higher education. Active Learning in Higher
Education 14(1): 63–76.
Krych-Appelbaum M and Musial J (2007) Students’ perception of value of interactive oral communication as
part of writing course papers. Journal of Instructional Psychology 34(3): 131–6.
Lea MR and Street B (2006) The ‘academic literacies’ model: Theory and applications. Theory into Practice
45(4): 368–77.
Lillis T (2001) Student Writing: Access, Regulation, Desire. London: Routledge.
Lillis T and Turner J (2001) Student writing in higher education: Contemporary confusion, traditional con-
cerns. Teaching in Higher Education 6(1): 57–68.
Liu J and Sadler RW (2003) The effect and affect of peer review in electronic versus traditional modes on L2
writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2(3): 193–227.
McCarthy J (2017) Enhancing feedback in higher education: Students’ attitudes towards online and in-class
formative assessment feedback models. Active Learning in Higher Education 18(2): 127–41.
McLean A, Bond C and Nicholson H (2015) An anatomy of feedback: A phenomenographic investigation of
undergraduate students’ conceptions of feedback. Studies in Higher Education 40(5): 921–32.
Morris C and Chikwa G (2016) Audio versus written feedback: Exploring learners’ preference and the impact
of feedback format on students’ academic performance. Active Learning in Higher Education 17(2):
125–37.
Mulder RA, Pearce JM and Baik C (2014) Peer review in higher education: Student perceptions before and
after participation. Active Learning in Higher Education 15(2): 157–71.
Murray REG (2001) Integrating teaching and research through writing development for students and staff.
Active Learning in Higher Education 2(1): 31–45.
Nicol DJ (2010) From monologue to dialogue: Improving written feedback processes in mass higher educa-
tion. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 35(5): 501–17.
Nicol DJ and Macfarlane-Dick D (2006) Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and
seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education 31(2): 199–218.
Pitt E and Norton L (2017) ‘Now that’s the feedback I want!’ Students’ reactions to feedback on graded work
and what they do with it. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 42(4): 499–516.
Pokorny H and Pickford P (2010) Complexity, cues and relationships: Student perceptions of feedback. Active
Learning in Higher Education 11(1): 21–30.
Price M, Handley K and Millar J (2011) Feedback: Focusing attention on engagement. Studies in Higher
Education 36(8): 879–96.
Schillings et al. 107

Price M, Handley K, Millar J, et al. (2010) Feedback: All that effort, but what is the effect? Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education 35(3): 277–89.
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) (2000) Available at: www.qca.org.uk/qualifications
/types/603.html (accessed 30 August 2018).
Rae AM and Cochrane DK (2008) Listening to students: How to make written assessment feedback useful.
Active Learning in Higher Education 9(3): 217–30.
Reese-Durham N (2005) Peer evaluation as an active learning technique. Journal of Instructional Psychology
32(4): 338–45.
Robinson S, Pope D and Holyoak L (2013) Can we meet their expectations? Experiences and perceptions of
feedback in first year undergraduate students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 38(3): 260–72.
Ruegg R (2015) Differences in the uptake of peer and teacher feedback. RELC Journal 46(2): 131–45.
Schartel SA (2012) Giving feedback – An integral part of education. Best Practice & Research Clinical
Anaesthesiology 26: 77–87.
Shute V (2008) Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research 38(6): 631–45.
Sritrakarn N (2018) A comparison of teacher’s and senior students’ feedback: Student attitudes and their
writing improvement. The Journal of Asia TEFL 15(2): 329–48.
Sultan N (2013) British students’ academic writing. Industry & Higher Education 27(2): 139–47.
Tai J, Ajjawi R, Boud D, et al. (2017) Developing evaluative judgement: Enabling students to make decisions
about the quality of work. Higher Education 76: 467–81.
Taras M (2001) The use of tutor feedback and student self-assessment in summative assessment tasks: Towards
transparency for students and for tutors. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 26(6): 605–14.
Taras M (2003) To feedback or not to feedback in student self-assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education 28(5): 549–65.
Thurlings M, Vermeulen M, Bastiaens T, et al. (2013) Understanding feedback: A learning theory perspec-
tive. Educational Research Review 9: 1–15.
To J (2016) ‘This is not what I need’: Conflicting assessment feedback beliefs in a post-secondary institution
in Hong-Kong. Research in Post-Compulsory Education 21(4): 447–67.
To J and Carless D (2016) Making productive use of exemplars: Peer discussion and teacher guidance for
positive transfer of strategies. Journal of Further and Higher Education 40(6): 746–64.
Tribble C and Wingate U (2013) From text to corpus – A genre-based approach to academic literacy instruc-
tion. System 41: 307–21.
Tsui ABM and Ng M (2000) Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second
Language Writing 9(2): 147–70.
Van den Berg I, Admiraal W and Pilot A (2006) Designing student peer assessment in higher education:
Analysis of written and oral peer feedback. Teaching in Higher Education 11(2): 135–47.
Van der Schaaf M, Baartman L, Prins F, et al. (2013) Feedback dialogues that stimulate students’ reflective
thinking. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 5(3): 227–45.
Vickerman P (2009) Student perspectives on formative peer assessment: An attempt to deepen learning?
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 34(2): 221–30.
Wingate U (2006) Doing away with ‘study skills’. Teaching in Higher Education 11(4): 457–69.
Wingate U (2012) Using academic literacies and genre-based models for academic writing instruction: A
‘literacy’ journey. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11: 26–37.
Wingate U (2014) Approaches to acculturating novice writers into academic literacy. In: Lyda A and Warchl
K (eds) Occupying Niches: Interculturality, Cross-Culturality and Aculturality in Academic Research.
Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 104–18.
Wingate U and Tribble C (2012) The best of both worlds? Towards an English for academic purposes
/academic literacies writing pedagogy. Studies in Higher Education 37(4): 481–95.
Wingate U, Andon N and Cogo A (2011) Embedding academic writing instruction into subject teaching: A
case study. Active Learning in Higher Education 12(1): 69–81.
Yucel R, Bird FL, Young J, et al. (2014) The road to self-assessment: Exemplar marking before peer review
develops first-year students’ capacity to judge the quality of a scientific report. Assessment & Evaluation
in Higher Education 39(8): 971–86.
108 Active Learning in Higher Education 24(2)

Zhang F, Schunn CD and Baikadi A (2017) Charting the routes to revision: An interplay of writing goals, peer
comments, and self-reflections from peer reviews. Instructional Science 45(5): 679–707.
Zhu Q and Carless D (2018) Dialogue within peer feedback processes: Clarification and negotiation of
meaning. Higher Education Research & Development 37(4): 883–97.
Zhu W (2004) Faculty views on the importance of writing, the nature of academic writing, and teaching and
responding to writing in the disciplines. Journal of Second Language Writing 13(1): 29–48.

Author biographies
Marlies Schillings is a Lecturer who is currently undertaking a PhD in the School of Health Professions
Education at Maastricht University, The Netherlands. Her educational and research interests involve writing
curricula in the Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences. Address: Department of Nutrition and
Movement Sciences and School of Health Professions Education (SHE), Maastricht University, P.O. Box
616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands. [email: [email protected]]
Herma Roebertsen is a Senior Lecturer and Educational Adviser at Maastricht University, in the Faculty of
Health, Medicine and Life Sciences. Address: Department of Nutrition and Movement Sciences and School
of Health Professions Education (SHE), Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The
Netherlands. [email: [email protected]]
Hans Savelberg is a Professor of Evolving Academic Education at Maastricht University. He is director of
Education for Biomedical Sciences in the Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences at Maastricht
University. Address: Department of Nutrition and Movement Sciences and School of Health Professions
Education (SHE), Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands. [email:
[email protected]]
Diana Dolmans is a Professor of Innovative Learning Arrangements at Maastricht University. She has published
on problem-based learning, faculty development and quality assurance in higher education. Address: Department
of Nutrition and Movement Sciences and School of Health Professions Education (SHE), Maastricht University,
P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands. [email: [email protected]]