From monologue to dialogue: Making feedback meaningful

Blog post 3 of 4 | Meaningful feedback in online learning: Principles 3 & 4 of Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick (2006)

For years, I had a ritual when returning graded essays in my face-to-face classes. I set aside 15 to 20 minutes at the end of class for a discussion about the feedback students have just received. The rule is simple: every student must come prepared with at least one question about the feedback they got. Sometimes the questions are about specific comments (“What did you mean when you wrote this?”), sometimes about patterns (“Why do I keep getting the same note about my thesis statements?”), and sometimes—I joke with them—about my increasingly illegible handwriting.

This ritual does something important: it transforms feedback from a monologue into a dialogue. It signals that feedback isn’t the end of the conversation; it’s the beginning. Students learn that my comments aren’t verdicts to be passively accepted, but invitations to engage, clarify, and act.

When I moved more of my teaching online, I had to find substitutes for this ritual. I started recording holistic audio feedback in Moodle, where I could talk through my thinking in a more conversational tone. I built learning journal reflections into my courses, asking students to write about the feedback they’d received and what they planned to do with it. These weren’t perfect replacements—there’s something irreplaceable about the energy of a live classroom discussion—but they preserved the core principle: feedback must be a two-way street.

In Parts 1 and 2 of this series, we explored how to clarify standards and facilitate self-assessment. Now, in Part 3, we turn to Principles 3 and 4, which take us from giving feedback to enabling students to use it.

Principle 3: Feedback Must Be Actionable and Forward-Looking

What the Research Says

One of the most persistent problems in feedback practice is what Winstone et al. (2017) call the “uptake gap.” This is the space between receiving feedback and actually using it.

This happens, in part, because we tend to treat feedback as information rather than as a process (Boud & Molloy, 2013). We tell students what went wrong, but we don’t tell them what to do next. We point out errors, but we don’t provide a roadmap for improvement. Our feedback looks backward—toward the work that’s already been submitted—rather than forward, toward the work that’s still to come.

Sadler (2010) argues that students need to develop what he calls “complex appraisal:” the capacity to judge the quality of their own work against meaningful standards. But they can’t develop this capacity if our feedback only tells them what they got wrong. They need to understand why something didn’t work, how to fix it, and where to focus their attention next time. In other words, they need feedback that is not just evaluative, but instructional.

Actionable feedback closes the loop between “what went wrong” and “what to do next.” It shifts the frame from evaluation to instruction, from judgment to guidance. And in online learning environments, where students can’t lean over and ask, “What did you mean by this?” in the moment, this shift becomes even more critical.

What This Looks Like in Online Learning

In asynchronous environments, feedback must be especially explicit. There’s no body language, no immediate clarification, no chance to catch a student after class and say, “Here’s what I really meant.” Every comment has to stand on its own—and this is a value worth carrying into our in-person feedback practice as well.

Here are some strategies I use to make my feedback more actionable and forward-looking:

1. Frame feedback as a question, not a verdict.

Instead of writing "Your thesis is unclear," I write "How can you make this thesis stronger?" The shift sounds small, but it changes the entire dynamic: a question inherently suggests that a conversation is still open, that the student has something to contribute, that I'm not delivering a verdict but inviting a response. Research on written feedback confirms that question-phrased comments are perceived as more likely to stimulate reflection and higher-order thinking than declarative statements (Dekker et al., 2013; Saeed et al., 2022). One caveat worth naming: questions work best when students have enough context to act on them. For a student who genuinely doesn't know what a strong thesis looks like, a question alone may not be enough, so pairing a probing question with a concrete example or criterion can make the difference (Cowan et al., 2021).

2. Provide concrete revision tasks.

Back when I taught at the Cégep level, I started using what I call “The Big Three” with my students. Before they started a new assignment, I asked them to review the feedback they received on their last few pieces of work (from me or previous teachers) and identify three recurring patterns—things that were commented on more than once. Then, I asked them to write down specific actions they planned to take in this draft to address those patterns. This exercise does two things: it helps students see feedback as cumulative rather than isolated, and it gives them a concrete plan for improvement.

3. Link feedback to specific criteria or learning outcomes.

When I comment on a student’s work, I try to connect my feedback to the rubric or the learning goals we established at the start of the course. For example: “Remember, one of our course goals is to develop your ability to synthesize multiple sources. In this paragraph, you’re summarizing each source separately. How could you bring them into conversation with each other?”

4. Use audio or video feedback to add tone and warmth.

Text-based comments can feel cold and impersonal, especially when they’re critical. Audio feedback lets me explain my thinking in a more conversational way, and it helps students hear the supportive intent behind my words. I can say, “I really love where you’re going with this idea, and I think you can push it even further by…” in a way that’s harder to convey in writing.

In my Professional Writing courses, I’ve built collaborative feedforward into the assessment design itself. Peer review is a required component of every major project, and students are trained to give each other forward-looking feedback using structured protocols. They learn to ask questions like, “What’s one thing the writer could do to make this section stronger?” rather than just pointing out what’s wrong. This not only improves the quality of feedback students receive, but it also helps them apply the principles of actionable feedback to their own work beyond my classroom.

Principle 4: Students Must Be Prepared to Receive and Use Feedback
What the Research Says

Here’s a truth we don’t always recognize: students are not automatically good at using feedback. They don’t instinctively know how to read our comments, prioritize which ones to act on, or translate our suggestions into concrete revisions. Feedback literacy—the capacity to understand, evaluate, and act on feedback—is a skill that must be developed (Carless & Boud, 2018).

Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick (2006) argue that good feedback practice should “facilitate self-assessment” and “generate, not just transmit, information.” In other words, our job is not just to tell students what we think about their work; it’s to help them develop the internal standards and self-regulatory skills they need to evaluate their own work. We’re not just giving feedback—we’re teaching students how to use feedback.

This is especially important in online learning, where students are often working independently and asynchronously. They don’t have the benefit of immediate clarification or the social pressure of a classroom discussion to push them to engage with feedback. If we want them to act on what we give them, we have to build that engagement into the course design.

What This Looks Like in Practice

Building feedback literacy requires intentional scaffolding. Here are some strategies I use:

1. Pre-submission self-assessment activities

Before students submit a major assignment, I ask them to complete a self-assessment checklist based on the rubric. They have to identify which criteria they feel confident about and which ones they’re still struggling with. This primes them to receive feedback more actively, because they’ve already started thinking critically about their own work. For some assessments, I’ll ask them to indicate what kind of feedback they would find most helpful—is there a particular aspect of their work, or a specific section of the submission, they want me to focus on?

2. Guided reflection on feedback received

After I return graded work, students complete a learning journal entry where they reflect on the feedback they received. I give them prompts like: “What was the most useful piece of feedback you got? What’s one thing you’ll do differently on your next assignment? What’s one question you still have?” This gives them space to engage with my comments rather than just glancing at the grade and moving on.

3. Personal learning goals tied to assessments

At the start of the semester, I ask students to identify their own personal learning goals for the course. Then, before each major assessment, I ask them to revisit those goals and reflect on how this project is getting them closer to their goal. This shifts the frame from “What does the teacher want?” to “What do I want to learn, and how is this assignment helping me get there?”

I often tell my students: “I am not an editor who fixes your work. I am a guide. It’s like driving—I can be the taxi driver, or I can teach you to drive. If I teach you to drive, eventually you don’t need me to get where you want to go.” This analogy resonates with them, because it makes clear that the goal of feedback is not dependence, but independence.

4. Peer feedback with structured protocols

In my Professional Writing courses, peer review is built into every major project. But I don’t just tell students to “give feedback”—I give them specific protocols and sentence stems to guide their responses. For example: “One strength of this draft is… One area for improvement is… One question I have as a reader is…” This structure helps students give more useful feedback to each other, and it also helps them internalize the kinds of questions they should be asking about their own work. Moodle Workshop is a great tool for this kind of peer feedback—it takes some time to set it up well, but once you get there, it’s a great way to make sure everyone gets feedback, and to track how the peer review process is unfolding.

5. Revisit feedback explicitly

Before students submit a new assignment, I remind them: “Look back at my comments on your last draft before you submit this one. What patterns do you notice? What can you apply here?” This simple prompt makes feedback cumulative rather than isolated, and it reinforces the idea that feedback is meant to be used, not just received.

Connecting Principles 3 and 4: The Dialogue

These two principles work together to create what I think of as the “dialogue loop.” Actionable feedback (Principle 3) is only useful if students are equipped to act on it (Principle 4). And feedback literacy (Principle 4) only matters if the feedback students receive is actually something they can implement (Principle 3).

In face-to-face classes, this loop might happen organically through classroom discussions, one-on-one conferences, and informal check-ins. But sometimes, whether online or in person, the loop must be intentionally designed. We have to build in the structures—reflection prompts, revision opportunities, peer review, self-assessment—that keep the dialogue going.

The Unsolved Problem: Preserving the Human Touch

I haven’t fully solved the problem of replicating the human touch of handwritten feedback when it comes to digital submission. There’s something irreplaceable about pen on paper—about seeing a student’s handwriting and having them see mine (yes, even in the blood-red ink). It’s personal in a way that typed comments, no matter how thoughtful, can never quite be.

Recently, I’ve been experimenting with Notability on my iPad Pro 13" with an Apple Pencil (fingers crossed for an Apple sponsorship). I can handwrite comments directly on students’ digital submissions, then export the annotated document as a PDF and upload it to Moodle. It’s not perfect—it’s still mediated by technology—but it preserves some of that human touch. Students tell me they appreciate seeing my handwriting, even if it’s digital. It feels more personal, more like I’m talking directly to them.

This is an ongoing experiment, and I’m still figuring out what works. But it’s a reminder that even as we adapt our practices to online environments, we don’t have to abandon the things that make feedback feel human.

Practical Takeaways

1. Audit your feedback language. Look at the last batch of comments you gave. How much of your feedback is backward-looking (pointing out what went wrong) versus forward-looking (suggesting what to do next or asking questions)? Aim for a balance that leans toward the future.

2. Add one feedforward prompt to your next assignment feedback cycle. Instead of just marking errors, give students one concrete action to take on their next draft or assignment.

3. Build one feedback-literacy activity into your course before the next major assignment. This could be a self-assessment checklist, a reflection prompt, or a peer review exercise. The goal is to help students engage actively with feedback, not just receive it passively.

4. Consider your feedback medium. Does audio or video feedback make sense for your context? Could handwritten digital comments add a personal touch? Experiment with different formats and see what resonates with your students.

Looking Ahead

In Part 4 of this series, we’ll explore the final three principles of meaningful feedback: encouraging positive self-perception, providing opportunities to close the gap, and extrapolating information to move forward. These principles bring the series full circle, showing how feedback can become a tool not just for improving student work, but for building student confidence and agency.

A note on practice: The strategies described below — the learning journal, the “Big Three” feedforward exercise, personal learning goals — are things I draw on selectively, not a checklist I run through with every class and every task. Now that most of my teaching is in person, a lot of the most meaningful feedback work happens informally: in the margins of a conversation, in a quick exchange after class, in the moment when a student asks the right question. The structured practices described here are real, but they live alongside a lot of improvisation — which, I’d argue, is where the actual teaching happens.

References

Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013). Rethinking models of feedback for learning: The challenge of design. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(6), 698–712. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2012.691462

Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315–1325. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354

Cowan, M., Evans-Tokaryk, T., Farooqi, A., Kaler, M., & Graham, A. (2021). Phrasing feedback to improve students’ writing in a large first-year humanities course. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 15(2), Article 15. https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2021.150215

Dekker, H., Schönrock-Adema, J., Snoek, J. W., van der Molen, T., & Cohen-Schotanus, J. (2013). Which characteristics of written feedback are perceived as stimulating students’ reflective competence: An exploratory study. BMC Medical Education, 13, Article 94. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-13-94

Nicol, D. J., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090

Sadler, D. R. (2010). Beyond feedback: Developing student capability in complex appraisal. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 535–550. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930903541015

Saeed, M. A., AbuSa’aleek, A. O., & Al Qunayeer, H. S. (2022). The role of tutor’s questioning in mentoring learners’ responses to and uptake of feedback on writing. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(3), 636–649. DOI: 10.17509/ijal.v11i3.34600

Winstone, N. E., Nash, R. A., Parker, M., & Rowntree, J. (2017). Supporting learners’ agentic engagement with feedback: A systematic review and a taxonomy of recipience processes. Educational Psychologist, 52(1), 17–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1207538

SciSpace was used to support the literature search, reference verification, and structural drafting of this post. All ideas, examples, and professional reflections are my own.