Journal Evaluation in Education (JEE)
Journal Evaluation in Education (JEE)

an Open Access Journal

SINTA

1.6519

Impact

GScholar

16

H-Index

Journal Evaluation in Education (JEE)

an Open Access Journal

Communicative Willingness in Dialogic Feedback: A Relational Extension of Feedback Literacy

Landry Dwiyoga Daniswara ORCID
Universitas Negeri Surabaya ROR
Indonesia
landrydaniswara@unesa.ac.id
Share

  • Purpose of the study: Dialogic feedback assumes that students will respond to evaluative comments through clarification, negotiation, or further discussion. However, students do not always turn internal feedback processing into visible dialogue, especially in hierarchical performance settings where speaking may feel risky. This study examined how undergraduate debaters constructed communicative willingness when responding to coach feedback and aimed to extend feedback literacy theory by theorising this relational decision point.

    Methodology: This study used a constructivist grounded theory design. Twelve second and third-year undergraduate debaters were selected through purposive sampling from a one-semester university debate preparation program. Data were generated through two semi-structured interviews with each participant, observations of 16 feedback sessions, and relevant artefacts such as feedback sheets and notes. Analysis involved initial coding, focused coding, constant comparison, memo writing, and theoretical integration.

    Main Findings: Students' communicative willingness developed through an iterative process of interpreting feedback, regulating affect, assessing relational safety, negotiating possible consequences, and then enacting or withholding dialogue. Silence did not automatically indicate disengagement, because many students continued reflecting on and using feedback privately. Communicative willingness increased when prior interactions suggested that students' voices would be received respectfully.

    Novelty/Originality of this study: This study introduces communicative willingness as a relationally constructed mediating process between managing affect and dialogic enactment within feedback literacy. It shows that dialogic opportunities alone do not guarantee participation because students also judge safety, legitimacy, and exposure before speaking.

  • How to cite

    [1]
    “Communicative Willingness in Dialogic Feedback: A Relational Extension of Feedback Literacy”, Jor. Eva. Edu, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 500–512, Apr. 2026, doi: 10.37251/jee.v7i2.2847.

    More Citation Formats

  • 83
    Abstract views
    44
    Downloads

    Metrics — Badges

    1. R. Ajjawi and D. Boud, “Examining the nature and effects of feedback dialogue,” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 43, pp. 1106–1119, 2020, doi: 10.1080/02602938.2018.1434128. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1434128
    2. A. T. Steen-Utheim and A. L. Wittek, “Dialogic feedback and potentialities for student learning,” Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, vol. 15, pp. 18–30, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.lcsi.2017.06.002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2017.06.002
    3. J. L. Hill and H. West, “Improving the student learning experience through dialogic feed-forward assessment,” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 45, pp. 82–97, 2020, doi: 10.1080/02602938.2019.1608908. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1608908
    4. R. Esterhazy and C. Damşa, “Unpacking the feedback process: An analysis of undergraduate students’ interactional meaning-making of feedback comments,” Studies in Higher Education, vol. 44, pp. 260–274, 2019, doi: 10.1080/03075079.2017.1359249. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1359249
    5. D. Carless, “Longitudinal perspectives on students’ experiences of feedback: A need for teacher–student partnerships,” Higher Education Research & Development, vol. 39, pp. 425–438, 2020, doi: 10.1080/07294360.2019.1684455. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1684455
    6. E. Er, Y. Dimitriadis, and D. Gašević, “A collaborative learning approach to dialogic peer feedback: A theoretical framework,” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 46, pp. 586–600, 2020, doi: 10.1080/02602938.2020.1786497. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1786497
    7. A. Tam, “Undergraduate students’ perceptions of and responses to exemplar-based dialogic feedback,” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 46, pp. 269–285, 2020, doi: 10.1080/02602938.2020.1772957. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1772957
    8. J. To, D. Aluquin, and K. H. K. Tan, “Making student voice heard in dialogic feedback: Feedback design matters,” Frontiers in Education, vol. 10, 2025, doi: 10.3389/feduc.2025.1550328. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1550328
    9. C. Smith, “Design review dialogues: A study of reviewer-student verbal interaction in a signature feedback method,” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 50, pp. 409–421, 2024, doi: 10.1080/02602938.2024.2406856. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2024.2406856
    10. M. A. S. Mohammed and M. A. Alharbi, “Cultivating learners’ technology-mediated dialogue of feedback in writing: Processes, potentials and limitations,” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 47, pp. 942–958, 2021, doi: 10.1080/02602938.2021.1969637. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1969637
    11. J. Qian and D. Li, “Toward a better understanding of student engagement with peer feedback: A longitudinal study,” International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, vol. 63, pp. 709–734, 2023, doi: 10.1515/iral-2023-0108. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2023-0108
    12. M. Chinpakdee, “Talking feedback: Fostering student feedback literacy through a dialogic approach,” RELC Journal, 2025, doi: 10.1177/00336882251346206. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882251346206
    13. Z. Zhang and K. Hyland, “Fostering student engagement with feedback: An integrated approach,” Assessing Writing, vol. 51, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.asw.2021.100586. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2021.100586
    14. D. Carless and D. Boud, “The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback,” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 43, pp. 1315–1325, 2018, doi: 10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354
    15. D. Carless, “From teacher transmission of information to student feedback literacy: Activating the learner role in feedback processes,” Active Learning in Higher Education, vol. 23, pp. 143–153, 2020, doi: 10.1177/1469787420945845. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787420945845
    16. B. Malecka, D. Boud, and D. Carless, “Eliciting, processing and enacting feedback: Mechanisms for embedding student feedback literacy within the curriculum,” Teaching in Higher Education, vol. 27, pp. 908–922, 2020, doi: 10.1080/13562517.2020.1754784. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1754784
    17. E. Molloy, D. Boud, and M. Henderson, “Developing a learning-centred framework for feedback literacy,” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 45, pp. 527–540, 2019, doi: 10.1080/02602938.2019.1667955. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1667955
    18. S. Ramani et al., “Could the R2C2 feedback and coaching model enhance feedback literacy behaviors: A qualitative study exploring learner-preceptor feedback conversations,” Perspectives on Medical Education, vol. 14, pp. 9–19, 2025, doi: 10.5334/pme.1368. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/pme.1368
    19. N. E. Winstone, R. A. Nash, M. J. Parker, and J. Rowntree, “Supporting learners’ agentic engagement with feedback: A systematic review and a taxonomy of recipience processes,” Educational Psychologist, vol. 52, pp. 17–37, 2017, doi: 10.1080/00461520.2016.1207538. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1207538
    20. J. Nieminen and D. Carless, “Feedback literacy: A critical review of an emerging concept,” Higher Education, vol. 85, pp. 1381–1400, 2022, doi: 10.1007/s10734-022-00895-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00895-9
    21. F. Jin et al., “Analytics of self-regulated learning in learning analytics feedback processes: Associations with feedback literacy in secondary education,” J. Comput. Assist. Learn., vol. 41, 2025, doi: 10.1111/jcal.70076. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.70076
    22. C. Johnson, J. Keating, and E. Molloy, “Psychological safety in feedback: What does it look like and how can educators work with learners to foster it?” Medical Education, vol. 54, pp. 559–570, 2020, doi: 10.1111/medu.14154. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14154
    23. V. Rovagnati and E. Pitt, “Exploring intercultural dialogic interactions between individuals with diverse feedback literacies,” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 47, pp. 1057–1070, 2021, doi: 10.1080/02602938.2021.2006601. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.2006601
    24. A. Lipnevich and J. K. Smith, “Student–feedback interaction model: Revised,” Studies in Educational Evaluation, vol. 75, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2022.101208.. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2022.101208
    25. Q. Yu and C. D. Schunn, “Understanding the what and when of peer feedback benefits for performance and transfer,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 147, Art. no. 107857, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2023.107857. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107857
    26. S. Jwa, “Written feedback dialogue: A cyclical model for student engagement with feedback,” TESOL Quarterly, vol. 59, no. 2, 2024, doi: 10.1002/tesq.3365. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3365
    27. C. Brandmo and S. M. Gamlem, “Students’ perceptions and outcome of teacher feedback: A systematic review,” Frontiers in Education, vol. 10, 2025, doi: 10.3389/feduc.2025.1572950. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1572950
    28. S. M. Sari, Y. Suhoyo, D. Mulyana, and M. Claramita, “The interactional communication of feedback in clinical education: A focused ethnographic study in a hierarchical and collectivist culture,” Heliyon, vol. 9, no. 3, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e14263. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e14263
    29. R. Areemit, C. M. Cooper, K. Wirasorn, P. Paopongsawan, C. Panthongviriyakul, and S. Ramani, “Hierarchy, ‘Kreng Jai’ and feedback: A grounded theory study exploring perspectives of clinical faculty and medical students in Thailand,” Teaching and Learning in Medicine, vol. 33, pp. 235–244, 2020, doi: 10.1080/10401334.2020.1813584. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2020.1813584
    30. D. Soemantri, H. Nurokhmanti, N. Qomariyah, and M. Claramita, “The practice of feedback in health professions education in the hierarchical and collectivistic culture: A scoping review,” Medical Science Educator, vol. 32, pp. 1219–1229, 2022, doi: 10.1007/s40670-022-01597-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-022-01597-8
    31. R. F. G. Wiguna and S. A. Felayati, “Lecturers’ feedback as a tool of power: A critical discourse analysis of lecturer feedback in classrooms,” Indonesian Journal of English Language Studies (IJELS), vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 92–100, 2025, doi: 10.24071/ijels.v11i2.11602. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24071/ijels.v11i2.11602
    32. F. Li and Y. Han, “Chinese international students’ identity (re)construction mediated by teacher feedback: Through the lens of academic discourse socialisation,” Journal of English for Academic Purposes, vol. 61, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2022.101211. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2022.101211
    33. L. Xu and J. Hu, “Language feedback responses, voices and identity (re)construction: Experiences of Chinese international doctoral students,” Innovations in Education and Teaching International, vol. 57, pp. 724–735, 2020, doi: 10.1080/14703297.2019.1593214. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2019.1593214
    34. K. Inouye and L. McAlpine, “Developing academic identity: A review of the literature on doctoral writing and feedback,” International Journal of Doctoral Studies, vol. 14, pp.001-031, 2019, doi: 10.28945/4168. DOI: https://doi.org/10.28945/4168
    35. A. Testoni and R. Fernández, “Asking the right question at the right time: Human and model uncertainty guidance to ask clarification questions,” in Proc. 18th Conf. Eur. Chapter Assoc. Comput. Linguistics (EACL), Vol. 1: Long Papers, St. Julian’s, Malta, 2024, pp. 258–275, doi: 10.18653/v1/2024.eacl-long.16 DOI: https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.eacl-long.16
    36. L. Kääntä and G. Kasper, “Clarification requests as a method of pursuing understanding in CLIL physics lectures,” Classroom Discourse, vol. 9, pp. 205–226, 2018, doi: 10.1080/19463014.2018.1477608. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2018.1477608
    37. M. J. Q. Zhang and E. Choi, “Clarify when necessary: Resolving ambiguity through interaction with LMs,” arXiv, Art. no. 2311.09469, 2023, doi: 10.48550/arxiv.2311.09469.
    38. M. Kwok, K. Vela, M. Rugh, Y. Lincoln, R. Capraro, and M. Capraro, “STEM words and their multiple meanings: The intricacies of asking a clarifying question,” Communication Education, vol. 69, pp. 176–198, 2020, doi: 10.1080/03634523.2020.1723803. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2020.1723803
    39. R. Lopez-Ozieblo, “Disagreeing without a ‘no’: How teachers indicate disagreement in a Hong Kong classroom,” Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 137, pp. 1-18, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.08.016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.08.016
    40. R. McQuade, S. Wiggins, E. Ventura-Medina, and T. Anderson, “Knowledge disagreement formulations in problem-based learning tutorials: Balancing pedagogical demands with ‘saving face’,” Classroom Discourse, vol. 9, pp. 227–243, 2018, doi: 10.1080/19463014.2018.1495089. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2018.1495089
    41. A. Kervinen, W.-M. Roth, K. Juuti, and A. Uitto, “‘How stupid can a person be?’ – Students coping with authoritative dimensions of science lessons,” Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, vol. 24, Art. no. 100367, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.100367. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.100367
    42. R. A. L. Dubourcq, G. R. T. D. Marques, T. M. A. Flor, F. M. Q. de Holanda Padilha, M. de F. Costa Caminha, and A. R. Falbo, “Silence profile in problem-based learning: Perception of medicine students,” Rev. Bras. Educ. Médica, vol. 49, no. 2, Art. e071, 2025, doi: 10.1590/1981-5271v49.2-2024-0101.ING. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-5271v49.2-2024-0101.ing
    43. Y. Yue, Y. Jia, and X. Wang, “Self-efficacy and negative silence in the classroom: The mediating role of fear of negative evaluation,” Nurse Education in Practice, vol. 62, Art. no. 103379, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.nepr.2022.103379. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2022.103379
    44. B. Patrick, S. Stockbridge, H. V. Roosa, and J. S. Edelson, “Self-silencing in school: Failures in student autonomy and teacher-student relatedness,” Social Psychology of Education, vol. 22, pp. 943–967, 2019, doi: 10.1007/s11218-019-09511-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-019-09511-8
    45. K. E. Grailey, E. Murray, T. Reader, and S. J. Brett, “The presence and potential impact of psychological safety in the healthcare setting: An evidence synthesis,” BMC Health Services Research, vol. 21, no. 1, Art. no. 773, Aug. 2021, doi: 10.1186/s12913-021-06740-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06740-6
    46. N. N. T. Tra, W. Han, and S. Pill, “Willingness to communicate, L2 self-confidence, and academic self-concept: A mixed-methods study of Vietnamese university students in the UK,” Behavioral Sciences, vol. 15, no. 9, Art. no. 1176, 2025, doi: 10.3390/bs15091176. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15091176
    47. P. Darasawang and H. Reinders, “Willingness to communicate and second language proficiency: A correlational study,” Education Sciences, vol. 11, no. 9, Art. no. 517, 2021, doi: 10.3390/educsci11090517. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11090517
    48. D. Errera and J. J. Rief, “Featuring performance in intercollegiate academic debate pedagogy and practice,” in Local Theories of Argument, New York, NY, USA: Routledge, 2021, pp. 433–438, doi: 10.4324/9781003149026-76. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003149026-76
    49. C. C. Ceneciro, M. Estoque, and J. V. Chavez, “Analysis of debate skills to the learners’ confidence and anxiety in the use of the English language in academic engagements,” Journal of Namibian Studies: History Politics Culture, vol. 33, 2023, doi: 10.59670/jns.v33i.2812. DOI: https://doi.org/10.59670/jns.v33i.2812
    50. L. D. O’Neill, “Assessment of student debates in support of active learning? Students’ perceptions of a debate-based oral final exam,” Active Learning in Higher Education, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 327–343, 2024, doi: 10.1177/14697874241245665. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/14697874241245665
    51. K. Charmaz, “Constructivist grounded theory,” The Journal of Positive Psychology, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 299–300, 2017, doi: 10.1080/17439760.2016.1262612. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1262612
    52. Y. Peng, “Analysing non-verbal interaction within the IRF framework in remote Chinese EFL grammar classrooms,” Journal of Silence Studies in Education, vol. 4, no. 2, 2025, doi: 10.31763/jsse.v4i2.118. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31763/jsse.v4i2.118
    53. S. Wang, M. Moskal, and M. Schweisfurth, “The social practice of silence in intercultural classrooms at a UK university,” Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 600–617, 2020, doi: 10.1080/03057925.2020.1798215. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2020.1798215
    54. A. Bąk-Średnicka, “The agential qualities of silence in post-observation feedback sessions,” Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis, vol. 141, no. 2, 2024, doi: 10.4467/20834624sl.24.013.20463. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4467/20834624SL.24.013.20463
    55. F. V. D. Kleij, L. Adie, and J. Cumming, “A meta-review of the student role in feedback,” International Journal of Educational Research, vol. 98, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2019.09.005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2019.09.005
    56. A. Hanna, “Silence at school: Uses and experiences of silence in pedagogy at a secondary school,” British Educational Research Journal, vol. 47, no. 3, 2021, doi: 10.1002/berj.3719. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3719
    57. H.-T. Hoo, C. Deneen, and D. Boud, “Developing student feedback literacy through self and peer assessment interventions,” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 444–457, 2021, doi: 10.1080/02602938.2021.1925871. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1925871
    58. A. Charalampous and M. Darra, “Review of research on the effect of teacher feedback on the development of students’ non-cognitive skills in primary education,” Journal of Studies in Education, vol. 15, no. 2, 2025, doi: 10.5296/jse.v15i2.22650. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5296/jse.v15i2.22650
    59. Z. Wang, “The impact of teacher feedback on student motivation in online learning environments: A study based on self-determination theory,” Journal of Education, Humanities, and Social Research, 2025, doi: 10.71222/syf4kg35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.71222/syf4kg35
    60. E. Turda, “The impact of teacher’s feedback in increasing student’s self-efficacy and motivation,” in Proc. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences, 2021, doi: 10.15405/epsbs.2021.03.02.52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2021.03.02.52
    61. X. Wang, “Exploring the effect of teacher feedback on students’ self-efficacy,” Journal of Research in Vocational Education, vol. 7, no. 4, 2025, doi: 10.53469/jrve.2025.7(04).03. DOI: https://doi.org/10.53469/jrve.2025.7(04).03
    62. R. Esterhazy, “Re-conceptualizing feedback through a sociocultural lens,” in The Impact of Feedback in Higher Education, Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2019, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-25112-3_5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25112-3_5
    63. L. Adie, F. M. van der Kleij, and J. Cumming, “The development and application of coding frameworks to explore dialogic feedback interactions and self-regulated learning,” British Educational Research Journal, vol. 44, no. 6, 2018, doi: 10.1002/berj.3463. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3463
    64. M. Schillings, H. Roebertsen, H. Savelberg, and D. Dolmans, “A review of educational dialogue strategies to improve academic writing skills,” Active Learning in Higher Education, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 95–108, 2018, doi: 10.1177/1469787418810663. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787418810663
    65. H. Donaghue, “Teachers and supervisors negotiating face during critical account requests in post-observation feedback,” Journal of Politeness Research, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 37–62, 2019, doi: 10.1515/pr-2018-0028. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2018-0028
    66. M. E. Duitsman, M. van Braak, W. J. P. Stommel, M. ten Kate-Booij, J. de Graaf, C. Fluit, and D. Jaarsma, “Using conversation analysis to explore feedback on resident performance,” Advances in Health Sciences Education, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 577–594, 2019, doi: 10.1007/s10459-019-09887-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-019-09887-4
    67. K. Gravett and D. Carless, “Feedback literacy-as-event: Relationality, space and temporality in feedback encounters,” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 142–153, 2023, doi: 10.1080/02602938.2023.2189162. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2023.2189162
    68. K. Gravett, “Feedback literacies as sociomaterial practice,” Critical Studies in Education, vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 261–274, 2020, doi: 10.1080/17508487.2020.1747099. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2020.1747099
    69. D. Carless and S. Young, “Feedback seeking and student reflective feedback literacy: A sociocultural discourse analysis,” Higher Education, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s10734-023-01146-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-01146-1