Sasidaran Gopalan1,*, and Mark GAN Joo Seng2
1Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (LKYSPP), National University of Singapore (NUS)
2Centre for Teaching, Learning, and Technology (CTLT), NUS
Sub-Theme
Building Learning Relationships
Keywords
Dynamic feedback loops, feedback talk, reflective practice, teacher feedback literacy, informal formative assessment, dialogic feedback
Category
Paper Presentation
The transformative potential of timely, constructive, and formative feedback in the context of higher education has been well-recognised by scholars in the pedagogical literature. Going back to Heron (1976)’s canonical framework, one can broadly identify two key approaches to feedback— authoritative and facilitative. While the authoritative approach places considerable degree of emphasis on the instructor’s direction and expertise in offering feedback (which can either be prescriptive, or informative, or confrontational), the facilitative approach brings a more shared understanding to the feedback style of the instructor (it can be catalytic or supportive or even cathartic). Since Heron’s foundational work, a growing literature has advanced some key pedagogical frameworks that offer multiple pathways to engage with feedback as a crucial tool to improve teaching and learning practices. For instance, feedback can be viewed as a self-regulatory tool promoting student autonomy and engagement (Sadler, 1989; Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006), or as a dialogic process (Boud & Molloy, 2013) co-constructed through conversation. Instructors could also envision feedback as a sustainable process (Carless et al., 2011) that facilitates student agency and literacy (Winstone et al., 2017), while also fostering trust in the classroom (Bayraktar et al., 2025).
In this paper, we illustrate the use of ‘Exit Cards’ as an informal formative assessment tool to solicit students’ written feedback about their learning. Using preliminary data (N = 25 [12 males]) from a pilot exercise conducted in a graduate course entitled “Macroeconomics for Public Policy” at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (LKYSPP), our study attempts to conceptualise a theoretical lens (‘CREST framework’) which will assist faculty members to thematically analyse the feedback gathered from students in an intuitive yet insightful way. We envisage that this important (dynamic) feedback loop will enhance the development of reflective practitioners and in turn, benefit our students’ learning, while also fostering trust in the classroom. Our study is guided by this broad research question: How to design feedback to be a reflective educator?
CREST refers to the following feedback characteristics (see Figure 1):
Figure 1. A ‘CREST’ framework to analyse feedback
.
“C” captures concerns about the material (or the pace of the class). “R” refers to requests to cover additional topics or augment the class with more educational resources. “E” refers to the endorsement of the instructor’s pedagogical style from the student’s perspective. “S” captures the search for conceptual clarity and indirectly also showcases students’ understanding of the concepts taught. “T” refers to the trust in the process that is visible through self-introspection and self-perceived progression. In summary, it is derived from the various characteristics of the feedback provided by the students on a weekly basis.
Theoretically, the CREST framework is our attempt to formalise and operationalise the notion of ‘feedback talk,’ which has gained traction in recent years. A nascent but growing literature has argued for the need to transition from considering feedback as merely an input (‘cognitivist information transmission’) to a two-way dialogic process (‘socio-constructivist’) (Ajjawi & Boud, 2017; Ajjawi & Boud, 2018; and Heron et al. 2021).
We identify four key takeaways from our preliminary analysis of this ‘feedback talk’ through the CREST framework (Figure 2). First, we document progression of students’ conceptual learning through the course of semester. Second, we observe that students showed a marked improvement in connecting the principles and frameworks discussed in class to other key project deliverables suggesting that iterative feedback loops reinforced their ability to apply concepts meaningfully. Besides improving students’ learning outcomes, we were also able to reflect on and make use of the information from the students to enact dynamic course adjustments (course calibration), ensuring that any areas of concern or confusion were addressed promptly (closing the feedback loop) consistent with the notion of adaptive learning. Finally, we were also able to identify a strong sense of bonding and trust within the classroom through this process. For instance, students who wrote anonymously started getting more comfortable writing down their names as the semester progressed and were more comfortable in having their comments/clarifications addressed openly in the classroom. There was also evidence of self-introspection captured in the feedback indicative of trust in the process and personal growth.
Figure 2. Key takeaways from the dynamic feedback loop process
.
References
Ajjawi, R., & Boud, D. (2015). Researching feedback dialogue: an interactional analysis approach. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(2), 252–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1102863
Ajjawi, R., & Boud, D. (2018). Examining the nature and effects of feedback dialogue. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(7), 1106–1119. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1434128
Bayraktar, B., Ragupathi, K., & Troyer, K. A. (2025). Building trust through feedback: A conceptual framework for educators. Teaching and Learning Inquiry 13 (January), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.13.7
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., Salter, D., Yang, M., & Lam, J. (2011). Developing sustainable feedback practices. Studies in Higher Education, 36(4), 395-407. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075071003642449
Heron, J. (1976). A six-category intervention analysis. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 4(2), 143-155. https://doi.org/10.1080/03069887608256308
Heron, M., Medland, E., Winstone, N., & Pitt, E. (2021). Developing the relational in teacher feedback literacy: Exploring feedback talk. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 48(2), 172–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1932735
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. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119-144. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00117714
Winstone, N., Nash, R. A., Parker, M., & Rowntree, J. (2017). Supporting learners’ 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