1. Vignette: a full margin and a revision that never arrived

The vignette is not a field case, names no university, and measures no effect. It does not show that written comment reduces learning, nor that a grade which rises little is the fault of the margin, nor that students stop reading. Three essays and between forty and sixty comments are features of the composite pattern, not data from a classroom. Nor is it claimed that every monologue is useless: a precise indication gives direction when there is an occasion to use it.

The question is a different one. If the margin can be full and the next revision does not arrive, what is missing for written information to be formative feedback? The recent literature does not answer with more ink. It answers with two conditions that the scene withdraws: feedback literacy, of students and of teachers, and a cycle in which the information is interpreted, negotiated, and acted upon. The path runs from that literacy to the cycle that makes uptake possible.

2. Problem: delivering comments is not formative feedback

Any text the teacher writes about the student’s text is called feedback, and any return that precedes the final grade is called formative. Neither feature is enough. Delivering comments is transmitting information. Formative feedback is a process: that information is interpreted, appraised, and used. If that does not occur, the comment may be apt and still not be formative. Jwa (2025) objects to the transmissive view: feedback is dialogic. Carless and Young (2025) locate the knot in uptake, the purposeful use of what has been written: the potential of the process and its difficulty at once.

The distinction bears on assessment and on the curriculum. If quality is recognised in comments, rubrics, or dates of return, the arrangement can reward the monologue. If the calendar reserves no rewriting, no tutorial, and no peer discussion, the next grade records another product, not the use of the earlier information. Nedrehagen et al. (2025) start from a dissatisfaction already reported by students and teachers, and from practices that are often summative rather than formative. That premise does not prove a format. It prevents the comment from being taken for the process.

Written comment is not, by itself, formative feedback. Uptake depends on the feedback literacy of students and of teachers, and on dialogic practices, written or oral, that allow interpretation, negotiation, and action. Beliefs, regimes, discipline, and culture condition what is recognised as feedback and what is achieved. Designing feedback is designing conditions for conversation. The question takes PCC form. The population is university students and teachers. The concept is feedback literacy and dialogue in formative feedback. The context is assessment practice in higher education. The question is not how many comments it is advisable to write, but what reviews, scales, interventions, and dialogic designs show about uptake. Each claim is marked as an empirical finding, a review finding, a conceptual framework, or a design inference. Where the abstract supplies no figure, none is invented.

3. Framework: feedback literacy and dialogue as practice

This section fixes the conceptual framework. Student feedback literacy is the set of attitudes and abilities for making sense of information and using it, as formulated by Woitt et al. (2025). Lei and Lei (2026) describe the shift from skill towards context-sensitive frameworks: interpreting, evaluating, and acting, with a growing role for teachers in designing the environment. That triad is the core of this review. Reading the margin is not enough. The Capacity–Relationship–Context framework, which integrates the cognitive, the affective, and the environmental, is a conceptual proposal, not a validated instrument.

From a social constructivist perspective, uptake is not the private receipt of a correct message. Carless and Young (2025) ground it in the interaction through which inferences are co-constructed, and they define feedback literacy as the capacity to use information productively. They follow one undergraduate for four years, with a co-researcher: all the written feedback, the shared analysis and plans, their enactment, and the diary. The finding moves through three stages: appreciating feedback, strengthening resilience in the face of criticism, and managing uptake. Successful uptake is linked to self-efficacy. They propose an idealised model. As a reading inference, the design is already dialogue: there was no margin without an interlocutor, and a single case does not estimate prevalence.

Teacher feedback literacy is the work of designing, managing, and sustaining practices that make uptake possible. Istencioglu et al. (2026) recognise it as a multifaceted, improvable, relational, and situated capacity; the detail comes later. Heron et al. (2023) enter only through the object of the title: developing the relational by means of feedback talk. The abstract repeats the title and reports no results; no finding is attributed to them about how teachers talk. The citation is conceptual: formative feedback is relational, not a self-sufficient text. Dialogue, oral or written, is distinguished from monologue because the information is interpreted in common and leaves an action. De Kleijn (2023) will propose four actions for the student; their efficacy remains to be validated.

4. Method: narrative review focused on literacy and dialogue

The design is a critical narrative review, not a meta-analysis: the designs do not share a metric. The question is what the recent higher education literature can claim about feedback literacy and dialogue when the problem is uptake. The unit of reading is the deposited abstract or, where none exists, the title. Coefficients that the abstract does not contain are not reconstructed.

The search was documented on 14 October 2026 in the Crossref REST API, without Scopus, Web of Science, or ERIC as databases of this review. There were 16 queries of 60 rows each, limited to journal articles from 2021: 960 records, and 615 after duplicates were removed. Automatic eligibility required an author, a year no earlier than 2021, and, in the title or the journal, a term for feedback, formative assessment, or dialogue together with a term for higher education, students, or learning. Eighteen records were excluded for lack of an author, none for year, 60 for lack of a feedback term, 41 for lack of a higher education term, and 21 as off topic. That left 475. The seed file contains 473. The difference of two records is not interpreted as a substantive exclusion, because the flow does not document its cause. Table 1 gathers these figures.

Manual screening used title and abstract, with neither double-blinding nor two reviewers. Priority went to feedback literacy, dialogue, formative practices, reviews, scales, and interventions. Work centred on generative artificial intelligence, early childhood education, technical models, corrections, basic education without a university, and conceptual duplicates was set aside. Twenty-four articles were included, all from the seed. Twenty-three have an abstract. Weng et al. (2024) are retained only for the title. An empirical finding names a result reported in the abstract of a primary study. A review finding names a synthesis produced by others. A conceptual framework names definitions and models that are not presented as evidence of efficacy. A design inference names a consequence for assessment or the curriculum that this review draws and that the sources did not measure as such.

Table 1. Identification and screening flow in Crossref, documented on 14 October 2026. Figures from the flow file, not effect sizes.

StepRecords
Queries retrieved (16 × 60 rows)960
After duplicates were removed615
Excluded for lack of an author18
Excluded for a year earlier than 20210
Excluded for lack of a feedback term60
Excluded for lack of a higher education term41
Excluded as off topic21
After automatic eligibility475
Records in the seed file473
Included after manual screening24
With a usable abstract23
Retained only for the object of the title1

5. What counts as feedback practice according to teachers

Before asking whether students use a comment, it is necessary to know whether teachers call the same things feedback. Chan and Luo (2022) examine the question in ten workshops at a university in Hong Kong. 248 teachers indicated, through Poll Everywhere, whether they recognised six types of common practice as feedback, and they discussed their reasons. The abstract does not name the six types and does not give percentages. It does ask, by way of example, whether a rubric is feedback. The empirical finding is variation: perceptions differ and may be related to different purposes. The article asks that this plurality be recognised. It does not measure whether aligning perceptions improves learning. It shows that the object is in dispute.

Without agreement on what counts as a feedback practice, teacher feedback literacy cannot be aligned. Teaching people to comment better assumes that the margin, the rubric, the conference, and the grade share the same status. Chan and Luo (2022) do not authorise that assumption. Part of teacher feedback literacy is to distinguish purposes and to say, with students, which purpose is in play. The vignette is incomplete in another way: a shared name may be missing for what the teacher believes has been delivered. The next section turns to the student side, where research treats the object as stable enough to measure, to predict, and to try to improve.

6. Student feedback literacy: scales, predictors, and interventions

Woitt et al. (2025) offer an initial validation of a self-report instrument with 221 participants, built from a broad item pool. Exploratory factor analysis and the Rasch model support two dimensions—attitudes and practices—with 21 items and criterion validity. The scale can still be improved. The finding is psychometric: valuing feedback is not the same as practising it, and self-report is at present the route most fully developed. The abstract does not link a score to a better rewrite, and it does not state a country. The 21 items are not a classroom diagnosis.

Zhan et al. (2025) model, with structural equations, 727 undergraduates in Cambodia. The complexity of epistemic beliefs has a positive influence, both direct and indirect, through critical thinking. The source dimension has a direct positive influence, but an indirect negative influence through that mediator. Justification helps only along the indirect path. Certainty has a direct negative effect. No coefficients are reported. The authors conclude that dialectical beliefs and critical thinking should be cultivated. To predict is not to intervene, and the sample does not export itself to another system.

Little et al. (2024) review interventions in a scoping design. There is a great deal of theory and little intervention research. They find evidence of improvement in perceptions and attitudes, and of greater confidence and agency. Some interventions have an effect; better study designs and better intervention designs are needed. They do not report how many studies were included, nor an effect size. That feedback literacy can improve does not mean that any workshop improves it.

Lei and Lei (2026) synthesise 81 studies, empirical and theoretical, from 2012 to 2025. Alongside the turn towards context-sensitive frameworks, constructivist, sociocultural, and ecological perspectives predominate, together with self-regulated learning and academic literacies. Measurement has grown since 2021, skewed towards student self-report, with little cross-cultural validation and few tools for teachers. The interventions include workshops, technology-based tools, course-embedded practices, and longitudinal mentoring. The most consistent gains appear where iteration, dialogue, and reflection sit inside the curriculum. What persists is reliance on self-report, the scarcity of teacher feedback literacy, and an uneven geography. Those 81 studies are their corpus, not the corpus of this review, and the pattern is not a meta-analysis.

Zheng et al. (2026) look at behaviour: providing, seeking, and using information, and managing affect. Over one semester, peer feedback, teacher feedback, and self-assessment were combined with Chinese writers of English as a foreign language, of lower and of higher proficiency. Both groups improved significantly; the lower-proficiency group showed a greater overall gain. No magnitude is given. Improved learning remains a possibility, not an outcome. The design does not separate the effect of each source. It shows that behaviour can shift, and that proficiency at the start is not neutral.

Table 2 does not compare effects. Weng et al. (2024) are omitted: without an abstract, any cell would be invented. Nothing in this table shows that an abundant margin produces uptake.

Table 2. Student feedback literacy. The contribution paraphrases the abstract, with no coefficients added.

StudyDesignContribution to literacy
Woitt et al. (2025)Initial self-report (N = 221); exploratory factor analysis and Rasch21 items: attitudes and practices
Zhan et al. (2025)Structural equations; 727 students in CambodiaEpistemic beliefs and mediation by critical thinking
Little et al. (2024)Scoping review of interventionsGains in perception, confidence, and agency; designs still to be refined
Lei and Lei (2026)Systematic review; 81 studies (2012–2025)Iteration, dialogue, and reflection; Capacity–Relationship–Context framework
Zheng et al. (2026)One semester: peers, teacher, and self-assessmentBehavioural improvement; greater gain at lower proficiency
Carless and Young (2025)Four years with one studentSocial constructivist uptake and an idealised model

7. Written dialogue, peers, and receiver roles

Jwa (2025) proposes a cyclical model of written dialogue, in three stages, for English as a foreign language. The abstract does not name the stages. Interviews with Korean students, and their texts, are read across the affective, the behavioural, and the cognitive. The finding concerns agency: monitoring, evaluating, and regulating learning. Practice, they say, often remains monologic. There is no sample size and no comparison group. When the comment enters a cycle, those behaviours appear. The direction is close to that of Zheng et al. (2026); the metric is not.

Wood (2022) studies 14 undergraduates at a university in South Korea. Technology-mediated dialogic peer feedback does more than sharpen judgement of quality: it helps students navigate uptake. Online dialogues made it possible to elaborate actionable points and to work through the socio-affective and the relational, in recursive discussions over time. No platform is named. It is not inferred that a programme is required. It is inferred that the repeated peer makes actionable the information that a unilateral comment usually leaves unspoken.

Zhu and To (2022) observe the receiver, in a first-year English writing course in China, using recordings, stimulated recall, and diaries. The roles run from respondent to verifier, explicator, negotiator, seeker, and generator. Whoever takes them up monitors the text, evaluates the comment, and co-produces it; the writing and the judgement of the person who comments also improve. No number of participants is given. Proactivity makes the exchange formative for both parties. “I did not know where to start” sits at the quieter pole. Developing feedback literacy includes teaching students how to receive.

Liu et al. (2026) compare eight weeks and two intact intermediate classes in disciplinary academic writing: teacher feedback (N = 35) and peer feedback (N = 36). The quantitative results indicate that the teacher may have a stronger and more immediate impact; that qualification belongs to the abstract. The teacher-feedback group valued the global, sought support in order to interpret it, and regulated emotion, with difficulty in the face of vagueness and at the point of revision. The peer group valued the local, consulted several sources, exercised judgement, and showed caution because of inaccuracies and limited disciplinary relevance, with mixed emotions. The sources do not substitute for one another. Caution towards the peer is part of the pattern.

Weng et al. (2024), according to the title, study the effects of peer feedback in English writing classes on the written feedback literacy of students of English as a foreign language. There is no abstract and therefore neither a direction nor a sample. What is said here about peers comes from Wood (2022), Zhu and To (2022), or Liu et al. (2026).

Nedrehagen et al. (2025) map dialogic formative feedback in a preregistered scoping review reported with PRISMA. With a librarian, they searched ERIC, Scopus, CINAHL, the Teacher Reference Center, and grey literature; two reviewers screened the records. 40 sources were included. Cognitive growth and self-regulation predominate, often in a small group. Outcomes fall into cognitive and affective measures (n = 11) or student experiences (n = 10); less often into the teacher experience (n = 2) or achievement (n = 5). Those figures do not exhaust the forty. They do not authorise a promise of better grades.

8. Teacher feedback literacy: design, beliefs, and regimes

Istencioglu et al. (2026) treat teacher feedback literacy as an emerging field: designing, delivering, and sustaining the practices on which student feedback literacy would depend. The scoping map recognises it as a multifaceted, improvable, relational, and situated capacity. It is assessed in several ways, including scales, but above all through qualitative methods and established frameworks. It can be developed through situated reflection and specific training. The evidence is narrow in discipline and in geography, and it remains at the micro level. Clearer concepts, more varied designs, and wider contexts are still needed. It is not a sympathy for dialogue, nor a skill for filling margins.

Tam (2025) interviews 22 educators at universities in Hong Kong and collects their diaries. Four patterns of belief appear: knowledge-oriented, social learning, relationship-building, and technology-mediated. The first evaluates from authority and from criteria. The second trusts discussion and revision among peers. The third seeks bonds that lower anxiety, for example in conferences. The fourth uses technology for more efficient exchanges and promotes artificial intelligence tools for evaluating drafts. Each person combines at least two patterns and gives priority to one. Asking for dialogue without knowing which pattern governs can collide with a different coherence. Those tools are a feature of one pattern, not the object of this article.

Xu et al. (2024) follow two teachers of second-language writing for doctoral publication, at a research-intensive university in China. The situated framework has two dimensions. Design is integrated, purposeful, and enabling, aligned with the curriculum and with its constraints. Management seeks to make feedback happen, to develop skills, and to attend to internal and external interactions, with variable involvement. Two people do not represent the teaching staff. They do separate annotating from managing. The vignette does the first and not the second.

Carless (2023) speaks of regimes: contexts that hold practices in place. Longitudinal interviews with six recipients of an award, feedback artefacts, and an interview with the person who instigated the award show three elements: designing for uptake, looking at students’ responses, and adjusting practice. Discipline and workload facilitate or restrain. Change is thought through salience, congruence, and value: useful for the learner and satisfying for the teacher. The award does not “produce” literacy. In someone already recognised, literacy is visible in the design, the response, and the adjustment. A margin without time for a tutorial fits a regime that values delivery and not continuation. That is an inference, not a datum of that study about the vignette.

Esterhazy et al. (2023) film peer-mentoring meetings. Teachers review feedback encounters with postgraduate students and plan further ones, by sharing cases, asking questions, and imagining. What enters the talk is the context, the candidate’s responses, the strategies, and the relational and emotional dimensions. Feedback literacy includes enacting, reviewing, and planning. It is not said how many people took part or how many meetings were held. De Kleijn (2023) proposes a further piece: that the student seek the information, make sense of it, use it, and respond to it, with prompts for each step, alongside someone with greater knowledge and within the zone of proximal development. The proposal is meant to sustain both literacies. Efficacy is left for later. It is a proposal, not a finding. Turning it into a course checklist would anticipate that validation.

Heron et al. (2024) narrow the focus to the observation of teaching and to the conversation that follows. Observation is supposed to improve teaching, yet little is known about the person who observes and the person who is observed, and there is little guidance drawn from evidence. They offer a framework of observational feedback literacy—the design of the session and moment-to-moment talk—and they ask that the observed person be allowed to act. The framework is conceptual. To infer that, among teachers as well, a comment is not formative by itself is to extend that framework; it is not a result of theirs. The setting is part of feedback literacy, without making one person the cause of uptake.

9. Cultural, disciplinary, and modality conditions

Gálvez-López (2025) reviews formative feedback in multicultural classrooms, under conditions of mobility and of globalised teaching practices. Little is known about how culture interacts with student-centred practice, and dialogue is exposed to expectations. There are three variations: perception, feedback as communication, and the affective and interpersonal domain. There are three strategies in the face of the clashes; the abstract does not name them, and they are not named here. A comment that in one tradition is care may, in another, be discourtesy or vagueness. The resilience discussed by Carless and Young (2025) and the affect discussed by Zheng et al. (2026) do not float free of that expectation.

Malecka et al. (2022) follow the passage between contexts, not only between countries. Five participants—undergraduate, one direct-entry access route, and postgraduate—contribute electronic portfolios from the access programme and two interviews separated by about a year. Feedback histories weigh on the new context. It is worth naming those histories and connecting courses. The authors call for study of microtransitions and of the use of materials. Five cases do not yield a prevalence. They show that feedback literacy does not restart when the subject changes, and that it does not travel alone.

Vaughan and N. Uribe (2024) start from the growth of distance education since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. They reread an online model: how others cited it, how they adjusted it for a postgraduate programme taught entirely online, and how it aligns with four features of feedback literacy that the abstract does not list. They underline formative tasks that leave room to apply the feedback, and an individualised dialogue. They do not settle whether the model develops feedback literacy. Without that room, the online modality can repeat the monologue inside a file. This is a design inference, not a test of efficacy.

For Mexico and Latin America, these abstracts contain neither a primary study of the region nor a prevalence. The inference is one of caution. If perception, communication, and affect vary (Gálvez-López, 2025), importing margins or peers without attending to those planes is a risk, not a local datum. If histories cross courses (Malecka et al., 2022), a change of modality does not transfer feedback literacy. If the online mode requires time in which to use the information and an individual dialogue (Vaughan and N. Uribe, 2024), that can be tested; it does not audit regional provision. The agenda is what counts as feedback, and which regime sustains comment without conversation.

10. Discussion: from monologue to the dialogue cycle

The comment stops at the point of delivery, and Chan and Luo (2022) make it impossible to treat the object as unanimous. Feedback literacy is measured (Woitt et al., 2025), is associated with beliefs and with critical thinking (Zhan et al., 2025), and shifts when iteration and dialogue are placed in the course (Little et al., 2024; Lei and Lei, 2026). Zheng et al. (2026) see a greater behavioural gain when proficiency at the start is low. Dialogue socialises that use: co-construction (Carless and Young, 2025), a written cycle (Jwa, 2025), a repeated peer (Wood, 2022), and active reception (Zhu and To, 2022), without equating the sources (Liu et al., 2026) and without promising a grade (Nedrehagen et al., 2025). Whether the cycle can be fitted in depends on design (Xu et al., 2024), on beliefs (Tam, 2025), on the regime (Carless, 2023), on colleagues (Esterhazy et al., 2023), on a scaffold that has not been validated (de Kleijn, 2023), and on the conversation that follows observation of a class (Heron et al., 2024). Heron et al. (2023) only name the relational. Culture, courses, and modality decide whether the design travels (Gálvez-López, 2025; Malecka et al., 2022; Vaughan and N. Uribe, 2024). Weng et al. (2024) add no result.

Moment of the cycleMonologue in the marginDialogic cycle
CommentThe return ends when the margin or the rubric is handed over.The comment informs; it does not close the episode.
Shared interpretation“Develop” or “source?” are left for the student to decipher alone.Meaning is negotiated with the teacher, with a peer, or through a guided self-assessment.
Action and rewritingThere is no tutorial and no compulsory rewrite.There is an action: to seek, to use, to respond, or to rewrite.
New evidence of learningThe next grade is not read as evidence of the process.The new version re-enters the cycle and may change the design.
Figure 1. Conceptual scheme, not a fabricated datum: from monologic comment to the feedback-dialogue cycle, inferred from the review.

Figure 1 is not the model of Carless and Young (2025), nor the stages that Jwa (2025) does not name, nor the four activities of de Kleijn (2023). It organises this review: the monologue remains in the first cell. As a design inference, it is fitting to agree the object before training; to design for uptake and not for volume; to combine sources without equating them; to teach how to receive; and to embed iteration and dialogue in the course, where Lei and Lei (2026) locate the most consistent gains and where Little et al. (2024) call for better designs. Workload, beliefs, and culture are the regime, not noise. Experience or affect is not the same as a grade.

The thesis would collapse, in this corpus, if uptake appeared with the monologue alone, or if feedback literacy improved without dialogue, without iteration, or without more than one source. That is not the case. Nor is there a common effect: the improvement reported by Zheng et al. (2026) comes with no magnitude. The comment is necessary information and an insufficient process. Feedback literacy is what one has to be able to do. The cycle is where that is seen. Designing feedback is designing the conversation.

11. Limitations

The search is confined to Crossref. ERIC, Scopus, Web of Science, and grey literature were not searched as databases of this review. The map offered by Nedrehagen et al. (2025) does not replace that strategy. Journal articles from 2021 onwards are included; earlier work, such as the 2012–2021 span within Lei and Lei (2026), arrives only inside their synthesis. Fourteen of the 24 texts appear in Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education and four in Teaching in Higher Education. Five further journals, also Anglophone, complete the set. The sites that are named cluster in Hong Kong, China, South Korea, and Cambodia. Several abstracts give no country. None reports a primary study in Latin America.

Twenty-three sources are read through the abstract. Weng et al. (2024) are included by title, and Heron et al. (2023) by an abstract that repeats the title and reports no results. Omitting coefficients, or the names of stages, that the full text might contain is deliberate. There is no meta-analysis and no double-blind screening. Priority was given to feedback literacy, dialogue, interventions, and reviews, not to a sample of everything that passes as feedback. The vignette is composite. Technology appears only when a source brings it in—the online peer, the distance model, a pattern of belief that includes artificial intelligence tools, technological interventions inside a review—and technology is not the thesis.

12. Conclusions

Delivering written comments is not formative feedback. A full margin, and a grade that barely moves, do not demonstrate learning. Information becomes a process when someone can interpret it, evaluate it, and act on it, and when the setting allows that action to be seen again. That use is called uptake; the capacities, feedback literacy; the arrangement with another person, dialogue. Keeping them apart avoids counting comments and treating the process as already achieved.

Student feedback literacy can be described as attitudes and practices: 21 items and 221 people in an initial validation, not a classroom standard. Among 727 students in Cambodia it is associated with epistemic beliefs and with critical thinking, along paths that are not the same. There are gains in perception, confidence, and agency, and a synthesis of 81 studies in which the most consistent pattern coincides with iteration, dialogue, and reflection. One semester with three sources improves behaviour, and the improvement is greater at lower proficiency, without a magnitude and without learning as a closed outcome. A four-year case does not fix a prevalence, and a workshop does not suffice merely because it exists.

The written cycle is associated with monitoring, evaluating, and regulating, set against the monologue that remains usual. The peer makes uptake more actionable when the receiver does not stop at responding, and the peer does not repeat the teacher: one attends to the global, the other to the local, with a greater risk of error. The dialogic map speaks of self-regulation and leaves achievement still open. On the teacher’s side, design, beliefs, students’ responses, and review among colleagues matter; workload can restrain that work. Seeking, making sense, using, and responding still await validation. Culture shifts perception and affect; histories cross from one course to another; online study needs time in which the information can be used. Weng et al. (2024) leave an object, not an effect.

For the curriculum, the consequence is an inference. Feedback is not improved by adding further annotations. It is improved by agreeing what counts, by opening a shared interpretation, by requiring an action, and by reading the next version as evidence of the process. The sources are not interchangeable. Beliefs and workload are designed; they are not merely endured. In Mexico and Latin America this claim does not rest on a regional finding inside the corpus. It rests on the absence of such a finding, and on the variation observed in other contexts. What remains is to investigate what is recognised as feedback, and what cycle can fit the regime that actually exists. Designing feedback is designing conditions for conversation. The margin can open those conditions. It does not constitute them.

NEXTECH.IA Editorial Lab / Ingeniero Mitre

References

  1. Carless, D. (2023). Teacher feedback literacy, feedback regimes and iterative change: towards enhanced value in feedback processes. Higher Education Research & Development, 42(8), 1890–1904. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2023.2203472
  2. Carless, D., & Young, S. (2025). Towards an idealized model of feedback uptake: longitudinal development of feedback literacy from a social constructivist perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 50(8), 1641–1653. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2024.2389436
  3. Chan, C. K. Y., & Luo, J. (2022). Exploring teacher perceptions of different types of ‘feedback practices’ in higher education: implications for teacher feedback literacy. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(1), 61–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1888074
  4. de Kleijn, R. A. M. (2023). Supporting student and teacher feedback literacy: an instructional model for student feedback processes. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 48(2), 186–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1967283
  5. Esterhazy, R., de Lange, T., & Damşa, C. (2023). Performing teacher feedback literacy in peer mentoring meetings. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 48(2), 227–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1980768
  6. Gálvez-López, E. (2025). Formative feedback in a multicultural classroom: a review. Teaching in Higher Education, 30(2), 463–482. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2023.2186169
  7. Heron, M., Donaghue, H., & Balloo, K. (2024). Observational feedback literacy: designing post observation feedback for learning. Teaching in Higher Education, 29(8), 2061–2074. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2023.2191786
  8. Heron, M., Medland, E., Winstone, N., & Pitt, E. (2023). 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
  9. Istencioglu, T., Boud, D., Dawson, P., & Yang, L. (2026). Teacher feedback literacy as an emerging field: a scoping review. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2026.2631533
  10. Jwa, S. (2025). Written Feedback Dialogue: A Cyclical Model for Student Engagement with Feedback. TESOL Quarterly, 59(2), 1024–1035. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3365
  11. Lei, W., & Lei, Z. (2026). A systematic review of feedback literacy in higher education: concepts, measurement, and interventions. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2026.2656285
  12. Little, T., Dawson, P., Boud, D., & Tai, J. (2024). Can students’ feedback literacy be improved? A scoping review of interventions. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 49(1), 39–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2023.2177613
  13. Liu, J., Shi, Z., & Li, W. (2026). Teacher and peer feedback effects on student feedback literacy in disciplinary academic writing. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2026.2661357
  14. Malecka, B., Boud, D., Tai, J., & Ajjawi, R. (2022). Navigating feedback practices across learning contexts: implications for feedback literacy. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(8), 1330–1344. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2022.2041544
  15. Nedrehagen, E., Vee, T. S., Stokstad, J. M., & Orm, S. (2025). A scoping review of dialogic formative feedback practices in higher education. Frontiers in Education, 10, Article 1696703. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1696703
  16. Tam, A. C. F. (2025). Unpacking teacher beliefs on feedback: shaping multifaceted teacher feedback literacy. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 50(5), 661–676. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2025.2451086
  17. Vaughan, M., & N. Uribe, S. (2024). Re-examining our feedback model: strategies for enhancing student learning and cultivating feedback literacy through formative assessments. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 49(5), 711–723. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2024.2323468
  18. Weng, F., Zhao, C. G., & Chen, S. (2024). Effects of peer feedback in English writing classes on EFL students’ writing feedback literacy. Assessing Writing, 61, 100874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2024.100874
  19. Woitt, S., Weidlich, J., Jivet, I., Orhan Göksün, D., Drachsler, H., & Kalz, M. (2025). Students’ feedback literacy in higher education: an initial scale validation study. Teaching in Higher Education, 30(1), 257–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2023.2263838
  20. Wood, J. (2022). Making peer feedback work: the contribution of technology-mediated dialogic peer feedback to feedback uptake and literacy. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(3), 327–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1914544
  21. Xu, L., Hu, J., Li, H., & Li, J. (2024). L2 writing teachers’ feedback practices for doctoral publishing: a teacher feedback literacy perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 49(6), 864–877. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2024.2333932
  22. Zhan, Y., Wan, Z. H., & Khon, M. (2025). What predicts undergraduates’ student feedback literacy? Impacts of epistemic beliefs and mediation of critical thinking. Teaching in Higher Education, 30(4), 843–861. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2023.2280268
  23. Zheng, Q., Boud, D., & Dawson, P. (2026). Using peer feedback, teacher feedback and self-assessment to enhance students’ feedback literacy behaviour. Higher Education Research & Development, 45(3), 831–846. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2025.2549403
  24. Zhu, Q., & To, J. (2022). Proactive receiver roles in peer feedback dialogue: Facilitating receivers’ self-regulation and co-regulating providers’ learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(8), 1200–1212. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.2017403