View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Humanising Feedback Encounters: A Qualitative Study of Relational Literacies for Teachers Engaging in Technology-Enhanced Feedback

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Humanising Feedback Encounters: A Qualitative Study of Relational Literacies for Teachers Engaging in Technology-Enhanced Feedback
Language: English
Authors: Payne, Ameena L. (ORCID 0000-0001-9938-4144), Ajjawi, Rola (ORCID 0000-0003-0651-3870), Holloway, Jessica (ORCID 0000-0001-9267-3197)
Source: Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2023 48(7):903-914.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 12
Publication Date: 2023
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Feedback (Response), Teacher Student Relationship, Educational Technology, Technology Uses in Education, College Faculty, Learner Engagement, Teacher Characteristics, Student Attitudes, College Students
DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2022.2155610
ISSN: 0260-2938
1469-297X
Abstract: Modes of feedback such as audio or video are thought to foster relationality because they humanise feedback encounters. Few studies have examined teacher feedback literacies for relationality. This knowledge gap is significant as students want to be seen by their teachers and for their teachers to express care within the feedback encounter. Teacher feedback literacies are the knowledges, skills and dispositions needed to enhance and sustain a student-centred feedback process. Using a qualitative approach, our research question centred on what teacher feedback literacies and strategies are required to implement relational technology-enhanced feedback. We interviewed 10 higher education teachers with diverse characteristics and identified three teacher literacies for relational technology-enhanced feedback: socio-affective facilitates an awareness to student attitudes toward feedback and teacher self-expression; design empowers a consciousness of the logical arrangement and purpose of feedback to better prepare and engage students; and communication reflects the construction of a deliberate, empathetic message. The implications are for higher education institutions and teachers to consider how the relational can enable the strengths of feedback that can better support and encourage students' engagement with feedback.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2023
Accession Number: EJ1400733
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwH8MmqA4gYtG3sPqjLQxJrpAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDJPmeQFfK4V0uohdkwIBEICBmycPM23nhrXR1crVEKGS6iAwIXCXbDP8gPFeOuvhZTE7nPzS47eW29b9kXAvih_CW0iw7-NpGH75XNBoOCYpXNjFoSmF9nRbRniH7bRKwnDV-Qrg4Jd7ZO6iMPz-GHNRtmAN64zlRnLXb4JDE_4Lo7EAIwkmb0QCODpVkX6pq7gkrkfpURf_9w7KoihMqzaHTH_JaNxmlCgSvfTh
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0173437643;eva01nov.23;2023Nov07.06:21;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0173437643-1">Humanising feedback encounters: a qualitative study of relational literacies for teachers engaging in technology-enhanced feedback </title> <p>Modes of feedback such as audio or video are thought to foster relationality because they humanise feedback encounters. Few studies have examined teacher feedback literacies for relationality. This knowledge gap is significant as students want to be seen by their teachers and for their teachers to express care within the feedback encounter. Teacher feedback literacies are the knowledges, skills and dispositions needed to enhance and sustain a student-centred feedback process. Using a qualitative approach, our research question centred on what teacher feedback literacies and strategies are required to implement relational technology-enhanced feedback. We interviewed 10 higher education teachers with diverse characteristics and identified three teacher literacies for relational technology-enhanced feedback: socio-affective facilitates an awareness to student attitudes toward feedback and teacher self-expression; design empowers a consciousness of the logical arrangement and purpose of feedback to better prepare and engage students; and communication reflects the construction of a deliberate, empathetic message. The implications are for higher education institutions and teachers to consider how the relational can enable the strengths of feedback that can better support and encourage students' engagement with feedback.</p> <p>Keywords: Online education; relationality; teacher feedback literacy; technology-enhanced feedback</p> <hd id="AN0173437643-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Feedback can be understood as a dynamic, social activity (Ajjawi and Regehr [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref1">2</reflink>]) and one that can be a powerful force for learning (Hattie and Timperley [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref2">16</reflink>]). Increasingly, feedback is being reframed as a relational and iterative process rather than an input or product. Technology-enhanced feedback approaches, such as audio or video, are being used to enhance teachers' intentional aims to convey a sense of care and emotion to students (Borup et al. [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref3">6</reflink>]; Henderson and Phillips [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref4">17</reflink>]; Cavaleri et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref5">11</reflink>]; Wood [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref6">30</reflink>]). Technology-enhanced feedback affords teachers' awareness to emotional and relational cues, which are often subverted in traditional written modes of feedback, enhancing the human side of teaching. A shift away from the directive nature of feedback towards a focus on teacher-student relationality is found to increase affect and motivation, and to foster trust between students and teachers (Mahoney, Macfarlane, and Ajjawi [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref7">23</reflink>]). Trust is a central emotion for effective feedback processes; students' perceptions of a bond with their educator has been found to increase their engagement with feedback (Telio, Regehr, and Ajjawi [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref8">26</reflink>]). In this empirical work, we sought to understand how higher education teachers intentionally design and use technology-enhanced feedback within their taught online units to strengthen relationality with students.</p> <p>By privileging the relational in feedback, we recognise that the attitudes, behaviours and emotions that students have towards feedback, and in response to feedback, matter in terms of their learning. Process-oriented, relational feedback aims to create comfort zones where students are willing to seek out feedback; it considers the quality of teacher-student relationships (Winstone and Carless [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref9">28</reflink>]). Process-oriented, relational feedback also re-positions the student in an active role in the feedback process and shifts teachers' roles to that of a dialogue partner – forming an 'educational alliance' (Telio, Regehr and Ajjawi [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref10">26</reflink>]). The shift to processual perspectives of feedback prompts a sharing of responsibility between students and teachers (Carless and Winstone [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref11">10</reflink>]). Process-oriented feedback requires both parties to possess strong feedback literacies – with teacher feedback literacy necessary for creating assessment environments where students can mobilise their feedback literacies to appreciate and use feedback. This study focuses specifically on teacher feedback literacies. For the purposes of this paper, we are using Carless and Winstone's ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref12">10</reflink>], 4) definition of teacher feedback literacy as 'the knowledge, expertise and dispositions to design feedback processes in ways which enable student uptake of feedback and seed the development of student feedback literacy'.</p> <p>In the shift to emergency online education, students commonly indicated that they were 'more reliant on getting feedback from teaching staff than in their previous mode of study' (Martin [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref13">24</reflink>], 10). We argue that attention to relational technology-enhanced feedback may be one way to humanise online feedback encounters, and to do so we need to understand the necessary teacher feedback literacies of technology-enhanced feedback. To this end, we asked: What teacher feedback literacies are required to implement relationally-oriented technology-enhanced feedback practices?</p> <hd id="AN0173437643-3">Feedback as a socio-affective process</hd> <p>It has been asserted that teaching is a relational activity (hooks [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref14">19</reflink>]), and that feedback is an inherently social process (Esterhazy [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref15">15</reflink>]). Early empirical research in psychology revealed that motivation and performance are substantially impacted by knowledge of performance (Ammons [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref16">4</reflink>]). Since then, there has been increasing interest in a broader range of factors than feedback as information. Positive relationships between students and their teachers are crucial to meeting not only the academic and learning needs of students but also their socio-emotional needs (Lawrence et al. [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref17">20</reflink>]). Teachers are responsible for bringing an awareness of the impact and importance of emotions as both a reflexive practice and as socio-cultural mediators within the feedback process (Ajjawi, Olson, and McNaughton [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref18">3</reflink>]). Yet, when feedback is positioned as 'telling', teachers may remain blind to the socio-emotional costs of this 'telling' (Boud and Molloy [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref19">8</reflink>]). It is now a widespread viewpoint that feedback processes should represent a dialogic cycle (Winstone et al. [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref20">29</reflink>]). However, varied responses to feedback are impacted by perceptions of teachers' care for their students and their progress (Carless and Boud [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref21">9</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0173437643-4">Technology-enhanced feedback</hd> <p>Technology-enhanced feedback typically refers to audio and video modes of feedback. Audio feedback is narration only, and there are several forms of video feedback: screencast only, talking head (e.g. webcam only), and a combination of the two (Mahoney, Macfarlane, and Ajjawi [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref22">23</reflink>]). Screencast feedback consists of a recording of the teacher's computer screen or chosen window (e.g. a screen capture). Talking head video feedback is the recording of the teacher speaking to the camera and does not include a screencast. Combination video feedback, described by Borup ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref23">5</reflink>]), enables an inset of the teacher to be displayed within the screencast.</p> <p>Technology-enhanced feedback typically involves a media switch from electronically written feedback to an alternate modality, thus continuing to propagate a product or transmission conception of feedback. However, it has been suggested that technology-enhanced feedback may lessen many of the current criticisms of feedback (Cavaleri et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref24">11</reflink>]). Studies have shown that students rate the overall quality of feedback more highly when audio or video feedback information is provided compared to typed comments alone (Mahoney, Macfarlane, and Ajjawi [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref25">23</reflink>]).</p> <p>Similarly, studies of technology-enhanced feedback, particularly video, consistently report higher levels of student engagement and rapport building than written comments, even though the synchronous provision of technology-enhanced feedback often only simulates dialogue (Mahoney, Macfarlane, and Ajjawi [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref26">23</reflink>]). Wood ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref27">30</reflink>]) found that through technology-enhanced feedback, students could identify (and see/hear) that their teachers cared about their learning and that they mattered. This is likely because technology-enhanced feedback enables more social and teacher presence which is important in overcoming feelings of isolation (Thomas, West, and Borup [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref28">27</reflink>]). Aspects of technology-enhanced feedback such as voice, tone, rhythm and facial expressions are thought to simulate a closeness or recognition of the other as an individual. Teachers who narrate or use video are more likely to approach technology-enhanced feedback as an act of talking with the student, rather than written comments on work that is one step removed from the student. Students want to be seen by their teachers and for their teachers to express care (Ajjawi et al. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref29">1</reflink>]). This is significant as this more human side, or social presence, helps students form a 'sense of belonging and involvement' (Borup et al. [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref30">6</reflink>], 235), and can positively influence students' motivation and self-efficacy (Ajjawi et al. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref31">1</reflink>]). Technology-enhanced feedback may lessen the level of psychological distance that exists within feedback encounters between students and teachers.</p> <hd id="AN0173437643-5">Teacher feedback literacy</hd> <p>While technology-enhanced feedback might foster affordances with regards to relationality, feedback (including technology-enhanced modalities) also requires good design which is a matter of teacher feedback literacy. Teacher feedback literacy is comprised of interrelated proficiencies <emph>–</emph> what teachers 'need to know and be able to do' (Boud and Dawson [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref32">7</reflink>], 2) <emph>–</emph> to enhance and sustain a feedback process and build student awareness and engagement with feedback (Deneen and Hoo [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref33">14</reflink>]). Three dimensions of teacher feedback literacy advanced by Carless and Winstone ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref34">10</reflink>]) are: design of assessment systems and feedback processes, relationality which attends to students sensitively, and pragmatics to do with feedback practicalities. These three dimensions were identified through a critical literature synthesis. Thus, an empirical study of teacher feedback literacy is important if we are to embed a relational approach to feedback that builds stronger relationships between teaching staff and students, and to build feedback cultures of trust and care.</p> <hd id="AN0173437643-6">Method</hd> <p>We used a qualitative research approach, drawing from in-depth, semi-structured interviews conducted between April–May 2021. Ethical approval was obtained from the Faculty of Arts and Education Human Ethics Advisory Group (HEAG): HAE-21-031.</p> <hd id="AN0173437643-7">Participants and recruitment</hd> <p>Participants were higher education teachers from across the globe familiar with using technology-enhanced feedback approaches in their online teaching practice. The participant group was identified via purposive sampling and then via the snowballing recruitment method (Ritchie et al. [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref35">25</reflink>]). The deliberate nature of the sampling meant that many participants had publications or presentations in academic forums, had received recognition for their teaching practices, and/or held leadership positions in the field. This sampling frame would ensure that the participants had rich experience of the phenomenon under study. The call for participants was advertised via professional social networks (e.g. AdvanceHE and Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia newsletters; LinkedIn and Twitter). Participants were selected to promote diversity in discipline, gender and teaching cohort (e.g. undergraduate or postgraduate) to capture a broad range of literacies and practices (see Table 1).</p> <p>Table 1. Participant attributes (n = 10).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Pseudonym</td><td>Pronouns</td><td>Country (of current higher education institution)</td><td>Years teaching (total)</td><td>Discipline</td><td>Student cohort – undergraduate (UG)/postgraduate (PG)</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Alannah</td><td>she/her</td><td>New Zealand</td><td char=".">15</td><td>Health/Medical</td><td>UG</td></tr><tr><td>Anthony</td><td>he/him</td><td>Australia</td><td char=".">14</td><td>Health</td><td>PG</td></tr><tr><td>Bryant</td><td>he/him</td><td>Australia</td><td char=".">20</td><td>Political Science</td><td>UG</td></tr><tr><td>Farah</td><td>she/her</td><td>Oman</td><td char=".">12</td><td>Foundation/English Language Skills</td><td>UG</td></tr><tr><td>Ishaan</td><td>he/him</td><td>United Kingdom</td><td char=".">10</td><td>Biochemical Engineering</td><td>PG</td></tr><tr><td>Marisol</td><td>she/her</td><td>Australia</td><td char=".">12</td><td>Education</td><td>PG</td></tr><tr><td>Michael</td><td>he/him</td><td>South Korea</td><td char=".">22</td><td>Foundation/English Language Skills</td><td>UG</td></tr><tr><td>Otto</td><td>he/him</td><td>United Kingdom</td><td char=".">30</td><td>Education</td><td>PG</td></tr><tr><td>Sena</td><td>she/her</td><td>Canada</td><td char=".">11</td><td>Education</td><td>PG</td></tr><tr><td>Tod</td><td>he/they</td><td>United States of America</td><td char=".">6</td><td>Health</td><td>UG</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0173437643-8">Data collection and analysis</hd> <p>Each participant took part in one in-depth, semi-structured interview. Interviews were conducted in English by the first author. We developed an interview guide to elicit participant literacies and experiences with using audio-video feedback. Interviews covered the topics of each participant's teaching background and context, their use of technology-enhanced feedback, thoughts on and examples of rapport-building online, their professional development, and time for participants to discuss anything additional. Interviews took place via Zoom and were recorded and then transcribed.</p> <p>Data collection and analysis occurred simultaneously (Creswell and Creswell [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref36">13</reflink>]) with the analysis oriented towards identifying teacher relational feedback literacies. We conducted framework analysis of the interview transcripts (Ritchie et al. [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref37">25</reflink>]), with regular discussion amongst the team. The framework analysis method is commonly used by qualitative researchers and was developed to facilitate methodical and transparent data management (Ritchie et al. [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref38">25</reflink>]). We started with a thorough review of the range and depth of the interview notes and transcripts. We took an inductive approach and proceeded to code the data according to key concepts beginning with open coding, which entailed taking note of ideas suggested by participants and participants' spoken words. We then documented common responses and looked for shared influences (e.g. personal decision to deploy technology-enhanced feedback), intentions (e.g. building connections), processes and affects (e.g. marking efficiency and demonstrated care), as well as responses of conceptual interest (e.g. bloody-mindedness). A mind map was used to maintain an index of initial codes.</p> <p>Relevant phrases were then moved into a new document, a coding table, which constituted the code, descriptive sub-code, a definition of the sub-code and relevant quotes. Discussing interpretation amongst the team allowed for an analytical and critical look at the data and enabled familiarisation, data reduction and refinement as suggested by Ritchie et al. ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref39">25</reflink>]). Reviewing and defining of feedback literacies was a recursive process whereby the developing literacies and associated strategies were reviewed by the team in relation to the research question, coded data and data set. The research team met several times to interpret concepts and to give them meaning beyond the semantic surface of the data and to discuss and describe what the data were about.</p> <hd id="AN0173437643-9">Findings</hd> <p>We start with describing participants' orientation towards feedback as being for learning, then present the three interrelated feedback literacies for relationally oriented technology-enhanced feedback: socio-affective, design and communication. The performative nature of technology-enhanced feedback means that there was emphasis on the message. However, for all our participants the purpose of feedback was to primarily foster deeper engagement with the learning materials and foster student growth and development. Participants also discussed their reflexive responsibilities as feedback providers and dialogue partners which conveyed a learning orientation towards feedback. In addition, feedback played a key role in demonstrating care for and relationship-building with students. We describe each feedback literacy and its associated strategies in turn with illustrative quotes.</p> <hd id="AN0173437643-10">Orientation towards feedback for learning</hd> <p>Participants described that it was their responsibility to provide feedback that fostered: 1) dialectical thinking, a generative approach to learning that invokes creative and critical thinking and 'widens the horizons' (Sena); 2) a 'growth mindset' (Alannah) which promotes 'self-reflection' (Alannah) empowering students to 'solve their own problems and get insight into their own gaps'; 3) 'receptivity to the feedback' (Tod) which aims to 'cultivate a culture of curiosity and acceptance of the feedback' (Tod) and 'increase [students'] feedback literacy' (Otto) by empowering them to recognise when feedback is happening, 'what feedback means' (Michael) and, in turn, 'generate internal feedback' (Otto); 4) progress within and beyond higher education through feedback that bypasses the focus on grades and instead aims to 'prepare people in the field of [deidentified specialty] education' (Tod); 5) lastly, participants explained the importance of feedback clarity and closing the feedback loop: 'feedback should be feeding-forward somewhere or having some value that students see is going to influence the future assignment' (Marisol). This orientation to feedback coupled with the following feedback literacies were reported to be used during technology-enhanced feedback.</p> <hd id="AN0173437643-11">Socio-affective literacy</hd> <p>This teacher feedback literacy consists of strategies that bring an awareness to student emotions during feedback as well as teacher self-expression. This is exemplified through Michael's understanding that students were 'very nervous about [receiving feedback] and screencast feedback actually made them more nervous than normal', acknowledging that students, particularly first-year undergraduate students, may transition into university with uncertain or negative perceptions of feedback: 'It may feel to the student like it's all critical, right? Especially when they first start getting feedback' (Michael). Participants spoke about the importance of relationality for fostering feedback for learning. Sena spoke about enabling 'students to feel safe and to feel part of the community' and 'to feel connected'. Otto described himself as a 'compassionate educator' who seeks to understand his students. The socio-affective dimension operates to build student engagement with feedback and involves the strategies of self-disclosure, cohesion and empathy.</p> <hd id="AN0173437643-12">Self-disclosure</hd> <p>Self-disclosure meant that teachers were being open and shared experiences that may have impacted their personal, professional and/or academic journey. Participants self-disclosed to build a personal connection with students and to promote engagement. For example, Tod shared: 'When we do the obesity and chronic diseases section, I show them a picture of what I looked like in high school at 240 pounds'. They reported that promoted insight: 'It's kind of like an ah-ha moment with them'. Sena disclosed how she facilitated 'personal connections' through the appropriate sharing of her personal life: 'Oh, you are doing this. I don't know a lot about grade eight, but you know, when my son was in grade eight, this is what he did' (Sena).</p> <hd id="AN0173437643-13">Cohesion and a more embodied presence</hd> <p>Presence was the extent to which participants identified with their students, reducing the psychosocial distance between them. One participant described it as 'engendering a sense of homophily', a bond with others and sense of cohesion. In her feedback videos, Alannah advised that 'pathologists feel that the teacher is one of the same group. So, this is a professional identity formation thing, like I'm one of you; I have the same problems as you'. Anthony used video feedback because it imparts the feeling that 'we are [together], you are sitting here with me although you are not really, and we are going through [the assessment]'. Marisol reported that technology-enhanced feedback allowed for perspective-taking – she is 'imagining the student watching me' and asks herself, 'what would I say to the face of a student'? The ease with which teachers can link abstract notions of quality to specific parts of the work by showing or scrolling to a particular example enables students to 'see their work' (Sena) through the eyes of their teacher.</p> <hd id="AN0173437643-14">Empathy</hd> <p>Bryant explained how differences in context and opinion could be rethought and presented with more empathy: 'It's not a case of being pejorative and saying this is no good. You explain why it wasn't good and what they can do in that sort of positive frame'. Participants recognised that students could view feedback as disparaging and impersonal when teachers provide feedback information that focuses on 'correction' (Anthony). Anthony explained, 'Sometimes it's just a matter of saying "I can see what you've tried to do. Here's another way you could have done it that would have done what we wanted to do"'.</p> <hd id="AN0173437643-15">Design literacy</hd> <p>Design literacy consists of strategies that are conscious of the logical arrangement, planning and purpose of feedback with an aim to better prepare and engage students. This is demonstrated in Ishaan's explanation</p> <p>I kind of said, 'oh, I'm just going to summarise' or you know, 'this is what I'm gonna talk about' ... an example of the breakdown of how the videos would work ... so they've got an idea of what's coming. And that was the same [strategy] for all of [the feedback videos]. The idea was to make them watch the video.</p> <p>The strategies include questioning and grade concealment.</p> <hd id="AN0173437643-16">Questioning</hd> <p>Questioning practices examined the 'how' and 'why' of a response or process within student assessment; participants demonstrated how questioning can be used not only for clarification or reasoning, but also for the purpose of relationship building by shifting the teacher's role from that of an authority figure to a 'dialogue' partner. Several participants stated that they asked students to think about 'feedback [they have] received in the past about [their] assignments' (Anthony). Michael asked 'students to think about earlier, reflective activities ... what kind of personal promises did they try to make to themselves'. Michael also described closing the feedback loop: '[I] look back on their first draft of the feedback [I] gave them and look at their second draft and see how they've enacted it on'.</p> <hd id="AN0173437643-17">Grade concealment or delaying grades</hd> <p>Minimising the central role of grades in assessment and feedback, participants described grade concealment within their audio-video feedback to show they care about student learning. This was particularly true in the first few weeks of a unit as the aim of feedback served to provide students a low-stakes opportunity to improve. Farah explained her reasoning for deprioritising grades was to get students to 'work well' and 'to kind of get our relations very close'. The intent was to build a culture of 'asking questions and [an opportunity for] the students feeling more comfortable with the teacher'. Tod affirmed the grade concealment approach to providing relational technology-enhanced feedback; they asserted, 'What we should aim to do is not just hand out As, Bs, Cs, Ds, whatever', continuing, 'I don't teach to grade' (Tod). Sena expressed a similar sentiment; for her and her students, the feedback process is about 'seeing how they progress through the course'. She wished there 'were no grades'. According to many participants grades were of little importance; their aims were to provide students 'with the feedback [information] that allows them to move forward, to know their real progress, and to know their weaknesses and strengths' (Farah), and to 'make sure the students understand the concepts' (Tod) relevant to their goals. Avoiding the mention of students' marks within the feedback video aimed to encourage deeper engagement with the feedback process and intended to support increased feedback encounters to occur outside of the provision of video feedback on summative assessment.</p> <hd id="AN0173437643-18">Communication literacy</hd> <p>Communication literacy considers the methods used to construct a deliberate, empathetic feedback message. The strategies involve tonality, structuring and personalisation. For Ishaan, the importance of this dimension was ignited by his own student experience</p> <p>I received feedback, as an undergraduate 20 years ago, and I just looked at it and think I didn't learn anything from my submissions. I had no idea of what I did right, what I did wrong. That is my driving force is to make sure I teach students and tell them where they're going right and wrong. Because I never had that experience and it kind of pissed me off.</p> <hd id="AN0173437643-19">Tonality</hd> <p>Tonality is not <emph>what</emph> is said, but <emph>how</emph> it is said; tonality is an emotional cue. Participants in disciplines such as education tended to emphasise the importance of their tone of voice, that it 'should be conversational and friendly' (Marisol). In other disciplines, such as medical science, tonality was used to place importance on certain terms or ideas. Reflecting the affordances of technology-enhanced feedback and speaking to her awareness of her tonality, Alannah reflected that she is 'very direct, and ... quite blunt' which can be 'perceive[d] as challenging from the feedback receiving perspective'. To buffer this Alannah stated, 'I don't make personal criticisms or such, but I do criticise the work'. She expanded on her technique which was a combination of 'filter[ing] [her]self' whilst remaining true to her ways of self-expression and her commitment to providing students with actionable next steps. Sounding enthusiastic was discussed by several participants through having 'a genuine positivity that comes across' (Ishaan).</p> <hd id="AN0173437643-20">Structuring of the message</hd> <p>Some participant accounts brought attention to how their use of one strategy, such as questioning, could be problematic without some structure or scaffolding of the feedback message. This was illustrated by Otto's awareness of the importance of his video feedback sequencing through his student's negative emotional response. Otto revealed that he initially and haphazardly queried, 'What did you do that for?' He admitted that the progression of his delivery was aimless and jarring for his student. His focus on the student's potential and awareness of what they 'can do', because he has witnessed their good work 'in action', was perceived as demoralising. Otto admitted: 'I went straight into the criticism. What I would do now is remind myself to remind the student when they're listening to it, how to engage with it'. He continued, describing his approach as one where it's structured by saying, 'you've done a really good piece of work here. I'm not going to spend time listing all of the excellent things you've done; just know that this is excellent. What I really want to get to is that I'm going to make two very critical points'. He professed that he 'learned the hard way'. Otto quickly clarified that 'I'm not saying feedback sandwich ... What I'm saying is to rationalise your approach'. Unlike Otto, Ishaan encouraged the 'feedback sandwich' approach. He reflected:</p> <p>It's encouraging, isn't it? You say 'Listen, you didn't do that very well, but this is good here'. But also, 'You didn't do it so well here. So, next time make sure you're doing it more along these lines'. I think that that's the guidance that students were looking for.</p> <p>Ishaan gave an example of what he might say to an engineering student, starting: 'Having seen this document, I see it's good quality. I think you've done a good job'. He continued, 'I would say, 'This is a good effort, but there are some holes and I'm going to go through those holes now'. Then there would be the bulk critique ... [and] a kind of brief summary overall of what I thought'.</p> <hd id="AN0173437643-21">Personalisation of the encounter</hd> <p>Participants remarked on the importance of feedback providers bringing an understanding of their own and students' personal and professional experiences and academic and career goals, because the 'student needs to believe that the person has read their work' (Anthony). Sena explained that her postgraduate education students 'describe their goals in the context of standards for teachers and frameworks for learning technology evaluation ... and through those reflections, they actually say a lot about their background, where they're coming from, where they work, what is important to them'. Empowered with this knowledge, teachers can be more intentional with their feedback and can begin to close the feedback loop. Sena explained: 'You see really where those weak points may be and what they want to achieve'. Marisol explained that she could personalise the feedback and think forward when she knew future units of study that the student will be undertaking: 'When I'm teaching second year, [I know] what units that are going to be coming in the future ... [this] is useful because I think students identify value in feedback if they know it's going to be relevant to them at some point in the future'.</p> <hd id="AN0173437643-22">Discussion</hd> <p>Our study shows that teachers reported using three key literacies when using technology-enhanced feedback in a relationally intentional way. These are socio-affective, design and communication.</p> <p>Within the socio-affective literacy, engaging in empathy, self-disclosures and a more embodied presence require considered risk-taking by teachers. Participants demonstrated that this risk was also an opportunity; it was an opportunity for teachers to be empathetic, vulnerable, offer their own experiences, and build trust with students. Our socio-affective dimension is aligned with the relational domain of teacher feedback literacy that Carless and Winstone ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref40">10</reflink>]) discussed. It is more recognised today that 'feedback serves an affective purpose' (Chan and Luo [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref41">12</reflink>], 68). Feedback processes may evoke strong emotions in students, and our participants were mindful of the potential emotional impact of their feedback practices on students. Our participants also expressed an awareness that positive student-teacher relationships can be key in establishing dialogue and easing self-esteem threats. As Carless and Winstone ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref42">10</reflink>]) acknowledge, 'modelling and sharing of teachers' own experiences of feedback ... [is] a useful means of surfacing affective issues in responding to feedback' (5–6).</p> <p>Through questioning and grade concealment, our findings demonstrate how our participants report using what we have labelled as design literacies. These strategies were used to show care about students learning from feedback. Questioning aims to probe, encourage, empathise and engage students (Heron et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref43">18</reflink>]). This relational feedback strategy allows teachers to engage in feedback as talk through the creation of space for student reflection. Unlike the findings of Carless and Winstone ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref44">10</reflink>]) and Chan and Luo ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref45">12</reflink>]), our participants did not seem to prioritise grades as particularly useful for feedback processes, nor did they appear to use feedback to justify grades. Instead, they sought to downplay the grades in an attempt to engage students with feedback information and the work itself.</p> <p>Carless and Winstone's ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref46">10</reflink>]) design dimension is differently positioned; their dimension focuses on the ways in which teachers contribute to effective feedback processes through their design of curricula and assessment. This positioning appears to be aligned with Boud and Dawson ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref47">7</reflink>]) macro-level development and/or meso-level coordination and staging responsibilities. Many of our participants suggested that the feedback process would be improved if it could be made more dialogic and formative, indicating that sequenced assessments may better enable students to use feedback from one assignment to the next. However, due to our participants' varied levels of responsibility they were not all responsible for curriculum design. This may explain the difference in strategies that we identified compared with Carless and Winstone ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref48">10</reflink>]). Instead, our design literacy strategies were aimed at managing the tensions between grading and feedback (Boud and Dawson [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref49">7</reflink>]).</p> <p>Our communication literacy involves strategies used to construct a care-full feedback message through attention to tone, scaffolding and personalisation. This literacy aligns with a micro-level of 'craft[ing] appropriate inputs to students' as identified by Boud and Dawson ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref50">7</reflink>], 6). Our findings highlighted that the personalisation of the feedback encounter emphasised the humanity of both the teacher and student. This is important in the pursuit of engaged and relational pedagogy (Ljungblad [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref51">21</reflink>]; MacKenzie et al. [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref52">22</reflink>]). Personalised feedback interactions that affirm, elaborate, consolidate and probe suggest an invitation for further conversation (Heron et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref53">18</reflink>]). Technology-enhanced feedback is perceived to be a more conversational, personalised and engaging means of communication than typed feedback comments (Borup et al. [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref54">6</reflink>]; Carless and Boud [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref55">9</reflink>]). Thus, whilst technology-enhanced feedback is primarily an 'input' approach to feedback that risks still being dominated by 'telling', there is more nuance in terms of the social processes of technology-enhanced feedback that is relationally oriented.</p> <p>Higher education researchers have long debated the function and definition of feedback. The purposes and concepts of feedback can vary 'depending on the learning environment, the needs of the learner, the purpose of the task, and the particular feedback paradigm adopted' (Chan and Luo [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref56">12</reflink>], 72). Chan and Luo found that teachers who opposed grades as feedback were more aligned to the belief of grades as assessment, indicating that grades do not indicate how to improve, they only demonstrate the outcome. The varied conceptualisations and implementation have implications for teacher feedback literacy. As a result, teachers' perceptions of their orientations toward feedback matter because their orientations influence how they design and deliver feedback and what they believe feedback can achieve. Like Heron et al. ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref57">18</reflink>]), we support teachers' deliberate reflection of their orientations toward the purpose of feedback. Such deepened regard has practical implications for teacher feedback literacy (Chan and Luo [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref58">12</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0173437643-23">Conclusion, limitations and implications</hd> <p>Our research question centred on teacher feedback literacies and strategies required to implement relational technology-enhanced feedback. We interviewed ten higher education teachers across a range of disciplines and cohorts with technology-enhanced feedback experience to understand their reported feedback literacies. One limitation of this approach is that there might be discrepancies between participants' actual feedback practices and what they reported. It was not our intention to measure nor make claims of the efficacy of technology-enhanced feedback nor its ability to improve academic performance. It was also not our intention to produce generalisable findings, thus there may be additional literacies and strategies not identified here. Qualitative research samples are small, for good reason, and are justified when good purposive sampling has taken place (Ritchie et al. [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref59">25</reflink>]).</p> <p>Teaching is a performative act, and teachers engage 'audiences' to become active and reciprocal participants (hooks [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref60">19</reflink>]). Relational pedagogy is an approach where teaching is understood as a social endeavour (Ljungblad [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref61">21</reflink>]); it is an approach where positive teacher-student relationships are centred, which may aid in developing students' 'confidence and faith to reveal what they do not fully understand' (Carless and Boud [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref62">9</reflink>], 1318). In our study, participants shared what they felt were their responsibilities as feedback providers and designers. Such responsibilities require building and fostering unique connections with students and positioning feedback as a relational undertaking rather than only as a 'consequence of performance' (Henderson and Phillips [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref63">17</reflink>], 51). The differences in reported teacher feedback literacies in the literature and our research point to the situated nature of feedback literacies, which means greater attention to context is needed.</p> <p>A key responsibility of teachers is to take on the role of a caring partner. As affirmed by our findings, such alliances may be initiated through shifting away from correction and judgement and placing increased attention to the socio-affective, design and communication literacies that show the students they matter. Care-full feedback is shown in how teachers were aware of the affective impact of the message. Making space for student engagement with feedback through design and empathetic communication was expressed by participants who supported the use of technology-enhanced feedback for this purpose; some expressed a revitalised enthusiasm for their feedback practice. It may be of interest to the field to explore the ways in which teacher feedback literacy varies and is influenced by teachers' roles and responsibilities. Future research might also seek to examine how teacher feedback literacies influence student feedback literacies in practice. We have shown that teachers were not just using technology-enhanced feedback to correct student work but were also using technology-enhanced feedback to express themselves, build rapport, establish social presence and convey appreciation more fully.</p> <p>The implications of our study are for teachers to consider how the feedback process may change if we were to envision teacher feedback literacy and students' feedback literacy as an entwined and unified system. Incorporating and fostering rich interpersonal relationships with students through technology-enhanced feedback may be 'a reciprocal rebellion that stands to empower both student and teacher' (MacKenzie et al. [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref64">22</reflink>], 39). We encourage educators to consider how their feedback practices might act to prioritise teacher-student relationality.</p> <hd id="AN0173437643-24">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>We acknowledge that this study is derived from the first author's Master of Education minor thesis and would like to thank her examiners, Professors Chie Adachi and Margaret Bearman, for their feedback and thank the participants who took part.</p> <hd id="AN0173437643-25">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.</p> <hd id="AN0173437643-26">Notes on contributors</hd> <p> <bold> <emph>Ameena L. Payne</emph> </bold>, MEd, FHEA, FHERDSA is a strategic PhD scholarship holder at Deakin University's Centre for Research in Assessment and Digital Learning (CRADLE). She is a recipient of her alma mater's Outstanding Young Alumna Award (2022) and is interested in socially just and equitable education, specifically assessment design and feedback. Her website is ameenapayne.com, and she tweets as @AmeenaLPayne.</p> <p> <bold> <emph>Rola Ajjawi</emph> </bold> is a Professor of Education Research at the Centre for Research in Assessment and Digital Learning, Deakin University, Melbourne Australia. Her research spans higher and medical education. She is interested in issues of equity, feedback, belonging and professional learning. Her latest edited collection is Assessment for Inclusion in Higher Education: Promoting Equity and Social Justice (Routledge, 2023).</p> <p> <bold> <emph>Dr. Jessica Holloway</emph> </bold> is a Senior Research Fellow and Australian Research Council DECRA Fellow within the Institute for Learning Sciences and Teacher Education (ILSTE) at Australian Catholic University. Her research draws on political theory and policy sociology to understand how metrics, data and digital tools produce new conditions, practices and subjectivities, especially as this relates to teachers and schools. Her recent publications include the article 'Teachers and teaching: (re)thinking professionalism, subjectivity and critical inquiry' in Critical Studies in Education and 'Democracy and teachers: the im/possibilities for pluralisation in evidence-based practice' (with Maria Louise Larsen Hedegaard) in Journal of Education Policy.</p> <ref id="AN0173437643-27"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref29" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Ajjawi, R., F. Kent, J. Broadbent, J. H.-T. Tai, M. Bearman, and D. Boud. 2022. " Feedback That Works: A Realist Review of Feedback Interventions for Written Tasks." Studies in Higher Education 47 (7): 1343 – 1356. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2021.1894115.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref1" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Ajjawi, R., and G. Regehr. 2019. " When I Say ... Feedback." Medical Education 53 (7): 652 – 654. doi: 10.1111/medu.13746.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref18" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Ajjawi, R., R. E. Olson, and N. McNaughton. 2022. " Emotion as Reflexive Practice: A New Discourse for Feedback Practice and Research." Medical Education 56 (5): 480 – 488. doi: 10.1111/medu.14700.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref16" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Ammons, R. B. 1956. " Effects of Knowledge of Performance: A Survey and Tentative Theoretical Formulation." The Journal of General Psychology 54 (2): 279 – 299. doi: 10.1080/00221309.1956.9920284.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref23" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Borup, J. 2021. " Back to Feedback Basics Using Video Recordings." https://er.educause.edu/blogs/2021/2/back-to-feedback-basics-using-video-recordings.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref3" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Borup, J., R. E. West, R. A. Thomas, and C. R. Graham. 2014. " Examining the Impact of Video Feedback on Instructor Social Presence in Blended Courses." The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 15 (3): 232 – 256. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v15i3.1821.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref32" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Boud, D., and P. Dawson. 2021. " What Feedback Literate Teachers Do: An Empirically-Derived Competency Framework." Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2021.1910928.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref19" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Boud, D., and E. Molloy. 2013. " Rethinking Models of Feedback for Learning: The Challenge of Design." Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 38 (6): 698 – 712. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2012.691462.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref21" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Carless, D., and D. Boud. 2018. " The Development of Student Feedback Literacy: Enabling Uptake of Feedback." Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 43 (8): 1315 – 1325. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carless, D., and N. Winstone. 2020. " Teacher Feedback Literacy and Its Interplay with Student Feedback Literacy." Teaching in Higher Education. doi: 10.1080/13562517.2020.1782372.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cavaleri, M., S. Kawaguchi, B. Di Biase, and C. Power. 2019. " How Recorded Audio-Visual Feedback Can Improve Academic Language Support." Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice 16 (4). doi: 10.53761/1.16.4.6.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chan, C. K. Y., and J. Luo. 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. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2021.1888074.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Creswell, J. W., and J. D. Creswell. 2018. Research Design : Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 5th ed. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Inc.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deneen, C. C., and H.-T. Hoo. 2021. " Connecting Teacher and Student Assessment Literacy with Self-Evaluation and Peer Feedback." Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2021.1967284.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Esterhazy, R. 2019. " Re-Conceptualizing Feedback through a Sociocultural Lens." In The Impact of Feedback in Higher Education: Improving Assessment Outcomes for Learners, edited by Michael Henderson, Rola Ajjawi, David Boud, and Elizabeth Molloy, 67 – 82. Cham : Springer International Publishing. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-25112-3_5.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hattie, J., and H. Timperley. 2007. " The Power of Feedback." Review of Educational Research 77 (1): 81 – 112. doi: 10.3102/003465430298487.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Henderson, M., and M. Phillips. 2015. " Video-Based Feedback on Student Assessment: Scarily Personal." Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 31 (1): 51 – 66. doi: 10.14742/ajet.1878.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heron, M., E. Medland, N. Winstone, and E. Pitt. 2021. " Developing the Relational in Teacher Feedback Literacy: Exploring Feedback Talk." Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2021.1932735.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> hooks, b. 1994. Teaching To Transgress. Routledge & CRC Press. https://<ulink href="http://www.routledge.com/Teaching-To-Transgress/Hooks/p/book/9780203700280">www.routledge.com/Teaching-To-Transgress/Hooks/p/book/9780203700280</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lawrence, J., H. Shaw, L. Hunt, and D. Synmoie. 2020. " Rapport and Relationships: The Student Perspective on Teaching Excellence." In Challenging the Teaching Excellence Framework, edited by Kate Carruthers Thomas and Amanda French, 129 – 150. Great Debates in Higher Education. Bingley, West Yorkshire : Emerald Publishing Limited. doi: 10.1108/978-1-78769-533-720201006.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ljungblad, A. L. 2021. " Pedagogical Relational Teachership (PeRT) – A Multi-Relational Perspective." International Journal of Inclusive Education 25 (7): 860 – 876. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2019.1581280.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MacKenzie, Alison, Alexander Bacalja, Devisakti Annamali, Argyro Panaretou, Prajakta Girme, Maria Cutajar, Sandra Abegglen, et al. 2022. " Dissolving the Dichotomies between Online and Campus-Based Teaching: A Collective Response to the Manifesto for Teaching Online (Bayne et al. 2020)." Postdigital Science and Education 4 (2): 271 – 329. doi: 10.1007/s42438-021-00259-z.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mahoney, P., S. Macfarlane, and R. Ajjawi. 2019. " A Qualitative Synthesis of Video Feedback in Higher Education." Teaching in Higher Education 24 (2): 157 – 179. doi: 10.1080/13562517.2018.1471457.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martin, L. 2020. Foundations for Good Practice: The Student Experience of Online Learning in Australian Higher Education during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Canberra : Australian Government Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TESQA).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ritchie, J., J. Lewis, C. McNaughton Nicholls, and R. Ormston. 2014. Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers. 2nd ed. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications Inc.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Telio, S., G. Regehr, and R. Ajjawi. 2016. " Feedback and the Educational Alliance: Examining Credibility Judgements and Their Consequences." Medical Education 50 (9): 933 – 942. doi: 10.1111/medu.13063.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thomas, R. A., R. E. West, and J. Borup. 2017. " An Analysis of Instructor Social Presence in Online Text and Asynchronous Video Feedback Comments." The Internet and Higher Education 33 (April): 61 – 73. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.01.003.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Winstone, N. E., and D. Carless. 2020. ' Designing Effective Feedback Processes in Higher Education: A Learning-Focused Approach '. Routledge & CRC Press. Accessed 11 February 2022. https://<ulink href="http://www.routledge.com/Designing-Effective-Feedback-Processes-in-Higher-Education-A-Learning-Focused/Winstone-Carless/p/book/9780815361633">www.routledge.com/Designing-Effective-Feedback-Processes-in-Higher-Education-A-Learning-Focused/Winstone-Carless/p/book/9780815361633</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Winstone, N. E., R. A. Nash, J. Rowntree, and M. Parker. 2017. " 'It'd Be Useful, but I Wouldn't Use It': Barriers to University Students' Feedback Seeking and Recipience." Studies in Higher Education 42 (11): 2026 – 2041. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2015.1130032.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wood, J. 2022. " Enabling Feedback Seeking, Agency and Uptake through Dialogic Screencast Feedback." Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2022.2089973.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Ameena L. Payne; Rola Ajjawi and Jessica Holloway</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref52"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1400733
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Humanising Feedback Encounters: A Qualitative Study of Relational Literacies for Teachers Engaging in Technology-Enhanced Feedback
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Payne%2C+Ameena+L%2E%22">Payne, Ameena L.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9938-4144">0000-0001-9938-4144</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ajjawi%2C+Rola%22">Ajjawi, Rola</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0651-3870">0000-0003-0651-3870</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Holloway%2C+Jessica%22">Holloway, Jessica</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9267-3197">0000-0001-9267-3197</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Assessment+%26+Evaluation+in+Higher+Education%22"><i>Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education</i></searchLink>. 2023 48(7):903-914.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 12
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Feedback+%28Response%29%22">Feedback (Response)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Student+Relationship%22">Teacher Student Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Technology%22">Educational Technology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Technology+Uses+in+Education%22">Technology Uses in Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Faculty%22">College Faculty</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learner+Engagement%22">Learner Engagement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Characteristics%22">Teacher Characteristics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Students%22">College Students</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/02602938.2022.2155610
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0260-2938<br />1469-297X
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Modes of feedback such as audio or video are thought to foster relationality because they humanise feedback encounters. Few studies have examined teacher feedback literacies for relationality. This knowledge gap is significant as students want to be seen by their teachers and for their teachers to express care within the feedback encounter. Teacher feedback literacies are the knowledges, skills and dispositions needed to enhance and sustain a student-centred feedback process. Using a qualitative approach, our research question centred on what teacher feedback literacies and strategies are required to implement relational technology-enhanced feedback. We interviewed 10 higher education teachers with diverse characteristics and identified three teacher literacies for relational technology-enhanced feedback: socio-affective facilitates an awareness to student attitudes toward feedback and teacher self-expression; design empowers a consciousness of the logical arrangement and purpose of feedback to better prepare and engage students; and communication reflects the construction of a deliberate, empathetic message. The implications are for higher education institutions and teachers to consider how the relational can enable the strengths of feedback that can better support and encourage students' engagement with feedback.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1400733
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1400733
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/02602938.2022.2155610
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 12
        StartPage: 903
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Feedback (Response)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Student Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Technology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Technology Uses in Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Faculty
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Learner Engagement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Characteristics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Students
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Humanising Feedback Encounters: A Qualitative Study of Relational Literacies for Teachers Engaging in Technology-Enhanced Feedback
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Payne, Ameena L.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ajjawi, Rola
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Holloway, Jessica
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2023
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0260-2938
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1469-297X
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 48
            – Type: issue
              Value: 7
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1