What attributes guide best practice for effective feedback? A scoping review
There has been an observed increase in literature concerning feedback within the last decade, with the importance of feedback well documented. Current discourse promotes feedback as an interactive, dialogic process between the learner and the learning partner. While much has been written about effective feedback, less is known about key elements that support dialogic feedback. It is therefore important to investigate what is known about the elements that guide best practice for effective feedback. A scoping review of the extant literature following Arksey and O’Malley’s methodology was conducted. A search of literature published in English identified sixty-one publications eligible for this review. Publications were representative of the international literature from both empirical and non-empirical sources. Feedback elements were extracted from the included publications and categorised into 11 core attributes. The attributes identified feedback as: being a process; criteria-based; requiring multiple forms and sources of data/evidence; needs to be desired by the recipient (i.e. invited and welcomed); timely; responsive to the learner (i.e. tailored to developmental needs/learning preferences of the learner); frequent; future-focussed; reciprocal (i.e. two-way); involves skilful interaction; and is multidimensional (i.e. engages the learner in more than one way). Despite the rhetoric on feedback as a ‘dialogic process’, a gap remains in our understanding around what is required to engage the learner as an equal partner in the feedback process. Further research exploring the impact of specific aspects of the feedback process on practice is required.
KeywordsAttributes Best practice Effective Feedback Scoping review
This review was undertaken as part of doctoral studies supported by Metro South Health Study, Education and Research Trust Account post graduate scholarship and a Research Training Program Domestic Fee Offset scholarship provided by the Australian Government Department of Education and Training (administered by Griffith University).
CO: conceived the paper; gathered, analysed and interpreted the data and prepared the manuscript. AH: contributed to the data analysis and suggested revisions to the manuscript. MM: contributed to the data analysis and suggested revisions to the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
No. Not applicable for a literature review.
- Bhattarai, M. (2007). ABCDEFG IS: The principle of constructive feedback. JNMA; Journal of the Nepal Medical Association, 46(167), 151–156.Google Scholar
- Boud, D. J., & Molloy, E. K. (2013). What is the problem with feedback? In D. J. Boud & E. K. Molloy (Eds.), Feedback in higher and professional education. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Brinko, K. T. (1993). The practice of giving feedback to improve teaching: What is effective? Journal of Higher Education, 64(5), 574–593.Google Scholar
- Chipchase, L., Buttrum, P., Dunwoodie, R., Hill, A., Mandrusiak, A., & Moran, M. (2012). Characteristics of student preparedness for clinical learning: Clinical educator perspectives using a Delphi approach. BMC Medical Education, 12(1), 112. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-12-112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Clark, S., & Duggins, A. (2016). Why use quality feedback to guide professional learning. In Using quality feedback to guide professional learning: A framework for instructional leaders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
- Dobbie, A., & Tysinger, J. W. (2005). Evidence-based strategies that help office-based teachers give effective feedback. Family Medicine, 37(9), 617–619.Google Scholar
- Hunter, T. S. (2009). Giving and receiving constructive feedback in pharmacy practice. Drug Topics, 153(6), 30–37.Google Scholar
- Killion, J. (2015). Attributes of an effective feedback process. In: The feedback process: Transforming feedback for professional learning. Oxford, Ohio: Learning Forward.Google Scholar
- McArthur, J., & Huxham, M. (2013). Feedback unbound: From master to usher. In S. Merry, M. Price, D. Carless, & M. Taras (Eds.), Reconceptualising feedback in higher education: developing dialogue with students (pp. 92–102). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Molloy, E. K., & Boud, D. J. (2013). Changing conceptions of feedback. In D. J. Boud & E. K. Molloy (Eds.), Feedback in higher and professional education. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Suhoyo, Y., Van Hell, E. A., Kerdijk, W., Emilia, O., Schönrock-Adema, J., Kuks, J. B. M., et al. (2017). Influence of feedback characteristics on perceived learning value of feedback in clerkships: Does culture matter? BMC Medical Education, 17(1), 69. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-017-0904-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Tracy, S. J. (2013). Qualitative research methods : Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Umiker, W. O. (1994). Performance feedback: The crown jewel of communication. MLO: Medical Laboratory Observer, 26(1), 43–45.Google Scholar
- Wright, K. (2011). A chic critique. Psychology Today, 44(2), 54–63.Google Scholar