Dialogue Matters: The Effects of Feedback Dialogue and Dialogue Modality on Peer Feedback Quality and Uptake

• In Event: Understanding and Supporting Feedback Uptake: Bridging Research and Practice in Educational Contexts

Abstract

1. Objectives
Emerging research supports the promise of dialogic approaches to peer feedback for enhancing the quality of feedback (Yan et al., 2025; Zhao et al., 2024). However, studies have not directly examined the causal impacts through experimental contrasts, nor have they directly compared the different common modalities through which dialogue is likely to occur (e.g., face-to-face vs. online written). Finally, they have not explored how dialogue holistically shapes outcomes across the feedback process.

2. Theoretical framework
Theoretically, this study conceptualizes peer feedback as a problem-focused, iterative, and dialogic process rooted in shared meaning-making and mutual responsiveness. Effective feedback extends beyond unidirectional critique to include collaborative negotiation, where students clarify, contest, or expand on feedback through ongoing interaction and dialogue. Drawing on sociocognitive theories of learning (e.g., Chi & Wylie, 2014; Nicol, 2010), the model posits that dialogic feedback fosters deeper cognitive engagement and enhances uptake and revision quality. The modality of dialogue—face-to-face vs. online written—shapes these processes through distinct affordances (e.g., immediacy vs. reflection).

3. Method
This study used a quasi-experimental design to investigate the effects of peer feedback dialogue and its modality on students’ feedback quality, improvement, uptake, and revision. Participants were assigned to one of three conditions—monologic, online dialogue, or face-to-face dialogue. Systematic coding was applied to dialogues, feedback quality, and uptake of feedback. Planned contrasts (dialogism and modality) were tested using ANOVA, non-parametric tests, and distribution-specific regressions. Mediation models were also employed to test indirect effects via dialogue intensity and feedback quality.

4. Data sources
From a writing course involving 100 first-year Chinese university students, the primary data consisted of 1,618 peer feedback comments, transcriptions of dialogue interactions, and revision drafts. Comments were coded for quantity, focus, cognitive and affective features, and accuracy, while feedback uptake was categorized into five types. Dialogue was coded by breadth and depth, and changes to comment quality were tracked over time.

5. Results
Students who engaged in peer feedback dialogue provided longer, more hedged, and cognitively richer comments than those in the monologic condition, especially when interacting face-to-face. While dialogue did not affect the amount or scope of feedback, it increased the use of explanations, suggestions, and hedging. F2F dialogue led to more feedback improvements and nuanced uptake, with students elaborating on feedback rather than merely adopting it. Dialogue also significantly increased revision quantity. Mediation analyses revealed that dialogue effects on uptake were driven by improvements in feedback quality, and modality effects were explained by differences in dialogue intensity and the richness of suggestions and solutions.

6. Scientific significance
This study supports the ICAP framework by showing that dialogic interaction shifts students from passive to interactive modes of engagement, enhancing feedback quality and uptake. The findings also unpack how modality shapes these effects through dialogue intensity, suggesting that synchronous and asynchronous formats afford different cognitive and affective functions. The results challenge binary views of uptake and support more nuanced, process-oriented models of feedback engagement that account for both the depth and nature of student interaction.

Authors

• Christian D. Schunn, University of Pittsburgh

• Yuhuan Emma Zhao, Northeast Normal University

• Fuhui Zhang, Northeast Normal University