Feedback as a relational concept in the classroom

References

• Alderson, J. C., & Wall, D. (1993). Does washback exist?. Applied Linguistics, 14(2), 115–129. doi: 10.1093/applin/14.2.115
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alexander, R. (2008). Towards dialogic thinking: Rethinking classroom talk (4th ed.). York. Dialogos.
   Google Scholar
• Alexander, R. (2018). Developing dialogic teaching: Genesis, process, trail. Research Papers in Education, 33(5), 561–598. doi: 10.1080/02671522.2018.1481140
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Au, W. (2011). Teaching under new Taylorism: High stakes testing and the standardisation of the 21st century curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(1), 25–45. doi: 10.1080/00220272.2010.521261
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baines, E., Blatchford, P., & Kutnick, P. (2017). Promoting effective group work in the primary classroom (2nd ed.). London, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Baird, J., Andrich, D., Hopfenbeck, T., & Stobart, G. (2017). Assessment and learning fields apart?. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 24(3), 317–350. doi: 10.1080/0969594X.2017.1319337
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). M.E. Holoquist, ED. trans. In Caryl Emerson & Michael Holoquist (Eds.), The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M.M. Bakhtin. Austin: University of Texas Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). In Caryl Emerson (Ed.), Speech genres and other late essays. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ball, S. (1993). Education policy, power relations and teachers' work. British Journal of Educational Studies, 41(2), 106–121.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 19(1), 5–25. doi: 10.1080/0969594X.2010.513678
   Google Scholar
• Black, L., William, J., Hernandez-Martinez, P., Davis, P., Pampaka, M., & Wake, G. (2010). Developing a ‘leading identity’: The relationship between students’ mathematical identities and their career and higher education aspirations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 73(1), 55–72. doi: 10.1007/s10649-009-9217-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Black, P. (2015). Formative assessment – An optimistic but incomplete vision. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 22(1), 161–177. doi: 10.1080/0969594X.2014.999643
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, Principles, Policy and Practice, 5(1), 7–74. doi: 10.1080/0969595980050102
   Google Scholar
• Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31. doi: 10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2018). Classroom assessment and pedagogy. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 25, 551–575. doi: 10.1080/0969594X.2018.1441807
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2004). Working inside the black box: Assessment for learning in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(1), 8–21. doi: 10.1177/003172170408600105
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Black, P., McCormick, R., James, M., & Pedder, D. (2006). Learning how to learn and assessment for learning: Theoretical inquiry. Research Papers in Education, 2, 119–132. doi: 10.1080/02671520600615612
   Google Scholar
• Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013). Rethinking models of feedback for learning: The challenge of design. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(6), 698–712. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2012.691462
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bourdieu, P. (1993). The field of cultural production: Essays on art and literature. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bradbury, A., & Robert-Holmes, G. (2018). Datafication of primary and early years education: Playing with numbers. London, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Broadfoot, P. M., Daugherty, R., Gardner, J., Harlen, W., James, M., & Stobart, G. (2002). Assessment for learning: 10 principles. Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge School of Education.
   Google Scholar
• Carless, D. (2013). Trust and its role in facilitating dialogic feedback. In D. Boud & L. Molly (Eds.), Feedback in higher and professional education (pp. 90–103). London, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Chaiklin, S. (2003). The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky’s analysis of learning and instruction. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. Ageyev, & S. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context (pp. 39–64). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dann, R. (2015). Developing the foundations for dialogic feedback in order to better understand the ‘learning gap’ from a pupil’s perspective. London Review of Education, 13(3), 5–20. doi: 10.18546/LRE.13.3.03
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dann, R. (2018). Developing feedback for pupil learning: Teaching, learning and assessment in schools. London, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Department for Education (DfE). (2010). The importance of teaching. London, UK: HMSO.
   Google Scholar
• Department for Education (DfE). (2015). Commission on assessment without levels: Final report. London, UK: HMSO.
   Google Scholar
• Department for Education (DfE). (2016). Educational excellence everywhere. London, UK: HMSO.
   Google Scholar
• Educational Endowment Fund Education Endowment Foundation Teaching and Learning toolkit (2014). Retrieved 30th January, 2018, from https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/evidence/teaching-learning-toolkit
   Google Scholar
• Engeström, Y. (2000). From individual action to collective activity and back: Developmental work as an interventionist methodology. In P. Luff, J. Hindmarsh., & C. Heath (Eds.), Workplace studies: Recovering work practice and informing system design. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gamlem, S. M., & Smith, K. (2013). Student perceptions of classroom feedback. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 20(2), 150–169. doi: 10.1080/0969594X.2012.749212
   Google Scholar
• Gillen, J. (2000). Versions of Vygotsky. British Journal of Educational Studies, 48(2), 183–198. doi: 10.1111/1467-8527.t01-1-00141
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanson, F. A. (1994). Testing testing: Social consequences of the examined life. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hargreaves, E. (2013). Inquiring into children’s experiences of teacher feedback: Reconceptualising assessment for learning. Oxford Review of Education, 39(2), 229–246. doi: 10.1080/03054985.2013.787922
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harlen, W. (2005). Teachers’ summative practices and assessment for learning – Tensions and synergies. The Curriculum Journal, 16(2), 207–223. doi: 10.1080/09585170500136093
   Google Scholar
• Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. London, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Education, 17(1), 81–112.
   Google Scholar
• Holland, D., Lachicotte, W., Jr, Skinner, D., & Cain, C. (1998). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, S. (2013). On the reliability of high-stakes teacher assessment. Research Papers in Education, 28(1), 91–105. doi: 10.1080/02671522.2012.754229
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kingston, N. M., & Nash, B. (2011). Formative assessment: A meta-analysis and a call for research. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30(4), 28–37. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.2011.00220.x
   Google Scholar
• Kingston, N. M., & Nash, B. (2015). Erratum. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 34(1), 55. doi: 10.1111/emip.12075
   Google Scholar
• Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1998). Feedback interventions: toward the understanding of a double edged sword. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 7, 6–72.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Self-regulation through goal setting. Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 212–247. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90021-K
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leontiev, A. A. (1981). Psychology and the language learning process. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
   Google Scholar
• Lingard, B. (2010). Policy borrowing, policy learning: Testing time in Australian schooling. Critical Studies in Education, 51(2), 129–145.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lotman, Y. M. (1988). Text within a text. Soviet Psychology, 26(3), 32–51. doi: 10.2753/RPO1061-0405260332
   Google Scholar
• Madaus, G. G. (1988). The distortion of teaching and testing: High-stakes testing and instruction. Peabody Journal of Education, 65(3), 29–46. doi: 10.1080/01619568809538611
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercer, N., & Fisher, E. (1992). How do teachers help children to learn? An analysis of teachers’ interventions in computer-based activities. Learning and Instruction, 2(4), 339–355. doi: 10.1016/0959-4752(92)90022-E
   Google Scholar
• Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., & Sams, C. (2004). Reasoning as a scientist: Ways of helping children use language to learn science. British Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 359–377. doi: 10.1080/01411920410001689689
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nassaji, H., & Wells, G. (2000). What's the use of triadic dialogue?: An investigation of teacher-student interaction. Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 376–406. doi: 10.1093/applin/21.3.376
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newton, P. E. (2007). Clarifying the purposes of educational assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 14(2), 149–170. doi: 10.1080/09695940701478321
   Google Scholar
• Newton, P. E. (2012). Clarifying the consensus definition of validity. Measurement, Interdisciplinary Research and Perspective, 10(1–2):, 1–29. doi: 10.1080/15366367.2012.669666
   Google Scholar
• Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1989). The construction zone: working for cognitive change in school. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Popham, J. (1987). The merits of measurement driven instruction. Phi Delta Kappa, 68, 679–682.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pratt, N. (2016). Neoliberalism and the (internal) marketization of primary school assessment in England. British Educational Research Journal, 42(5), 890–905. doi: 10.1002/berj.3233
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pryor, J., & Crossouard, B. (2008). A sociocultural theorisation of formative assessment. Oxford Review of Education, 34(1), 1–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramaprasad, A. (1983). On the definition of feedback. Behavioral Science, 28(1), 4–13. doi: 10.1002/bs.3830280103
   Google Scholar
• Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119–144. doi: 10.1007/BF00117714
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scrimsher, S., & Tudge, J. R. H. (2003). The reaching/learning relationship in the first years of school: Some revolutionary implications of Vygotsky’s theory. Early Education and Development, 14(3), 293–312. doi: 10.1207/s15566935eed1403_3
   Google Scholar
• Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In R.W. Tyler, R.M. Gagnes, & M. Scriven (Eds.), Perspectives of curriculum evaluation (pp. 39–83). Chicago, IL. Rand McNally.
   Google Scholar
• Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189. doi: 10.3102/0034654307313795
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steen-Utheim, A., & Wittek, A. L. (2017). Dialogic feedback and potentialities for student learning. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 15, 18–30. doi: 10.1016/j.lcsi.2017.06.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stobart, G., & Eggen, T. (2012). High stakes testing – Value, fairness and consequences. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 19(1), 1–6. doi: 10.1080/0969594X.2012.639191
   Google Scholar
• Tanner, D. (2013). Race to the top and leave the children behind. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 45(1), 4–15. doi: 10.1080/00220272.2012.754946
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torrance, H. (1993). Formative assessment: some theoretical problems and empirical questions. Cambridge Journal of Education, 23(3), 333–343.
   Google Scholar
• Torrance, H. (2012). Formative assessment at the crossroads: Conformative, deformative and transformative assessment. Oxford Review of Education, 38(3), 323–342. doi: 10.1080/03054985.2012.689693
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torrance, H., & Pryor, J. (1998). Investigating formative assessment. Teaching, learning and assessment in the classroom. Buckingham: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). M. Cole, V. John Steiner, S. Scribner & E. Souberan (Trans.), Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA. Harvard University Press. doi: 10.1086/ahr/77.2.605-a
   Google Scholar
• Watkins, C., Carnell, E., & Lodge, C. (2007). Effective learning in classrooms. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Wegerif, R. (2011). Towards dialogic theory of how children learn to think. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 6(3), 179–190. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2011.08.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Hertfordshire: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
   Google Scholar
• Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wiliam, D. (2016). Leadership for teacher learning. West Palm Beach, FL: Learning Sciences International.
   Google Scholar
• Wyatt-Smith, C., Klenowski, V., & Gunn, S. (2010). The centrality of teachers’ judgement practice in assessment: A study of standards in moderation. Assessment in Education, Principles, Policy and Practice, 17(1), 59–75. doi: 10.1080/09695940903565610
   Google Scholar