








































English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

Vol. 8, No. 1, April 2025, pp. 37-53  

        https://doi.org/10.12928/eltej.v8i1.14057        http://journal2.uad.ac.id/index.php/eltej/index         eltej@pbi.uad.ac.id  

Dialogic feedback in English Language Teaching (ELT): 

Modalities, outcomes, and research trends 

Ani Susanti a,1,*, Tengku Intan Suzila Tengku Sharif b,2, Alex Masardo c,3 

a Department of English Language, Universitas Ahmadi Dahlan, Jl. Ringroad Selatan, Kragilan, Yogyakarta,55191, Indonesia 
b Universiti Teknologi Mara Pahang Branch, Lintasan Semarak Bandar Tun Abdul Razak 26400 Jengka Pahang, Malaysia 

c School of Education, Health and Science, University of Gloucestershire, City Campus, Gloucester, Gloucestershire, GL1 1SQ, United Kingdom  

 

1 ani.susanti@pbi.uad.ac.id*; 2 intansuzila@gmail.com, 2amasardo@glos.ac.uk 

   

*Corresponding Author 

 A R T I C L E  I N F O 

 

ABST RACT   

 

 

Article history 

Received 12 February 2025 

Revised 12 March 2025 

Accepted 5 April 2025 

 This systematic literature review examines dialogic feedback research 
in English Language Teaching (ELT) based on 23 empirical studies 
published between 2010 and 2025. Following the PRISMA (Preferred 
Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 
guidelines, the review applied a rigorous selection and screening 
process to ensure transparency and replicability. Six main modalities 
of dialogic feedback are identified: face-to-face dialogic feedback, 
written dialogic feedback, technology-mediated dialogic feedback, 
peer dialogic feedback, supervisory dialogic feedback, and teacher 
professional development dialogic feedback This typology reflects 
variations in feedback interaction modes, participants, and 
instructional settings, offering a more nuanced framework for 
understanding how dialogic feedback operates across formal and 
informal learning contexts.  These modalities promote interactive, 
learner-centered feedback processes across varied learning 
environments. The analysis highlights four key educational outcomes: 
improvements in writing proficiency, enhanced feedback literacy, 
increased learner engagement and reflection, and the development of 
learner autonomy and self-regulation. These outcomes demonstrate a 
consistent pedagogical value of dialogic feedback in supporting active 
learning ecosystems. Research trends reveal three chronological 
phases: early conceptual exploration, empirical classroom application, 
and recent growth in digital feedback practices. Studies predominantly 
employ sociocultural theory, dialogic pedagogy, feedback literacy, and 
self-regulated learning frameworks. Methodologically, the field has 
advanced from qualitative designs to mixed method and quasi-
experimental approaches, mostly within Asian EFL university writing 
contexts. Notable gaps include the lack of longitudinal studies, 
minimal focus on speaking skills, and underrepresentation of diverse 
geographical and educational contexts. Future research should address 
these gaps by expanding skill focus, geographical coverage, and 
methodological rigor to ensure more equitable and effective dialogic 
feedback practices in ELT.  

 

© The Authors 2025. Published by Universitas Ahmad Dahlan. 

This is an open access article under the CC–BY-SA license. 

    

 

 
Keywords 

Dialogic feedback 

English Language Teaching 

Feedback literacy 

Systematic literature review 

Technology-mediated dialogic feedback 

 

 

 

How to Cite: Susanti, A., Tengku Intan Suzila, T.S. & Masardo, A. (2025). Dialogic feedback in English 
Language Teaching ELT: Modalities, outcomes, and research trends. English Language Teaching Educational 
Journal, 8(1), 37-53. https://doi.org/10.12928/eltej.v8i1.14057   

https://doi.org/10.12928/eltej.v7i3.11938
http://journal2.uad.ac.id/index.php/eltej/index
mailto:eltej@pbi.uad.ac.id
mailto:ani.susanti@pbi.uad.ac.id
mailto:intansuzila@gmail.com
mailto:amasardo@glos.ac.uk
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
https://doi.org/10.12928/eltej.v8i1.14057
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.12928/eltej.v8i1.14057&domain=pdf
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2529-9112


38 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 8, No. 1, April 2025, pp. 37-53 

 Susanti, A. (Dialogic feedback in ELT: Modalities, outcomes, and research…..) 

1. Introduction  

In recent decades, the role of feedback in educational settings has undergone a significant 
transformation. Traditional conceptions of feedback often portrayed it as a unidirectional, teacher-
centered process, primarily aimed at correcting errors and reinforcing surface-level accuracy (Yang 
& Carless, 2013). Under this paradigm, learners were positioned as passive recipients of information, 
with limited opportunities to engage meaningfully with the feedback provided (Christensen, 2004). 
Unlike conventional formative feedback, which often focuses on teacher input and performance 
correction, dialogic feedback foregrounds mutual exchange and learner agency. It uniquely fosters 
reciprocal meaning-making through interactive dialogue, allowing learners to reflect, question, and 
co-construct understanding in real time. However, growing emphasis on learner-centered pedagogy 
and constructivist theories of learning has prompted a redefinition of feedback as a more dynamic, 
dialogic, and formative practice (Carless & Boud, 2018). This evolution reflects a broader educational 
shift where the feedback process is conceptualized not only as a mechanism for evaluation but also as 
a crucial avenue for knowledge co-construction. By promoting reciprocal communication between 
teachers and learners, dialogic feedback encourages learners to engage actively in their learning 
processes, fostering deeper understanding, autonomy, and critical thinking. 

The emergence of learner-centered pedagogy and the influence of constructivist and sociocultural 
learning theories have contributed to a redefinition of feedback as an interactive, dialogic process. 
Dialogic feedback, in particular, is recognized as a reciprocal form of communication between 
teachers and learners, characterized by two-way exchanges that foster active learner participation, 
reflection, and co-construction of knowledge  (Skidmore & Murakami, 2016; Steen-Utheim & Wittek, 
2017). Within the field of English Language Teaching (ELT), dialogic feedback has attracted 
considerable scholarly attention as a pedagogical approach that supports not only error correction but 
also the broader development of language skills through meaningful classroom interactions (Tam, 
2020).  

Rooted in sociocultural learning theories, especially Vygotsky’s (Vygotsky, 1978) notion of 
socially mediated learning, dialogic feedback positions feedback as a developmental tool within the 
learner’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). Dialogic exchanges allow teachers and peers to 
scaffold learner understanding, enabling learners to reflect on their performance, clarify 
misunderstandings, and make more substantial improvements in their language use. A growing body 
of empirical research highlights the effectiveness of dialogic feedback in fostering deeper engagement 
with language learning tasks, particularly in writing-focused classrooms (Jwa, 2024; Tam, 2020). 
Beyond writing, dialogic feedback has also been linked to the improvements of learner autonomy, 
metacognitive regulation, and feedback literacy (Carless & Boud, 2018; Liu & Lu, 2025; Turner, 
2023b).  

The ever-expanding adoption of educational technology has further diversified the modalities 
through which dialogic feedback is delivered. With the increased use of online collaborative 
platforms, video-based responses, and more recently, AI-assisted feedback tools, dialogic feedback is 
no longer confined to in-person classroom discussions (Han & Mimi Li, 2024; Zhou et al., 2025). 
Technology-mediated dialogic feedback offers flexible, multimodal, and often asynchronous 
interaction opportunities, providing learners with greater access to iterative feedback processes and 
enabling differentiated support tailored to individual learning needs. 

Nevertheless, several gaps remain within the current literature on dialogic feedback in ELT. 
Existing reviews have largely focused on general feedback strategies or narrow dimensions such as 
written corrective feedback (Hyland & Hyland, 2006), without fully addressing dialogic feedback as 
a distinct pedagogical construct. Furthermore, the majority of research has been conducted in higher 
education writing contexts, with relatively limited exploration of dialogic feedback’s role in the 
development of oral communication skills, vocabulary acquisition, or integrated language tasks 
(Bouwer et al., 2024). Additionally, the geographical distribution of existing studies is uneven, with a 
disproportionate focus on the Global North and specific Asian EFL settings, while perspectives from 
Africa, Latin America, and diverse ESL environments remain underrepresented (Enita & Sumardi, 
2023; Han & Mimi Li, 2024).  

In response to these limitations, this systematic literature review aims to provide a comprehensive 
synthesis of dialogic feedback research in ELT published between 2010 and 2025. This review focuses 
on four key objectives: (1) to identify the dominant modalities of dialogic feedback employed in ELT 



ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 39 
         Vol. 8, No. 1, April 2025, pp. 37-53 

 Susanti, A. (Dialogic feedback in ELT: Modalities, outcomes, and research…..) 

settings; (2) to examine the educational outcomes associated with dialogic feedback practices; (3) to 
map the chronological, theoretical, and methodological developments of dialogic feedback research; 
and (4) to explore contextual patterns in terms of educational level, geographical focus, and 
technological integration. By addressing these dimensions, this review offers an updated 
understanding of the dialogic feedback landscape in ELT and highlights key gaps and directions for 
future pedagogical practice and research. In line with these objectives, this study seeks to answer the 
following research questions: 

1. What are the dominant modalities of dialogic feedback employed in ELT contexts? 

2. What educational outcomes are associated with the use of dialogic feedback in ELT? 

3. How has dialogic feedback research in ELT evolved over time in terms of chronology, 
theoretical frameworks, contextual focus? 

4. What gaps exist in the current body of research on dialogic feedback in ELT, and what future 
directions can be identified?  

2. Method 

This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for 
Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to ensure transparency, replicability, 
and methodological rigor (Mateo, 2020). The main objective was to examine the feedback modalities, 
educational outcomes, theoretical foundations, chronological development, and methodological 
trends of dialogic feedback research in English Language Teaching (ELT) published between 2010 
and 2025. The review process followed three main stages: (1) literature search, (2) study screening 
and eligibility evaluation, and (3) data extraction and synthesis.  

2.1. Search Strategy 

The literature search was conducted using the Scopus database prior to manuscript submission in 
early 2025. A comprehensive Boolean search strategy was applied across all fields using the following 
search string: 

(“dialogic feedback” OR “feedback dialogue” OR “feedback conversation” OR “feedback 
interaction”) AND (“English language teaching” OR “EFL” OR “ESL” OR “language learning”). 

To ensure relevance to educational research, the search was limited to articles published in English 
between 2010 and 2025 and filtered by subject areas within the Social Sciences and Arts and 
Humanities categories.  

2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria 

To maintain a focused and rigorous selection of studies, inclusion criteria were established as 
follows: 

Empirical studies with a primary focus on dialogic feedback in language learning; 

Studies conducted within English language teaching (ELT), including EFL or ESL contexts; 

Published in peer-reviewed journals; 

Available in full-text English language publications between 2010 and 2025. 

Exclusion criteria were applied to remove: 

Studies exclusively focusing on monologic or written corrective feedback without dialogic 
interaction; 

Research outside of language learning contexts (e.g., mathematics, science education); 

Inaccessible full-text articles.  

Publication potentially on similar focus before 2010 

2.3. Study Selection Process 

A systematic multi-stage screening process was employed to ensure relevance and quality. 
Initially, 267 records were identified through the Scopus database search. The first filtering phase 



40 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 8, No. 1, April 2025, pp. 37-53 

 Susanti, A. (Dialogic feedback in ELT: Modalities, outcomes, and research…..) 

excluded non-journal sources, specifically reviews (n=24), conference proceedings (n=15), and 
editorials (n=3), yielding 225 journal articles. To ensure accessibility and research transparency, an 
open-access filter was applied, resulting in 85 records. Further keyword relevance filtering reduced 
the number to 39 studies. Finally, a full-text eligibility assessment was conducted based on the 
inclusion criteria, culminating in the selection of 23 studies for the final synthesis. The complete 
selection process is depicted in the PRISMA flowchart (Figure 1).  

 

Fig. 1. PRISMA Flowchart of Study Selection. 

2.4. Data Extraction and Synthesis 

Data extraction and coding were conducted systematically based on a structured coding scheme. 
Key data points extracted included authorship, year of publication, geographical context, research 
objectives, research design, data collection methods, theoretical frameworks, feedback modalities, 
educational outcomes, and contextual factors. The coding process followed a deductive approach, 
informed by pre-established analytical categories derived from prior literature on dialogic feedback 
and English Language Teaching (ELT). These categories served as the basis for organizing and 
interpreting data consistently across studies. 

A thematic content analysis was then employed to synthesize findings across five analytical 
dimensions: (1) feedback modalities, (2) educational outcomes, (3) chronological development, (4) 
theoretical frameworks, and (5) setting and context. This dual approach combined quantitative 
mapping of research characteristics with qualitative narrative synthesis, enabling the identification of 
prevailing trends, recurrent patterns, and critical gaps in dialogic feedback research in ELT. 

4. Finding and Discussion 

From the stipulated five synthesized aspects, the findings of this systematic literature review are 
integrated around three key analytical dimensions: (1) the modalities of dialogic feedback, (2) the 
educational outcomes associated with dialogic feedback practices, and (3) the chronological, 
theoretical, methodological, and contextual trends evident in dialogic feedback research. Organizing 
the findings according to these dimensions enables a clearer understanding of the dominant forms 
through which dialogic feedback is delivered, the specific pedagogical benefits it contributes to 
language learning, and the broader developmental patterns shaping the academic discourse on 
feedback in ELT. By systematically mapping these themes, the review captures both well-established 
feedback practices, such as face-to-face and written feedback, and recent innovations, including 
technology-mediated and AI-supported dialogic feedback. Thus, this structured framework offers a 



ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 41 
         Vol. 8, No. 1, April 2025, pp. 37-53 

 Susanti, A. (Dialogic feedback in ELT: Modalities, outcomes, and research…..) 

comprehensive and systematic overview of how dialogic feedback has been conceptualized, applied, 
and empirically examined within English Language Teaching (ELT) between 2010 and 2025. 

To facilitate accessibility and clarity, Table 1 provides a synthesized summary of the main themes 
and representative studies included in the review, serving as a reference point for the in-depth 
discussions that follow in subsequent sections.   

Table 1.  Summary of Findings on Dialogic Feedback in ELT 

Dimension Key Themes Description Representative Studies 

Dialogic 

Feedback 

Modalities 

Face-to-Face Dialogic Feedback  

Written Dialogic Feedback  

Technology-Mediated Feedback  

Peer Dialogic Feedback  
Supervisory Dialogic Feedback  

Teacher Professional 

Development Dialogic Feedback   

Six distinct modes of dialogic 

feedback delivery identified in ELT, 

spanning direct verbal exchanges, 

reflective writing, peer interactions, 
supervisory relationships, 

professional development contexts, 

and technology-mediated platforms 

including AI tools. 

Chung & Fisher (2022); 

Tam (2020); Zhou et al. 

(2025); Jwa (2024); Saeed & 

Al Qunayeer (2022); 
Neupane Bastola & Hu 

(2021) 

Educational 

Outcomes 

Writing Development  

Feedback Literacy  

Learner Engagement and 

Reflection  
Autonomy and Self-Regulation 

Dialogic feedback contributes to 

multiple educational gains, 

particularly in writing proficiency, 

enhanced engagement with 
feedback, improved reflection, and 

learner independence. 

Turner (2023); Deng & 

Sitthitikul (2025); Liu & 

Lu (2025); 

Maneepakhathorn (2023); 
Wu et al. (2021) 

Research 

Trends 

Chronological Development: 

Early conceptual, classroom 
application, recent technology 

integration. Methodological 

Shifts: From qualitative 

dominance to mixed method and 
quasi-experimental approaches.  

Theoretical Frameworks: 

Sociocultural theory, dialogic 

pedagogy, feedback literacy, self-
regulated learning  

Contextual Settings: 

Concentration in Asian EFL 

higher education writing 
contexts 

A clear trajectory of expanding 

research focus, with innovations in 
methodology and technology, yet 

persistent gaps in geographical 

diversity, educational level, and oral 

skill focus. 

Yang & Carless (2013); 

Carless & Boud (2018); 
Han & Li (2024); Kazemi 

et al. (2025); Enita & 

Sumardi (2023) 

 

 

3.1. Modalities of Dialogic Feedback   

The analysis of the selected studies identifies diverse modalities through which dialogic feedback 
is implemented in English Language Teaching (ELT). These modalities reflect the evolving 
pedagogical approaches used to facilitate meaningful interaction and learner engagement during the 
feedback process. Rather than a one-size-fits-all model, dialogic feedback manifests across multiple 
formats, ranging from direct, face-to-face interactions to written exchanges, digitally mediated 
dialogues, and peer-to-peer feedback mechanisms. This section categorizes the modalities into six 
distinct types based on delivery modes and interaction patterns: face-to-face dialogic feedback, written 
dialogic feedback, technology-enhanced dialogic feedback, peer dialogic feedback, supervisory 
dialogic feedback, and teacher professional development dialogic feedback. Each modality is 
discussed in relation to its delivery method, level of learner involvement, and dominant research focus, 
providing a clearer understanding of how dialogic feedback operates in various ELT settings. A brief 
summary of these modalities is presented in Table 2.  

  



42 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 8, No. 1, April 2025, pp. 37-53 

 Susanti, A. (Dialogic feedback in ELT: Modalities, outcomes, and research…..) 

Table 2.  Summary of Dialogic Feedback Modalities in ELT  

Modality Focus of Interaction Delivery Modes Representative Studies 

Face-to-Face 
Dialogic Feedback 

Direct verbal interaction 
between teacher-student or 

peers; promotes real-time 

clarification and negotiation 

of meaning. 

Classroom discussions, 
tutorials, oral conferencing, 

in-person peer feedback. 

Chung & Fisher (2022); 
Alqefari (2022); Lee (2018); 

Washbourne (2014); Saeed & Al 

Qunayeer (2022) 

Written Dialogic 

Feedback 

Iterative dialogue through 

written responses; promotes 

reflective engagement and 

deeper revisions. 

Written annotations, 

margin comments, reflective 

journals, feedback dialogues 

in writing drafts. 

Turner (2023); Jwa (2024); 

Merkel (2018); 

Maneepakhathorn (2023); Zhou 

et al. (2025) 
Technology-

Enhanced Dialogic 

Feedback 

Feedback facilitated through 

digital platforms, enabling 

asynchronous interaction and 

multimodal engagement. 

Google Docs, ChatGPT, AI 

feedback tools, audio-video 

responses, digital oral 

dialogue journaling 
(DODJ). 

Daryanto et al. (2025); Han & 

Li (2024); Zhou et al. (2025); 

Kazemi et al. (2025); Saeed & 

Al Qunayeer (2022) 

Peer Dialogic 

Feedback 

Learner-to-learner interaction 

focused on collaborative 

meaning-making and mutual 
improvement. 

In-class peer review, online 

peer commenting, 

collaborative group feedback 
sessions. 

Alqefari (2022); Deng & 

Sitthitikul (2025); Merkel 

(2018) 

Supervisory 

Dialogic Feedback 

Personalized, formative 

feedback within supervisory 

academic relationships. 

Thesis consultations, 

supervisory conferencing, 

written supervisory feedback 
exchanges. 

Neupane Bastola & Hu (2021); 

Charteris & Smardon (2015); 

Fernández-Toro & 
Furnborough (2018) 

Teacher 

Professional 

Development 
Dialogic Feedback 

Dialogic feedback among 

educators to foster 

professional reflection and 
pedagogical change. 

Professional learning 

dialogues, collaborative 

workshops, dialogic inquiry 
communities. 

Chung & Fisher (2022); 

Charteris & Smardon (2015); 

Carless & Boud (2018) 

 

The analysis of the reviewed studies demonstrates that face-to-face dialogic feedback continues to 
serve as a foundational practice in ELT classrooms, particularly within traditional in-person learning 
environments. This modality facilitates synchronous, real-time interaction between teachers and 
learners, allowing immediate clarification, scaffolded guidance, and personalized feedback responses. 
Studies such as (Alqefari, 2022; Chung & Fisher, 2022; Lee, 2018; Saeed & Al Qunayeer, 2022; 
Washbourne, 2014) consistently highlight the pedagogical value of verbal exchanges, especially 
during classroom discussions, individual writing tutorials, and oral conferencing sessions. These 
interactions have been shown to promote learner engagement, enhance immediate understanding, and 
encourage active participation, particularly in productive language skills like writing and speaking. 
However, while face-to-face feedback enables high levels of personalization, several limitations 
emerge from the literature. Large class sizes, high teacher workloads, and varying levels of teacher 
feedback competence can inhibit the consistency and depth of dialogic interaction. Moreover, some 
studies caution that without structured feedback protocols, face-to-face feedback risks becoming 
superficial or overly corrective, potentially undermining learner autonomy. These insights highlight 
the necessity for institutional policies that allocate sufficient time and resources to support sustainable 
face-to-face dialogical feedback practices. 

In contrast, written dialogic feedback represents a prevalent asynchronous modality, offering 
learners the opportunity to engage more deeply and reflectively with teacher comments across iterative 
writing processes. Past studies have (Jwa, 2024; Maneepakhathorn, 2023; Merkel, 2018; Turner, 
2023a; Washbourne, 2014; Zhou et al., 2025) demonstrated that written feedback, delivered through 
annotated margins, digital comments, or structured reflective journals, supports sustained cognitive 
engagement and revision practices. This modality has been particularly valued in writing classrooms, 
where the temporal distance allows learners to process feedback at their own pace and revisit 
suggestions multiple times. Importantly, written dialogic exchanges foster critical reflection and 
promote metacognitive skills, enabling learners to develop greater self-regulation in their learning. 
However, the reviewed studies also raise important considerations: the lack of immediacy can limit 
dialogic negotiation of meaning, and learners may misinterpret written feedback without opportunities 
for clarification. Additionally, the quality of written dialogic feedback is often contingent on teachers’ 



ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 43 
         Vol. 8, No. 1, April 2025, pp. 37-53 

 Susanti, A. (Dialogic feedback in ELT: Modalities, outcomes, and research…..) 

proficiency in crafting constructive, balanced comments, underscoring the need for feedback literacy 
development among educators themselves. 

The increasing adoption of technology-enhanced dialogic feedback signifies one of the most 
dynamic shifts in contemporary ELT feedback practices. Recent studies (Daryanto et al., 2025; Deng 
& Sitthitikul, 2025; Han & Mimi Li, 2024; Zhou et al., 2025) illustrate how digital platforms such as 
Google Docs, video and audio screencast tools, and AI-powered feedback systems like ChatGPT have 
expanded the possibilities for dialogic interaction. This modality offers unique affordances, including 
multimodal engagement, flexible timing, and broader accessibility, particularly in online and blended 
learning contexts. Technology-mediated feedback facilitates iterative engagement, empowers learners 
to control the pace of their feedback interaction, and supports collaborative revision through shared 
digital spaces (Kazemi et al., 2025; Saeed & Al Qunayeer, 2022). Nevertheless, several critical 
concerns emerge across literature. While technology enhances convenience, studies caution against 
the risk of depersonalization, where automated or template-driven feedback may lack contextual 
nuance and reduce learner motivation (Han & Mimi Li, 2024).  Furthermore, reliance on digital 
platforms introduces equity challenges, as access to technology and digital literacy skills vary widely 
across educational contexts. Consequently, there is a growing consensus in recent literature that while 
technology-mediated dialogic feedback can enrich feedback processes, it must be thoughtfully 
integrated with pedagogical principles that preserve interactional authenticity, ensure inclusivity, and 
promote active learner engagement. 

In summary, these findings underscore the diversity and adaptability of dialogic feedback 
modalities within ELT, spanning face-to-face interactions, written exchanges, and digitally mediated 
platforms. Each modality presents distinct strengths: oral dialogue promotes immediacy, written 
exchanges foster reflection, and technology enhances accessibility and scalability. The increasing shift 
towards digital feedback modalities reflects broader trends in learner autonomy and flexible learning 
pathways. Therefore, educators are encouraged to adopt a strategic, context-sensitive approach in 
combining these modalities, ensuring that dialogic feedback remains effective, equitable, and aligned 
with both pedagogical goals and learner needs. 

3.2. Educational Outcomes of Dialogic Feedback  

The analysis of the 23 selected studies reveals four prominent educational outcomes associated 
with dialogic feedback in English Language Teaching (ELT). Beyond improving language accuracy, 
dialogic feedback contributes to learners’ metacognitive development, engagement, and independent 
learning skills. Specifically, the outcomes identified are: (1) writing development, (2) feedback 
literacy, (3) learner engagement and reflection, and (4) learner autonomy and self-regulation. This 
section presents a synthesis of these outcomes, illustrating how dialogic feedback enhances learning 
processes in ELT classrooms. A detailed overview of these educational outcomes is summarized in 
Table 3.  

A consistently reported benefit of dialogic feedback across the reviewed literature is its significant 
contribution to writing development. Multiple studies converge in maintaining that sustained dialogic 
engagement supports improvements in both the content quality and linguistic accuracy of student 
writing (Alqefari, 2022; Deng & Sitthitikul, 2025; Jwa, 2024; Maneepakhathorn, 2023; Merkel, 2018). 
Dialogic interactions allow for iterative feedback cycles, enabling learners to develop clearer 
argument structures, improve textual coherence, and reduce common grammatical errors. Notably, 
dialogic feedback fosters a more personalized and responsive revision process, where learners can 
clarify misunderstandings, negotiate teacher comments, and implement targeted revisions. However, 
while gains in writing proficiency are well-documented in short-term interventions, there remains a 
scarcity of longitudinal research exploring whether these improvements are retained across extended 
academic periods, especially beyond controlled classroom environments. 

  



44 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 8, No. 1, April 2025, pp. 37-53 

 Susanti, A. (Dialogic feedback in ELT: Modalities, outcomes, and research…..) 

Table 3.  Summary of Educational Outcomes of Dialogic Feedback in ELT  

Educational 

Outcome 
Definition Observed Benefits Representative Studies 

Writing 

Development 

Improvement in writing 

performance, focusing on 

coherence, structure, and 
linguistic accuracy. 

Enhanced text quality, 

iterative revisions, deeper 

engagement with language 
tasks. 

Turner (2023), Alqefari (2022), 

Maneepakhathorn (2023), Jwa 

(2024), Deng & Sitthitikul (2025), 
Merkel (2018) 

Feedback 

Literacy 

Learners' ability to 

understand, process, and 

apply feedback effectively. 

Improved feedback uptake, 

development of evaluative 

judgment, active feedback 
engagement. 

Carless & Boud (2018), Fernández-

Toro & Furnborough (2018), Jwa 

(2024), Merkel (2018), Deng & 
Sitthitikul (2025) 

Learner 

Engagement and 

Reflection 

Increased motivation, 

participation, and reflective 

thinking during learning 
activities. 

Higher engagement, reduced 

anxiety, stronger classroom 

participation, reflective 
learning habits. 

Neupane Bastola & Hu (2021), Wu 

et al. (2021), Charteris & Smardon 

(2015), Zhou et al. (2025), Jwa 
(2024) 

Autonomy and 

Self-Regulation 

Enhanced capacity for self-

directed learning through 

goal setting and progress 
monitoring. 

Greater learner 

independence, improved 

self-monitoring, long-term 
learning autonomy. 

Daryanto et al. (2025), Saeed & Al 

Qunayeer (2022), Han & Li (2024), 

Zhou et al. (2025), Kazemi et al. 
(2025) 

 

Another prominent educational outcome is the advancement of feedback literacy, where learners 
demonstrate improved capacity to interpret, evaluate, and utilize feedback effectively. Dialogic 
feedback transforms the traditional passive feedback process into an active and reciprocal learning 
strategy (Carless & Boud, 2018; Deng & Sitthitikul, 2025; Fernández-Toro & Furnborough, 2018; 
Jwa, 2024; Merkel, 2018). Through dialogic exchanges, learners develop metacognitive strategies for 
making sense of feedback, recognizing patterns in their own errors, and taking ownership of their 
learning progress. Particularly within academic writing courses, feedback literacy is shown to 
correlate with increased feedback-seeking behavior and reflective engagement with revision tasks. 
Nevertheless, the research also signals challenges in fostering feedback literacy among learners 
unfamiliar with dialogic practices, especially in contexts where prior educational experiences have 
emphasized unidirectional or summative feedback models. In this regard, teacher training becomes 
essential, not only to familiarize educators with dialogic principles but also to equip them with 
techniques for facilitating metalinguistic reflection, scaffolding learner agency, and cultivating an 
open classroom culture where feedback is viewed as a collaborative learning tool. 

The enhancement of learner engagement and reflective practice emerges as a third core outcome 
facilitated by dialogic feedback. Dialogic interaction not only boosts learners’ motivation but also 
deepens their sense of involvement in the learning process (Bastola & Hu, 2021; Charteris & Smardon, 
2015; Jwa, 2024). Through active participation in feedback conversations, learners report feeling more 
empowered, less anxious about receiving critique, and more committed to their own learning progress. 
Reflection is similarly amplified, as learners engage in meta-discussions about their performance and 
become more adept at setting personal learning goals. However, several studies caution that 
meaningful engagement is contingent upon the teacher’s facilitation skills and institutional culture 
surrounding feedback. Where dialogic feedback is poorly scaffolded or inconsistently applied, its 
potential to foster reflection and engagement may be significantly diminished. 

Finally, autonomy and self-regulation stand out as salient outcomes, particularly in studies 
examining technology-mediated dialogic feedback. Dialogic feedback contributes to the development 
of learner autonomy by encouraging self-monitoring, independent revision, and proactive engagement 
with feedback resources (Daryanto et al., 2025; Han & Mimi Li, 2024; Kazemi et al., 2025; Saeed & 
Al Qunayeer, 2022). In digital environments, the flexibility of asynchronous dialogic exchanges 
allows learners to manage feedback according to their individual schedules and revisit feedback 
content multiple times, fostering more self-directed learning behaviors. Nevertheless, this benefit 
appears closely tied to learner digital literacy and motivational orientation; learners lacking self-
regulation skills or familiarity with digital platforms may struggle to capitalize on these affordances, 
suggesting that effective implementation requires integrated support mechanisms for learner training 
and scaffolding. 



ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 45 
         Vol. 8, No. 1, April 2025, pp. 37-53 

 Susanti, A. (Dialogic feedback in ELT: Modalities, outcomes, and research…..) 

In summary, the reviewed studies consistently demonstrate that dialogic feedback produces 
multifaceted learning outcomes, enhancing not only linguistic skills but also learner autonomy, 
engagement, and reflective capabilities. The repeated emphasis on writing improvement, feedback 
literacy, engagement, and self-regulation highlights dialogic feedback as a versatile and 
transformative pedagogical tool in ELT. These outcomes underline the importance of integrating 
dialogic feedback into diverse classroom settings, with appropriate scaffolding, to maximize both 
immediate learning gains and long-term academic development. 

3.3. Research Trends in Dialogic Feedback  

1) Chronological Research Trends   

An integrated examination of chronological and methodological trends offers a comprehensive 
view of how dialogic feedback research has evolved in English Language Teaching (ELT) over the 
past 15 years. The reviewed studies indicate a steady progression from early conceptual and 
descriptive studies to more structured classroom-based inquiries, and more recently, to technologically 
sophisticated and empirically rigorous investigations. This temporal shift is closely tied to the 
evolution of research methodologies, where the initial dominance of qualitative, small-scale designs 
has gradually been supplemented and in some cases replaced by mixed-methods, experimental, and 
technology-mediated approaches. Tracking this combined development reveals how both the focus of 
dialogic feedback studies and their research rigor have matured in response to the changing 
pedagogical landscape and advancements in digital learning tools. This chronological development 
illustrates how dialogical feedback research has evolved as detailed in Table 4.  

Table 4.  Summary of Chronological Development of Dialogic Feedback Research in ELT 

Period Research Focus 
Dominant Methodological 

Features 

Representative 

Studies 

2010–2014 

Early Conceptual 
Phase 

Conceptualization of dialogic 

feedback; reflective practices in 
translator training and teacher 

education. 

Qualitative narratives, reflective case 

studies, small-scale classroom 
observations; minimal 

measurement of learning outcomes. 

Washbourne (2014); 

Louw et al. (2014) 

2015–2020 

Empirical 
Classroom 

Application 

Practical implementation in 

writing classrooms, action research 
on dialogic interaction; focus on 

learner and teacher perceptions. 

Qualitative dominance: interviews, 

focus groups, reflective journals; 
initial introduction of mixed 

methods with pre-post classroom 

observations. 

Charteris & Smardon 

(2015); Wu et al. 
(2021); Alqefari (2022) 

2021–2025 
Technology-

Enhanced 

Expansion 

Integration of AI tools, 
asynchronous and multimodal 

platforms; focus on learner 

autonomy, engagement, and 

measurable learning gains. 

Mixed-method and quasi-
experimental designs, pre- and 

post-tests, control groups, AI-

driven learning analytics, digital 

trace data. 

Han & Li (2024); 
Zhou et al. (2025); 

Kazemi et al. (2025) 

 

The initial phase (2010–2014) of dialogic feedback research was primarily conceptual in nature, 
with studies focused on exploring pedagogical possibilities rather than producing empirical validation. 
Research during this period, such as (Washbourne, 2014) and (Louw et al., 2014), were dominated by 
qualitative approaches, including reflective practitioner narratives, teacher autoethnographies, and 
small-scale classroom observations. These studies provided important insights into the perceived 
benefits of dialogic interaction in specific contexts like translator training and teacher development, 
helping to establish initial theoretical frameworks. However, this early body of work was 
methodologically limited, with a strong reliance on anecdotal evidence and an absence of systematic 
data collection protocols. Few studies incorporated quantifiable learning outcomes or comparative 
controls, making it difficult to generalize findings beyond the specific cases examined. While the 
contributions of this phase were foundational in establishing dialogic feedback as a legitimate 
pedagogical interest, they were insufficient in offering scalable, evidence-based practices, signaling a 
clear need for methodological expansion in subsequent years. 

The second phase (2015–2020) marked a period of expansion and practical application, as dialogic 
feedback research shifted towards classroom-based investigations, particularly in higher education 
EFL contexts across Asia. There is a growing tendency to adopt action research designs and classroom 
interventions, often aimed at improving academic writing instruction (Alqefari, 2022; Charteris & 



46 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 8, No. 1, April 2025, pp. 37-53 

 Susanti, A. (Dialogic feedback in ELT: Modalities, outcomes, and research…..) 

Smardon, 2015; Wu et al., 2021). During this phase, qualitative dominance persisted, with widespread 
use of semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions, reflective journals, and classroom 
discourse analysis. Some methodological diversification emerged through the inclusion of 
triangulated data sources and limited pre-post assessment designs. However, most studies remained 
exploratory, limited in scale, and conducted within localized institutional contexts, typically involving 
small samples without randomization or longitudinal tracking. While this period expanded the 
practical relevance of dialogic feedback research, methodological rigor remained constrained, with 
most studies prioritizing participant perspectives and descriptive classroom outcomes over controlled, 
generalizable measurements of learning impact. 

The recent phase (2021–2025) has seen a significant methodological evolution, characterized by a 
noticeable turn towards greater empirical rigor, technological integration, and quantitative 
sophistication. Several studies have adopted quasi-experimental designs, larger sample sizes, and 
mixed-method approaches that combine qualitative inquiry with quantitative performance measures 
(Han & Mimi Li, 2024; Kazemi et al., 2025; Zhou et al., 2025). A notable methodological shift has 
been the introduction of pre- and post-testing, use of control groups, and collection of learning 
analytics, including revision patterns, engagement metrics, and even AI-generated feedback data. 
Digital platforms such as Google Docs, ChatGPT, and asynchronous tools like Digital Oral Dialogue 
Journaling (DODJ) have allowed dialogic feedback studies to scale beyond face-to-face environments 
into blended and online learning spaces. This transition has enabled researchers to move beyond self-
reported learner perceptions, incorporating objective performance indicators and behavioral data. 
However, critical gaps remain, including limited adoption of fully randomized control trials (RCTs), 
infrequent longitudinal follow-up, and an over-representation of technologically well-resourced 
settings, suggesting that while methodological sophistication is improving, further advancements in 
design diversity and contextual inclusivity are still warranted. 

The combined analysis of chronological and methodological trends underscores a notable 
maturation of dialogic feedback research in ELT. Over time, the field has transitioned from 
exploratory, teacher-centered qualitative studies to more sophisticated, mixed-method, and 
technology-integrated empirical investigations. This trajectory reflects growing pedagogical demands 
for evidence-based practices and technological shifts towards digital learning environments. Despite 
significant progress, important methodological gaps remain, particularly regarding longitudinal 
impact studies and large-scale randomized control trials. Future research should continue expanding 
methodological rigor by embracing longitudinal tracking, multimodal data sources, and experimental 
designs while preserving the learner-centered and dialogic ethos that defines this field. 

2) Theoretical Framework Trends   

A thorough review of the selected studies highlights the centrality of theoretical frameworks in 
shaping dialogic feedback research. While sociocultural theory remains, the dominant foundation 
underpinning dialogic feedback practices, the past decade has witnessed a diversification of theoretical 
orientations. Alongside sociocultural theory, dialogic pedagogy, feedback literacy, and self-regulated 
learning theories have gained prominence, reflecting broader educational trends toward learner 
agency, reflective learning, and formative assessment. Theoretical frameworks not only inform how 
dialogic feedback is conceptualized but also influence research designs, data interpretation, and 
practical applications in ELT classrooms. Examining these frameworks is crucial for understanding 
how dialogical feedback is positioned within contemporary language education discourses. A 
summary of the dominant theoretical frameworks is presented in Table 5. 

A review of the selected studies reveals that sociocultural theory remains the most dominant and 
enduring theoretical framework shaping dialogic feedback research in ELT. Grounded in Vygotsky’s 
(Vygotsky, 1978) sociocultural model, particularly the concept of the Zone of Proximal Development 
(ZPD), dialogic feedback is conceptualized as a process of scaffolded learning wherein knowledge is 
constructed through guided interaction between more knowledgeable others (teachers or peers) and 
learners. Empirical studies underscore how dialogic exchanges facilitate cognitive development by 
enabling learners to operate within their ZPD (Carless & Boud, 2018; Yang & Carless, 2013). This 
aligns with broader pedagogical movements in ELT that emphasize communicative competence, 
interactive learning environments, and the social dimensions of language acquisition. However, while 
sociocultural theory provides a robust foundational rationale for dialogic feedback, its application has 
often remained at a conceptual level, with fewer studies operationalizing the ZPD in measurable 
pedagogical interventions, suggesting a need for more practical elaboration in future research. 



ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 47 
         Vol. 8, No. 1, April 2025, pp. 37-53 

 Susanti, A. (Dialogic feedback in ELT: Modalities, outcomes, and research…..) 

Table 5.  Summary of Theoretical Framework in Dialogic Feedback Research  

Framework Core Focus Representative Studies 

Sociocultural 

Theory 

Learning as socially mediated, dialogic interaction 

within the Zone of Proximal Development. 

Yang & Carless (2013), Carless & Boud 

(2018), Deng & Sitthitikul (2025) 

Dialogic Pedagogy Focus on open-ended classroom dialogue 
promoting co-construction of meaning. 

Charteris & Smardon (2015), Skidmore & 
Murakami (2016), Tam (2020) 

Feedback Literacy Development of learners' ability to understand 

and use feedback effectively. 

Carless & Boud (2018), Jwa (2024), 

Fernández-Toro & Furnborough (2018) 

Self-Regulation & 
Reflection 

Emphasis on learner autonomy, self-regulated 
learning, and reflective practice. 

Turner (2023), Maneepakhathorn (2023), 
Zhou et al. (2025) 

 

Alongside sociocultural perspectives, dialogic pedagogy and feedback literacy frameworks have 
gained increasing traction in recent years, reflecting evolving priorities in language education. 
Dialogic pedagogy advocates for more egalitarian classroom discourses, promoting reciprocal, two-
way communication between students and teachers (Charteris & Smardon, 2015; Tam, 2020). This 
approach shifts classroom dynamics from top-down information delivery to a shared inquiry model, 
where learners are encouraged to ask questions, challenge ideas, and participate in meaning-making 
processes. Simultaneously, the feedback literacy model advances a learner-centric orientation to 
feedback, emphasizing the development of learners’ capacities to understand, interpret, and apply 
feedback constructively (Carless & Boud, 2018; Jwa, 2024). These frameworks collectively signal a 
paradigm shift from viewing feedback as a corrective tool towards fostering learner agency, critical 
thinking, and active engagement with feedback processes. Despite this positive trend, some studies 
also point to the practical challenges of nurturing feedback literacy, especially in traditional or exam-
oriented ELT cultures where students are accustomed to passive feedback consumption. 

More recent research on dialogic feedback, particularly within technology-enhanced learning 
environments, has incorporated self-regulated learning (SRL) and reflective practice theories. 
Dialogic feedback can be instrumental in fostering metacognitive skills, including goal-setting, self-
assessment, and self-correction (Maneepakhathorn, 2023; Turner, 2023a; Zhou et al., 2025). The 
integration of SRL perspectives highlights dialogic feedback’s role in promoting long-term learner 
autonomy, equipping students with transferable academic skills that extend beyond immediate 
classroom tasks. Similarly, reflective practice frameworks encourage learners to engage in deeper self-
evaluation and critical reflection on their learning trajectories. These theoretical expansions are 
particularly relevant in the context of online and blended learning modalities, where learners are often 
required to manage learning with greater independence. However, a recurrent gap in recent literature 
is the limited exploration of affective dimensions within dialogic feedback, such as emotional 
engagement and motivation, suggesting that future research could benefit from incorporating 
complementary frameworks like affective engagement theory to provide a more holistic 
understanding of dialogic feedback in ELT. 

The diversity of theoretical frameworks employed in dialogic feedback studies reflects the 
expanding pedagogical ambitions of ELT research. While sociocultural theory provides a stable 
foundation, newer frameworks such as feedback literacy and self-regulated learning respond to 
contemporary educational demands for learner agency and metacognitive development. The 
increasing intersection of dialogic feedback with concepts like autonomy, reflection, and digital 
literacy also reveals an encouraging shift towards holistic language education. However, there remains 
room to incorporate underexplored perspectives, including emotional engagement theories and cross-
cultural communication models, to better account for affective factors and intercultural dynamics in 
dialogic feedback interactions.  

3) Contextual and Geographical Trends   

An examination of the geographical and contextual focus of dialogic feedback studies reveals 
notable regional concentration and pedagogical preferences. The majority of dialogic feedback 
research originates from Asian EFL contexts, particularly in higher education writing instruction. 
While studies from China, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia dominate the field, there is a significant lack 
of representation from Africa, Latin America, and certain segments of Southeast Asia. Furthermore, 
dialogic feedback has been primarily studied within academic writing courses, with limited 
exploration in speaking, listening, and non-academic settings. Investigating these trends will provide 



48 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 8, No. 1, April 2025, pp. 37-53 

 Susanti, A. (Dialogic feedback in ELT: Modalities, outcomes, and research…..) 

important insight into the inclusiveness and applicability of current dialogic feedback research. The 
distribution of research settings and context is summarized in Table 6.  

Table 6.  Summary of Contextual Trends in Dialogic Feedback Research  

Dimension Focus Representative Studies 
Geographical 

Focus 

Predominantly Asia (China, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia); 

limited representation from Africa and Latin America. 

Daryanto et al. (2025), Saeed & Al 

Qunayeer (2022), Han & Li (2024) 

Skill Focus Strong focus on writing skills; emerging research on 
speaking and teacher development. 

Turner (2023), Zhou et al. (2025), 
Chung & Fisher (2022) 

Educational 

Level 

Predominantly higher education; limited but growing 

research in secondary and teacher education settings. 

Wu et al. (2021), Alqefari (2022), Jwa 

(2024) 

 

A prominent trend emerging from the reviewed studies is the dominance of Asian EFL contexts, 
particularly within East and Southeast Asia. A significant concentration of research is situated in 
countries such as China (Deng & Sitthitikul, 2025; Han & Mimi Li, 2024), Indonesia (Daryanto et al., 
2025), and Saudi Arabia (Saeed & Al Qunayeer, 2022), reflecting a regional emphasis on 
communicative competence, academic writing improvement, and national-level educational reforms. 
This regional trend aligns with the growing investment in higher education modernization and English 
proficiency development in many Asian countries, where English serves as a critical tool for global 
competitiveness. The strength of this geographical focus lies in its ability to provide rich, context-
specific insights into dialogic feedback practices within high-stakes EFL learning environments. 
However, such regional dominance simultaneously limits the cross-cultural generalizability of 
findings, as many sociocultural, institutional, and linguistic variables in these contexts differ 
substantially from ESL settings in Western countries or from under-resourced learning environments 
elsewhere. 

In terms of educational settings, the literature consistently prioritizes dialogic feedback in higher 
education classrooms, predominantly within academic writing instruction. Dialogic feedback is often 
implemented in essay writing, thesis supervision, and academic project consultations (Jwa, 2024; 
Merkel, 2018; Turner, 2023a). While a small number of studies have begun to extend dialogic 
feedback practices into oral performance assessment (Zhou et al., 2025) and teacher professional 
development programs (Chung & Fisher, 2022), these remain outliers. This narrow academic focus 
creates a contextual imbalance, as dialogic feedback’s applicability to secondary education, vocational 
education, or informal learning environments remains largely unexplored. Consequently, the field 
risks perpetuating an incomplete understanding of how dialogic feedback operates across different 
learner age groups, proficiency levels, and non-academic learning purposes. 

A further observation is the limited geographical diversity in the overall body of research. Regions 
such as Africa, Latin America, and portions of the Middle East remain underrepresented in the dialogic 
feedback literature, as do ESL environments in Anglophone countries where English serves as a 
dominant societal language. Additionally, studies seldom explore dialogic feedback within vocational 
training programs, workplace English settings, or community education spaces. This skewed research 
landscape raises critical concerns regarding equity and inclusivity, as it suggests that much of what is 
known about dialogic feedback stems from relatively privileged, well-resourced, and academically 
oriented populations. As a result, there is an urgent need for future studies to diversify both the 
geographical reach and contextual applications of dialogic feedback, ensuring that pedagogical 
recommendations and theoretical conclusions are sensitive to a broader array of learner needs, 
especially those from marginalized or non-traditional educational backgrounds. 

The current geographical and contextual concentration in dialogic feedback research highlights 
both progress and limitations. While the growing body of research in Asian contexts enriches the field 
with valuable insights from EFL environments, the limited representation of Global South regions and 
non-academic settings restricts the scope of knowledge production. Future research should prioritize 
geographical diversification, expand beyond academic writing to include oral language skills and 
multimodal literacies, and investigate dialogic feedback practices in varied educational levels, 
including primary, vocational, and informal education. Doing so will foster more equitable, context-
sensitive, and globally relevant insights into dialogic feedback practices in ELT.  



ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 49 
         Vol. 8, No. 1, April 2025, pp. 37-53 

 Susanti, A. (Dialogic feedback in ELT: Modalities, outcomes, and research…..) 

3.4. Research Gap and Future Direction  

Despite the expanding interest in dialogic feedback, several notable gaps persist within the current 
body of research in ELT. One major limitation concerns the overrepresentation of studies focusing on 
writing instruction, particularly in higher education settings (Deng & Sitthitikul, 2025; Jwa, 2024; 
Turner, 2023a). While dialogic feedback has been shown to improve writing proficiency and revision 
quality, other core language skills such as speaking, listening, reading, and vocabulary learning remain 
significantly under-researched. Only a limited number of studies have extended dialogic feedback to 
speaking instruction (Wu et al., 2021; Zhou et al., 2025) and very few address its application in 
listening or integrated language tasks. This narrow focus restricts the pedagogical application of 
dialogic feedback in communicative language teaching (CLT) classrooms, where balanced skill 
development is crucial. Future studies should explore dialogic feedback beyond writing contexts, 
particularly in speaking-oriented classrooms and multimodal language learning environments. 

Secondly, the geographical distribution of dialogic feedback research demonstrates a strong 
concentration in Asian EFL contexts, primarily in China (Deng & Sitthitikul, 2025; Han & Mimi Li, 
2024), Indonesia (Daryanto et al., 2025), and Saudi Arabia (Saeed & Al Qunayeer, 2022). Although 
these studies provide valuable insights into dialogic feedback in EFL settings, there is limited research 
from African (Nehring et al., 2010), Latin American, or Western ESL contexts (Lee, 2018; 
Washbourne, 2014). This imbalance raises concerns about the cultural transferability and contextual 
adaptability of dialogic feedback practices. The absence of studies from diverse socio-educational 
environments limits the generalizability of current findings, especially regarding learner attitudes, 
teacher beliefs, and institutional practices. There is a pressing need for more cross-contextual studies 
that include underrepresented regions and ESL settings to develop a more globally nuanced 
understanding of dialogic feedback. 

Methodologically, most studies continue to rely on short-term qualitative designs or small-scale 
classroom interventions (Alqefari, 2022; Maneepakhathorn, 2023), with limited use of longitudinal 
designs or robust experimental approaches. Although recent studies have incorporated quasi-
experimental designs and mixed-methods approaches (Kazemi et al., 2025; Zhou et al., 2025), large-
sample studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) remain scarce. Furthermore, the long-term 
effects of dialogic feedback on learner autonomy, engagement, and language development are still 
largely unknown due to the absence of longitudinal research (Charteris & Smardon, 2015; Jwa, 2024). 
Future research should adopt more rigorous methodologies, combining qualitative depth with 
quantitative generalizability, and investigate the sustained impact of dialogic feedback practices across 
different proficiency levels and educational stages. 

Finally, the increasing use of technology and AI tools introduces both innovation and new research 
gaps. While recent studies have explored AI-assisted feedback mechanisms (Daryanto et al., 2025; 
Han & Mimi Li, 2024), the pedagogical implications, ethical considerations, and learner perceptions 
of AI-mediated dialogic feedback are not yet fully understood. Additionally, there is insufficient 
attention to the development of feedback literacy, with few studies systematically addressing how 
learners can be trained to understand, process, and use dialogic feedback effectively (Carless & Boud, 
2018; Fernández-Toro & Furnborough, 2018). Addressing these gaps will require further exploration 
into how technology can enhance—rather than replace—dialogic interaction, and how structured 
feedback literacy interventions can empower learners to maximize the benefits of dialogic feedback 
in both traditional and digital learning environments. 

3.5. Limitation of the Study 

A primary limitation of this review is the absence of a formal quality appraisal of the 23 included 
studies. While the inclusion criteria ensured relevance, empirical focus, and peer-reviewed publication 
status, no standardized evaluation tool, such as the CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme), 
MMAT (Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool), or GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, 
Development and Evaluations), was employed to assess methodological rigor, validity, or risk of bias 
across studies. Consequently, the findings synthesized in this review may be subject to variation in 
quality, potentially influencing the overall reliability and generalizability of the conclusions. 

Secondly, the review is limited by its exclusive reliance on studies indexed in Scopus and written 
in English. This language and database restriction may have excluded relevant research published in 
other languages or included in regional or discipline-specific databases, thereby introducing a degree 
of selection bias. As a result, the global representation of dialogic feedback practices, particularly from 



50 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 8, No. 1, April 2025, pp. 37-53 

 Susanti, A. (Dialogic feedback in ELT: Modalities, outcomes, and research…..) 

underrepresented contexts such as Latin America, Africa, or non-English-speaking Europe, may not 
be fully captured. Third, although the review identifies patterns in theoretical frameworks and 
methodological designs, it does not provide an in-depth meta-analysis or effect size comparison due 
to the heterogeneity of study designs, participant populations, and outcome measures. This limits the 
ability to draw firm conclusions about the relative effectiveness of specific feedback modalities or 
educational outcomes. 

Lastly, most of the included studies focused on higher education settings, particularly university-
level English writing classes. This contextual narrowness constrains the applicability of the findings 
to other educational levels such as primary or secondary schools, vocational training, or adult 
education. Future reviews should consider stratified analysis across diverse learner demographics, 
skill areas (e.g., speaking and listening), and educational contexts to better inform inclusive 
pedagogical practices. In sum, while this review provides a valuable synthesis of dialogic feedback 
research in ELT, addressing these limitations in future studies will be essential to ensure broader 
coverage, methodological robustness, and contextual diversity in this evolving field. 

4. Conclusion 

This systematic literature review synthesized findings from 23 empirical studies on dialogic 
feedback in English Language Teaching (ELT), highlighting significant developments in feedback 
modalities, educational outcomes, and research trends over the past 15 years. The analysis confirms 
that dialogic feedback has evolved into a multi-faceted pedagogical approach, promoting not only 
linguistic development but also enhancing learner engagement, feedback literacy, and self-regulated 
learning. The reviewed studies demonstrate that dialogic feedback is applied through diverse 
modalities, including face-to-face, written, peer-to-peer, and technology-mediated interactions, each 
offering distinct pedagogical affordances. 

In terms of educational impact, dialogic feedback contributes positively to writing quality, 
feedback literacy, reflective engagement, and learner autonomy. However, the scope of application 
remains predominantly focused on higher education writing contexts, with less emphasis on other 
language skills such as speaking and listening. Chronological and methodological trends indicate a 
clear shift from early conceptual explorations to classroom-based qualitative research and, more 
recently, to digitally mediated, mixed-method, and experimental designs. While this methodological 
evolution has enhanced the empirical robustness of dialogic feedback research, notable gaps persist in 
terms of geographical representation and longitudinal evidence of sustained learning outcomes. 

Based on these findings, this review recommends the continued integration of dialogic feedback 
as a central component of ELT practice, with particular attention to expanding its use across different 
language skills, learner levels, and learning environments. Future research should focus on addressing 
current limitations by exploring dialogic feedback in underrepresented contexts, including primary 
and secondary education, vocational training, and diverse cultural settings. Furthermore, there is a 
pressing need for longitudinal, mixed-method studies that examine both the immediate and long-term 
effects of dialogic feedback on language proficiency and learner development. In parallel, teacher 
training programs should incorporate modules on dialogic pedagogy, equipping educators with 
strategies to facilitate effective two-way feedback exchanges across modalities and learner profiles. 
Curriculum designers are also encouraged to embed dialogic feedback principles into assessment 
practices and instructional design, ensuring sustained learner engagement and metacognitive growth. 
By broadening its scope and strengthening its empirical foundation, dialogic feedback research can 
continue to contribute meaningfully to the advancement of reflective, learner-centered language 
education. 



ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 51 
         Vol. 8, No. 1, April 2025, pp. 37-53 

 Susanti, A. (Dialogic feedback in ELT: Modalities, outcomes, and research…..) 

Acknowledgment  

This study did not receive any specific funding. The authors would like to express sincere gratitude 
to Devanie Firananda Happy Agtasia and Kiki N. Hermawanto for the valuable technical support 
provided during the preparation of this manuscript. 

 

Declarations  

Author contribution : Ani Susanti led the research and drafting with constructive input 
from Tengku Intan Suzila Tengku Sharif and Alex Masardo.  All 
authors approved the final manuscript. 

Funding statement : This research did not receive any external funding. 

Conflict of interest : The authors declare no competing interests. 

Ethics declaration : Not applicable. This study is a systematic literature review 
based solely on the analysis of previously published secondary 
data. No human participants were involved, and therefore, 
ethical approval and informed consent were not required.  

Additional information : No additional information. 

 

 

 

REFERENCES  

Alqefari, A. N. (2022). Spicing up undergraduate collaborative writing course through feedback 

dialogues. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 21(9), 250–

273. 

Bastola, M. N., & Hu, G. (2021). “Commenting on your work is a waste of time only!”: An appraisal-

based study of evaluative language in supervisory feedback. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 

68, 100962. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100962  

Bouwer, R., van Braak, M., & van der Veen, C. (2024). Dialogic writing in the upper grades of 

primary school: How to support peer feedback conversations that promote meaningful 

revisions. Learning and Instruction, 93(July), 101965. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.101965  

Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: enabling uptake of 

feedback. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315–1325. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354  

Charteris, J., & Smardon, D. (2015). Teacher agency and dialogic feedback: Using classroom data 

for practitioner inquiry. Teaching and Teacher Education, 50, 114–123. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.05.006  

Christensen, J. P. (2004). Treatment of error in second language student writing. In TESL Report 

(Vol. 37, Issue 1). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004  

Chung, E., & Fisher, L. (2022). A dialogic approach to promoting professional development: 

Understanding change in Hong Kong language teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding 

vocabulary teaching and learning. System, 110, 102901. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102901  

Daryanto, T., Ding, X., Wilhelm, L. T., Stil, S., Knutsen, K. M. I., & Rho, E. H. (2025). Conversate: 

Supporting Reflective Learning in Interview Practice Through Interactive Simulation and 

Dialogic Feedback. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 9(1), 1–32. 

https://doi.org/10.1145/3701188  

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100962
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.101965
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.05.006
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102901
https://doi.org/10.1145/3701188


52 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 8, No. 1, April 2025, pp. 37-53 

 Susanti, A. (Dialogic feedback in ELT: Modalities, outcomes, and research…..) 

Deng, Y., & Sitthitikul, P. (2025). The effects of the guided dialogic peer feedback-based writing 

instruction on Chinese EFL students’ writing performance in an integrated blended learning 

environment. REFLections, 32(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.61508/refl.v32i1.277804  

Enita, S., & Sumardi, S. (2023). Dialogic feedback on graduate students’ thesis writing supervision: 

voices of Indonesian graduate students. AL-ISHLAH: Jurnal Pendidikan, 15(1), 487–496. 

https://doi.org/10.35445/alishlah.v15i1.2614  

Fernández-Toro, M., & Furnborough, C. (2018). Evaluating alignment of student and tutor 

perspectives on feedback on language learning assignments. Distance Education, 39(4), 548–

567. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2018.1520043  

Han, J., & Mimi Li. (2024). Exploring ChatGPT-supported teacher feedback in the EFL context. 

System, 126, 103502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2024.103502  

Hyland, K. & Hyland, F. (2006). Contexts and issues in feedback on L2 writing: An introduction. In 

K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. 

New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 

Jwa, S. (2024). Written feedback dialogue : A Cyclical for student engagement with feedback. 

TESOL Quarterly, 59(2), 1024–1035. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3365  

Kazemi, M., Saadat, M., Wilson, J., & Rahimi, M. (2025). A comparative study on monologic vs. 

dialogic technology-mediated feedback modalities: Students’ uptake and perspectives. JALT 

CALL Journal, 21(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.29140/jaltcall.v21n1.1758  

Lee, J. (2018). Feedback on feedback: Guiding student interpreter performance. Translation and 

Interpreting, 10(1), 152–170. https://doi.org/10.12807/ti.110201.2018.a09  

Liu, W., & Lu, L. (2025). Improving student feedback literacy through collaborative dialogic 

feedback intervention: An action research study at a University in Southwest China. 

International Journal of Sociologies and Anthropologies Science Reviews, 5(3), 135–154. 

https://doi.org/10.60027/ijsasr.2025.5828  

Louw, S., Todd, R. W., & Jimarkon, P. (2014). Teacher trainers’ beliefs about feedback on teaching 

practice: Negotiating the tensions between authoritativeness and dialogic space. Applied 

Linguistics, 37(6), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu062  

Maneepakhathorn, R. (2023). An exploratory study of reflective dialogue journal writing of EFL 

graduate students in the English as a foreign language context. REFLections, 30(1), 38–58. 

Mateo, S. (2020). A procedure for conduction of a successful literature review using the PRISMA 

method. Kinesither Rev, 20(226), 29–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kine.2020.05.019  

Merkel, W. (2018). Role reversals: A case study of dialogic interactions and feedback on L2 writing. 

Journal of Second Language Writing, 39, 16–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2017.11.007  

Nehring, J., Laboy, W. T., & Catarius, L. (2010). Connecting reflective practice, dialogic protocols, 

and professional learning. Professional Development in Education, 36(3), 399–420. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/19415250903102432  

Saeed, M. A., & Al Qunayeer, H. S. (2022). Exploring teacher interactive e-feedback on students’ 

writing through Google Docs: factors promoting interactivity and potential for learning. 

Language Learning Journal, 50(3), 360–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2020.1786711  

Skidmore, D., & Murakami, K. (2016). Dialogic pedagogy: The importance of dialogue in teaching 

and learning. In Dialogic Pedagogy. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783096220  

 

Steen-Utheim, A., & Wittek, A. L. (2017). Dialogic feedback and potentialities for student learning. 

Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 15, 18–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2017.06.002  

Tam, A. C. F. (2020). Undergraduate students’ perceptions of and responses to exemplar-based 

https://doi.org/10.61508/refl.v32i1.277804
https://doi.org/10.35445/alishlah.v15i1.2614
https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2018.1520043
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2024.103502
https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3365
https://doi.org/10.29140/jaltcall.v21n1.1758
https://doi.org/10.12807/ti.110201.2018.a09
https://doi.org/10.60027/ijsasr.2025.5828
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu062
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kine.2020.05.019
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2017.11.007
https://doi.org/10.1080/19415250903102432
https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2020.1786711
https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783096220
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2017.06.002


ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 53 
         Vol. 8, No. 1, April 2025, pp. 37-53 

 Susanti, A. (Dialogic feedback in ELT: Modalities, outcomes, and research…..) 

dialogic feedback. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(2), 269–285. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1772957  

Turner, E. (2023a). Dialogic feedback and literary disciplinary knowledge in L2 writing instruction: 

how attitude to feedback influences academic achievement. Research Papers in Education, 

38(1), 21–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2021.1941216  

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes (M. 

Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (eds.)). Harvard University Press. 

https://doi.org/10.4244/EIJY14M06_06  

Washbourne, K. (2014). Beyond error marking: Written corrective feedback for a dialogic pedagogy 

in translator training. Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 8(2), 240–256. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2014.908554  

Wu, X. M., Dixon, H. R., & Zhang, L. J. (2021). Sustainable development of students’ learning 

capabilities: The case of university students’ attitudes towards teachers, peers, and themselves 

as oral feedback sources in learning english. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(9). 

https://doi.org/10.3390/su13095211  

Yang, M., & Carless, D. (2013). The feedback triangle and the enhancement of dialogic feedback 

processes. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(3), 285–297. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2012.719154  

Zhou, S., Tso, W. S., & Aubrey, S. (2025). Enhancing L2 learners ’ self-regulated speaking through 

digital oral dialogue journaling: An EFL classroom-based study. RELC Journal, 1–17. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882251313704  

 

https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1772957
https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2021.1941216
https://doi.org/10.4244/EIJY14M06_06
https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2014.908554
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13095211
https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2012.719154
https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882251313704

