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