At Lambda Feedback our mission is to provide formative feedback at the point of need [1]. We are dedicated to automated feedback, coupled with data analytics derived from that process, which between them should achieve two goals: (1) to enhance the process of independent study (self-study, homework); and (2) to enhance the quality of dialogue when students meet teachers and peers to discuss their work.
Before pursuing the automation of feedback, it is worth pausing to ask what feedback is. This is a question of definition, without which we will be unable to evaluate whether we’re achieving our goal. What is feedback?
Central to all definitions of feedback is the concept of
“…a gap between a current level … and some desired level…” [2, p. 154]
Information about the gap is essential but there is tension in the literature around whether the concept of feedback covers more than just information about the gap. Such a delineation is important for a community focusing on automated ‘feedback’. Is it sufficient to evaluate only the information provided to a student?
Feedback as information
Hattie and Timperley’s [3] widely cited meta-analysis on the effects of feedback is explicit that “feedback is conceptualized as information” [3, p. 81]
The emphasis on feedback as information excludes from the definition its effects, such as improved learning. While Hattie and Timperley [3] reviewed studies that report the impacts of feedback, and focus their research on those impacts, such impacts nevertheless fall outside the definition of ‘feedback’.
Other influential research on feedback broadly agrees with a definition focusing on information. Shute [2] reviewed studies on formative feedback to identify best practice, defining feedback as information [2, p. 154] and using it as such, for example, concluding that best practice is to provide timely, actionable, objective ‘feedback’. Lipnevich and Panadero’s [4] review of theoretical models found that 13 of the 14 models employed a ‘feedback as information’ view.
In addition to theoretical research, we can consider our day-to-day experiences in education. Teachers will refer to ‘giving’ students feedback and to students’ complaints that they do not ‘get’ enough feedback [5]. Students may not have ‘received’ their feedback yet or may find it unclear [6]. These lived experiences reflect a discourse employing the definition of feedback as information. If ‘feedback’ is used in practice to mean information, then on Wittgenstein’s meaning-as-use argument [7, Section 43] that is the definition of feedback.
Feedback as a process
Information about a gap is not necessarily used by students, or if it is used, then it does not necessarily have a positive impact. Sadler [8] included a key additional criterion, defining feedback as
“…information about the gap between the actual level and the reference level…used to alter the gap in some way”
— Ramaprasad [9], quoted by Sadler [18, p. 120]. Emphasis added.
The key inclusion of ‘used to alter the gap’ broadens the definition of feedback. Such a distinction has important implications for evaluating feedback. If a feedback message follows Shute’s [2] criteria, is that sufficient to be evaluated as good feedback? There is a strong body of literature that says ‘no’; feedback must “focus …on students’ actions in response” [10].
The concept of feedback as a wider process, of which the message is just a part, is not new, but Winstone et al. [11] have been influential in emphasising this difference in recent years. The focus has shifted from the feedback messages provided by teachers or systems, to how the student responds. For example, student feedback ‘literacy’ [12, 13] refers to their appreciation of feedback and their ability to engage.
The process-view is more explicitly invoked when referring to ‘feedback experiences’ [13 , p. 1319], and feedback as a dialogue [14, 15], where students interact with the information provided and with other stakeholders in a social process of meaning-making
Ambiguity and the need for specificity
The previously cited studies were selected for their explicit positioning of feedback either as information or as a wider process. Between those studies, however, is a wider literature that leaves ambiguity.
For example, Black and Wiliam’s influential work on formative feedback [16] notes the discrepancy between Kluger and DeNisi’s [17] large-scale meta review, which conceives of feedback as information, and Ramaprasad’s [9] process view, but nevertheless employs definitions with varying emphasis on information or process.
Nicol and MacFarlane’s [18] model of formative assessment is also ambiguous, starting with a definition of feedback as information before developing a model of constructing meaning, reconceptualising feedback as dialogue as opposed to transmission, and invoking Boud’s feedback loop.
The influential works of Black and Wiliam [16] and Nicol and MacFarlane [18] represent a wider literature that seems content with ambiguous definitions. It would help the community to clarify the definition.
The apparent tension in the varying definitions can be resolved if we are careful to explicitly distinguish between feedback messages and feedback processes. Both are valid and valuable pursuits.
We advocate for clarity to avoid confusion. Simply referring to ‘feedback’ is ambiguous. When it comes to pedagogical evaluation of automated feedback, we simply ask that researchers append clarification—messages or processes.
Summary
Feedback can be conceived as information that identifies a gap between the current situation and an agreed or desired state. Feedback can also refer to the wider process of engagement between students, feedback messages, and teachers. Both definitions are practically useful; but we must be clear when referring to ‘feedback’ by appending clarification. Are we referring to feedback messages, or feedback processes? At Lambda Feedback, we take an interest in both!
Attribution
This article is an abbreviated form of the report from the First Annual Workshop on Pedagogical Evaluation of Automated Feedback (PEAF) at the AIED conference in Soeul, July 2026.
References
[1] P.B. Johnson, J. Fenton, P. Ramsden, R. Chatley, M. Ribera-Vicent, and K. Lundengård (2025). Formative feedback on engineering self-study: Towards 1 million times per year per cohort. In 2025 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) (pp. 1-3). IEEE.
[2] V. J. Shute, Focus on Formative Feedback 78 (2008) 153–189. doi:10.3102/0034654307313795.
[3] J. Hattie, H. Timperley, The power of feedback, Review of Educational Research 77 (2007) 81–112. doi:10.3102/003465430298487.
[4] A. A. Lipnevich, E. Panadero, A review of feedback models and theories: Descriptions, definitions, and conclusions, in: Frontiers in education, volume 6, Frontiers Media SA, 2021, p. 720195.
[5] E. Pitt, N. Winstone, Enabling and valuing feedback literacies, Assessment and evaluation in higher education 48 (2022) 149–157.
[6] A. J. McLean, C. H. Bond, H. D. Nicholson, An anatomy of feedback: a phenomenographic investigation of undergraduate students’ conceptions of feedback, Studies in Higher Education 40(2015) 921–932.
[7] L. Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, 4 ed., Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, 2009.
[8] D. R. Sadler, Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems, Instructional science 18 (1989) 119–144.
[9] A. Ramaprasad, On the definition of feedback, Behavioral science 28 (1983) 4–13.
[10] N. Winstone, D. Carless, Designing effective feedback processes in higher education: A learning-focused approach, Routledge, 2019.
[11] N. Winstone, D. Boud, P. Dawson, M. Heron, From feedback-as-information to feedback-as-process: a linguistic analysis of the feedback literature, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 47(2022) 213–230.
[12] P. Sutton, Conceptualizing feedback literacy: Knowing, being, and acting, Innovations in Education and Teaching International 49 (2012) 31–40.
[13] D. Carless, D. Boud, The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback, Assessment & evaluation in higher education 43 (2018) 1315–1325.
[14] D. Nicol, The power of internal feedback: Exploiting natural comparison processes, Assessment & Evaluation in higher education 46 (2021) 756–778.
[15] R. Esterhazy, What matters for productive feedback? disciplinary practices and their relational dynamics, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 43 (2018) 1302–1314.
[16] P. Black, D. Wiliam, Assessment and classroom learning, Assessment in Education: principles, policy & practice 5 (1998) 7–74.
[17] A. N. Kluger, A. DeNisi, The effects of feedback interventions on performance: a historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory., Psychological bulletin 119 (1996)
[18] D. J. Nicol, D. Macfarlane-Dick, Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice, Studies in higher education 31 (2006) 199–218.