The Feedback Process within Teacher–Student Dyads Using a Dyadic Interview

Abstract

This study analyzed feedback processes of teachers and students using the Feedback Literacy framework. The participants included eight teachers and sixteen students from the Suranaree University of Technology Demonstration School. Sixteen teacher–student pairs were selected through purposive sampling to enable in-depth examination of feedback interactions. The research instrument was a semi-structured interview. Data were collected through separate dyadic interviews to minimize the influence of power dynamics and encourage participants to express their perspectives openly. The data were analyzed using dyadic content analysis to identify patterns of congruence, divergence, and complementarity between teacher and student perspectives. The findings revealed that the feedback-giving and receiving processes between teachers and students can be divided into three aspects. First, regarding the understanding of feedback purposes, there was clear consensus between teachers and students. Both groups viewed feedback primarily as a mechanism for learning and development rather than as a tool for judging academic performance. Participants also preferred direct interaction through verbal conversation and paper-based materials rather than digital feedback systems, although divergent views emerged regarding online platforms due to technical limitations. A gap in the interpretation of intent was also observed, as teachers sometimes designed challenging activities that did not fully align with students’ self-assessments of their abilities. Second, regarding the process of taking action on feedback, both teachers and students reported that time constraints often led to immediate, individualized feedback. This approach reduced students’ social anxiety and enabled teachers to adjust instruction responsively, including through the use of peer assessment. However, the analysis revealed an incomplete feedback loop in which some students recognized their mistakes, but this awareness did not consistently lead to revision or improvement of their work. Third, regarding emotional management and interpersonal dynamics, supportive teacher–student relationships fostered psychological safety. However, divergent interpretations of nonverbal cues, such as tone of voice and body language, sometimes generated student anxiety and resulted in selective silence rather than open participation. These findings can assist educators in designing more effective feedback loops and practical assessment systems that support student learning and constructive classroom interaction.