Beyond Actions: Discussing Myths About Learner Agency in Feedback

by Lee Min 

Learner agency is increasingly recognised as vital in feedback. Within feedback literature, Learner Feedback Agency (LFA) is often broadly described as learners’ active participation in the feedback process (e.g., Panadero & Lipnevich, 2022; Winstone et al., 2017) and is associated with shifting from teacher-led to learner-centric feedback practices (Boud & Molloy, 2013). LFA is also often linked to autonomy, ownership, and student voice (Lee, 2024). Given these associations, it is easy to associate that the more students act on feedback, the more agentic—and, by extension, the more effective—their learning becomes. Conversely, students who resist feedback or appear inactive often associate negative interpretations such as disengagement or a lack of agency. However, the reality is far more nuanced. In this paper, we shall explore beyond the observable and discuss how seemingly similar feedback enactments can stem from very different intent, calling for greater attention to the underlying thought processes, contextual factors, and reflective decisions that influence students’ agentic involvement with feedback.

Understanding Learner Feedback Agency

In our recent article, we explored the concept of LFA (Lee et al., 2024a), reviewing its theoretical foundations by exploring the broader literature on agency and feedback. Through the review, we proposed that LFA can be better understood through a situational, deliberative, and entangled perspective:

• Situational: LFA is dynamic and context-dependent. Rather than a static disposition, learners have displayed the capacity to fluidly adapt their agentic involvements in response to the demands of the learning environment. Furthermore, this situational awareness extends beyond reactive responses to the present demands, as learners have also been shown to incorporate past experiences as well as their perception of future outcomes into their eventual choice of feedback response (Emirbayer & Mische, 1998; Lee et al., 2024b). Acknowledging LFA as situational signifies a shift towards a deeper acknowledgement of the contextual nuances in shaping students’ involvement with feedback. 
• Deliberative: LFA involves thoughtful decision-making. Students need time to reflect on the circumstances, consider alternatives, and determine the best course of action (Archer, 2003). To consider the deliberative aspects of LFA is to adopt the paradigm that examines the construct beyond the outcome (i.e., the feedback enactment) but also into the process that learners go through to arrive at these outcomes. Incorporating both situational and deliberative aspects of LFA, learners can be viewed as navigating the situational nature of LFA through deliberations.
• Entangled: This aspect of LFA highlights the complex interplay between structure and agency where LFA is not just influenced by the learning environment but is also capable of shaping it. Drawing on Giddens’ (1984) theory of structuration, LFA acknowledges that students and their contexts are interdependent. While students operate within structures such as rubrics, tasks, and teacher expectations, their actions and responses can also reshape these structures (e.g. educators adapt lesson designs based on learners’ responses). This entanglement highlights the co-constructive nature of agency, where both the learner and their environment adapt and evolve.

Together, these three aspects—situational, deliberative, and entangled—offer a more holistic perspective of LFA. They challenge traditional notions that equate agency with action alone, inviting us to rethink how we evaluate and support students’ engagement with feedback.

In this post, we adopt the situational, deliberative, and entangled perspective of LFA to challenge common myths about agency in feedback. By examining these myths, we can better understand how to foster environments where students are empowered to make purposeful and informed decisions about their learning. Let us explore how to create feedback practices that support student agency in feedback by addressing three prominent myths of LFA.

Myth 1: “Feedback Actions such as Feedback Seeking or Feedback Uptake Equate to Students Exercising Agency”

It is common to assume that seeking and acting on feedback are clear indicators of agentic involvement. While these behaviors often signal a positive response, a closer examination shows that such actions do not always reflect the deeper cognitive engagement necessary for meaningful learning during the feedback process. These actions could be driven by various motives beyond learning, such as seeking feedback to create a positive impression on their teachers (Young & Carless, 2024) or obliging and aligning with feedback out of compliance (Areemit et al., 2021). It is clear that in both of these cases, learners’ attentions are misdirected as they miss out on the opportunities to thoughtfully engage with the feedback.

Consider two students who receive identical feedback and proceed to act on it. Student A implements the suggestions with the primary aim of meeting the teacher’s expectations, viewing the feedback as a set of directives to follow. As such, he reproduced the model answer as corrections in response to the feedback. In contrast, Student B takes a more reflective approach as he critically engages with the feedback and contemplates how the feedback aligns with his current understanding, broader learning goals, and task requirements. This yields a correction that is the modification of his original answer based on his understanding of the feedback.

Examining their behaviours, both students could have been deemed to have been positively involved in the feedback process, considering that their responses were in alignment with the feedback. To some, Student A might be perceived to be more receptive to the feedback considering the flawless correction submitted. However, a closer examination of their cognitive engagement reveals fundamental differences. Student A’s approach is transactional with the response to the feedback being a procedural requirement of a student. Hence, he proceeded to enact in accordance to the teacher’s recommendations with a lack of deeper considerations. Meanwhile, although Student B’s corrections might still contain some inaccuracy, his approach is centred on learning and ought to be encouraged. This distinction highlights that not all instances of feedback seeking or uptake represent meaningful manifestations of learner agency. This awareness highlights the need to go further than examining the completion of the feedback loop as evidence of LFA. Instead, as educators, we ought to ensure that we do not mistakenly promote mindless compliance while discouraging mindful engagement with feedback as we review our students’ responses.

Myth 2: “Students Who Push Back or Remain Inactive Are Not Agentic”

Conversely, it is common to associate students who push back on feedback recommendations or do not act on them as disengaged, uninterested, or even defiant. However, when we consider the deliberations behind these behaviors, such responses could be alternative, and arguably more critical, manifestations of LFA where students make reflective choices against certain feedback upon deeming their misalignment with one’s understanding and learning goals. 

A compelling example from Wood’s (2023) study illustrates this well. In his study, the student provided the following justification for the rejection of feedback to include a personal definition for an essay assignment:

“But I don’t agree I should provide my definition. In this part, I was introducing the theory. I do not think I should choose my definition. My aim is to examine what definition Korean scholars would use. If I narrowed down the scope here, my review would be meaningless. My definition should be on the works of others.” (Wood 2023, p. 12).

As evident from the student’s explanation, the resulting inaction is a thoughtful choice of rejection after critically evaluating the provided feedback and deciding that the feedback did not align with his learning objectives. This example highlights the importance of expanding our repertoire of feedback-related actions to include other actions, such as inaction or resistance, as potential outcomes of thoughtful involvement in feedback rather than dismissing them as a lack of engagement.

Consistent with the recommendation from Myth 1, instead of reactively responding to inaction or rejection of feedback, we should shift away from prioritising observable feedback uptake and instead place the primary attention on learners’s cognitive involvement in the feedback process. From this paradigm, we can better foster students’ ability to critically assess the relevance of feedback and empower students to make informed decisions for their feedback process that aligns with their learning needs and objectives, ultimately encouraging LFA.

Myth 3: “The More Feedback Actions Students Take, the More Agentic They Are”

Another common myth involves the belief that LFA can be measured by the number of actions students take in response to feedback. Prominent in quantitative studies of LFA, this assumption conflates the volume of activity (e.g., the number of revisions, clarifications, or adjustments made in response to the feedback) with the level of feedback engagement. However, such approximation assumes a superficial perception of LFA through a focus on the quantitative aspects while neglecting the qualitative significance of feedback engagement. As evident from the discussion in Myth 1 and 2, LFA is more than the frequency of what students do but rather the intentionality and alignment of their actions (or inactions) with their learning goals when responding to feedback (i.e., why they choose to respond the way they did).

As described in Myth 2, where inaction could be legitimised as a valid manifestation of feedback agency, agency can be argued to be evident in all students’ responses to feedback, even in cases where they choose not to act. This brings the relevance and significance of measuring LFA through observable enactments to question. 

For instance, consider Student C, who meticulously seeks feedback and revises her work in strict accordance with the teacher’s comments, in an attempt to achieve higher scores. Although the quantitative measurement of her frequent uptake of feedback may suggest high levels of engagement, her LFA was directed towards performance goals as her actions focus on correcting errors and meeting external expectations rather than deepening understanding or learning from the feedback. Her involvement, albeit diligent, remains focused on changing her work to meet standards. In contrast, Student D took greater efforts and time to critically evaluate and respond to feedback, resulting in a relatively lower count in feedback activities but yielding greater progress in the understanding and appreciating the subject matter. 

The example of Students C and D exemplifies the limitations of relying on quantitative measures to evaluate LFA. While both students demonstrate agency in their feedback responses, it is more insightful to examine the nature and direction of their LFA, and how these factors oriented the learners to behave in distinct ways. These examples highlight that the core of LFA lies not in the quantity of actions taken but in their alignment with learning objectives and the intentionality behind them. 

Implications for Teaching Practice

In our endeavour to encourage agentic involvement in feedback, it is important to first adopt a situational, deliberative, and entangled perspective on LFA. This requires a shift in focus away from prescriptive or quantitative approaches, such as: promoting specific feedback actions, such as feedback seeking or uptake as indicators of LFA; discounting less conventional responses, such as inaction or rejection; and prioritising the quantity of feedback actions over the intentionality behind them.

Instead, the emphasis should centre on students’ deliberative processes, acknowledging the contextual influences that shape students’ feedback involvement, and recognising the diverse range of actions students can take to exercise their agency. Ultimately, action alone is not the measure of learner agency. The following list includes some teaching practices that could be incorporated into feedback practices to nurture learner agency in feedback from a situational, deliberative, and entangled perspective.

Practical Takeaways:

1. Foster an Open Feedback Culture

• Create a classroom culture where students feel empowered to reflect on and critically assess feedback. Normalise questioning or challenging feedback as part of their learning process, helping them understand that feedback is a resource, not a directive.

1. Integrate Reflection Time into the Feedback Process

• Instead of promoting compliance, incorporate opportunities for students to pause and reflect on how feedback fits with their current understanding and long-term learning goals. Provide reflection scaffolds to help students appreciate feedback as adaptable and personal, rather than rigid and universal. Examples of guiding reflection questions include: 
  • What aspects of this feedback resonate with me?
  • Do I agree or disagree with these suggestions? Why?
  • Do I need further clarification on it? 
  • What are some steps I could take?

2.  Recognise Diverse Feedback Responses 

• Acknowledge that LFA manifests in different ways. Students may respond to feedback by implementing changes, modifying the feedback itself, seeking clarification, or even choosing not to act on it immediately. Each response can be a valid expression of the feedback engagement process worthy of further encouragement towards deeper and more productive outcomes.

References

Archer, M. S. (2003). Structure, agency and the internal conversation. Cambridge University Press.

Areemit, R. S., Cooper, C. M., Wirasorn, K., Paopongsawan, P., Panthongviriyakul, C., & Ramani, S. (2021). Hierarchy,“Kreng Jai” and feedback: a grounded theory study exploring perspectives of clinical faculty and medical students in Thailand. Teaching and learning in medicine, 33(3), 235-244. https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2020.1813584

Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013). Rethinking models of feedback for learning: the challenge of design. Assessment & Evaluation in higher education, 38(6), 698-712. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2012.691462

Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency?. American journal of sociology, 103(4), 962-1023. https://doi.org/10.1086/231294

Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Lee, M. (in press). Learner Agency in Feedback: A Review of Conceptualisations and Related Constructs. Cambridge Educational Research e-Journal.

Lee, M., Chen, D. T., Tan, R. J. Y., & Hung, W. L. D. (2024a). Re-conceptualising learner feedback agency: a situational, deliberative and entangled perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 49(5), 680-692. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2024.2318281

Lee, M., Tan, R. J. Y., Chen, D. T., Huang, J. S., & Hung, W. L. D. (2024b). Exploring interactions between learners and ChatGPT from a learner agency perspective: A multiple case study on historical Inquiry. Education and Information Technologies, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13114-y

Nieminen, J. H., Tai, J., Boud, D., & Henderson, M. (2022). Student agency in feedback: beyond the individual. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(1), 95-108. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1887080

Panadero, E., & Lipnevich, A. A. (2022). A review of feedback models and typologies: Towards an integrative model of feedback elements. Educational Research Review, 35, 1–22. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100416

Wood, J. (2023). Enabling feedback seeking, agency and uptake through dialogic screencast feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 48(4), 464-484. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2022.2089973

Young, S., & Carless, D. (2024). Investigating variation in undergraduate students’ feedback seeking experiences: towards the integration of feedback seeking within the curriculum. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2024.233853