How Can Designers Use Feedback to Improve Performance?

Defining Feedback

At its core, feedback is information that describes a performance gap and provides guidance on how to close such a gap. Therefore, effective feedback should align with specific performance standards (Prayson & Rowe, 2017) and include strategies to improve performance to desired levels (Ramaprasad, 1983; Rothwell et al., 2018).

A feedback provider is an individual or system delivering information to guide improvement. Effective feedback providers are often experts or top performers who possess complex mental models of skills, allowing them to transfer knowledge to recipients, improving their performance (Martinez, 2023).

The feedback recipient is the individual who receives and applies the feedback. For feedback to be effective, recipients must actively process, reflect on, and apply the information provided. Recipients range from novices who need structured guidance to experienced individuals seeking opportunities for refinement and autonomy.

Feedback should prompt recipients to reflect on their performance by comparing the current and desired states so they may adjust techniques to improve performance (Martinez, 2024). By engaging with feedback in this way, recipients can refine their approach, build expertise, and enhance their ability to meet performance expectations.

From Chaos to Clarity: A Dental Clinic’s Training Transformation

Emily Carter, the manager of a busy dental clinic, faced an urgent challenge. Novice dental assistants made frequent errors due to inconsistent ad hoc training. A lack of clarity in job expectations caused confusion, mistakes, and low motivation to improve. Emily knew the novice employees' skill gaps hurt the clinic's performance and legal standing. Not to mention, the knowledge gaps were decreasing team morale and motivation. Seeing the need for better training to fix these gaps, Emily made a plan. She aimed to systematize the training process for all employees. She designed and implemented a new training system that incorporated various feedback types, allowed for autonomy, included practice sessions, and featured skill assessments.

First, Emily designed an eLearning program on basic dental concepts. It covered terminology, standard procedures, sterilization, and radiology techniques. This eLearning program allowed assistants to learn at their own pace, revisit topics as needed, and receive immediate, corrective feedback during the learning process. This self-paced approach helped assistants at every skill level. Novice assistants built a foundation while more experienced assistants could reinforce key concepts at their own pace. The eLearning modules provided autonomy and protected trainers from having to teach basic concepts during patient care time. The new eLearning program created a consistent foundation, reduced cognitive overload, and prepared assistants for hands-on practice.

Next, Emily introduced practice sessions following detailed rubrics. These rubrics broke each job task into specific, measurable steps linked to the desired skill performance. The rubrics also ensured training consistency and gave assistants clear performance expectations. Before practice, assistants used the rubrics to self-assess and identify areas for improvement. During practice sessions, experienced clinicians used the rubrics to provide formative feedback. This arrangement helped assistants refine their techniques and adjust in real time. The rubrics clarified performance expectations and enabled assistants to monitor their progress.

The final training stage was clinical skills testing, which assessed the assistants' ability to apply what they learned in the training program. This crucial stage showed the assistants' readiness to work with patients independently. The skills test was the assistants' final opportunity to prove they could meet professional patient care standards.

The training stages provided novice assistants consistent access to feedback and practice time. The clinic's previously inconsistent training system transformed into a systematic process that streamlined training efforts and ensured trainees received timely feedback. The result was reduced clinical errors, higher assistant confidence, and increased employee morale. Assistants felt empowered to take ownership of their development because the organization provided them with a clear path to success. Emily's initiative leveraged feedback as a catalyst for learning and skill development and provided clinicians with the much needed clarity they needed to improve performance.

Discussion Questions

1. How can feedback systems balance immediate feedback for corrections with delayed feedback for reflection?
2. How does the learning environment shape how feedback is delivered and received?
3. How can agents like peers or self-assessments enhance the feedback process for novice learners?

Feedback as an Interactive Exchange

Feedback is a collaborative exchange of information where the provider and recipient actively engage in a dynamic communication process to refine understanding, adjust actions, and improve performance (Panadero & Lipnevich, 2022). Rather than a one-way transfer of information, effective feedback encourages dialogue, allowing recipients to seek clarification, ask questions, and apply the information in meaningful ways.

The nature of this exchange varies based on the source and context of feedback. Feedback can originate from supervisors, peers, mentors, automated systems, or even self-assessment, each influencing how it is received, processed, and applied (Shute, 2008). Structured environments, such as formal training sessions, offer planned opportunities for feedback, while informal workplace interactions between colleagues create spontaneous feedback exchanges (Boud & Molloy, 2013). Digital learning platforms facilitate asynchronous feedback, whereas real-time coaching and hands-on training rely on synchronous feedback (Ko & Rossen, 2017).

Feedback timing and delivery methods also influence how recipients engage with and act upon what is received. Immediate feedback, such as verbal corrections during a hands-on task, allows for quick adjustments and is particularly effective for procedural learning (Van der Kleij et al., 2015). Delayed feedback, including written evaluations or automated reports, provides opportunities for deeper reflection and long-term skill development (Ericsson et al., 1993; Shute, 2008). Feedback is critical to learning and performance improvement, whether delivered verbally, in writing, visually, or through technology (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996; Panadero & Lipnevich, 2022).

Table 1 presents several types of feedback exchanges in workplace environments, namely in professional development and instructional design contexts. Each type is mapped to relevant communication and learning theories, illustrating how feedback is an interactive process that shapes learning and performance outcomes.

Table 1

Feedback Exchanges and Connection to Communication Theory

The MIRCA Model

Designing effective feedback systems is a complex process that requires careful consideration of the recipient's characteristics, the feedback message, the delivery method(s), and the context in which feedback is provided and applied. The MIRCA model (see Figure 1) is a practical framework for this process.

MIRCA is an adaptation of Panadero & Lipnevich's (2022) MISCA model, which stands for Message, Implementation, Student, Context, and Agents. Developed through a meta-analysis of 14 feedback models and theories (Lipnevich & Panadero, 2021), the original framework synthesizes insights from management, organizational psychology, education, and behavioral science to create an evidence-based approach to designing feedback systems that enhance performance and expertise development.

To extend the model's applicability beyond traditional educational settings, we retained its core principles but replaced "Student" with "Recipient" to better reflect its relevance in workplace learning, professional development, and other non-traditional learning environments. The MIRCA model emphasizes the recipient as the focal point of feedback design, ensuring that feedback systems align with their characteristics and the desired performance outcomes.

Each component of MIRCA interacts to create a comprehensive, structured feedback system that promotes meaningful learning and performance improvement. By integrating these elements, designers can develop clear and relevant feedback. The following sections will explore each component and offer strategies for applying MIRCA across diverse design contexts.

Figure 1

The MIRCA Model, adapted from the original MISCA model (Panadero & Lipnevich, 2022).

Designing for Strong Feedback to Elevate Performance

To be clear, providing feedback does not guarantee improved performance. However, feedback design has many working parts, and MIRCA is a helpful model designers can use to design feedback that increases the likelihood of improving performance.

Recipient: The Core Component

Feedback effectiveness hinges on the recipient's characteristics, such as their openness to receiving feedback, their ability to process the feedback message effectively, and their willingness to engage with the information to refine their actions (Balcazar et al., 1985; Lechermeier & Fassnacht, 2018; Panadero & Lipnevich, 2022). Given this, centering feedback design around recipients' needs fosters engagement, reflection, and ownership of the learning process.

Designers can use MIRCA to create learning experiences that cohesively blend these unique characteristics into all aspects of their instructional design. They can accomplish this by first defining the individual recipient characteristics: prior knowledge, cognitive abilities, developmental readiness, motivation levels, and emotional state (Day et al., 2009; Panadero & Lipnevich, 2022). Once designers establish these characteristics, they can use them to inform the design decisions of the other MIRCA components.

Table 2 describes several characteristics that designers might consider and explains why they are helpful when designing feedback systems.

Table 2

Recipient Characteristics and Their Role in Effective Feedback Design

Message

A well-designed feedback message clearly describes performance expectations and guides recipients toward improved performance. Designers can maximize feedback's value by including three key elements in their design: (1) the current performance state, (2) the desired state, and (3) a clear path to bridge the gap between the two (Martinez, 2024; Rothwell et al., 2018). The current state reflects the learner's present level of performance or understanding, serving as a starting point for feedback. The desired state represents the target performance level or the specific knowledge and skills the learner should achieve. Finally, the path to close the gap outlines specific steps that guide learners from their current performance state to the desired state. By integrating these three elements, feedback messages help learners understand where they are, where they need to go, and how to get there. This approach ensures that feedback is evaluative and instructive, enhancing its potential to improve performance.

Designers can address task, process, and self-regulation levels to ensure feedback is accessible and relevant to desired performance (Hattie & Timperley, 2007). Task-level feedback focuses on the correctness of current performance and explains the rationale behind correct solutions, helping recipients understand what they did well and how to improve next time. Process-level feedback highlights the effectiveness of strategies, encouraging recipients to reflect and evaluate their approach, refine their methods, and develop new strategies for future attempts. By incorporating these levels into feedback messages, designers create opportunities for recipients to engage with feedback messages beyond simple correction, which fosters deeper learning and skill development. This structured approach also ensures feedback is practical and directly supports recipients in achieving performance goals.

Finally, linking feedback messages to specific, measurable performance objectives strengthens feedback effectiveness and supports improvement. Feedback is most impactful for adult learners when it explains how and why a new approach will enhance performance (Molloy & Boud, 2014). Feedback should be specific, helping recipients understand precisely what needs improvement. Generic feedback, such as "good effort," can encourage and motivate learners but lacks the depth needed to guide recipients to the desired performance state (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). Feedback aligned with performance objectives allows recipients to connect their efforts to desired performance, integrate the feedback with prior knowledge, and identify necessary adjustments to improve performance (Hattie & Temperley, 2007; Ramaprasad, 1983). By designing feedback messages with these principles, designers can create feedback that actively supports learning, growth, and performance improvement.

Implementation

To implement feedback effectively, start by addressing its purpose (the behavior it aims to change), recipients’ characteristics, and context (including the teaching method and how the feedback will be delivered). Designers can use the five steps outlined below to create feedback systems that support learning and improve performance.

Step 1: Define the Purpose of Feedback

Clearly define the purpose of the feedback by considering the following:

1. The desired performance goal: Is the feedback intended to correct errors, build foundational skills, or encourage reflection and autonomy?
2. The internal processes triggered: How will recipients process the feedback cognitively, emotionally, and motivationally?

Identifying the feedback’s purpose ensures alignment with desired outcomes while anticipating internal processes allows designers to craft messages that inspire behavior change. For instance, feedback can activate cognitive processes as recipients analyze its implications and determine how to apply the information provided (Panadero & Lipnevich, 2022). Depending on how feedback is framed and delivered, it can also evoke emotional responses such as frustration, defensiveness, or confidence (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). Constructive framing fosters engagement and motivation, while overly critical feedback may lead to disengagement (Narciss, 2008).  

Step 2: Investigate Learner’s Needs

Once the purpose is clearly defined, align it with the recipients' characteristics:

• Novice Recipients: Use structured, step-by-step feedback to clarify misunderstandings and build confidence. Immediate feedback is particularly helpful for correcting errors and reinforcing foundational skills (Schmidt & Lee, 2019).
• Advanced Recipients: Provide open-ended, reflective feedback to foster autonomy and encourage strategy refinement (Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006). Delayed feedback is especially valuable, as it promotes reflection, new mental models, and long-term memory retention (Bolton, 2006).

Designing clear and relevant feedback helps recipients align their efforts with performance goals.

Step 3: Choose a Feedback Model

The designer should next select a feedback model that aligns with the recipients' needs and task context. Lipnevich and Panadero's (2021) meta-analysis offers the examples in Table 3 as a starting point, though the list is not exhaustive.

Table 3

Feedback Models for Improving Learning and Performance

Step 4: Design the Feedback

Effective feedback design combines clarity, timing, and reflection opportunities. A designer should ensure that all feedback clearly describes the current state of the performance gap and provides strategies to reach the desired performance. Clear performance expectations direct learners' attention and cognitive processes towards specific tasks, reducing cognitive load and freeing the working memory of extraneous information (Schmidt & Lee, 2019).

Feedback timing should be adjusted based on the recipient's experience level. Strong, immediate feedback triggers cognitive processing in adults, leading to neuroplasticity and skill development (Schmidt & Lee, 2019). It is most effective for novices to correct errors. Delayed feedback benefits advanced learners by encouraging reflection and long-term memory retention (Bolton, 2006).

Designers should provide opportunities for recipients to reflect on feedback, assess their progress, and plan next steps. Structured prompts or self-assessments can guide this process and strengthen metacognitive skills (Carless & Boud, 2018; Elvira et al., 2017).

Step 5: Deliver the Feedback

Effective delivery ensures that feedback is received, understood, and acted upon. Designers should pay careful attention to framing, tone, and potential challenges affecting how recipients interpret and respond to feedback.

Framing the Feedback Message. A supportive, constructive tone helps build trust and motivation between the feedback provider and the recipient (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). To structure the message effectively, start by highlighting the recipient's strengths, which builds confidence and establishes a positive foundation for growth (Parkes et al., 2013). Next, provide specific areas for improvement, ensuring the feedback includes relevant advice that will guide recipients toward strategizing their next attempt (Narciss, 2008). Finally, conclude with encouragement and clear next steps to reinforce a forward-looking perspective that motivates recipients to apply the feedback and continue their development.  

Anticipating Challenges in Feedback Delivery. Even well-designed feedback can face challenges that influence how recipients interpret and act on it. To enhance effectiveness, designers should consider common obstacles and strategies to address them. Managing cognitive overload requires prioritizing key feedback points and pacing delivery to avoid overwhelming recipients with too much information (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). Creating a supportive environment fosters trust and engagement, particularly when addressing sensitive topics (Carless & Boud, 2018). Additionally, balancing honesty with encouragement ensures feedback remains constructive and motivating, preventing recipients from feeling discouraged (Narciss, 2008).

By applying these five steps, designers can establish a systematic implementation process that ensures feedback is purposeful, responsive to recipients’ needs, and integrated effectively into the learning environment. A well-structured feedback system enhances learning and performance while fostering a culture that embraces feedback as a driver of continuous improvement.

Context

Context shapes how feedback is received and acted upon, influencing its effectiveness beyond design and delivery. While implementation structures messages, context defines the broader conditions for delivering feedback. Designers should consider three contextual factors that shape feedback outcomes: instructional design and delivery, learning environment, and institutional factors.

Instructional Design and Delivery

Effective feedback is embedded throughout the broader instructional design framework and is integral to learning experiences. Typically, feedback is provided more than once throughout the instructional design. For this reason, designers should ensure that feedback aligns with performance objectives, instructional pacing, and the structure of assessments (Biggs & Tang, 2011). This alignment is known as constructive alignment and ensures that all instructional design components support high-level learning. Strategically placing feedback checkpoints within learning experiences transforms passive evaluation into an active learning process, allowing recipients to engage with and apply new insights over time  (Carless & Boud, 2018). Ignoring these contextual factors can create environments where recipients feel unsupported, limiting feedback’s effectiveness and impact on performance improvement (Bolton, 2006).         

Learning Environment

The learning environment influences how recipients perceive and respond to feedback, whether they receive it in a traditional classroom, an online course, or a workplace training program. In structured learning environments, such as academic courses, feedback can be planned within instructional sequences, fostering incremental improvement (Hattie & Temperley, 2007). In contrast, workplace environments often require feedback to be more immediate and aligned with real-time performance demands (Schmidt & Lee, 2019). Designers should assess whether feedback occurs in high-pressure settings, where recipients may experience cognitive overload, or in low-stakes environments, where engagement strategies may be needed to encourage motivation and action. Understanding these dynamics allows designers to adapt feedback to the conditions in which recipients receive it (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996).         

For example, a positive, team-based learning environment that includes regular peer feedback sessions builds trust and normalizes the feedback process. Conversely, environments with high-pressure demands, ambiguity, or conflicting feedback sources can overwhelm recipients, reducing their trust and ability to act on the feedback given. Minimizing cognitive load, providing timely feedback opportunities, and fostering a collaborative atmosphere can enhance recipients' ability to engage with and apply feedback effectively (Schmidt & Lee, 2019; Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Carless & Boud, 2018).  

Institutional Factors

Institutional policies and organizational culture can influence how feedback is delivered and how recipients perceive and act upon it. While some schools and workplaces have specific rules about sharing feedback, imposing constraints on peer reviews and feedback sharing (Shute, 2008), others promote feedback initiatives that encourage reflective practice. Designers must navigate these policies and identify institutional opportunities, such as mentorship programs, performance review structures, or learning analytics systems, that can enhance the feedback process.

Institutional factors such as resource availability or assessment standards can influence feedback delivery. Designers can work within these constraints by ensuring feedback processes comply with institutional guidelines (Narciss, 2008), advocating for policies that support best practices (Panadero & Lipnevich, 2022), and aligning feedback systems with organizational priorities to enhance their relevance and impact (Hattie & Timperley, 2007).

Agents

A feedback agent is any individual, system, or tool involved in creating, delivering, or facilitating feedback. These include feedback providers, instructors, managers, peers, recipients, and technology-driven systems. Each agent plays a role in shaping feedback interactions and maximizing their impact on performance.

 The MIRCA model emphasizes that recipients are not passive feedback receivers but active participants in the feedback process. By critically assessing their work and reflecting on feedback, recipients take ownership of their learning and drive personal improvement (Panadero & Lipnevich, 2022). When equipped with rubrics or checklists, they can assess their work, provide meaningful feedback to peers, and refine their skills through self-regulation (Lipnevich et al., 2013). This active engagement enhances feedback relevance and effectiveness and strengthens metacognitive skills, enabling recipients to monitor, evaluate, and adjust their learning strategies. Self-assessment and reflection foster a deeper awareness of one’s thought processes, leading to improved problem-solving and performance (Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006).

Instructors and mentors guide recipients’ efforts by providing structured feedback, encouraging engagement, and guiding learners toward improvement (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). Technology, including automated systems and AI-driven tools, can deliver immediate, targeted responses.  However, feedback delivered via technology is enhanced when integrated with human support (Shute, 2008).

When all feedback agents, including peers, mentors, technology, and recipients, collaborate, they ensure that feedback aligns with performance goals. By equipping recipients with the necessary skills and tools, designers can promote self-regulation, encourage engagement with feedback, and maximize its impact on learning and performance (Carless & Boud, 2018; Lipnevich et al., 2013).

Conclusion

Designers can use the MIRCA model as a structured framework for designing feedback systems that effectively improve performance. By addressing the key components: message, implementation, recipient, context, and agents, designers can create feedback aligned with recipients' needs and desired performance state.

Focusing on recipients' characteristics ensures feedback aligns with their readiness, motivation, and cognitive abilities. Crafting messages that address task, process, and self-regulation levels helps recipients understand their current performance state, identify areas for improvement, and plan next steps. Implementing feedback in supportive contexts while using tools like rubrics and involving multiple feedback agents (e.g., peers, mentors, technology) fosters environments where feedback can effectively drive learning and improve performance.

Feedback design is a complex process with many interconnected elements. The MIRCA model helps designers organize these elements by keeping the recipient at the center of the process, enhancing feedback effectiveness, and supporting meaningful performance improvement.

Read More

Ericsson, A. (2016). Peak: Secrets from the new science of expertise. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487

Narciss, S. (2008). Feedback strategies for interactive learning tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 20(1), 31–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-008-9053-x

Panadero, E., & Lipnevich, A. A. (2022). A review of feedback models and typologies: Towards an integrative model of feedback elements. Educational Research Review, 35, 100416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100416

References

Balcazar, F., Hopkins, B. L., & Suarez, Y. (1985). A critical, objective review of performance feedback. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 7(3–4), 65–89.

Barnlund, D. C. (1970). A transactional model of communication. In K. K. Sereno & C. D. Mortensen (Eds.), Foundations of communication theory (pp. 83–102). Harper & Row.

Bertalanffy, L. V. (1968). General system theory: Foundations, development, applications. Braziller.

Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill and Open University Press.

Bolton, G. (2006). Reflective practice: Writing and professional development. SAGE Publications.

Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013). Feedback in higher and professional education: Understanding it and doing it well. Routledge.

Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315–1325. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354

Day, D. V., Sin, H.-P., & Chen, T. T. (2009). The capacity for development: Why leadership development is so difficult and what we can do about it. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2(3), 369–380.

Elvira, Q., Imants, J., Dankbaar, B., & Segers, M. (2017). Designing education for professional expertise development. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 61(2), 187–204.

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487

Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363–406. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.363

Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911.

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487

Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254

Ko, S., & Rossen, S. (2017). Teaching online: A practical guide (4th ed.). Routledge.

Kulhavy, R. W., & Stock, W. A. (1989). Feedback in written instruction: The place of response certitude. Educational Psychology Review, 1(4), 279–308. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01320096

Lacerenza, C. N., Reyes, D. L., Marlow, S. L., Joseph, D. L., & Salas, E. (2017). Leadership training design, delivery, and implementation: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(12), 1686–1718. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000241

Lechermeier, S., & Fassnacht, M. (2018). The power of explicit negative feedback: A meta-analytic review of feedback effects on regulatory focus and learning. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(9), 1125–1142.

Lipnevich, A. A., & Panadero, E. (2021). A review of feedback models and theories: Descriptions, definitions, and conclusions. Frontiers in Education, 6, Article 720195. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.720195

Lipnevich, A. A., McCallen, L. N., Miles, K. P., & Smith, J. K. (2013). Mind the gap! Students' use of formative feedback to self-assess. Educational Assessment Research & Evaluation, 19(21), 1–18.

Martinez, S. A. (2023). Adult learning at work: Harnessing neuroscience to develop expertise. [Under contract].

Martinez, S. A. (2024, February). Developing expert leaders: The intersection of expertise, cognition, & leadership [Manuscript presentation]. Academy of Human Resource Development Annual Conference, Arlington, VA, United States.

Molloy, E. K., & Boud, D. (2014). Feedback models for learning, teaching, and performance. In Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 413–424). Springer.

Narciss, S. (2008). Feedback strategies for interactive learning tasks: A cognitive load perspective. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. J. G. van Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 125–144). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090

Panadero, E., & Lipnevich, A. A. (2022). A review of feedback models and typologies: Toward an integrative model of feedback elements. Educational Psychologist, 57(2), 105–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2022.2043494

Parkes, J., Abercrombie, S., & McCarty, T. (2013). Feedback sandwiches affect perceptions but not performance. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 18, 397–407.

Prayson, R. A., & Rowe, M. (2017). Best practices for providing meaningful feedback to learners. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 9(2), 165–167.

Ramaprasad, A. (1983). On the definition of feedback. Behavioral Science, 28(1), 4–13.

Rothwell, W. J., Lee, J. Y., & Macko, P. (2018). The changing role of the corporate trainer: The shift from training to talent development. In M. Mulder (Ed.), Handbook of vocational education and training: Developments in the changing world of work. Springer.

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.

Schmidt, R. A., & Lee, T. D. (2019). Motor learning and performance: From principles to application (6th ed.). Human Kinetics.

Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313795

Van der Kleij, F. M., Feskens, R. C., & Eggen, T. J. H. M. (2015). Effects of feedback in a computer-based learning environment on students’ learning outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 85(4), 475–511. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314564881

Wisniewski, B., Zierer, K., & Hattie, J. (2020). The power of feedback revisited: A meta-analysis of educational feedback research. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 487662. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.487662

Winne, P. H. (1996). A metacognitive view of individual differences in self-regulated learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 8(4), 327–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1041-6080(96)90022-9