Feed Up, Feed Back, Feed Forward Model¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 2 claims (1 for, 1 mixed) · 4 studies (2 quant-synthesis, 1 review, 1 theoretical), q3–q4 · 2 of 4 report an effect size

Description¶

The Feed Up, Feed Back, Feed Forward Model structures feedback around three questions: Feed Up — Where am I going? (learning intentions and success criteria); Feed Back — How am I going? (evidence of current performance relative to those criteria); Feed Forward — Where to next? (specific actions and activities to close the gap). The model, articulated most influentially by Hattie and Timperley (2007), treats feedback as an information system rather than a judgment, and insists that all three components be present for feedback to improve learning rather than merely report on it.

Design Implications¶

Feedback is among the most powerful influences on learning, but its effects are highly variable — poorly designed feedback (personal praise, grades without information) can depress achievement Feedback is most effective when directed at the task and process rather than the person. [~S]. The three-question structure disciplines feedback design: without a clear Feed Up, learners cannot interpret Feed Back; without Feed Forward, feedback terminates in evaluation rather than action.

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Clear learning intentions and success criteria shared with learners before work begins (Assessment for Learning)
• Evidence of current performance gathered through Assessment or Assess Performance
• Time and routines for discussion, reflection, and revision — feedback that arrives after the opportunity to act is inert
• Provide Feedback framed at task and process levels, not the person

Constraints¶

• Feedback directed at the self ("you're so smart") undermines performance and can reduce persistence Feedback is most effective when directed at the task and process rather than the person. [-S]
• Grades or marks accompanying comments can cause learners to ignore the comments entirely [~S]
• Depends on learners' capacity to interpret and act on feedback; novices need Feed Forward made concrete rather than implied
• Time-intensive; whole-class feedback routines are needed to make it sustainable

Implementation Variability¶

• Teacher-to-student, peer feedback (structured protocols), or self-assessment against success criteria
• Whole-class "feedback lessons" addressing common gaps instead of individual written comments
• Digital tools that deliver criterion-referenced comments and next-step tasks

Target Learners¶

• All learners, but especially those developing self-regulation, since the three questions mirror self-regulatory monitoring Self-monitoring improves self-regulation. [+M]
• Struggling learners, who benefit most from explicit Feed Forward specifying next actions rather than gap statements alone
• High-achieving learners may need less Feed Back and more Feed Forward at the self-regulation level [~M]

Target Learning Goals¶

• Progress monitoring toward explicit learning intentions
• Metacognition and self-reflection: internalizing the three questions as a self-regulatory habit
• Closing performance gaps through deliberate next-step practice

Instructions¶

1. Feed Up: Establish and communicate learning intentions and success criteria before the task (Clear Structure); co-construct criteria where possible.
2. Feed Back: Gather evidence of performance (Assess Performance) and give criterion-referenced feedback at the task and process levels (Provide Feedback).
3. Feed Forward: Specify concrete next steps — a revision task, a targeted practice activity, a re-teaching opportunity — and create time to act on them.
4. Reflect: Have learners self-assess against the criteria and articulate their own "where to next" (Individual Reflection), building toward self-regulated feedback loops.

Related Strategies¶

• Formative Assessment — the broader cycle of which this model is the feedback component
• Assessment for Learning — the classroom practice tradition this model operationalizes
• Action-Oriented Feedback — feedback phrased as actionable next steps, the Feed Forward move
• Self-Assessment — learners running the three questions independently
• Establish site-based professional learning structured around the three inquiry questions

Examples¶

• Writing conferences: A teacher uses the model in a one-on-one conference — the student restates the learning intention (Feed Up), examines their draft against the success criteria (Feed Back), and selects a revision focus for the next draft (Feed Forward).
• Whole-class feedback: After marking a set of essays, a teacher delivers a feedback lesson addressing three common gaps, then gives revision time — Feed Forward built into class time rather than appended comments.
• Hattie's Visible Learning work popularized the three questions as a diagnostic for auditing whether classroom feedback actually functions as information.

Key Sources¶

• Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. doi:10.3102/003465430298487
• Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119–144. doi:10.1007/BF00117714
• Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment. Solution Tree Press.
• Brookhart, S. M. (2017). How to give effective feedback to your students (2nd ed.). ASCD.
• Hattie, J., & Gan, M. (2011). Instruction based on feedback. In R. E. Mayer & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 249–271). Routledge.