Expert teacher perceptions of two-way feedback interaction Fiona D.H. Tan a, * , Peter R. Whipp b , Maryl  ene Gagn  e c , Niels Van Quaquebeke d a School of Human Sciences, University of Western Australia, Australia b School of Education, Murdoch University, Australia c Future of Work Institute, Curtin University, Australia d Management Department, Kühne Logistics University, Germany highlights  Expert teachers use Respectful Inquiry (RI) alongside feedback.  Open-ended questions and attentive listening enhances student feedback uptake.  Two-way feedback interaction through RI serves to foster positive psychological needs support and metacognition.  Barriers to two-way feedback interaction are discussed. article info Article history: Received 9 October 2018 Received in revised form 22 March 2019 Accepted 12 September 2019 Available online xxx 1. Introduction The importance and influence of feedback is well-established in the literature (Hattie, 2009). The purpose of feedback is to improve learning (Voerman, Meijer, Korthagen, & Simons, 2012) by reducing discrepancies (Hattie, 2007), closing gaps (Sadler, 2010), and improving one's knowledge, and skill acquisition (Moreno, 2004). However, there is disjuncture concerning the effectiveness of uni- lateral or one-way feedback. Unilateral feedback has been critiqued for its failure to productively engage, guide learning, and monitor performance (Price, Handley, & Millar, 2011; Sadler, 1989). Despite calls to focus feedback on student learning outcomes (Hattie, 2009; Voerman et al., 2012), a third of feedback interventions have re- ported a decrease in student performance (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). Research informs that feedback that focuses on self instead of task inhibits learning (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996; Shute, 2008). On the other hand, feedback that focuses on self-regulation, task, and cognitive processing enhances learning (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Shute, 2008). However, teachers are observed delivering one-way feed- back, rather than facilitating learning (Blair & Ginty, 2013; Van den Berghe, Ros, & Beijaard, 2013), and appear ‘to close down oppor- tunities for exploring student learning rather than opening them up’ (Torrance & Pryor, 1988, p. 621). That is, self-focussed unilateral feedbackthwarts the potential to promote learning (Burke, 2009). As such, researchers have emphatically advocated for two-way, dialogic feedback, which involves ‘elicit(ing) perceptions … and discerning what is needed for improved action’ (Boud & Molloy, 2013, p. 709), also referred to as dialogic feedback, two-way feed- back is opined to optimise learning; to mitigate learning mis- conceptions and encourage students to be independent learners (Ajjawi & Boud, 2017; Boud & Molloy, 2013). Although the literature has progressed with the advocacy of dialogic feedback, exploration of two-way feedback interaction is nascent, and the literature is scant on understanding how interactional dimensions in dialogic feedback support students' learning (Hargreaves, 2013). Recent research by Tan, Whipp, Gagn e and Van Quaquebeke (2018) described teachers' two-way feedback interaction through Respectful Inquiry (RI; i.e., asking questions, question openness and active listening) and reported that high school students believe it is facilitative of motivation, learning and accesses students' higher learning outcomes such as metacognition. Whilst student-centred feedback using questions is encouraged (Ajjawi & Boud, 2018; Dekker, Sch€ onrock-Adema, Snoek, & Cohen-Schotanus, 2013), and questions help to “clarify confusion, … (and) propel (students) forward” (Harvey & Goudvis, 2000, p. 81), the literature has not adequately described how teachers perceive the potential value and impact of two-way interactive verbal and non-verbal behav- iours (i.e., RI behaviours and how students perceive these actions influence psychological needs support (Deci & Ryan, 2000). * Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: fiona.tan@research.uwa.edu.au (F.D.H. Tan), P.Whipp@ murdoch.edu.au (P.R. Whipp), marylene.gagne@curtin.edu.au (M. Gagn e), Niels. Quaquebeke@the-klu.org (N. Van Quaquebeke). Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Teaching and Teacher Education journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.102930 0742-051X/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Teaching and Teacher Education 87 (2020) 102930