Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice

ISSN: 0969-594X (Print) 1465-329X (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/caie20

Student perceptions of classroom feedback

Siv M. Gamlem & Kari Smith

To cite this article: Siv M. Gamlem & Kari Smith (2013) Student perceptions of classroom
feedback, Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 20:2, 150-169, DOI:
10.1080/0969594X.2012.749212

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2012.749212

Published online: 22 Jan 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 17041

View related articles

Citing articles: 29 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=caie20
Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 2013
Vol. 20, No. 2, 150–169, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2012.749212

Student perceptions of classroom feedback

Siv M. Gamlema* and Kari Smithb
a
Humanities and Education, Volda University College, Volda, Norway; bTeacher Education,
Department of Education, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
(Received 23 August 2011; final version received 6 November 2012)

Feedback to students has been identified as a key strategy in learning and teach-
ing, but we know less about how feedback is understood by students. The pur-
pose of this study is to gain more insight into lower secondary students’
perceptions of when and how they find classroom feedback useful. This article
draws on data generated through individual interviews with 11 students repre-
senting four lower secondary schools (grades 8–10, aged 13–15) in Norway.
Feedback types are identified from students’ perceptions, coded and indexed. A
feedback typology is designed to provide a framework which can be used to
reflect on useful classroom feedback based on lower secondary school students’
perceptions.
Keywords: assessment for learning; classroom feedback; feedback typology;
instructional feedback; student perceptions

Introduction
During recent decades, several researchers have studied how feedback empowers
learning (Black and Wiliam 1998a, 1998b; Hattie and Timperley 2007; Shute 2008),
but there is limited research examining how students perceive and use feedback
(Hattie and Gan 2011). Perrenoud (1998) compares the act of providing feedback to
students with throwing bottles out to sea, and explains the problem with this using
the same metaphor: ‘No one can be sure that the message they contain will one day
find a receiver’ (87). Feedback will only help students learn better if their thought
processes are modified (Perrenoud 1998). How students interpret and deal with feed-
back is important information to make formative assessment support learning, and
involves both psychological states and dispositions (Butler and Winne 1995; Dweck
1986; King, Schrodt, and Weisel 2009; Poulos and Mahony 2008).
Current research on feedback has focused on explaining and extending teachers’
feedback practice, but less has been conducted on how feedback is received,
processed and used, especially among students in compulsory school grades. This
study addresses this gap. The main topic of the study is students’ perception of the
feedback they receive or give, and the students are in grades 8–10 (aged 13–15).
The main research question is: What are adolescent perceptions of useful classroom
feedback?
The remainder of the article will first present a background of the concept of
classroom feedback, before the research methodology and data analysis used in this

*Corresponding author. Email: SivMG@hivolda.no

Ó 2013 Taylor & Francis

 Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 151

study are explained. Next, the findings on students’ perceptions are discussed and a
feedback typology is presented, followed by a brief summary and directions for fur-
ther research.

Background
Hattie and Timperley (2007) define feedback as information provided by an agent
(e.g. teacher, peer, book, parent and self/experience) regarding aspects of one’s per-
formance or understanding that reduces the discrepancy between what is understood
and what is aimed to be understood. Relating it to classroom settings, Black and
Wiliam say that feedback is embedded into the instructional process in classroom,
and should be understood as ‘moments of contingencies’ (Black and Wiliam 2009).
‘Moments of contingencies’ in instruction are like critical points where learning
changes direction depending on an assessment, and is an important concept since it
might give the students the possibility to elaborate on what is not yet understood, get
hold of students’ misconceptions and engage students in deep learning. In response to
Black and Wiliam’s research, Perrenoud (1998) says that feedback is a message
which can assist the learning process. He claims that it is powerful ‘because students
take it into account, because it affects their cognition’ (Perrenoud 1998, 86). Further-
more, an intervention or a piece of information only helps students to learn better if
their thought processes are modified (Perrenoud 1998). Learners’ prior knowledge,
beliefs and thinking act as a filter to mediate the effects of externally provided feed-
back as well as internal feedback (Butler and Winne 1995). Students tend to view
feedback as the responsibility of someone else, usually teachers, whose job it is to
provide feedback information by deciding for the students how well they are doing,
what the goals are, and what to do next (Hattie and Timperley 2007). According to
Zimmerman and Pons (1986), high-achieving students actively seek feedback from
peers and adults as self-regulated learning, and can be distinguished from low achiev-
ers particularly by their use of teachers and peers as sources of social support.
The social context can be critical when students interpret feedback (Cowie
2005; Hattie and Gan 2011; Hattie and Timperley 2007; Waldrip, Fisher, and
Dorman 2009), but most importantly, the power of feedback does not only lie in
when and how it is given, but more in when and how it is received (Andrade 2010;
Hattie and Gan 2011; King, Schrodt, and Weisel 2009). These studies have thus
contributed to the expansive view of feedback that exists today. Feedback is
regarded as part of the crucial interaction between teacher and student(s) carried out
for the purpose of furthering learning (Black et al. 2003, 2004; Brookhart 2008;
Hattie and Timperley 2007; Hawe, Dixon, and Watson 2008; Smith and Higgins
2006). In classrooms, there may be a need to move away from seeing the teacher
as giver and the learner as receiver of feedback toward accounting for the social
context of learning – and the ways students provide feedback to teachers as well as
to their peers (Hattie and Gan 2011). Finally, students need to understand that the
feedback they receive from teachers, peers or through self-assessment can improve
the quality of learning (Andrade 2010; Black and Wiliam 2009).

Feedback functions and effects

Research on feedback has described feedback as having two main functions:
directive and facilitative (Black and Wiliam 1998b). Directive feedback provides
152 S.M. Gamlem and K. Smith

information about what needs to be changed or revised. Such feedback tends to be

more specific compared to facilitative feedback, which provides comments and
suggestions to help guide learners in their own revision and conceptualisation
(Black and Wiliam 1998b; Shute 2008).
Formative and summative assessments give directions for feedback, as content
and timing. Feedback is a key element in formative assessment, which is concerned
with how judgements about the quality of student responses can be used to shape
and improve the student’s competence (Black and Wiliam 1998a, 2009; Sadler
1989). A central aim for formative feedback is to bridge the gap between present
performance and a desired goal when moving towards the next step in learning
(Hattie and Timperley 2007; Sadler 1989, 1998). Summative contrasts with forma-
tive assessment in that it is concerned with summing up or summarising the
achievement status of a student. This can be understood as judgemental or evalua-
tive feedback, or as directive.
Researchers point out that feedback leads to learning gains only when it
includes guidance about how to improve, when students have opportunities to apply
the feedback, understand how to use it and are willing to dedicate effort (Butler and
Winne 1995; Hattie and Timperley 2007; Kluger and DeNisi 1996). This can essen-
tially be related to the fact that some feedback is effective in reducing the discrep-
ancy between current understandings and what is desired, and some is ineffective
(Hattie and Timperley 2007; Shute 2008). Hattie and Timperley (2007) describe
feedback as a ‘consequence’ of performance, and research has indicated that forma-
tive feedback tends to promote learning and achievement (Butler and Winne 1995;
Hattie and Timperley 2007; Kluger and DeNisi 1996), if responsive to the learners’
needs (Shute 2008). Knowing whether the feedback students receive is responsive
to their needs is important information for teachers to support students’ learning.
Of the many goals of feedback, research has elaborated on how it can guide
learners in how to accomplish the task, provide information about misconceptions,
and motivate students to invest more effort in a task (Dweck 1986, 2009; Hattie
and Gan 2011; Sadler 2010). The view that feedback serves as a motivator or
incentive for learning is prevalent; however, there remains a perpetual confusion
between praise and content-related feedback (Hattie and Gan 2011; Hattie and Tim-
perley 2007). Praise related to self is found to preclude learning, while praise
related to task and effort might raise motivation, effort and then performance.
Dweck (2009) claims that low-effort success should not be praised, but teachers
should rather build confidence in the learner that effort and process form the key to
success. When students are praised for process, they understand that learning, not
brilliance is valued. This might lead to two contradictory understandings where: (1)
low effort, even when the student succeeds, should not be praised; and (2) high
effort, even when it does not lead to success, should be praised as it might lead to
success in the future. How students are praised for school work might lead to a per-
ception of what is valued: performance or learning (Dweck 2009). Dweck (1986,
2009) makes the point that students’ goal orientation is not fixed, but can be chan-
ged by the way feedback is given.
Tunstall and Gipps (1996) have developed a typology of feedback functions
based on fieldwork they conducted in 1993/94. Forty-nine young children (grades
1–2) from eight classes and their teachers were interviewed and observed to study
individual children’s perceptions of feedback. A range of different types of feedback
were identified, coded and indexed. These types are placed across a continuum
 Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 153

representing evaluative–descriptive approaches to assessment and each type has

been subdivided, creating a dualistic structure (see Table 1). The four types of
assessment feedback are termed A, B, C and D. From this typology, evaluative
types are type A and B: rewarding, punishing, approving and disapproving. The
descriptive types are type C and D: specifying attainment, specifying improvement,
constructing achievement and constructing the way forward. In a broad framework,
the feedback was grouped into evaluative or descriptive feedback, achievement or
improvement feedback and positive or negative feedback.
Both C and D types in Tunstall and Gipps’ typology are clearly associated with
formative assessment. Feedback changes in style, purpose, meaning and processes
as it moves from evaluation to description (Tunstall and Gipps 1996). At the evalu-
ative end of the continuum, feedback is clearly either positive or negative. At the
descriptive end of the typology, feedback can no longer be defined in terms of posi-
tive or negative and is described as achievement or improvement focused (Tunstall
and Gipps 1996). King, Schrodt, and Weisel (2009) maintain that positive and nega-
tive feedback valence does not merely indicate differences in polarity, but actual
conceptual distinctions. Valence, as used in psychology, especially in discussing
emotions, means the intrinsic attractiveness (positive valence) or aversiveness (nega-
tive valence) of an event, object or situation (Frijda 1986). This can be understood
as a student’s emotional reaction when receiving feedback (e.g. a student uses low
effort on assignment and gets approval feedback from the teacher; a student uses
high effort on assignment and gets disapproval feedback from the teacher).
Tunstall and Gipps indicate that types A and B (rewarding and approving, pun-
ishing and disapproving) can lead to performance-goal orientation, while feedback
type C (specifying attainment and specifying improvement) can lead to a mastery
goal orientation. Feedback type D (constructing achievement and the way forward)
is described in Tunstall and Gipps’ study as learning-oriented, and both types C and
D as crucial to students’ learning.
Although the typology developed provides a complex understanding of the
functions of feedback, the study has not been replicated among other samples of
students, and we therefore do not know whether or how it would function in differ-
ent contexts or with older students.
Kluger and DeNisi (1996) explain that feedback seems to obtain high effect
sizes in situations where students receive information on the task and about how to
improve performance; the effect is lower for feedback types which focus on target-
setting. Feedback effectiveness decreases as attention moves up the hierarchy closer
to the self and away from the task. The lowest effects are found when only rewards,
praise or punishment are given (Hattie and Timperley 2007; Kluger and DeNisi
1996). Brookhart (2008) explains that this can be related to the fact that personal
comments do not draw students’ attention to their learning. It seems that personal
comments reduce what Boekaerts and Corno conceptualise as ‘volition’ (Boekaerts
and Corno 2005). Volitional strategies are defined by Boekaerts and Corno as,
‘metacognitive knowledge to interpret strategy failure and knowledge of how to
buckle down to work’ (206). Black and Wiliam (2009) explicitly connect volition
to their theory of formative assessment because volitional engagement is essential if
a learner is to remain persistent and overcome threats to self-esteem that may cause
the student to divert resources away from their active participation in the learning
process (growth track) and expend resources on efforts to avoid interaction and
withdraw from the situation (well-being track). If students are to actively participate
 154

Table 1. Typology of teacher feedback (Tunstall and Gipps 1996, 394).

Type A Type B Type C Type D

Positive Rewarding Approving Specifying attainment Constructing achievement Achievement
feedback Rewards Positive personal expression Specific acknowledgement of Mutual articulation of achievement feedback
S.M. Gamlem and K. Smith

Warm expression of feeling
General praise
Positive non-verbal feedback
Negative Punishing Disapproving
feedback Punishment Negative personal expression
Reprimands; negative
generalisations
Negative non-verbal
feedback
Evaluative
attainment
Use of criteria in relation to work/ Additional use of emerging criteria;
behaviour; teacher models child role in presentation
More specific praise Praise integral to description
Specifying improvement Constructing the way forward Improvement
Correction of errors Mutual critical appraisal feedback
More practice given; training in self- Provision of strategies
checking
Descriptive
 Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 155

in their own learning progression, it ‘is important to help students to acquire posi-
tive volitional strategies so that they are not pulled off the growth track onto the
well-being track’ (Black and Wiliam 2009, 14). Research has also found that feed-
back as extrinsic rewards often leads students to place more emphasis on incentives,
which result in greater evaluation and completion, rather than enhanced engagement
in learning (Deci, Koestner, and Ryan 1999).

Student perceptions of feedback

Some of the few studies that examine students’ perceptions of classroom feedback
to support learning suggest that much of this feedback information is poorly
received and hardly used in revision of work. Teachers’ feedback is often confus-
ing, non-reasoned, and students have difficulties in applying it to their learning
(Hattie and Gan 2011).
Carnell (2000) interviewed 14 secondary school students (grades 7–11) about
their views of three forms of communication supporting learning: dialogue, coopera-
tive discussion and teacher to student feedback. The teacher was seen as the expert
and provided information to the students about their work, clarified goals, identified
mistakes and provided advice; and feedback was sometimes used to help develop
understanding and take thinking forward. The teacher to student feedback took
place under the control of the teacher (e.g. timing and content). Still, the students
felt that working with others gave them a chance to discuss the work, and peers
provided support when a student was stuck (Carnell 2000).
Students experience assessment for learning (AfL) as embedded in, and accom-
plished through, interactions with peers and teachers (Cowie 2005). Cowie finds
that students who focused on learning goals (grade 7–10) viewed AfL as a joint tea-
cher–student responsibility. When students sought to understand ideas, they
expressed preference for teacher feedback in the form of suggestions because it
allowed them to maintain an active role in making sense of ideas. Students with
performance goals viewed assessment as the teacher’s sole responsibility and saw
no role for themselves in seeking help to extend their understanding. They preferred
feedback on how to complete the task, and described teacher actions to elicit infor-
mation about their thinking as unhelpful, because the action took time away from
working on a task (Cowie 2005).
A possible moderator of how students perceive and use feedback is classroom
climate. Lack of trust and mutual respect within a classroom might limit the disclo-
sure of students’ thinking through questioning because of concerns about the poten-
tial for harm (Cowie 2005). Hattie and Timperley (2007) note that, ‘the climate of
the classroom is critical, particularly if disconfirmation and corrective feedback at
any level is to be welcomed and used by the students’ (100). In Cowie’s study,
student participation in classroom interactions with teachers and peers was found to
have: ‘multiple, and often competing, cognitive/academic, affective and social
relationship purposes and consequences that they experience as inextricably
intertwined’ (Cowie 2005, 150). A learning environment where students help and
are supportive of one another, where student involvement is asked for and teacher
support is provided seems to be highly appreciated by students (Waldrip, Fisher,
and Dorman 2009). Trusted teachers and peers who are perceived to be well inten-
tioned are seen as preferred sources of help. The students indicate that assessment
contributes to how they are seen and treated as learners and knowers within the
156 S.M. Gamlem and K. Smith

classroom. Moreover, assessment impacts how they feel about themselves as learn-
ers and knowers and the ideas and actions they come to see as having merit (Butler
and Winne 1995; Cowie 2005).
College students reported that retention of feedback and the extent to which
feedback is confidential are important for their use of feedback (King, Schrodt, and
Weisel 2009). ‘Not only is feedback potentially threatening, yielding a sensitive
dimension, but the usefulness (utility) of feedback forms a unique perceptual dimen-
sion, along which students may vary’ (254). Students appear more likely to report
that corrective feedback is useful, and give the impression that they are sensitive to
teachers’ corrective feedback. King, Schrodt, and Weisel (2009) say that more stu-
dents need to experience feedback as useful, and teachers need to find ways to
make feedback more useful. To consider feedback merely in terms of the informa-
tion it contains is too simplistic. Prescribing lots of feedback does not imply that
learning will take place, as one has to take into consideration the differential effects
of feedback on learning as well as learners. Rather, learners interpret feedback infor-
mation according to reasonably stable and relatively potent systems of beliefs con-
cerning subject areas, learning processes, relations and the products of learning
(Andrade 2010; Butler and Winne 1995).
The current study builds on the research reported above. In our study, feedback
is defined as: ‘information provided by an agent (e.g. teacher, peer and self-experi-
ence) regarding aspects of one’s performance or understanding with information
about the quality of the work and advice about how further performance or future
responses to similar assessment tasks should be tackled’. The aim of the paper is to
contribute to further understanding of lower secondary students’ perceptions of
classroom feedback and the interpretation of classroom feedback from their perspec-
tive. Our paper addresses the question: What are lower secondary students’ percep-
tions of useful classroom feedback?

Method
Context of the study and participant selection
This study has been conducted among Norwegian lower secondary school students.
AfL has been defined as a national goal in this country, and a strategy for the years
2010–2014 has been developed by The Norwegian Directorate for Education and
Training (NDET) to ensure that teachers gain knowledge about AfL and develop
necessary skills (NDET 2010). NDET has defined AfL as any assessment that is
given during educational situations which helps to promote learning (NDET 2012).
The need for an emphasis on AfL is supported by studies in Norway that indicate
that feedback tends to be general and unspecific, consisting mainly of praise, and
consequently, there is a lack of feedback on how to proceed with learning (Furre
et al. 2006; Klette 2003; Skaalvik, Garmannslund, and Viblemo 2009).
Four municipalities in Norway were approached with an invitation to take part
in a study on teachers’ feedback practices in lower secondary schools. Three of the
municipalities accepted the invitation. All the lower secondary schools in these
municipalities were then invited to take part in this study during the school year
2009–2010. Four out of five lower secondary schools agreed to participate, and six
classes from these schools became the unit for the study. These six classes formed
the sample since their teachers voluntarily agreed to take part in the study.
 Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 157

These six classes consisted of 150 students. Class size varied from 18 to 29
students, with a mean size of 25. Consent from the legal guardians was required
and all of the students received permission from their parents to be observed in
class. One hundred and sixteen students also had permission from their parents to
be interviewed. Due to the large group of volunteers, it was possible to draw the 11
students (five female and six male) chosen for interviews in a random yet strategic
way to ensure representation from all four schools. Also, teachers were asked to
indicate whether students were high, varied or low in engagement, and a random
selection of students was carried out within these categories to ensure a more repre-
sentative sample of students (not used for analysis purposes). Out of the 11
students, we have five students categorised as high-engaging students, four as low-
engaging students, and two as varied engaging students. The students range in age
from 13 to 15, with a mean age of 14.

Data collection
Data consist of interviews together with lesson observations which were used to
develop the interview guide and to get a better understanding of students’ state-
ments of classroom feedback. The lesson observations were video recorded and
conducted several weeks before the interviews took place to get an understanding
of feedback practice in the students’ classrooms. In accordance with Maxwell
(2005), this was deemed particularly important for the study as observations made
it possible to relate the questions in the interview guide to actual feedback practices
in the students’ classes together with overall questions about how feedback was
given, sought, used and perceived. An aim for this study was to contribute to fur-
ther understanding of how students perceive feedback as useful, so the research
design was built with a means to investigate how classroom feedback practice was
perceived as useful to support learning.
Interviews were held in late fall 2009, after the first author had observed at least
two lessons in each student’s class. Interviews were conducted at school, in a room
used for meetings, located in the students’ school area (not administration). An
interview guide was used and the interviews were semi-structured (Kvale 2001),
built from existing theory and observed feedback practice in the students’ classes
(see Appendix 1). The first author conducted the interviews, and introduced herself
as a former teacher who was now a researcher to make it clear to the students she
was not a teacher (Aase and Fossåskaret 2007; Maxwell 2005). It was stressed that
anonymity would be maintained.
A video camera on rack was used during the interviews. A major advantage of
using videos is found in the possibility to elicit information after the interview has
taken place. A disadvantage of using video recordings is the effect or influence a
video camera (and a researcher) might have on the examined phenomenon. This
effect has been discussed by several researchers (Erickson 2006; Thagaard 2002),
and the effect might differ based on camera placement, the number of cameras used,
and whether video recordings are regularly used for various purposes in school. Only
one camera was used and placement was carefully taken care of, since this might
influence the participants’ responses (Erickson 2006; Lindgren and Sparrman 2003).
Each student met for an individual interview. The shortest interview lasted 24
minutes and the longest 54 minutes (mean of 37 minutes). Students with low and
varied engagement had the shortest interviews (mean of 33.16 minutes), and used
158 S.M. Gamlem and K. Smith

fewer words when talking about their feedback experience than highly engaged stu-
dents (mean 41 minutes). Still it is the ‘kind’ of rapport, as well as the amount, that
is critical. A student can be highly engaged intellectually in an interview, but not
reveal personal opinion and perceptions. Conversely, a student may be very open
about personal matters to a stranger whom he never expects to see again, but not
be willing to engage in any critical reflection on this material (Maxwell 2005).
Individual interviews were conducted since the study focuses on students’ experi-
ences of classroom feedback, and the awareness that feedback seems to be learner
sensitive (Hattie and Timperley 2007; King, Schrodt, and Weisel 2009; Shute 2008),
and can be examined in relation to self-esteem (Dweck 1986). In the interviews, the
students were asked to describe what kinds of feedback they received in class, from
whom they received feedback, how the feedback was formed, when it was given,
what kinds of feedback they appreciated, what type of feedback was useful for
learning – and why, how and if feedback received was used for further learning. The
students were also questioned about whom they gave feedback to, the content of this
feedback, and how and when it was given. In addition to this, they were asked to
elaborate on particular feedback situations observed in their classroom.

Analyses
Data analyses followed an interactive approach where interview transcripts and
observation notes were read, memos were written and coding categories from
students’ interviews were developed (Maxwell 2005; Miles and Huberman 1994).
All interviews were transcribed verbatim and students’ perceptions on classroom
feedback were categorised according to who was involved: teacher feedback, peer
feedback and student feedback (to teacher, to peer and as self-assessment,
respectively), and the data were further categorised as giving feedback, seeking
feedback, appreciating feedback and using feedback (see Figure 1). The two
researchers coded the material separately and reached an agreement by moderating
the individual coding. In this way, disagreements were bridged and rigour was
ensured.
Two categories related to classroom feedback were developed: feedback strategy
and feedback content (see Figure 1). This approach is also used by Brookhart
(2008). When describing classroom feedback, the students refer to several elements
of feedback strategies that were coded: mode (verbal, non-verbal feedback), audi-
ence (individually, class, group), timing (how often, when), retention (to what
degree students retain, or fail to retain, the feedback they receive), use (given time
to use feedback received), and management (teacher feedback classroom manage-
ment). The second dimension, feedback content, is described by the students with a
variety of descriptions of content elements and how they were/were not useful
for further learning. These descriptions were mapped and coded: valence
(positive, negative), focus (process, task, personal), function (judgement, descrip-
tion), clarity (clear, unclear to student), specificity (specific, general), comparison
(criterion-referenced, norm ref., self-referenced), complexity (manageable task),
honesty (honest feedback content) and type. The feedback types coded and indexed
by Tunstall and Gipps (1996) – rewarding–punishing; approving–disapproving;
specifying attainment–specifying improvement; constructing achievement–construct-
ing the way forward – provided a useful framework for analysing the data and
looking for new codes (feedback types).
 Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 159

Figure 1. Analytic model of classroom feedback.

Findings and discussion

Three themes emerged from students’ perceptions of useful classroom feedback:
feedback valence, relations and honest feedback, and feedback types.

Feedback valence – positive and negative feedback

A finding is that positive and negative feedback valence has conceptual distinctions
among students, which aligns with King, Schrodt, and Weisel (2009). Positive feed-
back is described by students as feedback that gives approval of performance,
achievement or effort and specifies what can be done to improve the work. Nega-
tive feedback is described by students as feedback where the students are told (e.g.
after the work is completed) that they could have done a better job even when they
believe they have done their best, or when teachers simply say they have to work
harder and better in the future. Such feedback can be understood as ‘outcome feed-
back’, which is the simplest and most common type of feedback. It describes
whether or not results are correct or, if given in the midst of a task, whether or not
work is on a path that can lead to expected achievement (Butler and Winne 1995).
Students in our study describe negative feedback as a ‘thorn’ when teachers inform
them that they have to write more, work harder or give a richer description when
they find they have told everything they know. ‘If I knew more I would have
written it – I don’t know what more to write. Teachers should tell me what is
missing’ (Student 8). This perspective aligns with research by Wiliam and Leahy
160 S.M. Gamlem and K. Smith

who relate positive feedback to formative feedback and describe negative feedback
as, ‘causal, since it did trigger improvement in performance, but not formative,
because decisions about how to “work harder” were left to the pupil’ (Wiliam and
Leahy 2007, 31).
We find that students’ perceptions about corrective feedback as positive or nega-
tive seem to arise from two contradictory understandings of feedback utility based
on the teacher’s practice: (1) the teacher does not give the students time to work
with the feedback received, nor to follow up the feedback given. The feedback
seems to be understood as negative (disapproval) feedback – and make students feel
‘useless’; or (2) the teacher gives the students time to work with the feedback
received, and follows up the feedback given. In this case, feedback is understood as
positive (specifying improvement) feedback – and makes the students feel that feed-
back can enhance learning if integrated in the learning process. These findings make
us aware that the power of feedback does not only lie in when and how it is given,
but more in when and how it is received (Andrade 2010; Hattie and Gan 2011;
King, Schrodt, and Weisel 2009).
Students explain that they receive improvement feedback from teachers, but
mostly upon completion of an assignment. Examples provided by the students are
written and oral tests, or comments on workbook activities. Students explain that
improvement feedback is seldom given any attention in class, and the teacher does
not set aside time to work with the improvement feedback after it has been given.
Students experience it as voluntary to use this feedback and say: ‘The teacher starts
on something new, so we are done with it’, or ‘I have to try to remember it for next
time’. Students talk about the received feedback as something that is completed.
Researchers have claimed that it cannot simply be assumed that when students are
given feedback they know what to do with it (Brookhart 2008; Sadler 1998). If
feedback should be a means to enhance learning, it has to be integrated into the
teaching and learning processes (Andrade 2010; Black and Wiliam 2009; Hattie and
Gan 2011). For assessment to be formative, the feedback information has to be used
(Black and Wiliam 1998a). In this study, we found that students were not given
time and opportunities to work with feedback from teachers, which causes feedback
initially to increase learning (e.g. specifying improvement feedback) to be perceived
as negative and abandoned. Feedback becomes just a message of little use in the
learning process, since there are no formal opportunities to apply the feedback.
Feedback which is not understood as fruitful seems to be abandoned, or replaced
by affective actions such as anger or frustration.

Relations and honest feedback

Student participation in classroom interactions and peer feedback is described by
some students as difficult because lack of trust, honesty and mutual respect within a
classroom might prevent some students from being honest when giving feedback.
They are concerned about potential harm. This aligns with Cowie’s (2005) findings,
and supports Hattie and Timperley’s statement that: ‘the climate of the classroom is
critical, particularly if disconfirmation and corrective feedback at any level is to be
welcomed and used by the students’ (2007, 100). Students describe how they expe-
rience that peers sometimes use disapproving feedback to get back at students they
do not like, or students they have been arguing with: ‘Certainly if I quarrel with a
student, for example, I can get bad feedback because he doesn’t like me and won’t
have anything to do with me and so on’ (Student 5).
 Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 161

Students find it challenging to give peer feedback for improvement: ‘When we

work in groups with our friends it’s very easy to be a little too nice to each other’
(Student 1). The students are told by their teachers that peer feedback has to be
positive, and therefore feedback is not always honest and useful for improvement:

In our class we’re trying to give only positive responses so everyone feels good in
class without pressures such as: I must perform – what if they don’t like it? [The stu-
dent imitates a student who is anxious]. We’re not allowed to give feedback saying
you didn’t like it. (Student 5)

Since students are told by their teachers that feedback to peers has to be positive,
they find this difficult if work or performance is of low quality. They also find it
challenging if peers’ work carries complex meanings. One of the students explains
how she experiences giving peer feedback:

if the paper carries complex meanings – if it’s a complicated story then it can be very
– it might be a little difficult to respond to it. If there are many good [stories], and
few that are not so good then these are difficult to respond to. (Student 8)

Giving quality academic feedback might be challenging if students are not trained
for this, or if assessment criteria are not understood. Sadler claims that students
need to develop appraisal expertise such as task compliance, quality and criteria to
be able to give feedback and to understand feedback messages appropriately (Sadler
2010).
Students explain that feedback given by teachers and peers should contain cues
for improvement and be honest, otherwise it is useless. If there are no objective
criteria for students to use when assessing their work, they end up with personal
‘likes and dislikes’, creating a dilemma for the students. The existence of objective
criteria can lead to a perception of critical feedback as constructive and legitimate.
The lack of such criteria can make perceptions of critical feedback negative and be
understood more personally than substantively. Teachers may need to deliberately
teach their students adequate feedback skills, structure classrooms to share this
expertise, set criteria and make specific feedback interventions to ensure all students
can benefit from these peer interactions.

Feedback types and their utility

The data from the current study suggest that an expanded version of Tunstall and
Gipps’ typology (1996) can represent the way students perceive feedback in lower
secondary school. Four new feedback types were found in our study. These were
grade giving, controlling, reporting and dialogic feedback interaction. These
feedback types are presented in the expanded typology in Figure 2.
Type A feedback (rewarding – grade giving – punishing) is given by the teacher.
When giving a grade, criteria for success or cues for improvement are seldom given
or explained to students by the teacher. Students believe that effort, engagement
and various specific criteria related to assignments are used for setting grades.
Cowie (2005) claims that the criteria students and teachers use when giving feed-
back are important because they might influence the students’ approach to learning.
In our study, students say they often do not know why they got the given grade,
but that effort and engagement seem to be a part of it.
162 S.M. Gamlem and K. Smith

Active Participant
TYPE C
Specifying attainment (e.g. specific
acknowledgement of attainment, use of criteria,
specific praise)
Reporting (e.g. grade and comments, symbols,
rubrics)
Specifying improvement (e.g. correction of
errors, more practice given, training in self
checking)
TYPE D
Constructing achievement (e.g. mutal
articulation of achievement, student involvement,
emerging criteria, praise integral to description)
Dialogic feedback interaction (e.g. dialogue
built on developing student performance;
competence)
Constructing a way forward (e.g. provision of
strategies, mutual critical appraisals)

CLASSROOM
FEEDBACK
Low Verbal Interaction High Verbal Interaction
TYPE B
Approving (e.g. positve personal expression;
TYPE A general praise; positive non-verbal feedback)
Rewarding (e.g. rewards when high effort) Controlling (e.g. verbal and non-verbal
Grade giving only (e.g. grade, points) feedback, checking oral and written work,
Punishing (e.g. punishments when low effort) comments)
Disapproving (e.g. negative personal expression,
reprimands - negative generalisations, negative
non-verbal feedback)

Passive Recipient

Figure 2. Typology on classroom feedback in lower secondary school.

Setting a grade is perceived by students as a grade on written workbook activi-

ties, tests and oral presentations without suggestions of how to improve the assign-
ment. ‘There aren’t so many comments on the subject. It’s mostly just points or a
grade’ (Student 6). Students experience grades as a feedback type where students are
informed about the value of their performance. They feel assessment is used by
teachers to reward or punish students for effort, engagement and skills. This finding
aligns with Sadler’s (1989) that assessment which results in a grade is used by many
teachers as a tool for the control or modification of behaviour, for rewards and pun-
ishment. Students describe that rewards are mainly granted when effort has been
serious, or when they have shown particular skills or high engagement in a learning
activity. Moreover, students say that they are sometimes punished in the form of a
lower grade, for little effort or engagement. Students understand this as a system:

If I’m high on average and I have not done as well as I could – I could have done
much better – then I will receive a lower grade than others who are not so good and
have tried to do their best. (Student 5)

Getting a grade with no comments is understood by students as useless and does

not contribute to further learning, which aligns with former research by, e.g., Black
et al. (2004). One of the students explains that she received a grade six (top grade
in Norwegian lower secondary school) from the teacher on her work, but no
feedback for improving performance: ‘So I somehow got a six and got very little
feedback even though I knew there was a lot I needed to improve – but I don’t
understand how’ (Student 2). The student describes the dilemma of receiving a top
grade, but with no improvement feedback, and this influences the student’s percep-
tion of the usefulness of the feedback. These findings are in agreement with other
research documenting that feedback leads to learning gains only when it includes
 Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 163

guidance about how to improve (Black et al. 2004; Kluger and DeNisi 1996; Hattie
and Timperley 2007).
Type B feedback (approving – controlling – disapproving) is the most referred to
feedback type and is given by the teacher and peers. This category is understood as
feedback which students perceive in the form of comments or non-verbal signs that
communicate approval or disapproval on written and oral assignments (e.g. essay,
mathematic assignments, oral presentation) and during routine classroom interac-
tions (e.g. questioning). This feedback type can be understood as outcome feedback,
which carries no additional information about the task other than its state of
achievement (Butler and Winne 1995). One student describes the non-verbal feed-
back as ‘He [the teacher] smiles or nods in a way so you understand that your work
is good’ (Student 8).
Type B is understood as feedback given when the teacher is checking whether
the student has started on an assignment, or if an assignment has been completed in
time, and is less about the quality of work. When given, it implies that the teacher
controls achievement or effort related to assignments such as homework or personal
study plans.
Feedback of approval is perceived by the students when the teacher gives
positive visual feedback (e.g. smile, pat on shoulder, ‘give me five’), or verbal
comments such as ‘Excellent! Great, you have done it’. It generates motivation for
further work. Whether effort feedback is or is not advantageous may depend on an
individual’s level or quality of skills (Butler and Winne 1995). Students understand
this controlling feedback as recognition by teachers with regard to completion of
their work, and acceptance of their answers to teacher questions:

When I somehow have managed, I am told I have done well. When I’ve done very
badly I’m told so, but when I’ve done more or less like average, then I hear nothing.
Or that’s how I perceive it. (Student 5)

Sadler (1989) says that in making judgements, competent judges select, from the
large pool of possible criteria, those which are salient to a particular appraisal. ‘All
of the properties of a piece of student work which the teacher regards as normal,
ordinary, or expected (and which therefore do not call for either positive or negative
comment) naturally have low salience’ (1989, 133). Something ordinary, therefore,
is not remarkable. Something out of the ordinary invites attention. What will be
important to find out is if the teacher’s judgement aligns with the student’s percep-
tion of quality, and how this feedback might be supportive for learning.
The students find controlling feedback important for motivation and essential for
establishing good relations between teacher and student, but not very helpful for
improving work. It is more a motivator for working harder or, on the other side, it
can become a feedback message which precludes learning.
Type C feedback (specifying attainment – reporting – specifying improvement)
is highly appreciated by the students. Type C feedback as ‘specifying improvement’
feedback is given by the teacher and peers, and sought by the students; however,
teachers do not always provide opportunities to really apply the feedback, and it is
often given when the students are working on a task or at the end. When given by
the teacher, this type of feedback is useful if the students are given time to work
with it and to revise their assignments. Students say that peers give ‘specifying
improvement’ feedback during assignments (e.g. during process writing), and that
164 S.M. Gamlem and K. Smith

this feedback is used to further develop and improve work since it is part of the
classroom activity. Zimmerman and Pons (1986) found that high achievers seek
more academic feedback and use teachers and peers more as sources of social
support than low-achieving students. Villamil and de Guerrero (2006; in Hattie and
Gan 2011, 256) found that the peers needed to be at similar stages of self-regulation
and shared control, as well as have high levels of empathy when listening to the
partners’ comments.
Feedback type C is given from student to teacher when self-assessment is con-
ducted. This is often an activity controlled by the teacher, and the students have to
hand in a self-report on their own work based on criteria (effort, level of achieve-
ment, task complexity). It is explained as ‘reporting feedback’ by the students.
Reporting feedback might be asked for at the end of a teaching unit, after a test, or
after a lesson. The students self-report in the form of written assignments, tick off
on a rubric, write reflective logs or give themselves a grade or score. Students
understand the feedback activity as a documentation activity and, ‘it is mostly to
see if we can assess ourselves or a report on how we manage the assignments’.
Examples that students give on reporting feedback are:

On our [two weeks] study plan, we have three questions or something like that for
each subject. Then we tick off whether we know little, or if we know a lot about the
subject. We hand this into the teacher. (Student 11)

‘You can tick whether your effort has been very poor, poor, average or good. And
then you write a bit about the subject, if it has been difficult and so on’ (Student
4); ‘After correcting the test we have to write how we perceive our performance’
(Student 1). These reporting feedback practices described above might seem to
make the students ‘active participants’ but with low verbal interaction and with a
main focus on evaluation. For these feedback messages to become useful for further
learning, they should be seen and used as information for longitudinal development.
Reporting feedback is also described by students as assessment information from
teacher to student or student to teacher (as described above). Given from teacher to
student, this type of feedback is described as written feedback in the form of infor-
mation about attainment and suggestions for improvement. This feedback is under-
stood as useful by the students, but it ‘loses its usefulness’ when opportunities,
mostly in terms of time, are not provided to work with the feedback. The feedback
practice reported by these students might be challenging since it is important that
students know that the feedback they receive from teachers, peers or by conducting
self-assessment can lead to opportunities to actually make improvements (Andrade
2010; Hattie and Timperley 2007).
Type D feedback (constructing achievement – dialogic feedback interaction –
constructing the way forward) is rarely used in class, but when practised, students
refer to it as useful. It generates learning, provides information about achievement,
gives targeted individual information to proceed and develop understanding, and is
used as an interactive dialogue between the teacher and the student(s) or among the
students. When type D is given by teachers/peers, it is presented in various settings:
during assignment in class, halfway through a personal study plan or in the end of
a study plan period.
This category includes teacher–student or student–student interaction, and is
understood by the students as dialogic feedback interaction. Students find this feed-
 Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 165

back useful, it happens ‘here and now’. Students say that the dialogic feedback
interaction is rarely used by the teacher, but when practised, it is referred to as
enhancing learning. Two students describe how they experience dialogic feedback
sessions:

It is like this when we have social studies, we present and explain in front of the class
how we somehow have learned it. You can go all the way through if you know it or
not. Certainly, if we know a lot then the teacher can say that this was ok, but if not,
he never says this is ok. Then he says that there may be various explanations and
stuff, and then we discuss. It’s quite okay and good. (Student 8)

As I told you, we had mathematics. I had done my homework, but didn’t understand
it. Then he [the teacher] comes over to my desk and explains it for me. He gave
examples of how to find average, type figures, and the median and so on. This was
very good! I believe this was the lesson I learned most from during the whole week.
(Student 5)

Students also explain how they find peer feedback useful through dialogic interac-
tion when receiving and giving feedback while working with process writing. One
student says:

I feel I can in a way give help to that person. Like trying to sort of understand how
he thinks and then maybe try to sort of understand what he believes. I can in a way
say what I mean, so we understand each other so that one feels safe. (Student 1)

Students have instant, ongoing access to their thoughts, actions and work, and there
is ample evidence that they can accurately self-regulate and give peer feedback
under the right conditions (Andrade 2010; Hattie and Gan 2011; Waldrip, Fisher,
and Dorman 2009). The challenge is in creating the right conditions.
Feedback types A (rewarding – grade giving – punishing); B (approving – con-
trolling – disapproving); and C (specifying attainment – reporting – specifying
improvement) are the classroom feedback types the students describe as typical for
their classrooms, while type D (constructing achievement – dialogic feedback inter-
action – constructing the way forward) refers to rare classroom interactions. Type D
can be understood as a feedback type where the students can have high verbal inter-
actions and be active participants in their own learning, a practice both we and for-
mer researchers seem to approve when working with AfL (Andrade 2010; Black
and Wiliam 2009; Zimmerman and Pons 1986) because active participation is pre-
dictive of academic success (Zimmerman and Pons 1986). Further, we find that type
C feedback promotes active participation, but contains relatively low verbal interac-
tion, which might be a challenge for formative processes. In addition to this we
found that the timing of receiving type C feedback is essential for its usefulness
and for the students to become active participants and not passive recipients. Type
B feedback contains verbal interactions, but here students are passive recipients
concerning their own learning process. Recipients of type A feedback tend to be
‘passive’ receivers when feedback as signs of mastering (achievement and effort) is
received/given.
This expanded typology is suggested since we believe we have identified types
of classroom feedback which provide a language for discussing feedback with
teachers and suggest a framework for teachers to use in reflecting on their feedback
166 S.M. Gamlem and K. Smith

practice. However, it must be kept in mind that feedback valence (positive and neg-
ative feedback) has conceptual distinctions. Research strongly suggests that learners’
knowledge, beliefs and thinking jointly mediate the effects of externally provided
feedback (Butler and Winne 1995). Students also say that teachers might mix sev-
eral feedback types in one message when giving classroom feedback (e.g. a grade,
information about what is achieved and how to improve). Teacher feedback, peer
feedback and self-giving feedback (self-assessment) can all be described by the
expanded typology, but feedback varies in utility (usefulness) related to the terms of
giving, using, appreciating and seeking.

Limitations and further research

Attending to student perspectives provides an opportunity to review classroom feed-
back and to understand how students experience AfL. Our study has aimed at get-
ting a deeper understanding of how students in lower secondary school perceive
classroom feedback.
Three broad orientations of classroom feedback emerged from students’ percep-
tions of useful classroom feedback: feedback valence, relations and honest feed-
back, and feedback types.
Our study supports the claim by King, Schrodt, and Weisel (2009) that students
who find feedback useful tend to place value on such feedback and use it. Based
on our study, we can add that students seem to have conceptual distinctions of feed-
back valence (usefulness) related to teachers’ practice of providing opportunities
and time to apply feedback in revising their work.
The students explain that working with other students gives them a chance to
discuss the assignments, and that peers provide support and feedback when a
student is stuck. This was also found by Carnell (2000).
Students say there are challenges in giving improvement feedback to peers since
they are told that peer feedback has to be positive (approving), and therefore it is
not always honest or useful for improving performance. When students work in
groups with their friends, they are often too nice to each other. Still, we find that
trusted peers who are likely to be well intentioned are preferred sources of help,
which aligns with Cowie’s (2005) and Waldrip, Fisher, and Dorman’s (2009) find-
ings. We suggest that teachers deliberately teach their students feedback skills,
structure classrooms to share this expertise, set criteria and make specific feedback
interventions to ensure all students can benefit from these peer interactions. Teach-
ers should avoid building feedback practice built from personal ‘likes and dislikes’.
The effects of peer feedback are powerful and teachers have an even more difficult
task of moving students to the desired success outcome if peer feedback is incorrect
or misleading (Hattie and Gan 2011).
A revised typology based on Tunstall and Gipps (1996) is suggested. Our study
has identified additional types of classroom feedback which may be relevant for
practices in lower secondary schools. Students are receivers of feedback, and they
are the ones who decide whether or not to use it. The current study contributes to
the existing literature on students’ perceptions of feedback, so that teachers can
better adjust the way they practise feedback to meet students’ needs.
Thus, this study has supported much of the previous research conducted on
feedback practices in classrooms. Its main contribution lies in the extension of the
typology of feedback (Figure 2) by conducting a study in a different context and
 Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 167

among an older group of students. The similarities and differences identified may
indicate that when it comes to students’ perceptions of feedback, there are some
similarities across contexts, but that it is also important for teachers to be aware of
differences, for example, differing age groups. Education is heavily contextualised,
a fact that researchers, as well as consumers of educational research, should keep in
mind.
Future studies are needed to further validate the results presented here through
more comprehensive samples or a comparative design. There is also a need for
future research to study the development of reception and use of feedback among
students and what role the teacher plays in creating knowledge, skills and climates
where feedback is not simply like messages thrown out in bottles, but where the
teacher can be relatively certain that the feedback message reaches and can be used
by the intended recipient.

Acknowledgements
We are grateful to professor Elaine Munthe (UiS) and two anonymous reviewers for their
helpful feedback on earlier drafts of this paper.

Notes on contributors
Siv M. Gamlem is a former teacher in lower secondary school. She teaches education study
at Volda University College and is a PhD research scholar of education at Volda University
College. Her main research interests are assessment, classroom research and professional
development.

Kari Smith is a professor of education at the University of Bergen. Her main research
interests are assessment, teacher education and professional development.

References
Aase, T.H., and E. Fossåskaret. 2007. Skapte virkeligheter. Om produksjon og tolking av
kvalitative data [Created realities. About the production and interpretation of qualitative
data]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Andrade, H. 2010. Students as the definitive source of formative assessment. In Handbook
of formative assessment, ed. H. Andrade and G. Cizek, 90–105. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Black, P., C. Harrison, C. Lee, B. Marshall, and D. Wiliam. 2003. Assessment for learning:
Putting it into practice. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Black, P., C. Harrison, C. Lee, B. Marshall, and D. Wiliam. 2004. Working inside the black
box – assessment for learning in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan 86, no. 1: 9–21.
Black, P., and D. Wiliam. 1998a. Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom
assessment. Phi Delta Kappan 80, no. 2: 139–48.
Black, P., and D. Wiliam. 1998b. Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in
Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 5, no. 1: 7–74.
Black, P., and D. Wiliam. 2009. Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational
Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability 21, no. 1: 5–31.
Boekaerts, M., and L. Corno. 2005. Self-regulation in the classroom: A perspective on
assessment and intervention. Applied Psychology 54, no. 2: 199–231.
Brookhart, S. 2008. How to give effective feedback to your students? Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Butler, D.L., and P.H. Winne. 1995. Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical
synthesis. Review of Educational Research 65, no. 3: 245–81.
Carnell, E. 2000. Dialogue, discussion and feedback – views of secondary school students
on how others help their learning. In Feedback for learning, ed. S. Askew, 46–61. Flor-
ence, KY: Routledge.
168 S.M. Gamlem and K. Smith

Cowie, B. 2005. Pupil commentary on assessment for learning. The Curriculum Journal 16,
no. 2: 137–51.
Deci, E.L., R. Koestner, and R.M. Ryan. 1999. A meta-analytic review of experiments
examining the effects of extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation. Psychological
Bulletin 125, no. 6: 627–68.
Dweck, C.S. 1986. Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist 41, no.
10: 1040–8.
Dweck, C.S. 2009. Mindset – low-effort success mustn’t be praised. Glasgow: Scottish
Learning Festival. http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/video/c/video_tcm4565678.asp?strRefer-
ringChannel=slf (Keynote speech, video).
Erickson, F. 2006. Definition and analysis of data from videotape: Some research prosedures
and their rationales. In Handbook of complementary methods in education research, ed.
J. Green, G. Camilli, and P.B. Elmore, 177–89. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Frijda, N.H. 1986. The emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Furre, H., I.-J. Danielsen, R. Stigbert-Jamt, and E.M. Skaalvik. 2006. Analyse av den nasjo-
nale undersøkelsen ‘Elevundersøkelsen’ 2006 [Analysis of the national survey ‘Student
survey’ 2006]. Kristiansand: Oxford Research AS.
Hattie, J., and M. Gan. 2011. Instruction based on feedback. In Handbook of research on
learning and instruction, ed. R.E. Mayer and P.A. Alexander, 249–71. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Hattie, J., and H. Timperley. 2007. The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research
77, no. 1: 81–112.
Hawe, E., H. Dixon, and E. Watson. 2008. Oral feedback in the context of written language.
Australian Journal of Language and Literacy 31, no. 1: 43–58.
King, P.E., P. Schrodt, and J.J. Weisel. 2009. The instructional feedback orientation scale:
Conceptualizing and validating a new measure for assessing perceptions of instructional
feedback. Communication Education 58, no. 2: 235–61.
Klette, K. 2003. Klasserommets praksisformer etter Reform 97 [Classroom practices after
the Reform 97]. http://www.lu.hio.no/ALU/babel/kilder/klette.htm.
Kluger, A.N., and A. DeNisi. 1996. The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A
historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psy-
chological Bulletin 119, no. 2: 254–84.
Kvale, S. 2001. Det kvalitative forskingsintervju [The qualitative research interview]. Oslo:
Gyldendal Akademisk.
Lindgren, A.-L., and A. Sparrman. 2003. Om at bli dokumenterad. Etiska aspekter på
førskolans arbete med dokumentation [About being documented. Ethical aspects of pre-
school work with documentation]. Pedagogisk Forskning i Sverige 8, nos. 1–2: 58–69.
Maxwell, J.A. 2005. Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. 2nd ed. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Miles, M.B., and A.M. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook.
2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
NDET. 2010. Grunnlagsdokument. Satsingen Vurdering for læring 2010–2014 [Basic docu-
ment. The initiative assessment for learning]. http://www.udir.no/PageFiles/2/Grun-
nlagsdokument%20satsingen%20Vfl.pdf.
NDET. 2012. Vurdering for læring [Assessment for learning]. http://www.udir.no/Vurdering-
for-laring/Om-vurdering-og-laring/ (accessed February 2, 2012).
Perrenoud, P. 1998. From formative evaluation to a controlled regulation of learning
processes: Towards a wider conceptual field. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy
& Practice 5, no. 1: 85–102.
Poulos, A., and M.J. Mahony. 2008. Effectiveness of feedback: The students’ perceptions.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 33, no. 2: 143–54.
Sadler, D.R. 1989. Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems.
Instructional Science 18, no. 2: 119–44.
Sadler, D.R. 1998. Formative assessment: Revisiting the territory. Assessment in Education:
Principles, Policy & Practice 5, no. 1: 77–84.
Sadler, R. 2010. Beyond feedback: Developing student capability in complex appraisal.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 35, no. 5: 535–50.
 Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 169

Shute, V.J. 2008. Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research 78, no. 1:
153–89.
Skaalvik, E., P.E. Garmannslund, and T.E. Viblemo. 2009. Analyse av Elevundersøkelsen
2009 [Analysis of student survey 2009] (1–124). Kristiansand: Oxford Research &
NTNU.
Smith, H., and S. Higgins. 2006. Opening classroom interaction: The importance of
feedback. Cambridge Journal of Education 36, no. 4: 485–502.
Thagaard, T. 2002. Systematikk og innlevelse. En innføring i kvalitativ metode [Systematic
approach and empathy. An introduction to qualitative methods]. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget
Vigmostad & Bjørke AS.
Tunstall, P., and C. Gipps. 1996. Teacher feedback to young children in formative
assessment: A typology. British Educational Research Journal 22, no. 4: 389–404.
Villamil, O.S., and M.C.M. de Guerrero. 2006. Sociocultural theory: A framework for under-
standing the social-cognitive dimensions of peer-feedback. In Feedback in second lan-
guage writing: Contexts and issues, ed. K. Hyland and F. Hyland, 23–41. New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Waldrip, B.G., D.L. Fisher, and J. Dorman. 2009. Identifying exemplary science teachers
through students’ perceptions of their learning environment. Learning Environments
Research 12, no. 1: 1–13.
Wiliam, D., and S. Leahy. 2007. A theoretical foundation for formative assessment. In For-
mative classroom assessment: Theory into practice, ed. J.H. McMillan, 29–42. New
York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Zimmerman, B.J., and M.M. Pons. 1986. Development of a structured interview for
assessing student use of self-regulated learning strategies. American Educational
Research Journal 23, no. 4: 614–28.

Appendix 1. Interview guide – lower secondary school students (modified

version)

(1) Can you think of today (or yesterday if it is early) and provide examples of feed-
back obtained from one or more of your teachers? How did you experience this
feedback? How was it useful?
(2) What do you find useful/appreciate when getting feedback from teachers? (Why?).
(3) What do you appreciate the least when getting teacher feedback? (Why?).
(4) What did you do with the teacher feedback you received today? (If received
feedback).
(5) What usually happens when you receive (instructional) feedback in class? (How is
the feedback followed up?).
(6) How do you give feedback to peers?
(7) Can you tell how you have been prepared to respond on peers’ work/performance?
(8) How do you find peer feedback beneficial for your own learning and development?
(9) What do you appreciate the most when getting peer feedback? Appreciate the
least?
(10) Can you say something about how you perceive feedback from peers and/or teach-
ers when performing for the class? (Content of this feedback)
(11) Do you assess your own work (performance and process) at school? How is this
done/conducted?
(12) Are there things you do not get feedback on, but you would like your teacher or
peer to comment on?
(13) Do you experience that your teachers give you non-verbal feedback? When? How
do you find this feedback useful?
(14) How do you get feedback on learning goals from your teachers?
(15) Do you know what your teacher looks for when assessing your work? (written/oral
assignments).