Teaching and Teacher Education 85 (2019) 175e189

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Comparison of teacher and student perceptions of formative

assessment feedback practices and association with individual student
characteristics
Fabienne M. van der Kleij*
Institute for Learning Sciences & Teacher Education, Australian Catholic University, Brisbane, Australia

h i g h l i g h t s

Investigated teacher and student feedback perceptions in secondary English and mathematics using surveys.

Overall, feedback quality was perceived more positively by teachers than students.

Teachers were significantly more positive about facilitation of feedback use than students in English.

Students' self-reported self-efficacy, intrinsic values and self-regulation predicted their perceptions of feedback quality.

Self-efficacy, intrinsic values þ self-regulation mediated the impact of achievement level on feedback quality perceptions.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study (1) investigated similarities and differences in feedback perceptions among teachers and
Received 6 December 2018 students and (2) explored the association between individual student characteristics and students'
Received in revised form feedback perceptions. Survey data were collected from 59 teachers and 186 students in secondary En-
13 June 2019
glish and mathematics classes in five Australian schools. Feedback quality was perceived more positively
Accepted 17 June 2019
Available online 4 July 2019
by teachers than students, and English teachers reported higher levels of facilitation of feedback use than
students. Student self-reported levels of self-efficacy, intrinsic values and self-regulation predicted stu-
dents’ perceptions of feedback quality. These individual student characteristics mediated the relationship
Keywords:
Feedback
between student achievement levels and feedback quality perceptions.
Formative assessment © 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Teacher
Student
Perception
Individual student characteristics

1. Introduction 2015), and a critical part of formative assessment. Formative

Feedback has been identified as one of the most powerful in-
fluences on student learning (Hattie, 2009, ES ¼ 0.73, p. 173).
Feedback is generally defined as “information provided by an agent
(e.g., teacher, peer, book, parent, self, experience) regarding aspects
of one's performance or understanding” (Hattie & Timperley, 2007,
p. 81). Providing feedback is widely recognised as a key teacher
professional skill (Black & Wiliam, 2009; Hattie & Timperley, 2007;
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD],
* Institute for Learning Sciences & Teacher Education, Australian Catholic Uni-
versity, Level 4, 229 Elizabeth Street, Brisbane, Queensland, 4000, Australia.
Tel.: þ61 0 7 3263 7428.
E-mail address: fabienne.vanderkleij@acu.edu.au.
assessment involves the collection of evidence about student
learning through a variety of formal and informal assessment
methods that are integral to classroom practice (Black & Wiliam,
2009; Popham, 2008). Despite the evidence-based potential of
feedback in formative assessment, recent research suggests that
teacher feedback often does not result in improved student
learning in everyday classroom practice (Ajjawi & Boud, 2016;
Hattie & Gan, 2011).
Two clear messages have resulted from considerable research
on the effects of feedback on students’ learning outcomes (e.g.,
Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Shute, 2008). Firstly, the characteristics
of the feedback message are important. Feedback that provides
explanations or strategic information is generally more effective
than corrective feedback. However, a second key finding is that the

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.06.010
0742-051X/© 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
176 F.M. van der Kleij / Teaching and Teacher Education 85 (2019) 175e189
evidence about feedback effectiveness is inconclusive in many re-
spects. Despite more than a century of feedback research, many
aspects that explain the relationship between feedback and
learning remain unclear (Van der Kleij, Adie, & Cumming, 2017;
Hattie & Gan, 2011). To address this gap, the research reported in
this paper focuses on teacher and student perceptions of feedback.
1.1. Student perceptions of feedback
Generic frameworks on how to provide effective feedback, such
as those by Hattie and Timperley (2007) and Shute (2008), can be
helpful in trying to shape teacher feedback for maximum student
benefit. However, research shows that while some types of feed-
back are highly effective for some students, they are ineffective for
others, as evidenced by large differences between the learning
impacts of feedback for individual students (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996;
Shute, 2008). Historically, feedback has been conceptualised as a
one-way transmissive process, in which feedback is a single mes-
sage from a sender to a receiver (Van der Kleij et al., 2017; Hattie &
Gan, 2011). In past research it has been assumed that if quality
feedback is provided (input), learning (output) automatically fol-
lows (Van der Kleij et al., 2017; Winstone, Nash, Parker, & Rowntree,
2017). Such research has focused primarily on aspects of the
feedback message and sender, without considering how feedback is
perceived or understood and used by students (Hattie & Gan, 2011).
Recent research in education increasingly recognises that if
students do not engage with feedback, feedback will not be effec-
tive in supporting student learning (Harris, Brown, & Harnett, 2014;
Hattie & Gan, 2011; Winstone et al., 2017). Lack of engagement has
been reported to occur if students do not perceive feedback as
useful, do not notice feedback at all, do not understand feedback, do
not have time or opportunity to use it, or are not willing or able to
use it (Gamlem & Smith, 2013; Havnes, Smith, Dysthe, & Ludvigsen,
2012).
Much of the research to date has focused on specifying guide-
lines for how teachers should provide effective feedback (e.g.,
Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Shute, 2008). However, research in pri-
mary (Dann, 2015), secondary (Havnes et al., 2012; Jo  nsson, Smith,
& Geirsdo  ttir, 2018) and higher education (Carless, 2006) found
that how feedback is provided by teachers has limited impact on
how it is perceived by students. While teachers believed they
provided students with helpful feedback and that students used
their feedback to improve their learning, many students did not
perceive this feedback as helpful, and claimed not to use it. Un-
derstanding the intended and perceived meaning and value of
feedback is a critical first condition for effective feedback uptake for
student learning and, subsequently, for resolving discrepancies in
teachers' and students’ feedback perceptions.
A substantial body of research on student perceptions of feed-
back exists in higher education (e.g., Carless, 2006; Rowe & Wood,
2008; Winstone et al., 2017), but only a limited number of studies
has been conducted in primary and secondary school contexts.
Findings from studies in school contexts, overall, suggest that stu-
dents appreciate receiving feedback and recognise its benefits (Van
der Kleij et al., 2017; Gamlem & Smith, 2013; Harris et al., 2014;
Peterson & Irving, 2008; Williams, 2010; Zumbrunn, Marrs, &
Mewborn, 2016). However, research has also identified substan-
tial variability in how feedback is perceived by individual students
(Harris et al., 2014; Havnes et al., 2012; Williams, 2010; Zumbrunn
et al., 2016). Of concern is the finding that students frequently
report not using feedback (Hargreaves, 2012; Havnes et al., 2012;
nsson et al., 2018; Peterson & Irving, 2008; Voerman, Korthagen,
Jo
Meijer, & Simons, 2014). Empirical evidence for the criticality of
feedback perceptions was provided in a study by Harks, Rakoczy,
Hattie, Besser, and Klieme (2014). Students perceived process-
focused feedback as more useful than grade-oriented feedback.
Moreover, students who perceived feedback as more useful
benefited more from the feedback, as demonstrated through
improved mathematics achievement. Thus, perceived usefulness
was identified as an important mediating variable for feedback to
influence learning. Harks et al. explained this finding by relating
positive feedback perceptions to actual feedback use.
1.2. Individual student differences
A key conclusion of numerous reviews has been that individual
differences between students account for the large variability in the
effects of feedback on student learning (e.g., Kluger & DeNisi, 1996;
Shute, 2008). Surprisingly, this issue remains largely unexplored in
empirical feedback research. Since individual student characteris-
tics appear to have such a substantial influence on students’ per-
ceptions and use of feedback, and the consequent effects on
learning, understanding the impact of individual student charac-
teristics requires investigation.
Results from large-scale review studies have indicated that in-
dividual student variables such as motivation (including self-
efficacy and intrinsic values), self-regulation, and achievement
level play an important role in determining how students perceive
and subsequently engage with feedback, and the effect feedback
has on learning (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996; Shute, 2008). Self-efficacy
relates to students' confidence in their ability to succeed on a
task, which is highly influenced by prior assessment experiences
(Lipnevich & Smith, 2009). Intrinsic values encompass students’
interests and goals. Self-regulation refers to the use of meta-
cognitive strategies to plan, monitor, and manage effort and use
cognitive strategies to learn (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990). Research
further suggests that gender is an important characteristic to
consider in relation to feedback uptake and effects (Narciss et al.,
2014; Rowe & Wood, 2008; Winstone et al., 2017). For example,
research by Narciss et al. (2014) showed that girls generally
benefited more from feedback than boys, suggesting a difference in
how they perceive and subsequently use feedback.
The limited evidence available suggests that individual student
variables play an important role in determining how feedback is
perceived and subsequently used. For example, research suggests
that students who have higher levels of self-efficacy (Handley,
Price, & Millar, 2011; Stiggins, 2018; Zumbrunn et al., 2016) and
intrinsic motivation (Harks et al., 2014) are more willing to learn
from feedback. Zumbrunn et al. (2016) found that self-efficacy
significantly predicted self-regulation, and this relationship was
significantly mediated by feedback perceptions. Students with
higher levels of self-regulation should be more able to effectively
use feedback (Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006; Winstone et al.,
2017). Harks et al. (2014) identified that perceived usefulness of
feedback was positively related to students’ motivation for the
subject, which in turn was positively related to improved learning
outcomes.
1.3. Conceptual model
Fig. 1 provides a conceptual model for the research presented in
this paper. In the proposed model, feedback is an interpretative
process which may or may not result in learning, rather than a one-
way transmissive process in which learning is the assumed
outcome (Van der Kleij et al., 2017; Hattie & Gan, 2011). Whilst
acknowledging the importance of students in the role of feedback
provider, the feedback provider considered in this study is the
teacher. The teacher provides one or multiple students with feed-
back (feedback as intended) on their work, influenced by contexts of
 F.M. van der Kleij / Teaching and Teacher Education 85 (2019) 175e189
Fig. 1. Conceptual model of the student perspective in feedback processes.
the subject being studied, the Year level of the students, and indi-
vidual student characteristics. Feedback is then perceived by stu-
dents in a certain way.
The term feedback perception captures how students receive,
interpret, and value a feedback message. Lipnevich, Berg, and Smith
(2016) proposed that feedback perceptions are made up of a two-
level structure: (a) state, involving situation-specific, perceptual
and automatic responses, and (b) trait, involving ‘typical’, reflective
and controlled responses. The conceptual model in Fig. 1 can be
applied to both levels of feedback perception. This study focuses on
the second level of perception as distinguished by Lipnevich et al.
(2016) and investigated how teachers and students perceive feed-
back more generally, as opposed to studying feedback perceptions
specific to a particular feedback instance.
In the conceptual model, engagement with feedback is identified
as a prerequisite for learning improvement to occur. If students
engage effectively with the feedback, that is, using the feedback
information to set in motion cognitive processes to confirm,
strengthen, expand, tune, adjust or restructure their conceptual
beliefs and strategies (Butler & Winne, 1995), this will contribute to
their learning (Black & Wiliam, 2009).
1.4. Aims, research questions and contribution
As identified in Section 1.1, understanding how students
perceive feedback is a critical first condition for engagement with
feedback. The present study therefore investigated similarities and
differences in feedback perceptions among teachers and students
in secondary English and mathematics classrooms. Further, the
study explored the relationship between individual student vari-
ables of motivation (including self-efficacy and intrinsic values),
self-regulation, achievement level and gender, and students’ feed-
back perceptions, as a prerequisite for engagement with feedback.
The study used a mixed methods design (Creswell, 2012;
Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010); quantitative data from close-ended
survey items were supplemented by qualitative data from open-
ended survey items. The qualitative data were collected directly
following collection of quantitative data from the same teacher and
student sample. Quantitative and qualitative data were initially
analysed separately, and results were subsequently considered in
combination to address the research questions and inform discus-
sion. The study sought to answer two research questions in two
177
sub-studies:
1. How do teachers and students perceive assessment feedback
practices, and what are the differences between teachers' and
students' feedback perceptions?
2. How are students' perceptions of assessment feedback practices
associated with individual student characteristics and other
student variables?
Findings from this study provide detailed insights into teacher
and student perceptions of feedback practice, as well as the extent
to which these perceptions relate to specific individual student
characteristics. Such insights are needed to better understand the
relationships between teacher feedback and student learning, and
to inform further research on strategies for teachers to enable
personalisation of feedback to achieve maximum learning benefits.
2. Study 1: methods
The subsequent paragraphs describe the methods used in Study
1, which focused on examining the nature of and differences in
teacher and student perceptions of feedback practices. Information
on the study context and participants is provided in Section 2.1,
followed by an overview of the instruments used in Section 2.2.
Section 2.3 outlines how the data collected in Study 1 were
analysed.
2.1. Study 1: context and participants
The study was conducted in two Australian states, Queensland
and New South Wales. As in many other countries (OECD, 2015),
formative assessment, in which feedback plays a critical role, is a
clear policy expectation for Australian teachers’ classroom practice
(Adie, Van der Kleij, & Cumming, 2018; Ministerial Council on
Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs [MCEETYA],
2008). Feedback is also identified as crucial to quality teacher
practice in the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers
(Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership [AITSL],
2011).
The study focused on feedback in two core subjects, English and
mathematics, essential areas of learning and recognised as under-
pinning learning in other subject areas. These two subjects were
178 F.M. van der Kleij / Teaching and Teacher Education 85 (2019) 175e189
Table 1
Overview of participants.
Teachers
School English Mathematics English þ Mathematics Total teachers
1 4 3 4 11
2 1 3 0 4 13
3 7 2 0 9 15
4 7 9 0 16
5 9 10 0 19
Total 28 27 4 59
chosen to determine if there were any discipline-specific differ-
ences in how feedback was perceived by teachers and students. For
example, research has identified that feedback in English is often
open-ended in nature and therefore subject to interpretation
(Marshall, 2004). In contrast, feedback in mathematics has histor-
ically focused on corrective information on highly specific ques-
tions or tasks (Harks et al., 2014; Small & Lin, 2018). Although
recent literature recognises the importance of elaborated feedback
in addition to simple corrective feedback in the context of more
complex mathematics problems, such elaborated feedback ad-
dresses unambiguous errors in a procedural manner (Attali, 2015;
Attali & Van der Kleij, 2017; Harks et al., 2014).
This study involved secondary education teachers and students
in Years 7e10 (the first four years of high schooldstudent ages per
year level: Year 7: 12e13; Year 8: 13e14; Year 9: 14e15; Year 10:
15e16). These Year levels are recognised as critical for student
engagement and as a foundation for school retention and further
education (MCEETYA, 2008). In total, 59 teachers and 186 students
(61 boys [33%], 125 girls [67%]) from five Independent schools1
participated (see Table 1).
One school was located in Queensland, and four were located in
New South Wales. All participants were volunteers. Four schools
were co-educational and one was a girls-only school. The schools’
Indexes of Community Socio-Educational Advantage (ICSEA)2
values as reported by MySchool (www.myschool.edu.au) ranged
from average (close to 1000) to high (slightly below 1200, two
standard deviations above the median). Thus, the sample repre-
sents schools of somewhat higher than average socio-educational
advantage.
Human research ethics approval was obtained and consent was
provided by participating school principals, teachers, students, and
parents. Reports of overall findings were provided to schools in
writing and oral video presentation to inform professional reflec-
tion and further discussions.
2.2. Study 1: instruments
An existing self-report survey of feedback practice (Havnes et al.,
2012) was translated from Norwegian and modified to suit the
research purpose and Australian educational context. Teachers
completed the teacher version of the feedback perceptions survey,
while students completed the student version. The parallel nature
1
The Independent school sector represents a diverse range of schools, and 16% of
the total school enrolments in Australia (2017). Funding for Independent schools
consists of national and state and territory government funding and parental and
other private source contributions. Source: https://isca.edu.au/about-independent-
schools/independent-schools-overview/.
2
The ICSEA values are calculated using parental occupation and education data,
remoteness of school, percentage of Indigenous students, and a combination of
Language Background Other than English and percentage of parents who have not
completed education beyond Year 9. Source: http://docs.acara.edu.au/resources/
Guide_to_understanding_ICSEA.pdf.
Students
Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Total students
16 11 6 13 46
4 7 0 24
20 12 10 57
4 9 4 11 28
10 7 5 9 31
58 51 34 43 186
of the survey items allowed comparison of teachers' and students’
perceptions of feedback practices. For example, an item from the
teacher version was: “I give students feedback that is useful for
further learning.” The parallel item in the student version was: “I
receive feedback that is useful for my learning.” The response op-
tions were: True; Almost true; True only to some extent; and Un-
true. As this study used a survey instrument with items about
feedback events, the accumulation of the responses to these items
provided a measure of perceived feedback practice (referred to as
feedback perceptions for simplicity), the second level of perception
as distinguished by Lipnevich et al. (2016). Students were asked to
respond to each item in the survey for English and mathematics
separately. Teachers responded to the survey for their subject area.
An English version (developed using forward-backward trans-
lation) had been provided by one of the Norwegian researchers. The
29-item instrument designed by Havnes et al. (2012) included four
dimensions of student and teacher engagement with feedback: (1)
quality of feedback, (2) students’ use of feedback, (3) peer-feedback,
and (4) student involvement in assessment. This study considered
the first two dimensions, as these are relevant to teacher feedback
practices, rather than formative assessment more broadly. It
therefore incorporated 18 items from the 29-item instrument. Five
additional components that might contribute to these dimensions
were identified from the literature (Gamlem & Smith, 2013; Havnes
et al., 2012): noticing of feedback, perceived relevance, under-
standing of feedback, usability related to timing, and frequency.
Five 4-point Likert scale items were constructed to cover these
additional components aspects identified in the literature as critical
for feedback effectiveness.
The draft teacher survey was trialled for clarity of wording and
suitability for use in the Australian context with three research
colleagues who also had teaching experience. The student draft
version was trialled for clarity of wording with one Year 7 and one
Year 8 student volunteers who did not participate in the study. The
final version of the feedback perceptions survey used in this study
consisted of 23 items: items 1 to 18 were adapted from Havnes et al.
(2012), and items 19 to 23 constructed for the purpose of this study.
In addition, the feedback perceptions survey included one open-
ended item where the participants could provide additional com-
ments (Teacher version: “Comments or other experiences or
opinions you want to express regarding your use of feedback in the
classroom”; student version: “Comments or other experiences or
opinions you want to express regarding feedback”). This open-
ended item was used to collect qualitative data to complement
the quantitative data from the Likert scale items (Creswell, 2012) in
order to (1) to gain a more in-depth understanding of the nature of
different participants' feedback perceptions in the participants’
own words, and (2) to capture perceptions on potentially important
topics that had not been addressed in the survey items.
The survey instruments were programmed onto SurveyGizmo
for online administration. The surveys were designed to be
compatible with a range of digital devices, including PCs, tablets,
and smartphones, to allow ease of access for participants.
 F.M. van der Kleij / Teaching and Teacher Education 85 (2019) 175e189
2.3. Study 1: data analysis
All analyses were conducted separately for English and mathe-
matics, and outcomes of analyses were subsequently compared
across subjects to highlight any subject-specific differences. All
significance tests were two-tailed using a significance level of 0.05.
To enhance readability of the Results section, the interpretation of
analyses is presented, with detailed results of statistical analyses
presented in the Online supplement.
2.3.1. Feedback perceptions survey instrument validation
The survey instrument was validated using factor analyses and
Cronbach's alpha reliability analyses. In the study by Havnes et al.
(2012), an unspecified factor analysis confirmed the existence of
four factors identified through content analysis. No technical details
of this factor analysis were provided in their manuscript. Jo  nsson
et al. (2018) also reported finding this four-factor structure but
without providing further details. Details of which items belong to
a particular scale are not reported in either of these studies. Items
that appeared to measure perceptions of feedback quality and
feedback use at face value were included in the present study.
This study initially employed exploratory factor analysis using
student data (the number of teacher responses was insufficient to
conduct such analyses). The factor model was estimated using
maximum likelihood extraction with an oblique rotation. A two-
factor structure was established from this analysis. Items that did
not load sufficiently onto the two factors were removed, and
analysis was repeated using reduced item sets.
The two-factor structure was further established using confir-
matory factor analysis. Next, reliability of the factors was assessed
using both student and teacher data. These analyses were con-
ducted to find a common underlying factor structure that was
reliable across all subjects and participant groups. Analyses indi-
cated that reliability of the factors increased to between a ¼ 0.66
and a ¼ 0.82 for all groups when certain items were removed. This
subsequently improved the fit of the factor model. The final scales
used in this study contain eight items for feedback quality and three
items for facilitation of feedback use. Both scales were sufficiently
reliable for all groups (see Table 2), and model fit was acceptable for
both English and mathematics (see Online supplement Table S1).
2.3.2. Feedback perceptions survey analyses
Data from the Likert-scale items were coded numerically to
allow for quantitative analyses. For ease of interpretation (in
contrast to Havnes et al., 2012), data were coded 4 ¼ True,
3 ¼ Nearly true, 2 ¼ True only to some extent, 1 ¼ Untrue.
Negatively-worded items were reverse-coded. Feedback percep-
tions were first analysed for teachers and students separately using
descriptive statistics. Although representing categorical data and
the median is the preferred measure of central tendency, means
and standard deviations are also provided where appropriate to
illustrate the extent of variation in participants’ responses. Next,
overall differences between teacher and student perceptions of
Table 2
Reliability of the two feedback perception scales for teachers and students in English and mathematics.
Feedback quality reliability (8 items)
Students
English a ¼ .82
Mathematics a ¼ .81
Teachers
English a ¼ .73
Mathematics a ¼ .77
Note. Students n ¼ 185 for feedback quality, and n ¼ 186 for facilitation of feedback use. Teachers n ¼ 32 for English and n ¼ 31 for mathematics.
179
feedback practice were compared using the mean scaled scores. For
one student who had omitted one item from the feedback quality
scale in both English and mathematics, mean scaled scores were
calculated based on non-missing responses.
Shapiro-Wilk test analyses (see Online supplement) identified
that the teacher scaled scores were normally distributed for facil-
itation of feedback use but not for feedback quality. The distribution
of scaled student scores differed significantly from a normal dis-
tribution in English and mathematics. For this reason, non-
parametric Mann-Whitney U-tests were used when comparing
teacher and student feedback perceptions. Wilcoxon matched-pair
signed rank tests were used for within-group comparisons.
Item-level analyses were conducted using independent sample
Mann-Whitney U-tests to explore the nature of the differences in
feedback perceptions between teachers and students. Such ana-
lyses were considered important as they provided information on
the nature of the differences in perceptions, which provides a
starting point for addressing such differences.
The qualitative data drawn from teacher and student responses
to the open-ended item were analysed using thematic content
analysis (Creswell, 2013; Schreier, 2014) in NVivo 11 (QSR
International, 2015) and summarised across inductively-
developed themes. The number of responses categorised within
each theme is reported to provide an overall impression of the
nature of the qualitative data. Key quotes are presented to illustrate
individual participants’ perceptions.
3. Study 1: results
This section presents the results of Study 1. Results of the
quantitative data analysis are presented first, followed by the
qualitative results, which were used to complement the quantita-
tive results.
3.1. Quantitative feedback perception results
Table 3 shows the mean and median responses for teachers and
students across scales, and comparisons of feedback perceptions for
the different groups. English and mathematics teachers were
strongly positive about the quality of their feedback (Scale 1).
Teachers were significantly less positive about facilitation of feed-
back use than feedback quality (Scale 2), with English teachers
responding slightly more positively than mathematics teachers.
Overall, students were moderately positive about the quality of
feedback in both subjects. Similar to the teachers, students held
significantly less positive perceptions about facilitation of feedback
use. Students’ perceptions of facilitation of feedback use in English
and mathematics differed significantly with students more positive
in English than in mathematics. There were no gender differences
in perceptions of feedback quality or facilitation of feedback use in
either English or mathematics.
Teachers' and students’ perceptions of feedback quality differed
significantly in both English and mathematics; teachers were more
Facilitation of feedback use reliability (3 items)
a ¼ .68
a ¼ .66
a ¼ .74
a ¼ .76
180 F.M. van der Kleij / Teaching and Teacher Education 85 (2019) 175e189

Table 3
Mean scaled scores and within group comparisons for perceptions of feedback quality and facilitation of feedback use.

Group Subject Feedback quality Facilitation of feedback use Comparison across

feedback perception scalesa

M SD Mdn M SD Mdn z p

Teachers English 3.68 0.33 3.75 2.77 0.79 2.67 4.661 <.001**
Mathematics 3.64 0.39 3.75 2.28 0.79 2.33 4.802 <.001**
Students English 3.38 0.55 3.50 2.45 0.83 2.33 10.486 <.001**
Mathematics 3.32 0.57 3.50 2.29 0.83 2.33 11.122 <.001**
a
Note. ¼ Wilcoxon matched-pair signed rank test. **p < .001.

positive than students. Perceptions of facilitation of feedback use
also differed between teachers and students for English, with
teachers again being more positive than students. Table 4 sum-
marises the main findings of the quantitative analyses.
An overview of the items, teacher and student responses, and
item-level significance tests for English and mathematics is pro-
vided in Table 5.
Teachers in both subjects reported the following strengths
(M > 3.5; closer to True than Nearly True) regarding the quality of
their classroom feedback practices: giving students useful feedback
for further learning, giving feedback in addition to grades, discus-
sing areas for improvement and ways in which students can
improve, and ensuring students understand how to improve. En-
glish teachers also identified providing feedback that explains ex-
pectations as a strength, and mathematics teachers indicated that
students usually understand their feedback. English and mathe-
matics teachers also responded predominantly positively (M > 3;
on average above Nearly True) to items regarding requiring stu-
dents to use feedback. English teachers were positive about stu-
dents’ understanding of their feedback, and indicated giving
students time to work on feedback individually in class time.
Mathematics teachers identified usually explaining expectations to
students.
In English, students were particularly positive (M > 3.5) about
receiving feedback in addition to a grade, and teacher encourage-
ment to use feedback to revise their work. In mathematics, students
were particularly positive about being aware of what they needed
to do to improve. Students responded on average above Nearly True
(M > 3) for all other feedback quality items.
Significant differences between teacher and student perceptions
of feedback quality were found on seven out of eight items in En-
glish, and six out of eight items in mathematics. Teachers were
more positive than students, which the exception of the statement
regarding teacher encouragement of feedback use to revise work.
Regarding perceptions of facilitation of feedback use, teachers in
both English and mathematics were least positive (M < 2.5) about
giving students time in class to work on feedback in groups. While
teachers in both English and mathematics generally indicated
requiring students to use feedback and reported giving students
time to do this individually, the extent to which they identified
following up to check on students’ actual use of feedback was
substantially lower. This pattern was also observed in the student
data, suggesting that using feedback is a mainly individual
endeavour. However, there was a significant difference in perceived
allocated time to individually work on feedback in class between
teachers and students in English.
3.2. Qualitative feedback perception results
In this section, the results of the qualitative analyses are pre-
sented. Section 3.2.1 reports on qualitative teacher feedback per-
ceptions, followed by qualitative student feedback perceptions
survey results in Section 3.2.2.
3.2.1. Qualitative teacher feedback perceptions survey results
In total, 31 teachers provided comments to the open-ended item
in the feedback perceptions survey. Their comments ranged in
length from twelve to 185 words (Mdn ¼ 35.5). Responses were
categorised into five themes: specific feedback strategies (n ¼ 20),
time pressure (n ¼ 6), student attitudes towards feedback (n ¼ 6),
survey-specific feedback (n ¼ 4) and feedback in relation to the
nature of their subject (n ¼ 4). Across these five themes, teacher
comments represented various perspectives on feedback (n ¼ 13).
Twenty teacher comments related to specific feedback strate-
gies. For example, teachers reported using on-the-spot oral feed-
back, oral informal interactions, written feedback on formal
assessment tasks and peer feedback. One mathematics teacher
reflected on the difficulties experienced in finding a balance be-
tween providing helpful feedback and developing independence in
students.
Six English teachers commented specifically on how they
encourage student use of feedback. The nature of these strategies as
reported by different teachers varied:
1. Providing “drafting feedback sheets” with specific and
comprehensive feedback about areas for improvement, and
encouraging students to seek advice if they are unsure how to
use the feedback;
2. Requiring students to keep drafts with written feedback and
checking the use of feedback in subsequent drafts;
3. Setting aside class time for students to use feedback, with the
teacher providing further feedback as needed;

Table 4
Summary of main findings of the quantitative feedback perception analyses.

Feedback Teachers Students Comparison

perception
scale

Feedback Strongly positive
Moderately positive Teachers were significantly more positive than
quality
No gender differences students
Facilitation of Significantly less positive about facilitation of
Significantly less positive about facilitation of Teachers were significantly more positive than
feedback use feedback use than feedback quality feedback use than feedback quality students in English, but not in mathematics

No gender differences
 F.M. van der Kleij / Teaching and Teacher Education 85 (2019) 175e189 181

Table 5
Item descriptions, teacher and student responses, and item-level significance tests for English and mathematics.

English Mathematics

Item Student survey item (T ¼ teacher item, S ¼ student item) Teachers Students pa Teachers Students pa
(n ¼ 32) (n ¼ 186) (n ¼ 31) (n ¼ 186)

M SD Mdn M SD Mdn M SD Mdn M SD Mdn

Feedback quality scale

1 T: I give students feedback that is useful for further learning. 3.78 0.49 4.00 3.35 0.83 4.00 .004** 3.84 0.52 4.00 3.30 0.86 4.00 <.001**
S: I receive feedback that is useful for my learning.
2 T: Students receive feedback in addition to grades. 3.88 0.42 4.00 3.57 0.78 4.00 .026* 3.65 0.75 4.00 3.21 0.96 4.00 .012*
S: We receive feedback in addition to a grade.
3 T: I require that students use feedback to revise their work. 3.31 0.78 3.00 3.51 0.83 4.00 .049* 3.10 0.87 3.00 3.42 0.88 4.00 .012*
S: When we receive feedback the teacher encourages us to use this feedback to
revise our work.
4 T: I discuss with the students different ways they can improve. 3.78 0.49 4.00 3.29 0.88 4.00 .002** 3.84 0.45 4.00 3.27 0.89 4.00 <.001**
S: The teacher explains how I can improve in this subject.
5 T: I make sure that students understand what they need to work on in order to 3.78 0.49 4.00 3.44 0.76 4.00 .010* 3.71 0.53 4.00 3.56 0.77 4.00 .506
improve their learning outcomes.
S: I am aware of what I need to work on to improve my learning outcomes.
7 T: I tell students where they can improve. 3.88 0.34 4.00 3.35 0.81 4.00 <.001** 3.84 0.37 4.00 3.30 0.85 4.00 <.001**
S: The teacher tells me where I can improve.
10 T: I give feedback on assessments that clearly explains to the students what is 3.63 0.66 4.00 3.16 0.88 3.00 .003** 3.48 0.85 4.00 3.10 0.90 3.00 .012*
expected of them.
S: The feedback I receive on tests and assignments shows clearly what is expected
of me.
11 T: Students usually understand my feedback. 3.38 0.71 3.50 3.34 0.84 4.00 .904 3.65 0.55 4.00 3.42 0.79 4.00 .188
S: I usually understand the teacher's feedback.
Facilitation of feedback use scale
6 T: Students are given time to individually work on feedback in class. 3.22 0.87 3.00 2.59 1.02 2.00 .001** 2.74 1.06 3.00 2.52 1.07 2.00 .264
S: I get time to individually work on feedback in class.
8 T: Students are given class time to work on feedback in groups. 2.41 1.07 2.00 2.27 1.10 2.00 .498 1.81 0.95 2.00 2.04 1.12 2.00 .370
S: I get time to work on feedback in groups in class.
9 T: I check that students have used the feedback they have received on assessments. 2.69 0.97 3.00 2.49 1.07 2.00 .342 2.29 0.86 2.00 2.31 1.06 2.00 .926
S: The teacher checks that we have used feedback on assessments.

Note.*p < .05, **p < .001.

a ¼ Independent samples Mann-Whitney U test.
Boldface numbers indicate significantly more positive responses.
4 ¼ True, 3 ¼ Nearly true, 2 ¼ True only to some extent, 1 ¼ Untrue.

4. Allowing students to resubmit work; and
5. Encouraging students to identify “three strengths and three
weaknesses derived from the explicit feedback they receive,” to
ensure “they are digesting and considering its relevance to their
future work.”
Another English teacher reported a similar approach to (5),
which they specifically used for maximising the benefit of feedback
on formal assessment tasks:
Following feedback on all formal tasks students complete a
reflection activity (3 strengths, 3 areas for improvement and 3 ac-
tions they will take) and implement at least one action. This is
checked for every child and often informs a brief individual
discussion.
This teacher further reported using explicit strategies to ensure
that feedback is noticed, understood, recorded, and used by stu-
dents. For example, this teacher used individual informal conver-
sations to clarify the meaning of feedback for students if needed.
Three English teachers specifically identified that the volume of
feedback provided to students was extensive. One teacher
expressed frustration that the volume of feedback was not
considered enough by parents: “we give more feedback now than
ever and people are still not satisfied.”
In contrast, three English and three mathematics teachers
expressed concerns over difficulties in implementing quality
feedback practices due to time constraints and needing to cover the
curriculum. For example, one English teacher noted:
More class time dedicated towards building on the feedback
they receive would be great, however we are often time poor and
move through quite a lot of material in a short space of time,
limiting the amount of time that can be spent on engaging with
feedback in a thorough manner.
Six English teachers commented on difficulties in making stu-
dents appreciate feedback, as they appeared to be mainly interested
in their grades. For example, one teacher commented: “It is difficult
to encourage students to value feedback and not place so much
focus on the grade.” Two English teachers commented on resub-
mission of work in relation to feedback use. As noted, one teacher
identified that they allow students the opportunity to resubmit
work, but also noted that the non-compulsory opportunity to
resubmit is only used by a few students. Another teacher identified
that students might be more interested in feedback if they had the
opportunity to resubmit their work for an improved grade. One
teacher identified the emphasis on grades as “a wider social trend
that is perhaps reinforced by parents and others.”
Four teachers gave survey-specific feedback, providing further
explanations to their responses. For example, two mathematics
teachers wrote that they had responded “Untrue” because they did
not give students assignments, and therefore no feedback.
Four teachers specifically commented on their feedback practice
considering the nature of their subject. For example, one English
teacher identified her written feedback as comprehensive in na-
ture. In contrast, one mathematics teacher identified that the
subject of mathematics does “not specifically lend itself to the
giving of much written feedback.”
An overarching finding was that the words teachers used to talk
about the feedback process, indicative of their perspective on
feedback, varied. For example, one teacher identified needing
182 F.M. van der Kleij / Teaching and Teacher Education 85 (2019) 175e189
training in effective ways to provide feedback, and “how to deliver
it to the kids in a way that they will use it most” (English and
mathematics). Six other teachers also talked about “giving” feed-
back, consistent with a transmissive perspective on feedback. In
contrast, six teachers spoke of feedback as integral to their class-
room practice, with ongoing feedback occurring formally and
informally. These teachers saw both themselves and students as
having role in making feedback processes effective.
In summary, the results suggest that teachers use a range of
formal and informal feedback strategies. Six English teachers
identified specific strategies for encouraging student use of feed-
back. Several teachers identified not being able to implement their
ideal feedback practice due to time and curricular constraints.
Further several teachers also identified that students were mainly
interested in their grades, rather than feedback. The nature of the
subjects English and mathematics accounted for different feedback
practices in these subjects. Teachers held different perspectives of
feedback, ranging from a transmissive view to a view where
teachers and students continuously interact to make feedback
effective.
3.2.2. Qualitative student feedback perceptions survey results
Forty-five students responded to the open-ended item in the
feedback perceptions survey. Their comments ranged in length
from five to 241 words (Mdn ¼ 24). Student responses were cat-
egorised into seven themes: wanting more or different forms of
feedback (n ¼ 16), usefulness of feedback (n ¼ 14), statements of
experienced feedback practice (n ¼ 12), reflections on engagement
with feedback (n ¼ 6), encouragement through teacher behaviour
and/or feedback (n ¼ 5), criticism of the teacher (not feedback
related, n ¼ 5) and criticism of curriculum or assessment practice
(n ¼ 2).
Sixteen students commented on wanting more or different
forms of feedback. Most of these students (n ¼ 12) desired more
individualised feedback. For example, a Year 7 girl wrote: “I think
feedback should be less targeted at the whole class and more in-
dividual.” Seven students explicitly identified that they want
teachers to give feedback that shows them how they can improve.
For example, a Year 7 girl commented that she wanted “feedback
that explains more about how I can improve on a subject.” Further,
six students indicated that teacher feedback was not always clear,
for example, because it was not sufficiently specific (one Year 9 and
two Year 10 girls) or because teachers do not explain it well (Year 7
boy). Further, four students indicated the need for more timely
feedback. For example, a Year 8 girl commented: “I would like to
receive more feedback on my progression during the different
chapters or topics for me personally, so I know how to improve on
my work in case I'm falling behind.” Three students expressed
wanting to receive feedback that specifies achievement, showing
them what they did well and why. Two students (one Year 9 and
one Year 8 girl) identified that even when they actively sought in-
dividual feedback, their teachers would not provide them with the
kind of feedback requested.
Most comments made by students regarding the usefulness of
feedback (n ¼ 14) were positive. For example, a Year 8 girl noted:
“The feedback that is given to me is usually very effective in helping
me understand what is expected of me and where I can improve. It
is also helpful in showing me areas in which I have done well.”
However, five students also acknowledged that feedback was not
always useful, for example, because it “may not be relevant” (Year 7
girl), or because it did not specify areas for improvement (Year 7
girl).
The statements of experienced feedback practice (n ¼ 12)
mainly related to the nature of feedback within English and
mathematics classrooms (n ¼ 8). Four students identified that they
usually do not receive feedback in mathematics, while three stu-
dents identified that the amount and frequency of feedback is lower
in mathematics compared to English. For example, a Year 10 boy
wrote:
The amount of feedback I receive in Maths is generally lower
than in English, but this is simply explained by the right/wrong
answers as opposed to essays. In English I receive very constructive
feedback and can use it to my benefit, but in maths you either get
something right or wrong, making feedback inherently less
required.
Further, one student identified only receiving feedback on as-
sessments (Year 9 girl), and another student said she only received
grades (Year 7 girl) in both subjects.
Six students reflected on their engagement with feedback. For
example, a Year 7 girl wrote:
When we receive feedback it is only for our good. The teachers
[sic] feedback help [sic] us because we can apply it to our work and
improve. When we are given feedback it doesn't mean we are dumb
it means we can learn more.
One of the reasons for not attending to feedback included
teachers' poor handwriting. A Year 8 girl commented: “Sometimes
the teachers [sic] writing is messy so I can't read it so I don't end up
reading it at all.” A Year 8 boy noted that teachers need to help
students “to understand and be grateful for the feedback.”
Five students specifically noted that their teacher or their
feedback encouraged them in their learning. For example, one Year
7 girl described her teachers’ feedback as “very helpful and
encouraging.” One Year 7 girl specifically praised the feedback
practices of her English teacher, and identified that the teacher
taught the subject in a way that made it “enjoyable”, by being
“polite and respectful” in his manner of interaction with students.
In contrast to the two girls who identified that teachers do not
provide them with feedback as requested, one student (Year 9 girl)
perceived that teachers are always there when she asks for help.
In summary, the qualitative analysis showed that students
perceived individualised feedback that suggests how to improve,
specifies achievement and is provided in a timely manner as most
useful to their learning. However, students' perceived feedback
practices often did not match their desired feedback practices. The
results suggest that how teachers provide feedback is important to
students’ feedback reception; students perceived it as helpful when
feedback was provided in a clear and encouraging manner. The
nature of the subjects English and mathematics accounted for dif-
ferences in the amount of feedback students perceived during their
lessons, with more comprehensive feedback occurring in English.
4. Study 2: methods
This section outlines the methods used in Study 2, which
focused on examining how students’ perceptions of assessment
feedback practices are associated with individual student charac-
teristics and other student variables. Section 4.1 describes the study
participants, followed by an overview of the instruments used in
Section 4.2. Section 4.3 details how the Study 2 data were analysed.
4.1. Study 2: participants
Study 2 participants consisted of student participants described
in Section 2.1. A total of 174 students completed the individual
characteristics survey. For a subset of students for whom full con-
sent had been provided (n ¼ 152), classroom assessment achieve-
ment data in the form of A to E grades was obtained for both
subjects.
 F.M. van der Kleij / Teaching and Teacher Education 85 (2019) 175e189
4.2. Study 2: instruments
4.2.1. Individual student characteristics survey
To relate the findings of the feedback perceptions survey to in-
dividual student characteristics (Research Question 2), students
were asked to complete a second survey. The individual student
characteristics survey included slightly modified items from the
junior high school version of the Partial Motivated Strategies for
Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990). Three
scales including 27 items from this instrument relevant to
engagement with feedback were used: (a) self-efficacy, (b) intrinsic
value (a and b both measure motivational beliefs), and (c) self-
regulation. In their 1990 paper, Pintrich and De Groot reported
their survey responses on the three MSLQ scales used in this study
were highly correlated. They found significant correlations
(p < .001) between self-efficacy and self-regulation (0.44), intrinsic
values and self-efficacy (0.48), and intrinsic values and self-
regulation (0.73).
Although the original instrument used a 7-point Likert scale,
several studies have also used a five-point scale version, which did
not negatively impact on scale reliability (Taylor, 2012). A 5-point
scale was deemed more suitable for use in the online survey in
this study due to limitations in screen width. Further, the response
categories of the MSLQ were reversed (Very true of me, Somewhat
true of me, Neutral, Somewhat untrue of me, Very untrue of me) to
be consistent with the feedback perceptions survey. Students were
again asked to give subject-specific responses to allow for com-
parison between English and mathematics. The survey asked stu-
dents to indicate their age and gender. Qualitative data were again
collected to complement the Likert scale quantitative data through
an open-ended item that gave students the opportunity to leave a
comment.
4.2.2. Student achievement data
To complement the survey data, teachers were asked to provide
the participating students’ classroom assessment levels (AeE) as an
indicator of overall student achievement in the subject. Teachers
across Australia are required to judge student achievement using a
5-point A-E rating scale (A meaning excellent achievement of
curricular expectations, E meaning limited achievement of curric-
ular expectations) twice a year (Australian Education Regulation,
2013). A-E achievement data are suitable for use in this study
because (1) they provide an up to date subject-specific level of
student achievement, and (2) the consistency and reliability of
teacher judgement of student achievement is enhanced through
processes of moderation (Adie, Klenowski, & Wyatt-Smith, 2012;
Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership [AITSL],
2011).
4.3. Study 2: data analysis
As per Study 1, analyses were conducted separately for English
and mathematics, and subsequently compared to identify any
subject differences. Unless otherwise specified, significance tests
were two-sided using a significance level of 0.05. As for Study 1, the
interpretation of analyses is presented in the Results section, with
detailed results of statistical analyses presented in the Online
supplement.
4.3.1. Student individual characteristics survey scale validation
Factor analyses and Cronbach's a reliability analyses were used
to validate the scales measured using the survey instrument.
Confirmatory factor analyses identified that item 24 in the self-
regulation scale did not contribute to measuring self-regulation
in the English scale (b ¼ 0.145, p ¼ .085) and was a weak indicator
183
in the mathematics scale (b ¼ 0.333, p < .001). This item was
deleted, resulting in an improved model fit and increased sub-scale
reliability. Cronbach's alpha reliabilities were satisfactory for all
scales in both English and mathematics, respectively: self-efficacy
a ¼ 0.90 (n ¼ 174) and a ¼ 0.92 (n ¼ 171), intrinsic values a ¼ 0.86
(n ¼ 172) and a ¼ 0.85 (n ¼ 171), and self-regulation a ¼ 0.74
(n ¼ 173) and a ¼ 0.76 (n ¼ 173).
4.3.2. Student individual variables analyses
Survey data were coded from 5 (Very true of me) to 1 (Very
untrue of me). Negatively-worded items were reverse-coded, and
student responses were analysed using descriptive statistics and
Pearson correlations. Mean scaled scores were calculated for each
of the three sub-scales. As in Study 1, for seven students who had
one or two missing responses across English and Mathematics,
scaled scores were calculated based on their non-missing re-
sponses. Student responses to the open-ended item in the indi-
vidual characteristics survey were analysed using the approach
followed in Study 1.
Student achievement data were coded numerically from A ¼ 5
(highest achievement) to E ¼ 1 (lowest achievement). Descriptive
statistics and Pearson correlations were used to explore the dis-
tribution of achievement levels within the sample, and the rela-
tionship with students’ individual characteristics.
4.3.3. Relationship between feedback perceptions and individual
student variables
Due to the limited empirical research on individual student
characteristics in relation to feedback, no a-priori reciprocal model
could be tested. Previous research suggests there is a recursive
relationship between these individual learner characteristics and
feedback perceptions; they both influence and are influenced by
feedback experiences (Handley et al., 2011). While acknowledging
the recursive relationships between the variables measured, stu-
dents’ feedback perceptions were treated as the dependent variable
in analyses.
An exploratory approach was taken to address Research Ques-
tion 2. Correlational analyses were first conducted to explore the
relationship between achievement levels, individual student vari-
ables (self-efficacy, intrinsic motivation, self-regulation, and
gender) and feedback perceptions. Next, linear regression analyses
were conducted for each of the student variables separately. Based
on the findings of established relationships through linear regres-
sion analyses and drawing on insights from the limited available
research (Zumbrunn et al., 2016), path models were developed and
analysed using AMOS Graphics (IBM Statistics Version 23) to
examine the joint association between achievement, individual
characteristics, and feedback perceptions.
5. Study 2: results
This section presents the results of Study 2. First, Section 5.1
provides the results of descriptive quantitative and qualitative an-
alyses. This is followed by quantitative analyses of the relationships
between individual student variables and feedback perceptions in
Section 5.2.
5.1. Student individual characteristics
Section 5.1.1 provides the outcomes of descriptive analyses of
student responses to the individual student characteristics survey.
Next, Section 5.1.2 presents the results of the qualitative survey
data analysis. In Section 5.1.3 a descriptive overview of student
achievement levels is provided.
184 F.M. van der Kleij / Teaching and Teacher Education 85 (2019) 175e189

5.1.1. Individual student characteristics survey responses
The means and medians of student responses to the student
individual characteristics survey items are presented in Table 6.
On average, students responded close to ‘Nearly true of me’ (4)
and ‘Neutral’ (3) to all three scales in the survey. Students were
most positive about their intrinsic motivational values in both En-
glish and mathematics. In both subjects, students were least posi-
tive about their self-regulation capacities. Significant differences
were identified in student self-regulation between subjects
(p < .001); students responded more positively for mathematics
than for English. There were no significant differences across sub-
jects for self-efficacy (p ¼ .974) and intrinsic values (p ¼ .429). Sig-
nificant correlations were found across all individual student
characteristics survey subscales in both English and mathematics
(see Table 7).
No gender differences were identified for self-efficacy (English:
p ¼ .463; mathematics: p ¼ .211), or intrinsic values (English:
p ¼ .190; mathematics: p ¼ .800) in both English and mathematics.
A significant difference was found for self-regulation (English:
p ¼ .014; mathematics: p ¼ .045); girls reported higher levels of
self-regulation than boys in both subjects. Considering the minimal
gender differences in relation to student feedback perceptions and
individual student characteristics, the influence of gender was not
explored further.
5.1.2. Qualitative individual student characteristics survey results
The 32 comments provided by students on the individual stu-
dent characteristics survey ranged in length from five to 118 words
(Mdn ¼ 23.5). Comments were categorised into the following five
themes: effort (teacher- and self-directed, n ¼ 15), teaching,
learning and/or feedback use strategies (n ¼ 12), intrinsic subject-
specific motivation (n ¼ 10), summative achievement focus
(n ¼ 8), and criticism of the teacher's pedagogical approach, not
relevant to feedback (n ¼ 3).
Fifteen student comments related to effort. Most of these
students reported trying their best to do well in a subject (n ¼ 12).
Two students specifically identified feeling supported by their
teachers. For example, a Year 7 girl wrote: “Even if I don't enjoy a
topic I will always try my best to get to the result that I want and
won't give up and the teachers are always encouraging me to do the
best that I can.” One Year 8 girl noted that the disruptive behaviours
of classmates made it hard to get work done and “get through
feedback.” Two students identified the desire to put in more effort.
For example, a Year 7 girl reflected: “I think that I should motivate
myself more to go beyond the standards I am at now.” Reported
barriers to effort included in-school and out-of-school distractions
(n ¼ 4) and a lack of self-efficacy in a subject (n ¼ 3). However, for
some students, low self-efficacy appeared to increase effort. One
Year 8 girl reported that mathematics was not her “strong point,”
which had caused her to adopt a better study routine. A Year 8 boy
reported working hard to achieve a good mark for English, despite a
judgement of his capabilities in the subject as “not very good.”
Students (n ¼ 12) also commented on specific teaching and/or
learning strategies. The nature of these comments varied, and
included studying routines or attitudes (n ¼ 6), how to learn from
feedback (n ¼ 3), teacher pedagogic strategies (n ¼ 3), and clarity
and/or timing of teacher feedback (n ¼ 2). For example, a Year 7 girl
noted: “When the teacher fives [sic] me good feedback I make sure I
write it down and apply it to my assessments or in class work,”
where ‘good feedback’ can be interpreted as useful feedback. Spe-
cific to teacher feedback, students identified the importance of
providing feedback prior to the assessment to afford them the
opportunity to improve.
Students also commented on their (lack of) enjoyment of the
two subjects (n ¼ 10). Most of these comments addressed positive
motivation or favouring one subject over the other. For example, a
Year 8 boy wrote: “I am quite good at mathematics, and I find it
interesting. I am not very good at English, I try hard and spend a
long time, but end up getting an average mark.”
Eight comments related to summative achievement, mainly

Table 6
Student individual characteristics survey items and mean responses for English and mathematics.

Item Survey item Scale English Mathematics

M SD Mdn M SD Mdn

1 I prefer class work that is challenging so I can learn new things. IV 3.77 0.86 4.00 3.89 1.05 4.00
2 Compared with other students in this class I expect to do well. SE 3.72 1.05 4.00 3.68 1.16 4.00
3 It is important for me to learn what is being taught in this subject. IV 4.53 0.78 5.00 4.62 0.68 5.00
4 I like what I am learning in this subject. IV 3.62 1.20 4.00 3.61 1.18 4.00
5 I'm certain I can understand the ideas taught in this subject. SE 3.96 0.90 4.00 3.93 0.93 4.00
6 I think I will be able to use what I learn in this subject in other subjects. IV 4.01 1.01 4.00 3.76 1.06 4.00
7 I expect to do very well in this subject. SE 3.94 0.94 4.00 3.91 0.99 4.00
8 Compared with others in this class, I think I'm a good student. SE 3.94 1.08 4.00 4.01 0.99 4.00
9 I often choose assignment topics I will learn something from even if they require more work. IV 3.48 1.22 3.00 3.50 1.12 3.00
10 I am sure I can do an excellent job on the assignments and tests assigned for this subject. SE 3.83 0.94 4.00 3.78 1.04 4.00
11 I think I will receive a good grade in this subject. SE 3.97 0.96 4.00 3.83 1.07 4.00
12 Even when I do poorly on an assignment or a test I try to learn from my mistakes. IV 4.49 0.72 5.00 4.53 0.74 5.00
13 I think that what I am learning in this subject is useful for me to know. IV 3.88 1.20 4.00 4.08 1.08 4.00
14 My study skills are excellent compared with others in this class. SE 3.26 1.05 3.00 3.32 1.11 3.00
15 I think that what we are learning in this subject is interesting. IV 3.55 1.29 4.00 3.53 1.21 4.00
16 Compared with other students in this class I think I know a great deal about the subject. SE 3.40 0.98 3.00 3.42 1.05 3.00
17 I know that I will be able to learn the content for this subject. SE 4.18 0.85 4.00 4.18 0.94 4.00
18 Understanding this subject is important to me. IV 4.27 0.99 5.00 4.47 0.88 5.00
19 I ask myself questions to make sure I know the material I have been studying. SR 3.61 1.10 4.00 3.80 1.01 4.00
20 When work is hard I either give up or study only the easy parts. SR 3.69 1.21 4.00 3.68 1.21 4.00
21 I work on practice exercises and answer textbook questions even when I don't have to. SR 2.66 1.20 3.00 3.11 1.39 3.00
22 Even when study materials are dull and uninteresting, I keep working until I finish. SR 3.81 1.11 4.00 3.86 1.07 4.00
23 Before I begin studying I think about the things I will need to do to learn. SR 3.76 1.14 4.00 3.91 1.07 4.00
25 I find that when the teacher is talking I think of other things and don't really listen to what is being said. SR 3.23 1.26 3.00 3.44 1.32 3.50
26 When I'm reading I stop once in a while and go over what I have read. SR 3.51 1.25 4.00 3.54 1.13 4.00
27 I work hard to get a good grade even when I don't like a topic. SR 4.25 0.90 5.00 4.36 0.86 5.00

Note. IV ¼ Intrinsic values, SE ¼ Self-efficacy, SR ¼ Self-regulation.

English n ¼ 174, n ¼ 173 for Item 20, n ¼ 172 for Item 4; mathematics n ¼ 174, n ¼ 173 for Items 5, 7, 9, 16 and 20, n ¼ 172 for Item 4.
 F.M. van der Kleij / Teaching and Teacher Education 85 (2019) 175e189 185

Table 7
Mean student responses and correlations between individual student characteristics subscale responses.

English Mathematics

Self-efficacy Intrinsic values Self-regulation Self-efficacy Intrinsic values Self-regulation

Self-efficacy e e e e e e
Intrinsic values .66** e e .67** e e
Self-regulation .60** .63** e .56** .63** e
Mdn 3.89 4.11 3.50 3.89 4.00 3.75
M 3.80 3.96 3.57 3.78 4.00 3.71
SD 0.73 0.71 0.68 0.80 0.68 0.70

Note. n ¼ 174. **p < .001.

Responses were coded 5 ¼ Very true of me, 1 ¼ Very untrue of me.

reflecting students’ motivations to perform well and achieve good Table 9

grades. For example, a Year 8 girl noted: “No matter the subject or Correlations between individual student variables and feedback perceptions.

the topic, I always try my absolute hardest to achieve my best Student Variable English Mathematics
performance. If I am unsuccessful in doing this, I go over and learn Feedback Facilitation Feedback Facilitation
from my mistakes.” One Year 9 girl reflected that even though quality of feedback quality of feedback
teachers tell students not to compare their grades to those of other use use
students, this is the only way for students to know how they are r p r p r p r p
doing and how they can achieve better grades. ** **
Self-efficacy .39 <.001 .14 .074 .32 <.001 .13 .094
In summary, the results show the importance of considering Intrinsic values .46** <.001 .30** <.001 .38** <.001 .30** <.001
effort, teaching, learning and/or feedback use strategies, intrinsic Self-regulation .36** <.001 .29** <.001 .35** <.001 .25* .001
subject-specific motivation and a focus on summative achievement AeE achievement .14 .078 -.08 .351 .12 .155 -.04 .605
when examining students' feedback perceptions. The interaction of Note. *p < .05, **p < .001.
self-efficacy and motivation and effort was negative for some stu-
dents, and positive for others. It is likely that a ‘threshold’ level of
self-efficacy is necessary to maintain confidence that increased characteristics and perceptions of feedback quality was established
effort will result in improved achievement. Consistent with the using univariate linear regression analysis (see Online Supplement
feedback perceptions survey responses, results suggest that feed- Table S3). Intrinsic values showed the strongest predictive associ-
back needs to be timely to be perceived as useful. ation (English: b ¼ 0.46, p < .001; mathematics: b ¼ 0.38, p < .001).
Somewhat lower but significant effects were found for self-efficacy
5.1.3. Achievement (English: b ¼ 0.39, p < .001; mathematics: b ¼ 0.32, p < .001) and
Table 8 shows the distribution of the achievement levels across self-regulation (English: b ¼ 0.36, p < .001; mathematics: b ¼ 0.35,
the sample. The distribution is skewed towards moderate to high p < .001). As expected based on the near zero correlation, students’
performing students, with lower-performing students not well achievement levels did not significantly predict their perceptions of
represented, especially in English. feedback quality (English: b ¼ 0.14, p ¼ .078; mathematics: b ¼ 0.12,
Students’ AeE grades significantly correlated with their indi- p ¼ .155).
vidual characteristics for both subjects (see Online Supplement For perceptions of facilitation of feedback use (see Online Sup-
Table S2). Correlations were somewhat lower for English than for plement Table S4), intrinsic values (English: b ¼ 0.30, p < .001;
mathematics. mathematics: b ¼ 0.30, p < .001) showed the strongest predictive
association. Somewhat lower but significant effects were found for
5.2. Relationship between individual student variables and self-regulation (English: b ¼ 0.29, p < .001; mathematics: b ¼ 0.25,
feedback perceptions p < .001). As expected based on the low correlations, self-efficacy
(English: b ¼ 0.14, p ¼ .074; mathematics: b ¼ 0.13, p ¼ .094) and
Significant correlations were found between all three individual students’ achievement levels did not predict their perceptions of
student characteristics scales and feedback quality (see Table 9), facilitation of feedback use (English: b ¼ 0.08, p ¼ .351; mathe-
and between intrinsic values and self-regulation and facilitation of matics: b ¼ 0.04, p ¼ .605).
feedback use. Students’ achievement levels did not appear to be Next, the association of achievement level and individual stu-
correlated to their feedback perceptions. dent characteristics was explored. Achievement level significantly
A significant relationship between all three individual student predicted self-efficacy (English: b ¼ 0.33, p < .001; mathematics:
b ¼ 0.50, p < .001), intrinsic values (English: b ¼ 0.27, p ¼ .001;
mathematics: b ¼ 0.33, p < .001), and self-regulation (English:
Table 8 b ¼ 0.27, p ¼ .001; mathematics: b ¼ 0.31, p < .001). These findings
Overview of student achievement levels in English and mathematics.
suggest that the relationship between achievement and feedback
Achievement levela English (n ¼ 152) Mathematics perceptions is mediated by student individual characteristics.
(n ¼ 152) Given the significant findings of analyses regarding the associ-
n % n % ations between pairs of individual student variables and percep-
A 50 32.9 43 28.3 tions of feedback quality, the first model tested was the path model
B 67 44.1 49 32.2 represented in Fig. 2 (n ¼ 142) for English and mathematics. The
C 33 17.7 46 24.7 presence of non-significant parameters in the model (self-efficacy
D 2 1.3 12 7.9
and self-regulation on perceptions of feedback quality) combined
E 0 0 2 1.3
with fit indices indicative of a perfect or near perfect fit, suggested
Note. a ¼ Achievement levels range from A; excellent achievement of curricular that the model depicted in Fig. 2 was incorrectly specified and
expectations, to E; limited achievement of curricular expectations.
186 F.M. van der Kleij / Teaching and Teacher Education 85 (2019) 175e189
Fig. 2. Proposed path model of achievement level on feedback perceptions via student individual characteristics.
overly complex. For this reason, the model results are not reported.
Alternative models were explored to gain insights into how
these individual student variables relate to feedback perceptions.
Considering the minimal direct effects of self-efficacy on feedback
perceptions, and drawing on Zumbrunn et al. (2016), it was
hypothesised that self-efficacy mediated the relationship between
achievement level and intrinsic values and self-regulation on
feedback perceptions. These models provided a better fit to the data
compared to the models depicted in Fig. 2, but were over-fitted.
Although the path between self-regulation and feedback percep-
tions was theoretically justified, insufficient data were available to
estimate these models.
Alternative models were re-specified with the path between
self-regulation and feedback perceptions and correlation between
intrinsic values and self-regulation removed (Fig. 3). This re-
specification reduced the complexity of the model and improved
the fit statistics overall.
6. Discussion
This study investigated feedback perceptions of teachers and
students in secondary English and mathematics classrooms
(Research Question 1) and explored the relationship between the
individual student variables self-efficacy, intrinsic values, self-
regulation, achievement level, and gender, and students’ feedback
perceptions (Research Question 2).
6.1. Study 1: teacher and student perceptions of assessment
feedback
Consistent with previous research in secondary education
 nsson et al., 2018), teachers in both English
(Havnes et al., 2012; Jo
and mathematics had more positive perceptions of classroom
assessment feedback quality than students. The finding that stu-
dents were overall moderately positive about the quality of
Fig. 3. Path model of achievement level on perceptions of feedback quality via (1) self-efficacy and (2) self-regulation and intrinsic values. Numbers along paths represent
standardised b values for English and mathematics respectively. *p < .05.
feedback is promising, as it implies that teachers’ time spent
providing feedback is worthwhile. Both teachers and students were
less positive about facilitation of feedback use than quality of
feedback. Students were significantly more positive about facilita-
tion of feedback use in English than in mathematics, yet English
teachers were more positive than students.
The significant discrepancy noted between teacher and student
perceptions of feedback quality (Table 3) suggests a discrepancy in
perceived feedback frequency. This implies that perhaps (1)
teachers' self-perceived feedback practices do not match their
actual feedback practices, or (2) students do not notice all class-
room feedback. The qualitative results identified that how feedback
is provided by teachers poses a barrier to student feedback recep-
tion. For example, several students reflected that teacher feedback
was not always clear. Specific to the provision of written feedback,
one student reported that a teacher's poor handwriting prevented
her from accessing the feedback, leading her to ignore it altogether.
Further, the results suggest that students do not perceive feed-
back as useful or as relevant as their teachers, which may result in a
lack of attention paid to feedback and hence lower reported fre-
quency of certain forms of feedback. However, there appears to be a
mismatch between students' feedback preferences and what can
realistically be achieved in a classroom setting. Students' comments
indicated the desire for more individualised feedback, whilst
teachers' comments reflected experiencing difficulties in imple-
menting quality feedback practices due to time constraints.
Consistent with earlier research (Lipnevich & Smith, 2009), teach-
ers also expressed concerns over students’ attention paid to feed-
back as opposed to grades.
Teachers' and students' perceptions of facilitation of feedback
use appeared more aligned. Teachers were more positive overall
than students in English, which was mainly due to differing per-
ceptions regarding time students get to individually work on
feedback in class. Interestingly, in both English and mathematics,
students were considerably more positive than teachers about
 F.M. van der Kleij / Teaching and Teacher Education 85 (2019) 175e189
teacher encouragement to use feedback, yet little opportunity ap-
pears to be provided to work on feedback in class. Further, teachers
and students both indicated that teacher follow-up to check on
students’ actual use of feedback is limited. Consistent with earlier
research in secondary education (Gamlem & Smith, 2013; Havnes
et al., 2012), this suggests that much of the potential of feedback
is wasted because students are not given the opportunity and
support to use it.
Noteworthy is the finding that students perceived feedback use
is facilitated to a larger extent in English compared to mathematics,
and the various strategies reported by English teachers to
encourage student feedback use. No such strategies were reported
by any of the mathematics teachers. The results overall suggest that
the nature of feedback differs in English and mathematics. These
findings correspond with notions of feedback in English as being
open-ended in nature and subject to interpretation, which can be
acted upon in many ways by students (Marshall, 2004). In contrast,
the results suggest that feedback in mathematics is mainly
corrective in nature (Harks et al., 2014; Small & Lin, 2018).
6.1.1. Study 1 implications for classroom practice
The key findings that feedback quality was perceived more
positively by teachers than students, and English teachers reported
higher levels of facilitation of feedback use than students, have
implications for teachers’ classroom practices. The critical issue to
be addressed is how teachers can shape their feedback practices in
a way that encourages students to notice feedback, perceive it as
useful, and encourage students to use it. Based on the qualitative
teacher comments, three promising strategies are detailed next.
The first promising strategy is for feedback to occur through
dialogues. This finding is consistent with recent literature, which
suggests that dialogue can help resolve misunderstandings and
discrepancies between feedback as intended and perceived (Fig. 1;
Van der Kleij et al., 2017; Gamlem & Smith, 2013; Havnes et al.,
2012; Winstone et al., 2017). Further, if teachers and students
engage in conversations about feedback (Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick,
2006; Peterson & Irving, 2008; Zumbrunn et al., 2016) this can
help establish common expectations and reduce discrepancies
between ideally desired and realistically achievable feedback
practices. For example, in response to this study's findings, teachers
and students could discuss the time-consuming nature of providing
individual feedback, and come to a jointly agreed approach. Such
conversations can also help students “understand and be grateful
for the feedback,” as suggested by a Year 8 boy. In this study, a
student as young as 12 years old showed mature dispositions to-
wards feedback; “When we are given feedback it doesn't mean we
are dumb it means we can learn more.” The same student reported
writing down feedback and applying it in future work. This result
suggests that when teachers make students aware of the purpose of
feedback, this may positively influence how feedback is perceived,
and subsequently used to enhance learning.
The second promising strategy is for teachers to follow-up on
feedback and encourage students to record it. Several teachers
identified requiring students to record or keep written feedback
and checking on student use of feedback. Some students in this
study also reported recording feedback and reviewing it for appli-
cation in future work. Recording feedback seems important for it to
have the potential to affect learning, as research suggests that
students simply forget feedback and therefore are unable to use it
to improve their work (Hargreaves, 2012).
The third promising strategy is the explicit reflection and action
planning strategy reported by one of the English teachers. This
teacher required students to identify three of their strengths and
three areas for improvement, and subsequently identify three ac-
tions to take. The teacher then followed up by monitoring the
187
action(s) taken and further discussion. Evidence from higher edu-
cation suggests that tools that help students formulate action plans
based on feedback can leverage the impact of feedback on learning
improvements (Winstone et al., 2017). As noted, this strategy ap-
pears particularly promising in English due to the subjective nature
of feedback (Marshall, 2004).
6.2. Study 2: association of student individual variables with
feedback perceptions
This study has contributed to insights into individual student
variables that play a role in feedback processes. The results suggest
that students’ classroom assessment achievement levels did not
directly predict their perceptions of feedback practice. This finding
is promising, as it implies that students from all achievement levels
are equally receptive to feedback.
Achievement level did significantly predict students’ self-
efficacy, intrinsic values, and self-regulation, which in turn
affected perceptions of feedback quality. The estimated model
represented in Fig. 3 consistently showed that achievement level
significantly predicts self-efficacy, more strongly for mathematics
than English. Self-efficacy strongly predicts both intrinsic values
and self-regulation, which are strongly correlated. Compared to the
previous models discussed (see Section 5.2), these models showed
strengthened paths between intrinsic values and feedback per-
ceptions. This suggests that self-regulation interacts with intrinsic
values to influence feedback perceptions, rather than exerting a
strong direct impact. The results thus suggest that the effects of
achievement level on feedback perceptions are mediated firstly by
self-efficacy, and secondly by intrinsic values and to a lesser extent,
self-regulation. The similarity in results between English and
mathematics speak to the robustness of these findings.
As identified by Harks et al. (2014), positive feedback percep-
tions can be expected to result in effective student engagement
with feedback, resulting in learning improvement. These learning
improvements in turn will manifest itself through higher classroom
assessment achievement levels. In contrast, Stiggins (2018)
described the potentially devastating effects of feedback that un-
dermines student self-efficacy, and the negative consequences for
student motivation and engagement with feedback, and subse-
quent achievement on assessments. Based on the findings of this
study, it is expected that improved achievement will result in
enhanced levels of self-efficacy, intrinsic motivation, and self-
regulation, which will then result in more positive feedback per-
ceptions. As highlighted by Stiggins (2018), it is critical for teachers
to provide feedback in a way that sets students up for success. This
can be realised by providing feedback that shows progress over
time, which helps increase student resilience in the light of critical
feedback.
Of all three individual characteristics, evidence about the rela-
tionship between self-regulation and feedback perceptions was
least convincing. It might be that self-regulation is not a strong
predictor of feedback perceptions but may be more relevant in
determining actual feedback use (Handley et al., 2011; Hattie &
Timperley, 2007; Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006).
With respect to student gender, the only difference identified in
this study related to reported levels of self-regulation; girls re-
ported having better self-regulatory skills than boys. The finding
that students’ feedback perceptions did not differ across gender is
inconsistent with previous studies, which suggested that girls or
women have more positive feedback perceptions than boys or men
(Rowe & Wood, 2008; Williams, 2010).
188 F.M. van der Kleij / Teaching and Teacher Education 85 (2019) 175e189
6.3. Limitations and recommendations for future research
When interpreting the results of this study, it must be consid-
ered that participants were self-selected, and had a higher than
average socio-educational advantage status. Further, the study
involved more girls than boys, and the distribution of student
achievement levels in the sample was positively skewed. Thus, the
results of this study may have limited application to the broader
population of students. Additional research is therefore needed in
low and average socio-educational advantage schools, with stu-
dents from all achievement levels and a more gender-balanced
student sample.
In combination with a limited sample size (n ¼ 142), the
moderately non-normal data may have contributed to the chal-
lenges with fitting the path models. The relatively limited sample
size only allowed for fitting the final models discussed in Section
5.2. Gathering more data would allow testing whether self-efficacy
and self-regulation also directly impact on feedback perceptions.
Although care was taken to select instruments that were psy-
chometrically sound and appropriate to the study population,
several ad-hoc modifications were necessary to establish reliable
scales for all participant groups. Although reliability of the revised
scales remained satisfactory, the constructs represented by the
revised scales differ slightly from the original instruments. As
noted, significant correlations were found across all individual
student characteristics survey subscales in both English and
mathematics (see Table 6), which overall were somewhat stronger
than those reported by Pintrich and De Groot (1990).
Although the qualitative data were useful in supplementing the
quantitative data to gain a more in-depth understandings of the
nature of different participants’ feedback perceptions, the limita-
tions of these data must be acknowledged. The qualitative data
were collected using one non-compulsory open-ended item at the
end of the surveys. In future research, it would be useful to conduct
follow-up interviews to enable the collection of more detailed data
and request clarification if needed.
A further limitation is that this study relied on self-report data to
measure generic teacher and student feedback perceptions. Future
research should also compare self-reported practice to actual
observed practices. Furthermore, research is needed to investigate
classroom feedback practices and teacher and student perceptions
directly related to the nature of observed feedback instances. This
will allow for investigation of the first level of feedback perceptions
as distinguished by Lipnevich et al. (2016). Such research should
enable further insights into the origins and nature of discrepancies
between teachers' and students' feedback perceptions. For
example, it is possible that teachers' perceptions of the quality of
their feedback practices does not match their actual practice. It is
also possible that much of teachers’ classroom feedback is not
recognised by students, or not perceived by students as the teacher
had intended.
Further research is needed to empirically support the value of
the three proposed approaches in Section 6.1.1 for addressing dis-
crepancies between teacher and student feedback perceptions:

use of dialogic feedback practices;

encouraging students to record feedback and teacher follow-up;
and

encouraging students to use action-planning strategies.
Further research is also needed to address the critical question
of how a negative cycle may be broken. For example, students may
not want to receive feedback (Zumbrunn et al., 2016), may be
indifferent to (negative) feedback, may perceive feedback nega-
tively as a consequence of past experiences, or may be emotionally
overwhelmed by feedback. Zumbrunn et al. (2016) found that
students who were not interested in receiving feedback were
generally low-achieving and had low levels of intrinsic motivation.
Based on their research findings, they recommended focusing ef-
forts on enhancing students’ self-efficacy, to establish more positive
feedback perceptions. The findings of the present study provide
support for this approach.
Understanding feedback perceptions is an essential first condi-
tion in effective feedback uptake for student learning. As identified
by Harks et al. (2014), students' feedback perceptions are critical in
determining feedback use and subsequent learning improvements.
Further research is needed on how individual student variables
influence feedback perceptions, and the nature and quality of stu-
dents’ feedback use, and subsequent learning impacts.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank ACU ILSTE colleagues Professor
Michele Haynes, Professor Joy Cumming, Dr Jill Fielding-Wells and
Professor Gordon Stobart (University College London and Oxford
University, UK) for their insightful feedback on earlier versions of
this paper.
This work was supported by Australian Catholic University
through the Australian Catholic University Research Funding, Early
Career Researcher Scheme (Grant number 903108-141).
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.06.010.
References
Adie, L. E., Klenowski, V., & Wyatt-Smith, C. (2012). Towards an understanding of
teacher judgement in the context of social moderation. Educational Review, 64,
223e240. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2011.598919.
Adie, L., Van der Kleij, F. M., & Cumming, J. (2018). The development and application
of coding frameworks to explore dialogic feedback interactions and self-
regulated learning. British Educational Research Journal, 44, 704e723. https://
doi.org/10.1002/berj.3463.
Ajjawi, R., & Boud, D. (2016). Researching feedback dialogue: An interactional
analysis approach. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42, 252e265.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1102863.
Attali, Y. (2015). Effects of multiple-try feedback and question type during mathe-
matics problem solving on performance in similar problems. Computers & Ed-
ucation, 86, 260e267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.08.011.
Attali, Y., & Van der Kleij, F. M. (2017). Effects of feedback elaboration and feedback
timing during computer-based practice in mathematics problem solving.
Computers & Education, 110, 154e169. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.compedu.2017.03.012.
Australian Education Regulation. (2013). Australian Government, Federal register of
legislation. https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2016C00958.
Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2011). National profes-
sional standards for teachers. Retrieved from http://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/
default-source/default-document-library/aitsl_national_professional_
standards_for_teachers.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment.
Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21, 5e31. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5.
Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theo-
retical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65, 245e281. https://doi.org/
10.3102/00346543065003245.
Carless, D. (2006). Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in Higher
Education, 31, 219e233. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572132.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches (3rd ed.). Washington: SAGE.
Dann, R. (2015). Developing the foundations for dialogic feedback in order to better
understand the “learning gap” from a pupil's perspective. London Review of
Education, 13(3), 5e20.
Gamlem, S. M., & Smith, K. (2013). Student perceptions of classroom feedback.
Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 20, 150e169. https://
doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2012.749212.
Handley, K., Price, M., & Millar, J. (2011). Beyond ‘doing time’: Investigating the
 F.M. van der Kleij / Teaching and Teacher Education 85 (2019) 175e189
concept of student engagement with feedback. Oxford Review of Education, 37,
543e560. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2011.604951.
Hargreaves, E. (2012). Teachers' classroom feedback: Still trying to get it right.
Pedagogies: International Journal, 7, 1e15. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1554480X.2012.630454.
Harks, B., Rakoczy, K., Hattie, J., Besser, M., & Klieme, E. (2014). The effects of
feedback on achievement, interest and self-evaluation: The role of feedback's
perceived usefulness. Educational Psychology, 34, 269e290. https://doi.org/
10.1080/01443410.2013.785384.
Harris, L. R., Brown, G. T. L., & Harnett, J. A. (2014). Understanding classroom
feedback practices: A study of New Zealand student experiences, perceptions,
and emotional responses. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability,
26, 107e133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-013-9187-5.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to
achievement. London: Routledge.
Hattie, J., & Gan, M. (2011). Instruction based on feedback. In P. Alexander, &
R. E. Mayer (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp.
249e271). New York: Routledge.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational
Research, 77, 81e112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487.
Havnes, A., Smith, K., Dysthe, O., & Ludvigsen, K. (2012). Formative assessment and
feedback: Making learning visible. Studies In Educational Evaluation, 38, 21e27.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2012.04.001.
nsson, I. R., Smith, K., & Geirsdo
Jo ttir, G. (2018). Shared language of feedback and
assessment. Perception of teachers and students in three Icelandic secondary
schools. Studies In Educational Evaluation, 56, 52e58. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.stueduc.2017.11.003.
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on perfor-
mance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback
intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254e284. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254.
Lipnevich, A. A., Berg, D. A. G., & Smith, J. K. (2016). Toward a model of student
response to feedback. In G. T. L. Brown, & L. R. Harris (Eds.), The handbook of
human and social conditions in assessment (pp. 169e185). New York: Routledge.
Lipnevich, A. A., & Smith, J. K. (2009). Effects of differential feedback on students'
examination performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15,
319e333. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017841.
Marshall, B. (2004). Goals or horizons d the conundrum of progression in English:
Or a possible way of understanding formative assessment in English. Curriculum
Journal, 15, 101e113. https://doi.org/10.1080/0958517042000226784.
Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. (2008).
Melbourne declaration on educational goals for young Australians. Retrieved from
http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/National_Declaration_on_
the_Educational_Goals_for_Young_Australians.pdf.
Narciss, S., Sosnovsky, S., Schnaubert, L., Andre s, E., Eichelmann, A., Goguadze, G.,
et al. (2014). Exploring feedback and student characteristics relevant for
personalizing feedback strategies. Computers & Education, 71, 56e76. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.011.
Nicol, D., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated
learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in
Higher Education, 31, 199e218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090.
189
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2015). Education policy
outlook 2015: Making reforms happen. Paris: Author. Retrieved from https://
www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/education-policy-outlook-2015_
9789264225442-en.
Peterson, E. R., & Irving, S. E. (2008). Secondary school students' conceptions of
assessment and feedback. Learning and Instruction, 18, 238e250. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.05.001.
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning
components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psy-
chology, 82(1), 33e40.
Popham, W. J. (2008). Transformative assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
QSR International. (2015). NVivo (version 11) [computer software].
Rowe, A. D., & Wood, L. N. (2008). Student perceptions and preferences for feed-
back. Asian Social Science, 4, 78e88. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v4n3p78.
Schreier, M. (2014). Qualitative content analysis. In U. Flick (Ed.), The SAGE handbook
of qualitative data analysis (pp. 170e183). London: SAGE.
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78,
153e189. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313795.
Small, M., & Lin, A. (2018). Instructional feedback in mathematics. In A. A. Lipnevich,
& J. K. Smith (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of instructional feedback (pp.
169e190). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stiggins, R. (2018). The emotional dynamics of feedback from the student's point of
view. In A. A. Lipnevich, & J. K. Smith (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of
instructional feedback (pp. 519e530). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2010). SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social and
behavioral research (2nd ed.). London: SAGE.
Taylor, R. T. (2012). Review of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire
(MSLQ) using reliability generalization techniques to assess scale reliability (Order
No. 3520489). Available from: ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
(1033786065). Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/
1033786065?accountid¼8194.
Van der Kleij, F. M., Adie, L. E., & Cumming, J. J. (2017). Using video technology to
enable student voice in assessment feedback. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 48, 1092e1105. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12536.
Voerman, L., Korthagen, F. A. J., Meijer, P. C., & Simons, R. J. (2014). Feedback
revisited: Adding perspectives based on positive psychology. Implications for
theory and classroom practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 43, 91e98.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.06.005.
Williams, J. A. (2010). ‘You know what you’ve done right and what you’ve done
wrong and what you need to improve on’: New Zealand students' perspectives
on feedback. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 17, 301e314.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2010.496249.
Winstone, N. E., Nash, R. A., Parker, M., & Rowntree, J. (2017). Supporting learners'
agentic engagement with feedback: A systematic review and a taxonomy of
recipience processes. Educational Psychologist, 52, 17e37. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00461520.2016.1207538.
Zumbrunn, S., Marrs, S., & Mewborn, C. (2016). Toward a better understanding of
student perceptions of writing feedback: A mixed methods study. Reading and
Writing, 29, 349e370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9599-3.