Advertisement

Students’ perception of teachers’ two-way feedback interactions that impact learning

  • Fiona D. H. TanEmail author
  • Peter R. Whipp
  • Marylène Gagné
  • Niels Van Quaquebeke
Article
  • 119 Downloads

Abstract

Teacher-student interactions are fundamental to learning outcomes. However, the facilitation of student-defined, in-class two-way feedback interaction is under-researched. The purpose of this paper is to share insights from Year 9 students (N = 32; age = 14–15 years), describing effective teacher’s two-way feedback interaction through Respectful Inquiry (RI; asking questions, question openness, and attentive listening). Small-focussed group interviews were conducted and transcripts were inductively analysed to represent the conceptualised effective student-described teacher behaviour and associated learning outcomes. Findings confirm that two-way feedback, as opposed to unilateral teacher feedback, is facilitative of more diverse and higher-order learning outcomes. According to the students, RI is constitutive in the two-way feedback interaction process; executed together, positive psychological needs support and metacognition are fostered. While this research was exploratory, the findings offer practical and novel insights on teachers’ two-way feedback interactions that can enhance students’ metacognition and suggests how specific feedback behaviours augment higher-order learning outcomes.

Keywords

Effective teacher Respectful inquiry Feedback 

References

  1. Ajjawi, R., & Boud, D. (2017). Researching feedback dialogue: An interactional analysis approach. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(2), 252–265.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1102863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen, M., Witt, P. L., & Wheeless, L. R. (2006). The role of teacher immediacy as a motivational factor in student learning: Using meta-analysis to test a causal model. Communication Education, 55, 21–31.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520500343368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersen, J. F. (1979). Teacher immediacy as a predictor of teaching effectiveness. Annals of the International Communication Association, 3(1), 543–559.  https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.1979.11923782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baird, J. R. (Ed.). (1990). Metacognition, purposeful enquiry and conceptual change. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Bay, D. N., & Alisinanoğlu, F. (2013). The effect of teaching questioning skills given to preschool teachers on structure of teachers’ questions. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 6(1), 1–39.Google Scholar
  6. Berliner, D. (2004). Describing the behaviour and documenting the accomplishments of expert teachers. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 24, 200–214.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467604265535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blair, A., Wyburn-Powell, A., Goodwin, M., & Shields, S. (2014). Can dialogue help to improve feedback on examinations? Studies in Higher Education, 39(6), 1039–1054.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.777404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blatchford, I., & Mani, L. (2008). Would you like to tidy up now?’ An analysis of adult questioning in the English foundation stage. Early Years, 28(1), 5–22.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09575140701842213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013). Rethinking models of feedback for learning: The challenge of design. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(6), 698–712.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2012.691462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.  https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burnett, P. C., & Mandel, V. (2010). Praise and feedback in the primary classroom: Teachers’ and students’ perspectives. Australian Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 10, 145–154.Google Scholar
  12. Burns, R. B. (1997). Introduction to research methods (3rd ed.). Boston: Addison Wesley Longman.Google Scholar
  13. Carless, D. (2013). Trust and its role in facilitating dialogic feedback. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Carless, D., Salter, D., Yang, M., & Lam, J. (2011). Developing sustainable feedback practices. Studies in Higher Education, 36, 395–407.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03075071003642449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cavanagh, J. W. (1997). Content analysis: Concepts, methods and applications. Nurse Researcher, 4, 5–16.  https://doi.org/10.7748/nr.4.3.5.s2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chardon, T., Collins, P., Hammer, S., & Hart, C. (2011). Criterion referenced assessment as a form of feedback: Student and staff perceptions in the initial stages of a new law degree. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 6(3), 232–242.  https://doi.org/10.5172/ijpl.2011.6.3.232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chin, C. (2006). Classroom interaction in Science: Teacher questioning and feedback to student responses. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1315–1346.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600621100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cresswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. Davis, H. A. (2003). Conceptualizing the role and influence of student–teacher relationships on children’s social and cognitive development. Educational Psychologist, 38, 207–234.  https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3804_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behaviour. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.  https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Döş, B., Bay, E., Aslansoy, C., Tiryaki, B., Çetin, N., & Duman, C. (2016). An analysis of teachers’ questioning strategies. Educational Research and Reviews, 11(22), 2065–2078.  https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2016.3014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Duijnhower, H. (2010). Feedback effects on students’ writing motivation, process and performance. (Doctoral dissertation), Urecht University, Urecht.Google Scholar
  23. Dunlosky, J., & Metcalfe, J. (2009). Metacognition: A textbook of cognition, educational, life span, and applied psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  24. Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62, 107–115.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Flavell, J. H. (Ed.). (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  26. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new era of cognitive developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Flavell, J. H. (Ed.). (1987). Speculations about the nature and development of metacognition. NJ Erlbaum: Hillsdale.Google Scholar
  28. Fonseca, J., Valente, M., & Conboy, J. (2011). Student characteristics and student science performance: Portugal in cross-national comparison. Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences, 12, 322–329.  https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2015v40n8.4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Frymier, A. B. (1994). A model of immediacy in the classroom. Communication Quarterly, 42, 133–144.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01463379409369922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gagné, M. (2003). The role of autonomy support and autonomy orientation in prosocial behaviour engagement. Motivation and Emotion, 27, 199–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 26, 331–362.  https://doi.org/10.1002/job.322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gamlem, S. M., & Smith, K. (2013). Student perceptions of classroom feedback. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 20(2), 150–169.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2012.749212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  34. Goldsmith, M., & Morgan, H. (2004). Leadership is a contact sport: The “follow-up factor” in management development. Strategy and Business, 36, 71–79.Google Scholar
  35. Guay, F., Ratelle, C. F., & Chanal, J. (2008). Optimal learning in optimal contexts: The role of self-determination in education. Canadian Psychology, 49(3), 233–240.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J., & Blanchard, C. (2000). On the assessment of situational intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The Situational Motivation Scale (SIMS). Motivation and Emotion, 24, 175–213.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005614228250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Harpaz, Y. (2007). Approaches to teaching thinking: toward a conceptual mapping of the field. Teachers College Record, 109(8), 1845–1874.Google Scholar
  39. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of meta-analyses in education. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Hattie, J., & Gan, M. (Eds.). (2011). Instruction based on feedback. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81–112.  https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hawkins, K. W., & Power, C. B. (1999). Gender differences in questions asked during small decision-making discussions. Small Group Research, 30(2), 235–256.  https://doi.org/10.1177/104649649903000205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Jackson, B., Whipp, P. R., Chua, K. P., Dimmock, J. A., & Hagger, M. S. (2013). Students’ tripartite efficacy beliefs in high school physical education: Within-and cross-domain relations with motivational processes and leisure-time physical activity. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 35, 72–84.  https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.35.1.72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Jang, H., Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L. (2010). Engaging students in learning activities: it is not autonomy support or structure but autonomy support and structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 588–600.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Jansen, M., Scherer, R., & Schroeders, U. (2015). Students’ self-concept and self-efficacy in the sciences: Differential relations to antecedents and educational outcomes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 41, 13–24.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.11.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Johnston, J., Halocha, J., & Chater, M. (2007). Developing teaching skills in the primary school. London: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Kearsley, G. P. (1976). Questions and question asking in verbal discourse: A cross disciplinary review. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 5(4), 355–375.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01079934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254–284.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Knight, N. (2003). Teacher feedback to students in numeracy lessons: are students getting good value? Set: Research information for teachers, 3, 40–45.Google Scholar
  50. Kyriakides, L., Christoforou, C., & Charalambous, C. Y. (2013). What matters for student learning outcomes: A meta-analysis of studies exploring factors of effective teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 36, 143–152.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.07.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. La Guardia, J. G., Ryan, R. M., Couchman, C. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Within-person variation in security of attachment: A self-determination theory perspective on attachment, need fulfillment, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(3), 367–384.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.79.3367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Labuhn, A. S., Zimmerman, B. J., & Hasselhorn, M. (2010). Enhancing students’ self-regulation and mathematics performance: the influence of feedback and self-evaluative standards. Metacognition and Learning, 5, 173–194.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-010-9056-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lee, Y., & Kinzie, M. B. (2012). Teacher question and student response with regard to cognition and language use. Instructional Science, 40, 857–874.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-011-9193-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lee, H. W., Lim, K. Y., & Grabowski, B. L. (2010). Improving self-regulation, learning strategy use, and achievement with metacognitive feedback. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(6), 629–648.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-010-9153-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lew, M. D. N., Alwis, W. A. M., & Schmidt, H. G. (2010). Accuracy of students’ self-assessment and their beliefs about utility. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35, 135–156.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930802687737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Magno, C. (2010). The role of metacognitive skills in developing critical thinking. Metacognition Learning, 5, 137–156.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-010-9054-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Massey, S. L., Pence, K. L., Justice, L. M., & Bowles, R. P. (2008). Educators’ use of cognitively challenging questions in economically disadvantaged preschool classroom contexts. Early Education and Development, 19(2), 340–360.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10409280801964119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Mazer, J. P. (2013). Associations among teacher communication behaviours, student interest, and engagement: A validity test. Communication Education, 62(1), 86–96.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2012.731513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. (1990). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  60. Miller, T., & Geraci, L. (2011). Training metacognition in the classroom: the influence of incentives and feedback on exam predictions. Metacognition and Learning, 6(3), 303–314.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-011-9083-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Mulliner, E., & Tucker, M. (2017). Feedback on feedback practice: perceptions of students and academics. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(2), 266–288.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1103365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Nett, U. E., Goetz, T., Hall, N., & Frenzel, A. C. (2012). Metacognitive strategies and test performance: An experience sampling analysis of students’ learning behaviour. Education Research International.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/958319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Nicol, D. (2010). From monologue to dialogue: Improving written feedback processes in mass higher education. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 35, 501–517.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02602931003786559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 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, 199–218.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Ogu, U., & Schmidt, S. R. (2009). Investigating rocks and sand. Young Children, 64(1), 12–18.Google Scholar
  66. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  67. Pitt, E., & Norton, L. (2017). ‘Now that’s the feedback I want!’ Students’ reactions to feedback on graded work and what they do with it. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(4), 499–516.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2016.1142500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2012). Nursing research: Principles and methods. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
  69. Price, M., Handley, K., & Millar, J. (2011). Feedback: Focusing attention on engagement. Studies in Higher Education, 36(8), 879–896.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2010.483513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Price, M., Handley, K., Millar, J., & O’Donovan, B. (2010). Feedback: All that effort, but what is the effect? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(3), 277–289.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930903541007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Reeve, J. (Ed.). (2015a). Autonomy-supportive teaching: What it is, how to do it. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  72. Reeve, J. (2015b). Giving and summoning autonomy support in hierarchical relationships. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 9(8), 406–418.  https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Reeve, J., & Jang, H. (2006). What teachers say and do to support students’ autonomy during a learning activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 209–218.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Barch, J., & Jeon, S. (2004). Enhancing high school students’ engagement by increasing their teachers’ autonomy support. Motivation and Emotion, 28(2), 147–169.  https://doi.org/10.1023/B:MOEM.0000032312.95499.6f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Robinson, S., Pope, D., & Holyoak, L. (2013). Can we meet their expectations? Experiences and perceptions of feedback in first year undergraduate students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(3), 260–272.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2011.629291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Robson, C. (1993). Real world research: A resource for social scientists and practitioner-researchers. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  77. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The darker and brighter sides of human existence: Basic psychological needs as a unifying concept. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 319–338.  https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_03.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (Eds.). (2002). An overview of self-determination theory: An organismic-dialectical perspective. Rochester: University of Rochester Press.Google Scholar
  79. Sadler, D. R. (2010). Beyond feedback: Developing student capability in complex appraisal. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 535–550.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930903541015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Schein, E. H. (2013). Humble inquiry: The gentle art of asking instead of telling. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.Google Scholar
  81. Schunk, D. H., & Swartz, C. W. (1993). Goals and progress feedback: effects on self-efficacy and writing achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18(3), 337–354.  https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1993.1024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Searle, J. R., & Vanderveken, D. (1985). Foundations of illocutionary logic. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  83. Shih, S. S., & Alexander, J. M. (2000). Interacting effects of goal setting and self-or other-referenced feedback on children’s development of self-efficacy and cognitive skill within the Taiwanese classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 536–543.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.92.3.536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Sierens, E., Vansteenkiste, M., Goossens, L., Soenens, B., & Dochy, F. (2009). The synergistic relationship of perceived autonomy support and structure in the prediction of self-regulated learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 57–68.  https://doi.org/10.1348/000709908X304398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Skinner, E., Furrer, C., Marchand, G., & Kindermann, T. (2008). Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic? Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 765–781.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Skinner, E. A., Zimmer-Gembeck, J., M., & Connell, J. P. (1998). Individual differences and the development of perceived control. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 63, (2–3, Whole No. 204).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Small, F., & Attree, K. (2016). Undergraduate student responses to feedback: expectations and experiences. Studies in Higher Education, 41(11), 2078–2094.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1007944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Sparks, C., Dimmock, J. A., Whipp, P., Jackson, B., & Lonsdale, C. (2015). “Getting Connected”: High school Physical Education teacher behaviours that facilitate students’ relatedness support perceptions. Sports, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 4(3), 219–236.  https://doi.org/10.1037/spy0000039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Su, Y.-L., & Reeve, J. (2011). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of intervention programs designed to support autonomy. Educational Psychology Review, 23, 159–188.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9142-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Thompson, S. (1995). Teaching intonation on questions. ELT Journal, 49(3), 235–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Tuckman, B. (1972). Conducting educational research. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  92. Van den Berghe, L., Ros, A., & Beijaard, D. (2013). Teacher feedback during active learning: Current practices in primary schools. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(2), 341–362.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.2012.02073.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Van der Kleij, F., Eggen, F., Timmers, C., & Veldkamp, B. (2012). Effects of feedback in a computer-based assessment for learning. Computers & Education, 58, 263–272.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Van Quaquebeke, N., & Felps, W. (2018). Respectful inquiry: A motivational account of leading through asking questions and listening. Academy of Management Review, 43(1), 5–27.  https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Walsh, J. A., & Sattes, B. D. (2005). Quality questioning: Research-based practice to engage every learner. London: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  96. Wang, M.-T. (2009). School climate support for behavioral and psychological adjustment: Testing the mediating effect of social competence. School Psychology Quarterly, 24, 240–251.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J., & Jackson, D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  98. Whipp, P. R., Taggart, A., & Jackson, B. (2014). Differentiation in outcomes-focused physical education: Pedagogical rhetoric and reality. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 19(4), 370–382.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2012.754001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Wilen, W. W. (1991). Questioning skills for teachers. What research says to the teacher (3rd ed.). Washington, D.C.: National Education Association.Google Scholar
  100. Winne, P. H., & Nesbit, J. C. (2010). The psychology of academic achievement. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 653–678.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Witt, P. L., Wheeless, L. R., & Allen, M. (2004). A meta-analytical review of the relationship between teacher immediacy and student learning. Communication Education, 71, 184–207.  https://doi.org/10.1080/036452042000228054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Zhao, L., & Mo, S. (2016). The impact of cognitive awareness on class performance in financial accounting courses. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 20(2), 78–88.Google Scholar
  103. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: a social cognitive perspective. In Handbook of Self- Regulation (pp. 13–39). San Diego, California, USA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Zumbrunn, S., Mars, S., & Mewborn, C. (2016). Toward a better understanding of student perceptions of written feedback: a mixed methods study. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 29, 349–370.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9599-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fiona D. H. Tan
    • 1
    Email author
  • Peter R. Whipp
    • 2
  • Marylène Gagné
    • 3
  • Niels Van Quaquebeke
    • 4
  1. 1.School of Human SciencesUniversity of Western AustraliaCrawleyAustralia
  2. 2.School of EducationMurdoch UniversityMurdochAustralia
  3. 3.Future of Work InstituteCurtin UniversityBentleyAustralia
  4. 4.Management DepartmentKühne Logistics UniversityHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations