Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Toward a better understanding of student perceptions of writing feedback: a mixed methods study

  • Published:
Reading and Writing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This explanatory sequential mixed methods study investigated the writing feedback perceptions of middle and high school students (N = 598). The predictive and mediational roles of writing self-efficacy and perceptions of writing feedback on student writing self-regulation aptitude were examined using mediation regression analysis. To augment the quantitative findings, the explanations students provided for either liking or disliking writing feedback were explored using open-ended questions. Quantitative findings revealed that students’ perceptions of the feedback they receive about their writing partially mediated the relationship between writing self-efficacy and writing self-regulation aptitude. Qualitative data suggested ways in which students perceive writing feedback—both positive and negative. Collectively, the quantitative and qualitative data illustrate the influential role writing feedback perceptions plays in middle and high school student writing motivation and self-regulation beliefs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (2006). Guide to constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307–337). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1983). Self-evaluative and self-efficacy mechanisms governing the motivational effects of goal systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 1017–1028.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Hurley, M. M., & Wilkinson, B. (2004). The effects of school-based writing-to-learn interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 29–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruning, R., Dempsey, M., Kauffman, D., McKim, C., & Zumbrunn, S. (2013). Examining dimensions of self-efficacy for writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(1), 25–38.

  • Burke, D. (2009). Strategies for using feedback students bring to higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(1), 41–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caffarella, R. S., & Barnett, B. G. (2000). Teaching doctoral students to become scholarly writers: The importance of giving and receiving critiques. Studies in Higher Education, 25(1), 39–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calfee, R., & Sperling, M. (2010). On mixed methods: Approaches to language and literacy research. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carless, D. (2006). Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 219–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cleary, T. J., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2004). Self-regulated empowerment program: A school-based program to enhance self-regulated and self-motivated cycles of student learning. Psychology in the Schools, 41(5), 537–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Vaus, D. (2002). Surveys in social research. Abingdon, Oxforshire: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekholm, E., Zumbrunn, S., & Conklin, S. (2015). The relation of college student self-efficacy toward writing and writing self-regulation: Writing feedback perceptions as a mediating variable. Teaching in Higher Education, 20(2), 197–297.

  • Ferris, D. R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31(2), 315–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia, J. N., & de Caso, A. M. (2006). Changes in writing self-efficacy and writing products and processes through specific training in the self-efficacy beliefs of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 4(2), 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Sanchez, J. N., & Fidalgo-Redondo, R. (2006). Effects of two types of self-regulatory instruction programs on students with learning disabilities in writing products, processes, and self-efficacy. Learning Disability Quarterly, 29(3), 181–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S. (2006). Writing. In P. Alexander & P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 457–478). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., Berninger, V., & Fan, W. (2007). The structural relationship between writing attitude and writing achievement in first and third grade students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32(3), 516–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2000). The role of self-regulation and transcription skills in writing and writing development. Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 3–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., & Herbert, M. (2011). Writing to read: A meta-analysis of the impact of writing and writing instruction on reading. Harvard Educational Review, 81(4), 710–744.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hebert, M., Gillespie, A., & Graham, S. (2013). Comparing effects of different writing activities on reading comprehension: A meta-analysis. Reading and Writing, 26(1), 111–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, R., Hartley, P., & Skelton, A. (2001). Getting the message across: The problem of communicating assessment feedback. Teaching in Higher Education, 6(2), 269–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huizinga, M., Dolan, C. V., & van der Molen, M. W. (2006). Age-related change in executive function: Developmental trends and a latent variable analysis. Neuropsychologia, 44, 2017–2036.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, W., Lee, M. J., & Bong, M. (2014). Testing interest and self-efficacy as predictors of academic self-regulation and achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39(2), 86–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lizzio, A., & Wilson, K. (2008). Feedback on assessment: Students’ perceptions of quality and effectiveness. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(3), 263–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magno, C., & Amarles, A. (2011). Teachers’ feedback practices in second language academic writing classrooms. The International Journal of Education and Psychological Assessment, 6(2), 21–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marrs, S., Zumbrunn, S., Mewborn, C., & Stringer, J. K. (2015). Exploring elementary student perceptions of writing feedback. Manuscript submitted for publication.

  • Meece, J. L., Anderman, E. M., & Anderman, L. H. (2006). Classroom goal structure, student motivation, and academic achievement. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 487–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pajares, F. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: A review of the literature. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19(2), 139–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pajares, F., & Miller, M. D. (1995). Mathematics self-efficacy and mathematics performances: The need for specificity of assessment. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42(2), 190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poulos, A., & Mahony, M. J. (2008). Effectiveness of feedback: The students’ perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(2), 143–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, A. (2011). The personal dimension in teaching: Why students value feedback. International Journal of Educational Management, 25(4), 343–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, A. D., Fitness, J., & Wood, L. N. (2014). The role and functionality of emotions in feedback at university: A qualitative study. The Australian Educational Researcher, 41(3), 283–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rust, C. (2002). The impact of assessment on student learning how can the research literature practically help to inform the development of departmental assessment strategies and learner-centred assessment practices? Active Learning in Higher Education, 3(2), 145–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandelowski, M. (2000). Whatever happened to qualitative description? Research in Nursing & Health, 23, 334–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santangelo, T., Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (2007). Self-regulated strategy development: A validated model to support students who struggle with writing. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 5(1), 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schunk, D., & Swartz, C. (1992). Goals and feedback during writing strategy instruction with gifted students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

  • Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2007). Influencing children’s self-efficacy and self-regulation of reading and writing through modeling. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23, 7–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (Eds.). (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Themanson, J. R., Pontifex, M. B., Hillman, C. H., & McAuley, E. (2011). The relation of self-efficacy and error-related self-regulation. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 80(1), 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Education. (2011). Writing 2011: National Assessment of Educational Progress at grades 8 and 12. Washington, D.C.: Institute of Education Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2008). Sources of self-efficacy in school: Critical review of the literature and future directions. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 751–796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Värlander, S. (2008). The role of students’ emotions in formal feedback situations. Teaching in Higher Education, 13(2), 145–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wellington, J. (2010). More than a matter of cognition: An exploration of affective writing problems of post-graduate students and their possible solutions. Teaching In Higher Education, 15(2), 135–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 64–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J., & Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory influences on writing course achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 845–862.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J., & Risemberg, R. (1997). Becoming a self-regulated writer: A social cognitive perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22(1), 73–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (Eds.). (2007). Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zumbrunn, S. (2015). The most difficult parts of writing. Unpublished raw data.

  • Zumbrunn, S., & Bruning, R. (2011, December). Do conversations about writing matter? The relationship between elementary students’ writing conversations and writing beliefs, perceptions, and success. Paper presented at the Literacy Research Association Annual Meeting, Jacksonville.

  • Zumbrunn, S., Conklin, S., Varier, D., Turner, A., & Dumke, E. (2013, April). Self-efficacy is only part of the story: The role of feedback perceptions on student writing self-regulation. Poster presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, San Francisco.

  • Zumbrunn, S. K., Bruning, R. H. Kauffman, D. F., & Hayes, M. (2010, April). Explaining determinants of confidence and success in the elementary writing classroom. Poster presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Denver.

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Virginia Commonwealth University Presidential Research Incentive Program and the Virginia Commonwealth University Foundation Langshultz Fund. The authors would like to thank Chesterfield County Public school district, the teachers, and the students who participated in this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Educational Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University, 1015 W. Main Street, P.O. Box 842020, Richmond, VA, 23284-2020, USA

    Sharon Zumbrunn

  2. Virginia Commonwealth University, 1015 W. Main Street, P.O. Box 842020, Richmond, VA, 23284-2020, USA

    Sarah Marrs & Caitlin Mewborn

Authors
  1. Sharon Zumbrunn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sarah Marrs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Caitlin Mewborn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sharon Zumbrunn.

Ethics declarations

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Appendix: Scale items

Appendix: Scale items

Student Writing Feedback Perceptions Scale

  • I like talking with my teachers about my writing.

  • I like it when my classmates comment on my writing.

  • I like it when teachers comment on my writing.

  • I feel good about teachers’ comments about my writing.

  • I feel good about my classmates’ comments about my writing.

  • I feel good about my family members’ comments about my writing.

Self-Efficacy for Writing Scale

  • I can spell my words correctly.

  • I can write complete sentences.

  • I can punctuate my sentences correctly.

  • I can think of many ideas for my writing.

  • I can put my ideas into writing.

  • I can think of many words to describe my ideas.

  • I can concentrate on my writing for a long time.

  • I can avoid distractions when I write.

  • I can keep writing even when it is difficult.

Writing Self-Regulation Aptitude Scale

  • Before I start writing, I plan what I want to write.

  • Before I write, I set goals for my writing.

  • I think about who will read my writing.

  • I think about how much time I have to write.

  • I ask for help if I have trouble writing.

  • While I write, I think about my writing goals.

  • I keep writing even when it’s difficult.

  • While I write, I avoid distractions.

  • When I get frustrated with my writing, I make myself relax.

  • While I write, I talk myself through what I need to do.

  • I make my writing better by changing parts of it.

  • I tell myself I did a good job when I write my best.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zumbrunn, S., Marrs, S. & Mewborn, C. Toward a better understanding of student perceptions of writing feedback: a mixed methods study. Read Writ 29, 349–370 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9599-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9599-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation