Written Teacher Feedback: Aspects of Quality, Benefits and Challenges

  • Monika Holmeier
  • Regula Grob
  • Jan Alexis Nielsen
  • Silke Rönnebeck
  • Mathias Ropohl
Part of the Contributions from Science Education Research book series (CFSE, volume 4)


Written feedback provided by the teacher to his or her students is an important aspect of formative assessment. After a theoretical introduction to teacher prerequisites for giving feedback and to the quality of written feedback in general, results from an implementation of feedback methods in classrooms will be described for the cases of Germany, Switzerland and Denmark. The focus will be on the inquiry method ‘investigation in science’ that requires from students such competences as planning and/or conducting experiments. This study examines the quality of written teacher feedback which was provided based on rubrics and templates for open comments. For this purpose, written teacher feedback itself, student artefacts and data from questionnaires were analysed. Furthermore, the benefits and challenges that teachers noticed in using written feedback will be examined. Finally, it will be discussed which means of support for teachers seem necessary in order to foster the implementation of written teacher feedback as part of formative assessment in inquiry-based science education.


  1. Abd El Khalick, F., Boujaoude, S., Duschl, R. A., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., Niaz, M., Treagust, D., & Tuan, H. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88(3), 397–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrade, H. (2000). Using rubrics to promote thinking and learning. Educational Leadership, 57(5), 13–18.Google Scholar
  3. Andrade, H. (2005). Teaching with rubrics: The good, the bad, and the ugly. College Teaching, 53(1), 27–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andrade, H., & Du, Y. (2005). Student perspectives on rubric-referenced assessment. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(3), 1–11.Google Scholar
  5. Arter, J. A., & McTighe, J. (2001). Scoring rubrics in the classroom: Using performance criteria for assessing and improving student performance. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  6. Arts, J. G., Jaspers, M., & Joosten-ten Brinke, D. (2016). A case study on written comments as a form of feedback in teacher education: So much to gain. European Journal of Teacher Education, 39(2), 159–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bailey, R., & Garner, M. (2010). Is the feedback in higher education assessment worth the paper it is written on? Teachers’ reflections on their practices. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(2), 187–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ball, D. L., & Forzani, F. M. (2011). Teaching skillful teaching. The Effective Educator, 68(4), 40–45.Google Scholar
  9. Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(1), 5–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bharuthram, S. (2015). Lecturers’ perceptions: The value of assessment rubrics for informing teaching practice and curriculum review and development. Africa Education Review, 12(3), 415–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Black, P., & Harrison, C. (2004). Science inside the black box. London: GL Assessment.Google Scholar
  12. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 5(1), 7–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2003). Assessment for learning: Putting it into practice. London: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Brookhart, S. M. (2008). How to give effective feedback to your students. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  15. Brown, G. T. L., Harris, L. R., & Harnett, J. A. (2012). Teacher beliefs about feedback within an Assessment for learning environment: Endorsement of improved learning over student well-being. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(7), 968–978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bruno, I., & Santos, L. (2010). Written comments as a form of feedback. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 36, 111–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Burke, K. (2006). From standards to rubrics in 6 steps. Heatherton: Hawker Brownlow Education.Google Scholar
  18. Coffey, J. E., Hammer, D., Levin, D. M., & Grant, T. (2011). The missing disciplinary substance of formative assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(10), 1109–1136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Darling-Hammond, L., Ancess, J., & Falk, B. (1995). Authentic assessment in action: Studies of schools and students at work. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  20. D-EDK Deutschschweizer Erziehungsdirektoren-Konferenz. (2014). Lehrplan 21. [15.12.2015].
  21. Furtak, E. M. (2012). Linking a learning progression for natural selection to teachers’ enactment of formative assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(9), 1181–1210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Furtak, E. M., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Shemwell, J. T., Ayala, C. C., Brandon, P. R., Shavelson, R. J., & Yin, Y. (2008). On the fidelity of implementing embedded formative assessments and its relation to student learning. Applied Measurement in Education, 21(4), 360–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Furtak, E. M., Kiemer, K., Circi, R. K., Swanson, R., de León, V., Morrison, D., & Heredia, S. C. (2016). Teachers’ formative assessment abilities and their relationship to student learning: Findings from a four-year intervention study. Instructional Science, 44, 267–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gearhart, M., Nagashima, S., Pfotenhauer, J., Clark, S., Schwab, C., Vendlinski, T., Osmundson, E., Herman, J., & Bernbaum, D. J. (2006). Developing expertise with classroom assessment in K–12 science: Learning to interpret student work. Interim findings from a 2-year study. Educational Assessment, 11(3–4), 237–263.Google Scholar
  25. Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2004). Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1, 3–31.Google Scholar
  26. Glover, C., & Brown, E.. (2006). “Written Feedback for Students: Too Much, Too Detailed or Too Incomprehensible to Be Effective?” BEE-J 7. Retrieved from
  27. Hammer, D., & van Zee, E. (2006). Seeing the science in children’s thinking: Case studies of student inquiry in physical science. Portsmouth: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  28. 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(3), 269–290. doi: 10.1080/01443410.2013.785384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jonsson, A. (2014). Rubrics as a way of providing transparency in assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in higher education, 39(7), 840–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kazemi, E., & Franke, M. L. (2004). Teacher learning in mathematics: Using student work to promote collective inquiry. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 7, 203–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kingston, N., & Nash, B. (2011). Formative Assessment: A meta-analysis and a call for research. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30(4), 28–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kluger, A., & 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(2), 254–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kobarg, M. & Seidel, T. (2007). Prozessorientierte Lernbegleitung – Videoanalysen im Physikunterricht der Sekundarstufe I [Process-oriented teaching – Video analyses in high school physics instruction]. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 35(2), 148–168. Retrieved from
  36. Köller, O. (2005). Formative Assessment in classrooms: A review of the empirical German literature. In OECD (Ed.), Formative Assessment. Improving learning in secondary classrooms (pp. 266–280). Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  37. Levin, D., Hammer, D., & Coffey, J. (2009). Novice teachers’ attention to student thinking. Journal of Teacher Education, 60, 142–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Bell, P. (Eds.). (2004). Internet environments for science education. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
  39. Lipnevich, A. A., McCallen, L. N., Pace Miles, K., & Smith, J. K. (2014). Mind the gap! Students’ use of exemplars and detailed rubrics as formative assessment. Instructional Science, 42, 539–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Love, N., Stiles, K. E., Mundry, S., & DiRanna, K. (2008). The data coach’s guide to improving learning for all students: Unleashing the power of collaborative inquiry. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  41. Luft, J. A. (1999). Rubrics: Design and use in science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 10(2), 107–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Marzano, R. J., & Arthur, S. (1977). Teacher comments on student essays: It doesn’t matter what you say. ERIC Document Reproduction Service: ED 147 864.Google Scholar
  43. Mayring, P. (2004). Qualitative content analysis. In U. Flick, E. von Kardorff, & I. Steinke (Eds.), A companion to qualitative research (pp. 2662–2669). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  44. Ministerium für Schule und Berufsbildung. (2016). Fachanforderungen Chemie. Allgemeinbildende Schulen. [Chemistry curriculum for lower secondary schools]. Retrieved from
  45. Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction – What is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Moni, R. W., & Moni, K. B. (2008). Student perceptions and use of an assessment rubric for a group concept map in physiology. Advances in Physiology Education, 32(1), 47–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Moskal, B. M. (2003). Recommendations for developing classroom performance assessments and scoring rubrics. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 8(14), 1–10.Google Scholar
  48. Ni, Y. (1997). Performance-based assessment: Problems and design strategies. Education Journal, 25(2), 137–157.Google Scholar
  49. 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, 199–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Nielsen, J. A., & Dolin, J. (2016). Evaluering mellem mestring og præstation. [Assessment between mastery and performance]. MONA, 1, 51–62.Google Scholar
  51. Nunes, C. (2004). A avaliação como regulação do processo de ensino aprendizagem da Matemática [Assessment and regulation of the teaching in mathematics education]. Lisbon: Lisbon University.Google Scholar
  52. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2005). Formative assessment. Improving learning in secondary classrooms. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  53. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2013). Synergies for Better Learning: An International Perspective on Evaluation and Assessment. OECD Reviews of Evaluation and Assessment in Education. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  54. Orsmond, P., & Merry, S. (2011). Feedback alignment: Effective and ineffective links between tutors’ and students’ understanding of coursework feedback. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 36, 125–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Panadero, E., & Jonsson, A. (2013). The use of scoring rubrics for formative assessment purposes revisited: A review. Educational Research Review, 9, 129–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Parr, J., & Timperley, H. S. (2010). Feedback to writing, assessment for teaching and learning and student progress. Assessing Writing, 15, 68–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rönnebeck, S., Bernholt, S., & Ropohl, M. (2016). Searching for a common ground – A literature review of empirical research on scientific inquiry activities. Studies in Science Education, 52(2), 161–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Roth, K. J., Garnier, H. E., Chen, C., Lemmens, M., Schwille, K., & Wickler, N. I. Z. (2011). Video based lesson analysis: Effective science PD for teacher and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(2), 117–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Li, M. (2013). Analyzing teachers’ feedback practices in response to students’ work in science classrooms. Applied Measurement in Education, 26(3), 163–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Li, M., Ayala, C., & Shavelson, R. J. (2004). Evaluating students’ science notebooks as an assessment tool. International Journal of Science Education, 26(12), 1477–1506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Russ, R. S., Coffey, J. E., Hammer, D., & Hutchison, P. (2009). Making classroom assessment more accountable to scientific reasoning: A case for attending to mechanistic thinking. Science Education, 93, 875–891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Santos, L., & Dias, S. (2006). Como entendem os alunos o que lhes dizem os professores? A complexidade do feedback [How do the students understand what the teachers say? On the complexity of feedback]. ProfMat 2006. Lisboa: APM.Google Scholar
  64. Schiepe-Tiska, A., Schmidtner, S., Müller, K., Heine, J.-H., Neumann, K., & Lüdtke, O. (2016). Naturwissenschaftlicher Unterricht in Deutschland in PISA 2015 im internationalen Vergleich [Science teaching in Germany in PISA 2015 – results from the international comparison]. In. K. Reiss, C. Sälzer, A. Schiepe-Tiska, E. Klieme, & O. Köller (Eds.), PISA 2015 – eine Studie zwischen Kontinuität und Innovation (pp. 133–176). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  65. Searle, D., & Dillon, D. (1980). The message of marking: Teacher written responses to student writing at intermediate grade levels. Research in the Teaching of English, 14, 233–242.Google Scholar
  66. Smit, R., & Birri, T. (2014). Assuring the quality of standards-oriented classroom assessment with rubrics for complex competencies. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 43(December), 5–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. So, W. W. M., & Lee, T. T. H. (2011). Influence of teachers‘perceptions of teaching and learning on the implementation of assessment for learning in inquiry study. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 18(4), 417–432.Google Scholar
  68. Stiggins, R. J. (2002). Assessment crisis: The absence of assessment FOR learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(10), 758–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Stracke, E., & Kumar, V. (2010). Feedback and self-regulated learning: Insights from supervisors’ and Ph.D. examiners’ reports. Reflective Practice, 11(1), 19–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Tuck, J. (2012). Feedback-giving as social practice: Teachers’ perspectives on feedback as institutional requirement, work and dialogue. Teaching in Higher Education, 17(2), 209–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Vögeli-Mantovani, U. (1999). SKBF Trendbericht Nr. 3: Mehr fördern, weniger auslesen. Zur Entwicklung der schulischen Beurteilung in der Schweiz [SKBF trend report no. 3: More support, less selection. On the development of educational assessment in Switzerland]. Aarau: Schweizerische Koordinationsstelle für Bildungsforschung.Google Scholar
  72. Wiggins, G. P. (1998). Educative assessment: Designing assessments to inform and improve student performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  73. Wollenschläger, M., Möller, J., & Harms, U. (2011). Effekte kompetenzieller Rückmeldung beim wissenschaftlichen Denken [Effects of competential feedback on performance in scientific reasoning]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 25(3), 197–202.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Monika Holmeier
    • 1
  • Regula Grob
    • 1
  • Jan Alexis Nielsen
    • 2
  • Silke Rönnebeck
    • 3
    • 4
  • Mathias Ropohl
    • 3
  1. 1.Centre for Science and Technology EducationUniversity of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern SwitzerlandBaselSwitzerland
  2. 2.Department of Science EducationUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  3. 3.Leibniz-Institute for Science and Mathematics Education (IPN)KielGermany
  4. 4.Kiel UniversityKielGermany

Personalised recommendations