Understanding and using feedback - A review of empirical studies concerning feedback from external evaluations to teachers

Educational Research Review

Volumn 9, Issue , 2013, Pages 174-190

  Hellrung, Katrin ^a   Hartig, Johannes ^a  

^a GERMAN INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH   (Germany)

Author keywords

Accountability; External evaluation; Feedback; Teacher

Indexed keywords

EID: 84876302288     PISSN: 1747938X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.edurev.2012.09.001     Document Type: Review

References (94)

1. Abrams L.M., Pedulla J.J., Madaus G.F. Views from the classroom: Teachers' opinions of statewide testing programs. Theory Into Practice 2003, 42(1):18-29. 10.1207/s15430421tip4201_4.
2. Alderson J.C., Wall D. Does washback exist?. Applied Linguistics 1993, 14(2):115-129. 10.1093/applin/14.2.115.
3. Amrein A.L., Berliner D.C. High-stakes testing, uncertainty, and student learning. Education Policy Analysis Archives 2002, 10(18). Retrieved from .
4. Amrein-Beardsley A., Berliner D.C. Re-analysis of NAEP math and reading scores in states with and without high-stakes tests: Response to Rosenshine. Education Policy Analysis Archives 2003, 11(25). Retrieved from .
5. Amrein-Beardsley A., Berliner D.C., Rideau S. Cheating in the first, second, and third degree: Educators' responses to high-stakes testing. Education Policy Analysis Archives 2010, 18(14). Retrieved from .
6. Ashby, J. & Sainsbury, M. (2001). How Do Schools Use National Curriculum Test Results? A survey of the use of national curriculum test results in the management and planning of the curriculum at key stages 1 and 2. Report of the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER). Retrieved from. http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00003550.htm.
7. Au W. High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher 2007, 36(5):258-267. 10.3102/0013189X07306523.
8. Bailey K.M. Working for washback: A review of the washback concept in language testing. Language testing 1996, 13(3):257-279. 10.1177/026553229601300303.
9. Bangert-Drowns R.L., Kulik C.-L.C., Kulik J.A., Morgan M. The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research 1991, 61(2):213. 10.2307/1170535.
10. Barksdale-Ladd M.A., Thomas K.F. What's at stake in high-stakes testing: Teachers and parents speak out. Journal of Teacher Education 2000, 51(5):384-397. 10.1177/0022487100051005006.
11. Barry C.L., Horst S.J., Finney S.J., Brown A.R., Kopp J.P. Do examinees have similar test-taking effort? A high-stakes question for low-stakes testing. International Journal of Testing 2010, 10(4):342-363. 10.1080/15305058.2010.508569.
12. Black P., William D. Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 1998, 5(1):7-74. 10.1080/0969595980050102.
13. Black P., William D. Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability 2009, 21(1):5-31. 10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5.
14. Blank R.K. Developing a system of education indicators: Selecting, implementing, and reporting indicators. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 1993, 15(1):65-80. 10.3102/01623737015001065.
15. Brägger G., Bucher B., Landwehr N. Voraussetzungen für eine gute Praxis der externen Schulevaluation [prerequisites of good practice in external school evaluation]. Pädagogik. Schlüsselfragen zur externen Schulevaluation 2005, 21-50. Hep, Bern. 1st ed. G. Brägger, B. Bucher, N. Landwehr (Eds.).
16. Braun H. Reconsidering the impact of high-stakes testing. Education Policy Analysis Archives 2004, 12(1). Retrieved from .
17. Campbell C., Levin B. Using data to support educational improvement. Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Accountability 2009, 21(1):47-65. 10.1007/s11092-008-9063-x.
18. Carnoy M., Loeb S. Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross-state analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 2002, 24(4):305-331. 10.3102/01623737024004305.
19. Cizek G.J. Pockets of resistance in the assessment revolution. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 2000, 19(2):16-23. 10.1111/j.1745-3992.2000.tb00026.x.
20. Clarke M., Shore A., Rhoades K., Abrahms L., Miao J., Li J. Perceived effects of state-mandated testing programs on teaching and learning: Findings from interviews with educators in low-, medium-, and high-stakes states 2003, Boston College: NBETPP.
21. Coe R. Can feedback improve teaching? A review of the social science literature with a view to identifying the conditions under which giving feedback to teachers will result in improved performance. Research Papers in Education 1998, 13(1):43-66. 10.1080/0267152980130104.
22. Collins S., Reiss M., Stobart G. What happens when high-stakes testing stops? Teachers' perceptions of the impact of compulsory national testing in science of 11-year-olds in England and its abolition in Wales. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 2010, 17(3):273-286. 10.1080/0969594X.2010.496205.
23. Cronbach L.J., Snow R.E. Aptitudes and instructional methods 1977, Irvington Publishers; Distributed by Halsted Press, New York.
24. Diamond J.B. Where the rubber meets the road: Rethinking the connection between high-stakes testing policy and classroom instruction. Sociology of Education 2007, 80(4):285-313. 10.1177/003804070708000401.
25. Earl L., Fullan M. Using data in leadership for learning. Cambridge Journal of Education 2003, 33(3):383-394. 10.1080/0305764032000122023.
26. Ericsson K.A., Simon H.A. Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review 1980, 87(3):215-251. 10.1037/0033-295X.87.3.215.
27. Festinger L. A theory of social comparison processes 1954, Vol. 7. Bobbs-Merril, Indianapolis.
28. Firestone W.A., Mayrowetz D., Fairman J. Performance-based assessment and instructional change: The effects of testing in Maine and Maryland. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 1998, 20(2):95-113. 10.3102/01623737020002095.
29. Hambleton, R. K. & Slater, S. C. (1997). Are NAEP executive summary reports understandable to policy makers and educators? (CSE Technical Report 430). Retrieved from. http://www.cse.ucla.edu/products/reports/TECH430.pdf.
30. Hammond P., Yeshanew T. The impact of feedback on school performance. Educational Studies 2007, 33(2):99-113. 10.1080/03055690601068212.
31. Haney W. The myth of the Texas miracle in education. Education Policy Analysis Archives 2000, 8(41). Retrieved from .
32. Hanushek E.A., Raymond M.E. Does school accountability lead to improved student performance?. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 2005, 24(2):297-327. 10.1002/pam.20091.
33. Heilig J., Darling-Hammond L. Accountability texas-style: The progress and learning of urban minority students in a high-stakes testing context. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 2008, 30(2):75-110. 10.3102/0162373708317689.
34. Helmke A., Hosenfeld I. Standardbezogene Unterrichtsevaluation [standard-related lesson evaluation]. Pädagogik. Schlüsselfragen zur externen Schulevaluation 2005, 127-151. Hep, Bern. 1st ed. G. Brägger, B. Bucher, N. Landwehr (Eds.).
35. Heritage M., Yeagley R. Data use and school improvement: Challenges and prospects. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education 2005, 104(2):320-339. 10.1111/j.1744-7984.2005.00035.x.
36. Herman J.L., Abedi J., Golan S. Assessing the effects of standardized testing on schools. Educational and Psychological Measurement 1994, 54(2):471-482. 10.1177/0013164494054002022.
37. Hoffman J.V., Assaf L.C., Paris S.G. High-stakes testing in reading: Today in Texas, tomorrow?. The Reading Teacher 2001, 54(5):482-492. Retrieved from .
38. Hughes A. Testing for language teachers 2003, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge (UA), (Reprinted). 2nd ed.
39. Jamieson-Noel D., Winne P.H. Comparing self-reports to traces of studying behavior as representations of students' studying and achievement. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie 2003, 17(3-4):159-171. 10.1024//1010-0652.17.34.159.
40. Jones B., Egley R. Voices from the frontlines: Teachers' perceptions of high-stakes testing. Education Policy Analysis Archives 2004, 12(39). Retrieved from .
41. Kearns L.-L. High-stakes standardized testing and marginalized youth: An examination of the impact on those who fail. Canadian Journal of Education 2011, 34(2):112-130. Retrieved from .
42. Kerr K.A., Marsh J.A., Ikemoto G.S., Darilek H., Barney H. Strategies to promote data use for instructional improvement: Actions, outcomes, and lessons from three urban districts. American Journal of Education 2006, 112(4):496-520. 10.1086/505057.
43. Kirkup C. Schools' use of data in teaching and learning 2005, DfES Publications, Annesley, Retrieved from .
44. Klein, S. P., Hamilton, L., McCaffrey, D. F., & Stecher, B. (2000). What do test scores in Texas tell us? Education Policy Analysis Archives. Retrieved from. http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n49/.
45. Kluger A.N., DeNisi A. The effects of feedback interventions on performance. A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin 1996, 119(2):254-284. 10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254.
46. Kühle B., Peek R. Lernstandserhebungen in Nordrhein-Westfalen. Evaluationsbefunde zur Rezeption und zum Umgang mit Ergebnisrückmeldungen in Schulen [centralized proficiency tests in North-Rhine Westphalia. Evaluation findings concerning the reception of and exposure to result feedback in schools]. Empirische Pädagogik 2007, 21:428-447. Retrieved from .
47. Labuhn A.S., Zimmerman B.J., Hasselhorn M. Enhancing students' self-regulation and mathematics performance: The influence of feedback and self-evaluative standards. Metacognition and Learning 2010, 5(2):173-194. 10.1007/s11409-010-9056-2.
48. Lachat M.A., Smith S. Practices that support data use in urban high schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk 2005, 10(3):333-349. 10.1207/s15327671espr1003_7.
49. Lee J. Is test-driven external accountability effective? Synthesizing the evidence from cross-state causal-comparative and correlational studies. Review of Educational Research 2008, 78(3):608-644. 10.3102/0034654308324427.
50. Lobascher S. What are the potential impacts of high-stakes testing on literacy education in Australia?. Literacy Learning in the Middle Years 2011, 19(2):9-19. Retrieved from .
51. Mabry L., Poole J., Redmond L., Schultz A. Local impact of state testing in southwest Washington. Education Policy Analysis Archives 2003, 11(22). Retrieved from .
52. Maier U. Vergleichsarbeiten im Vergleich - Akzeptanz und wahrgenommener Nutzen standardbasierter Leistungsmessungen in Baden-Württemberg und Thüringen [comparative Tests in Comparison - Acceptance and perceived use of standardized student assessment in Baden-Württemberg and Thuringia]. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft 2008, 11(3):453-474. 10.1007/s11618-008-0036-0.
53. Maier U. Towards state-mandated testing in Germany: How do teachers assess the pedagogical relevance of performance feedback information?. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 2009, 16(2):205-226. 10.1080/09695940903076030.
54. Maier U. Wie gehen Lehrerinnen und Lehrer mit Vergleichsarbeiten um? Eine Studie zu testbasierten Schulreformen in Baden-Württemberg und Thüringen. Univ., Habil.-Schr. - Tübingen, 2009. Schul - und Unterrichtsforschung 2009, Vol. 7. Schneider, Baltmannsweiler.
55. Maier U. Accountability policies and teachers' acceptance and usage of school performance feedback - A comparative study. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 2010, 21(2):145-165. 10.1080/09243450903354913.
56. Murnane R.J., Sharkey N.S., Boudett K.P. Using student-assessment results to improve instruction: Lessons from a workshop. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk 2005, 10(3):269-280. 10.1207/s15327671espr1003_3.
57. Nachtigall C., Kröhne U. Methodische Anforderungen an schulische Leistungsmessung - Auf dem Weg zu fairen Vergleichen [methodological demands to assessments in schools - On the way to fair comparisions]. Rückmeldung und Rezeption von Forschungsergebnissen. Zur Verwendung wissenschaftlichen Wissens im Bildungssystem 2006, 59-74. Waxmann, Münster. H. Kuper (Ed.).
58. Nichols S.L., Glass G.V., Berliner D.C. High-stakes testing and student achievement: Does accountability pressure increase student learning?. Education Policy Analysis Archives 2006, 14(1). Retrieved from .
59. Nisbett R.E., Wilson T.D. Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review 1977, 84(3):231-259. 10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.231.
60. Schools and quality: An international report 1989, Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, OECD Publ, Paris.
61. Curriculum reform: Assessment in question 1993, Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, OECD Publ, Paris.
62. Formative assessment: Improving learning in secondary classrooms 2005, Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, OECD Publ, Paris.
63. Peek R. Qualitätsuntersuchung an Schulen zum Unterricht in Mathematik (QuaSUM) - Klassenbezogene Ergebnisrückmeldungen und ihre Rezeption in Brandenburger Schulen [survey on the quality of mathematics at schools (QuaSUM) - A class related feedback and its reception in Brandenburg schools]. Empirische Pädagogik 2004, 18(1):82-114.
64. Ramaprasad A. On the definition of feedback. Behavioral Science 1983, 28(1):4-13. 10.1002/bs.3830280103.
65. Rheinberg, F. (2008). Bezugsnormen und die Beurteilung von Lernleistung [educational standards and the judgement of learning achievement]. In W. Schneider & M. Hasselhorn (Eds.), Handbuch der Psychologie. Handbuch der pädagogischen Psychologie (pp. 178-186).
66. Roderick M., Jacob B.A., Bryk A.S. The impact of high-stakes testing in Chicago on student achievement in promotional gate grades. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 2002, 24(4):333-357. 10.3102/01623737024004333.
67. Rolff H.G., von der Gathen J. Rückmeldungen an Lehrkräfte und Rezeption [feedback to teachers and reception]. Unterricht und Kompetenzerwerb in Deutsch und Englisch. Ergebnisse der DESI-Studie 2008, 55-59. Beltz, Weinheim. DESI-Konsortium (Ed.).
68. Rosenshine B. High-stakes testing: Another analysis. Education Policy Analysis Archives 2003, 11(24). Retrieved from .
69. Rossi P.H., Freeman H.E. Evaluation: A systematic approach 1993, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, Calif. 5th ed.
70. Sadler D.R. Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science 1989, 18(2):119-144. 10.1007/BF00117714.
71. Scheerens J., Glas C., Thomas S.M. Educational evaluation, assessment, and monitoring: A systemic approach. Contexts of learning 2003, Vol. 13. Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse, Retrieved from .
72. Schildkamp K., Kuiper W. Data-informed curriculum reform: Which data, what purposes, and promoting and hindering factors. Teaching and Teacher Education 2010, 26(3):482-496. 10.1016/j.tate.2009.06.007.
73. Schildkamp K., Teddlie C. School performance feedback systems in the USA and in the Netherlands: A comparison. Educational Research and Evaluation 2008, 14(3):255-282. 10.1080/13803610802048874.
74. Schneewind J. Erfahrungen mit Ergebnisrückmeldungen im Projekt BeLesen- Ergebnisse der Interviewstudie [experiences with data feedback within the project "BeLesen" - Results of an interview study]. Empirische Pädagogik 2007, 21(4):368-382.
75. Schrader F.W., Helmke A. Von der Evaluation zur Innovation? Die Rezeptionsstudie WALZER: Ergebnisse der Lehrerbefragung [from evaluation to innovation? Consequences of a statewide achievement test for teaching and teachers]. Empirische Pädagogik 2004, 18:140-161.
76. Schwippert K. Leistungsrückmeldungen an Grundschulen im Rahmen der Internationalen Grundschul-Lese-Untersuchung (IGLU) [performance-related feedback within PIRLS Germany (IGLU)]. Empirische Pädagogik 2004, 18:62-81.
77. Perspectives on Curriculum Evaluation. The methodology of evaluation 1967, Rand McNally and Co AERA Monograph Series - Curriculum Evaluation, Chicago. M. Scriven (Ed.).
78. Segall A. Teachers' perceptions of the impact of state-mandated standardized testing: The Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) as a case study of consequences. Theory & Research in Social Education 2003, 31(3):287-325. 10.1080/00933104.2003.10473227.
79. Shohamy E., Donitsa-Schmidt S., Ferman I. Test impact revisited: Washback effect over time. Language Testing 1996, 13(3):298-317. 10.1177/026553229601300305.
80. Smith M.L. Put to the test: The effects of external testing on teachers. Educational Researcher 1991, 20(5):8-11. 10.3102/0013189X020005008.
81. Stecker P.M., Fuchs L.S., Fuchs D. Using curriculum-based measurement to improve student achievement: Review of research. Psychology in the Schools 2005, 42(8):795-819. 10.1002/pits.20113.
82. Sturman L. Teaching to the test: Science or intuition?. Educational Research 2003, 45(3):261-273. 10.1080/0013188032000137256.
83. Torrance H. Combining measurement-driven instruction with authentic assessment: Some initial observations of national assessment in England and Wales. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 1993, 15(1):81-90. 10.3102/01623737015001081.
84. Tresch, S. (2007). Potenzial Leistungstest: Wie Lehrerinnen und Lehrer Ergebnisrückmeldungen zur Sicherung und Steigerung ihrer Unterrichtsqualität nutzen [how teachers use performance feedback to ensure and increase the quality of teaching]. Univ., Diss/07-Zürich, 2006. (1. Aufl.). Bern: hep. Retrieved from http://www.gbv.de/dms/bsz/toc/bsz266921086inh.pd.
85. Vanhoof J., Petegem P. Matchin internal and external evaluation in an era of accountability and school development: Lessons from a flemish perspective. Studies in Educational Evaluation 2007, 33(2):101-119. 10.1016/j.stueduc.2007.04.001.
86. Verhaeghe G., Vanhoof J., Valcke M., van Petegem P. Using school performance feedback: Perceptions of primary school principals. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 2010, 21(2):167-188. 10.1080/09243450903396005.
87. Visscher A. Public school performance indicators: Problems and recommendations. Studies in Educational Evaluation 2001, 27(3):199-214. 10.1016/S0191-491X(01)00026-8.
88. Visscher A.J., Coe R. School performance feedback systems: Conceptualisation, analysis, and reflection. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 2003, 14(3):321-349. 10.1076/sesi.14.3.321.15842.
89. Vogler K.E., Lintner T., Lipscomb G.B., Knopf H., Heafner T.L., Rock T.C. Getting off the back burner: Impact of testing elementary social studies as part of a state-mandated accountability program. Journal of Social Studies Research 2007, 31(2):21-34. Retrieved from .
90. Wainer H., Hambleton R.K., Meara K. Alternative displays for communicating NAEP results: A redesign and validity study. Journal of Educational Measurement 1999, 36(4):301-335. 10.1111/j.1745-3984.1999.tb00559.x.
91. Watermann R., Stanat P. Schulrückmeldungen in PISA 2000: Sozialnorm- und kriteriumsorientierte Rückmeldeverfahren [school feedback reports in PISA 2000: Norm-referenced and criterion-referenced feedback strategies]. Empirische Pädagogik 2004, 18(1):40-61.
92. Weiss C.H. Have we learned anything new about the use of evaluation?. American Journal of Evaluation 1998, 19(1):21-33. Retrieved from .
93. Wright W.E., Choi D. The impact of language and high-stakes testing policies on elementary school English language learners in Arizona. Education Policy Analysis Archives 2006, 14(13). Retrieved from .
94. Zenisky A.L., Hambleton R.K., Sireci S.G. Getting the message out: An evaluation of NAEP score reporting practices with implications for disseminating test results. Applied Measurement in Education 2009, 22(4):359-375. 10.1080/08957340903221667.