Training effects on teachers’ feedback practice: the mediating function of feedback knowledge and the moderating role of self-efficacy

ZDM - Mathematics Education

Volumn 49, Issue 3, 2017, Pages 475-489

  Schütze, Birgit ^a   Rakoczy, Katrin ^b   Klieme, Eckhard ^b   Besser, Michael ^c   Leiss, Dominik ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MÜNSTER   (Germany)

^b GERMAN INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH   (Germany)

^c LEUPHANA UNIVERSITY OF LÜNEBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Formative assessment; Mathematics instruction; Professional development; Self efficacy; Teacher knowledge

Indexed keywords

EID: 85019371727     PISSN: 18639690     EISSN: 18639704     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11858-017-0855-7     Document Type: Article

References (81)

1. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social-cognitive view. Englewood Cliffs, NY: Prentice-Hall.
2. Bennett, R. (2011). Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(1), 5–25. doi:10.1080/0969594X.2010.513678.
3. Besser, M., Leiss, D., & Klieme, E. (2015). Wirkung von Lehrerfortbildungen auf Expertise von Lehrkräften zu formativem Assessment im kompetenzorientierten Mathematikunterricht [Impact of professional development on teachers’ expertise on formative assessment in competence oriented mathematics instruction]. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie, 47(2), 110–122. doi:10.1026/0049-8637/a000128.
4. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998a). Assessment and classroom learning. Assesment in Education, 5(1), 7–74.
5. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998b). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139–147.
6. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21, 5–31. doi:10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5.
7. Bliese, P. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. Klein & S. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 349–381). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
8. Brown, M., & Hodgen, J. (2010). Assessment in schools–mathematics. In E. Baker, B. McGaw & P. Peterson (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (3 edn., pp. 279–284). Oxford: Elsevier.
9. Cizek, G. (2010). An introduction to formative assessment: History, characteristics and challenges. In H. L. Andrade & G. J. Cizek (Eds.), Handbook of formative assessment (pp. 3–17). New York, NY: Routledge.
10. Collins, L., Schafer, J., & Kam, C. (2001). A comparison of inclusive and restrictive strategies in modern missing data procedures. Psychological Methods, 6(4), 330–351. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.6.4.330.
11. Desimone, L. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199. doi:10.3102/0013189X08331140.
12. Diamond, B. S., Maerten-Rivera, J., Rohrer, R. E., & Lee, O. (2014). Effectiveness of a curricular and professional development intervention at improving elementary teachers’ science content knowledge and student achievement outcomes: Year 1 results. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(5), 635–658.
13. Dresel, M., & Haugwitz, M. (2008). A computer-based approach to fostering motivation and self-regulated learning. The Journal of Experimental Education, 77(1), 3–18. doi:10.3200/JEXE.77.1.3-20.
14. Dunn, K. E., & Mulvenon, S. (2009). A critical review of research on formative assessment: The limited scientific evidence of the impact of formative assessment in education. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 14(7), 1–11.
15. Edwards, J., & Lambert, L. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12, 1–22. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.1.
16. Fauth, B., Decristan, J., Rieser, S., Klieme, E., & Büttner, G. (2014). Student ratings of teaching quality in primary school: Dimensions and prediction of student outcomes. Learning and Instruction, 29, 1–9. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.07.001.
17. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Karns, K., Hamlett, C. L., & Katzaroff, M. (1999). Mathematics performance assessment in the classroom: Effects on teacher planning and student problem solving. American Educational Research Journal, 36(3), 609–646. doi:10.3102/00028312036003609.
18. Gegenfurtner, A. (2011). Motivation and transfer in professional training: A meta-analysis of the moderating effects of knowledge type, instruction, and assessment conditions. Educational Research Review, 6(3), 153–168.
19. Gelman, A., & Carlin, J. (2014). Beyond power calculations: Assessing type S (sign) and type M (magnitude) errors. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(6), 641–651. doi:10.1177/1745691614551642.
20. Graham, J. (2003). Adding missing-data-relevant variables to FIML-based structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling, 10, 80–100. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM1001_4.
21. Harks, B. (2013). Kompetenzdiagnostik und Rückmeldung–zwei Komponenten formativen Assessments [Competence diagnostics and feedback–two components of formative assessment]. Unpublished dissertation.
22. Hattie, J. (2003). Formative and summative interpretations of assessment information. http://web.auckland.ac.nz/uoa/fms/default/education/staff/Prof.%20John%20Hattie/Documents/John%20Hattie%20Papers/assessment/Formative%20and%20Summative%20Assessment%20(2003).pdf. Accessed 1 May 2013.
23. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York, NY: Routledge.
24. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. doi:10.3102/003465430298487.
25. Heritage, M. (2007). Formative assessment: What do teachers need to know and do? Phi Delta Kappan, 89, 140–145.
26. Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., Garnier, H., Givvin, K. B., Hollingsworth, H., Jacobs, J., et al. (2003). Teaching mathematics in seven countries: Results from the TIMSS 1999 video study. NCES (2003–013). Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education/National Center for Education Statistics.
27. Hill, M., Cowie, B., Gilmore, A., & Smith, L. (2010). Preparing assessment-capable teachers: What should preservice teachers know and be able to do? Assessment Matters, 2, 43–64.
28. James, M., & Pedder, D. (2006). Professional learning as a condition for assessment for learning. In J. Gardner (Ed.), Assessment and learning (pp. 25–27). London: Sage.
29. Kim, M.-J., & Lehrer, R. (2015). Using learning progressions to design instructional trajectories. In C. Suurtamm & A. Roth McDuffie (Eds.), Annual perspectives in mathematics education:Assessment to enhance teaching and learning (pp. 27–38). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
30. Kingston, N., & Nash, B. (2011). Formative assessment: a meta-analysis and a call for research. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 4, 28–37. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.2011.00220.x.
31. Klimczak, M., Kampa, M., Bürgermeister, A., Harks, B., Rakoczy, K., Besser, M.,.. Leiss, D. (2012). Dokumentation der Befragungsinstrumente des Feldexperimentes im Projekt “Conditions and Consequences of Classroom Assessment” (Co²CA) [Documentation of the questionnaires of the laboratory experiment in the project ‘Conditions and Consequences of Classroom Assessment’ (Co²CA)].
32. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
33. 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, 254–284. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.119.2.254.
34. Koedinger, K. R., McLaughlin, E., & Heffernan, N. (2010). A quasi-experimental evaluation of an on-line formative assessment and tutoring system. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 43(1), 489–510. doi:10.2190/EC.43.4.d.
35. Krampen, G. (1987). Differential effects of teacher comments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 137–146. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.79.2.137.
36. Kultusministerkonferenz. (2003). Bildungsstandards im Fach Mathematik für den Mittleren Schulabschluss [National standards in mathematics for secondary school]. München: Luchterhand.
37. Kunter, M., Klusmann, U., Baumert, J., Richter, D., Voss, T., & Hachfeld, A. (2013). Professional competence of teachers: effects on instructional quality and student development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 805–820. doi:10.1037/a0032583.
38. Lehmann, R. H., & Seeber, S. (2005). Accelerated mathematics in grades 4–6. Summary of a quasi-experimental study in Northrhine-Westphalia, Germany. Madison, WI: Renaissance Learning, Inc. Retrieved from http://research.renlearn.com/research/pdfs/192.pdf.
39. Lipowsky, F., & Rzejak, D. (2012). Lehrerinnen und Lehrer als Lerner–Wann gelingt der Rollentausch [Teachers as learners–when does the role reversal work]? Schulpädagogik Heute, 5(3), 1–17.
40. Lüdtke, O., Robitzsch, A., Trautwein, U., & Köller, O. (2007). Umgang mit fehlenden Werten in der psychologischen Forschung [Dealing with missing data in psychological research]. Psychologische Rundschau, 58(2), 103–117.
41. Lüdtke, O., Robitzsch, A., Trautwein, U., & Kunter, M. (2009). Assessing the impact of learning environments: How to use student ratings of classroom or school characteristics in multilevel modeling. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(2), 120–131. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.12.001.
42. MacKinnon, D. (2008). Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. New York, NY: Erlbaum.
43. MacKinnon, D., Lockwood, C., & William, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(1), 99–128. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.83.
44. Mandl, H., & Gerstenmaier, J. (2000). Die Kluft zwischen Wissen und Handeln. Empirische und theoretische Lösungsansätze [The gap between knowledge and action]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
45. Marsh, H., Lüdtke, O., Nagengast, B., Trautwein, U., Morin, A., Abduljabbar, A., & Köller, O. (2012). Classroom climate and contextual effects: Conceptual and methodological issues in the evaluation of group-level effects. Educational Psychologist, 47(2), 106–124. doi:10.1080/00461520.2012.670488.
46. Mason, B., & Bruning, R. (2001). Providing feedback in computer-based instruction: What the research tells us. http://dwb.unl.edu/Edit/MB/MasonBruning.html. Accessed 1 May 2013.
47. Mischo, C., & Rheinberg, F. (1995). Erziehungsziele von Lehrern und individuelle Bezugsnormen der Leistungsbewertung [Educational goals of teachers and individual frames of reference of performance assessment]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 9(3/4), 139–151.
48. Multon, K., Brown, S., & Lent, R. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38(1), 30–38. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.38.1.30.
49. Muthén, B., & Asparouhov, T. (2015). Causal effects in mediation modeling: An introduction with applications to latent variables. Structural Equation Modeling, 22(1), 12–23. doi:10.1080/10705511.2014.935843.
50. Muthén, L., & Muthén, B. (1998–2007). Mplus (Version 6.1) [Computer software]. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
51. Pellegrino, J., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (2001). Knowing what students know. The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
52. Phelan, J., Choi, K., Vendlinski, T., Baker, E., & Herman, J. (2011). Differential improvement in student understanding of mathematical principles following formative assessment intervention. The Journal of Educational Research, 104, 330–339. doi: 10.1080/00220671.2010.484030.
53. Pintrich, P., & De Groot, E. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33.
54. Pugh, K., & Bergin, D. (2006). Motivational influences on transfer. Educational Psychologist, 41(3), 147–160. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4103_2.
55. 2CA-project. In D. Leutner, J. Fleischer, J. Grünkorn & E. Klieme (Eds.), Competence assessment in education: Research, models, and instruments. Berlin: Springer.
56. Renkl, A. (1996). Träges Wissen: Wenn Erlerntes nicht genutzt wird [Inert knowledge: When knowledge is not used]. Psychologische Rundschau, 47, 78–92.
57. Ruthven, K. (1994). Better judgement: Rethinking assessment in mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 27, 433–450. doi:10.1007/BF01273382.
58. Sadler, D. (1998). Formative assessment: Revisiting the territory. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 77–84. doi:10.1080/0969595980050104.
59. Schlomer, G., Bauman, S., & Card, N. (2010). Best practices for missing data management in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57(1), 1–10. doi:10.1037/a0018082.
60. Schneider, M., & Randel, B. (2010). Research on characteristics of effective professional development programs for enhancing educator’ skills in formative assessment. In H. Andrade & G. Cizek (Eds.), Handbook of formative assessment (pp. 251–276). New York, NY: Routledge.
61. Schunk, D. (1995). Self-efficacy and education and instruction. In J. Maddux (Ed.), Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment theory, research, and application (pp. 281–303). New York, NY: Springer.
62. Shavelson, R. (2008). Guest editor’s introduction. Applied Measurement in Education, 21(4), 293–294. doi:10.1080/08957340802347613.
63. Shih, S., & Alexander, J. (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, 536–544. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.92.3.536.
64. Shrout, P., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422–445. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.7.4.422.
65. Shute, V. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189. doi:10.3102/0034654307313795.
66. Simosi, M. (2012). The moderating role of self-efficacy in the organizational culture–training transfer relationship. International Journal of Training and Development, 16(2), 92–106. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2419.2011.00396.x.
67. Snijders, T., & Bosker, R. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. London: Sage.
68. Stajkovic, A., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 240–261. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.240.
69. Stein, M., & Wang, M. (1988). Teacher development and school improvement: The process of teacher change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(2), 171–187. doi:10.1016/0742-051X(88)90016-9.
70. Suurtamm, C., Thompson, D.R., Kim, R.Y., Moreno, L.D., Sayac, N., Schukajlow, S., Silver, E., Ufer, S., Vos, P. (2016). Assessment in mathematics education. Large-Scale assessment and classroom assessment. ICME 13 Topical Surveys. Springer Open.
71. Thompson, D. B. J. (2007). Effects of evaluative feedback on math self-efficacy, grade self-efficacy, and math achievement of ninth grade algebra students: A longitudinal approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Louisville, KY. http://gradworks.umi.com/32/68/3268832.html. Accessed 1 May 2013.
72. Thompson, D. R., & Kaur, B. (2011). Using a multi-dimensional approach to understanding to assess students’ mathematical knowledge. In B. Kaur & K. Y. Wong (Eds.), Assessment in the mathematics classroom: 2011 Association of Mathematics Educators Yearbook (pp. 17–32). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.
73. Toh, T. L., Quek, K. S., Leong, Y. H., Dindyal, J., & Tay, E. G. (2011). Assessing problem solving in the mathematics curriculum: A new approach. In B. Kaur & K. Y. Wong (Eds.), Assessment in the mathematics classroom: 2011 Association of Mathematics Educators Yearbook (pp. 33–66). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.
74. Voss, T., Kunter, M., Seiz, J., Hoehne, V., & Baumert, J. (2014). Die Bedeutung des pädagogisch-psychologischen Wissens von angehenden Lehrkräften für die Unterrichtsqualität [The relevance of educational psychological knowledge of preservice teachers for instructional quality]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 60(2), 184–201.
75. Whitehead, A. (1929). The aims of education. New York, NY: Mac Millan.
76. Wiliam, D., Lee, C., Harrison, C., & Black, P. (2004). Teachers developing assessment for learning: Impact on student achievement. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 11(1), 49–65. doi:10.1080/0969594042000208994.
77. Wiliam, D., & Thompson, M. (2008). Integrating assessment with learning: What will it take to make it work? In C. A. Dwyer (Ed.), The future of assessment: Shaping teaching and learning (pp. 53–82). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
78. Wylie, E., Gullickson, A., Cummings, K., Egelson, P., Noakes, L., Norman, K., et al. (2012). Improving formative assessment practice to empower student learning. Thousand Oakes, CA: Corwin.
79. Yin, Y., Shavelson, R., Ayala, C., Ruiz-Primo, M., Brandon, P., Furtak, E., et. al (2008). On the impact of formative assessment on student motivation, achievement, and conceptual change. Applied Measurement in Education, 21(4), 335–359. doi:10.1080/08957340802347845.
80. Ysseldyke, J. E., & Bolt, D. M. (2007). Effect of technology-enhanced continuous progress monitoring on math achievement. School Psychology Review, 36, 453–467.
81. Zimmerman, B. (2000). Attaining self-regulation. A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.