TEACHER FEEDBACK: STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS AND PREFERENCES AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE ON LEARNING AT AN INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL IN THAILAND.

TEACHER FEEDBACK Asia-Pacific International University TEACHER FEEDBACK: STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS AND PREFERENCES AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE ON LEARNING AT AN INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL IN THAILAND A Master thesis Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree MASTER OF EDUCATION by Rojean Marcia May 2020

TEACHER FEEDBACK i A Master thesis Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree MASTER OF EDUCATION By ROJEAN MARCIA APPROVAL BY THE COMMITTEE Henry Foster, Ph.D Josephine Esther Katenga, PhD Research Advisor Chair of Master Program Amanda Simon, Ph.D Naltan Lampadan Panelist Dean, Faculty of Education Jimmy Kijai, PhD External Examiner TEACHER FEEDBACK: STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS AND PREFERENCES AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE ON LEARNING AT AN INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL IN THAILAND

TEACHER FEEDBACK ii ABSTRACT Master of Education Emphasis in TESOL Asia-Pacific International University Faculty of Education TITLE: TEACHER FEEDBACK: STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS AND PREFERENCES AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE ON LEARNING AT AN INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL IN THAILAND. Researcher: Rojean Marcia Research advisor: Dr. Henry Foster Date Completed: May, 2019 Being up-to-date with researched-based teaching practice is essential to providing quality education. To achieve this goal, this quantitative study investigated the relationship between teacher feedback and academic performance in an international school. A paper-and-pencil survey questionnaire adapted from Rowe and Wood (2008) was administered among grades 9-12 students. Data was collected through purposive sampling (N= 78). Descriptive statistics analysis revealed teacher feedback methods were grades and comments either individual verbal, individual written, group verbal or group written. Students valued teacher feedback that specifically tells what needs to be improved, what the teachers’ expectations are and is relevant to the purpose of the assignment. They preferred teacher feedback on the errors they make,

TEACHER FEEDBACK iii on their right and wrong answers and through sample answers posted on Schoology, which were indicative of teacher feedback on surface learning. Preferred teacher feedback on deep learning included discussing the subject with the teacher, for guidance on how to work out the answers on their own and participation in classroom discussion. Although, overall, teacher feedback was found to have no significant relationship to Cumulative Grade Point Average, this study is potentially useful to teachers, as knowing what matters to the students could help them determine for themselves how to improve their immediate learning environment.

TEACHER FEEDBACK iv DECLARATION I, Rojean Marcia, do hereby declare that: • This thesis is a presentation of my original research work. • Wherever contributions of others are involved, every effort is made to indicate this clearly, with due reference to the literature, and acknowledgement of collaborative research and discussions. • The substance of this thesis has not been presented, in whole, or part by me, to any other institution for a degree. • The author hereby grants to Asia-Pacific International University permission to reproduce and to distribute publicly paper and electronic copies of this thesis document in whole or in part. Rojean Marcia May 19, 2019

TEACHER FEEDBACK v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank God for His mercy and care by providing the following who have helped me complete this study. Dr. Henry Foster and Jimmy Kijai for tirelessly going through my paper and for providing support and encouragement. To the Asia-Pacific International University Library staff for assisting me with materials I needed whether online or printed. To the administrator of Adventist International Mission School, who has allowed me to conduct my study at AIMS. To the participants in this research who were willing to share their time and knowledge. To my research and defense classmates, Linda Wong, Bee, Faridah Lausin, Kitty, for making our time together as fun as possible. To my parents and siblings who prayed for me and gave me encouragement while I was working on my thesis. To Dr. Don and Ma’am Janella Abbey for spending time with me and provided a warm and caring learning environment for me when I was working part of chapter 4. Lastly, to my neighbors and friends who showed concern and care.

TEACHER FEEDBACK vi TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................ii DECLARATION ..........................................................................................................iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...........................................................................................v LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................ix LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................ix CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................1 Background and Rationale ............................................................................1 Rationale .......................................................................................................2 Statement of the Problem..............................................................................2 Purpose of the Study .....................................................................................3 Research Questions.......................................................................................3 Significance of the Study ..............................................................................3 Definition of Terms.......................................................................................4 Limitation......................................................................................................4 Delimitation ..................................................................................................5 Organization of the Study .............................................................................5 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................................................6 Introduction...................................................................................................6 Feedback .......................................................................................................6 Methods of Feedback ....................................................................................7 Effective Feedback........................................................................................8 Perceptions of Feedback .............................................................................10 Feedback for Motivation to Learn.....................................................11 Feedback for Self-regulation .............................................................13 Preferences of Feedback .............................................................................15 Surface Learning feedback ................................................................16 Deep Learning Feedback...................................................................18

TEACHER FEEDBACK vii Relationship to Student Learning................................................................20 Conceptual Framework ...............................................................................21 Composition of Teacher Feedback....................................................22 Conclusion ..................................................................................................22 3. METHODOLOGY ..........................................................................................24 Introduction.................................................................................................24 Research Questions.....................................................................................24 Research Design..........................................................................................24 Population and Sample................................................................................25 Instrumentation ...........................................................................................25 Procedure.....................................................................................................26 Data Analysis..............................................................................................27 Ethical Considerations ................................................................................28 Confidentiality and Anonymity.........................................................28 Summary .....................................................................................................29 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION......................................................................30 Introduction.................................................................................................30 Description of the Sample...........................................................................30 Results by Research Question.....................................................................32 Surface Learning ...............................................................................36 Deep Learning ...................................................................................36 Summary of Major Findings.......................................................................39 5. CONCLUSION................................................................................................41 Introduction.................................................................................................41 Purpose of the study....................................................................................41 Summary of Literature Review...................................................................42 Methods .....................................................................................................43 Results and Discussion................................................................................43 Feedback for surface learning ...........................................................46 Feedback for deep learning. ..............................................................47 Conclusion ..................................................................................................49 Limitation....................................................................................................49 Implication ..................................................................................................49 For Theory and Practice ....................................................................50

TEACHER FEEDBACK viii For Future Research ..........................................................................50 REFERENCES LIST...................................................................................................51 APPENDIX..................................................................................................................62

TEACHER FEEDBACK ix LIST OF TABLES 1. Descriptive Statistics and Reliability Estimates of Feedback Preferences (N=78)..........................................................................................27 2. Demographic Characteristics of Participants (n=78).......................................31 3. Methods of Teacher Feedback.........................................................................33 4. Feedback for Motivation to Learn ...................................................................34 5. Feedback for Self-Regulation ..........................................................................35 6. Item Statistics for Surface Learning (N=78)....................................................37 7. Item Statistics for Deep Learning (N=78) .......................................................38 8. Inter-Correlation Between CGPA and Teacher Feedback Categories (n=78)...............................................................................................................39 9. Regression Analysis Results for Predicting CGPA .........................................40 LIST OF FIGURES 1. Relationship Between Teacher Feedback and Student Learning.....................22

TEACHER FEEDBACK 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Every teacher desire is for their students to succeed, however, some students still struggle. In the most recent Programme for International Students Assessment (Pisa) report, Thailand ranked 54th out of the 70 assessed countries with scores dropping in all subjects since 2012 (Padkuntod, 2017). The Programme for International Student Assessment (Pisa) is a worldwide study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in member and non-member nations intended to evaluate educational systems by measuring 15-year-old school pupils' scholastic performance on mathematics, science, and reading. A possible solution for the Thai students’ drops in scores since 2012, may be related to how effectively teachers use feedback. Background and Rationale Teacher feedback plays a very significant role in learning. Twelve years ago, I realized the positive and negative effect of teacher feedback in my class. Since then, I was driven to do whatever I could to learn to provide better feedback to my students. Each learner needs a committed teacher who can coach them in a way that directs every intention and desire to achieve the highest possible attainable goal at school and in life. Many research studies have suggested that teacher feedback is an important factor in explaining student achievement. Many teachers think they have done their job when they have written comments or identified mistakes on the student’s paper

TEACHER FEEDBACK 2 (Wiliam, 2016). But this is not what feedback is about. In fact, it is how the students perceive feedback that affect how they receive or make use of it. There are, however, only a few studies regarding students’ perceptions (Rowe & Wood, 2008) especially its relation to achievement (Strijbos, Narciss, & Dunnebier, 2010). The researcher conducted the study at Adventist International Mission School, where the researcher is employed in an effort to find out exactly how teacher feedback affects learning in this school and perhaps how it can benefit from the study. Adventist International Mission School (AIMS), a Seventh-day Adventist private school. AIMS is a co-educational school for students from preschool to grade 12 and serves as a laboratory school for the Asia-Pacific International University Education Department. Eighty percent of the student population is Thai from the low-middle to middle socio-economic class of the towns within a radius of 40 kilometers. The enrollment of AIMS has grown from 102 students in 2002 to 425 in 2017. Rationale At the time this study was started, there were no research conducted on students’ preferences and perceptions of teacher feedback in Thailand and specifically at AIMS. Thus, it deserves scholarly attention. The present study describes the students’ perceptions and preferences of teacher feedback and how these factors relate to student learning. This study is intended to provide information on how to value student feedback and how to use it to improve the students’ learning. Statement of the Problem Although, there have been studies on teacher feedback and its relationship to academic performance, there are but a few that looked at the importance of the

TEACHER FEEDBACK 3 students’ preferences and perceptions of teacher feedback especially among high school students. This study was conducted among the grades 9-12 students at AIMS in 2017. This school was specifically chosen since approximately 90% of the students at AIMS stay from kindergarten to high school, (about 16 years) which gives credibility to their responses about teacher feedback. Purpose of the Study The purpose of the study is to determine how teacher feedback relates to academic performance. Research Questions 1. What are the reported methods of teacher feedback? 2. What are the feedback perceptions of students? 3. What are the student preferences for teacher feedback? 4. To what extent are cumulative grade point averages (CGPA) related to student preferences and perceived value of teacher feedback? Chapter 2 defines feedback, different methods in which it is given, the levels of teacher feedback, as well as how students perceive and prefer to receive teacher feedback and its relationship to academic performance. Significance of the Study This study can become significant if AIMS’ administration can be persuaded to see the potential of the feedback as promoted by Hattie (2012) in assisting students learning. Professional development opportunities can be organized for teachers to study and implement the types of feedback that is believed to link directly to achievement. If given a chance, the students will benefit from this study by being

TEACHER FEEDBACK 4 made aware of the value of feedback and how to respond to it so their learning becomes meaningful. Definition of Terms In this study the following terms are operationally defined as follows: Teacher feedback is information given by the teacher to the student about his or her performance. It provides a foundation for positive student and teacher relationships. Perception is feedback that motivate students to learn and that promotes selfregulation. Preference is the ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses. When applied to feedback it that can either be surface learning or deep learning. Academic performance refers to the student’s achievement or learning based on the cumulative grade point average (CGPA), on a 4-point grading scale of 4, 3, 2, 1. Surface learning refers to superficial or incomplete learning. When applied to feedback it is specific to the rightness or wrongness of the answers or the mere giving of sample answers. It could also be a general feedback given to the entire class. Deep learning is when students relate or extend or transfer learning. When applied to feedback it promotes discussion, independent thinking, clarifying issues and guiding students to work our answers for themselves. Limitation The researcher found it difficult to find a study on preferences and perceptions of teacher feedback in Asia. Thus, this study adapted the questionnaire of a similar

TEACHER FEEDBACK 5 study in Australia with minor word change to fit AIMS’ context. Furthermore, since this study surveyed intact classes, it posed the potential problem of selection bias due to the lack of random assignment. These limiting factors call for caution regarding the generalizability and the interpretation of results. Delimitation This scope of this study was delimited by several constraints. First, the students surveyed came from grades 9-12 in one private school in Thailand, who were enrolled in the 2016-2017 school year. The reason being is a direct, ready access to the students and knowledge about the organization and system. Besides, this group was better equipped with the overall scope and awareness of teacher feedback practices because they have been at AIMS since kindergarten. Second, the study was focused on the preferences and perceptions of students. No attempt was made to measure these factors in teachers since the focus of this research is on perceptions and preferences of teacher feedback. This is the researcher’s self-imposed limitation for the reason of brevity and relevance to the current study. Organization of the Study The chapters are organized as follows: Chapter 2 discusses the existing literature on teacher feedback and provides the conceptual framework. Chapter 3 is a detailed account of the research methodology, which includes the population, data collection and analysis methods. Chapter 4 contains the data analysis, and the outcome of the study. Finally, Chapter 5 discusses the findings and concludes with recommendations.

TEACHER FEEDBACK 6 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction This chapter presents related literature about feedback, methods of feedback, levels of feedback, and its relationship to learning. It is directed towards the exploration of the student perceptions and preferences on teacher feedback and its relationship to academic performance. Feedback Teacher feedback is any information regarding schoolwork given either verbally or in written form. Instead of being considered as a continuous conversation between the teacher and student, Seker and Dincer, (2014, p. 73) defined feedback as “[the] post-response information which informs the learners on their actual states of learning and/or performance in order to help them detect if their states corresponds to the learning aims in a given context.” Mulliner and Tucker, (2017) and Ouahidi and Lamkhanter, (2017) conceptualized feedback as the knowledge of results of the correction of errors. In this study, however, feedback is information that helps students bridge their learning gap (Sardareh, 2016; Hattie, 2012; Weaver, 2006; Havnes, et al., 2012; Mulliner & Tucker, 2017; Fisher, Frey, & Hattie; 2017). Feedback tells students where they are in their learning and what steps they need to take to move forward (Wiliam & Leahy, 2015; Hattie, 2012).

TEACHER FEEDBACK 7 Methods of Feedback Feedback may come in many forms. The most common mode is correcting student answers or errors (Singh, et al., 2017). Li, Cao and Mok (2016) argue that it is important to consider how feedback is given, as different types of feedback have different effects on student learning. On the other hand, Khah and Farahian, (2016) found that feedback is beneficial for learning, regardless of the feedback strategies. Oral/Verbal Feedback is the spoken feedback given to individual students or the class. It plays an important role in classroom teaching (Li, et. al.; 2016) and although, audio feedback is particularly easy to assimilate (Knauf, 2016), it is crucial to know when to use it. According to Brookhart, (2008) Oral feedback is intended for students who don’t read or those needing more information. However, if many students in class have made the same mistakes, the whole class can benefit from oral feedback. It saves time and it can serve as a mini-lesson review session. Written Feedback is valuable because the students can reread it or refer to it in the future. Before considering the use of this procedure, it is important that the teacher determine the reading ability of the students (Brookhart, 2008). Apparently, English teachers used this as their primary method for providing feedback (Saefurrohman, & Balinas; 2016). Students prefer written feedback as well (Johnson & Cooke, 2016; Knauf, 2016). However, even students who can read well, find written feedback challenging due to the “eligibility” of the comment or as Carless, (2006) calls it “academic discourse”, which the students do not understand. This affects how the feedback is received (Weaver, 2006). In addition, “written feedback is most helpful as formative assessment on drafts of assignments, although it is also helpful on summative assessments if students are provided with opportunities to apply the feedback” (Brookhart, 2008 p. 46).

TEACHER FEEDBACK 8 Nowadays, due to the availability of technology, teachers can go either traditional or electronic when giving feedback. Farshi and Safa; (2015) found electronic feedback to be more effective. Because it can be delivered immediately, students are able to respond to it while they are still thinking about what they are learning. While some students prefer oral feedback over written feedback. Crimmins, et al., (2016) found students preferred combining written, reflective and dialogic processes. Reflective process is that which relates to or characterized by deep thought while dialogic relates to or a form of dialogue. There may be situations where teachers are unwilling or unable to give feedback on a given work. In their study, Rowe and Wood, (2008) caution that all students reported that the worst feedback was receiving no feedback at all. In fact, a majority of students and staff agreed that a grade without feedback was insufficient even if returned quickly (Mulliner & Tucker, 2017). Effective Feedback Effective Feedback answers three questions in either task, process or selfregulation levels which are, where is the student going? how is the student going? and where to next? Feedback that answers the question where is the student going? describes the goal clearly and shows how the student would know when he or she reaches the goal. This feedback also includes advice on how to improve so the student can get to the goal (Hattie, 2012; Ellis & Loughland, 2017). Murtagh, (2014) believes that most effective feedback is connected to goals (p.533); but, they have to be challenging goals. Appropriately challenging tasks creates a response from students and in turn keep them growing and learning (Fisher, Frey & Hattie, 2017). On the other hand, feedback that answers the question how is the student going? describes where the

TEACHER FEEDBACK 9 student is on the learning continuum (Hattie, 2012; Ellis & Loughland, 2017). This feedback describes the student work and makes suggestions for improvement (Brookhart, 2008). However, the student needs to be given time to be able to use the suggestions and to readjust their thinking (Havnes, et al., 2012; Yilmaz, 2017). In this study, feedback that answers where and how is the student going? are termed feedback for motivation to learn. In this study, motivation to learn has been identified by the students as an important feedback that helps them in their learning. Feedback that answers the question where to next? describes the steps or direction towards the goal (Hattie, 2012; Ellis & Loughland, 2017). “It is important that feedback gives detailed direction for future improvement” (Mulliner & Tucker, 2017 p. 13). Besides, teachers need to focus on getting their students to move from mastery of content to mastery of strategies of conceptual understanding (Hattie, 2012). In this study, this feedback that answers where to next? is termed as feedback for self-regulation. There are three levels of feedback included in this study: Task, process and self-regulation. First, Task feedback. Feedback at this level describes how well the student understood and performed a given task (Hattie, 2012) which is tied to a learning target (Brookhart, 2008). Although, this feedback is necessary, it is not sufficient; Weaver, (2006); Hattie (2012) agree and state: feedback that provide alternative processing, reducing cognitive load, helping to develop learning strategies and error detection, cueing to seek a more effective information search, recognizing relationships between ideas, and employing task strategies … appears to be more effective for enhancing deeper learning than feedback on the task. (Hattie, 2012 p. 134)

TEACHER FEEDBACK 10 In this study, task feedback is referred to as surface learning feedback. Second, Process feedback. Feedback at this level describes the processes that the students used to understand and perform the tasks (Hattie, 2012). It gives information about how to do a task, how the task was performed, the quality of their work and about possible change in the strategies they used in performing the task (Brookhart, 2008). Third, Self-Regulation feedback. Feedback at this level describes how learners can self-monitor, direct, and regulate their own learning (Hattie, 2012). This feedback will help students figure out how to improve (Brookhart, 2008). In this study, both process and self-regulation feedback are referred to as deep learning. Perceptions of Feedback Students see the necessity of good feedback and perceived feedback as important and helpful. They value feedback but it needs to be demonstrated by the teachers to be useful (Azad, 2016; Chang, 2016; Karlsen, 2017; Wang, 2017; Rowe & Wood, 2008; Winstone, Nash, Rowntree & Menezes, 2016). Teachers need to explain the feedback they give, what they mean, and what they expect the students to do. Students view feedback as helpful when: it builds self-confidence and self-evaluation (Struyven, Dochy & Janssens, 2005), it assists them in preparation for the final exam, and for applying skills from one area of study to another (Rowe & Wood, 2008); it includes both diagnosis and guidance (Weaver, 2006) and information is given in addition to their mark or grade (Rowe & Wood, 2008). However, “if learners do not perceive the corrective nature of feedback and if their perception differs from their teachers’ intention, they may not benefit from feedback (Nassaji & Fu, 2016 p. 162).

TEACHER FEEDBACK 11 Perception of feedback affects its effectiveness. It can include the length, intensity, error types, and the context in which feedback is provided (Nassaji & Fu, 2016), and the trustworthiness of the teacher (Carless, 2006; Karlsen, 2017). According to Carless, (2006 p. 221), “Feedback is a social process in which elements, such as discourse, power and emotion impact on how messages can be interpreted.” To which Fisher, Frey and Hattie (2017, loc 505) add, “when students believe that the teacher is credible, they are more likely to develop positive relationships with that teacher, and then learn more from him or her. Teacher credibility includes trust, competence, dynamism and immediacy.” Although, there are many factors that ensure the positive response of students on teacher feedback (Dowden, Pittaway, Yost & McCarthy, 2013; Havnes, et al., 2012; Rakoczy, Harks, Klieme, Blum & Hochweber, 2013; Carvalho, Santos, Conboy & Martins, 2014) here are some of the determining factors to ensure that feedback will be acted upon. Firstly, it has to be understandable and students need to clearly know what the feedback means. Secondly, in order to use it, students must understand it (Mulliner & Tucker, 2017; Carless, 2006; Brookhart, 2008; Hattie, 2012). Even though, students have every intent to improve their work but If they do not understand the feedback, how can they act upon it to improve? It will be challenging for students to understand and act on a feedback written in a language only the teacher understands (Weaver, 2006). For the purposes of this study, perceptions of feedback are grouped into feedback for motivation to learn and feedback for self-regulation. Feedback for Motivation to Learn In a learning context, feedback is a powerful tool in motivating students (Rowe & Wood, 2008; Murtagh, 2014; Brookhart, 2008). Feedback that answers where is the student going? and how is the student going? are considered feedback

TEACHER FEEDBACK 12 that motivates students. Feedback on the expectations of the teachers and how to improve the performance or results of students show care and respect for the efforts of the students and encourages them to learn. Sections A, B, and C are examples of feedback for motivation to learn. A. Feedback about teacher expectations When teachers comment or write on student work, the students can understand better the expressed or implied expectations of the teacher. Students can tell from the feedback whether or not the teacher expects cursory or high-quality work (Seker & Dincer, 2014; Rubie-Davies, Peterson, Sibley & Rosenthal, 2015). The aim of feedback according to Hattie (2012 p. 137) in essence, the aim of feedback is to inform students where they are in the learning process and what they need to do to get to the next level. However, a study by Blair & McGinty, (2013) showed how students find these expectations difficult to understand while teachers find it difficult to explain them. For feedback to be helpful, expectations must be clear. Due to how the feedback is worded or the use of academic language only the teachers understand, the students are not able to respond appropriately (Blair & McGinty, 2013; Mitchell, Hirn, & Lewis; 2017). B. Feedback that shows care about the students’ work When students put in a lot of effort in their assignment, and there is no indication that the teacher has noticed their work, because of the absence of feedback, students feel sad and discouraged. On the other hand, studies show that students who received feedback felt cared for and respected (Seker & Dincer, 2014; Rowe & Wood, 2008) i.e., when teachers take the effort to show they actually took the time to read the students work, by commenting on what has been done. Brookhart (2008 p. 17)

TEACHER FEEDBACK 13 adds, that the feedback to individual students, ought to be in terms the students can understand. That simple act is powerful in itself because, in addition to the information provided, it communicates to the student a sense that the teacher cared about their individual progress. C. Feedback that motivates According to Brookhart (2008), the group that did not receive feedback was less motivated. Brookhart goes on to indicate that feedback which motivate includes clues i.e., asking questions about the topic, clues that stimulate thinking and clues on how to guess the meaning of new words (Mohar, Singh, Kepol, Ahmad & Moneyam; 2017). Weaver (2006) agrees that students value constructive feedback. Additionally, according to Astuti, (2016), the way feedback is given influences the students’ motivation. The traditional classroom where points are used are too slow to motivate students (Grigoryan, 2018; Shepard, Penuel & Pellegrino; 2018). Points do not inform how to improve the work. Points mean what the mistakes were but they do not show how to get them right. Teachers could use reasonable comments or feedback on how to improve their assignments instead of just giving points. Although, feedback is helpful, it is important to note that giving feedback to every piece of student’s work can undermine the intrinsic motivation of students (Murtagh, 2014). Feedback for Self-regulation When students are enabled to have a certain amount of control over their learning, they will respond better to feedback. Teachers can provide feedback that could encourage students to monitor and maintain the direction of their learning. This would mean that the goals set for activities are clear and understandable and there should be a meaningful purpose for them. Such feedback builds confidence and empowers the students to reach heights of learning. When students feel they

TEACHER FEEDBACK 14 understand the task and its purpose, they will be able to regulate their learning (Brookhart, 2008). Students need to be informed about what is going on in their learning, how they are doing, and the next steps to take to reach their goals. If the students are constantly aware of their learning, they can become life-long learners (Hattie, 2012). Feedback that answers the question where to next? is referred to as self-regulation feedback. This feedback is related to the purpose of the assignment that can be applied in other classes as well as to the goals of the students. It is enough information given willingly by active teachers in a timely manner. The following sections A, B and C are examples of feedback for self-regulation that was measured in this study. A. Feedback is relevant to the purpose of assignment Feedback has to be related to the task and processes that the students do or will do for it to be meaningful. In a study by Rowe and Wood (2008), they found that where students perceived the feedback to be irrelevant to future assessments, they did not consider the feedback as important. I believe this perception is reasonable. Useful feedback is supposed to reinforce or modify a learned concept or skill, if the feedback is not related to these, then it becomes useless. B. Feedback is relevant to students’ goals Student value feedback that could help them achieve their learning goal. Feedback should be designed in a way that clearly and specifically points out what needs to be improved and include suggestions on how to fix the problem. To be effective, developmental feedback therefore needs to encompass more than an appropriate explanation or justification of the assessment given. It needs to be perceived as timely and relevant to the student’s future studies and focused on valued and attainable objectives (Rowe & Wood, 2008).

TEACHER FEEDBACK 15 C. Feedback is provided within two weeks Feedback has to be given during a period while the activity is still fresh in the minds of the students and when there is still opportunity to use it. Wiliam and Leahy, (2015, p. 9) stated that, “the shorter the time interval between eliciting the evidence and using it to improve instruction, the bigger the likely impact on learning.” To which Brookhart (2008 p. 1) adds, “feedback is just-in-time, just-for-me information delivered when and where it can do the most good”. In a study by Farahani and Salajegheh (2015), the students preferred correction time at the end of the class (M=3.59, N=428) in contrast to the finding in the study of Alhaysony, (2016), where students preferred correction after finished speaking (M=3.08) which is similar with the findings of Azad, (2016) where 77.5% of students preferred immediate correction of oral errors. Although, one of the main responsibilities of a teacher is to provide timely feedback, however, this might not always be possible due to teachers’ workload and time constraints so some students came up with a realistic timing for teacher feedback. In a study by Mulliner and Tucker, (2017) the students as a general rule were prepared to wait for feedback within 10 working days. While the students were willing to wait to a maximum of 15 working days in the case of group work and midmodule assignments, however, for essays and reports, they need feedback prior to the next assignment. For multiple choice and short answer questions, the students wanted the feedback in 5 working days (Rowe & Wood, 2008). Ultimately, late feedback becomes useless to students (Mulliner & Tucker, 2017) and waiting too long demotivated them (Seker & Dincer, 2014). Preferences of Feedback

TEACHER FEEDBACK 16 Students preferred teacher feedback and success criteria to support their learning (Sanu, 2016; DeLuca, Chapman-Chin, LaPointe-McEwan & Klinger, 2018). Success criteria could come in a form of a rubric that clearly outlines what it means to reach the goal. Most students prefer feedback which enables them to get more information through dialogue (Mulliner & Tucker, 2017; Kerr, 2017; Alhaysony, 2016). Havnes, et al., (2012 p. 1) suggests that for “feedback to enhance learning the feedback needs to be formulated, delivered and framed in such a way that it invites learner’s active engagement with the feedback.” When students get to talk about their learning, and the teachers make an effort to improve their practice, this process will not only help the students with their learning and academic performance but it improves the relationship of the student and teacher (Murtagh, 2014). For the purposes of this study, preferences of feedback are grouped into surface learning feedback and deep learning feedback. Surface Learning feedback Surface learning is about the idea, the context, the knowledge and the information students use. Students who are mainly concerned about class requirements, for instance, will opt to memorizing facts rather want to apply the knowledge. In this study, surface learning feedback is referred to as task feedback which is specific to the rightness or wrongness of the answers or the mere giving of sample answers. It could also be a general feedback given to the entire class. The following sections A, B, C and D are among the surface learning feedback that were included in this study. A. Feedback that helps in understanding right and wrong answers Helpful feedback is specific. Brookhart (2008) agrees by saying that effective feedback is “specific enough so the student knows what to do next, but it leaves the

TEACHER FEEDBACK 17 student with some thinking to do.” Good feedback provides “details,” and not merely “superficial comment” (Rowe & Wood, 2008). Feedback also “provides details on how to improve rather than just indicating whether a student’s work is correct or not” (Murtagh, 2014 p. 518). Students who are mindful of what they are learning will always want to know what they did right or wrong (Chokwe, 2015; Ouahidi & Lamkhanter, 2017), although it varies among students depending on levels of proficiency. Learners’ level of proficiency causes differences in the type of errors produced by them (Amiri, 2016) and the responses from the teacher. According to Hattie (2012), learners who are just beginning primarily school need feedback about the task. Those who are “somewhat proficient” need feedback on how they learn, while the “competent” ones need feedback on self-regulation, feedback that answers the question where to next? and conceptual feedback. Apparently, high performing students ask questions in class and ask for feedback regarding assignments (Cerna & Pavliushchenko, 2015). But feedback given at an individual level is to be truly helpful, it should not be too general, it should not lack detail, and it should contain suggestions on how to improve the work (Weaver, 2006). B. General Feedback in class Rowe and Wood (2008) found that the respondents preferred verbal group feedback “where the tutor [teacher] could address general issues or problems about a particular assessment item” or when a teacher speaks to a whole class “about a common misconception” (Brookhart, 2008). Students perceived verbal feedback as a form of focused conversation (Kerr, 2017). Carless (2006) adds, “although many teachers give a lot of feedback on specifics, it is general feedback given to the whole class that has the greater power to stimulate learning” (p. 33).

TEACHER FEEDBACK 18 C. Written Feedback Written feedback can become unreliable when there is inconsistency in marking. For instance, when teachers give longer comments than the paper itself, long comments on poor-quality work and when every error in mechanics is pointed out (Brookhart, 2008). However, if teachers talk to the students about the kinds of written feedback and what is required before a writing class begins, the students will know what to do. This is helpful feedback (Atmaca, 2016). In the study done by Rowe and Wood (2008), written feedback was preferred but it should be linked to a marking scheme as Mulliner and Tucker (2017) found in their study. D. Feedback as answers Students’ preference of just having the answers given to them indicates the type of the learners. Students who expect to be given the answer, as Rowe and Wood (2008) found in their study where students liked being provided with an ideal sample answer, were found to be low-achievers (Zeng, 2016). Low achievers view feedback as discouraging so they prefer to be given the correct answer in which case flash cards for studying facts work best because flash cards provide immediate right or wrong answers (Carless, 2006; Brookhart, 2008). Deep Learning Feedback The goal of every teacher should be for every student to learn deeply. Deep Learning takes place when students relate or extend or transfer surface learning. Skills that indicate deep learning include application, analysis, evaluating and creating (Anderson, Krathwohl, & Bloom; (2001). Feedback can affect learning transfer when it is consistently provided (Godinez & Leslie, 2015), and where there are opportunities for student engagement and reflection (McCann, 2017).

TEACHER FEEDBACK 19 In this study, deep learning feedback is referred to as a self-regulating process that promotes discussion, independent thinking, clarifies issues with the teacher and guides students to work out answers for themselves. The following sections A and B are examples of deep learning feedback surveyed in this study. A. Discuss the subject with the teacher Feedback is two-way communication between teacher and student. In a study by Mulliner and Tucker (2017, p.13) the majority of the respondents “felt that it was important that students have opportunity to discuss feedback with the lecturer [teacher] face-to-face” such feedback “engages students more meaningfully in the assessment and feedback process.” It is also a time when the teacher could explain and justify why marks were given (Chalmers, Mowat & Chapman, 2018). Dialogue is a rich source of understanding of learning (Rodgers, 2018). There were four categories of classroom settings that students referred to as potentially feedback-rich (where dialogue can likely take place): the teacher’s working through the test or assignment when it was returned to the students after corrections, student presentations of their projects, group-work and discussions among the teacher and students (Havnes, et al., 2012). Mulliner and Tucker, (2017) mentioned that where there is no dialogue, students fail to act on the feedback. The absence of dialogue “may engender negative consequences such as student dissatisfaction, underachievement or even impact negatively on retention” (Carless, 2006). B. Participating in classroom discussion Interaction in the classroom as a result of working together has the potential to create an environment of deep learning. Blair and McGinty, (2013) mentioned that, feedback-dialogues as a collaborative discussion about feedback (between teacher and

TEACHER FEEDBACK 20 student or student to student) enables shared understandings and subsequently provides opportunities for further development based on the exchange. MacLellan, (2001) added that if assessment is to have a formative influence, then learners must be involved in the process. Feedback should be a collaborative process. Murtagh, (2014 p. 536) agreed by saying that “fostering dialogue at the classroom level, enabling the pupils’ voice to be heard and valued has the potential not only to improve relationships but to enhance learning and achievement which policy makers seek.” Finally, complex tasks that involve collaboration result in deep learning (Fisher, Frey & Hattie; 2017). Relationship to Student Learning Teacher feedback and student learning are interwoven. Feedback is widely considered as central to learning and afundamental aspect in the teaching and learning process (Mulliner & Tucker, 2017; Carless, 2006; Seker & Dincer, 2014; Murtagh, 2014; Chokwe, 2015). It has a critical, crucial and decisive role in learning and development (Johnson & Cooke, 2016; Seker & Dincer, 2014; Carless, 2006). Feedback has the strongest influence and one of the highest effects on student learning (Havnes, Smith, Dysthe & Ludvigsen, 2012; Klein, Fukawa-Connelly & Silverman; 2016; Hattie, 2012). The researcher believes that feedback plays a crucial role in the students’ learning. Feedback is known to enhance student performance and achievement (Alacapinar, 2016). It is one of the important reasons for achievement increase (Nielsen, 2015). Besides, “high-quality feedback is [the] most powerful single influence on student achievement” (Mulliner & Tucker, 2017 p. 1). Feedback by itself is useless unless coupled with teaching or instruction. Research by Wiggins (2012, p. 13), indicates that “less teaching plus more feedback is the key to achieving greater

TEACHER FEEDBACK 21 learning.” This statement means that teachers refrain from solely lecture-type teaching strategy. Instead, after a direct teaching strategy, ample time is given to students to practice and apply what they have learned. While the students practice and apply, the teacher can provide guidance through feedback. The use of varied types of feedback improves learning whether in problem solving or English Language learning (Lyster & Ratna, 2013; Fyfe & Rittle-Johnson, 2015). Teacher feedback reduced the grammatical errors and improved their language achievement in writing, in repeated reading fluency intervention, and in feedback provided to the students after every performance related to reading and had positive impact on the student's reading fluency (Khah & Farahian, 2016; Biber, Nekrasova, & Horn, 2011; Van Beuningen, De Jong, & Kuiken, 2012; Ates, 2013). Feedback, if implemented correctly, will lead to improved results on English Proficiency (Stefanson, 2012). Explicit teacher feedback improved language learners’ speech in oral English accuracy (Abedini & Shahnazari, 2016; Muhsin, 2016), but only a small effect in promoting language learning (Miller & Pan, 2016). There are limited studies that claim teacher feedback affects learning negatively. Baadte, and Schnotz, (2014) found that in a third of the studies they had examined, feedback either decreased performance or had no effect on performance at all. Havnes,et al, (2012) also found that more than one third of the effects indicated negative impact of feedback on learning. Feedback other than that promulgated by Hattie (2012) could have a negative impact on learning. Factors such as amount of feedback, timing and relevance affect the effectiveness of teacher feedback. Conceptual Framework Based on the discussion in this chapter, it is obvious that teacher feedback is a comprehensive concept. The conceptual framework developed in this study is a

TEACHER FEEDBACK 22 synthesis of the variables of teacher feedback that makes this study relevant. The researcher adapted the constructs from Rowe and Wood, (2008). Figure 1. Relationship Between Teacher Feedback and Student Learning Composition of Teacher Feedback Teacher Feedback in this study is grouped into perceptions of feedback and preferences of feedback. Perceptions was divided into two subgroups: feedback for motivation to learn and feedback for self-regulation. Whereas, preferences of feedback were divided into surface learning and deep learning. The conceptual framework which follows shows the relationship between the perceptions of feedback and the preferences for feedback to student learning. It is believed that effective feedback promotes learning. Conclusion This chapter covered feedback and learning, the definition of feedback, methods of feedback, level of effective feedback, perceptions of feedback which is Perceptions of feedback: motivation and self-regulation Preferences for Feedback: surface and deep learning Student Learning (CGPA) Independent Variable (IV) Dependent Variable V)

TEACHER FEEDBACK 23 subdivided into feedback for motivation to learn and feedback for self-regulation, preferences of feedback which is divided into surface and deep learning and its relationship to academic performance. In addition, a conceptual framework was presented primarily based on the assumption that perception and preferences of teacher feedback affects academic performance. The next chapter will discuss the methods used for data collection and analysis .

TEACHER FEEDBACK 24 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Introduction This research study is a result of satisfying the quench for excellence in the teaching practice of the researcher, the desire to assist and build colleagues to become experts in their fields and the search for a key that unlocks optimum learning. There is no record to date on student perceptions and preferences of teacher feedback and its relationship to academic performance conducted at an international school in Thailand. Research Questions 1. What are the reported methods of teacher feedback? 2. What are the feedback perceptions of students? 3. What are the student preferences of teacher feedback? 4. To what extent are cumulative grade point average (CGPA) related to student preferences and perceived value of teacher feedback? It was hypothesized that teacher feedback affects academic performance. Research Design This study used a quantitative design since it used numerical data to quantify the perceptions and preferences of teacher feedback. Data was obtained through the use of paper-and-pencil questionnaire to find out the reported methods of teacher feedback, perceived value of teacher feedback, the student preferences for teacher

TEACHER FEEDBACK 25 feedback and correlational design was used to determine any relationship between teacher feedback and Cumulative Grade Point Average. This was the most practical research design suited for the study since it gathered views and opinions. Population and Sample AIMS was specifically chosen since approximately 90% of the students at AIMS stay from kindergarten to high school which gives credibility to their responses about teacher feedback. Purposive sampling was used in this study since the researcher was looking for a particular characteristic of the respondents. Instrumentation This study adapted a questionnaire from a similar study. The original questionnaire by Rowe and Wood (2008) consisted of five parts: a) demographic data:8 items b) Feedback provided by the teachers:17 items, c) Perceptions of feedback:15 items, d) Value of feedback:5 items and e) Preferences for feedback:26 items. The modified questionnaire replaced some terms to fit the AIMS context: •from “feedback provided by the university” to feedback provided by the teachers, lecturers and tutors to teachers, •from WebCT to Schoology, •from grids to rubrics. Excluded from the original questionnaire was a section on suggestions for feedback. Although, the Rowe/Wood Student Feedback Questionnaire was designed for university students, feedback, however, is a central element of the learning experience for students in elementary school, high school, and university. The questionnaire was reworded so that it would be suitable for high school students.

TEACHER FEEDBACK 26 Schoology is a free e-learning platform that functions like Facebook and provides all the teacher modules with unlimited access. Students get immediate feedback about their learning and can work on their assignments outside of class hours. Due to the social network nature of Schoology, it is convenient and studentfriendly. Posting answers on the other hand, provide students with a model and direction. Procedure An expert opinion from a professor who has taught research for more than three decades and has been conducting research studies in the United States was sought to examine the questionnaire. In order to align the questionnaire with the research questions, the questionnaire was revised: a) demographic data:8 items. These set of questions provide a description of the participants in a more detailed way while b), c), and d) were re-grouped under the title “Value of Feedback.” This section indicates the importance or non-importance placed by the students on the teacher feedback they received. And e) was kept as is but two-sub groups were created under it i.e., deep learning and surface learning. This identifies the types of feedback that relate to learning. Although, the questionnaire could have been done online, it was handed out manually to ensure questionnaires were returned. The hard copy of the data gathered in this study was kept in a secure location and was destroyed at the completion of the study. A soft copy of the data, however, will be available to the researcher. Descriptive Analysis was used to determine the reliability of the independent variable value of feedback (see Table 1). The Cronbach’s alpha for Feedback for motivation to learn was .84 with skewness of -0.48 and feedback for self-regulation was .72 with skewness of -0.20 both indicate good internal consistency. As well as,

TEACHER FEEDBACK 27 the reliability of the independent variables for feedback preferences. The Cronbach’s alphas for deep learning was .76 with the skewness of -.47 and for the surface learning is .71 with the skewness of -.08 (see Table 1). Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Reliability Estimates of Feedback Preferences (N=78) Variable Mean SD skewness Cronbach’s alpha Feedback for motivation to learn 3.01 .58 -0.48 0.84 Feedback for self-regulation 2.59 .46 -0.20 0.72 Deep learning 3.07 .54 -0.47 0.76 Surface learning 2.65 .40 -0.08 0.71 Data Analysis The questionnaire provided answers to the following questions regarding student perceptions and preferences of teacher feedback and its relationship to academic performance among the high school students at AIMS. 1. What are the reported methods of teacher feedback? 2. What are the feedback perceptions of students? 3. What are the student preferences for teacher feedback? 4. To what extent are cumulative grade point averages (CGPA) related to student preferences and perceived value of teacher feedback? Descriptive analysis was used to answer questions 1-4 because descriptive statistics uses the data to provide descriptions of the population through numerical calculations and provides simple summaries about the sample and the measures. In this study, the following were used: frequency, mean, standard deviation. Correlation analysis was used to answer part of question 4 since it is a method of statistical evaluation used to study the strength of a relationship between two

TEACHER FEEDBACK 28 numerically measured, continuous variables. In this study, the relationship between the four categories of feedback (i.e. feedback for motivation to learn, feedback for self-regulation, deep learning, and surface learning) was measured. This particular type of analysis is useful when a researcher wants to establish if there are possible connections between variables. Multiple regression analysis is used when one is interested in predicting a continuous dependent variable from a number of independent variables. In this study, multiple regression was used to calculate the best predictor for academic performance. Ethical Considerations The survey in this study was an adaptation of the questionnaire used by Rowe and Wood (2008) entitled “Student Perceptions and Preferences for Feedback” a study done in Australia. Before distributed the questionnaire, Rowe and Wood checked its validity by administering it to five of their colleagues and research assistants. On May 4, 2017, the researcher sent a letter to Rowe and Wood requesting to use their questionnaire. Permission was granted May 11, 2017 and that same day, permission was granted by the AIMS administration to conduct the survey. The researcher personally requested the homeroom teachers of grades 9-12 to take part of this study on May 12, by distributing the questionnaire. The researcher went from class to class administering the survey. Confidentiality and Anonymity All students were asked to participate in the study voluntarily. The instructions were read to the students and clarifications were given to those who had questions. The instructions included the confidentiality of the names of those who voluntarily

TEACHER FEEDBACK 29 took part in the study. The students took between 10-15 minutes to complete the survey. Summary The purpose of this study was to find out students’ perceptions and preferences of teacher feedback and its relationship to academic performance at AIMS. The methods used in this quantitative research are presented in this chapter. The data gathered was analyzed using statistical analysis software. Statistical procedures were run and results were obtained to answer each research question. The output that resulted from this method is explained and presented in chapter four.

TEACHER FEEDBACK 30 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Introduction In this chapter, the results of the data analysis presented in chapter three are discussed. It is believed by many researchers that teacher feedback affects academic performance. It is the desire of the researcher to find a key to optimize student learning where one works, thus, this study was developed to investigate student perceptions and preferences of teacher feedback and its relationship to academic performance at AIMS. This chapter discussed the research questions in the following order: 1. What are the reported methods of teacher feedback? 2. What are the feedback perceptions of students? 3. What are the student preferences for teacher feedback? 4. To what extent are cumulative grade point averages (CGPA) related to student preferences and perceived value of teacher feedback? Teacher Feedback comes in different forms including written comments, verbal feedback from individual students as well as from groups of students. Students value teacher feedback when it is helpful, understandable and doable. This question was designed to determine the reported perceived value of teacher feedback and how it affects academic performance using CGPA. Description of the Sample

TEACHER FEEDBACK 31 The population for this research were 78 AIMS’ high school students from grades 9-12. This school is specifically chosen since approximately 90% of the students at AIMS stay from kindergarten to high school (about 16 years) which gives credibility to their responses about teacher feedback. among respondents, 32% were in grade 9, 30% in grade 10, 20% in grade 11 and 18% in grade 12 (see Table 2). Table 2. Demographic Characteristics of Participants (n=78) Variables n % Age 14-16 years old 35 44.8 17-19 years old 42 53.8 20-22 years old 1 1.28 Gender Male 31 39.7 Female 47 Grade levels 9 (1st year high school) 25 32.1 10 (2nd year high school) 23 29.5 11 (3rd year high school) 16 20.5 12 (4th year high school) 14 17.9 Nationality International 27 34.6 Thai 50 64.1 Thai-Korean 1 1.28 Program of Study College Preparatory Diploma 37 College Preparatory Diploma Business 1 1.3 College Preparatory Diploma Science 24 30.8 General Diploma 16 20.5

TEACHER FEEDBACK 32 Results by Research Question Question 1. What are the reported methods of teacher feedback? This question was designed to determine how teachers gave feedback to students in grades 9-12 students. To answer this question, descriptive statistics was used. Methods of teacher feedback may be grouped into no feedback, individual feedback (grades, individual written feedback, individual verbal feedback, selfassessment) and group feedback (group written feedback, group verbal feedback, peer feedback). The summary of the results of these methods of teacher feedback are reported in Table 3 The results of this study show 35% of students reported receiving no feedback 75% of the time while 30% reported receiving no feedback 50% of the time. Thirtytwo percent reported receiving grades 75% of the time and 28% reported receiving grades 50% of the time. Thirty percent of the students reported receiving individual written comments 75% of the time while 30% of the students reported receiving individual written comments 50% of the time. However, 14% of the students reported not receiving individual written comments. Thirty-nine percent of the students reported receiving group verbal feedback 50% of the time while 22% of the students reported receiving group verbal feedback 75% at a time. However, 15% of the students reported not receiving group verbal feedback. Thirty-one percent of the students reported receiving group written comments 50% of the time while 26% of the students reported receiving group written comments 25% of the time. However, 23% of the students reported receiving no group written comments. Thirty-two percent of the students reported receiving individual verbal feedback 50% of the time

TEACHER FEEDBACK 33 while 24% of the students reported receiving individual verbal feedback 25% of the time. Table 3. Methods of Teacher Feedback Frequency Methods of Teacher Feedback 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% No Feedback 12(15.4) 17(21.8) 21(26.9) 27(34.6) 1(1.3) Grades 4(5.1) 14(17.9) 22(28.2) 25(32.1) 12(15.4) Individual written comments 11(14.1) 23(29.5) 23(29.5) 10(12.8) 10(12.8) Group verbal feedback 12(15.4) 16(20.5) 30(38.5) 17(21.8) 2(2.6) Group written comments 18(23.1) 20(25.6) 24(30.8) 14(17.9) 1(1.3) Individual verbal feedback 8(10.3) 19(24.4) 25(32.1) 18(23.1) 7(9.0) Peer feedback 8(10.3) 20(25.6) 25(32.1) 16(20.5) 8(10.3) Self-assessment 8(10.3) 13(16.7) 29(37.2) 19(24.4) 8(10.3) Note. Numbers in brackets are percentages of the total student response. Frequency is based on a time period Question 2. What are the feedback perceptions of students? This question was designed to discover the importance placed on the teacher feedback by the students in grades 9-12 in this study. To answer this question, descriptive statistics was used to determine the means, standard deviations and percentages of the agree and disagree responses to the reported perceptions of feedback which were grouped into feedback for motivation to learn, and that which addresses where and how the student is going? (see Table 4) and feedback for selfregulation, that addresses where to next? (see Table 5). Eighty-six percent of the students reported that feedback tells them what they need to do to improve their performance in a subject and feedback tells them what the

TEACHER FEEDBACK 34 expectations of the teachers are. While 32% reported “when I don’t receive any feedback I feel that the teacher does not respect me.” The following feedback for motivation to learn was perceived as important by the respondents: “feedback tells me what I need to do to improve my performance in a subject” (M=3.35, SD=.79), “feedback tells me what the expectations of the teachers are” (M=3.27, SD=.80), “when teacher gives feedback it shows that they care about the work I have done” (M=3.24, SD=.86), “I deserve feedback when I put so much effort into assignments or projects” (M=3.23, SD=.72), “I use feedback to try to improve my results in future assignments” (M=3.18, SD=.82) and “teachers who provide feedback care about what students think” (M=3.03, SD=.92). Table 4. Feedback for Motivation to Learn Statement N M SD %b Q3 3 Feedback tells me what I need to do to improve my performance in a subject 77 3.35 .79 85.9 Q3 13 Feedback tells me what the expectations of the teachers are 78 3.27 .80 85.9 Q3 2 When teacher gives feedback it shows that they care about the work I have done 74 3.24 .86 83.7 Q3 5 I deserve feedback when I put so much effort into assignments or projects 78 3.23 .72 83.3 Q4. 4 I use feedback to try and improve my results in future assignments 74 3.18 .82 82.4 Q3 12 Teachers who provide feedback care about what students think 76 3.03 .92 72.3 Q3 8 When I receive a lot of feedback I feel encouraged 75 2.81 .91 66.7 Q3 14 Feedback motivates me to study 73 2.70 .95 63.0 Q3 15 When I don’t receive any feedback I feel that the teacher does not respect me 71 2.30 1.03 32.4 Average 3.01 Seventy-four percent of the students reported that the feedback they received is relevant to the purpose of the assignment (M=2.84, SD=.67) (see Table 5). Seventy

TEACHER FEEDBACK 35 percent reported that the teaching staff were always willing to provide feedback (M=2.83, SD=.76); however, only 25% of the students reported that the teaching staff is active in providing feedback (M=1.97, SD=.93). Table 5. Feedback for Self-Regulation Statement N Ma SD %b Q2 3 Feedback received is relevant to purpose of assignment 76 2.84 .67 73.7 Q2 6 Teaching staff always willing to provide feedback 76 2.83 .76 69.7 Q2 7 Feedback received can be applied to my studies/work 77 2.75 .76 66.2 Q2 2 Feedback received is relevant to my goals as a student 78 2.65 .68 64.1 Q2 4 Teachers provide enough information to make feedback useful 76 2.62 .77 55.2 Q2 8 Feedback is presented in a way everyone can participate 76 2.61 .69 53.9 Q2 5 Feedback to assignments provided within two weeks 76 2.49 .87 57.9 Q2. 9® Teaching staff is active in providing feedback 76 1.97 .93 25.0 Average 2.56 Note. a 1-Strongly disagree, 2-disagree, 3-agree, 4-Strongly agree; %b Strongly agree and agree combined percentages Overall, students appear to value feedback for motivation (M=3.01) than feedback for self-regulation (M=2.56). Question 3. What are the student preferences for teacher feedback? This question was designed to find out what and how the students prefer to receive feedback. To answer this question, descriptive statistics was used. Frequencies of the surface learning were reported in Table 6 while the deep learning category was reported in Table 7. Surface learning feedback is about the task while deep learning feedback is about process and self-regulation.

TEACHER FEEDBACK 36 Surface Learning Ninety-one percent preferred it when teacher feedback focuses on the errors they made (M=3.35, SD=.65) (See Table 4.5), while eighty-eight percent preferred specific feedback on the right and wrong answers on the assignment (M=3.36, SD=.72) and eighty-seven percent preferred when teachers post sample answers on Schoology (M=3.37, SD=.77). Finally, 88% of students reported they liked it when teachers post sample answers on Schoology. The three least preferred methods of teacher feedback follow: Twenty-two percent reported feedback is only useful when it is positive (M=2.13, SD= .84) (see Table 4.5), while 32% said teachers’ written comments are often difficult to read and poorly explained (M=2.25, SD=.75) and thirty-two percent said, “I prefer it when teachers just give us the answers (M=2.19, SD=.86) and I don’t like it when teaching staff encourage questions in lectures because it wastes time (M=2.29, SD=.82). Overall, the following feedback for surface learning was perceived as important: I learn more when my teacher focuses on the questions I got wrong (M=3.35, SD=.65), specific feedback is better because it helps me to understand what I did right and wrong in an assignment (M=3.36, SD=.72), I like it when teachers post sample answers on Schoology (M=3.37, SD= 77) and I feel encouraged when teachers provide general feedback in class (M=3.04, SD=.81). Deep Learning Ninety-one percent of the students either strongly agree or agree on the importance of discussing the subject with the teacher (M=3.37, SD=.68), which could be an indication that students value communication (see Table 7). Secondly, 83% of the students preferred individual feedback because they can clarify issues with the teacher (M=3.19, SD=.80).

TEACHER FEEDBACK 37 Table 6. Item Statistics for Surface Learning (N=78) Item Mean SD % I learn more when my teacher focuses on the questions I got wrong 3.35 .65 91.0 Specific feedback is better because it helps me to understand what I did right and wrong in an assignment 3.36 .72 88.4 I like it when teachers post sample answers on Schoology. 3.37 .77 87.2 I feel encouraged when teachers provide general feedback in class 3.04 .81 77.0 Written feedback is unreliable because teachers have different marking criteria 2.51 .80 56.5 Group feedback is best because I can see where other students have experienced similar problems 2.57 .80 52.6 I forget verbal feedback easily 2.35 .97 41.0 I prefer general feedback in class because it’s not personal 2.38 .95 39.8 I don t like it when teaching staff encourage questions in lectures because it wastes time 2.29 .82 32.1 I prefer it when teachers just give us the answers 2.19 .86 32.1 Teachers written comments are often difficult to read and poorly explained 2.25 .75 32.0 Feedback is only useful when it is positive 2.13 .84 21.8 Note. % Strongly agree and agree combined percentages The two least preferred types of feedback way were feedback that guide us to work out the answers ourselves (M=2.71, SD=.88) according to 64% and participating in classroom discussion (M=3.05, SD=.87) according to 73%. Many students perceived the following feedback for deep learning as important: An important part of learning is being able to discuss the subject with my teacher (M=3.37, SD= .68), Individual feedback is better because I can clarify any issues with the teacher (M=3.19, SD=.80), and I learn better when the teacher encourages me to think deeply about the subject matter (M=3.19, SD=.86). student perceptions and preferences of teacher feedback?

TEACHER FEEDBACK 38 Table 7. Item Statistics for Deep Learning (N=78) Item Mean SD % An important part of learning is being able to discuss the subject with my teacher 3.37 .68 91.1 Individual feedback is better because I can clarify any issues with the teacher 3.19 .80 83.4 I learn better when the teacher encourages me to think deeply about the subject matter 3.19 .86 80.8 General feedback provided in class helps me learn independently 2.95 .70 78.2 Participating in classroom discussion is the most effective way to learn 3.05 .87 73.1 I like it when teachers guide us to work out the answers ourselves* 2.71 .88 64.1 Note. % Strongly agree and agree combined percentages excepted as specified below. * Strongly disagree and agree combined percentages Question 4. To what extent are cumulative grade point averages (CGPA) related to To answer this question, inferential statistics was used to determine the correlation between the four categories of teacher feedback with the CGPA (see Table 4.7) and multiple regression was calculated to determine which category best predicts CGPA (see Table 8). Table 9 shows bivariate correlations among the independent variable teacher feedback (feedback for motivation to learn, feedback for self-regulation, deep learning and surface learning) and the dependent variable (CGPA). Correlation between CGPA and feedback for motivation to learn (r=.14), CGPA and deep learning (r=.15) were non-significant (p>.05). Correlation between CGPA and feedback for self-regulation (r=.24); CGPA and surface learning (r=.23) and feedback for self-regulation and surface learning (r=.19) were statistically significant (p<.05), but weak/negligible. Correlation between feedback for motivation

TEACHER FEEDBACK 39 to learn and feedback for self-regulation (r=.34); feedback for motivation to learn and surface learning (r=.39) and deep learning and surface learning (r=.46) had medium correlation and was statistically significant (p<.001) while feedback for selfregulation and deep learning (r=.31) had medium correlation and was statistically significant (p<.01). The correlation between feedback for motivation to learn and deep learning was strong and statistically significant (r=.72, p<.001). Table 8. Inter-Correlation Between CGPA and Teacher Feedback Categories (n=78) Correlation Variables 2 3 4 5 1 CGPA .14 .24* .15 .23* 2 Feedback for motivation to learn .34*** .72*** .39*** 3 Feedback for self-regulation .31** .19* 4 Deep learning .46*** 5 Surface Learning Note. Correlation is significant at *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 The result of the standard multiple regression analysis is reported in Table 4.8. The regression model is not statistically significant (F(4,73)=1.93, p=.115) and explains less than 5% of the variance in student academic performance (CGPA). For the sample of students in this study, it appears that preferences and perceived value of feedback does not significantly explain academic performance. Summary of Major Findings Three categories of teacher feedback are reported: no feedback, individual student feedback, and group feedback. Approximately 35% of the students reported receiving no feedback 75% of the time and 30% of them reported receiving no feedback 50% of the time. When feedback was given, it tended to be individual

TEACHER FEEDBACK 40 Table 9. Regression Analysis Results for Predicting CGPA Model 95.0% CI for B B SE Beta t p Lower Upper (Constant) -.262 1.10 -.238 .813 -2.45 1.93 Feedback for motivation to learn -.022 .34 -.011 -.065 .948 -.69 .65 Feedback for self-regulation .536 .31 .208 1.750 .084 -.08 1.15 Deep Learning .008 .37 .004 .023 .982 -.73 .74 Surface Learning .591 .38 .197 1.561 .123 -.16 1.35 Note. R 2 = .096, Adjusted R2 = .046, F(4,73) = 1.93, p = .115 student feedback rather and group feedback. Perceptions of feedback were grouped in two categories: motivation to learn and self-regulation. Feedback for motivation to learn resulted in a mean of 3.01 and feedback for self-regulation resulted in a mean of 2.56). Furthermore, students appear to prefer feedback that encourages deep learning rather than surface learning. A linear combination of values (motivation and selfregulation) and preferences of feedback (surface learning and deep learning) explained less than 5% of the variance in student cumulative grade point average (CGPA) and was not statistically significant (p>.05).