FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND FEEDBACK IN THE PRIMARY

CLASSROOM: AN INTERPLAY BETWEEN TEACHERS’

BELIEFS AND PRACTICES

By

PREMA SHOBA PERUMANATHAN

A thesis

submitted to the Victoria University of Wellington in fulfilment of the

requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

in Education

Victoria University of Wellington

2014
 Abstract

This study explores the interplay between teachers’ beliefs and practices in
understanding and implementing formative assessment and feedback to enhance
student learning. Particularly, it explores teachers’ conceptions of effective formative
feedback strategies, and the role they should play in their classroom practice. The
context for this investigation was writing lessons in three primary classrooms, and
included examination of three cases of primary teachers in the greater Wellington
Region, New Zealand. Sadler’s (1989) theory of effective formative assessment and
feedback provided the theoretical framework informing both data collection method
and the analysis of data. Analysis of classroom observations, teaching documents and
field notes revealed that teachers have adopted many strategies associated with good
feedback practice. It was revealed, however, that the influence of teachers’ beliefs in the
implementation and enactment of formative feedback and the interplay of their beliefs
and practices affected their practices. These teachers’ conception and beliefs on how
formative feedback should be practiced varied, as did their assumptions about their
students’ abilities. These inconsistencies were further influenced by a range of
contextual factors, including the diversity of students’ needs, differing collegial support,
the structure of school writing programmes, teachers’ limited professional
development and/or learning about formative assessment and feedback, and teachers’
learning having been undertaken in an era that favoured behaviourist practices. This
research revealed the need for the provision of ongoing professional learning and
development in writing instructions and formative assessment and feedback strategies.
This would address the apparent inconsistencies between teachers’ conceptions and
beliefs regarding effective formative assessment and feedback and their practices. As a
result, this would help to promote Sadler’s (1989) formative assessment and feedback
strategies to achieve more effective classroom teaching and learning practice.
Implications for teachers, schools and professional learning and development are
outlined and suggestions for further research included.

i
 Acknowledgements

Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto
you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and the one who
knocks it will be opened (Matthew 7: 7-8)

I dedicate this dissertation to my family. I sincerely acknowledge that this

dissertation would not have been possible without the support of my supervisors,
family and friends. I would especially like to thank the following people:

I sincerely appreciate Dr Lex McDonald and Dr Margaret Gleeson for their

expert guidance, instrumental advice, and unfailing support. I am truly indebted to you
both for the academic and emotional support in my PhD journey. Each of you
challenged and extended my thinking and research skills in your own individual way.
Your on-going support to maintain the momentum during my highs and my lows has
provided the much-needed boost to succeed. I appreciate that you have gone well
beyond the call of duty to help me, listening to my problems and carefully helping me to
organise and create a feasible and achievable timeline for my thesis.

To Dr Lex McDonald, I am enormously thankful for his insightful comments,

asking the right questions to get me thinking, and helping me to formulate and develop
my arguments and ideas. I am extremely grateful to Dr Margaret for her meticulous
attention to details and the promptness in responding to emails and providing feedback
to drafts and queries, at the same time helping me to crystallise my thinking.

I am particularly fortunate in and thankful to Dr Margaret Gleeson and Dr

Carolyn Tait especially, for starting the Language Education Cohort and providing a
medium for its members to share and discuss issues related to language teaching and
learning. The cohort provided opportunities for discussions and presentations. I am
grateful to my friends from 31A Campbell Street, Karori, Wellington, with whom I have
shared laughter and received words of encouragement (not forgetting the famous
shared lunches, get-togethers and photograph sessions).

Research of this nature, relies on the generosity of the teachers participating in

the study. To those teachers that volunteered to be part of this research, I truly
appreciate the insightful explanations and willingness that permitted me to enter into
the real world setting of the classroom. I will always be indebted to you for inviting me
into your personal space.

Finally the support of my family must be acknowledged. I dedicate this

dissertation to my husband, Matthew, my son Bryan, my daughter Shernaia, my father

ii
Perumanathan and my mother Stella. My parents instilled in me the importance of
education and never giving up when facing challenges. This enabled me to start and
complete my thesis with persistence. Thank you Mum and Dad, for your words of
encouragement, love, support, and daily calls from Malaysia. Your constant faith in my
ability kept me going on my thesis and not giving up. To my husband Matthew, our
daily prayer sessions, and your words of wisdom encouraged me to look beyond the
challenges and hurdles and towards the goal. To my children, thank you for your
patience, understanding, love and hugs when I needed them the most. My family’s
constant support and belief in my ability has enabled me to persevere and achieve my
goal. They have stood by me through my PhD journey and helped me grow both
academically and emotionally, and to become stronger to face challenges. I truly look
forward to spending more time with you all and having fun.

iii
 Table of Contents

Abstract ..................................................................................................................... i

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................... ii

Table of Contents .................................................................................................... iv

List of Tables ........................................................................................................... ix

List of Figures .......................................................................................................... ix

List of Appendices ....................................................................................................x

List of Abbreviation .................................................................................................. xi

CHAPTER ONE: Introduction ................................................................................. 1

Research Interest and Objective of Study ............................................................ 1

Background of Study: In the New Zealand Educational Context ........................... 3

The Importance and Significance of the Study ..................................................... 5

The Structure and Organisation of the Thesis ...................................................... 6

CHAPTER TWO: Review of Literature .................................................................... 9

The Significance of Assessment in Education .................................................... 10

A paradigm shift: The formative purpose of assessment ................................. 10

Formative and summative issues in assessment ............................................ 12

The role of formative assessment in supporting learning ................................ 15

Formative Assessment: An Emphasis on Teacher’s Role................................... 18

Formative assessment in the New Zealand context ........................................ 21

New Zealand assessment initiatives ............................................................... 22

Formative assessment in the New Zealand classrooms.................................. 25

Assessment for Learning: An Emphasis on Learner’s Role ................................ 27

The significance of feedback in assessment to support students’ learning ...... 31

Self-assessment in assessment for learning ................................................... 44

Transferring evaluative and productive skills through peer assessment .......... 46

Challenges in the implementations of peer-assessment ................................. 48

The Nature and Function of Teachers’ Beliefs .................................................... 50

Self-efficacy beliefs ......................................................................................... 50

iv
 Function of beliefs in individuals ..................................................................... 52

Significance of teacher’s beliefs ...................................................................... 53

The beliefs and practice relationship ............................................................... 55

Professional learning and development influences on beliefs ......................... 56

Locating formative feedback within the writing lesson ........................................ 59

Sadler’s Theoretical Framework for Examining Formative Assessment and

Feedback ........................................................................................................... 64

Feedback in the formative assessment process ............................................. 65

Sadler’s theory of formative assessment and feedback .................................. 66

The strength of the theoretical framework ....................................................... 71

Limitations of Sadler’s theory for exploring formative assessment and feedback

....................................................................................................................... 74

Chapter Summary .............................................................................................. 75

CHAPTER THREE: Methodology .......................................................................... 77

Introduction ........................................................................................................ 77

The Research Questions .................................................................................... 77

The Research Paradigm .................................................................................... 78

Qualitative Methodology ..................................................................................... 79

Multiple-case study strategy ........................................................................... 80

Selection of Context ........................................................................................... 82

Participants and Research Sites......................................................................... 82

Methods of Data Collection ................................................................................ 84

Semi-structured interviews.............................................................................. 85

Piloting the interviews ..................................................................................... 87

Observations .................................................................................................. 88

Video-assisted stimulated recall post observation interviews .......................... 90

Documents ..................................................................................................... 91

Field notes ...................................................................................................... 92

Data collection procedures and timeline ......................................................... 93

Method of Data Analysis .................................................................................... 94

Coding and categorising ................................................................................. 97

v
 Qualitative software ........................................................................................ 98

Trustworthiness of the Study .............................................................................. 98

Credibility........................................................................................................ 98

Transferability ................................................................................................100

Dependability .................................................................................................100

Confirmability .................................................................................................101

Ethical Considerations.......................................................................................101

Informed consent and minimisation of risk .....................................................101

Confidentiality ................................................................................................102

Researcher Bias................................................................................................103

Methodological and Research Limitations .........................................................103

Chapter Summary .............................................................................................104

CHAPTER FOUR: Case Study One: Debra ..........................................................106

Introduction to Debra .........................................................................................106

Background, education, and teaching experience ..........................................106

Professional learning and development .........................................................107

Debra’s classroom .........................................................................................107

Debra’s Understanding of Feedback .................................................................108

Planning of the Writing Lesson ..........................................................................109

Practice and Observations ................................................................................110

Observation Day 1 .........................................................................................111

Observation Day 2 .........................................................................................115

Observation Day 3 .........................................................................................117

The Connection between Debra’s Beliefs and Practices ...................................119

Themes .............................................................................................................121

Teacher-set goals ..........................................................................................122

‘Still learning’ about formative feedback .........................................................124

The ‘technician’ of feedback ..........................................................................126

The ‘director’ of on-the-go feedback during work-in-progress.........................128

Chapter Summary .............................................................................................130

vi
CHAPTER FIVE: Case Study Two: Lyn ................................................................132

Introduction to Lyn .............................................................................................132

Background, education, and teaching experience ..........................................132

Professional learning and development .........................................................133

Lyn’s classroom .............................................................................................134

Lyn’s Understanding of Feedback .....................................................................134

Planning the Writing Lesson ..............................................................................135

Practice and Observations ................................................................................138

Observation Day 1 .........................................................................................139

Observation Day 2 .........................................................................................142

Observation Day 3 .........................................................................................144

Observation Day 4 .........................................................................................145

The Connection between Lyn’s Beliefs and Practices .......................................146

Themes .............................................................................................................149

The writing process is ‘set that way’ ...............................................................149

The ‘navigator’ of the writing and feedback process .......................................150

Creating models for writing practices .............................................................152

Empowering students ....................................................................................153

Chapter Summary .............................................................................................155

CHAPTER SIX: Case Study Three: Jane ..............................................................156

Introduction to Jane ...........................................................................................156

Background, education, and teaching experience ..........................................156

Professional learning and development .........................................................158

Jane’s classroom ...........................................................................................158

Jane’s Understanding of Feedback ...................................................................159

Planning the Writing Lesson ..............................................................................161

Practice and Observations ................................................................................162

Observation Day 1 .........................................................................................163

Observation Day 2 .........................................................................................164

Observation Day 3 .........................................................................................165

vii
 The Connection between Jane’s Beliefs and Practices .....................................167

Themes .............................................................................................................170

Shared learning and teaching opportunities ...................................................170

Designing ‘linguistically matching’ writing lessons ..........................................171

Student proficiency impacts ownership of writing ...........................................173

Self-taught writing teacher .............................................................................174

Chapter Summary .............................................................................................174

CHAPTER SEVEN: The Influence of Teachers’ Beliefs and Understanding on

Formative Feedback Practices: A Discussion .......................................................176

The Uptake and Enactment of the Formative Assessment and Feedback .........176

Teachers’ role in promoting formative assessment and feedback ..................177

Students’ role in the formative assessment and feedback process ................183

The Relationship between Teachers’ Beliefs and their Practice ........................187

Outcome and efficacy expectations about students and learning ...................192

Self-doubt in the teaching process .................................................................195

Chapter Summary .............................................................................................196

CHAPTER EIGHT: Conclusion ............................................................................199

Introduction .......................................................................................................199

Summary of Research.......................................................................................199

Summary of Research Findings ........................................................................200

Implications .......................................................................................................202

Teachers’ formative assessment and feedback practice ................................202

School’s support ............................................................................................205

Teacher professional development ................................................................205

Limitations of the study......................................................................................207

Future Research Directions ...............................................................................208

Contribution of the Current Research ................................................................210

Concluding Statement .......................................................................................211

References ...........................................................................................................212

Appendices ...........................................................................................................238

viii
 List of Tables

Table 3.1: An overview of the purpose, data collection methods, and

dates data was collected…………………………………………………………………....93
Table 3.2: Strategies for ensuring credibility…………………………………………………….99

List of Figures

Figure 2.1: Formative assessment and feedback…………………………………………….…..33

Figure 2.2: Formative assessment and feedback strategies…………………………………71
Figure 3.1: Procedure of inviting schools to participate in the study……………………84
Figure 3.2: Analysis of each single case……………………………………………………….….…..95
Figure 3.3: Multiple-case study procedures and data collection methods………….….97
Figure 4.1: Debra’s writing lesson………………………………………………………………….….111
Figure 4.2: Debra’s reported beliefs and observed practice……………………………..…121
Figure 5.1: Lyn’s learning aims, intentions, and success criteria……………………...….137
Figure 5.2: Lyn’s writing lesson……………………………………………………………………..…..138
Figure 5.3: Lyn’s reported beliefs and observed practice…………………………………....148
Figure 6.1: Jane’s writing lesson…………………………………………………………………...……162
Figure 6.2: Jane’s reported beliefs and observed practice………………….........................169
Figure 7.1: The relationship between teachers’ beliefs and their formative
assessment and feedback strategies ………………………………………………..188

ix
 List of Appendices

Appendix A: Research information sheets and consent forms………………………….…239

Appendix A1: Research information sheet: School Principal……………………..240
Appendix A2: Consent of participation form: Principal…………….……………….243
Appendix A3: Research information sheet: Teacher…………………………..……..244
Appendix A4: Consent of participation form: Teacher………………………………247
Appendix A5: Research information sheet: Parents/Guardian………………......248
Appendix A6: Consent of participation form: Parents/Guardian……………......250
Appendix A7: Consent of participation form: Students……………………………...251
Appendix A8: Agreement of non-disclosure/confidentiality of
audiotape/ videotape recordings ……………………………………….252
Appendix B: Semi structured interviews questions…………………………………….………253
Appendix C: Participant teachers lesson plans…………………………………………………...255
Appendix C1: Debra’s lesson plan…………………………………………………………….256
Appendix C2: Lyn’s lesson plan………………………………………………………………..258
Appendix C3: Jane’s lesson plan……………………………………………………………….260
Appendix D: Teaching resources/handouts….…………………………………………………….262
Appendix D1: Lyn’s day 1 graphic organiser……………………………………………..263
Appendix D2: Lyn’s day 2 graphic organiser…………………………………………..…264
Appendix D3: Lyn’s day 3 graphic organiser……………………………………………..265
Appendix D4: Jane’s hand-outs to lower proficiency students A…………………266
Appendix D5: Jane’s hand-outs to lower proficiency students B…………………267
Appendix E: Students written drafts with teacher’s feedback……………………………...268
Appendix E1: Debra’s written feedback on student’s drafts……………………....269
Appendix E2: Lyn’s student’s mind map……………………………………………..........270
Appendix E3: Lyn’s day 1 written feedback………………………………………….......271
Appendix E4: Lyn’s day 2 written feedback……………………………….……………...272
Appendix E5: Lyn’s day 3 written feedback………………………………………………273
Appendix E6: Lyn’s day 4 written feedback on graphic organiser………………274
Appendix E7: Lyn’s day 4 written feedback on drafts………………………………..275
Appendix E8: Lyn’s students’ self-assessment checklist with feedback………276
Appendix E9: Jane’s written feedback to higher proficiency students….……..277
Appendix E10: Jane’s written feedback to lower proficiency students………….278
Appendix E11: Jane’s written feedback and comments from teacher
students conferencing (student 1 and 2)……………………...279-280
Appendix E12: Jane’s student’s self-assessment checklist for higher
proficiency students…………………………………………………………..281

x
 List of Abbreviation

Interview data: DI Indicates data obtained from Debra’s interviews

LI Indicates data obtained from Lyn’s interviews
JI Indicates data obtained from Jane’s interviews

Observation data: DO Indicates data obtained from Debra’s observations

LO Indicates data obtained from Lyn’s observations
JO Indicates data obtained from Jane’s observations

Email data: DE Indicates data collected from Debra through emails

LE Indicates data collected from Lyn through emails
JE Indicates data collected form Jane through emails

Document data: Ddoc Indicates all document data from Debra

Ldoc Indicates all document data from Lyn
Jdoc Indicates all document data from Jane

Field note data: DF Indicates field notes from Debra’s settings

LF Indicates field notes from Lyn’s settings
JF Indicates field notes from Jane’s settings

xi
 CHAPTER ONE:
Introduction

This study explores New Zealand primary school teachers’ formative feedback
beliefs and practices. It examines teachers’ espoused beliefs and understandings of
formative assessment and feedback strategies; their purposes for giving feedback; and
the implications of these beliefs and understandings for their theory in the practice of
formative assessment and feedback. In this chapter, I provide the contextual and
background information relevant to the research project. This chapter starts by making
explicit my interest and position in regards to formative assessment and feedback in
general, and in how it has been applied in New Zealand classrooms specifically. A brief
discussion of my objective follows. Towards the end of the chapter, the significance of
conducting research into formative feedback is justified, and finally, an overview of the
eight chapters is presented.

Research Interest and Objective of Study

Denzin and Lincoln (2005) state that “all research is interpretive; it is guided by
the researcher’s set of beliefs and feelings about the world and how it should be
understood and studied” (p. 22). As interviews, observations and analysis are filtered
through the researcher’s worldviews, theoretical positions, and perspective it is
imperative that I explicitly state my own position and assumptions, in order to clarify
the trustworthiness of my research findings (Rossman & Rallis, 2012). The
understanding of the “qualitative-researcher as a bricoluer or a quilt maker,” as stated
by Denzin and Lincoln (2011), is fitting as a description of my research; the tools,
methods and strategies I utilised were intended to produce a “pieced–together set of
representations that are fitted to the specifics of a complex situation”(p. 4). The central
aim of interpretive, qualitative study is “to portray the complex pattern of what is being
studied in sufficient depth and detail so that someone who has not experienced it can
understand it” (Ary, Jacobs, Razavieh & Sorenson, 2006, p. 450). This is what I have set
out to do.

My interest in formative assessment and feedback arose from my own teaching

experience, and my struggles to understand formative feedback. My knowledge of
feedback was in the context of the Malaysian education system, where feedback was a
summative process of giving grades and marks, and where written work is seen as a
product. All the classes I taught, and the professional learning and development I
underwent, were aimed at increasing students’ English proficiency to reach national
standards. At the end of Year Six (Primary Six), students sat their first national
1
evaluation exam, the Primary School Evaluation Test, or Ujian Pencapaian Sekolah
Rendah (commonly known as UPSR in Malay)1. These results were then compared,
charted, and published and distributed to all primary schools. Those schools that had
more pupils scoring five A’s were considered effective schools. Schools that attained
below the set 40% mark were labelled as low performance schools, thus attracting
continuous visits, consultations (national, state and district), which of course were a
worry to the schools and teachers. As a result, educational standards in Malaysia were
associated with examination results, and schools’ main concern was that teachers
prepare students for these examinations. I often wondered if providing grades was
enough feedback to support these students’ future learning.

My interest in formative feedback became stronger when I was tutoring in-

service teachers at a Malaysian university. Teachers attending professional learning
and development courses were sceptical about how feedback could inform learning
and raise students’ achievement. Teachers were reluctant to use formative feedback as
a classroom teaching strategy (Mustaffa, Aman, Teo Kok, & Noor, 2011) as they found it
time consuming and disrupting to the normal classroom practice. While my interest
was stimulated by the situation in Malaysian classrooms, it would have been difficult to
conduct my study in that context, because formative assessment practices are less
embedded in teachers’ practice than they are in New Zealand. New Zealand provided an
ideal context for me to explore my practical interest in formative assessment, because
of its constructivist curriculum, which requires teachers to focus on individual
differences and abilities. Schools in New Zealand practice both formative and
summative assessment to enhance students’ learning. This was an ideal setting for my
research, which aimed to explore the critical relationship between teachers’ beliefs and
their practices in giving formative feedback to their students on writing.

From these experiences, teachers’ processes of providing feedback became the

core of my interest, and the basis of this research. I was interested in what teachers
believed about feedback and how these beliefs impacted their feedback strategies. The
recent implementation of National Standards in New Zealand increased my interest,
specifically in finding out how teachers might be able to implement formative feedback
in classroom writing lessons now that were are facing similar challenges to Malaysian
teachers in reporting against standardised assessments.

Essentially, what began as curiosity has developed into a theoretical and

conceptual interest in formative assessment in the area of writing, as well as its

1Primary School Evaluation Test, also known as Ujian Penilaian Sekolah Rendah (commonly abbreviated as UPSR), is a
national examination taken by all Malaysian students at the end of their sixth year in primary school. It is prepared and
examined by the Malaysian Examinations Syndicate (Lembaga Peperiksaan Malaysia), an agency that constitutes the
Ministry of Education.
2
application to general classroom practice. Like many qualitative researchers, my stance
is born out of the interplay between personal experience and theoretical knowledge. In
conducting this study, I intentionally focussed on formative assessment and feedback in
New Zealand, as New Zealand schools have been practising formative feedback for a
longer period than Malaysian schools have, and consequently are likely to have a
stronger understanding of formative assessment and feedback. By carrying out the
research in New Zealand, I provide a distinct set of lenses into the New Zealand
classroom; I am an outsider getting an insider’s view of a natural setting.

Background of Study: In the New Zealand Educational Context

Many countries have been trying to make modifications in their assessment

policy and practice to improve students’ learning and educational outcomes. These
modifications are often evident in national policy statements and guidelines for
professional development related to assessment focus. In New Zealand, such
modifications have been crucial to integrated assessment in teaching and learning
(Ministry of Education, 1994). The New Zealand Curriculum (NZC) (Ministry of
Education, 2007b) stipulates that effective assessment should involve students
knowing their current level of performance and the direction of their desired
performance to “clarify for them what they know and can do and what they still need to
learn” (p. 49). As the Ministry argues, teacher/student interactions should involve
discussion of goals, strategies, progress, and should develop peer and self-assessment
skills that lead to students becoming autonomous learners. Following this, they
propose that ideal teacher formative feedback helps students reach the desired
outcomes and criteria of success through the planning of teaching strategies and
assessment criteria that match students (Ministry of Education, 2007a).

Through the 70s, 80s, and 90s, the educational perception of assessment has
gone through distinctive reforms across numerous countries. It has significantly
evolved in the areas of teaching and learning, principally in shifting from a teacher
centred pedagogy to a student centred pedagogy (Black & Wiliam, 1998a; Earl & Katz,
2000, 2008). In New Zealand, teachers have faced a stream of new initiatives and
requirements for change in different aspects of education (Earl & Katz, 2000) such as
Assessment for Better learning (ABeL) operating between 1995-1999 (Brown, 2008;
Crooks 2002) which was later replaced by Assess to Learn (AToL) in 2002, and
Assessment Tools for Teaching and Learning (asTTle) in 2003 (Hattie, Brown, &
Keegan, 2003), and National Standards in 2010 (Ministry of Education, 2010b).
Reforms have required restructuring and changing of the curriculum (and assessment
practices), and have required major changes to how teaching is done in New Zealand
3
classrooms. Teachers have been at the centre of these new complex and major changes
as reforms are inculcated into their classroom culture and practice.

The current self-governing model of New Zealand schools allows schools to

respond to the needs of their learning community, requirements from government
initiatives like national standards, and issues raised by ERO, by choosing their own
specific professional development foci. It has been argued that reforms have often
failed to achieve their desired outcomes due to teachers being directed to participate in
the initiatives with little comprehension of their needs (Holt-Reynolds, 2000). Because
teachers’ roles require them to both advocate for and implement changes introduced
by education reform (Hargreaves, 2011; Hargreaves A. & Fullan, 1998), they hold key
positions in determining the success of those changes (Avalos, 2011; Battista 1994;
Thomas & Pederson, 2003). Teachers’ responses to reforms are highly influential, yet
studies have indicated that teachers’ classroom practices do not consistently align with
them (Basturkmen, Loewen & Ellis, 2004; Spillane, 1999). Without the necessary
understanding of the underlying theoretical and conceptual reasons for new initiatives
in teaching, teachers are unlikely to meaningfully change their practice (Duit &
Treagust, 2003; Lock & Munby, 2000; Pedder, James & MacBeath, 2005).

With this emerging knowledge, policy makers have been concerned with
making changes to New Zealand assessment practice (Black, 2005; James & Pedder,
2006). New Zealand teachers are expected to identify and focus on assessment
directed towards improving learning, specifically providing constructive feedback.
Improving both teaching and learning has been identified as the primary purpose of
assessment in the primary school (Ministry of Education, 2007a). However, studies
have reported that teachers’ feedback in actual practice is often unrelated to the goals
of learning and enhancing performance (Hattie & Jaeger, 1998); or is too focussed on
students’ effort and attitude (Knight, 2003). The Ministry’s national policy mandates
school-based assessment in primary school for the purpose of raising both student
achievement, and quality of teaching (Ministry of Education, 2007b), however no
compulsory assessment regime is specifically selected, and therefore the practices are
voluntary.

Additionally, there is little research on the influence of professional

development (PD) upon the personal interpretations and beliefs that New Zealand
teachers hold in relation to their individual classroom practice (Hawe, Dixon, & Watson,
2008). Despite PD programmes being implemented, research findings indicate that
teachers are still struggling to understand the purpose and nature of formative
assessment in the classroom (Dixon & Wiliams, 2003; Dixon, Hawe & Parr, 2011).

4
Additionally, it is apparent that many teachers lack confidence when teaching writing
(Dix 2012; Dix & Cawkwell, 2011; Locke, Whitehead, Dix & Cawkwell, 2011). Studies
have reported that feedback in New Zealand classrooms remains overwhelmingly
corrective instead of developmental, and is frequently deficient in specificity, or devoid
of constructive critique (Ward & Dix, 2001; 2004). Student involvement in the
structuring of learning goals, learning intentions, and success criteria has been an
exception rather than a rule, and often feedback has not been given in point of
reference to the success criteria or the deep features of writing (Hawe et al., 2008). This
contradicts established best practice, that students learn best when they take control of
their learning (Absolum, Flockton, Hattie, Hipkins & Reid, 2009). Therefore, there is a
real need to find out, after a decade of similar findings and on-going PD intended to
counteract them, where teachers’ beliefs and formative assessment and feedback
practices are failing to align. However many studies note the dearth of empirical
evidence associated with the process of supporting teachers in challenging their beliefs
about teaching and learning to enable change to manifest in the classroom (Hargreaves,
2005; Timperley, Wilson, Barrar & Fung, 2007). This research is aimed at contributing
knowledge on the current implementation formative feedback in NZ classrooms (Black
& Wiliam, 1998a).

The Importance and Significance of the Study

Feedback has been an important moderator and component of formative

assessment to make it effective in enhancing learning (Bell & Cowie, 1999; Black &
Wiliam, 1998b; Torrance & Pryor, 1998; Sadler, 1989, 1998, 2009b, 2010). Effective
feedback can support learners, and lead to future learning gains. Concerns over
students’ development and achievements in writing practice have been widely
reported both internationally and nationally (Cutler & Graham, 2008; Dalke &
Grobstein, 2010; Dyson & Freedman, 2003; Hawe et al., 2008; Locke et al., 2011). Yet
few have investigated the meaning of formative feedback in relation to teacher beliefs,
or implementation of formative feedback in writing lessons in particular (Kaplan,
2008).

New Zealand teachers have experienced repeated theoretical and pedagogical

shifts (Dix, 2012), and have been required to adopt these changes into their classroom
practice. It is therefore extremely relevant to attempt to comprehend teachers’ beliefs
about formative feedback, and to investigate the extent to which these formative
feedback practices interplay with their practices in the teaching of writing. It is hoped
that this study will provide valuable insights into what teachers beliefs about formative

5
feedback are, and how these beliefs are conceptualised and implemented into their
classroom practice.

Another contributing factor in student writing difficulties is, as research

indicates, the paucity of teacher knowledge (Glasswell, Parr & McNaughton, 2003;
Torrance, 2007). Teachers’ engagement in PD has the potential to increase their
knowledge and confidence about teaching writing through questioning of their beliefs
and practices. For example, Parr and Timperley (2010) have suggested that teachers
themselves need more knowledge about teaching writing. Other studies have reported
that teachers’ experience with assessment tools and their understanding of writing
hinders the ability to communicate knowledge to students (Limbrick, Buchanan, Good
& Shwarcz, 2010). Findings also indicate that teachers lack confidence in using data
from the assessment of writing to inform and influence their teaching, thus admitting
gaps in their knowledge about writing instructions and strategies (Limbrick et al.,
2010).

It is apparent that teachers are still in the learning stages of implementing New
Zealand’s newest education reforms. There may be gaps in their understanding and
application of various different pedagogies relating to formative assessment and
feedback, and new designs for writing instructions that are being implemented in New
Zealand. Thus the importance of investigating and sharing information based on
teachers’ professional judgment of those standards is obvious; such an investigation
may inform PD design in support of other new initiatives.

The Structure and Organisation of the Thesis

This thesis is organised into eight chapters. This chapter, Chapter One, has
introduced the research undertaken in this thesis through a brief description of the
researcher’s interest and objective in undertaking this study. The study is situated
within a wider setting of developments in formative assessment and feedback in
education in general, and within the New Zealand context in particular. The significance
of the research topic is outlined.

Chapter Two reviews the bodies of literature relevant to the research topic. In
this chapter, the development and evolving understanding of assessment, formative
assessment and the role teachers play in the process. The significance of students’ role
as an insider in the process is considered. The ongoing theoretical discussion on
formative feedback, and New Zealand initiatives including the in-depth description of
the feedback phenomenon are conceptualised and contextualised within the classroom
setting. Assessment for learning and the significance of formative feedback strategies

6
(such as peer and self-assessment), strategies to engage students in authentic settings,
and to develop their evaluative and productive expertise in the enactment of formative
feedback strategies are also considered. The rationale of selecting the writing lesson for
this study is discussed. This is followed by discussion of the influence of teachers’
beliefs in the process of uptake and enactment of formative assessment and feedback.
Drawing from the literature focussed on teachers’ beliefs and educational experiences,
the various influences on their beliefs are highlighted. Particular attention is paid to the
significance and influence of these beliefs on teaching and learning practices in their
individual classrooms. A range of research findings related to formative assessment
and feedback are discussed, in order to highlight the disjuncture between the
understandings, beliefs, and practices of teachers as they have implemented
assessment initiatives in their classrooms. Lastly, Sadler’s (1989) theory of effective
formative assessment and feedback is introduced as the theoretical framework that
informed and influenced data collection and analysis in the research is presented and
explained. A detailed theory of formative assessment and feedback by Sadler (1989) is
outlined, and the impact of that theory on research and practice is detailed. Finally, a
sound justification for the selection of Sadler’s formation of assessment and feedback is
provided.

In Chapter Three, my research methodology, process, and procedures are

outlined. My research questions are presented. Justification for the selection of the
interpretive paradigm and the use of qualitative methodology are also presented, as are
detailed justification and description of the process by which I selected participants for
my research, the techniques employed in my data collection, and the methods and
modes by which I analysed my data. The chapter concludes with a discussion of ethical
principles in qualitative research: issues of trustworthiness are addressed, particularly
by outlining the four evaluative criteria essential to the trustworthiness of qualitative
research methodology.

In Chapters Four, Five and Six, the findings from individual participants in my
multiple case studies are presented. The emerging themes from each case are
highlighted in the analysis. In these chapters, the teacher’s writing lesson, their own
definitions and beliefs regarding what constitutes good formative feedback practices,
their discussions of what influences these beliefs, and the implementation of these
beliefs into their feedback practice is reported and analysed. In each case the diversity
of beliefs and practices of teachers in teaching writing, and the contrasting feedback
strategies between different sites of study are discussed in depth.

In Chapter Seven, the cross case analysis of the research findings are analysed
and discussed in relation to Sadler’s (1989) theoretical framework for effective
7
formative assessment and feedback. Each teacher’s contrasting feedback strategies, the
differences and similarities in their approaches from planning to the enactment of the
formative assessment and feedback strategies into their writing lessons are analysed
and discussed. To help guide the discussion in the findings in this chapter, the cross-
cases are examined under two significant sections; teachers’ and students’ role in the
formative assessment and feedback practice and the strategies teachers implement in
the classroom. The relationship between teachers’ belief and their practice is
considered based on their expectation about students and teachers confidence in the
uptake and enactment of formative assessment and feedback strategies. The discussion
of my findings is made with reference to the literature

In Chapter Eight, conclusions are drawn in regard to my research topic and

questions. The implications of my findings for formative feedback practices and for the
future professional development for teachers are discussed. Critical areas for future
research are acknowledged. The chapter concludes with a brief justification of my
study’s contribution to the field of formative assessment and feedback.

8
 CHAPTER TWO:
Review of Literature

The role of formative assessment and feedback in the classroom has been an
evolving paradigm, and one that has been challenging in its implications for both
teaching and learning. It has drawn in research from various theoretical perspectives,
which have studied classroom assessment and feedback from constructivist, socio-
cultural, metacognitive and self-regulation theory approaches. As a result of the
complex and dynamic nature of assessment in the teaching and learning of writing, in
both action and theory (Black & Wiliam, 1998a; James, 2006; Perrenoud, 1998; Sadler,
1989), teachers’ and students’ roles in the process of assessment have been redefined
and explored.

In this chapter, the review of the literature is divided into 5 sections. The first
section provides an overview of the concepts underpinning the developing assessment
in education paradigm foregrounding the current understanding of assessment within
the new paradigm. Issues relating to formative purposes in assessment, formative and
summative assessment as applied in the classroom, and the role of formative
assessment in enhancing learning are considered. The second section highlights the
emphasis of teacher’s roles in formative assessment, and the role of formative
assessment within the New Zealand context. Assessment initiatives and formative
assessment in the classroom setting are discussed. As becomes apparent, uptake and
enactment of assessment into classroom by merely supplementing strategies into pre-
existing practice, when not accompanied by any change in beliefs or behaviour, has
little positive effect on student learning.

In the third section, assessment for learning with emphasis on students’ roles in
their own learning during the assessment process, is reviewed and discussed. Within
assessment for learning, students’ roles in partnership with teachers - becoming
insiders in the feedback sessions through self and peer-assessment - is explained and
discussed. Assigning learners a significant role in their learning requires teachers to
rethink the roles and responsibilities held by the teachers and their learners (Black &
Wiliam, 2004; Gardner, 2006). Relevant research studies on the types of formative
feedback practices and the implementation of peer and self-assessment are reviewed
and discussed.

All individuals hold specific beliefs about their capabilities and capacities to act.
Significantly, early experiences help shape individual beliefs and form belief systems.
These belief systems act as filters to their subsequent experiences. In the fourth section,

9
the nature and function of teacher’s beliefs is reviewed and discussed. Researchers
such as Kagan (1992) and Nespor (1987) have argued that teachers assign different
meaning to their teaching, and unless there is an inquiry into the beliefs they hold, it
will be difficult to understand the true sense of their teaching and beliefs. For this
reason, this section includes discussion of the nature, function and significance of
teachers’ beliefs, including their beliefs about their own self-efficacy, and the
relationship between their beliefs and practices. Given the nature of the research study,
consideration is given to the influence of teacher’s beliefs in the uptake and
implementation of educational reforms, particularly those concerning formative
assessment and feedback in the classroom. Finally, relevant research studies on
formative feedback beliefs and practices within writing lessons are reviewed in order
to place the study within a wider context of formative feedback practices and student
achievement and performance.

In the next section the disjuncture between the integration of newer

assessment strategies, and the understandings and practices of teachers are
considered. Justification for choosing formative assessment and feedback within the
writing lesson as a site to effectively example these disjunctions is provided is
explained. In the final section of the literature review, I present Sadler’s (1989) model
of formative assessment and feedback as an appropriate framework to explore
teacher’s formative feedback practices in the writing classroom. In this research,
Sadler’s (1989) comprehensive theory of formative assessment and feedback
influenced both the data collection and data analysis, thus the explication of Sadler’s
theoretical framework and supporting argument (including the examination of the
three conditions necessary for effective feedback) is presented with justification. The
impact of his theory on teachers practice through other research endeavour is also
discussed.

The Significance of Assessment in Education

While the role of the assessment has evolved, the process of enactment of
assessment in the classroom to enhance learning has proven to be challenging to
teachers. Merely adding new strategies into the classroom practice has proven
insufficient – evolutions in educational theory have required teachers to rethink their
roles to help students maximise their learning and becoming effective learners.

A paradigm shift: The formative purpose of assessment

Assessment and its role in teaching and learning have interested scholars and
generated educational research since the 1970s, when researchers began to question
10
the effectiveness of the traditional focus of classroom assessment: measuring, grading
and evaluating students’ performances to external standards (Black & Wiliam, 1998a;
Broadfoot, 1992; Gipps, 1994). Such assessment typically involved a process of
collecting, interpreting, and recording student performances against a set task or
criteria of achievement (Harlen, Gipps, Broadfoot & Nuttal, 1992; Stiggins & DuFour,
2009), and was typically aligned with behaviourist understandings of teaching and
learning. The theory of behaviourism focuses on overt behaviours that can be
measured (Good & Brophy, 1978), with that view the mind responds to observable
stimulus, thus ignoring the capability of thought processing occurring internally
(Skinner, 1968; Thorndike, 1912; Watson, 1919). It locates learning as external to
learners, and information and skills as things that must be transmitted to learners from
authoritative sources. Within behaviourism, students are viewed as passive recipients,
while teachers play a more significant role.

The concept of formative assessment first appeared in the late 1960s (Scriven,
1967), but it took time for this concept to be adopted by education researchers; in the
1970s, 80s and 90s, researchers and educators shifted their focus towards emphasizing
the role of assessment in enhancing learning (Assessment Reform Group, 1999; Black &
Wiliam, 1998a; Bloom, Hastings & Madaus, 1971; Broadfoot, 1998; Crooks, 1988; Gipps,
1999). This shifting trend in research reflected and affected the roles of teachers and
learners in the assessment process; to a certain extent they redefined assessment. As
literature in the field of assessment suggests, the assessment process in education has
changed dramatically from 1967: from the learner being dependent on the teacher to
the learner being able (and encouraged) to form a partnership in learning with their
teacher (Perrenoud, 1998; Sadler, 1989, 2009b).

The identification of the formative function of assessment meant that teachers’

previously held understanding of assessment to evaluate and measure learning was no
longer considered effective in classrooms. Within this new paradigm, learning, teaching
and assessment was conceptualised as an integrative process (Harlen & James, 1997).
Since the application of formative assessment into education, significant attention has
been paid to the integrated nature of teaching, learning and assessment (Bell & Cowie,
2001; Gipps, 1994; Sadler, 1989; Torrance & Pryor, 1998). Influenced by the current
thinking on effective learning, the conceptualisation of assessment and its implication
for teaching (Black, 2005; Black & Wiliam, 1998a; James, 2006), and particularly how
assessment informs learning (Black, Harrison, Lee, Marshall, & Wiliam, 2004; Boud,
2000) researchers increasingly discussed assessment as a tool for enhancing learning
(rather than evaluating it). This reflects the fact that although the initial notion of
assessment were shaped and influenced by behaviourist and constructivist literature,

11
sociocultural perspectives are now much more prevalent in educational theory (Gipps,
2002; James, 2006; Shepard, 2005).

However, there is a complication in requiring teachers to seamlessly integrate

the directions of this new theoretical paradigm into their classroom practice. In
western countries, including New Zealand, many teachers were taught and trained to
become teachers when behaviourism influenced assessment, and teaching and learning
generally. As noted, since then, theoretical understandings of teaching and learning
(and the role of assessment in teaching and learning) have gone through radical
changes. Thus, in essence, many teachers are now caught in a paradigm shift: the
current conception of formative assessment and feedback has advocated teaching and
learning as facilitative and student-centred, and as part of an interactive learning
environment, with an emphasis on learning that takes place at individual rate (Clarke &
Hollingsworth, 2002), but this is in contrast to behaviourism, particularly to the
centrality of teacher control of the transmission of knowledge.

Additionally, the changing paradigm underlying the nature of assessment,

teaching, and learning has resulted in changes to the language used, and the roles and
responsibilities that teachers and learners hold in the process itself. Teachers have had
these various changes developed and reflected in assessment policy to outline and
inform assessment practice - in New Zealand like other western countries policy
makers have supported assessment (James, 2006; Ministry of Education, 1993, 1994)
to raise students’ achievements (Black et al., 2004) – but arguably, they have not been
supported in doing the conceptual work necessary to supplant this new language over
the older paradigm they were trained in.

Formative and summative issues in assessment

In the classroom, assessment falls into two categories: summative assessment,

which aims to provide students with their ‘current capability’ and identify where
further progress needs to be made, and formative assessment, which is focused on
‘enhancing’ student development through teacher-student interactions (Crooks 2002,
p. 241). Formative assessment, according to Bell and Cowie (2001), is a process by
which in order to enhance learning, teachers recognise and respond to students’
individual learning, whereas summative assessment provides teachers with
information on students’ level of proficiency. Wyse and Torrance (2009) state that
teacher/student interaction is significant to successful formative assessment strategies.

As indicated, summative assessment is performance based, and formative

assessment focuses on the process of learning (or mastery) and on goal orientations

12
(Dweck, 1986; Elliott & Dweck, 1988; Watkins, 2000). Summative assessment, the
assessment that teachers make at the end of the process of learning, identifies student’s
current capability, and requires that the teacher grade the students’ proficiency or
competence. This provides opportunities for policy makers, teachers, parents, and
students themselves to monitor the educational progress a student makes, compared to
external standards or the performance of their peers (Bell & Cowie, 2001). Summative
assessment has shortcomings, such as being individualistic and isolated from the
learning process, but is still relevant to the assessment process.

Formative assessment, on the other hand, is conceptualized as a contextualised

and integral part of learning, and has a multi-method approach instead of a single
score. Thus, formative assessment offers a holistic alternative to summative
assessment, something that has been recognized within constructivist learning theory
(Gipps, 1994; Holt-Reynolds, 2000), psychological theories of learning (Boud, 1995;
Black, Harrison, Lee, Marshall, & Wiliam, 2003; Hall & Burke, 2004; Nichol &
MacFarlane-Dick, 2006) and socio-cultural theories of learning (Black & Wiliam, 2006;
Gipps, 1999; Pryor & Crossouard, 2008). Additionally, a number of studies have taken
into account Bordieu’s sociological perspective on the influence of different assessment
systems, particularly those asserting that formative assessment affects learners’
identity formation and disposition for learning (Ecclestone, 2002; Ecclestone & Pryor,
2003; Torrance & Pryor, 1998).

However, surveys on teachers’ understanding of formative assessment have

revealed that assessment is still typically deployed by teachers as either a
measurement or a co-inquiry (Hargreaves, 2005), a tendency which echoes Gipps’
(1994) observations made nearly a decade earlier. Assessment becomes formative
when the evidence it generates is used to adapt teaching to enhance learning. Other
definitions have stressed that formative assessment is a process used by teachers and
students to enhance learning (Cowie & Bell, 1999), or is carried out during instruction
to improve teaching/learning (Shepard, 2005, 2008). Black and Wiliam (1998b)
defined formative assessment as all activities carried out by teachers and students in
assessing themselves, provided the information is used to modify teaching and learning
activities by both teachers and students. Therefore, in order to ensure effective
formative assessment, they advise teachers to carry out formative assessment during
learning, and to employ carefully chosen activities designed to enhance learning by
involving students in the process, using the collected information to feedback into their
teaching.

These differing definitions reveal a second complication for teachers

implementing the new paradigm: the term formative assessment is open to multiple
13
interpretations and often means no more than the assessment process being frequently
carried out, or improvised in the process of teaching. Formative assessment has been
defined as frequent and interactive assessment of students’ progress, where teachers
identifying learning needs is essential to modifying their teaching to this end (Looney,
2007), and as a tool to be used by teachers to identify specific misconceptions and
mistakes made by students while teaching (Kahl, 2005). In practice, however, it
commonly provides teachers with information on their teaching, but does not involve
or inform students about their learning (Harlen et al., 1992).

Further, the purposes for using formative assessment in the classroom vary
widely: as information and feedback to students on their performance to enhance their
learning (Irons, 2008; Shute, 2008; Wiliam & Thompson, 2008); as part of classroom
activity and instruction (Boston, 2002; Wiggins, 2011); as something that engages
students in self-directed learning environments (Stiggins & Chappuis, 2005), and as an
effective element of instruction in learning (Wiliam, 2011). Overall, a developing shift
in the understanding of assessment has resulted in changes to the language used by,
and the roles and responsibilities assigned to both teachers and students in the
assessment process. However, for many teachers, the changes have not been uniform.

As noted, formative assessment is focussed on enhancing student development

during learning, through teacher/student interaction (Crooks, 2002), but as
researchers have found, the distinction between the two strategies is often blurred in
teachers’ understanding, particularly regarding strategies for implementation of both
types of assessment in classrooms. Especially, this is because teachers are still unsure
of how the formative aspects of assessment work in practice. In their classroom, they
might view themselves as providing formative assessment, when in fact they are
conducting an on-going summative assessment. Harlen (2000) illustrates there is still
lack of theoretical coherence between espoused theory and practice (Schon, 1983),
which raises questions about teachers’ conceptions of teaching and learning, and how
they should underpin classroom teaching.

Harlen and James (1997) argue that one of the major influences on teachers’
predicament was the lack of understanding they had of differentiating between
assessment for summative purposes and formative assessment. According to these
researchers, teachers often struggled to differentiate assessment for two distinct
purposes, meaning that the task itself became a challenge to them (Dixon & Wiliams,
2003; Harris & Brown, 2009; Taras, 2008). In response to these findings, researchers
recommended professional development to help clarify formative and summative
assessment, and to develop teachers’ understanding of the practice of providing
feedback (Dixon, 1999; Hill, 2000).
14
The role of formative assessment in supporting learning

As established above, formative assessment should support the learning

process, and summative assessment should verify attainment of individual standards
(Black & Wiliam, 1998a; Sadler, 1989, 2010; Shepard, 2009; Wiliam & Thompson,
2008). While researchers argue that the main feature of formative in the assessment
process should enhance students’ learning, the rising agreement among educators is
that assessment can be used to establish students’ achievement and measure their
performance and attainment in learning (Black & Wiliam, 2004), and that this
information should be used to enhance students learning and performance during the
learning process (Delandhere, 2002; Bell & Cowie, 2001).

Formative assessment brings together the cognitive and sociocultural theories

of learning. Firstly, from the cognitive perspective, formative assessment supports
teachers and students to work consistently in the zone of proximal development (ZPD)
(Vygotsky, 1978). The ZPD is the area where learning takes place and when utilising
formative assessment effectively, teachers are in fact involved in a process of gathering
and interpreting evidence to structure learning through scaffolding information with
the students. As prerequisite to leading learning, rather than reacting retrospectively to
it, teachers need be aware of students’ abilities through careful observation of
emerging moments of learning, using formative assessment and determine what is
within students’ reach. Formative assessment in this context enables teachers to
provide students with experiences and support that ideally enables students to
incorporate new learning into their generally developing learning skills.

Secondly, from the sociocultural perspective, formative assessment involves the

process of teacher/student interaction in the learning process. According to most (if
not all) models of formative assessment, the assessment process should not be
unidirectional, but should involve both teachers and students in reciprocal activity
within a learning community (teacher/student engagement should take place within a
community of practice). The teacher/student roles, goals and interaction are designed
to support learning, which is realized through the gathering of evidence and using
feedback to inform learning (Sadler, 2009b).

However, as the complications outlined above suggest, the theory and practice
of formative assessment and feedback seem to be at a crossroads. Justification of their
use and effectiveness, and development of their specifics are increasingly present in
educational literature, yet the limited scope of their utilisation in teachers’ actual
practices has been repeatedly highlighted (Bell & Cowie, 2001; Swaffield, 2011). As a
result, various research and development projects have been designed and carried out

15
to investigate teachers’ understandings and formative feedback strategies in primary
schools (Hawe et al., 2008; Marsh, 2007; Parr & Timperley, 2010).

Torrance and Pryor (1998) conducted a significant study that has made
landmark contributions in providing insights and understanding in assessment practice
that supports teaching and learning. Their findings were informed by extensive
observations, interviews and documentary data. Torrance and Pryor, based in United
Kingdom, sought to examine teachers’ assessment in infant classrooms, and recognize
teacher practices that established formative activity. They developed a
convergent/divergent formative assessment framework to explain teachers’
assessment practice. Particularly, they noted that teachers operating within a
convergent formative assessment model aimed to discover “if the learner knows,
understands and can perform” (p. 193). Employing convergent formative assessment
involves planning, recording students’ performance through checklists. Teachers often
asked closed questions, and focussed on errors with the expectation of receiving
predetermined correct responses. Convergent assessment also involved authorities,
judgemental and quantitative feedback, and was focussed on communicating criteria
closely linked to summative assessment. Learners in convergent formative assessment
appeared to be recipients, conforming to a behaviourist point of view and embedded
within an Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF) sequence; the teacher, once again, plays
the dominant role in this type of assessment.

In contrast, other teachers’ formative assessment practices followed a divergent

model, and included flexible or complex planning as well as open questioning tasks that
were learner directed. The teachers’ focus on miscues in learners’ work was in order to
provide insight into their understanding. This model contained exploratory, provisional
or descriptive feedback, with intent to further engaging with the learner. Discussion
within a divergent model of assessment was intended to prompt students’ reflection on
the task context and construct future understanding to which new knowledge could be
applied. The divergent assessment practice required teachers to have a holistic view of
criteria, and a double responsibility in involving students as initiators and recipients of
assessment, through analysis of interactions between the curriculum and learners.
Torrance and Pryor argue this form of assessment conforms to the socio-cultural view
of education: an intention to teach within the ZPD and give importance to the context of
assessment. It becomes a part of an on-going collaborative dialogue between teacher
and learner. However, significantly, in their study, convergent formative assessment
was the most practiced by teachers observed.

Another significant study situated in New Zealand and conducted by Cowie and
Bell (1999) provided a description of teachers’ classroom assessment practices that led
16
to the identification of two forms of formative assessment activity within the
classroom: planned formative assessment and interactive formative assessment.
Planned formative assessment requires teachers’ actions to include three cyclical
stages: eliciting, interpreting and acting on assessment information. This is related to
teachers planning prior to teaching though brainstorming to find out students’
knowledge, or questioning at the beginning of the lesson to check understanding. The
primary purpose is to obtain information for teachers to use to inform subsequent and
future teaching, another significant aspect of formative assessment.

In comparison, interactive formative assessment takes place during

teacher/student interaction, and is embedded in practice. It is driven by learning from
the information gained through the interaction, either through responses and questions
or non-verbal responses. During this time teachers aimed to notice, recognise and
respond to the learning needs of their students (Cowie & Bell, 1999). In their findings,
researchers Cowie and Bell (1999) revealed that the 10 teachers involved engaged in
both planned and interactive formative assessment, moving backward and forward
between the two, and were sometimes unaware they were in fact practicing formative
assessment. Responding to and acting on student information was deemed more
difficult than eliciting and noticing. Teachers in the study identified other factors that
affected their enactment and implementation of formative assessment, notably a
stressful new curriculum. Both this study, and those of Torrance and Pryor (1998),
suggest that teachers may adjust the kinds of feedback that they offer when engaging in
formative assessment and that an emphasis on interactive practices may change
depending on the phase and purpose of the assessment.

Research, in particular reviews about formative assessment, indicates that

limiting assessment to summative strategies negatively impacts students’ learning and
achievement (Black & Wiliam, 1998b; Crooks, 1988; Kluger & DeNisi, 1996; Natriello,
1987). However, limited ranges of formative assessment are often practiced in
traditional classrooms (Popham, 2013; Stiggins & DuFour, 2009). Further, while within
the literature the term formative assessment is often consistent, at times it appears in
different guises, bounded within either behaviourist or constructivist theories (Tunstall
& Gipps, 1996). Teachers often fall into either promoting a constructivist learning
environment or a behaviourist learning environment for their students. Within the
constructivist approach students are able to share and deepen their understanding of
assessment and quality of work through formative assessment and feedback process.

By many conceptions of effective formative assessment, teachers’ language to

learners is considered critical, thus creating opportunities for teacher/student

17
interaction is important to learning (Bell & Gilbert, 1996). This is so particularly
because it enables teachers to identify misconception, misinterpretation, and errors in
responses, and to provide information and plan for modification of these
misunderstandings (Gipps, 1994; Wheatley, 1991). Students benefit from this style of
interaction, as it leads to the achievement of shared meanings that elicit answers to
stimulate learning (in contrast to a student/teacher interaction that functions simply to
check a student’s understanding) (Torrance & Pryor, 1998; Wiliam, 2011). As a result
of these findings, there has been rethinking of the roles of teachers and learners during
questioning, feedback, interaction and classroom learning.

Formative Assessment: An Emphasis on Teacher’s Role

During the 1980s and 1990s, the inquiry into formative assessment was
focused on teachers’ roles (Harlen, 1998; Tunstall & Gipps, 1996). For example, the
explanation of formative assessment by Tunstall and Gipps (1996) below provides an
integrative link between assessment and teaching, but without any association between
learning and assessment:

Formative assessment is the process of appraising, judging or evaluating students’

work or performance and using that to shape and improve their competence

(p. 389).

The focus of the research agenda was based on the teacher’s formative
evaluation practices. Similarly, Torrance and Pryor (1998) voiced criticism that some of
researchers had overplayed the role of teachers at the expense of leaners (for instance,
Harlen, 1998; Tunstall & Gipps, 1996). Extending their argument, they argue that
underplaying the role learners’ play in formative assessment conforms to the
behaviourist interpretation of formative assessment. Formative assessment located in
the act of teaching placed teachers in control of the process and learners as dependent.
This shift in thinking about effective formative assessment in the classroom has
brought teachers’ and students’ roles in the process into the spotlight (Clark, 2011;
Harlen & James, 1997; Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Sadler, 1989, 2009b; Swaffield, 2011).
Teachers’ roles and the assessment process in the classroom have been scrutinised, and
the idea of the classroom as a ‘black box’ has been critiqued by frequent testing and
evaluation (Black & Wiliam, 1998b).

Perrenoud (1998), through invitation, commented on the major review of the

research investigating formative assessment by Black and Wiliam (1998a), and
emphasised the need to place formative assessment in a broader context:

18
 This [feedback] no longer seems to me, however, to be the central issue. It
would seem more important to concentrate on the theoretical models of learning
and its regulation and their implementation. These constitute the real systems of
thought and action, in which feedback is only one element (Perrenoud, 1998, p.
86).

As outlined, these trends in research are evidence of a general shift in the

understanding of assessment which has seen teachers reshape their beliefs and
classroom practices since the 1970s. However, studies have shown that the policy
changes have had little structural effect on teacher’s beliefs. Commonly, programmes
conforming to their existing beliefs are interpreted and acted upon, and those
challenging them are discarded (Brownlee, Dart, Boulton-Lewis & McGrindle, 1998).
For example, teachers who were supposedly ‘the expert,’ giving the marks and grades
in the 70s, struggled when they were increasingly expected to play the new role of a
facilitator, forming a partnership with students by drawing them into the assessment
process as a means of raising achievement (Black et al., 2003; Sadler, 1989). In fact, this
theoretical change in emphasis in the role of teachers in the 80s and 90s did little to
challenge the traditional roles played by teachers and learners; teachers still played an
‘expert’ role, and students were still tacitly encouraged to remain dependent on the
teacher for assessment information.

Teachers’ varying approaches to implementation are influenced by their beliefs

about teaching, students’ roles and learning. Other significant findings from studies
support the notion that teachers do not always understand formative assessment, and
so struggle to make sense of their new roles and responsibilities (Pedder et al., 2005;
Poulson & Avramidis, 2004). As Pedder et al. (2005) assert, what teachers claim they
practice and what their actual practices are is frequently subject to discrepancy
(though it is important to note that findings from surveys indicate teachers are often
aware of their values/practice gaps). Teachers in Pedder’s research differentiated
learning that takes place in the classroom from learning outside the classroom, and
valued individual and social learning as significant in creating learning opportunities
for the students. However they gave particularly low values for learning that involved
engaging with research, pupils’ ideas and feedback. Poulson and Avramidis (2004)
claimed that this was a result of teachers’ differing beliefs about what education should
mean, noting that although educational beliefs are individual to each teacher, they have
been developed in a specific socio-historical context that indirectly influences their
construction of formative assessment practice.

Additionally, in the last two decades, as research into implementing new forms
of assessment, and specifically formative feedback, has been highlighted (Black &
19
Wiliam, 2009; Harlen, 2005; Sadler, 2010; Stiggins & Chappuis, 2005), studies have
increasingly concluded by drawing attention to teachers’ beliefs. The results indicate
that teachers’ beliefs are the most important influence upon their classroom practice
(Aguirre, & Speer, 2000; Holt-Reynolds, 2000; Remesal, 2011). Findings have reported
that, at times, teachers’ personal goals for teaching can emerge while lessons are in
progress, but due to their tacit nature, they are often hidden during the planning stage
(Polanyi, 1967).

This information – that teachers’ beliefs influence their classroom practice - is

critical when a systematic reform of policy and implementation is taken into
consideration. Teachers are the last step in the sequence of changes that occur from a
policy level down, and as Black and Wiliam (2009) indicate, the implementation of new
reforms in assessment practice is impossible without considering that they cannot be
implemented in exactly the same way worldwide. For reforms to be equally effective,
policy and training must recognize that the context and cultural embeddedness of
teachers’ practices differ from place to place. This is because teachers’ depth of
knowledge about content, standards, student ability, and their abilities in linking them
to assessment and feedback instructions, are diverse in nature (Frey, & Fisher, 2009).
Thus, there is a need to explore each specific context individually to understand and
promote substantive change in the future.

The beliefs individual teachers hold about their abilities and outcome of their
efforts (Bandura, 1986) influence the way new knowledge or content is subjected to
teachers’ interpretation. Beliefs often act as filters for new information and subsequent
behaviour (Abelson, 1979; Fang, 1996; Kagan, 1992; Pajares, 1992; Rokeach, 1968).
Because of this understanding, professional development (PD) programmes are
commonly emphasized as vehicles by which new assessment and education changes
can be used to provide support, knowledge, and skills to teachers and in turn influence
changes to classroom practice.

Other significant factors influencing teachers’ perception of their roles in the

formative assessment practice are teachers’ previous knowledge, experiences, beliefs,
and senses of professional identity that directly or indirectly affect their instructional
practice (Borko, 2004; Cohen, 2004; Cohen, & Ball, 1990; Grossman, 1990; Putnam &
Borko, 1997, 2000). These factors are referred to as the constraining effect on practice
(Broadfoot, 2001). Additionally, others have identified that the characteristics of the
school influence teaching too; in short, context, history, and setting impact changes to
teachers’ pedagogy in practice (Elmore, 1996; Guskey, 2002; McDonald, 2011; Pedder
& Opfer, 2010; Pedder et al., 2005).

20
Formative assessment in the New Zealand context

In New Zealand, formative assessment has been prominent in classroom

practice since the mid-1980s. Crooks (1988) made a significant contribution by
reviewing literature about assessment, which impacted the assessment process in the
classroom. Particularly, his review shaped government policy and research
programmes in the 90s. Since the 1990s, government policy on assessment has
required more tightly specified outcomes in the New Zealand curriculum, at a system
wide level. As a result, since the 1990s, classroom teachers have had (in theory) a wider
range of tools to assist them with formative and summative related objectives, for the
multiple purposes acknowledged in the New Zealand Curriculum Framework, which
states:

Assessment in New Zealand is carried out for a number of purposes. The primary
purpose of school-based assessment is to improve students’ learning and the
quality of learning programmes (Ministry of Education, 1993, p. 24).

The Ministry of Education (1994) report Assessment: Policy to Practice

highlighted a gap in the information available on achievement, and proposed the
development of assessment tools, such as asTTle. 2 They also began archiving exemplars
of student work referenced to achievement objectives. The Ministry of Education
(1994) identified the role of students in assessment through peer and self-assessment
in the same publication; however, the stated role of assessment emphasised summative
aspects of students’ engagement, such as self-assessment at the end of learning.
Similarly, the responsibility for using assessment information depended on the teacher,
and did not necessarily involve students in the process. Therefore the Ministry of
Education (1994) policy document formative assessment is clearly described as:

an integral part of the teaching and learning process. It is used to provide

students with feedback to enhance learning and help the teacher understand
students’ learning. It helps build a picture of a students’ progress, and informs
decisions about the next steps in teaching and learning (p. 8).

The New Zealand Curriculum Framework (NZCF) by the Ministry of Education

(1994) emphasised formative assessment as an integral part of normal teaching and
learning processes in schools to “improve students’ learning” (p. 24). This became part
of a structural change in New Zealand schooling processes, in order to modify and
enhance learning and understanding formative assessment in the last two decades

2 asTTle stands for Assessment Tools for Teaching and Learning (He Pūnaha Aromatawai mō te Whakaako me te Ako). It
is an educational resource for assessing reading, writing and mathematics (in both English and Te Reo Māori):
http://assessment.tki.org.nz/Assessment-tools-resources/asTTle-V4.

21
(Crooks, 2002; Ladd & Fiske, 2001; Levin, 2001). One of the significant reforms has
been self-governing and self-management for primary schools through single-school
boards. The Educational Review Office (ERO) then, through inspections, verifies each
school’s compliance with the legislation. The Ministry’s national policy emphasizes
voluntary school-based assessment for improving the quality of teaching (Ministry of
Education, 1994). Consequently, the National Assessment Strategy (2001) 3 provided a
strategic direction for assessment in New Zealand across multiple areas, organisations,
schools, and classrooms. At the classroom level, teachers were to set specific learning
goals with the learners, fostering a collaborative relationship focussed on learning, and
in this process use assessment to improve learning.

Due to concerns about teachers understanding of formative assessment, a PD

programme, Assessment for Better Learning (ABeL) operating between 1995-1999 was
evaluated. Peddie’s (2000) survey and interview data of teachers from 711
participating schools in New Zealand reported that teachers had yet to achieve
understanding of the differences between formative and summative assessment.
Although the percentage of teachers reporting an understanding effective feedback was
52%, those teachers were unable to articulate in what manner they gave feedback to
students. Bell and Cowie (1997) reported similar findings in their study on assessment
practices by teachers in New Zealand. More recently, Dixon and Wiliam’s (2003) study
found that while New Zealand teachers had a theoretical understanding of formative
assessment in teaching and learning, they were not able to specify what constituted
formative assessment in their own practice. While the teachers interviewed were
aware of the need to provide opportunities for interaction with their learners,
significant components of formative assessment (such as shared formation of student
learning goals and feedback) were not mentioned in their discussion of teaching
reading, writing and speaking skills.4 Teachers still did not possess the language to
express what their classroom feedback practice was. Recommendations were made
that professional development programmes were necessary to provide clarity as to the
nature of formative and summative assessment in the classroom.

New Zealand assessment initiatives

In New Zealand, professional learning in assessment was influenced by Black

and Wiliam’s (1998a) seminal work on formative assessment. Formative assessment
was therefore interpreted in the policy statements and programmes as a teacher

3 The National Assessment Strategy (NS) website closed in June 2011 and have been updated and adapted to allow users
to access them through the National Archives. A snapshot of NS Online has been archives by the National Archives.
4
It is important to note, however, that Dixon and Wiliam’s research was based on teachers’ self-reported discussions of
practice, and did not include observational data.
22
centred activity. The information gained from the assessment was fed back into their
planning and teaching. The formative assessment was significantly located within the
teaching process and not the learning aspect (Torrance & Pryor, 1998).

In the process of implementing formative assessment strategies in New Zealand

schools, considerable resources have been developed through professional learning
and development projects. These resources are available online for formative purposes
through the website Assessment Resources Banks (ARBs)5 which has been available
since 1997. The website contains examples of everyday classroom activities to support
teachers. Resources in for years 4-10 (level 2-5) were added in 1998. These are closely
linked to the New Zealand curriculum, and are intended to help teachers make
assessments on students’ progress within its frame of achievement objectives.

The National Assessment Strategy resulted in an increase in nationally provided

professional development for teachers focussed on assessment practices in the
classroom. Assess to Learn (AToL) is a Ministry of Education professional development
initiative that has been available to teachers since 2002. A significant component of the
course is improving teacher’s formative assessment and feedback practices. The AToL
programme has been available to teachers though contracts with nine professional
development providers (Assessment Focus Group, 2004). Teachers are also able to
access AToL online from Ministry of Education’s Te Kete Ipurangi website. Schools that
take part in the project have external consultants, facilitators, or lead teachers within
each school, and are supported through workshops and in-service activities. In the
course, teachers are taught the process of framing their feedback through pre-specified
learning intentions and success criteria (Clarke, Timperley, & Hattie, 2003).

Schools are also able to determine the level of student achievement in the
mediums of English and Māori based on Assessment Tools for Teaching and Learning
(asTTle), which provides literacy and numeracy tests for students from Years 5 to 8.
asTTle has been available for schools since April 2002, and analyses achievement
against national norms, and though it tests curriculum levels 2-6 it can be used for
students in lower and higher year levels. A revised e-asTTle writing tool (2012)6 now
assesses curriculum levels 1 through 6. All these initiatives have had an impact on
teachers gaining theoretical knowledge on formative assessment as teachers have been.

The development of the assessment resources coincided with extensive PD

opportunities such as Assessment for Better Learning (AbeL), which was eventually
replaced by AtoL (Crooks, 2002). Teacher knowledge of assessment is extended by

5 ARB: Assessment Resource Bank items (English, mathematics and science): http://arb.nzcer.org.nz/
6 e-asTTle: http://assessment.tki.org.nz/Assessment-tools-resources/e-asTTle.
23
participation in the development of ARBs, national exemplars and asTTle, and school
based formative assessment practices. The Education Review Office (ERO) (Brown,
2004) is then responsible for the evaluation of schools’ performance, which is made
available to the Ministry and public through school self-review and school inspection to
establish that quality is maintained (Ladd & Fiske, 2001).

The most recent radical change was in 2010 when National Standards were
introduced in New Zealand for the assessment of reading, writing and mathematics.
National Standards is an initiative intended to improve educational outcomes. The
National Education Monitoring Project (NEMP)7 is another, similar initiative that was
established in 1995 through funding from the Ministry of Education. The Ministry has
made a long-term investment in NEMP, which was developed by Terry Crooks and
Lester Flockton. It provides information on students’ knowledge, skills and attitudes,
from research run by the Educational Assessment Research Unit (EARU). Students from
Year 4 and Year 8 are assessed on their ability in a number of curriculum areas. These
assessments provide a snapshot of students’ performance according to school, decile 8,
ethnicity, gender, and other factors so that the “performance, successes and desirable
changes to educational practices can be identified and implemented” (Crooks &
Flockton, 2004). This large-scale assessment project is designed to monitor and report
achievement, attitudes and values of students. NEMP provides summative
assessments, in that it is used for reporting on student achievement. In this manner it
differs from the developmental focus of AToL and foreshadows the function of National
Standards.

The implementation of National Standards required schools to select from a

range of assessment tools already available to make a judgement on student
achievement and progress in relation to set National Standards. Teachers are required
to assess students’ progress and achievement against standards, to use assessment
information to inform students’ learning goals, and to support them in their next
learning steps. So far, partnership between policy and practice has not been a simple
process, and there have been flaws in the execution of the policy in the classroom.
Although policy is rooted in research, the implementation of the National Standards is
the “most debated development in New Zealand education for decades” (Thrupp &
Easter, 2012, p.10), and in practice, teachers now had new judgments and comparisons
to implement and often became unwilling participants As a result, the implementation

7 NEMP assessment and reporting are repeated on a four year cycle and results compared in a variety of ways. NEMP :
http://nemp.otago.ac.nz.
8 Decile system defines the socio-economic community that a particular school serves, with respect to 10 categories

ranging from decile 1 (lowest socio-economic) to decile 10 (highest socio-economic) (OECD Review on evaluation and
assessment, 2010, p.x).
24
of National Standards still faces complex challenges. Further, in many ways it
contradicts the formative assessment initiatives that have been based around
enhancing student learning as it works under the summative paradigm. This means
that New Zealand teachers now face the particular challenge of implementing formative
assessment under directives that encourage summative assessment practice.

Formative assessment in the New Zealand classrooms

Following the implementation of the above initiatives, Harris and Brown (2009)
conducted a study which showed that teachers in New Zealand had good notions of
assessment and were able to give descriptions of different forms of assessment. The
study examined how 26 teachers ascribed to assessment, specifically their compliance,
to external reporting (including to parents), motivating students, organising group
instructions, the use and implementation of individualised learning. The study revealed
that teachers held complex conceptions about assessment and used it for different
purposes. Teachers in this study reported that their choice of assessment for students
was balanced between divergent stakeholders’ interests, including the needs of society,
school, and students. However, the study also revealed that there were strong tensions
between what the teachers felt was best practice and what the school required of them.
Compliance with standardised testing, and school-wide directives used to fulfil Ministry
of Education mandates worked strongly against the teachers’ personal beliefs
regarding effective assessment and the initiatives that preceded the National
Standards.

As Harris and Brown (2009) discovered, tensions arose when teachers did not
understand that assessment improved teaching and learning. Some teachers thought
asTTle assessment was extra work, and irrelevant work at that, and did not see visible
educational benefit from using it. This was significant in the lower decile schools.
Teachers stated that external reporting to Ministry of Education and school boards
shifted attention away from students’ needs. While in general, teachers considered
external reporting important, they saw the comparative data commonly requested by
parents at higher decile schools as problematic. As such, assessment that was rejected
or ignored by teachers was evaluated as having a negative influence on students and
schools. This supports the idea that, the success of an education initiative depends on
teachers.

Hawe et al. (2008) found feedback by primary school teachers in the classroom
was still dominated by teacher-supplied feedback, thus limiting opportunities for
students to exercise agency in their learning. Despite the various initiatives and
exposure to various feedback methods, evidence indicated teacher feedback was
25
largely dominated by success criteria. Teachers shared learning goals, learning
intentions and success criteria and their feedback was given in relation to these points
of reference. However, neither the feedback nor the criteria delved deeper to address
the deep features of writing or the process of writing. Clearly, this is an indication of
teachers taking on board the theoretical aspects of students ‘knowing’ their learning
goals and success criteria and they ‘believed’ that made them insiders in the knowledge
of quality, but in practice it in fact fell short of encouraging student understanding of
the bigger picture of learning. Most teachers in the study focussed on the immediate
aspects of feedback, meaning that although there was improvement in student
performance, the achievement was due to detailed corrective information that students
followed through.

Dixon’s (2011a) investigation into 20 primary teachers’ beliefs and

understandings of feedback revealed teachers’ beliefs influenced their uptake and
enactment of new ideas and practices. Her study concluded that it was teachers’ beliefs
that either enhanced or impeded their enactment of feedback practice. Teachers’ effort,
willingness, and resilience in the enactment were influenced by their beliefs. There are
other reasons for teachers’ variable uptake of new assessment processes. In a two-year
research project into formative assessment in science classrooms by Bell and Cowie
(1999), findings revealed that teachers using planned and interactive formative
assessment made decisions based on their teaching experience. In their planned
formative assessment, teachers interpreted the assessment information through
elicitation and took action based on that information. Interactive formative assessment
involved teachers noticing, recognising and responding during their teaching. Teachers’
interpretations of students, and their expectations, were influenced by their knowledge
of content, pedagogy, curriculum, and their students. Teachers indicated their
experience of teaching a particular science concept allowed them to interpret their
students’ thinking. However, often during interactive formative assessment, teachers
assumed students knew about the content and did not maximise the feedback process
to check students’ understanding of the concept or increase the students’ knowledge on
the subject.

These studies (Bell & Cowie, 1999; Dixon, 2011a; Hawe et al., 2008) all reveal
that teachers have differing interpretations of formative assessment. Most teachers
appear to focus on students’ ability to achieve objectives set for a specific unit of work
or task. These units and tasks are planned from the New Zealand curriculum, requiring
teachers to choose appropriate achievement objectives and reduce them to several
learning outcomes. Therefore, despite nationwide initiatives, it appears that individual
teachers are strong moderators of the success or failure of formative assessment and

26
feedback in the classroom. The successes and failures of changes to New Zealand
education has brought teachers into the spotlight, and research consistently indicates
that their personal beliefs regarding education create strong tensions between external
expectations and their own expectations and practice.

Specifically, scholars have asked to what extent teachers and educators could
develop their formative feedback practices and integrate them into a sound classroom
pedagogy (Bourke, Mentis, & Todd, 2010; Brookhart, 2012; Clark, 2010; Elwood, 2006),
helping students to become lifelong learners. Current scholarly emphasis is on ways to
support teachers in establishing new practices of formative assessment and feedback in
their classrooms (Black & Wiliam, 1998a; Torrance & Pryor, 1998, 2001). There are a
number of issues that have been raised in the implementation of effective feedback
practices in the classroom, and professional learning and development has been
identified as essential to helping relevant changes occur in teaching and learning
(Birenbaum, Kimron, & Shilton, 2011; Frey & Fisher, 2009; Nixon & McClay, 2007;
Smith, 2011). Nixon and McClay (2007) argued that the professional learning
experience of teachers should contain collaborative and social constructivist theoretical
models, to help teachers embrace the new innovations and practices.

However, schools in New Zealand are required to develop their own charters
and have been self-governing since 1989, therefore in principle they are free to
innovate and respond to the needs and wishes of their local community. Schools set and
develop their own strategic plans (Brown, 2004). As a result, the choice of initiatives
and reforms the school decides to embrace is voluntary, which indirectly influences the
knowledge and information readily available to teachers. Therefore, it is imperative to
find out what teachers believe and understand about feedback that is formative in
nature, and about the role it plays in their classroom practices after decades of new
initiatives, tools and innovations being introduced and implemented through PD. As the
role and nature of feedback strategies is the fundamental criterion that differentiates
formative assessment from summative, exploring the role of feedback that is formative
in the teaching of writing is especially significant.

Assessment for Learning: An Emphasis on Learner’s Role

Due to developments in education theory, such as increasing emphasis on

social-cultural learning theory, and metacognitive and self-regulation theory,
researchers argue that learners should be given a significant role in the assessment
process (Bell & Cowie, 1997; Black & Wiliam, 1998a; Sadler, 1989, 1998; Torrance &
Pryor, 1998). Properly executed, assessment for learning can help learners understand
and improve the quality of their work, through self-assessment, self-monitoring, and
27
self-regulation. Learners in this changing role should be able to apply self-regulation
and self-monitoring skills during the process of completing a task (Butler & Winne,
1995; Perrenoud, 1998). The significance of this is the learner’s ability to assess and
improve their work through understanding of the assessment criteria.

Assessment for learning encompasses strategies that teachers engage during

teaching and learning. It serves the purpose of supporting and developing students
learning and enabling students to become autonomous and self-regulating learners
(Dixon, 2011b; Sadler, 2010; Swaffield, 2011). These strategies embrace the promotion
of students’ understanding of their own learning goals and expected performance, as
well as the generation of feedback by both teachers and students on their current
versus desired performances (James, 2008; James & Pedder, 2006). In this view,
student engagement in peer and self-assessment, and taking control of their learning
through self-assessment is significant (if not vital) for their learning progressions.

Within the socio-cultural perspective, assessment strategies include culturally

situated arrangements that promote student participation, and development of
students’ sense of becoming an insider in their learning practice. It also promotes the
development of student’s identities as autonomous learners. Thus, newer models of
assessment for learning necessitate a need for teachers and students to radically
change the roles and behaviour encouraged under a behaviourist paradigm. In current
education theory, students are no longer dependent on teacher but rather hold the key
role in the process of effective learning (James & Pedder, 2006). Teachers now hold the
role of helping students become autonomous and self-regulating learners. In order for
students to be able to judge their performance against the required goals and progress
towards that goal (Butler & Winne, 1995), the ‘guild knowledge’ that teachers tacitly
hold should be shared with their students, in order to enable students to hold concepts
of quality similar to their teacher (Sadler, 2009b) thus achieving an insider role in their
learning. Teachers’ ‘guild knowledge’ is defined as knowing what constitutes quality in
student performance, which has been constructed over time through their teaching and
learning experiences in making qualitative judgement about student work (Sadler,
1989)

Assessment for learning (AƒL) first appeared into use in the late 80s and early
90s and may be considered a newer concept in the assessment literature (Gardner,
2006). The Assessment Reform Group (2002), group of mostly of UK based academics
formulated the definition of AƒL. That definition has since been extensively embraced
and often quoted as:

…the process of seeking and interpreting evidence for use by learners and their

28
 teachers to decide where the learners are in their learning, where they need to go
and how best to get there (Assessment Reform Group, 2002, p. 2-3).

Gardner (2006) claims that although both formative assessment and

assessment for learning denote similar sets of practice, assessment for learning
encapsulates the essence of assessment which is to support learning, as leaners are
provided with the responsibilities for using the information to enhance their learning
and makes the link between learning and assessment explicit. Thus the present
paradigm of thinking on assessment has been one that integrates teaching, learning and
assessment as a holistic process of learning (Black et al., 2003). Emphasis on shifting
teachers out of the main role in the assessment process and into their providing
opportunities to students in the process has been deemed important to student
learning.

Paul Black and Dylan Wiliam of King’s College, London identified the problem of
unproductive interaction impeding learning (Black and Wiliam, 1998b). In Assessment
for Learning: Beyond the Black Box written by the Assessment Reform Group (ARG)
(Assessment Reform Group, 1999), they found that the emphasis of marking and
grading in the classroom inevitably focused on student performance at a singular point
in learning. They argued that in order to attain and establish improved learning,
teacher instructions during assessment should motivate and build students’ self-
esteem through varying assessment instructions, involving students in their own
learning through self-assessment and effective feedback.

Assessment for Learning, which is informed by Vygotskian concepts, stressed

the significance of student autonomy in their learning. As a result, teachers’ roles were
again redefined: to share responsibility with students in their learning and assessment
(Cowie, 2005). The conceptualisation of assessment for learning was taken from a
published document entitled Assessment for learning: 10 principles, and described
assessment for learning as:

 Part of effective planning;

 Focused on students learning;
 Central to classroom practice;
 A key professional skill;
 Sensitive and constructive in nature;
 Fostering motivation in learning;
 Promoting learner’s understanding of goals and criteria;
 Helping students know how to improve;
 Developing the learner’s capacity for self-assessment;

29
  Recognising all educational achievement by the learner.
(Assessment Reform Group, 2002).

The 10 principles stated above by the ARG on assessment for learning centred
assessment around the learner’s self-regulation during learning. Teachers were given
the responsibility of sharing authority and promoting student autonomy (Bourke et al.,
2010; Hawe & Parr, 2013; Marshall & Drummond, 2006). Within the assessment for
learning process, researchers argued that teachers should embrace their students as
partners in learning, sharing discussion of learning goals and success criteria - in other
words, making space for students to have knowledge about the quality of the expected
assessment (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Sadler, 1989, 2010). This, they suggested, would
bring the student into the assessment process, and help them understand their own
learning goals (as compared to summative assessment by which teachers score student
achievement). Goals may denote knowledge or skill students need to attain or a task a
student has to complete (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Therefore, for students to progress,
feedback that is goal or progress based is important, as researchers maintain the most
crucial element in formative assessment is feedback that influences learning (Black &
Wiliam, 1998b; Crooks, 1988; Hattie & Timperley, 2007). This is a point highlighted in
policy documents as one to be embraced by teachers and embedded into educational
institutions (Crisp, 2007).

Assessment for ‘learning’ is beneficial when it provides students support to

monitor their progress towards reaching a desired goal through closing the gap
between their current learning status and desired outcome (Clark, 2011). However,
Swaffield (2011) argues that checking students against predetermined and sequenced
set on learning objectives is not the principle of AƒL. This limits the view of learning
principles. In traditional forms of assessment, students were often perceived as passive
recipients, but as discussed above, the current paradigm of assessment requires that
learners take ownership of their own learning. Teachers are encouraged to provide
opportunities for students to assess their own learning progress, alongside their peers,
while collaborating with teachers in developing criteria for their work. Conceptions of
learning within the constructivist approach suggest that students can and should create
their own meaning, and analyse their own context to create new knowledge
(Klenowski, Askew & Carnell, 2006).

Therefore, feedback in AƒL is the crux of the changing paradigm and the focal
point of process of helping students to enhance their learning and moving to a higher or
closer level of their specified goal or learning standard. Swaffield (2011) stated that
assessment for learning and formative assessment differ: assessment for learning is a
teaching and learning process, concerned with immediate and near future goals,
30
beneficial to specific classroom students who would ideally exercise agency and
autonomy in the process of learning how to learn. Formative assessment on the other
hand is a purpose or function of a certain assessment, focussed on long-term goals,
which can involve other teachers and in different setting, provide information that
guides future learning and concentrates on curriculum objectives.

The fact that the terms “assessment for learning” and “formative assessment”
are often used interchangeably also presents a problem. Black et al. (2003) argue that
the significance of assessment for learning is to promote (rather than to evaluate)
student learning, and that formative assessment functions to provide information for
teachers to use in giving feedback, and to assist teachers to adapt and modify both their
teaching and students’ learning. However, Wiliam and Thompson (2008) maintain
that, “assessment is formative to the extent that information from the assessment is fed
back” (p. 61), and opportunities for teachers to regularly observe students, and to
adapt lessons to suit their needs.

The significance of feedback in assessment to support students’ learning

Feedback is a significant aspect of assessment to support learning. Feedback

can exist in various forms, from written comments in the form of grades or marks to
oral responses or gestures to students. Feedback is often is embedded in to the
teaching/learning process. Teachers can either plan the feedback to students or it can
be a spontaneous process. It is an important component in the assessment for learning
process both for the teachers and for the students (Bell & Cowie, 2001; Black & Wiliam
1998b; Sadler, 1989, 2009b, 2010).

Feedback within the new constructivist paradigm has moved away from being
corrective to being facilitative, and is now more often focused on scaffolding of learning
through the zone of proximal development (ZPD) (Vygotsky, 1978). According to Hattie
and Timperley’s (2007) research, feedback in the formative function can reduce the gap
between students’ current understanding of their performance and the goals they are
trying to achieve. As mentioned, feedback from teachers in a traditional context, which
is a one-way communication, has been criticized due to students becoming dependent
on teachers (Sadler, 1989), so in the present conception, it is considered that feedback
should be interactive. Ideally, effective feedback enables learners to self-assess, self-
reflect, and self-regulate their learning (Butler & Winne, 1995; Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick,
2006; Sadler, 1989). Self-regulated learning is defined as the process of learners setting
their own goals for their learning, and then monitoring and regulating their motivation,
behaviour and cognition to reach their goals (Pintrich, 2000a). During this process,
teachers’ facilitative feedback is seen to be significant to successful achievement.
31
 Formative assessment and feedback aims to enable students to self-assess,
reflect and monitor their learning to grow as lifelong learners. According to studies,
feedback is significant in influencing learning (Black & Wiliam, 1998b; Bangert-Drown,
Kulik, Kulik & Morgan, 1991; Crooks, 1998; Hattie, 2009; Sadler, 1989, 2010); can act as
a facilitator in enhancing performance (Bandura, 1991; Bandura & Cervone, 1983), and
is significant in the classroom structure. Literature concerning formative feedback
identifies the importance of teachers’ responses to student work in closing the gap
(Sadler, 1989). Feedback here is defined as:

Information about the gap between the actual level and reference level of a
system parameter which is used to alter the gap in some way (Ramaprasad, 1983,
p. 4).

This definition of feedback was later extended by Sadler’s (1989) formative

assessment theory, which posited that information on students’ successful practice
requires a “feedback loop” (Sadler, 1989, p. 121). Formative assessment as a feedback
loop operates in closing the gap between the student’s current performance and their
desired performance. (Sadler, 1989) argues that information itself is not feedback
unless it is actively used to serve this function. This feedback loop informs teachers
about knowledge or skills attained or yet to be achieved by the student, aims to
facilitate learners in being able to identify and to amend a gap, and also to assist
teachers in reflecting and selecting suitable tasks or activities and to modify/adapt
their teaching to close the gap. Ideally, teachers would use evidence gained from
formative assessment to make changes in teaching, while students would receive
feedback to improve their learning. Feedback within the assessment for learning then is
information about the students’ current/desired performance, and in a formative
conception of feedback, students also have knowledge about the desired quality for
their work, and are able to perform self-monitoring and self-regulation to enhance their
learning (Dixon, 2011b). This understanding of feedback is used to inform this thesis.
Figure 2.1 on the next page highlights formative assessment and feedback within
Sadler’s (1989) new paradigm and outlines the role of feedback as information to
enhance learning.

32
 Information Informs
Knowledge
Current/desired and skills of
performance students

Identify gap
Knowledge of Formative in learning
quality
Learners assessment Teachers
and Reflect and
Become self- feedback select tasks/
monitoring activities

Enhance learning Modify/

adapt
teaching

Figure 2.1: Formative assessment and feedback

In Shute’s (2008) review ‘formative feedback’ was defined as “information

communicated to the learner that is intended to modify his or her thinking or
behaviour for the purpose of improving learning” (p. 154). Attention is drawn to the
fact that feedback has a positive impact on student learning, in contrast to Kluger and
DeNisi’s (1996) findings that feedback had negative effects on students learning. Irons
(2008) adds that formative feedback is achieved not only by the information given, but
by the process or activity that uses that information to afford or accelerate learning.
Hence, effective formative feedback is a process or activity that provides information to
learners to modify thinking and behaviour in a manner that enhances learning and
performance.

Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick (2006) argue that feedback should clarify to

students what successful performance is, in order to facilitate self-assessment. The
information to students about their learning helps promote teacher/student
interaction, as well as fostering motivational beliefs and self-esteem in students.
Feedback should also provide opportunities for students to close the gap between their
current and desired performances, helping them to become self- monitoring, and at the
same time should inform teachers about student learning. This follows from Sadler
(1989) concept that formative assessment and feedback should inform teachers the
knowledge and skills of the students so they are able to identify gaps between what
they have learned and what they have yet to learn. As Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick
(2006) argue, when feedback functions formatively and effectively, teachers should be
able to reflect and select tasks and activities suitable for their students and also modify
or adapt their teaching to suit their students.

33
 The distinction between formative and summative assessment is in the quality
of questioning, the type of feedback, timing of feedback, and self-assessment and peer-
assessment (Crossouard, 2009; Black & Wiliam, 1998a; Boud, 2000 Sadler, 2000;
Wiliam & Thompson, 2008). As noted, in the traditional, behaviourist form of feedback,
the concept of feedback is a one-way activity in which the teacher is the sole source of
information, positioned externally to the learner. Traditional feedback situates the
teacher as telling student what successful performance is, and this has been heavily
criticised (Sadler, 1989; Wiggins, 1993). Further, this style of feedback requires
teachers to provide feedback through grades and marks only. This, theorists have
argued, creates students who depend on the teacher. The form of effective feedback
proposed by current education theory recognises the role of students in their own
learning, and is commonly described as co-constructed through teacher/student
partnership (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Sadler, 1989; Wiliam & Thompson, 2008).
Researchers argue that feedback is effective when learners are able to learn through
collaboration with teachers, and become generators of feedback information through
self, and peer-assessment in such a way that it provides a learning experience (Wiggins,
1993).

One influential article that addresses the positive aspect of feedback is Hattie
and Timperley’s (2007) model: that feedback information is brought up-front and
needs to be formulated and delivered in a way that encourages students’ engagement
and learning. Hattie and Timperley’s (2007) proposed model of feedback stated that in
order for feedback to be effective, three questions should be answered: ‘Where am I
going?’; ‘How am I going?’, and ‘Where to next?’ The first question relates to the goal or
task that the student needs to accomplish. The second question provides students with
information on their performance, compared to the goals established. The third is the
strategy for further learning and improvement in performance. The focus of feedback,
they argued, was (or should be) its effectiveness in improving learning. That focus
could relate to the task, processing of the task, self-regulation, or the learner’s
confidence; the important factor was the emphasis on increasing the student’s ability to
learn.

Feedback on the task is the most effective when faulty interpretations are
addressed, as learners benefit from additional instruction on completing their task.
When the feedback is focussed on the processing level, it can help learners develop
methods for discovering errors that may lead to developing an understanding of the
relationships between differing tasks, and the transferring of that learning to a new
task. As a result, Hattie and Timperley (2007) further state that effective feedback is
more than general praise to the learner: it must be accompanied by actionable

34
information for the student to work on. Feedback that is focussed on self-regulation
helps learners engage in their tasks. Their findings from several studies indicate that
students perceive feedback as their teacher’s perception of their ability, which was
generally not their teachers’ intention. Kluger and DeNisi’s (1996) meta-analysis of
feedback likewise indicated that some forms of feedback were more effective than
others in improving student performance. However their findings indicate that more
than one-third of feedback intervention resulted in negative effects on learning,
especially when feedback was more to the self (ego-related) than it was focussed on the
task itself or the self-regulatory processes.

In order for feedback to be formative, it has to be communicated to students

and in a way they are able to engage with the feedback. Students’ understanding and
engaging with the feedback is considered significant (Sadler, 2010), and an essential
condition in bridging the gap between current and desired achievement (Ramaprasad,
1983; Sadler, 1989). As Boud (2000) claims, unless students use the feedback to
improve their work and performance, neither the provider nor the receiver of the
feedback will know its effectiveness. Within this study, formative feedback is defined as
the information provided by teachers to close gaps and improve students’ work (Sadler,
1989).

Feedback is formative when it is non-evaluative, learner-controlled, timely,

specific and clear. This is inherent to Shute’s (2008) assertion that feedback should
modify students’ thinking and behaviour, although the success depends on the timing
of feedback and the learner’s characteristics, as interpretation of feedback information
is individualistic to the learner. These viewpoints on feedback are grounded in research
and afford useful information: that feedback enhances learning. It is important to note
that it has also been argued that feedback that is critical or controlling could impede
learners’ efforts to improve their performance (Ashwell, 2000; Kepner, 1991).
Providing grades or scores indicating student achievement, or providing feedback that
is vague can also have negative effects (Butler, 1987; Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). In
addition, feedback from teachers interrupting students actively engaged in problem
solving can inhibit learning (Corno & Snow, 1986). Clearly, as indicated above, feedback
that is effective and formative is both specific to the task being assessed, and general in
identifying the broader areas that the feedback could be applied to in future work and
learning.

There are several ways that feedback can influence learning. Firstly, as cited
above, it can do so in facilitating resolution of gaps between students’ current learning
performances, and their desired level of performance (Locke & Latham, 1990; Sadler,
1998). Secondly, formative feedback can effectively help struggling students that could
35
benefit from extra support (Graham, Harris, & Troia, 2000; Shute, 2008). Thirdly,
formative feedback can be beneficial for correcting incorrect task strategies, procedural
errors, or misconceptions (Gué nette, 2013), which is especially effective when feedback
is specific. Accordingly, in the New Zealand context the NZC (Ministry of Education,
2007a) suggests teachers’ planning be flexible in making changes in response to new
information, opportunities, or insights that occur during lessons.

Evaluative and descriptive feedback

One important contribution to the field of feedback has been from Tunstall and
Gipps’ (1996) feedback typology. Tunstall and Gipps investigated the types of feedback
used by Year one and two teachers in six London schools. The aim of their study was to
distinguish the types of feedback related to learning, which they categorised as either
evaluative or descriptive. Evaluative feedback identified as (A1) Rewarding; (A2)
Punishing; (B1) Approving, and (B2) Disapproving. In contrast to evaluative types of
feedback, descriptive feedback was identified as (C1) Specifying Attainment; (C2)
Specifying Improvement; (D1) Constructing Achievement, and (D2) Constructing the
Way Forward. Feedback types C and D are associated with formative use. The
significant difference is the roles played by teachers and students in the feedback
process. In both C1 and C2 feedback types the students are the receiver and the teacher
controls the feedback process. In the D1 and D2 feedback types, teachers and students
work in partnership to bridge the gaps identified between the student’s current level
and their desired level of achievement. They collaborate in the types of strategies that
can be used in closing in the gap.

Tunstall & Gipps (1996) constructed this typology as an analytical tool for
teachers, creating insights into the ways and language of providing feedback. The
limitation of the typology is in the lack of details on the specific types of feedback.
Although the findings of their study revealed evidence of all types of feedback, no
details about the specific type of feedback strategies utilised were reported. Still,
several New Zealand studies have utilised the typology to analyse teachers’ feedback
strategies (Hawe et al., 2008; Knight, 2003). Both studies found that teachers played
dominant roles in the feedback process.

Knight’s (2003) study found that in the majority of instances (291 of 349),
teachers’ oral feedback was in fact evaluative in nature during the teaching of
numeracy. Another New Zealand study by Hawe et al. (2008), on the types of feedback
used by teachers in primary schools to support students’ learning in written language
indicated the strong influence of feedback based on success criteria. The researchers
found that in the three classrooms they observed, teachers supplied the feedback and
36
students did not exercise their roles as agents in promoting their own learning. Hawe et
al. (2008) discovered descriptive types of feedback were in fact prevalent in feedback
provided by teachers in the teaching of writing. However, teachers’ feedback comments
specified attainment (C1) of specified improvement (C2). Students had limited
opportunities to be active participants in the process of using the feedback that in ways
that could construct achievement (D1) or construct the way forward (D2), and were
restricted to teacher’ supplied feedback. Thus, the opportunities for students to
develop evaluative and productive skills during learning were limited (Sadler, 1989).
This further highlights that teachers may have understandings of the effective use of
student centred feedback in learning, but have so far been unable to practically
inculcate the full concept of formative feedback that brings learners into the process
and allows them to become self-monitoring, and progress independently.

Questioning as a way forward

Teacher questioning in classroom assessment has changed over time, from

closed-ended questions with ‘correct’ answers to a more open-ended form. This change
has been influenced by theorists like Black et al. (2003), who suggest that teachers
should develop effective questioning techniques to facilitate students’ analytical
thinking, as well as helping them to provide their own answers. This approach
challenges the traditional understanding of ‘questions’ in the classroom: as just
requiring an answer from students. Instead, it encourages discussion as students think
of responses and ideas from different angles. Black et al. (2003) suggest that to develop
formative questions, teachers should organize their questions within three themes of
introducing “frame questions” (the big idea); increasing “wait time” that provides
students time to think and respond; and using “follow-up” questions or activities to
ensure understanding (p. 42).

But although teacher questioning is able to stimulate learning, it is not often

utilised in such a way. Research indicates that teachers, at times, use questions to exert
control rather than to stimulate intellectual functioning (Gipps, 1994). Recent studies
have found that teachers’ questioning, rather than stimulating students’ learning,
frequently closes down opportunities for interaction, and chances for open discussion
(Carnell, 2000; Torrance & Pryor, 2001). These studies indicate learners are not being
provided with enough thinking time to formulate answers (Black & Wiliam, 1998b).
Additionally, the use of lower order questions does not encourage higher order of
cognitive thinking, and often leads to ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answers (Torrance & Pryor,
1998), thus again often closing down opportunities for discussion (Leat & Nochols,
2000).

37
 The traditional form of teacher talk and interaction was prevalent in a recent
large-scale study in UK on the teaching of literacy and numeracy (Smith & Higgins,
2006). In the majority of observed lessons, student participation in the discussion was
drawn by teachers to the planned outcomes and the restricted answers teachers
deemed allowable. In only very few instances was teacher/student interaction in-depth
and exploratory. In some isolated cases, teachers did not ask all the questions or
provide answers, and in these cases, peer and student expression was utilised through
review, discuss and debating their contribution.

Studies have emphasised the need for students to be involved in the feedback
interaction (Askew & Lodge, 2000; Carnell, 2000; Sadler, 1989; Torrance & Pryor, 1998,
2001; Tunstall & Gipps, 1996). Power is then shared by teachers, providing students
with greater control of their learning and responsibilities in making judgements and
decisions about their work. This provides students insight through interaction with the
teacher who holds the guild knowledge that students would not otherwise be able to
gain individually (Sadler, 2010). Both New Zealand studies (Hawe et al., 2008; Knight,
2003) that utilised Tunstall and Gipps’ (1996) typology found that teachers denied
opportunities to students to become insiders in the feedback process, as the use of both
D1 and D2 types of feedback was absent. As noted, this hinders leaners’ opportunities
to exercise agency in their learning, as the co-construction of D type of feedback
(Tunstall & Gipps, 1996) is intended to move away from being dependent on teacher-
supplied feedback.

Verification and elaborative feedback information

An historical review on feedback by Kulhavy and Stock (1989) indicated

another two types of effective feedback information: verification and elaboration.
Shute’s (2008) review of the literature on formative feedback states that feedback
provides information to learners as either of these forms. Feedback as elaboration goes
beyond noting correct or incorrect responses, and is more effective to learning.
Verification feedback information is judgement based on students’ correct answers,
and elaboration is the information that provides cues, guiding the learner towards the
correct answers. Verification is accomplished by highlighting a response and indicating
the correct answer. On the other hand, elaboration addresses more than just the
correct answer; it addresses the topic, response, errors, and provides examples and
guidance. There is a growing consensus that response-specific feedback elaboration
enhances student learning and achievement rather much more than verification is able
to (Corbet & Anderson, 2001; Dobber, Akkerman, Verloop, & Vermunt, 2012).

38
 Elaborative feedback can be directive or facilitative. When it guides the student
through facilitation in developing his or her own plan, feedback then is effective. Shute
(2008) identifies effective feedback as feedback that focuses on learners, and provides
manageable elaboration; specific, clear, and simple, to reduce uncertainty about the
discrepancy between performance and goals, and to promote unbiased objective,
feedback that is learning goal orientated. Studies on feedback elaboration have
reported that this form of feedback increases students’ learning progress (Moreno;
2004; Pridemore & Klien; 1995). Yet, other studies report that the increase of feedback
information has no significant influence on student performance (Kulhavy, White Topp,
Chan & Adams, 1985). Taken together, these studies and their findings illustrate that
feedback elaboration alone does not improve learning and performance. Therefore,
scholars suggest that feedback should be simple, with enough information so students
are able to take on board the feedback for improvement. Similarly, effective learning
takes place when feedback to students is specific and clear enough that it doesn’t
impede learning by introducing confusion (Wiliam, 2006), and is linked to students’
goals (Duijnhouwer, Prins & Stokking, 2012).

As researchers argue, formative feedback to enhance learning should focus on

the task and not the learners (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Butler, 1987; Kluger & DeNisi
1996). It should focus on specific features of the student’s work and performance, with
suggestions for improvement. Ideally, feedback should provide elaboration on the
what, how and why of the task on hand, an approach that has been repeatedly found to
be more effective than feedback on errors and verification (Bangert-Drowns et al.,
1991; Ellis 2009). However, the elaborated feedback to learners should be manageable
so as not to overwhelm the student, and should encourage students to engage with the
feedback, not discard the feedback. Too much information through feedback
elaboration may result in students doing superficial learning, or copying, and again
becoming dependent on the teacher. Learners should be given control over the task and
over improving their performance.

Complexity and length of feedback information

Another aspect of effective feedback is the complexity and length of the

feedback. If the feedback is too long or complicated, as suggested above, there is likely
to be less student engagement with the feedback, thus making the feedback ineffective.
As stressed above, in order for formative feedback to be effective, it should be given in
the simplest possible form, to verify the student’s answer and provide information
relevant to the student’s response (directive or facilitative). Studies that have examined
the types and amount of feedback information, however, have shown inconsistent

39
results (Kulhavy, 1977; Mory, 2004). This inconclusiveness suggests that there be other
mediating factors involved in the relationship between formative feedback and
learning. These factors may include the nature and quality of the feedback, information
about the learning goals, and performance and attainment of those goals.

An investigation of an advanced ESL composition course by Conrad and

Goldstein (1999) provides an insight into the relationship between teachers’ written
comments and students’ work. Students in the research were successful in resolving
written revision problems based on the teacher’s feedback of adding examples or
increasing cohesion, but struggled and were unsuccessful in revising based on feedback
relating to explanation, explicitness, and analysis. Students’ content knowledge and
beliefs influenced their success, thus revealing a need for teachers to consider
individual factors affecting students. However, there is fear that too many comments
and too much feedback will encourage correction by students in a way that does not
involve their own thinking (Hattie & Timperley, 2007). Feedback can be overwhelming
to students when it requires them to read between the lines for understanding or is too
general. These results clearly indicate that teachers are utilising feedback; however
they are not doing so effectively enough to promote deeper thinking, or to bridge the
relevant gaps in understanding.

Scaffolding as a form of closing the gap

Scaffolding enables learners to progress in their learning and engage in more

advanced thinking. Bransford, Brown, and Cocking (2000) suggested that scaffolding
feedback in a goal-directed approach motivates learners, and makes tasks manageable
and achievable, as well as providing direction to learners’ goals, and indicating the
standard and desired outcomes of performance, and reducing learner frustration.
According to Bransford et al. (2000), scaffolding feedback provides students with a
sense of direction that indicates the difference between the students’ current work and
desired standards. Although scaffolding feedback to individual students is time
consuming and challenging to teachers, individualised implementation has proven to
be beneficial to student learning. Strategically guided scaffolding promotes learning
(Clark, 2011), and the involvement of the teacher/student collaborative process of
negotiation of meaning helps improve performance (Shepard, 2005; 2008). Therefore,
just telling students the answers, or telling them to rethink their answer is not
scaffolding feedback that promotes learning. As scaffolding, feedback in the education
setting includes modelling, cues, prompts, hints, solutions, and direct instruction
(Hartman, 2002).

40
 McKay (2006) defines scaffolding as giving cognitive and language support, or
talking through a task to promote learning. Second language learners often face
challenges - language ability, accuracy, fluency and complexity - in completing a task
(Skehan, 1998). Scaffolding information and feedback to bring students closer to the
desired performance and quality is significant to formative assessment for learning,
however there is a distinction between guiding students through goal-directed
facilitation, and directing them (Carless, 2005; Boud, & Falchikov, 2006).

Feedback specificity

Although largely it has been argued that the nature of feedback influences its
effectiveness - such as the discovery that feedback focussed on personal qualities can
tend to impede learning (Kluger & DeNisi, 1998) - outcome focussed feedback seldom
improves learning, even where there is sufficient information. Written responses that
tend to focus on low level or technical concerns rather than the meaning within context
(Arndt, 1992; Connors & Lunsford, 1993; Sommers 1982; Zellermayer, 1989), or that
pay excessive attention to surface features can, according to studies by Hargreaves &
McCallum (1998) and more recently by Stern & Solomon (2006), tend toward impeding
learning.

Written feedback by teachers often becomes something other than formative

assessment when teachers focus on surface features like spelling and editing, and just
provide an overall comment on content (Arndt, 1992; Sommers, 1982). Therefore, it is
suggested that students are shown less surface aspects of their writing that need to be
worked on to reach their desired goal in written feedback (Black & Wiliam, 1998b).
Intensive feedback on spelling will make spelling the dominant feature of writing,
overlooking the content. Teachers forcing students to always spell correctly prevents
students’ ideas and creativity from flowing. Research has also suggested that the
teachers’ feedback within the classroom is contextualised and influenced by the
characteristics of the written task and criteria of evaluation. Studies conducted in
primary classrooms by Wyatt-Smith, Castleton, Freebody and Cooksey (2003), and
Matsumura, Patthey-Chavez, Valdez and Garneier (2002) provide evidence that the
amount and type of feedback predicts the quality of writing.

Parr and Timperley (2010) assert that teachers’ content knowledge is essential
to providing written responses that are formative in nature. Written comments are
often ineffective to improving writing if directed towards students’ personal technical
abilities (Kluger & DeNisi, 1998). This is another reason that feedback is ineffective
when it encourages surface learning and focuses on correctness, with inadequate
information for students’ construction and development of knowledge. Studies on
41
written responses on writing found that teachers often focused on technical concerns
(Connors & Lunsford, 1993) and surface features of writing (Hargreaves & McCallum,
1998; Stern & Solomon, 2006), and that these tendencies were predictors of the final
quality of written drafts.

Direct written feedback provides students with the advantage of seeing exactly
how to correct their errors (Ellis, 2009). However, there is often minimal processing on
the part of learners. Ellis, Sheen, Murakami, & Takashima, (2008) found that the
constant use of rule reminders and written-error correction of surface features did not
improve or enhance the quality of writing. By contrast, indirect feedback encourages
learners to reflect on their learning. Ashwell’s (2000) study on content feedback and
form feedback among 50 Japanese students enrolled in two writing classrooms in
higher education found that irrespective of which feedback was given first or whether
it was given simultaneously, the results were the same. Students benefitted from the
feedback, and this contradicted Zamel’s (1985) recommendation that content feedback
be given at the beginning stages of writing and form feedback at the end. Ashwell’s
findings revealed that giving both content and form feedback simultaneously did not
affect the students’ revision. Students benefited from any form of teacher feedback.
Ferris and Roberts’ (2001) study of 72 ESL students concluded that less explicit
feedback promoted students to self-edit as well as explicit feedback did. Findings
clearly indicate is feedback is effective when students are provided opportunities to
reflect on their learning, especially when it was content based and promoted self-
editing.

Another study, by Bitchener and Knoch (2008) on the effectiveness of written

corrective feedback on the writing of 144 ESL international and migrant students at a
New Zealand university, found that students who received both direct corrective
feedback and written and oral metalinguistic explanation outperformed the students
with only direct feedback or written feedback. The students who received all three
feedback types retained their accuracy level for over seven weeks. These significant
findings also revealed that there were no differences between migrant and
international students in the extent to which they improved. Similar results were found
by Storch and Wigglesworth (2010), who explored the efficacy of two different forms of
corrective feedback in an Australian university. Their study focused on students’
engagement with feedback, and their reasons for either accepting or rejecting the
feedback. The findings suggested that irrespective of the type of feedback, student
engagement depended on the complex and dynamic interaction of linguistic and
affective factors.

42
 As Sadler (1989) argues, feedback is effective when students know the purpose
of the task, their progress against the desired goal or expectation, and whether or not
they are able to close the gap. This concept is supported by findings from Weaver’s
(2006) study on features of feedback. Students from this study identified that feedback
was often vague, too general, lacking in guidance, focussed on negative aspects and
unrelated to their learning criteria, and that this was unsupportive. Therefore, Sadler
proposed that feedback in the form of written comments should instead be related to
students’ work, and connected to their learning and outcomes. As Sadler concluded, not
only did a focus on correct spelling prevent students’ ideas and creativity from flowing,
but teachers’ feedback needed to focus on developing skills in writing that enabled
students to become lifelong learners.

Directive and facilitative feedback

Learning is an active process, where students construct ideas or concepts based

on current or past knowledge. In Bruner’s (1961) conception, feedback has to provide
meaning for students to select and transform information, and make decisions that go
beyond the information given. Bruner (1961) suggests that knowledge is not to be
imparted by teachers, but that teachers should facilitate and develop thinking that can
be transferred to a range of situations. As Bruner argued, the role of the teacher should
be to design lessons and provide feedback that prompted students to discover the
relationships between information, and not to teach by rote learning.

Several studies have investigated the effects of directive and facilitative

feedback on student learning (Boramy, 2010; Day & Gordon, 1993; Hargreaves &
McCallum, 1998). These studies have illustrated that providing students with directive
and correct answers resulted in reduced opportunities for students to improve their in-
depth thinking. Directive and facilitative feedback, according to Boramy’s study (2010)
in a Cambodian higher education setting, found that facilitative feedback – feedback
focussed on questions and comments regarding the development of content and ideas -
was more effective in improving revisions of essays than was directive feedback -
comments on grammatical, structural and vocabulary errors. Facilitative feedback was
found to be more effective as a means of improving students’ organisation and in-depth
of treatment of the topic. It was also found to improve the interactive nature of writing.
Thus, Boramy (2010) suggests that facilitative feedback be used in addition to directive
feedback to improve student writing. Similarly, Day and Gordon (1993) found that
suggestions and discussions with students about improvement through scaffolding
learners’ responses was an effective form of feedback.

43
 In any kind of formative assessment, Hattie and Jaeger’s (1998) meta-analyses
demonstrated that feedback was the single most powerful moderator in enhancing
learning, and should begin with teachers and students establishing learning goals and
learning intentions for the lesson (Sadler, 1989). Learning goals are broader statements
that establish the purpose of the specific classroom educational activity. Learning
intentions are specific, measurable statements to be learnt or attained by the learner.
The success of students’ attainment depends on their comprehension of teachers’
feedback and their ability to follow up on this feedback. As Sadler (1989) stated,
student comprehension of learning goals is an important aspect in enhancing learning.
Therefore, with better comprehension of their task and learning intentions through
feedback on their goals, students are able to complete their written task to a higher
standard. Heritage (2007) concurs, suggesting that teacher feedback methods
indirectly influence the attainment of the success criteria that guide students’ learning.

Self-assessment in assessment for learning

Self-assessment is an on-going process that enables revision and editing. In the

formative aspect of assessment, this might take the form of engaging students to
critique their own work, while monitoring their progress and guiding revisions.
Effective self-assessment creates awareness of success against criteria on specified
tasks. Marking feedback is suggested to focus on learning, the quality of which can be
improved with shared marking. Self-marking is the process of self-assessment, which is
influenced by the success criteria given to students, so teachers who develop a strategy
of coded marking are more able to help students based on their success and point of
improvement (Clarke, 2001).

Self-regulated learning, on the other hand, is a process of assisting students in

reaching their goals by generating ideas, monitoring and modifying thought, and
behaviour. In this process, students use a variety of strategies and tactics to promote
learning: goal planning, setting and selecting learning strategies (with help), adaptation
and seeking feedback all enhance students’ abilities in self-regulated learning. In a
study by McCallum, Hargreaves and Gipps (2000) of 44 Year 2 and 6 students from
around London, evidence indicated that children can conceptualise learning, strategies
and process. The good learners were seen using strategies of self-questioning, and
searching for connections. They were able to articulate their own process of thinking.
Continuous feedback to students was helpful in their learning, setting of goals and self-
assessment (Cauley & McMillan, 2009). Hattie and Timperley’s (2007) findings likewise
revealed the benefit of self-assessment when students are actively engaged in learning

44
and focussed on goals, and noted that teacher feedback during the process was an
important factor to consider when encouraging such self-regulation.

Nonetheless, Bullock’s (2011) study revealed contradictory results. On the one

hand it showed that when teachers supported self-assessment, student awareness of
their strengths and weakness was able to both stimulate and motivate their learning.
However, some of the teachers Bullock (2011) interviewed doubted whether their
students were actually capable of doing self-assessment. Teachers in the study found
that the implementation of self-assessment was time consuming. They struggled to
motivate students to frame their own learning aims, and the implementation of self-
assessment was challenging without support and training. Likewise, Joyce, Spillar and
Twist’s (2009) findings revealed that teachers found it challenging to facilitate student
during self-assessment. Their findings suggested that teachers needed support to
provide an active classroom culture to support the strategies involved in using self-
assessment. This indicates that professional development and a school wide culture of
self-assessment are also required to facilitate successful self-assessment classroom
practice.

Contradictions appear to exist between teachers’ expressed beliefs and their

practices. In a longitudinal study teachers also reported that self-assessment was
significant to teaching (James & Pedder, 2006). An analysis of questionnaires
completed by teachers at 43 infant, primary and secondary schools in England revealed
that 83% of the teachers valued practices that encouraged discussion and clarification
of learning outcomes and criteria for success, focused on formative feedback. Teachers
professed to ask open questions that helped build their strength to think critically, self-
assess, and develop independence in learning.

In contrast, closed-questions, marks and grades and summative feedback, and

ego-focussed feedback were given the lower value. Unexpectedly, the teachers’ least
valued practice was providing opportunities for students to set their own goals and
engage in peer assessment. There was incongruence between their assessment values
and their practice values, gaps between the values and self-reported practice; areas
such as discussion with students on improvement, integration of self and peer-
assessment opportunities and helping students become independent learners. The
conclusion drawn by James and Pedder (2006) was that a value/practice divide existed
in areas including making learning goals explicit, promoting learning autonomy and
performance orientation. The effective development of formative assessment practices
entails in-depth understanding of content; making inferences on students’ knowledge,
and ensuring this information is translated into planning for student improvement

45
(Sharkey & Murnane, 2003). Teachers may need professional development to resolve
these inconsistencies.

Self-assessment encourages decision-making and facilitates the process of

providing choices to students, but it should also (ideally) help teachers to manage their
time in the process of formative assessment. This is because part of the process
includes teachers transferring their evaluative knowledge so that students are able to
become independent learners, monitoring their own learning and eventually being able
to transfer and practice their skills during the peer assessment process. Two New
Zealand studies (Bourke, 2000; Hyland, 2000) have reported that this aspect of self-
assessment is yet to be actualized. The studies’ findings showed that although self-
assessment was promoted in the classroom, the students’ involvement in the process of
taking accountability for their learning was superficial. Hyland’s (2000) study of higher
education learning found that while teachers implemented both teacher-feedback and
peer-feedback in the classroom, the student still played a dependent role, with the
teacher dominating the feedback session. The findings revealed students provided
limited contribution to their own learning in a formal setting, but contributions of peer
feedback during informal sessions were considered helpful for them.

Transferring evaluative and productive skills through peer assessment

The most effective form of students grasping the complex activity such as
writing is for teachers to create experiences for students in the creation, assessment
and revision of their work during the writing process (Sadler, 2009b). Teachers
therefore need to generate a pedagogical environment in which students are provided
with opportunities to make essential and comprehensive assessment of their peers’
work during the production of their writing, a strategy to help further improve and
enhance their learning (Sadler, 2009b, 2010). Providing opportunities with authentic
evaluative activities through peer-assessment enables students to become self-
monitoring and gain substantive evaluative experience, a strategic and deliberate act of
introducing students into the ‘guild knowledge’ of the writing community (Sadler,
2010). In addition to the active involvement of students in their own learning, peer
assessment helps students provide feedback against similar success criteria that they
have used to check their own work through self-assessment.

Peer-assessment is defined as students’ involvement in the assessment process

of grading or judging the work of their peers through feedback (Topping, 2009), and
has been deemed beneficial to students as it promotes students receiving and providing
feedback. Students are able to think about and understand the requirements the school
has for their learning if they are able to think about them in regard to their peers.
46
Wiliam (2006) stated that both the provider and recipient benefit from feedback of this
kind, as it forces internalization of the learning intentions and success criteria in the
context of the task. Black and Wiliam (1998a) propose students be taught to assess
their peers with the aim of improving learning, as in the peer-feedback process
students’ understanding of the assessment process, their learning goals and success
criteria is enhanced through both oral and written feedback. However, students need
training to carry out the function of editing a peer’s task, and teachers may not choose
to invest time in preparing students to be editors (Rollinson, 2005). Furthermore,
during the process of peer assessment – both oral and written – teachers are still
required to gauge each student’s ability and to encourage dialogue (Clarke, 2001).

It is possible to consider peer-assessment as a kind of collaborative writing, the

theoretical underpinnings of which are the sense of students having an audience
through peers, and the transfer-of-learning principles of feedback (Gebhardt, 1980).
Through this collaborative process, students are able to gain insight into their own
writing and get a sense of how their own work is progressing as they provide
comments on the tasks of others, and feedback is “the base” of this (Gebhardt, 1980, p.
69). But importantly, the transfer of skill from reading to critically viewing and giving
feedback depends on the kind of feedback the student receives from their teacher, as
well as the practice their teacher has facilitated in providing peer-assessment.

Consequently, students often find peer assessment a daunting task, as it does

not promote opportunity for dialogue between teachers and students. In a study on the
implementation of peer assessment among 81 students in the UK in a higher education
setting, McConlogue (2012) found that students reported peer assessors’ marking as
unfair. The findings relate to the assumed reliability of the teacher’s marking
judgements, which weighed more heavily than their evaluation of the opportunities for
dialogue created through peer assessment.

Zhao’s (2010) comparative study on teacher and peer feedback for eighteen
Chinese university students in English writing classes found that students preferred
teacher feedback and situations where they were passive recipients of the feedback.
When asked to provide peer-assessment, they used the feedback without
understanding the feedback’s significance. Therefore, Zhao suggested, students’
understanding of feedback was an important factor to be considered by teachers in
developing student writing proficiency. Lee (2007) reported similar findings about
students in a study based in Hong Kong; like Chinese and British students, they
preferred teacher feedback to peer feedback. The study consisted of six teachers and
eighteen secondary school students in Hong Kong, and found that students sometimes
copied teachers’ feedback into their revision. There was not much thinking by the
47
students, and they made the similar mistakes in their subsequent writing tasks. The
students in the study integrated more teacher feedback than they did their peer
feedback, because they viewed teacher feedback as trustworthy. The three findings
above suggest that students prefer teacher feedback and marking, and that teachers
may need to share the purposes for participating in peer feedback as they prepare
students for these new roles.

Challenges in the implementations of peer-assessment

The various theoretical approaches typify the shifting of emphasis in theories about
feedback, as outlined in previous sections of this chapter: toward assessment being
seen as a teacher/student partnership in which teachers and learners share learning
goals, and in which students are encouraged to assert a self-assessment process, thus
promoting student autonomy (Cowie 2005; Marshall & Drummond, 2006). Sadler
(1989) suggested a framework for assessment to help the process:

• the learner has to possess a concept of the standard, goal or reference level
being aimed for;
• the learner must be able compare their actual or current level of performance
with the standard;
• the learner must be able to engage in appropriate action which leads to some
closure of the gap (p. 121).

As national and international findings have revealed, the implementation of

feedback that is formative is complex, a process yet to be fully mastered by teachers. It
has been found that teachers have yet to fully utilise feedback as a development
strategy to promote student learning during learning, and to help them become skilled
in the evaluative process as insiders. Research findings have demonstrated that despite
theoretical shifts, little has changed in teachers’ practical understanding of their roles,
and their students’ roles, in the teaching of writing and feedback. Both Black and
Wiliam’s (1998b) and Sadler’s (1989) review of research into formative assessment
have revealed that even after several decades of research, there is still work to be done
in the classroom implementation of formative assessment and feedback that effectively
serves it. Furthermore, teachers have yet to make radical changes in their thinking
about the roles they play in the assessment process. There has been little change in the
distribution of power and control of learning from teachers to students. Even so, it has
been argued that teachers are the primary agents for improvement and educational
change (Elliot, 1998), therefore research into teachers’ own conceptions of what
formative feedback is and how they implement it into classroom practice is important.

48
 Kingston and Nash’s (2011) recent meta-analysis on formative assessment
examined not only the effect size, but found that the extent of its effect was weakened
by grade, range of content, and the specific formative assessment interventions. Their
meta-analysis, based on 13 studies, found that the effect size of formative assessment
was substantially lower to what was reported by Black and Wiliam’s (1998a) seminal
review. However, the interventions included in the study focussed on assessment
activities at juncture points, rather than in on-going practice. Kingston and Nash (2011)
argue that there is need for high quality inquiry that taken into account critical variable
aspect of a teaching practice.

A major difficulty in the implementation of peer-assessment appears to be in

selling the value of peer assessment to students. A study centred on teachers engaged
in professional development found that having success criteria as an assessment guide,
and using them in gauging whether or not learning intentions were being met, made it
easier for teachers to practice formative assessment in the classroom (Webb & Jones,
2009). The interviewed teachers claimed that when students were provided with
opportunities for peer-assessment, those students were in a better position to think
about their own criteria. However, the major challenge teachers faced was the change
in the culture such an approach produced. This is a crucial complication to
implementing formative assessment strategies: the culture required to support them is
likely to contradict the existing classroom culture, and the existing community
surrounding it.

As indicated by studies detailed above, within the classroom context, individual

learners sometimes struggle to adapt to peer-assessment practices. In a study of 90
United Kingdom based undergraduate students, Vickerman (2009) found that overall,
the peer experience was positive for students. However, one of the pitfalls was that
tutors planning and constructing peer assessment strategies needed to be aware of the
various learning styles and abilities of their students. Consideration of individual
learning styles was also important in that some students found peer-assessment to be
less useful. Many students in the study agreed that peer-assessment had enhanced
their understanding of the subject due to the direct involvement, but while half the
students interviewed in Vickerman’s (2009) research found the process useful, others
found it a challenging process and preferred teacher assessment.

The challenge in enacting formative assessment and feedback is further

heightened by the influence of teachers’ beliefs, particularly of teachers’ efficacy beliefs
and how these beliefs impact their teaching and learning process. Historically in
education scholarship, teachers’ beliefs in the adoption, adaption or rejection of an
initiative have been either ignored or understated (Hargreaves, McCallum & Gipps,
49
2000; Richardson, Anders, Tidwell & Lloyd, 1991), although it has been documented
that if teachers’ individual beliefs mismatch the underpinnings of a reform or initiative,
the realization of that initiative will be restricted (Richardson et al., 1991). However,
there is a rising body of evidence indicating that teachers’ beliefs are strong
moderators in the success or failure of assessment reforms (Darling-Hammond &
Sykes, 1999; Fullan & Mascall, 2000; Hargreaves et al., 2000; Tunstall, 2001). It has
been argued that if particular innovation or reform approaches are at odds with
teachers’ personal beliefs, the implementation of the innovation has little effect on
teachers’ practices (Carless, 2005; Tierney, 2006). As findings indicate, the relationship
between teachers’ educational beliefs and practices are reciprocal instead of
unidirectional (Levin & Wadmany, 2005; 2008). Teachers tend to embrace new
innovations into their classroom practices when they correspond to their personal
epistemological beliefs, while resisting or rejecting those that mismatch their goals and
expectations about learning. The next section in this chapter will now consider the
influence of teachers’ beliefs on teachers’ implementation of new reforms.

The Nature and Function of Teachers’ Beliefs

There have been numerous calls for research to investigate teachers’ beliefs in
the qualitative approach (Brookhart & Freeman, 1992; Munby, 1984; Pajares, 1996).
According to Pajares (1992), beliefs are crucial as they are part of the process by which
an individual identifies and understands themselves. Beliefs are considered the most
influential factor in an individual’s decision making, and are strong determiners of their
behaviours (Dewey, 1933; Bandura, 1986). Belief systems are less flexible than
knowledge, and are highly resistant to change. Long held beliefs are considered most
difficult to alter, as opposed to newly occurred beliefs. It is rare in adulthood to change
beliefs, and evidence points towards the fact that beliefs continue to persevere even
when they are no longer commensurate with physical or social reality (Pajares, 1992;
Nespor, 1987). Further, they tend to be unaffected or transformed through argument,
reason or logic (Fang, 1996; Rokeach, 1968). Nevertheless, researchers like Ajzen and
Fishbein (1980) have argued that a change in belief is necessary to precede a change in
behaviour.

Self-efficacy beliefs

In Albert Bandura’s seminal 1977 paper on self-efficacy, he identifies self-

efficacy as a determiner in the progress of one’s personality. Self-efficacy is the “belief
of one’s capabilities to organise and execute courses of action required dealing with
prospective situations” (Bandura, 1981, p. 200). In other words, self-efficacy is a

50
person’s belief in their own ability to attain success in specific situations. These beliefs
are strong determiners of thoughts, actions and feelings, and develop as new
experiences, skills, and understandings are acquired. According to Bandura (1994),
self-efficacy determines how people feel, think, motivate themselves, and behave. Such
beliefs produce these diverse effects through four major processes. They include
“cognitive, motivational, and effective and selection processes” (Bandura, 1994, p.71)
Beliefs often predict teachers’ choice of task, effort, persistence, and ultimately, level of
success (Bandura, 1994; Schunk, 2003).

Bandura (1977) highlighted that self-efficacy consists of beliefs in one’s ability

to execute the desired behaviour (efficacy expectation) or beliefs that the performance
of the specific behaviour will have the desired result (outcome expectation). As a result,
the choices individuals make or the action they take is influenced by beliefs about
competence. He claims that individuals to a certain point can believe that a specific
course of action will produce certain outcomes, however if “they entertain serious
doubts about whether they can perform the necessary activities such information does
not influence their behaviour” (Bandura, 1977, p. 193). Therefore, without resilient
efficacy expectations, an individual will be unlikely to take on the necessary behaviour
that will lead to a desirable outcome. Bandura (1977) identified four core foundations
of efficacy belief when developing his theory. The four sources were mastery
experiences (considered the most powerful), vicarious experiences (beliefs in their
capabilities to strengthen and master activities), social persuasions (being told about
the ability to succeed) and the individuals’ “physiological and emotional states in
judging their capabilities” (Bandura, 1995, p. 4).

Furthermore, apart for the beliefs individuals embrace about the world, they
hold beliefs about themselves, for example their abilities and capabilities. As a result of
the belief about self (efficacy beliefs), the individuals experience becomes instrumental
in defining their experience and a platform to exercise control over their lives (Pajares,
1996). Self-efficacy also influences the thoughts and emotions of the individual.
According to Pajares (1996), self-beliefs or “expectancy beliefs” are perceived as
individual capabilities to attain specific results through “their own motivation, thought
processes, affective states and actions, or changing environmental conditions” (p. 546).
Efficacy beliefs also focus on what individuals believe they are capable of, irrespective
of the competencies, abilities or skills they might actually possess. Pajares (1996)
argues that for research purposes, assessment should be tailored to the task under
investigation. He explains that it is important studies attempt to establish “relationship
between beliefs and outcomes” (Pajares, 1996, p. 550).

51
 In research into the influence of teacher beliefs on teaching, methodologies
include asking teachers their judgements on matters and about the influence of their
family background and learning, and comparing these to teaching practices. Pajares’
(1992) synthesis of the literature about beliefs found that:

[Beliefs] travel in disguise and often under alias-attitudes, values, judgments,

axioms, opinions, ideology, perceptions, conceptions, conceptual systems,
preconceptions, dispositions, implicit theories, explicit theories, personal theories,
internal mental processes, action strategies, rules of practice, practical principles,
perspectives, repertories of understanding, and social strategy, to name but a few
that can be found in the literature (p. 309).

Rokeach (1972) defined beliefs as “any simple preposition, conscious or

unconscious, inferred from what a person says or does, capable of being preceded by
the phrase ‘I believe that’” (p. 113). Descriptive beliefs or existential beliefs, evaluative
beliefs, and prescriptive or exhortatory beliefs are three kinds of beliefs suggested by
Rokeach (1972). A true or false, or correct or incorrect, belief is a descriptive belief.
Evaluative belief refers to beliefs that can be stated as being good or bad. Actions or
situations that are deemed desirable or undesirable are prescriptive or exhortatory
beliefs. All these beliefs work at the different levels such as cognitive, affective, and
behavioural level.

Function of beliefs in individuals

An individual’s belief system has two significant functions. One the functions of
the beliefs systems are that it helps the individual to define and understand themselves
the world around them. According to Pajares (1992), individuals are able to understand
and identify themselves by what they believe, and by the nature of their beliefs. The
second significant function is it often guides their decision-making and behavioural
process. The nature and function of the beliefs individuals hold influence the views that
influence perception, and indirectly influence behaviour (Pajares, 1992).

According to researchers (Pajares, 1992; Nespor, 1987), beliefs are highly

resistant to change; specifically long held beliefs are difficult to alter in contrast to
newly attained beliefs. As a result, adult beliefs are less likely to change, and it is to a
certain extent a rare phenomenon (Pajares, 1992). As beliefs are often tacitly held,
often unarticulated and deeply embedded, individuals rarely validate the accuracy or
soundness of their belief systems. Significant evidence indicates that beliefs continue
to persevere even when they are no longer accurate illustrations of a social reality
(Nespor, 1987). There is substantial agreement that beliefs are not affected by the

52
application of argument, reason or logic (Rokeach, 1986). Furthermore there are fewer
consensuses on whether change in beliefs follows a change in behaviour or a change in
beliefs must occur before behaviour can change (Ajzen & Fisbein, 1980).

Significance of teacher’s beliefs

The role of teacher beliefs in teaching and learning has been the focus of studies
in educational beliefs (Fang, 1996; Guskey, 2002; James & Pedder, 2006; Kagan, 1992).
Teacher beliefs have been considered a “messy construct” that needs further research
(Pajares, 1992). This is because teacher’s beliefs might be tacit and implicit in the way
that they impact interaction and instruction in the classroom, making them difficult to
isolate. However, investigating beliefs that explain teachers and their practices provide
insights into their behaviours and the manner in which their practice is constructed. As
a result an investigation into teachers’ beliefs and the influence of their beliefs will
provide a wider scope in enhancing their educational effectiveness in the classroom.

Teachers’ efficacy beliefs have been related to teachers’ behaviour and student
outcomes. Tschannen-Moran and Wolfolk-Hoy (2001) found in their study that
teachers with higher self-efficacy were open to new ideas and willing to experiment in
new methods, including the effort to teaching towards the goals they set. The higher the
efficacy (Emmer & Hickman, 1991), the less critical of they were of students’ errors and
the more they worked to help struggling students. Additionally, teachers with greater
self-efficacy were less likely to refer students with learning and behavioural problems
to external authorities (Soodak, Podell & Lehman, 1998).

All teachers come into their profession holding on to a set of beliefs that they
have experienced or learnt (Zeichner, 1989). These beliefs provide a basis for their
capacity to understand and filter new beliefs or experiences. Beliefs have a
considerable effect on teacher practice and scholars have varying viewpoints on the
term’s definitions and degree of importance. However despite these different
definitions, researchers agree that beliefs have significant influence on teachers’
teaching practices, and are highly individualised (Pajares, 1992; Kagan 1992; Borg,
2001). Likewise, in his synthesis of the literature on beliefs, Pajares (1992) found that
teachers come into teacher education with a set of beliefs that they have accumulated
through their own experience in education as students, and that these beliefs are part
of what defines their behaviour, and their organisation of their knowledge and new
information (Nespor, 1987). Their epistemological beliefs help filter their
understanding of new knowledge or phenomena (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997). Therefore,
these epistemological beliefs (Borko & Putnam, 1996) influence teachers’ planning,
decision-making, practice and interaction.
53
 Many researchers and scholars believe that implementation of any innovation
in education depends on teachers accepting it, and that consequently teachers holding
on to their traditional beliefs is an obstacle to innovation (Hargreaves et al., 2000;
Richardson et al., 1991). Therefore, because teacher beliefs play an important role in
their decision-making, they also play an important role in the application of policy
changes. As Bandura (1986) states, individual decisions are influenced by beliefs, which
are the “best indicators of the decisions that individuals make” (Pajares, 1992, p. 307).

This understanding indicates the need for study into teachers’ beliefs, study
which explores the process of teachers’ understanding and conceptualization of their
practice. Accordingly, in order to understand teachers’ approaches to providing
feedback, it is crucial to understand their beliefs and how these beliefs function.
Teachers’ core beliefs (Clark & Peterson, 1986) are formed from the teachers’ own
schooling, and subsequent teacher education does not disturb these initial beliefs.
Pajares (1992) explains why beliefs at times are resistant to change:

[Beliefs] help individuals to identify with one another and form groups and social
systems. On a social and cultural level, they provide elements of structure, order,
direction, and shared values. From both a personal and socio/cultural perspective,
belief systems reduce dissonance and confusion, even when dissonance is logically
justified by inconsistent beliefs one holds. This is one reason why they acquire
emotional dimensions and resist change. People grow comfortable with their
beliefs, and these beliefs become their “self” so that individuals come to be
identified and understood by the very nature of the beliefs, the habits they own (p.
317).

Pre-existing beliefs

Teachers enter the teaching profession with pre-existing beliefs that have been
built over the years spent as learners themselves. Studies on pre-service teacher
education have revealed that little effect from efforts spent on changing those existing
beliefs in teacher education programmes (Brookhart & Freeman, 1992; Thomas &
Pedersen, 2003). The time teachers spend in the classroom as learners helps develop
their educational beliefs, specifically those that relate to what constitutes good teaching
and sound teaching practice (Lortie, 1975). Additionally, these beliefs act as filters
through which pre-service and in-service education experiences and information are
interpreted and subsequently acted upon, adopted or adapted, with the beliefs
challenging their pre-existing beliefs being rejected (Thomas & Pedersen, 2003).

54
The beliefs and practice relationship

In teaching practice, beliefs are influenced by teachers’ expectations of learners,

their interpretations of good teaching and effective learning, and how attainment or
failure of learning can be explained. Findings from empirical studies about teacher
beliefs fall into two categories: evidence that teachers’ beliefs are stable and resistant
to change, and evidence that their teaching styles are influenced by particular beliefs
(Kagan, 1992). In contrast, investigation into the connection between espoused beliefs
and teaching practice has produced contradictory findings (Fang, 1996). The most
probable explanation for the inconsistency is that out-dated, unpopular, tacit and
contradictory beliefs continue to influence teaching practice (Kagan, 1992). Another
explanation is the broader belief systems and core central beliefs of the part of the
system of beliefs held by the teachers are resistant to new beliefs (Pajares, 1992).

Suggestions have been made about the importance of recognizing that teachers’
educational and individual beliefs have developed within the socio-historical context
dominant at the time they were learners (Poulson & Avramidis, 2004). If this is so,
teachers are currently caught in a paradigm shift. They may have been educated
according to conventional and traditional values, which were centred on the teacher
being the expert and taking the leading role in the classroom, but now they are
expected to engage in student-centred practice.

Even so, when teachers are introduced to innovations in classroom teaching

that do not match with their prior beliefs, but prove to be successful in practice, they
appear able to accommodate that alternate belief. This is consistent with Aguirre and
Speer’s (2000) exploration of the relationship between teacher beliefs and the teaching
process. They found that the differences between teachers’ ‘attributed’ beliefs
identified by the researchers and ‘professed’ beliefs reported by teachers were
interchangeable according to the circumstances. Teachers in this study changed their
professed, reported beliefs when the circumstances of teaching practice required them.

However, as mentioned a teacher’s decision-making may not be affected by

application of argument, reason or logic (Fang, 1996) and long held beliefs are difficult
to change (Nespor, 1987). Briscoe’s (1991) investigation into teacher beliefs found the
process of intervention did not change a teacher’s beliefs, particularly those in which
the teacher still thought or him or herself as the ‘expert’ and giver of knowledge.
Similar findings were reported in other studies (Wilson & Sloanne, 2000; Abelson,
1979). Nevertheless, though teacher beliefs are consistently determiners of the way
teachers organise their problems and behaviour in the classroom (Pajares, 1992), given
the complexity of the act of teaching, teacher’s self-efficacy may not fit uniformly into

55
one description, neither in relation to the task teachers perform nor the different
subject matter they teach (Nespor, 1987). Findings from studies clearly illustrate the
vast differences across self-efficacy beliefs, but concur that beliefs have a strong
influence on practice (Asthton & Webb, 1986; Poulou & Norwich, 2000; Tschannen-
Moran & Woolfolk-Hoy, 2001; 2007). These findings suggest that professional
development must take account of teachers’ beliefs.

Professional learning and development influences on beliefs

Many countries are concerned with affecting change in classroom practice

through making changes in policy and curriculum statements. It is evident from the
assessment and feedback related professional development programmes, and the
movement away from traditional structures and forms of internal assessment, that in
New Zealand, changes toward formative learning styles are intended. In many cases,
the new approaches will challenge teachers’ beliefs about assessment. It is therefore
critical that any professional development relating to assessment supports a ‘change as
growth or learning’ viewpoint.

By using these lenses, the understanding that change is sustained within the
learning component of professional activities is embraced. In regards to teaching,
studies have found that teacher self-efficacy is often related to the nature of the
attributions made. A highly self-efficacious teacher is likely to be less critical of student
error (Ashton & Webb, 1986; Poulou & Norwich, 2000). For example, Tschannen-
Moran and Woolfolk-Hoy (2001) reported that teachers with high self-efficacy were
more likely to take responsibility for their successes and failures, as they were more
optimistic and enthusiastic, in contrast to the less efficacious peers, who ascribed their
success or failures to external factors. Additionally, in reviewing 88 teachers’ level of
self-efficacy, Ross (1998) found a correlation between teachers’ self-efficacy levels and
promotion of student autonomy in learning. Teachers with high self-efficacy utilised
and promoted student autonomy and enhanced teaching techniques and unitised
techniques to promote students in their academic skills and ability.

In consequence, of particular interest to this thesis are those studies that have
investigated teacher beliefs and their ability to cope with educational reforms. Guskey’s
(1988) investigation into teacher beliefs and educational reforms introduced at the
time of his study is one example. Guskey found a correlation between teachers’ self-
efficacy and their attitude towards new practices, and indication that teachers with a
strong sense of self-efficacy were open to new ideas and had a willingness to
experiment with new practices, as their expectation of outcomes were robust. Similar
findings, emphasizing that teachers play an important role in the enactment and
56
implementation of educational reforms, have come from studies conducted with other
groups of teachers (Evers, Brouwers, & Tomic, 2002; Ghaith & Yaghi, 1997).

Central to effective professional development is teachers’ transferring their

knowledge into their practice. Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin (1995) suggest
professional development should not only support teaching and knowledge building for
teachers, but should also promote reflection on their teaching practice. Maloney and
Konza (2011) explored an Australian school’s participation in a professional learning
project, a collaboration between the school and a local university, which was intended
to support teachers in developing their practice in early childhood education. Maloney
and Konza’s investigation of teachers’ beliefs and practices revealed that tensions
caused by classroom commitments, willingness to engage, and confronting and
challenging discussion influenced and affected the outcomes of teachers’ participation.
The study concluded that there was tension between the teachers’ philosophies and the
new policy, and that teachers maintained their privately held beliefs and practices.
Some teachers perceived engaging in collaboration and collective discourse as time
consuming, and preferred to prioritise their daily activities. Outside influences were
also found to have created pressure for teachers, as they suppressed their differing
opinions and lack of willingness to participate. The study thus indicates that beliefs are
a significant factor in the success of professional development in transforming teachers’
engagement, contribution and capacity for self-reflection. The shared culture of a
school may also influence the success of professional learning in shaping teachers’
beliefs and practice.

Teacher collaboration in professional learning communities receives extensive

positive endorsement in the literature (Preedy, 2003). It provides teachers with
opportunities for interaction with like-minded colleagues in order to facilitate
executing new innovations in their classrooms. Teachers are then able to engage with
and resolve difficult issues that arise within their learning communities (Dadds, 1998).
Professional learning communities indirectly provide opportunities for teachers to
modify or confirm their beliefs, and to extend their knowledge, skills and progress in
their practice.

Rosenfeld and Rosenfeld (2008) suggest that developing effective teacher

beliefs about learners should also be an important element of professional
development for teachers. In their study, they found that teachers with interventionist
beliefs about students provided more effective practice when compared to teachers
with pathognomonic beliefs (‘I blame the learner for his difficulties’). The findings
revealed that professional development courses that work to sensitize teachers to
individual learning differences were effective: after the professional development, the
57
teachers’ interventionist beliefs increased. The authors suggest that mediated,
constructive, and collaborative professional development increases the sensitivity and
flexibility of teachers’ beliefs about students and their individual learning needs.

There are number of models developed to promote and support teachers

through professional development. Professional development partnerships include
professional development for schools, university/school partnerships, school
networks, teacher networks and distance education programmes. Small group or
individual professional development includes mentoring, workshops, seminars,
courses, self-directed development, co-operative or collegial development, action
research, skill-development models, project-based models and reflective models. These
links provide support for teachers to examine and reflect on their beliefs and teaching
practices, and develop new ones (Desimone, Porter, Garet, Yoon, & Birman, 2002).

But the goal of all of these developments is the improvement of student

learning. Student achievement in writing has been reported upon in New Zealand and
internationally (Dyson & Friedman, 2003; Flockton et al. 2007), with repeated concerns
about the disparity in achievement among students. While it is still contested, student
achievement has been linked to the quality of teaching of writing and linked to teacher
practice (Hattie, 2009), hence an emphasis on professional development for teachers.
This is especially relevant as, as it is documented by researchers, teachers are key in
the successful implementation of formative feedback practices in the classroom, just as
they are in the implementation of all policy changes. There is clear and strong evidence
of teachers’ espoused and at times tacitly held beliefs influencing their choice of
formative assessment and feedback practice.

As Kagan (1992) indicated, teachers’ personal beliefs act as the “filter and
foundation of new knowledge” (p.75). These beliefs too are messy constructs, as
teachers’ reported beliefs sometimes do not match their practice. New knowledge that
is inconsistent with their personal beliefs will be rejected or assimilated into existing
conceptions (Pajares, 1992). Therefore there is a need for teachers to be supported in
making their tacit beliefs explicit, the reason being that unless these ingrained and
deeply–rooted beliefs are exposed and challenged, they will remain in place. This is
relevant to this thesis as there is evident variation in the implementation of formative
assessment and feedback strategies, particularly as they inform teacher and student
roles, and the role teachers’ beliefs play in the process provides a possible explanation
for the variation in practice. As a result, in my research, teachers’ espoused beliefs
about formative assessment and feedback act as lenses to explore their beliefs and
understandings about formative assessment and feedback that that are tacitly held.
Subsequently, their espoused beliefs and the tacitly held beliefs that influence their
58
feedback practice are explored within the framework of effective feedback conditions
(Sadler, 1989). My classroom observations provide deeper insight into teachers’
implementations of formative assessment and feedback, thus enabling both their
espoused and tacitly held beliefs to be examined through their theory in practice,
exploring their connections.

Locating formative feedback within the writing lesson

Teachers have faced a changing landscape around teaching of writing since the
70s. There seems a considerable amount of confusion in the wider perspective of
theorising the teaching of writing regarding understanding the dimensions of the
writing processes. In terms of pedagogy, cognitive model research forms the basis of
current conceptions of process writing (Graves, 2003). However, the form of process
writing pedagogy the teacher was exposed to influences the way they engage with
students in teaching of writing. Some teachers focused on the cycle process and others
were more flexible through generating ideas and revising, editing, and publishing them
(Flower & Hayes, 1981). Layered onto the writing processes was the current view of
writing development that cannot be a separate from student involvement as partners in
the writing process. As a result, teachers faced challenges in implementing the act of
writing, and knowing how to provide formative feedback.

Providing both written and oral formative feedback has been presented in the
literature as a challenging practice to teachers. The existing research literature shows
that the way writing is taught is positioned differently within different theoretical
perspectives that teachers’ hold (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1990; Grossman, Smagorinsky
& Valencia, 1999; Poulson & Avramidis, 2004), and that writing lesson practices reflect
teachers’ identities in primary classrooms. Teachers’ theoretical orientations are
philosophical principles that guide their decision-making. These epistemological beliefs
include teachers’ theories about students, curriculum, pedagogy and what their roles
should be (Porter, 1989). Yet teachers with similar theoretical orientations may vary in
their practice due to curriculum requirements, and social, psychological and immediate
school settings. Complying with these external influences, some teachers fall into
instructional belief and practices, specifically the traditional and process approaches.
The traditional approach emphasises explicit instruction, an error-free written product,
and a topic selected and completed with limited independent writing time (Hairston,
1982; Raimes, 1991). Traditionally, the final product is then assessed by the teacher. In
contrast, the process approach emphasizes methods of learning, and uses literature and
interaction from teacher and peers (Graves; 2003; Myhill & Jones, 2007). This is more
attuned to formative assessment processes.
59
 Writing is a complex and dynamic activity carried out in the classroom and has
progressed without a single agreed upon model from scholarship that prescribes the
most appropriate content of writing within teaching, learning and assessment (Parr,
2013). As a result, Marshall (2004) claims writing as an art without a formal agreed
upon technique or recipe that would lead to high quality responses (Sadler, 2009b).
Therefore, writing consists of complex and diverse features, which indirectly indicate
the quality or representation of ‘good writing’ to teachers. However it is challenging for
teachers to list all the characteristics of good writing, so a selection of the most
significant criteria is often referenced in the classroom. These feature or properties are
referred to success criteria (Sadler, 2009a). There is, however, an ongoing problem in
that these fixed criteria can overlook significant features that emerge during the
production of a written language. These features include attention to task completion,
rather than the more substantive elements of a piece of writing, and student
engagement in the writing process itself (Hawe & Parr, 2013; Timperley & Parr, 2009).
Hawe et al. (2008) argue that restricting attention to criteria and over-emphasizing its
value or features in writing may result in teachers overlooking the students’ message
or original contribution during the production and evaluation process.

The significant challenges related to pinning down what constitutes ‘quality’ in

writing, and relating that to what constitutes to successful achievement for a student
who is learning to write is not an indication that educators should abandon the
articulation of goals or successful achievement. However, using goals and standards of
reference as sets of pre-determined criteria (Sadler, 2009a) to define students learning
progression and success in the writing process is not fully sufficient to facilitate
effective learning, especially when progression in learning leads different students
through different pathways to successful attainment (Marshall, 2004). Often, as
student’s writing develops, teachers and students clarify and establish criteria of
success they value in the written work. In New Zealand, teachers do not take on board
the full and exclusive externally produced rubrics or success criteria for developing
students understanding of the quality of work required. The rubrics and criteria
established by the Ministry of Education(Ministry of Education, 2003a, 2006) are often
adapted and adjusted by teachers to suit students, and using a range of pedagogical
tools, exemplars (Ministry of Education, 2003b) and the nature of writing provide
insight to students about the quality of writing required (Parr & Limbrick, 2010). As a
result, the tools and methods teachers develop in teaching of writing should serve as a
point of reference for required quality, and in making evaluation about students’
written drafts.

60
 However, disparity in student achievement has drawn attention to the teaching
of writing, both in New Zealand and internationally (Bangert-Drowns, Hurley &
Wilkinson, 2004; Boscolo, 2008; Cutler & Graham, 2008; Flockton, Crooks & White,
2007). While it is still being contested, student achievement has been linked to the
quality of teaching of writing, and linked to teacher practice (Hattie, 2009). Feedback
that creates opportunities for teacher/student interactions has been highlighted in
education literature as helping students progress in their learning of writing (Askew &
Lodge, 2000; Carnell, 2000; Sadler, 1989; Torrance & Pryor, 2001; Tunstal & Gipps,
1996). Feedback interaction has been described as sharing ideas, thoughts, and
opinions during the writing process (Anderson, 1999).

As indicated by Carnell (2000), effective interaction has reciprocity, spontaneity

and collaboration, creating a shared partnership in learning between teacher and
learner. Through this process, students are then given more control of their learning,
especially decision-making regarding their work, and in this way students become
insiders to the feedback process (Sadler, 1989). This is beneficial as students become
less reliant on teacher-supplied feedback and become more self-monitoring. Stiggins
and Chappuis (2005) claim that a teachers’ instructional task through feedback to
students is to take students to “the edge of their capabilities and to encourage growth
as an essential part of the assessment process” (p. 13). Significantly, however, in two
New Zealand studies (Hawe et al., 2008; Knight, 2003), this style of interaction was
found to be absent from practice, specifically student involvement in constructing
achievement through forward feedback as described by Tunstall and Gipps (1996).

Studies indicate that teachers demonstrate uneven understanding of formative

assessment practices in general, and this uncertainty extends to those used in the
teaching of writing in particular. Teachers’ knowledge of quality writing involves the
writing process, linguistic functions, understanding student progression, and their
pedagogical practice that enable them scaffold students through interaction and
strategies (Locke, 2005). Teachers are required to mediate their own interpretations
with school interpretations of the new curricula, and the shift in the teaching of writing
approaches has had them questioning the most effective approach in teaching of
writing. The process, genre and multiliterate (Cazden et al., 1996) approaches
exemplify different ideologies and pedagogies over the past decades, and it is evident in
the New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 1994; Ministry of Education,
2007b) that the cognitive process in writing (Flower & Hayes, 1989; Bereiter &
Scardamalia, 1982), and cognitive theories (Graves, 2003; McCormick, 2003) are now
central. In New Zealand the process approach of writing was adopted and prompted
the publication Dancing With The Pen (Ministry of Education, 1992). However, there is

61
still argument among scholars, and agreement on students’ knowledge of different
genres of writing is yet to be fully developed. The implementation of English in the New
Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 1994) has introduced teachers to both text
and genre based pedagogies. These changes in the curriculum have created theoretical
and pedagogical shifts for New Zealand primary teachers. Dix’s (2012) study explored
ten primary teachers writing classrooms, with the range of experience from 2-28 years.
Findings revealed teachers had individualistic identities when teaching writing, for
some teachers their experience of how children write, other fitted with their particular
theoretical beliefs and perceptions of writing, or their limited personal knowledge.
Some teachers actively created their own method of teaching of writing to fit the
context they were teaching in. Significant finding from this study was that teachers are
still grappling with recent political and theoretical shifts. Dix (2012) concludes one of
the reason behind the lack of teacher engagement was that teachers were still guided
by English as laid out in the 1994 curriculum, which had a genre-based theoretical and
pedagogical focus, even after the adoption of a newer and now current curriculum, New
Zealand Curriculum for English-medium teaching and learning in years 1-13 (Ministry
of Education, 2007b).

Studies have suggested that teachers need professional development to

enhance their knowledge in assessment and writing, both at the theoretical level and
suited to practice. (Dix, 2012; Dix & Cawkwell, 2011; Locke et al. 2011; Limbrick,
Buchanan, Goodwin & Schwarcz, 2005; 2010). Limbrick et al. (2005) reported that
teachers lacked confidence in their knowledge on the teaching of writing. Their two-
year study of over 20 teachers from low socio-economic area primary schools in New
Zealand investigated teachers’ pedagogical and content knowledge of writing. They
reported that teachers’ knowledge was enhanced when they were supported, for
example teachers in this study worked with literacy leaders to reflect on their own
practice and teaching. As a result, teachers were better able to target students’
strengths and needs, and to raise their achievement in writing.

The positive changes brought about by PD, and teachers reflecting on their own
practice, support Hattie and Timperley’s (2007) report that there is often little
evidence of teachers assessing the effectiveness of their teaching of writing to enhance
learning. Teachers in this study identified time constraints that prevented them from
establishing the appropriate culture for the classroom community in developing
formative assessment practice. Teachers found formative assessment made sense to
them, but it was challenging to communicate that sense, as students had to master the
dialogic tools and skills required. Like their teachers, students had to experience
changes in beliefs that had been well-developed to practice peer feedback.

62
 Teachers with sound pedagogical content knowledge is significant to providing
written feedback that is formative in function. A study by Parr and Timperley (2010) on
teachers from six schools revealed teachers ability to provide formative feedback on
student writing was related to students’ achievement. It was considered as significant
component of the teaching practice that developed students writing. Another important
aspect was a commitment by teachers. Parr and Limbrick (2010) in their study
identified teachers that were committed to formative assessment practice in their
classroom, and who showed greater awareness of student learning needs, were
effective teachers of writing. They argue that student achievement in writing was
influenced by teachers who exhibited strengths in providing purpose and
meaningfulness, as well as being consistent and systematic in their practices.

As studies show, teachers’ beliefs, pedagogical and content knowledge on the

teaching of writing, knowledge of their students and their own personal confidence
affects their engagement and role in their teaching of writing process, thus influencing
the formative feedback practice. New Zealand’s Education Review Office (ERO) (2007)
evaluated the effectiveness of teachers assessing student achievement in writing,
motivating and engaging students to achieve and the extent of teachers’ subject and
pedagogical knowledge in writing across 159 state schools at Year 4 and Year 8 in New
Zealand. The findings of the report found that 41% teachers were effective or highly
effective and 13% of teachers needed improvement across all aspects of their writing.
Based on the report, recommendations were made to focus on both teacher and school
wide teaching of writing practice.

Nevertheless, one significant finding has been that all teachers engaged in
feedback in the classroom, the only contrast between teachers, and between instances
where their feedback is summative or formative, is in their feedback strategies.
Additionally, consideration to students’ understanding of the feedback response is an
important factor (Zellermayer, 1989), as feedback should ideally be given without
confusion and misinterpretation (Richardson et al., 1991). As Huot (2002) notes,
students are better able to respond to written feedback when it is transformative and
open-ended. A number of research studies have demonstrated that when teaching is
centred on students’ targeted needs and informed by evidence from their previous
achievements, their overall level of achievement can be enhanced (Buly & Valencia,
2002; Kennedy & Shiel, 2013; McNaughton & Lai, 2009).

Written language is a context in which significant rich data about teachers’

ability to implement theoretically appropriate formative feedback practices can be
generated. The relevant literature and the current focus of literacy teaching and
learning have been specified in national education policy goals since 1999 (Ministry of
63
Education, 1999). However, it is significant to find the relationship between teachers’
beliefs in the uptake and enactment of formative assessment and feedback in the
writing lesson. This is because in their classrooms, teachers’ beliefs on teaching
influence the many ways their expectations, views and learning are visible in their
practice.

In the next section I present the theoretical framework that underpins my

research and analysis: the prescription for the best practice of formative assessment
feedback proposed by Sadler (1989). It is important for the framework to be explicated
and examined as a basis for examining effective feedback conditions. In order to
understand teacher beliefs, formative assessment and feedback practices, and their
implementation, it is important to identify effective feedback. This then enables
research on teachers’ beliefs about effective formative feedback their impact upon
classroom practice to be grounded in relation to a goal.

Sadler’s Theoretical Framework for Examining Formative Assessment and

Feedback

A theory is defined by Lerner (2002) as a group of statements, such as concepts

or philosophies that incorporate current information to lead to the generation of new
information of a phenomenon. As theory is dynamic and changing in nature; when new
information is discovered, new inquiries emerge as a result of the questions that arise.
As results of the new questions, the inadequacy/ dissatisfaction of current explanations
arise and are highlighted (Schunk, 2000). The function of a theory is to integrate
existing facts and generate argument by giving new meaning to them, and to provide a
framework for the generation of new information. Sadler’s (1989) theorisation of
formative assessment and feedback integrated new meaning to the understanding of
formative assessment that was current at the time, challenging existing
understandings, and offered new explanations of formative assessment and feedback.

The notion that feedback did not affect learning achievement was a significant
catalyst for Sadler’s (1989) attempt to reconsider the role, nature and function of
feedback in enhancing learning. His theorisation was developed during the time when
feedback was regarded as a measurement and grade dominated the assessment
paradigm. Sadler’s theory of formative assessment and feedback outlines and breaks
the existing and current paradigm by creating a coherent and strong theory. Discarding
previous notions of feedback that suggested that its ineffectiveness was due to the
learners themselves, his hypothesis was that the existing instructional system itself was
deficient. As a result, his theoretical stance sets out the necessary conditions for

64
effective feedback to be formative in nature to enhance learning. Hence, Sadler applies
the notion of formative and summative assessment to students’ learning (Brookhart,
2004), with detailed exposition of notion by giving clear definitions, their purposes and
differences. Sadler argues that the central purpose of assessment and feedback was to
enhance competence, unlike summative assessment was concerned with reporting
achievement and did not effect on learning. Emphasizing what he claimed to be
different entities and critical points of dissimilarities between summative and
formative assessment, the purpose and effect of his theory brings into spotlight
previously hidden, misinterpreted and unclear points of summative and formative
assessment.

According to Sadler (1989), the teachers’ role in formative assessment is more

than to simply provide feedback to promote learning. It is also to help students
understand their learning goals and to assist them in developing the skills needed to
make judgements about their learning. Teachers facilitate learners in establishing a
repertoire of strategies to regulate their own learning. This is a significant and essential
feature of formative assessment: that students monitor their own learning and take on
board corrective actions so that they do not become dependent on the teacher. If
students lack the resources to attain learning through self-monitoring, they then
become solely dependent on teacher feedback as the primary resource for learning. As
a result, they lack the capacity to develop as life-long learners. Sadler’s (1989)
foundational conception of formative assessment is not a specific instrument. Instead
formative assessment is viewed as a practice and process centred based on ideas of the
‘feedback loops’. These feedback loops are feedback information used by both teachers
and students to alter the gaps and ensure further learning is taking place.

Feedback in the formative assessment process

One significant argument posed by Sadler was the purpose of feedback was
more than just to provide learners with the results of their achievement through
evaluative judgement in the form of grades/marks. He argues that knowledge of results
is insufficient to help learners improve and feedback is a critical strategy to shape and
enhance learning and progress. Hence Sadler identifies the crucial role feedback plays
in the process assessment and learning. He contends that in order for feedback to be
formative in function, the relationship between feedback and its effect on learning is
the crux of the matter. Feedback information from the teacher cannot be considered
feedback if it is not acted upon. Therefore feedback that is formative has to be used to
improve learning and to enable learners to self-monitor their strengths and weakness.
Formative feedback helps learners modify and improve their learning in order to close
65
the gap between their current and desired performances. A pertinent aspect of Sadler’s
(1989) argument is that students should develop their knowledge and expertise, and
should not depend on a teacher telling them what to correct and how to effect
improvement.

However, for feedback to take on the formative role, and be related to

improvement in learning, students have to possess a concept of the goal or standard
aimed for, in order to compare their current performance with a desired performance,
and to take appropriate actions that will lead to closure of that gap. In identifying this,
Sadler (1989) not only re-conceptualised the purpose of feedback (Gipps, 1994), but
also understanding of the nature of feedback that is formative. He challenges the
concept of feedback being teacher-centred and being a transmission of knowledge
controlled by the teacher, with students positioned as passive recipients in the process.
Rather, Sadler argued that learners’ having the central role in their learning and
assessment process was vital. To achieve this, he proposed that learners should take on
an active role, working in partnership with the teacher. In Sadler’s design, the learner
and teacher work together to form a partnership that enables the learner to know the
teachers’ guild knowledge, which is made transparent and accessible to learners.

Sadler’s theory of formative assessment and feedback

For the reasons outlined above, the theoretical framework for this thesis is
guided by Sadler’s (1989) theory of formative assessment and feedback, both in the
data collection method used, and the analysis of data. My selection of Sadler’s
theoretical framework is based on the connection between his theory and research
evidence on teaching and learning practice. The nature of feedback had previously been
studied in the context of measurement and grades; Sadler’s (1989) theorisation re-
defined several significant factors in focusing formative assessment and feedback on
classroom practice (Black & Wiliam, 1998b). Sadler’s theory frames three conditions
for effective feedback, in particular drawing attention to the student’s involvement in
the assessment and feedback process.

Sadler argues that assessment should focus on “who makes the judgements,
how they are made, how they may be refined, and how they may be put to use in
bringing about improvement” (Sadler, 1989, p. 119). Sadler’s theoretical exposition of
formative assessment places feedback as a key element for successful performance by
students. His argument is that feedback is not just information provided by teachers,
but has effect on students in improving their learning, and in monitoring the strengths
and weaknesses of their performance.

66
 Traditionally, the teacher must possess a concept of quality appropriate to the
task, and make judgements based on student performance in relation to that concept.
Sadler, however, argues that for students to improve, the student themselves must hold
a concept of quality similar to that held by the teacher; they should be able to
themselves monitor the quality of their work, and have a range of strategies at their
disposal to engage in closing the gap. As Sadler writes, to enable self-monitoring to take
place, teachers should share “guild knowledge” (p. 127) and teachers’ judgement of the
quality of performance to task should be accessible to students, so that they can
understand the quality that is required in their performance.

Furthermore, teachers should use multiple criteria to judge student

performance, making qualitative judgements. Sadler’s (1989) detailed clarification of
formative assessment emphasises the need of communicating standards and strategies
as the significant aspect of effective feedback process. He argued that the key notion of
formative assessment and feedback is that the three conditions should be satisfied and
enables students to become self-monitoring. Rather than three conditions working as
separate entities, they should be satisfied simultaneously during the act of learning.
Teachers should also assess the quality of responses with an independent method of
confirming their judgement before the marks or scores are assigned. Sadler provides
three conditions that significant for effective feedback.

The first condition: Communicating standards to students

Communicating required standards to students helps them understand the

reasons or purposes to their attaining the target goals, and helps improve performance
(Pintrich, 2000b). Transition from feedback to self-monitoring can occur when teachers
share this knowledge with students so students know what constitutes a high-quality
completion of the task. This presumes that teachers possess the knowledge required to
identify the quality they are looking for. In practice, teachers’ conception of quality is
frequently held as tacit knowledge and often unarticulated. Teachers’ experiences of
making qualitative judgements, in exchanging students’ work with other teachers, and
collaboration in making rigorous judgements creates a form of guild knowledge.
Student-exclusive guild knowledge is unsuitable to the process of formative feedback,
as it emphasises ranking and comparison that are irrelevant in formative assessment.
Besides, one of the most significant requirements of formative assessment is that
students are aware of the standards set out for them, which suggests that specifying the
standards through descriptive statements and exemplars provide an efficient means of
externalising a reference level (Sadler, 1987).

67
 Thus, Sadler (1989) argues that for learning and improvement to take place,
students should be able to self-monitor their performance through knowledge of
expected quality. Therefore, Sadler advocates teachers must make their ‘guild
knowledge’ accessible to students so that over time students “students hold a concept
of knowledge” similar to their teachers (Sadler, 1989, p. 121). Learners having
knowledge of expected quality is significant to the improvement process of their
learning. With such knowledge, students will become less dependent on teachers and
become self-monitoring of quality in their work, a key condition if improvement is to be
made. Sadler’s definition of a standard or reference level is “a designated degree of
performance or excellence [which] becomes a goal when it is desired, aimed for, or
aspired to” (p. 129). Teachers assign external goals, teachers, or goals developed and
adapted by their students, are significant in regulation of students’ performance when
students take ownership of a goal by setting, internalising and adopting it.

The second condition: Making multicriterion judgements

Sadler (1989) argues consistently that students become self-monitoring. As he

argues, teachers should not merely provide students feedback in the form of
information; rather students should play an active role in the feedback process.
Significant to Sadler’s theory are students becoming active participants in their
learning and assessment. Discarding the concept of learners as consumers of feedback
information, he argues that learners should be able to produce feedback information
themselves. Therefore, students need to develop capacity to make judgements on the
quality of their work based on multiple criteria during the actual production of their
work. Students should be able to compare their actual level of performance against the
appropriate standards, making multicriterion judgements of their work with objectivity
and detachment. This provides opportunities for students to compare their actual level
of performance with the expected standard.

Given the complex interrelations among criteria, using whole set of criteria for a
single assessment would be challenging. In formative assessment, the judgment on
student work based on multiple criteria is often translated for students’ benefit.
Students, he argues, are able to apply the concept of making judgements based on the
comparison of multiple criteria through attainment of evaluative knowledge and
experience. Given that evaluative knowledge of teacher’s comments is tacit, students
need support to develop the appropriate body of tacit knowledge to interpret the
‘guild’. Knowledge of criteria may be developed inductively through prolonged
engagement in the evaluative activity, but Sadler suggests this process can be sped up if
teachers provide experience in authentic settings for evaluative knowledge to better

68
enable students to understand the guild knowledge. By doing that, students are able to
acquire the knowledge through support, becoming insiders in the assessment process.

Some challenges, particularly those presented by the fact that understandings

of variation in quality are often vague, incomplete, or ambiguous, can be addressed
through shared teacher/student assessment of the genre. Student engagement in
evaluative and corrective peer-assessment activity is advantageous, especially when
the assessment is done on work that is similar to their own. Students are then able to
gain insight into assessment and evaluative procedure, and also to understand the wide
range of common procedural problems, and options for addressing them when faced
with achieving a goal. They are also able to expand their repertoire of moves and
strategies, which they can then transfer to their own task. They then gain the skill of
progressing independently as self-confident writers. As Sadler argues, the provision of
evaluative experience and the development of self-assessment skills and gap-closing
strategies occur simultaneously.

Evaluative knowledge is essential knowledge of the criteria against which work

will be judged, and the rules of using this set of criteria comprises understanding of the
properties contained with the given set of criteria. This knowledge can only be gained
through experience and in an authentic setting. Sadler (1989) claims that knowledge
and expertise are gained through “an inductive process which involves prolonged
engagement in evaluative activity shared with and under the tutelage of a person who
is something of a connoisseur” (p. 135). This indicates that students need the support
and guidance of teachers to understand the ‘guild knowledge’, and in becoming insiders
in the process of assessment and learning. Learners are able to develop the skills and
expertise by appraising their peer’s work. Therefore, peer-assessment is a significant
strategy that should be incorporated into the learning process. The students appraisal
of their peer’s work will enable them to gain insight and understanding of the common
problems faced in attaining a specific goal and a repertoire of approaches used by their
peers, and how those strategies can be applied to their own work. Another significant
component of peer-assessment is that it enables students to gain a degree of
objectivity, which is essentially challenging when required by teachers to make
judgments about their own work. Thus, according to Sadler (1989), developing
evaluative knowledge and expertise will provide learners the support they need to
become independent of teachers’ feedback and becoming more self-monitoring.

The third condition: Strategies for closing the gap

The third condition necessary to enabling self-monitoring is for students to be

“able to select the appropriate strategies to bring their performance closer to the goal”
69
(Sadler, 1989, p. 138). Even so, peer and self-assessment do not automatically create
the expertise to produce or improve learning. Therefore, it is critical for students to
become self-monitoring. Sadler (1989) rejects the traditional understanding of
formative assessment, where teachers are placed as the expert and students as the
passive recipient in the assessment process. He argues that learners should have
evaluative knowledge and expertise so that they are able to evaluate the quality of the
work produced in regards to the expected standards. The development of students’
productive knowledge and expertise is critical if they are to become self-monitoring. If
teacher-centred feedback dominated the classroom, students will be unable to develop
autonomy in their learning.

He argues that teachers should provide opportunities for students to develop

self-monitoring strategies and become autonomous learners, so that students can then
become active participants in their learning and development. Feedback from teachers
should enable students to engage in a variety of strategies during the production of the
task to close the gap between current and desired performance. Students’ roles are
made important, and they are encouraged to be able to engage with and evaluate their
own work and produce work that is anticipated. Teachers therefore should facilitate
learning autonomy and enable students to reflect on and make decisions about what
actions affect their learning and lead to improvement. Sadler (1989) therefore
maintains that students need to engage in action that will lead to them closing the gap
between their current and desired performance. Most importantly, he argues, this has
to take place during learning and the production of work. Figure 2.2 on the next page
highlights the key concepts of Sadler’s (1989) theorisation of formative assessment and
feedback that enhances learning. As he argues, teachers hold a significant role in the
process of interpreting the learner’s current performance and their desired
performance, and in identifying the gaps that exist in their knowledge and proficiency.
Teachers then select tasks or work suitable for their students and share the ‘guild
knowledge’ of what quality they are looking for with their students, so that students are
able to self-monitor their progress. This concept and knowledge of quality is then
shared with the students and transferred through peer and self-assessment strategies
within formative assessment to enable to students to gain evaluative and productive
skills and expertise.

70
 2. Teacher
notices gap
(current versus
desired standards)

Teacher
1. Teacher and Formative interprets gaps
students set goals Assessment (current versus
and Feedback desired standards)

3. Feedback
activities and
strategies to close
the gap

Teacher

Share Promote
‘Guild knowledge’ self-monitoring

Learner Transfer of evaluative Peer

and productive skills
(peer/self-assessment)

Figure 2.2: Formative assessment and feedback strategies

The strength of the theoretical framework

As theory and research are always developing through new ideas and findings,
Sadler’s later work makes no drastic change to his underlying theory, but does add a
significant level of detail to the feedback strategies originally proposed. In his 1998
paper, Sadler describes feedback from teachers as an evaluative act communicated to
students through discerning, appraising, and responding. He stated that three elements
make up a feedback act; attending to a learner’s production, appraising it against some
reference point (sometimes unarticulated or non-exemplified), and then making an
explicit response. Teachers’ appraisal usually involves reflection and identification of
students’ strength and weaknesses. Sadler (1998) reiterates students’ involvement in

71
the assessment process, and argues that teachers’ assessment acts must provide the
students opportunities to acquire knowledge:

Formative assessment does make a difference, and it is the quality, not just the
quantity, of feedback that merits our closest attention. By quality of feedback we
now realise we have to understand not just the technical structure of the feedback
(such as accuracy, comprehensiveness, and appropriateness) but also its
accessibility to the learner (as a communication), its catalytic and coaching value,
its ability to inspire confidence and hope (p. 84).

In Sadler’s (2007) response to assessment practice, nearly a decade later, he

identifies the fact that teachers use the terms ‘criteria’ and ‘standards’ interchangeably
in their discourse (p. 388). He himself defines criteria as properties or characteristics,
or a fixed level above a desired designation, that when achieved be rewarded. Standard
he refers to the particular required quality or level of quality (Sadler, 1987). It is
therefore important teachers have clarity regarding criteria and standards the students
are aiming to achieve. Criteria in an assessment task is ideally referred to students and
pre-set. Sadler (1989) identified over 50 published criteria for written composition.

His argument stems from the understanding that learning is achieved when
students are able to do on demand something they could not do before, and to do it
independently, and well (Sadler, 2009a). He refers to the importance of teachers
framing their feedback statements with descriptive statements based on the students’
production, such as specific features in their work, pre-established criteria, and
suggestion for improvement in comparison to their current performance. Sadler’s
formative assessment theorisation has led to significant research being undertaken and
in many cases his theory being utilised in that process. Many researchers have used his
theoretical position as guide and reference in their projects (for example Black &
Wiliam, 2006; Gipps, McCallum & Hargreaves, 2000; Torrance & Pryor, 1998; Tunstall
& Gipps, 1996)).

As already discussed Tunstall and Gipps’ (1996) research in primary schools

concentrated on the characteristics of effective feedback and created a typology
grounded in classroom practice. According to their typology, feedback can be
evaluative (judgemental) or descriptive (related to achievement/improvement). They
applied Sadler’s (1989) and Crooks (1988) work as frameworks to analyse and present
their key findings. They identified eight types of feedback that teachers employed in
their classroom practice to support learning, including Sadler’s (1989) theory of
student work compared against criteria; teacher/student partnerships in assessment;
the use of exemplars, and the providing of opportunities for self-monitoring, all

72
informed by the categorisation of evaluative and descriptive feedback types. References
and significant attention to the typology have since been made by policymakers and
researchers.

Additionally, as Sadler argues, and as also discussed earlier in this chapter, one
of the key aspects of formative feedback is sharing learning intentions and goals with
students. Shirley Clarke, an educational consultant from the United Kingdom,
developed practical formative assessment strategies for teachers to employ in the
classroom on this basis. Clarke (2000) utilised Sadler’s concept of communicating
standards by developing strategies, such as sharing learning intentions with students,
and introduced the idea of success criteria being made explicit to students. A
publication for teachers by Clarke (2001) was distributed widely throughout New
Zealand through teacher professional development projects such as (AToL). This was
specifically written for primary, intermediate, and secondary school teachers. Another
edition of her work, Unlocking Formative Assessment (Clarke et al., 2003) has been a
resource subscribed to by schools

In the United Kingdom, Torrance and Pryor (1998) undertook an empirical

project to identify formative assessment practices in the infant classroom. They
developed a conceptual framework, identifying convergent and divergent formative
assessment, constructing the findings utilising Sadler’s (1989) theoretical concepts and
proposed classroom practices. Their conceptual framework illustrates the potential of
formative assessment to enhance learning.

Another significant project is the King’s-Medway-Oxfordshire Formative

Assessment Project (Black et al., 2003), focussed on teacher professional development
in the United Kingdom. The project, funded by the Nuffield Foundation, put into
practice effective formative assessment strategies. The team of researchers
incorporated a number of formative assessment strategies into teachers’ professional
classroom practice. They worked with 48 secondary school teachers in developing
students’ understanding of quality work, and the development and modification of
criteria. These two studies in the United Kingdom elicited global attention on formative
feedback practices.

The adoption of Sadler’s theory, the reporting of findings that support his
assertions, and the explanations and verification of the research and the studies
grounding the theory into classroom practices offer evidence of trustworthiness of the
theory (Neuman, 2003). Sadler’s (1989) work has shaped and redefined teacher and
student roles in the formative assessment and feedback process in practice. Influential
scholars in the field of assessment respect Sadler’s theoretical exposition of formative

73
assessment and feedback. It is thus reasonable to assume that his theoretical
framework is a useful and functional explanatory tool for analysis of data; it was, and is,
trustworthy. Teachers in New Zealand have been encouraged to implement formative
assessment and feedback strategies that have been grounded by Sadler’s work.
Therefore it is reasonable to assume that some concepts from Sadler’s theory would be
present in teacher’s reported beliefs and their teaching strategies. Sadler’s (1989)
theoretical framework is the most suitable theory to be intertwined with the data I
have sought out, and the most likely to provide a comprehensive analysis, specifically
on teacher’s beliefs regarding formative assessment and feedback, teacher and student
roles in the classroom, and their feedback strategies in supporting students to identify
gaps in their performance and to work towards closing the gaps.

Limitations of Sadler’s theory for exploring formative assessment and feedback

There are a number of limitations to Sadler’s theorisation of formative

assessment and feedback when applied to the context of teaching written language in
the primary classroom. Despite the fact the theory provides useful explanation of
effective formative assessment and feedback strategies to enhance students’ learning,
and a method by which analysis might move from description to explanation, Sadler’s
theory has been subjected to criticism based on its limitations when theorising
students’ self-regulations. One limitation, identified by Boekaerts (2006), is on the self-
regulation as a process. Self-regulation targets the effects, cognition, and actions as well
the setting by which the learning goals are addressed, and proposes a dual processing
theory. Students’ participation in a learning activity involves perception of the task and
the instructional context, activation of domain-specific knowledge and metacognitive
strategies related to the task, and motivational beliefs in students, which include
capacity, interest and effort during the self-regulation process. These elements are not
addressed in Sadler’s theory of effective formative practice on students’ participation
as ‘insiders’ in their learning, limiting the conception of success when students
understand quality and are able to provide evaluative and productive skills through
peer and self-assessment.

Another limitation is visible through the understanding of cognitive and

motivational theories, which provide deeper explanation of the reason behind the
success of formative assessment when students become more engaged and use more
self-regulation, and develop stronger understanding of subject matter (Bandura 1977,
1995; Bandura & Cervone, 1983). It has been argued that the transparency of formative
assessment process is crucial and sometimes may limit the language use itself
(Ecclestone, 2002). The concept of feedback against pre-specified criteria creates a

74
controlled classroom language interaction. Sadler (2005) argues that quality of
standards should be in relation to the specific lesson and supported by exemplars.

Sadler (1998, 2009a, 2009b, 2010) addresses some of these issues through
examination of previous literature, to identify features of formative assessment such as
cognitive research into students’ self-awareness in monitoring their learning referred
to meta-cognitive research which leads to improvement in students’ achievement.
Literature examining cognitive aspects of student learning demonstrates significant
importance in students’ knowledge prior entering the classroom, often suggesting that
strong prior knowledge is essential to supporting new learning and enabling transfer of
learning. However, formative assessment processes directly connect the teaching and
learning strategies to students’ current performance. Therefore, teachers’ interaction
practices, and the language they use, are significant: the concept of quality can be
inducted by students through more than just pre-specified criteria alone. Restriction on
criteria as a point of reference has been consistently critiqued, as researchers identify
that students need support to deconstruct the criteria by ‘how’, and argue that
engaging students through a metacognitive approach is a critical approach in
assessment (Pryor & Crossouard, 2008). The aim of such a process is to understand the
nature of the criteria, and to encourage students and teachers to be open to new
emerging criteria during the formative practice.

Although Sadler’s (1989) theory is consistent on ‘closing the gaps’ between the
current and the desired and develop students evaluative and productive skills, it has
been interpreted as too limited to identify the effectiveness of feedback (Gibbs &
Simpson, 2004). The concern is to reposition formative assessment and feedback
within a wider framework to include self-regulation, motivation and behaviour. As my
interest was on teachers’ formative assessment and feedback practice and how they
adapted and adopted effective formative feedback practice, it was my research interest
to explore what influenced their practice of bringing students into the assessment
process. For this reason, I have found it useful to deploy Sadler’s theoretical framework
of effective feedback to analyse teachers’ uptake and enactment of formative feedback
strategies, and their conceptions and beliefs, to understand the reasons behind their
actions.

Chapter Summary

Assessment designed to promote learning is gaining momentum in New

Zealand classrooms, with teachers trying to provide a balanced form of summative and
formative assessment in their practice. Understanding of assessment has evolved from
grades, marking, and performance review to a process with inclusion of students at its
75
centre, which has influenced various policy changes, and has shifted the way it has been
implemented into classrooms. The paradigmatic changes to the roles teachers and
students are required to play in the formative assessment process has indicated a need
for research focused on teachers’ own teaching and learning practice. The different
boundaries and shared partnership requirements of formative assessment practices
have been challenging for teachers, especially in regards to the implementation of self
and peer-assessment. Not only has the role of teachers as the expert and imparter of
knowledge changed, the students’ role as an insider has made the process of
implementing formative assessment a complex procedure in the classroom. This has
required significant changes to the belief systems of some teachers.

As national and international research findings indicate, the dynamic nature of

assessment and the development of new ideas mean that the implementation of
formative assessment and feedback strategies into the classroom is challenging. To
enable the collection of rich data about teachers’ ability to generate and implement
theoretically appropriate formative assessment and feedback practice, written
language as a context was deemed suitable. Research suggests that teachers have yet to
master the full potential of formative assessment and feedback, and that the role played
by teachers’ beliefs about teaching, learning, their learners, and their school settings
influences the uptake of these practices. Consequently, this thesis is concerned with
examining the relationship of those beliefs to feedback practice within the written
language

76
 CHAPTER THREE:
Methodology

Introduction

In the previous chapter, I reviewed the literature on formative assessment and

feedback strategies, teacher beliefs, and the influence of these beliefs on their practice,
and presented Sadler’s principles of formative assessment and feedback. Sadler’s
(1989) formative assessment and feedback theory was introduced as a fitting
theoretical framework for this study. The discussion in this chapter highlights the
methodological aspects underpinning this study and the process used to conduct the
research.

This chapter begins with the philosophical context in which the study is
situated. Justification for the selection of the interpretive paradigm is followed by the
rationale for utilising a qualitative methodology for this research. The reasons for
selecting a multiple-case study strategy are presented. Specific details of the research
context, such as research participants and research sites, are outlined with a brief
description of the purposive sampling procedures. Contained within the section on
methods of data collection is the justification for each of the methods utilised in this
research study, followed by the necessary procedural information. The next section
contains the section on data analysis. Included in this section are the modes and
methods the data analysers (including myself) employed. The issue of trustworthiness
in qualitative research (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) is answered by outlining the four
evaluative criteria used for judging the trustworthiness of research and findings. The
significant role of the researcher in the study is elaborated next section, as part of
addressing the ethical principles and considerations pertaining to this research.

The Research Questions

The literature review presented in the previous chapter revealed several gaps
in the understanding of New Zealand primary teachers’ beliefs and formative feedback
practices. There are inconsistencies between teachers’ beliefs and their practices,
related to theoretical and methodological understandings about formative feedback
and its implementation. This chapter illustrates how qualitative data were obtained
through multiple-case studies, with the aim being to provide insight into the internal
and external influences contributing to teachers’ beliefs and practices. Qualitative data
were gathered through answering the research questions below:

77
1. What beliefs do teachers hold about formative feedback in the writing
classroom?

2. How do primary teachers provide formative assessment and feedback to their

students during the writing lesson?

More specifically, the research was directed toward answering the following
questions:
 What beliefs and knowledge do teachers hold about formative feedback
in the teaching of writing?
 How is feedback connected to setting of goals, learning intentions and
success criteria by teachers?
 When and how do teachers inculcate feedback into their writing
lessons?
 What formative assessment feedback strategies are utilised the most
during the writing lessons?
 What roles do teachers take on during the feedback sessions?
 Do teachers hold different beliefs and conceptions of feedback?
 How do teachers’ beliefs influence and impact their formative feedback
strategies?
 If there are differences in teachers’ beliefs and practices in providing
feedback, how are those dissimilarities explained?
My research focused on specifically on primary teachers, and their beliefs about
and practices of formative feedback in the writing classroom. To answer the research
questions, a qualitative interpretive paradigm was utilised.

The Research Paradigm

Paradigms are defined as a worldview, “a way of thinking about and making

sense of the complexities of the real world” (Patton, 2002, p. 69). They are also defined
as “logically related assumptions, concepts or propositions that orient thinking and
research” (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007, p. 24). Methodological selection is not only
influenced by the research questions but by beliefs on how the world should be studied
and understood (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000, 2005). The justification for the selection of a
specific methodology is therefore influenced by ontological and epistemological beliefs
(Schwandt, 2000). Collectively, the ontological, epistemological and methodology are
referred to as a research paradigm, a framework or set of beliefs that influence
decision-making and action (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000). The research paradigm
78
determines how the study should be conducted, the focus of the study, and the
approaches utilised in the interpretation of the data (Hammersley, 2002). Positivist,
interpretive and critical social sciences are the three main research paradigms
apparent in education literature. My perspective on educational research is that
behaviour can be complex, individual and influenced by personal choice (Cohen,
Manion & Morrison, 2007), so I position myself as a researcher within interpretive
social theory and within the constructive-interpretive paradigm (Denzin & Lincoln,
2008). In pursuing an understanding of teachers’ beliefs about and understanding of
formative assessment and feedback practices, an Interpretivist paradigm was the one I
deemed most suitable.

An Interpretivist paradigm provided the best fit for my research too, as

ontologically teachers would offer multiple, equally valid descriptions and explanations
of feedback. Epistemologically the participants in this research are shaped by and also
shape their environment as the ‘knowing’ subjects. Methodologically the
researcher/participant interaction in the research is of value and subjective: Creswell
(2009) asserts that individuals seek “understanding of the world through development
of subjective meaning of their experiences which are varied and multiple” (p. 8).
Therefore this was deemed the best fit for my inquiry.

Further, the Interpretivist view is that there are multiple interpretations of any
event, as experienced by participants, and all provide understanding of a phenomenon
(Stake, 2010). This was evident in collecting data for this study: each teacher held their
own beliefs and understanding of formative feedback and implementation, based on
their own learning experience, education, and setting. Thus the interpretive concept of
understanding, implication and engagement (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) would assist me in
grasping their beliefs, actions and behaviour.

Qualitative Methodology

As mentioned, I employed a qualitative research approach within the

Interpretivist paradigm (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005) for this thesis. Merriam (1998)
outlines five common features in a qualitative methodology which are “the goal of
eliciting understanding and meaning, the researcher as the primary instrument of data
collection and analysis, the use of fieldwork, an inductive orientation to analysis and
findings that are richly descriptive” (p. 11).

By situating this research within the Interpretive paradigm and emphasising

qualitative inquiry, this study endeavours to complement the existing literature on
formative assessment and feedback in the primary classroom with a less commonly

79
used method, notably with interviews and observation of teachers’ classroom
strategies as key data collection methods (using questionnaires to probe teachers’
beliefs and understanding of formative feedback is much more common). Video-
assisted stimulated recall interviews with the participant teachers after observation
were also employed, which is another less utilised method. This placed emphasis on
understanding and interpreting teachers’ own beliefs and conceptions of formative
feedback in their writing classroom, and provided the most appropriate approach in
gaining an in-depth “thick description” of the participant teachers, these teachers being
the people most knowledgeable about the phenomena (Stake, 1995, p. 102).
Participants in this study were “enriched by … different perceptions … different
experiences” (Stake, 2010, p. 66), and therefore offered multiple realities that were
meaningful to them in their beliefs and practices as teachers. I “neither intervene[d]
nor arrange[d] in order to get the data” (Stake, 2010, p. 15).

My study extends the work on the complexities of teachers’ beliefs and their
influences on practice by providing the perspective of teachers’ educational
experiences and influences of their school setting, collegial support and resources on
teaching of writing and their formative feedback strategies. By not constraining the
teachers’ beliefs to questionnaires and surveys, the understanding and conception of
individual teachers in their specific context provides opportunities for content related
evidence to emerge (Crooks, Kane & Cohen, 1996). Data collection methods like
interviews and observation helped me explore the beliefs/practice connection at a
deeper level and allowed flexibility to probe the depth of teachers’ complex, embedded
and implicit beliefs on formative feedback, as opposed to a set of fixed questions that
inevitably would have impeded the opportunity to gain in-depth understanding
(Delamont, 1992). As all research methods have their own weakness, the interviews,
which relied on teachers reporting their beliefs and understanding of formative
feedback strategies - a process at times influenced by the research itself - were
supplemented with diverse methods of data collection such as observations, field notes
and collecting documents.

Multiple-case study strategy

In this research, I adopted a multiple-case study strategy. Case-study research

explores one instance (or a few instances) of a particular phenomenon with a view to
providing in-depth account of events, relationships, experiences, or process
(Denscombe, 2007). A case indicates a unit or phenomenon observed at a single point
of time, or over a period of time. According to Yin (1984), a case study is defined as:

80
 An empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its
real-life context; when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not
clearly evident; and in which multiple sources of evidence are used (p. 23).

In my study, each case explores one teacher’s understanding, beliefs, and

practice of formative feedback in a writing lesson in the classroom setting (Merriam,
1998). Multiple-case studies enabled me to explore the differences within and between
cases (Baxter & Jack, 2008) in order to illustrate the “same issue” (Creswell, 2007, p.
74). Multiple-case study research starts with a “quintain”, which is “an object or
phenomenon or condition to be studied” (Stake, 2006, p. 6). The quintain in this
research was a phenomenon: teachers’ conceptions of effective formative feedback
practice and the role it played in their classroom practice.

Merriam (1998) claims that “the more cases included in a study, the greater the
variation across the cases, the more compelling the interpretation” (p. 40). The forte of
qualitative case study research is working in small samples, studied in depth (Denzin &
Lincoln, 2005; Miles & Huberman, 1994). Consequently, I used selective sampling to
identify three cases, which could be studied to gain deeper insight into the quintain or
to “provide literal replication” (literal replication entails producing a framework stating
the conditions in which the prospective phenomenon can be found) (Yin, 2009, p. 54).
In short, by using a multiple-case study approach, and also by limiting the number of
selected cases, I was able to compare and contrast the three single cases in depth
(Stake, 2006). However despite the advantages of a multiple-case study, the findings
from this investigation cannot be generalised to a larger population (Cohen et al., 2007)
because of the small number of research participants and the possibility of bias in
analysing and reporting the research findings, as the criteria used for the selection of
information to be reported lies with the researcher.

Another feature of multiple-case study is that the research design is intended to

provide “rich, thick description” (Merriam, 2001, p. 29) to answer the research
questions, in order to enable the reader to “go into the case situation” (Patton, 2002, p.
38). I used multiple methods of data collection to seek a description of the quintain in
each case study. Data collection in my study generated this style of description from
each teacher, through interviews and follow up emails, observations, video-assisted
stimulated recall post observation interviews, field notes, and document analysis. As
well as this, each case was particularized as it focused on the individual roles of the
interviewed teachers in the formative feedback practice during the writing process
(Stake, 2006). Describing and interpreting the cases in their situational uniqueness
provided different viewpoints of the same phenomenon (Creswell, 2007).

81
 This interpretive, qualitative multiple-case study draws on existing theories
and contributes to its surrounding literature through the explanation of the contextual
factors influencing the quantain being studied. Both data collection and analysis of the
data are influenced by Sadler’s (1989) theory of formative assessment. My explanation
of the quintain is based on the interpretation on the interaction and interviews, the
observations and field notes and the documents, and interpreting the visible patterns
emerging as result of teachers’ beliefs, understanding and behaviour. As the main
research instrument, I elicited multiple perspectives on the formative feedback in the
teaching and learning of writing.

Researchers bring with them their own personal values that guide their
inquiries. Creswell (2008) states that in a qualitative research the researcher filters the
data through their personal lenses, and these interpretations are subjective (Stake,
1995). These interpretations are open to influences from the researcher’s values,
background, context, experiences and own understanding. However, an Interpretivist
paradigm takes account of these issues, structuring the interpretations and the context
value of the research (Denzin & Lincoln, 2008) towards achieving meaningful results.

Selection of Context

The current literacy focus in New Zealand is on reading and the written
language. The improvement of literacy teaching has been an educational policy goal
since 1999 (Ministry of Education, 1999), and specifically since 2000, the commitment
from the Ministry of Education New Zealand has been to support teachers in making
changes in their literacy practices through providing a range of professional
development initiatives (Ministry of Education, 2002). Teachers in New Zealand have
been acknowledged to be both confident and competent in literacy (Wilkinson &
Townsend, 2000) and have reported high-levels of self-rated competence in the
teaching of written language (Dixon, 1999). Nonetheless, PISA results show a long tail
of student underachievement in literacy, which indicates that teachers’ practices need
further development. Thus, the teaching of written language was identified as a
relevant site to study teachers’ implementation of theoretically appropriate feedback
strategies.

Participants and Research Sites

The aim of my research was to capture teachers’ beliefs of formative

assessment and feedback strategies, and to study how these beliefs were reflected in
their feedback strategies in the classroom. I used purposive sampling to select teachers
teaching in primary schools in the Greater Wellington region. I chose primary school
82
teachers as the target participants, and the challenge was setting parameters for the
participant selection, as it is impossible to research everyone and everywhere (Miles &
Huberman, 1994). My research interest was in primary Year 4 classrooms because in
Malaysian primary schools, students started writing written drafts and preparing for
their UPSR examinations at that age. Students learning to write in English from years 1-
3 would be at the stage of forming simple sentences and from Year 4 onwards they
would start writing essays as a preparation for the national examination. It would
provide me to share my research findings of how formative feedback was provided to
students at the similar age group in New Zealand since New Zealand schools practiced
both formative assessment and national standards. As my experience has been in
teaching students from years 4-6, choosing primary school teachers from the similar
category was important.

With these requirements in mind, the potential number of participants would

have been too large, and since the research was interpretive and qualitative, limiting
the selection was ideal. But limiting the school selection to a cluster of schools would
have minimised the differences among the participant teachers and would have
hampered the variation among teachers, especially if I wanted to allow for variety, and
provide opportunities for intensive depth of study (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). Thus, to
ensure variety, one of my criteria for selecting cases was diversity across the schools I
chose in terms of the decile ranking. However, recruiting the three participants took
four months, as the National Standards were being introduced and implemented
throughout New Zealand at the time of research. I selected and invited schools based on
their decile ranking. Almost all of the schools were reluctant to be involved in the study.
The principals replied that they were too busy, and that the study had the potential to
be time-consuming for teachers, who were busy with the new system of assessment
such as the National Standards. Other teachers were already involved in other research
projects, or in some schools, had prioritised preparing the students for National
Standards. This did lower the number of the potential participants; however I did
manage to recruit three schools willing to participate that were of different decile
rankings. Nevertheless, the purpose sampling that I had planned became convenience
sampling, because of the difficulty in accessing potential participants (Punch, 2005),
therefore it is important to note that the participants represent no other group but
themselves (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2003), as there is no intention in case study to
generalise to a broader population. The significant factor here is honesty in relaying
how the research participants were obtained and how the recruitment has affected the
data (Delamont, 1992).

83
 All three teachers in my study were employed in primary schools around
Wellington. The teachers who participated in the research were suggested by their
principals as suitable participants as they were teaching Year 4 classrooms and were
willing to participate when approached by the principals. The principals assured me
that these teachers had volunteered after they had been approached about my research
project. Although out of three schools, in two of the schools there was more than one
Year 4 teacher, the principals assured me that the teachers’ names they suggested were
the teachers willing to participate. However, in the third school there was only one Year
4 teachers and she volunteered to participate. Once the principal agreed and provided
me with the names and email addresses of the teachers, I approached the teachers
through emails to further explain about my research and find out if they would like to
volunteer. I then sent out the consent forms to the three schools once the principals and
teachers agreed to participate; I arranged an orientation and get-to-know-each-other
session. The participants were reassured that their identity would be confidential, and
that the findings would not have a negative effect on them professionally. I informed
the principal and teachers that they could withdraw from the study at any time before
the data analysis began. Figure 3.1 below highlights the procedures I undertook when
inviting the schools participate in the study.

1. Collected
1. Discussed
students and
1. Letter of 1. Collected 1. Teacher with teachers
parents
invitation sent informed introduced suitable dates
informed
to school consent forms me to and times of
consent forms.
(Informed from principal students to writing lessons
2. Observed
consent forms and teachers. distribute and fixed dates
and
attached. 2. Met other parents and for interviews,
familiarised
1. Met staff members students observations
myself with
principals and and got to consent and post
classroom
teachers. know the forms. observation
setting.
2. Discussed school setting 2. Explained interviews.
3. Practised
the study and about the 2. Collect lesson
placing video
methods of research and plans and hand
equipment
data video outs
without
collection. recordings.
distracting
lessons.

Figure 3.1: Procedure of inviting schools to participate in the study

Methods of Data Collection

The cases in this study represented data generated by individual teachers in

their classrooms before, during, and after a writing lesson. I aimed to discover teachers’
beliefs and teaching strategies in the natural setting of their classroom (Merriam,
84
2001). A variety of qualitative data collection methods and procedures were employed.
I was able to explore the quantain and provide a rich, contextual description by
utilising a range of methods for my data collection and providing triangulation of my
data (Creswell, 2008). Within the selected schools, “multiple sources of information”
were collected (Creswell, 1998, p. 62). These included individual interviews with
participant teachers, observations of classroom formative assessment feedback
strategies, collection of relevant documents (students’ written drafts, teachers’ lesson
plans, and teaching materials) and field notes. The data were selected to allow
comparisons or similarities within each case or across cases. Each data collection
method served a specific purpose and was carried out within each school on different
dates.

Denscombe (2003) recommends the use of multiple methods “in order to

capture the complex reality under scrutiny” (p. 38). Triangulation of data involves the
process of “reviewing things from more than one perspective: different methods,
different sources of data” (Denscombe, 2007, p. 134) and is a method of cross-checking
data in search of regularities (O’Donoghue, 2007). Triangulation of the data lessened
the risk of researcher bias affecting interpretation.

Semi-structured interviews

Semi-structured interviews with the participant teachers were the core means
of exploring the participant teachers’ beliefs in formative feedback practices in the
examined writing classrooms. According to Denzin and Lincoln (2008), interviews
generate useful information about “lived experience and its meaning and produce
situated understandings grounded in specific interactional episodes” (p. 47), and thus
are an important source of data (Yin, 2009). Consequently, interviews were an
important tool for capturing teachers’ beliefs in my research, as my aim was to obtain
access to each participant’s own voice and meaning. The individuality of each
participant teacher’s experience (Huberman & Miles, 2002) and the development of
their understanding and beliefs about formative assessment and feedback strategies
was explored in their distinctive context, and were captured through the semi-
structured interviews.

I used semi-structured interview questions (Appendix B) with prompts and

follow-up questions to obtain clearer responses and additional depth about the
expressed beliefs of teachers. These meant participants were able to articulate beliefs
from their own perspective and in detail. They had the flexibility to expand and reflect
on their own views within the parameters of the research questions and also permitted
me to probe areas of significant interest (Cohen et al., 2003). According to Stake (1995)
85
interviews are the “main road to multiple realities” (p. 64), an idea that influenced my
research. The purpose of open-ended interviewing is to access the perspective of the
person being interviewed and to find out things we cannot “directly observe” (Patton,
1990, p. 278), thus my interview questions were designed to answer the core research
questions about the teachers’ expressed beliefs about best formative assessment
feedback strategies in the writing classroom.

As I wanted to find out teachers beliefs and understanding of formative

assessment and feedback practice, teachers’ educational background and experiences
and beliefs were of significant interest, and were the basis for some of the research
questions. Black et al. (2003) found that teachers implemented a range of formative
assessment strategies and followed different routes of change. I was also curious about
how teachers may have implemented new forms of assessment. The semi-structured
interview questions were divided into three sections:

1) The teacher’s educational background experience (teacher’s certification, learning

experiences from their current teaching, academic and professional development
courses on assessment and formative feedback);

2) The teacher’s beliefs (teacher’s beliefs, understanding and knowledge of

implementing formative feedback, the school’s writing environment and collegial
support for formative assessment practices);

3) The teacher’s classroom practice (teacher’s classroom writing lessons,

implementation of formative feedback practices and challenges in that implementation,
and influences from the broader school on their classroom practice).

Each individual interview was conducted after collecting the teachers’ informed
consent form. I allowed between 40-60 minutes for each interview, which was
conducted in English and audio-taped. I was aware that my ethical responsibilities to
the participants must take priority over any advantage that the interview might offer in
the findings of this research. Therefore, I informed the participants that they had the
freedom to choose at any time if they wanted to stop the interview or did not want to
answer any questions. I assured them that the transcribed interviews would be first
sent to them for approval before I started the analysis, and kept to this assurance.

One semi-structured, in-depth interview about beliefs was carried out with
each of the three participants. As each interview session was recorded using a digital
audio-recorder, I was able to transfer the data and store them, while ensuring the
sound quality of the interview was maintained. This allowed me to transfer the
interviews into Express Scribe software. From there I was able to transcribe and store
the interviews for analysis.
86
 The time frame of each interview ranged from about 30-55 minutes, and
participants varied in the amount of information they were willing to share. The venues
for the interviews were left to the participants to choose, as the participants knew
where they felt safe and comfortable. Two participants chose their classrooms as the
venue for the interview. I found it was easier to build a rapport with the teachers in the
natural setting of their classrooms.

Two teachers found that conducting the interview in their classroom before
school gave them the privacy they needed, and they appeared relaxed during the
interview. The classroom environment was a place where they were in control, and this
setting allowed them to show me around. They were able to tell students to leave to
maintain the privacy needed for the interview. I found that conducting an interview in
the classroom enabled me to observe exhibits that served as an additional incentive to
probe during the interview session. While in the classroom, both of these teachers
found it easy to access documents and other artefacts relevant to stress their views and
opinions on matters.

The third teacher (Jane) requested that the staff room be used as the place to
conduct the interview, as the classrooms were open for the students to use before
school. However, she was reluctant to speak if there were other teachers present. It
made the interview session longer, and there were moments of silence and
awkwardness when others were present. Therefore I decided to request a more private
venue for the video-assisted stimulated recall post observation interviews; this would
enable the teacher to relax and provide information uninterrupted while viewing the
video-recordings. I personally undertook all transcription of the interviews and
observations.

Following their interviews, I emailed the teachers (as requested by the

teachers) as a follow up to request any further information and to allow the teachers’
time to think (teachers were not always ready to give extensive answers when
interviewed). The follow up emails were also a useful form of communication with the
teachers if they were too busy to meet for more interviews. These emails provided me
with another source of data to explain teachers’ points of view.

Piloting the interviews

The term pilot study can refer to feasibility studies, which are “small scale
version[s], or trial run[s]” (Polit, Beck, Hungler, 2001, p. 467), and/or to testing a
particular research instrument (Baker, 1994). Carrying out a pilot study aims to give
the researcher advance warning about pitfalls, and to help calibrate research protocols

87
and the proposed method or instruments. Piloting the interviews helped me develop
my practical skills with interaction.

To enable fine-tuning of the questions for clarity and order, the interview
questions were piloted with two full time PhD students, who volunteered because of
their background and experience as teachers in New Zealand. Piloting helped fine tune
the questions and develop probes to enable me to gain richer responses from the
participants. As a result of piloting, I realised that the ordering of the questions had to
be restructured and that some of the questions were redundant, as the three pilot
teachers repeated their answers to certain questions. Some of the questions had to be
reworded, as the teachers seemed confused by them.

It became clear to me that in order to be able to interview and probe teachers, a

certain relationship had to be developed before the actual interview sessions. I decided
to provide more wait time for each interview than I had originally had planned, taking
into account that each teacher has different ways to express their opinions or beliefs
that they would bring to the interviews. The digital audio-recorder was tested and the
process refined, as one pilot teacher was uncomfortable with the digital audio-recorder
and requested it not be used during the piloting of the interview.

I decided to use the digital audio-recorder. I found that the digital audio-
recorder managed to capture the interviewer and interviewee’s voices far more clearly
and accurately than the audio tape-recorder (Denscombe, 2003). It made the recording
process and transcribing the interviews more efficient. Before the interviews, each
participant was briefed on the interview technique, including the reasons for using the
digital audio-recorder, informing them that it could be turned off, and that they could
refuse to answer any question that they were uncomfortable with. For qualitative
researchers, establishing trust and conducting interviews ethically is of high priority, as
the participant is asked to share their perceptions with the interviewer (Rubin & Rubin,
2005) and allow the researcher to observe their teaching .

Observations

The semi-structured interviews were triangulated by the observations of real

life classroom formative assessment and feedback strategies during the teaching of
writing. Observation was also required because interviews do not always accurately
reflect a person’s interpretation of the world, and can be influenced by many factors,
including participants’ views about why they are being interviewed and at times
personal factors influence how much information a participant is likely to share.
Observation, meanwhile, provides both useful “additional information about the topic”

88
(Yin, 2003, p. 93), and insights via “teacher’s outward behaviours - his or her
performing self- and the cognitive concepts that produce these visible behaviour” and
the contexts in which they occur (Borich, 1999, p. 99). My observations captured oral
and written formative assessment and feedback given to students in the writing phase
of the lesson. I played a non-participant observer role in the classroom, and observed
three writing lessons in each classroom for approximately 45 to 55 minutes each
lesson. Teachers’ formative assessment and feedback strategies during teacher/student
interaction were of specific interest during observations and writing up of findings.

Video recording my observations enabled me to record formative assessment

and feedback strategies as they naturally occurred in the classroom setting, which
ensured that these data were “highly reliable” (Patton, 2002, p. 20). These video
recordings offered a unique opportunity for “analysing the interpersonal interactions”
(Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009, p. 179), as a video captures non-verbal as well as verbal
communications, and offers a complete record of events (Denscombe, 2003). Video
recording captured formative feedback strategies that transpired through verbal
communication, body language, written data, and other modes that might be
overlooked in interviews or field notes.

Introduction and orientation sessions were held prior to my observation

sessions, so that students could be assured that the video recording was not intended
to evaluate or make judgements on their performance. Prior to each actual observation
session, I made a visit to the classroom I would be observing, to become familiar with
the classroom setting. This allowed me to manage the logistics of collecting data
through video-recording - including placement of the camera at an angle that would
prevent it from capturing students whose parents did not consent to their children
being video recorded, and to determine if there were additional factors to be taken into
account, such as the teachers’ use of classroom space during their teaching. It also
enabled the students to get used to my presence and the video recording instruments.

All the three participant teachers organised their classrooms differently, and
the orientation session enabled me to establish the most suitable place in each
classroom to place the camera unobtrusively and to maintain a non-participant
observer status. It was essential that the lesson could be conducted without disruption
by the researcher. As the context for the observation was the one written language unit,
it would have been ideal to carry out multiple observations throughout the entire unit,
but the participant teachers’ engagement with school programmes and other
commitments prevented this happening. Therefore the ideal of prolonged engagement
and persistent observation of the lesson development had to be reduced to those
lessons when the teachers agreed to be observed.
89
 As the theoretical influence of Sadler’s (1989) formative assessment and
feedback strategies was central to my research, it motivated my decision-making. Since
the focus of the teachers’ practice would vary at different points during the one unit,
the beginning of the lesson would likely be spent on developing student understanding
and sharing the goals that constituted to successful learning. It was hoped the teacher’s
insight into how students developed their understanding of goals and criteria would be
gained from the self-reporting done by teachers during the interviews. As the unit
developed, I presumed the focus would continue on the development of students’
evaluative and productive understanding of the writing process. Towards the end of
the unit, I anticipated teachers providing opportunities for students for self and peer-
assessment. Therefore, I decided to observe three lessons: the beginning, the midpoint
and the lesson in which completion was reached. With one exception: Lyn was
observed four times, as her one unit went on for two weeks.

Video-assisted stimulated recall post observation interviews

The stimulated recall method (Calderhead, 1981) was used to help teachers
recall their teaching strategies precisely as they happened, prompted by questions, a
short period of time after each observed lesson (Bloom, 1954). This technique, of
video-recording a lesson and playing it back to the teacher during an interview less
than 24 hours later, helped overcome issues of miscommunication or forgetting
incidents. It also afforded first hand insight into each teacher’s actions by creating a
space for the participant to voice their thoughts and beliefs while observing their own
actions (Gass & Mackey, 2000). The strength of this technique is that the unspoken in-
session action (declarative or procedural) was replayed in a manner allowing the
participant to offer an explanation of the unspoken communication.

Interviewing using video-assisted recall enabled me to obtain the participants’

reflections on their use of formative feedback. A limitation of the non-participant
observer role is that the researcher may fail to understand the perspective of the
participants under observation. Therefore, to overcome the shortcomings of
observations, the semi–structured post-observation interviews with each teacher
enabled me to probe their decision-making, intentions and embedded beliefs.

I used consecutive recall methodology, where interviews are carried out

immediately after the observations, with one teacher, and delayed recall for the other
two teachers (Gass & Mackey, 2000). This was due to the time constraints faced by the
teachers in question, and their wish to be interviewed before school started the next
day. These post-observation interviews were conducted to explore the teachers’
opinions and judgement about their own choice of formative feedback strategies, and to
90
allow me to establish the relationship between their expressed ideas and the impact of
those beliefs in their actual classroom practices. Because video-recording mitigates
against “frailties of human memory,” whereby a participant cannot remember every
detail of events (Denscombe, 2003, p. 19), recording the observation was a means of
overcoming the possibility of either the teacher or I forgetting significant details of
what occurred, and meant that the teachers were able to watch themselves. Either they
or I could stop the recording any time we wanted in order to comment. All of these
interviews were recorded using a digital audio recorder, and teachers were able to
watch their practice while they answered the questions.

The participants in this research were given plenty of wait time to reflect on the
unedited video segments, and the researcher’s questions. Providing an unrushed
environment allowed participants to engage in the complex task of remembering,
reflecting and expressing their views. I was able to gain first hand clarification of the
complexity and range of feedback strategies in each classroom observation captured on
film. Any recollection was generated by the video-recording replay, rather than the
participants’ or my own preconceived conclusions, or oversimplification of what was
being viewed.

Documents

In my study, documents have a “subsidiary or complementary role” (Denzin &

Lincoln, 2008, p. 354) to interviews and observations undertaken in case studies, and
are used to corroborate and augment other data sources. Each teacher provided me
with their lesson plans that outlined the topic/subject, learning outcomes, success
criteria and student grouping for the lesson. These documents were not shaped in
response to the research question, but can corroborate other data and can be used to
triangulate the data during analysis (Merriam, 1998).

All the three teachers provided a photocopy of the class roll so that I knew the
identity of the students. In addition, documents such as teachers’ feedback comments
written on students’ written drafts provided an indication of the teachers’ inner
thought processes (Merriam, 1998). The students’ written assignments with teachers’
feedback, and any hand-outs or teaching materials used during the observations were
collected after the last observation (each teacher explained that students used their
written drafts every day and collecting them during the observation would create some
distraction). The written drafts were photocopied and returned to the teachers.

To assist me in retrieving documents easily, I catalogued what I collected using

a unique alphabet that noted each teacher’s lesson plan, materials and hand-outs, and

91
the students’ written drafts. I included the source, date and place on a document, as
recommended by Miles and Huberman (1994). These documents were collected,
photocopied, numbered and dated to ensure that they matched the relevant lesson
transcripts, observations, and field notes.

Field notes

Field notes were used in this study to describe the location, and the
atmosphere, of the classroom where my interviews and observations were carried out.
Field notes were also taken during my observations to record the “learning climate” or
“the physical and emotional environment” (Borich, 1999, p. 14) of the class. Non-verbal
communication and comments that were relevant to the interviews were also recorded
(Denscombe, 2003). The notes also include my subjective reflections, which Berg
(2007) calls “a self-reflexive opportunity to make personal observations and
comments” (p. 199). This was another form of triangulation used to enhance the
research.

I was present in the class as a non-participant observer, which involved me

observing teachers’ formative assessment and feedback strategies and taking notes, but
not otherwise participating in the class. I entered the classrooms and sat at the back of
the class in a designated corner with my video recording equipment and took field
notes during the interaction. My notes included quotes or actions by the teacher that I
felt were essential. As well as my thoughts and feelings, they encompassed materials on
the board that I felt would be significant for my analysis. I recorded details and
descriptions of the wall charts, white board written work, and any display in the
classroom related to writing. Field notes were taken during the interviews and as soon
as possible after the interviews.

In this study, the field notes assisted me in becoming familiar with each setting.
When there were interruptions during the observations, I was able to work on the field
notes. Also, because the video recording equipment was placed in an unobtrusive place
and couldn’t be moved, I noted the classroom plan, and described how the pupils
moved around the classroom. As I was aware the field notes might have biases of
thoughts or specific interest that might influence the study, I triangulated the field
notes with the post observation interviews with the participant teachers for
clarification and interpretation about their behaviours (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005).

92
Data collection procedures and timeline

Below is the table describing the timeframe, purpose, methods of data

collection, and the dates the data was collected from the individual participants:

Table 3.1 An Overview of the Purpose, Data Collection Methods, and Date Data
was collected

Purpose of Method Data Collection Method Participant Date Data

Collected

To probe teacher’s Individual semi- Jane 1/6/2010

background, structured Interview Lyn 14/6/2010
professional Debra 24/6/2010
development and
beliefs on formative
feedback

To look into teacher Field notes such as wall Jane 1/6/2010

classroom charts, displays and Lyn 14/6/2010
environment white board written Debra 24/6/2010
work

To explore Collection of relevant Jane 1/6/2010

teacher’s lesson plans, learning Lyn 14/6/2010
preparation of their intentions, learning Debra 24/6/2010
teaching practice intentions and other
relevant documents
provided by the teacher

To explore Observation and video Jane 1/6/2010

teacher’s formative recording of 3 writing 2/6/2010
feedback strategies lessons with writing and 3/6/2010
feedback as significant
emphasis Lyn 15/6/2010
16/6/2010
17/6/2010
23/6/2010

Debra 28/6/2010
29/6/2010
30/6/2010

To probe teacher’s Post observation video- Jane 2/6/2010

pedagogical assisted stimulated 3/6/2010
decisions, and recall semi-structured 4/6/2010
intentions interviews
Lyn 16/6/2010
93
 17/6/2010
18/6/2010

Debra 29/6/2010
30/6/2010
1/7/2010

Collection of teachers’ Jane 2/6/2010

lesson plans, learning 3/6/2010
intentions, student 4/6/2010
hand-outs/worksheets,
and teachers planning Lyn 16/6/2010
(ELLP use) 17/6/2010
18/6/2010

Debra 29/6/2010
30/6/2010
1/7/2010

Method of Data Analysis

The data were analysed with an interpretive inquiry lens. Data analysis is a
systematic process of breaking data into significant and manageable units that can be
broken down in stages (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). The qualitative data analysis involved
organising and interpreting data, in short, making sense of the data through the
teachers’ definition and context. Key features such as the relationship, pattern, themes
and categories were identified (Cohen, et al., 2007). In addition the analysis was
inductive in nature (Bryman, 2008; Yin, 2009), simultaneously conducted with data
collection and interpretation through and interactive, recursive process (Ary et al.,
2006; Creswell, 1994). As the researcher is the significant instrument in the analysis
process, I was comfortable with developing categories and making comparisons and
contrast, the first stage of the analysis (Creswell, 2009).

The analysis of the data was conducted within an interpretive paradigm, which
focused on me “making sense” (Patton, 2002, p. 380) of what was said by looking for
patterns in what different interviewees said during their interviews. Data analysis was
both “inductive”, where I looked for themes, and categories, and “deductive”, as
formative feedback strategies from the literature and Sadler’s (1989) theory of
formative assessment and feedback were used to analyse the data (Patton, 2002, p.
463). There were three main sets of data to analyse: interview data, observation data,
and document data.

Analysis of these data sets was conducted within a qualitative interpretive

framework, in that I looked for emerging themes about giving formative feedback. It is
not possible to capture the full meaning of the quantain without a careful review of

94
 each case (Stake, 2006). I carried out seven steps to analyse the three individual cases
through interpretive analysis based on Hatch’s (2002) eight recommended steps in
analysing. Figure 3.2 below shows the analysing stages.

7
6
5
4
Reviewing
Writing draft
interpretation
3 summary
Rereading with academic
Reducing (explanation
1 2 data, supervisors and
amount of reflected with
interpretation writing revised
Reading information theoretical
Reading (supported summary
Reviewing data, and underpinnings)
data to gain /challenged) through
impressions identifying exploring
sense of create colour identifying
impressions recurring
participant’s code system excerpts
meaning themes

Figure 3.2: Analysing each single case

When analysing multiple cases, Creswell (2007) suggests providing a detailed

description of each case, and the themes within the case, followed by a thematic cross-
case analysis of the phase-one interviews. I provided detailed descriptions of each of
the participants’ beliefs about formative feedback, and of the types of feedback in their
classroom teaching practice, concerning both oral and written feedback.

Following this, I organised the data from each source, by reading through the
transcriptions to make initial “codes,” which as Creswell explains are a way of “using
categorical aggregation to find the themes and patterns or using direct explanation to
present an in-depth picture of the cases using narratives, tables and figures” (2007, p.
163). I then used inductive analysis (Patton, 2002) to discover themes and categories
within the data. Through reflecting on the data in this way, I reduced the vast array of
words, sentences and paragraphs to the most important and relevant points. Finally, I
drew out the themes and patterns in the data that would shape my study.

As mentioned, Sadler’s (1989) theory informed my research at different stages.

My purpose was not to test his theory but to use it as a lens to explore the interviewed
teachers’ formative assessment and feedback beliefs, and particularly the feedback
strategies utilised in the writing lesson. Using the data, a holistic picture of each
participant was developed around the concepts that marked the individual teachers,

95
their classroom, their teaching of writing, and their beliefs and formative feedback
practices. In addition, the commentary to describe the themes that emerged from each
participant was supported by the raw data in the form of quotes that were direct from
the teachers. Each of the cases was written up, integrated with the data from
observations, and teachers’ explanations and justifications from post observation
interviews.

As discussed, my focus in this cross-case analysis was to compare and contrast

three cases of teacher’s beliefs and classroom practices of formative feedback, with
particular attention paid to the implications of their beliefs for their practices. I found
that the open-endedness of using inductive analysis to code the data and analyse the
interviews, observations, and documents had the advantage of allowing potential,
useful and unexpected insights to surface (Patton, 2002). In this way, my cross case
analysis not only highlighted the interrelated themes occurring across all three cases,
but helped shape and answer two research questions. Firstly:

 What beliefs do teachers hold about formative feedback in the writing

classroom?

Secondly, cross-case analysis of my observations, and video-assisted stimulated recall

post-observation interviews, enabled me to answer the second research question:

 How do primary teachers provide formative assessment and feedback to

their students during the writing lessons?

Figure 3.3 on the next page shows the procedures and methods of data
collection in this multiple-case study research. The reason behind each method of
data collection, and the triangulation of data to understand the quintain is
highlighted. The exploration within and between cases for the commonality and
differences is clearly indicated.

96
 Data collection procedures and analysis

Interviews /follow up emails Beliefs of formative feedback

Class Observations Formative feedback practices

Case study Explanation of chosen strategies

Post observation interviews
(Teacher)

Field notes Setting/atmosphere/activities

Lesson plans, hand outs, students

Documents drafts

Interviews/ follow up emails Beliefs of formative feedback

Class Observations Formative feedback practices

Multiple- Case study
case (Teacher)
study Explanation of chosen strategies
Post observation interviews

Setting/atmosphere/activities
Field notes
Lesson plans, hand outs, students
Documents drafts

Interviews/ follow up emails Beliefs of formative feedback

Class observations Formative feedback practices

Case study
(Teacher)
Post observation interviews Explanation of chosen strategies

Field notes Setting/atmosphere/activities

Lesson plans, hand outs,

Documents Lesson plans, hand outs, student
students drafts
drafts

Exploration within and

between cases of both Understand the quintain:
its commonality and Teacher beliefs and formative
differences feedback practices

Figure 3.3: Multiple-case study procedures and data collection methods

Source: author’s own

Coding and categorising

The interviews, observation videos and the post-observation interviews

conducted for this thesis were all transcribed, particularly because qualitative research
requires words rather than numbers as its unit of analysis (Denscombe, 2003). As I
went through the data, I looked into for instances where, as Bogdan and Biklen (2006)
advise, “words, patterns of behaviour, subjects’ ways of thinking and events repeat and
stand out” (p. 173). The qualitative perspective of this research is holistic, in that all
97
interviews and observations are considered to be related and interdependent.
Following the observation of such instances of repetition, I employed selective
coding. Selective coding is a process of integrating and refining categories representing
the main theme of the research (Strauss & Corbin, 1994). At this point, I used Sadler’s
(1989) theoretical framework as an inductive tool, helping to pool the categories to
form a descriptive whole. This analysis involved developing a coding system called
‘coding categories’, in which the transcripts were read to look for regularities and
patterns, and words or phrases were written down to represent the pattern.

The identification of core categories was a difficult task for an emergent

researcher (Strauss & Corbin, 1994). The peer debriefing process with my academic
supervisors aided in the clarification process as I began to identify categories. My
academic supervisors asked challenging questions and asked that I defend my analyses
and provide substantive evidence and arguments. This process helped underpin my
research, and clarify my core categories. Following this process, I used qualitative
software to enable me to manage my data. In the next section the use of the qualitative
software will be explained further.

Qualitative software

In coding the data gathered for this thesis, I used a computer software package,
OSR NVivo 8. The computer software facilitated the data analysis process and made it
easy for me to assign codes. The software also enabled me to “designate boundaries or
units of data to attach code symbols” (Bogdan & Biklen, 2006, p. 187) and merge codes
to create new themes. Using this qualitative software made it easier for me to locate
materials, statements of ideas, or a particular phrase or a word (Creswell, 2007).

Trustworthiness of the Study

Rosman and Ralis (2012) suggest that trustworthiness is a set of standards that
honours participants ethically through researcher sensitivity to the topic and setting.
Trustworthiness is generally divided into the four aspects of credibility; transferability;
dependability and confirmability (Guba & Lincoln, 1985). I achieved trustworthiness in
the following ways:

Credibility

Bradley (1993) refers to credibility as the “adequate representation of the

construction of the social world under study” (p. 436). In my study, interviews and
observations of the participants were conducted more than once, as this enabled me to
make better interpretations of the meaning of the events. This is significant as
98
credibility focuses on the “truthfulness of the data” and is enhanced by an extended
period of data gathering, prolonged engagement, and use of multiple methods and a
“merging of conceptual relationship and theoretical proposition that emerged from the
study” (O’Donoghue, 2007, p. 98). I used various methods to ensure credibility. They
are described in table 3.3 below:

Table 3.2 Strategies for Ensuring Credibility

Criteria Method

Triangulation of the multiple I used multiple sources of data obtained over multiple
case-studies is to “assure instances, and a variety of methods to study the
clarity, meaningfulness and quintain. I used interviews, observations, post
free of researcher biasness observation interviews, document analysis and field
that does not mislead reader note.
and provides the right
information and
interpretation” (Stake, 2006,
p.35).

Prolonged engagement -I visited the schools to familiarize myself with the

(Lincoln & Guba, 1985). school, classroom setting, and read about the schools’
visions and mission statements.

-I built a relationship with the teachers before data

collection began, through emails and my orientation
session.

-I observed teaching and learning activities on several

occasions to reduce teacher and student anxiety at
having an observer in the classroom with the video
equipment.

Member checking, also Transcriptions of interviews, post observation

known as participant interviews and outlines of observation were used to
validation (Punch 2005). elicit further details. I used member-checking through
emails to ensure the accuracy of my transcriptions so
the teachers in question were able to elaborate,
extend or argue the content.

Two teachers in my study made minor changes to

their interview transcripts, but one teacher (Debra)
stated that speech is spontaneous and naturally
occurring and unlike writing any grammatical
mistakes should be accepted as valid.

Using critical friends as peer I constantly discussed the decision-making,

debriefers (Rossman & Rallis, developing of categories and building of explanation
99
2012). with my academic supervisors.

Community of practice to The cohort group at the university provided me with

engage in critical and opportunities to engage in critical and continuous
sustained discussion discussion settings with appropriate trust. This
(Rossman & Rallis, 2012). enabled me to discuss emerging ideas, hypothesis and
half-baked ideas in a safe environment.

Transferability

Transferability requires the researcher to provide thick description through

detailed analysis of interview transcripts, observations, documents, and use of
purposeful sampling to allow the possibility of applying the process to other contexts
(Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Consequently, in this thesis I provide a concise presentation of
theoretical propositions, accompanied by the relevant examples through excerpts from
the data (O’Donoghue, 2007). The provisions of the data-sets generated by purposively
selected participants are tools to understand the quintain and might be repeated with
participants in similar settings (Stake, 2006). In this way, an interpretive inquiry
provides a rich description that is grounded by contextual experience. Rich description
with extensive use of the participant teachers’ voices links the data to my analysis,
claims and interpretations. These rich descriptions are provided in Chapters Four, Five
Six and Seven.

The aim of this study was to provide multiple understandings of the individual
cases I investigated. The research setting, participants and themes present the entire
picture, hence providing a detailed view of the setting and situation.

Dependability

Dependability refers to the criterion of thoroughness related to the consistency

of research findings (Merriam, 1998). Dependability requires an audit trail of clear
documentation of all the research decisions and activities in a chain of evidence from
the time of data collection to the conclusion of the research (Bryman, 2001). I
completed a log from the time ethical permissions were obtained, through the data
collection process, and right up to the process of data analysis and presentation of the
findings in my research. Examples of the audit trail in my research are captured in
memos, logs, journals, and field notes. The audit trail facilitated a reflective approach
throughout the research process (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). My reflexive journal allowed
me to record emerging insights and areas of interest to explore. My academic
supervisors provided me with guidance on both analysing the data and on the degree of
depth needed for the analysis in this study.
100
Confirmability

Confirmability is the “extent to which the data and interpretation of the study
are grounded in events” rather than the researcher’s personal construction (Lincoln
and Guba, 1985, p. 324). Consequently, my research process is made explicit
throughout this thesis through explicit demonstration of the links between the data and
analysis. In this study, the issue of confirmability was addressed by a thorough
description of my whole research process, and by clearly linking my method of data
collection to my method of analysis (particularly in the findings section). Extensive
appendices are provided as supporting evidence. Researcher bias is minimised by my
giving detailed description of the criteria and procedures undertaken in the selection of
participants, justification and explanation of the methods employed in the data
collection, and the means of the analysis used to interpret the findings (Lincoln & Guba,
1985). My interpretation of the data was double-checked by my academic supervisors
to reduce bias and ensure consistency with the data.

Ethical Considerations

I adhered to Victoria University of Wellington’s ethical principles and guidelines

on human subjects by following processes such as gaining informed consent and
minimising risk by assuring the confidentiality of the participants’ identities.

Informed consent and minimisation of risk

I took into consideration the need to minimize possible risks to the participants
and their students. The observations conducted in the classroom were carried out with
the minimum level of disruption as I, in my position as researcher, took on the role of a
non-participant observer. An information sheet addressed to the principal was sent out
to the schools prior to the research being conducted. Once the principal agreed that
teachers could be invited to participate, I made contact with the teacher suggested by
the principal. During the introduction and orientation session, issues brought up by the
principal and teachers were immediately addressed (these issues mainly pertained to
the structure of the observation methods and the dates I would be able to enter the
classrooms). Once the teachers agreed to participate, consent forms for the students
and parents were sent home. I then collected the consent forms and made
arrangements with the teacher about how best to place the students whose parents did
not consent for their children to be videoed. It was important to me that my research
did not interrupt these children’s learning.

101
 I found that two of the schools were proactive in obtaining completed consent
forms. In the other school, there were delays in collecting consent forms, as the
participant school explained that they had a passive form of getting consent form the
parents; if the parents had a problem or question, they should approach the school;
otherwise it was assumed that the parents agreed. However, I had to stress the
importance of the consent forms being returned to me, and I had to return to the school
and send out another set of forms, which took the school a further two weeks to collect
from parents.

In the consent forms, it was clearly stated that the data collected (such as video-
recordings) was for the exclusive viewing of the researcher (me) and my academic
supervisors. The participants were assured that video data would be stored in a safe
and secure location, with access being limited to the researcher. Any other data would
be stored on my own personal computer, the username and password of which were
available to me only.

The participant teachers’ involvement in research holds potential risks such as

stress, embarrassment and exploitation (Miller & Brewer, 2003). Prior to my
interviews and observations, I took care to clarify my role with the participant teachers.
I stressed that my role was to interpret teachers’ responses and actions, not to judge
their professional expertise. If I found that my probing was a cause of anxiety or stress
to the participant teacher, the question or the line of questioning was dropped even if it
was not fully explored.

Significant care was taken in not identifying the teachers’ names, ages, and total
number of years teaching, ethnicity, and leadership responsibilities. Ethic of care was a
significant measure taken in assuring that their anonymity and confidentiality was an
important factor during and after the research was conducted, right up to the time of
the publication of the thesis. These specific identifiers were omitted purposefully as my
research involved three schools and one school had only one Year 4 teacher, making
the teacher easily identifiable. Specific details about the selected schools such as their
locations and other identifiers were omitted in the findings chapter, as a minimisation
of risk when involving real people in their natural setting.

Confidentiality

Given the potential for risks from participating in academic research (outlined
above), the confidentiality of the participants was of high priority. Each school and
participant was given a pseudonym to ensure that their identity was confidential to the
researcher (recommended by Gregory, 2003). While there can be no absolute

102
assurance of confidentiality, anonymising participant teachers and schools in the
process of this study helped protect their identity.

Data confidentiality was maintained by ensuring the data was separated from
identifiable individuals. Written text, audio and video data files and any digital
recordings were securely locked and I was the only person able to assess the files. After
five years, the written data used for this thesis will be destroyed, and any audio and
video data will be wiped.

I also safeguarded participants’ confidentiality by transcribing all data myself.

My academic supervisors were the only other people able to read the data and findings.
I did not discuss issues arising from the interviews that may have made it possible to
identify the participant teachers.

The principal was assured that the name of the school would not be identified
at any stage of the research process. I sought the consent of the participants that data
necessary to the writing of this thesis or related publications would be gathered and
used without identifying them in any way whatsoever.

Researcher Bias

Given the prominence of the researcher in the selection of the data for a thesis
of this nature, I accept that I myself am an important research tool. My social
background, values, identity and beliefs will have a “significant bearing on the nature of
the data collected and the interpretation of the data” (Denscombe, 2003, p. 234).

I attempted to correct for this bias by taking care, from the beginning of my
research to the conclusion of it, to maintain a strict observer role. I refrained from
making personal or evaluative comments during the interviews and observations of
teaching practice. I did not interact with the students prior to, during, or after the
observation of the research.

Methodological and Research Limitations

In conducting this research, there were some difficulties in recruiting

participants from the schools invited to participate. Some of the schools did not return
the consent forms or stated that they had misplaced them. It was difficult to meet many
of the school principals, and in some cases even contact them, as administrators
informed me that they were either too busy or not interested. One school had a ‘no
research conducted’ clause in their policy. Therefore the limitation to this research has
been a smaller sample size than I originally had planned.

103
 Another difficulty I faced was the time constraints on some teachers. Two of the
participant teachers had to cut short their lesson, thus cutting down my observation
time, as they had syndicate or cluster meetings to attend. Moreover, I was not able to
observe any of the teachers’ individual student-conferencing sessions, as they were
reluctant for me to observe them and did not offer any explanation for this. This
therefore limited the observation section for the data on teacher/student interaction in
helping students understand their achievement and learning goals of the writing lesson
and plan their future learning goals, if there were any. It also limited me from obtaining
data on individual feedback during conferencing that teachers had reported they
planned and conducted with their students. Although the aim of my research was to
capture the writing lesson and how teachers provided feedback to students, I was not
able to sit through the whole writing lesson of one participant teacher, as Lyn conducts
her writing lessons over for two weeks. I did, however, manage to capture feedback for
four sessions.

Video recording presented another limitation, as teachers commented that a

few students were behaving differently while there was a camera in the classroom.
There were students whose parents did not consent for them to be video recorded, and
who did not participate in the classroom discussion with the teacher. The teachers felt
the camera caused changes in some students’ behaviour, therefore indicating that
sometimes during the teaching and learning, the student’s interaction and performance
were compromised or influenced and not accurate according to my interpretation of
the observed lesson. This is a significant indication that the teachers’ interpretation and
knowledge of students were more substantial than my interpretation, which was
limited to the observed lesson.

Chapter Summary

Despite using complex, methodological approaches, collection and analysis of

data, it is impossible to fully capture the complexities of human behaviour. A research
study can only capture a selective representation of a reality under investigation
(Hammersly, 2002). Nonetheless, data were purposefully collected and analysed to
provide credible evidence and content depicting the phenomenon of teachers’
formative assessment and feedback beliefs and practices. (Phelan & Reynolds, 1996).
Thus the selection of the research questions, research paradigm, methodology, context,
participants, and methods of data collection, data analysis, and trustworthiness
employed by this thesis are given in detail, providing confidence in the interpretations
reported in this study.

104
 To ensure the sufficiency of evidence Hammersley (2002) identified that
evidence has to be a credible and accurate interpretation of context, convincing and
strong enough to support claims, and related to the claims made. The methods of data
collection were thus carefully chosen to extract evidence of teachers’ beliefs about and
understanding of formative feedback, and evidence was gathered in relation to
teachers’ self-reported practice, enactment of the self-reported beliefs in the classroom
practice and justification for the practice.

Overall the details provided in the current chapter, together with the evidence
from Chapters Four, Five, Six, Seven, and Eight, lead the readers from data findings to
conclusions.

105
 CHAPTER FOUR:
Case Study One: Debra

It [feedback] has to fit the kid and more to their learning needs (Debra).

As noted, the purpose of this multiple-case study is to investigate the beliefs

and formative feedback practices present in a primary teacher’s writing lesson. As
Seidman (2006) suggests, creating a profile from interviews through the words of the
participants supports the presentation of context, clarifies intentions, and gives a sense
of process that is essential in a qualitative analysis. In the next three chapters, I provide
a comprehensive description of each participant teacher in their own context. The
description of the participants’ profiles is based on researcher observation, pre and
post-observation interviews, document and field note analysis, and the participant’s
school website.

Each case description in chapters Four, Five, and Six is presented in the
following order: it begins with an introduction to the participant teachers’ background,
the schools they work in, their professional development, and their learning and their
teaching practice. A brief background on their experience and qualifications prior to
becoming a teacher is also included. This is followed by a description of their writing
practices and feedback based on the observation, then a description of themes that
emerged from analysis of the teacher’s practices. Chapters Four, Five, and Six provide a
comprehensive description of the participant teachers’ beliefs and teaching practice.

Introduction to Debra

Debra (pseudonym) was a of Pakeha/New Zealand descent.

Background, education, and teaching experience

At the time of interview, Debra had been teaching in School A since she
completed her Bachelor of Teaching. She had five years of teaching experience in
School A at the time of research.

At the time of the study, School A was a decile 5 contributing primary school,
and worked towards enhancing teachers’ knowledge through teacher professional
development, which included building a collegial culture and maintaining a shared
focus on improving achievement by “discussing and exchanging ideas” (DI). Teachers
were encouraged to engage in self-review using research and best practice models to
increase student outcomes. In practice, this involved “regular staff meetings watch[ing]
videos and analysing good practices with literacy leaders” (DI). The school-wide student
106
achievement targets are recorded as analysing data to inform teachers’ decision-
making and “to improve [their teaching] practice on reading and writing” (DI).

Specifically, the school set academic and social goals for each student by
requiring teachers to evaluate student performance. These evaluations were intended
to enable teachers to monitor students’ progress against these goals and “identify the
next step they need to take in their learning” (DI). The teachers in the school worked
together to design and implement a school-specific curriculum that integrated learning
areas, key competencies, principles, and values (D1).

Professional learning and development

School A made resourced professional learning and development for teachers,

as the school worked in a “cluster with other schools” (DI). The school’s leadership and
teachers were required to “look at research and discover the thing that makes the
biggest difference to the kids” and then to work on getting professional development in
the identified area (DI).

Debra had attended 2 years of professional development on reading and at the

time of research the “school was just getting into the professional development on
teaching of writing” (DI). Literacy leaders worked with the teachers and would sit “in
the classroom observing” them (DI). Teachers then had the opportunity to get “good
feedback from literacy leaders about their teaching practices and how to improve them”
(DI).

Since undertaking professional development, the teachers had practised “video

recording their teaching practices and reflecting on them” (DI). At the time of research,
the professional development program was focused on how to give feedback to
students. Debra reported that this was because when the literacy leaders asked
teachers to define feedback and “not one teacher knew the definition of feedback or how
to give feedback” (DI). Since then, the professional development program in the school
had centred on feedback. Debra commented that she “was getting the hang of providing
oral feedback to students” and felt that “oral feedback was much more difficult” than she
originally thought (DI).

Debra’s classroom

Debra’s classroom provided an interesting mix of students. Debra’s class was a

combination of 65% of students with English as their first language and 35% students
who had other languages as their native tongue, including Somali, Tongan, Tagalog,
Gujarati and Samoan.

107
 I provided Debra an overview of how I would like to carry out the research and
arranged dates and times for interviews and observations. She introduced me to her
students. I was then able to explain my research to the students and answer their
questions, and to distribute consent forms. Debra then provided me her with class roll
and lesson plan. Based on Debra’s timetable and our initial discussion, we agreed that
each observation would be directly followed by a post-observation interview during
the school lunch break. She chose three consecutive days for observation as she said
she only took three or four days to complete one writing topic because she had to
conduct writing lessons as her “principal checks to know we do our writing every day”
(DI). Debra was a serious teacher both during the interviews and observations and did
not joke with her students.

Debra’s Understanding of Feedback

As a teacher, Debra defined feedback as “telling students what they have done
well, and what their next learning steps are” (DI). She believed feedback should be “be
specific and clear, about the learning not the child, and be precise enough that they can
use it to inform their learning” (DE). Debra believed feedback “is something good and
feed forward is something they [students] can work on” (DI). She believed that providing
oral feedback helped direct students so that “they knew where they were going” (DI).
Her belief was drawn from her inferred knowledge of her students and her expectation
of acceptable standards from students in various groups:

Filipinos get their pronouns wrong, and their tense they often get them wrong and
so they write everything in present tense even when it is past tense (DI).

I have one Somali girl and Tongan girl who have not been here very long who
write very basic sentences because of the limitation in what they can get down
(DI).

I think in terms of grammar, there is a definite difference between ESOL kids and
the way they write (DI).

As a result, her inferred knowledge of her students significantly influenced her

beliefs and practice of providing feedback:

I try providing feedback but obviously I have to simplify their feedback for the
ones who have less English. But then, I have other kids that I simplify feedback for
their learning difficulties in other ways. I am giving feedback about grammar and
stuff more to L2 students (DI).

108
 She believed her feedback was framed according to specific features of
students’ written drafts that needed attention:

I gave feedback that would encourage them to add more details according to their
learning intention and the success criteria (DI).

Debra emphasised, however, that with the diverse ethnicity of students in her
classroom, there was difficulty in choosing how to give feedback for understanding:

The students’ level and ESOLness makes it difficult in providing feedback for
common understanding from the chosen learning intentions (DI).

Planning of the Writing Lesson

Each of Debra’s writing lessons ran for 40 to 50 minutes. The topic during the
observation involved students writing a narrative about ‘The African Elephant’. Debra
believed students’ language proficiency influenced their performance in the writing
lesson, clearly influencing her to include more than one learning intention, and multiple
success criteria for students in her lesson plan (Appendix C1). Debra claimed that
although she planned her lesson meticulously, the plans “changed” (DI) depending on
students’ response to the lessons.

Debra’s lesson plan was influenced by her professional development training,

and she had two sets of learning aims, one of which was for shared writing to “turn
ideas into feedback” (DI) for the whole class. In this set, the learning aim for her
students was “to write interesting and full sentences from key words/ statements - we
will make our writing interesting by using our own words, including descriptive
language” (Ddoc). She developed her learning intentions and success criteria from her
knowledge of students from “their previous year’s asTTle writing” (DI). The second set
of learning aims for her students were that they “write sentences correctly, add detail to
their writing, add interesting details to their writing, and use correct grammar in their
writing” (Ddoc).

The success criteria that Debra designed for the group as a whole required that
they write sentences correctly by “begin[ing] a sentence with a capital; write one idea in
each sentence – star, scene and action - and end [each] sentence with a full stop” (Ddoc).
Students were encouraged to add interesting details to their writing and to “use key
words in the plan, use descriptive language, and find synonyms” (Ddoc). The group where
the aim was that they use correct grammar in their writing had success criteria
requiring them to “identify past, present, and future tense, use correct verb ending for
tense and read sentence to make sure it sounds right” (Ddoc).

109
 Debra’s lesson did not include any teaching materials originally, but she
provided students pictures of elephants and read a poem on the second day of the unit
as she found students did not grasp the lessons and the learning goals. The students
were asked to write the same topic task that they had used for their asTTle writing as a
guide on writing a paragraph.

Practice and Observations

On each day that I observed her classroom, Debra conducted the writing lesson
differently. She took a ‘trial and error’ approach to writing lessons. As she went through
the first observed lesson and realised that students were not able to grasp or achieve
the desired written task, she resolved she “[would] try something different tomorrow”
(DI). Although she had planned her feedback and writing lesson, she tried a different
approach on the second day of observation, which was not based on her planned lesson
when she realised that the “students seemed confused” (DI).

As a result of Debra’s teaching practice taking this trial and error approach, her
feedback opportunities for students in her classroom arose from her own assumptions
of effective feedback. Figure 4.1 on the next page shows the way Debra’s conducted her
writing lesson during the three observed lessons.

110
 1 2

Observation
Group discussion on Individual writing in
Day 1 selected topic small groups

Teacher feedback based

on noticing

1 2 3
Observation Individual
Poem used as Whole class
writing in
Day 2 model discussion
groups

1 2

Observation
Student read their Whole class
Day 3 written drafts discussion

Teacher feedback based

on students’ success Peer feedback
criteria

Figure 4.1: Debra’s writing lesson

Observation Day 1

The students were asked to sit on the mat at the beginning of the lesson for a
whole class discussion, and then a specific group was asked to stay on the mat while the
rest of the class went back to their own desks for their writing. The groups that she
concentrated on providing feedback to were described as the “lower proficiency
students and students with behavioural issues” (DI). During the first observation, Debra
wrote on the board their tasks, “to write an interesting paragraph about the African
elephant” (DF). Debra indicated to her students that they were required “to write an
interesting paragraph” (DI). She had used the same topic two months earlier but
decided to use it again as students were unable “to grasp the lesson or write clearly”
(DI). The task on the first observation was “to write about elephant breeding” (DO). She
asked her students to look for their sheets and find the required session. Most of her

111
students were not able to locate the worksheet at she had asked, “to paste in their draft
book” (DO). Debra told the students what she wanted them to do:

You are going to find the bit that says 'females have one young calf at a time,
breeds every four years, no set breeding season,’ and you are going to write a
paragraph about their life cycle (DO).

Once she had told them the task, students were given information on what
needed to be included in their paragraph. However, while the discussion on the life
cycle of an elephant was in progress, Debra changed the discussion topic to writing an
interesting paragraph and describing the elephant, completely overlooking the task of
writing a paragraph about the elephant life cycle. Students “struggled to grasp” her
description of the elephant, some of the students commented that they had “never seen
an elephant” (SO) and were not familiar with the parts of its body. Students kept
gesturing to the tusks and trunk and wanted to know the terms for these parts.
Students struggled to find the vocabulary and spelling needed to complete the writing
task:

Avnita: (Shows the action of tusks)

Teacher: Tusks. Go and get a piece of white paper on my desk and I will
write it down for you (DO).

Adolpho: Excuse me, what is this?

Teacher: It is the trunk.
Adolpho: No, two at the side.
Teacher: Tusks. They are tusks (DO).

The whole class discussion was based on writing an interesting paragraph and
adding details to their writing. Debra provided a lot of examples orally and probing to
get “them to tell their ideas, so [she] didn’t tell them exactly all the ideas of what to do
because some will do exactly that” (DI). Debra did not discuss the various learning
intentions that she had planned based on her perception and understanding of her
students’ ability, but during the entire lesson she chose to discuss only one learning
intention of making the writing interesting:

Teacher: When we use verbs, adjectives, nouns, adverbs and onomatopoeia, what are we
trying to do? What sort of words? Cassie? What are we doing if we use these
words? Hemi?
Hemi: Make our writing better.
Teacher: We already said that. What we are actually doing? What are we doing at his
point?
Students: Making it interesting.
112
Teacher: What are we doing at this point? What sort of words?
Mathew: Key words!
Teacher: Bejide, what sort of words? Hemi, what are we doing if we are using all these
words? Hemi?
Hemi: Making it more interesting.
Teacher: We have already said that. We have already said we are making it more
interesting. What are we actually doing? What is the process? Step? What are
the steps we are doing here? What do we want to do? Jemima?
Jemima: Making the reader read on.
Teacher: We might make the reader want to read on. So what are we doing, Belinda?
Belinda: Telling the reader what it looks like.
Teacher: We are using descriptive language (DO).

Debra’s questioning often included a series of probing, elicitation of reasoning,

and explaining meaning that led to her “telling students the answer” (DI) when she felt
she did not receive the required answer. She regarded these as “effective feedback
techniques” in teaching students how to write a detailed description, and how to add
details to writing to make it more interesting. Debra often intervened to share her
ideas, or content that she preferred in students’ writing, often giving written feedback
in their books. If misconceptions or errors in understanding occurred, or their attempts
fell short of desired outcomes for vocabulary or sentence she wanted, Debra referred
students to the thesaurus:

Teacher: Some people in their writing wrote like this ‘eat large amount bark fruit grass
leaves’. Does that sound like a sentence?
Students: No
Teacher: So, if we want to make it more interesting what are some of the words we are
going use? What is a word we use to make it more interesting, Mathew? Look in
the thesaurus, is there a better word than that one? How about ‘the elephant
consumes a large amount of food’? (DO)

Students were then required to produce a written task based on the whole
class’ learning intentions. The rest of my observation was of students writing on their
own while she walked around providing oral feedback followed by written feedback.
Her feedback was on her tacitly held knowledge of learning intentions and success
criteria. She did not specify to students what the success criteria were, and often
provided feedback individually as she noticed its need, rather than as she had planned
to do for the whole group. When Debra’s students’ sentences were incorrect, she gave
“as much information as” she thought they needed to write successfully (DI), often

113
outside the planned success criteria for the individual student. She also provided
instant written feedback as she spotted any errors:

Teacher: Tusks. They are tusks (writes it down) and when you have a vowel it comes
after ‘an’ (writes it down) (DO).

Debra believed that she provided formative feedback that “made students aware
of their next learning steps” (DI). She started her lesson by introducing learning
intentions, and feedback was on the knowledge and quality of success that she tacitly
held. Success criteria were not clarified to the students. She mostly used questions to
exemplify that students needed to make their writing interesting:

Teacher: Who can tell me something else that they can use to describe an elephant? Who
can describe an elephant using an adjective for describing words? Who can tell
me something about an elephant? Thinking about what we know about an
elephant using adjectives and describing words. Mathew, tell me something
about the elephant about what it looks like.
Mathew: They have floppy ears.
Teacher: They have floppy ears. Which was your adjective? Which was the describing
words?
Mathew: (Silence).
Teacher: Was it ears?
Mathew: No.
Teacher: Is ears the describing words?
Mathew: No.
Teacher: Ears is a noun.
Amy: Floppy.
Teacher: Floppy. Belinda?
Belinda: The elephant’s body colour is as dark as grey hair.
Teacher: You can tell me that what is an elephant’s colour?
Belinda: Grey.
Teacher: Everybody (DO).

Misconceptions by students were common in her classroom, which Debra

regarded as being due to their English proficiency. I noted that students often guessed
the meaning of what she was saying or used gestures to articulate their needs:

Teacher: Ok, the African elephant is grey. Please write it down. Ok, what is the star of the
scene? I am saying the African elephant is grey (teacher writes it down on a
sheet). What if we make the sentence more interesting? Is everything about an
African elephant grey? (Teacher keeps touching her hands hinting to students)

114
 What part of it is grey? I am giving you a clue. What is this (teacher pulls the skin
on the top of her palm)?
Kieran: The body.
Keera: The feet.
Teacher: The body not including the tusks. What part of it is grey (teacher touches her
skin). I am giving you a clue. What is this? (pulling her skin).
Students: Skin.
Keera: Its skin. The skin is grey (DO).

Debra herself was also the only audience to share students’ ideas, as she did not
plan peer feedback or shared reading of the students’ written work during the first
observation. She often provided directive feedback and gestures so they had sufficient
information to continue their writing, or to complete their sentence to her satisfaction.

At the end of the lesson, Debra “realised students still did not understand on the
concept of writing an interesting paragraph” and she did not “get the results” she
wanted, so she decided to “try something new tomorrow” (DI). She did not collect the
students’ written drafts for marking.

Observation Day 2

On the second day of observation, Debra tried and “experimented” with teaching
students how to write, using a different approach from the one she had originally
planned. This time, she “hoped students could add details to their writing by responding
to a poem” (DI) she read aloud to her students, entitled ‘The blind men and the elephant’
(DF). She decided on this new approach so “students knew that they had to add details to
their writing in order for the reader to understand their writing” (DI). Debra felt that the
“students did not understand their task and had not done their written work correctly the
previous day so she had to find a different approach” to make them understand their
learning intentions (DI). She had done some “reflection on her failure from the first day”
and decided the poem would address her concerns (DI).

Debra read and discussed the poem with the students. She then pasted 3
pictures of elephants on the board to show the differences between the African
elephant and other species of elephants. The students started running towards the
board to have a closer look, which “annoyed” her (DI). She asked them to sit down and
reprimanded them for behaving as if they had not seen an elephant before. However,
there were students who then told her they “have not been to the zoo or seen an
elephant before” (Student Obs). She disagreed as she felt they would have seen an
elephant “on the television” (DO).

115
 Debra asked the students to “leave their written draft that they had completed
the previous day and start writing a new paragraph” (DI). The students were asked to
write “a paragraph on describing the elephant” (DI). Debra gave a few examples as to
how she wanted the students to write their sentences. She wrote examples of sentences
on the board. Students then went back to their own desks and continued writing. As she
walked around the class, she noticed that some students were just copying the poem
into their paragraph. As she noticed it, she indicated to students what their actual task
was and explained to them how to write, often writing it down in their book and telling
them to “add details to their writing to make it interesting” or write “complete sentences”
(DO).

Students were exposed to a lot of “describing words and adjectives from the
poem” as she discussed it in detail, but she felt some students “still struggled to
understand” why the poem had been read to them, and “had copied directly from the
poem” instead of understanding that it had been intended as an example of what they
might do (DI). Additionally, many of Debra’s students were confused about the
difference between their learning outcomes, their specific task and success criteria for
the task. This issue was prominent during the second observation and she had to
discuss and explain these to them again. The extract below is indicative of their
confusion:

Teacher: I am writing the task on the board so you know what you are doing.
Amiri: What does a task mean?
Teacher: What you are doing, Amiri I have used it [the word task] the whole year.
Paragraph describing what…?
Amiri: I thought we are using WALT.
Teacher: A WALT is what you are learning, a task is what you are doing! (DO).

Once the individual writing began, Debra called the group that had to write “one
sentence correctly” (DI) as their learning intentions to the mat to offer them help. Debra
explained to the students “the success criteria” (DI) of writing a simple sentence.
Feedback was based on the success criteria.

Teacher: What do we look for when we are writing?

Students: Our sentences
Teacher: Good, our sentences. I think I have put one up there. (Teacher puts up the
WALT for the students).
Teacher: Full stop. How many ideas do you want to put in a sentence?
Justin: One.
Teacher: Three would be compound sentences and you can use ‘and’. How many ‘ands’

116
 can you put in a sentence at the most? (DO).

The audience during the feedback, however, was the whole class, and she would
get their attention when pointing out the errors and how correct them:

Amiri: A topic is telling you what the rest of the paragraph is.
Teacher: Did someone hear what Amiri said?
Students: No
Teacher: If we start with the ‘The African elephant gobbles large piles of food’, that tells
me… what is it, Amiri?
Amiri: Topic.
Teacher: It’s a topic sentence. A topic sentence tells us what our paragraph is about. If we
tell them what about the food, then we have to go on and tell what that food
might be (DO).

Debra clearly shared the objective of “writing an interesting narrative” (DO)

with her students but did not follow up on the learning intentions and success criteria
that she had planned for her specific groups. Feedback was provided individually,
according to what she felt students needed in their writing. Students did not have
opportunities to monitor their own work or to know what their group and individual
success criteria were.

Debra believed that her approach enabled other students to “check and make
sure they were on track and knew what they were doing too” (DI). Debra’s students were
provided with specific feedback to include her ideas into their writing. It was
authoritative information students received to modify their response and guide them
towards the goals and quality that Debra wanted. The main ideas came from Debra
herself and she was making sure the students were “doing what they were supposed to”
(DI) and guiding them with oral feedback. She tried to ensure all her students “had the
points that she had given them in their sentences” (DI). Students’ written drafts were not
collected after the lesson.

Observation Day 3

On the third day of the observation, a whole session involving both peers and
teacher feedback was conducted. Debra sat with her students on the mat in a big circle
on the mat and Debra helped them “learn to give feedback as well” (DI). The lesson
began with Debra giving a “recap of the previous lesson” (DI). She discussed the success
criteria for the whole class: learning intentions of adding details and making the
paragraph interesting. She picked students to read out their written drafts to the whole
class so that “they [could] receive feedback” (DI). Debra modelled how to give oral
117
feedback to the whole class, and then asked students to provide peer feedback to the
selected students (DI). The oral feedback based on planned success criteria did not
relate to the planned learning intention of individual students, but was based on their
written drafts and success criteria according to Debra’s conceptions of quality:

I want you to be thinking when the person is reading out about the success
criteria and see if you have some feedback that you can give that person (DO).

Debra and the students discussed the students’ written paragraph as the
students read it out. An example of teacher and peer feedback during the whole class
discussion of the written task is shown in the extract below:

Amy: The African elephant’s trunk has no bone in it. The trunk feels like a snake. The
elephant’s skin is grey like a cloud. The skin is wrinkled. The skin is too big for the
elephant [and] it looks baggy. The tusks are white like a white board.
Teacher: That is as far as you have got? Who can tell if Amy used some descriptive
language and interesting words? Amiri can you think of some descriptive words
that she has used? What sort of descriptive words did she use?
Amiri: Simile (DO).

Debra believed it was useful for her students and “they enjoyed feedback in a
circle” (DI). However, students were not required to change or alter their written text
after that. The whole class discussion, which she reported as “feedback”, was spent
“identifying the success criteria” (DI). She finished the lesson by using the same method
of asking students to read their work and asking others to provide feedback.

Debra provided written feedback on grammar and the mechanics of writing

(such as spelling) in all three observation sessions. She indicated the reason for her
taking responsibility for this as follows:

If they focus on their spelling, they just lose concentration, so it is finding a

balance between the surface and the deep features and writing. Does it make
sense? I strongly believe kids can either spell or they can't actually. I couldn't until
I was an adult. I was a really good reader and really good writer but I couldn’t
spell (DI).

However, Debra did devote some time to spelling, punctuation and clarity, as
these were the “success criteria for some of her students’ writing” (DI). Her perception of
the students’ English proficiency level had a profound effect on her feedback, and she
“supported students” (DI) who she perceived as having less proficiency through both
oral and written feedback. Both oral and written feedback to students was based on

118
their work in progress and concentrated on acknowledging the students’ efforts and to
“direct them” (DI). It was important to her that “students knew their errors” (DI).

Debra’s written feedback on the grammar and mechanics of writing were

instantaneous (see Appendix E1). She felt these were a problem in her class as “English
was their [the students] second language” and some students with “behavioural problem
needed written feedback” more than others (DI). She felt that providing instant
feedback helped students to “get the ideas in better and the flow of writing going” (DI).
Additionally, Debra felt she was “trying her best where feedback was concerned” and
that written feedback was easier to give than oral feedback as she “was still learning
about feedback” (DI). Debra was interested in the “content and students’ organisation of
ideas” (DI), and the development of these ideas was consistent with the ideas and
feedback that she had provided them with.

During this third observation, Debra believed she clearly shared the “objective
of writing an interesting narrative with her students” (DI) but did not follow up on the
learning intentions and success criteria that she had planned for her specific groups.
Feedback was provided according to what she “felt students needed in their writing”
(DI). Students did not have opportunities to monitor their own work or know what
their group and individual success criteria were.

Furthermore, as her attempt to move students into a discussion often met with
student passivity, meaningful discourse did not materialise, Debra’s lesson during this
observation featured more of Debra’s speaking than speech from her students, making
it a teacher-centred teaching and feedback-writing lesson. Students’ written drafts
were collected for marking. She continued marking as she perceived necessary.

Debra’s written feedback on the collected drafts to her student (for example
Appendix E1) was lengthy and contained more words than the students’ written draft.
She asked students to “add details” and “should make a plan” before writing (DO).
Students did not have to revise or write a new draft based on the feedback that was
given by Debra.

The Connection between Debra’s Beliefs and Practices

Debra’s espoused beliefs and practices of formative feedback reflected the

understanding of feedback that she gained through her teaching experiences,
professional learning and development and understanding of her students’ proficiency
of English and needs. There were some inconsistencies between Debra’s reported
beliefs on feedback that is formative and her formative feedback practices. She
reported that feedback moves her students forward to the “next learning step” (DI) but

119
the observations revealed the next learning steps involved supplying correct answers
so students could complete a task. Her feedback helped them rewrite sentences that
she thought were not “good enough or interesting” and “needed to be corrected” (DI).

Debra believed “oral feedback was difficult” to implement in the classroom as

she was “still learning”, and students’ “linguistic ability and behaviour” (DI) were further
hindering the process. Hence, her feedback in the classroom was often simply telling or
“directing students towards the answers”, mostly “writing the answers down for them”
(DI). Since she believed most of her students in her classroom “couldn’t spell and some
were in fact on the dyslexic spectrum” (DI), she wrote the words and sentences down for
them. However, she believed that it was good to practise feedback of any kind in the
classroom and any feedback would help her students. She believed that instant
feedback was useful to “move students in their learning” (DI), as a result provided both
written and oral feedback as soon as she noticed the need. Since she believed that peer
and self-assessment was difficult to implement in her classroom:

The students don’t’ understand and have some behavioural issues, English is too
difficult for them so I always provide the feedback (DI).

As long as her students had completed the task she considered she had
provided effective feedback. Debra’s beliefs/ practice connection is shown in figure 4.2
on the next page. Debra’s reported beliefs on formative feedback during her interviews
and her formative feedback strategies during the writing lesson observations.

120
 2. Teacher
notices gaps
(current versus
desired standards)

Teacher Teacher
Formative interprets gaps
1. Teacher and Assessment and
students set goals (current versus
Feedback
desired standards)
Practice

3. Feedback
activities and
strategies to close
the gap

Debra

Beliefs Practice

Directive feedback with answers

Feedback helps direct students Close-ended questioning
Telling students their next learning steps Instantaneous feedback
Feedback has to be clear, and specific Complex and lengthy feedback
Self and peers assessment difficult Verification of students answers
Instantaneous oral and written feedback Feedback on sentences structures
Feedback has to fit the students Feedback on grammar and spelling

Learner

Figure 4.2: Debra’s reported beliefs and observed practice

Themes

As discussed in Chapter Three, data from interviews, observations, field notes

and document analysis enabled me to identify significant themes relating to Debra’s

121
beliefs about feedback and her writing practice from her understanding of teaching and
learning. Debra’s case centred on the concepts of teacher-set goals, on-going learning,
directing the learning and teacher as technician.

Teacher-set goals

Debra set the learning goals, learning intentions and success criteria for her
students from “their previous asTTle writing” (DI). She felt that this helped the students
focus on “the criteria for successful writing” and on knowing their teacher’s
“expectation” (DI). Debra planned learning intentions and success criteria for different
groups of students. However, during the teaching practice and observations I did not
observe instances of Debra implementing her plan by sharing these criteria with
specific groups of students during the lessons, nor did I observe Debra clearly directing
individual students to address the learning intentions or success criteria she held for
them. She reported that her plan and teaching were based on her knowledge of
students’ proficiency and ability:

I have one group of kids that are working on getting their sentences right, but I
normally have learning intentions for the whole class, something that each group
is working on. As you see on my lesson plan. This is the learning intentions that we
are working on as a class and then this is the learning intentions for each of these
groups, the things that I see and that they have to work on. So I took this group
which ties them with what I am doing with the whole class. That will be best for
what they are doing (DI).

She reported that she set her writing lesson structure to fit the students’ needs
and what she perceived to be “learning intentions based on their proficiency” (DI). She
started her lessons by introducing the learning intentions in a simpler form:

That is what I was trying to make them do, I was making them think more of the
audience and giving them enough information and because that is a weakness
(DI).

When she found students were “struggling with their writing” on the first day,
she “added another success criteria for the whole class” and often “checked” if students
had the “understanding” (DI) to include it in their writing:

We were recapping what we had done the day before with the learning intention
and the success criteria and I added that extra success criteria from what we
[teacher and students] talked and discussed about earlier in the lesson. As a
reader we [the audience] have to get enough information to understand. The

122
 success criteria were the ones we wrote the day before and then we added the
extra one on the bottom today (DI).

She often stressed the learning intentions and success criteria to the students,
in their groups and as a whole class, to draw their attention to specific elements to
make their writing successful. She used it at the various stages of her writing lesson:

We are learning to use descriptive language (DO).

Remember we are working on making our writing more interesting, so we need to

think of those descriptive words (DO).

So we are still thinking about this, what we are thinking in our success criteria,
about giving the reader enough information. We will make sure we tell them
everything they need to know (DO).

We are learning to organise our writing (DO).

This interaction provides a similar example:

Teacher: We start our sentences with a…?

Students: Capital letter.
Teacher: Capital letter. We end our sentence with a….? We finish a sentence with?
Students: Full stop.
Teacher: Full stop (DO).

Debra was using the terms “learning intentions” and “success criteria”
interchangeably. She did, however, know that the function of success criteria was to
enable students to check their written product against the required achievement. She
reworded the learning intentions of “we are learning to make our writing interesting
and using descriptive words” (DO). During the second observation, the learning
intention “we are learning to write an interesting paragraph” (DI) was supported by a
single criterion “organise the writing with the parts of the body” (DO).

Debra included a list of items such as “verb, adjectives, noun, adverb,

onomatopoeia” (DO) to be added into their written product as their success criteria as
these are examples of details to make their writing more interesting:

I was still getting them to use descriptive language. That is the bit I want them to
add because that is what makes their writing more interesting, basically (DI).

123
‘Still learning’ about formative feedback

Feedback was a new concept that Debra had been “trying to include” (DI) in her
practice when teaching writing. She reported that the recent change in her thinking
about her feedback comments had been due to the “ongoing professional development”
(DI) she had undertaken. Debra was mindful of the role of feedback, as she was aware
of what she wanted to do and how she was doing it. She took time to reflect on her
feedback practice and her instructions:

I found that because I videoed myself twice [during teaching] that was in an oral
setting with group work I would say ‘Good” and that would the end rather than ‘I
like that because…’ (DI).

She assessed students as they were writing, often correcting their errors. She
felt that she should make changes in her feedback methods and was trying to include
them into her practice:

I realised that oral feedback was harder to be specific but I am trying to improve
(DI, emphasis mine).

She was trying to inculcate feedback ‘specificity’ that made students feel good
about their learning and enhanced their self-esteem as learners. She thought it made
learning easier and encouraged the student:

So the written feedback, you know talking about things, being about the learning
and not about the learner and focussing on one thing at a time, whether or not
you do that is not the question but the focus has been about being very specific “I
like that because…" (DI, emphasis mine).

“In theory”, Debra knew she had to look at one thing at a time and tell the
students what they were doing right, but often “forgot to do this” (DI). Increasing her
feedback efforts and reflecting on her teaching practice is something she has recently
“started doing” (DI). She has started recording her writing lessons and has realised that
she is learning and wanted to “include what she planned” into her teaching practice (DI).

Debra’s feedback focussed on the writing activity and was work-related, as she
felt it was important students knew what was expected of them. However, it was
something she found it difficult, as what she presumed was clear feedback on students’
task was in reality so confusing to students that she had to write it down for them. She
found that her own schooling experience somehow influenced her as a teacher:

I am very receptive learner and I found it really hard writing things down. I would
do everything literally [with the students] because that is how I learnt. I don't

124
 need it written down, I just need to be told what to do and I will do it. So now I
have to constantly tell the students what the task is and write the task down for
them (DI).

I remembered to write the task on this time. I did it yesterday but later on because
I forgot to do it (DI).

So on the second day she made it a point to write down their tasks clearly on
the board:

Teacher: So we are still thinking about giving the reader enough information which is our
success criteria. We will make sure we tell them everything they need to know
about an elephant.
Students: Yes.
Teacher: Everything they need to know. Give the reader all the information they need to
make a clear picture in their mind about an elephant (teacher writes it on the
board). Because then the next time we write a story, an imaginary story and the
person doesn’t know what something looks like, we know how to write details. It is
just in your imagination. I am writing a task so you know what you are going to
do (DO).

She believed that she was constantly trying to provide positive feedback to her
students that she directed and personalised through feedback comments based on her
perception of their individual needs. She saw this as a form of reinforcement of the goal
of helping them toward working on their tasks. As she put it, Debra aimed to:

Give them feedback that would encourage them to add more details and trying to
see what works (DI).

This, she found, was relatively challenging as students sometimes just copied
her feedback comment or ignored it completely. Debra found she had to be creative in
teaching the students to write good sentences, and had her own ways of helping her
students write. She explained:

We use the description of a movie. We say a complete sentence is like a movie. It

has to start with a scene and has an action. So when we said the African
Elephant’s skin is grey and wrinkly, even though it was not quite accurate we
were saying that the African Elephant is the scene, the skin is the star and it is not
actually an action but the bit that is describing it is the wrinkly and grey. So it [the
sentence] has to have the three components in it. So it is actually to try and make
them get one idea in one sentence (DI).

125
 However, this concept was only observed used with one group and they did not
respond to the questions on what were the scene and the action.

The ‘technician’ of feedback

Debra adopted the ‘expert role’ in deciding what to include in the teaching and
learning of writing. She mainly acted as ‘presenter’, and put her students in the position
of being passive ‘passengers’ during the lesson. She did not provide opportunities for
students to read the passage or the selected poem. She felt that she was best suited to
deliver clear examples and definitions, as there were “gaps in their [the students’]
understanding” (DI).

Debra also provided a model of writing, as she wrote a paragraph out for the
students. Feedback arose from the group discussion and students’ work:

Teacher: What type of plan have you been working on lately?

Student: Organise.
Teacher: Organise. So thinking of the list, you might go from its nose to its legs. You might
go from top to down (DO).

Teacher: What do we look when we are writing?

Students: Our sentences
Teacher: Good. Our sentences. I think I have put one up there. (Teacher takes down
the WALT for the students). Alright. So remember guys what an African
elephant looks like, is it big or small? What its trunk like? How many legs has it
got? What colour is it? What is its tail like? What are its ears like? You are
describing what it looks like. It’s not hard you can see (points to the pictures on
the board). Remember we are also working on writing sentences correctly. We are
having some trouble with it sometimes aren’t we? (DO).

Debra’s judgements of students’ writing allowed her to often provide what she
felt to be the necessary assessment of their writing through feedback. She made a
comparison between her knowledge of the process and that of her students. She had
the leading role in the feedback process, in which she always involved the whole class.
She provided ‘on the spot’ feedback on their spelling and grammatical errors as she felt
they were not capable of correcting themselves through discussion or feedback:

They are all on the dyslexic spectrum and so I have said to them “I don't care
about the spelling, I just want you to write and you are going to read it to me and
I am here to write the spelling correctly, so we both know they are writing (DI).

126
 Debra thought, “students needed that type of feedback and expected it” from her
(DI). She continually reacted to success factors that were not identified as success
criteria and tried to fix them. She emphasised the right or correct response as a
directive to be followed by her students:

Right, if you put eat or change the words to eating or eats, you are not changing
the word, you are just changing the tense that you are using. What about
consume? What does consume mean? Is it not a better word? (DO).

Teacher: Could we change it a bit? Belinda?

Belinda: The amount?
Teacher: Change the ‘amount’ to ‘piles’. Could we just say ‘food’ in here and go to
another sentence? (DO).

Teacher: Right, they are, but can you tell me something about the skin first.
What else did you notice about the skin?
Marika: Tough and wrinkly
Teacher: Yeah they are probably tough, why not tell me more about the skin
before you go telling me about the elephant.
Marika: I have to start again.
Teacher: You can start again or you can do it, I don’t care but you can do it.
Remember we don’t want our reader to be like the blind man who
thought the elephant was like a snake. We try and give them enough
information to know what an elephant really looks like so they can
have this picture in their mind about what the elephant looks like. You
understand? (DO).

Her instructions were consistent with her beliefs that the teacher should be
knowledgeable and play a bigger role in the feedback process than the student. When
students added partial or inaccurate information to their writing she would
immediately correct them:

It is better for me to give them written oral or written feedback straight away. If
not, they forget what I was talking about and continue to do mistakes (DI).

She used the poem ‘The three blind men examining the elephant’ to prompt her
students to add details to their. It was her way of, as she explained, helping her
students “fill their gaps of understanding on adding details” (DI). She was proud that she
had helped the students understand their writing task:

Today [Observation 2] I think has been the best of all. I am very pleased with my
kids today (DI, emphasis mine).
127
 Debra felt that task-related feedback sometimes raised other issues such as
students sometimes either “ignoring the feedback or copying statements without
thinking” (DI). In her opinion, her on the spot corrections and provisions of very
specific feedback in all areas was a positive way of preventing students from “spending
too much time pondering on spelling and [encouraging them to] concentrate on their
drafting” (DI). Debra felt that this was positive work-related feedback for the weaker
students and “speakers of English as second language students” (DI).

Feedback to students was often given as a whole class so the rest of the
students would not make the same mistakes and but would learn from it as well:

The purpose is to give feedback kind of individually but that becomes the whole
class feedback. It is kind of clever when I think about it. You [the researcher] are
making me think about why I do things. This is probably good (DI, emphasis
mine).

However, when Debra framed her feedback, questions, prompts, and gestures,
she was the one who initiated and controlled the communication and responses of the
students:

So it is [feedback] based on the need that I have seen (DI, emphasis mine).

…by writing down I thought she got it and she will be able to spell it now because
she works like that. That is why I did (DI).

…as I talked to them I wrote it down (DI).

The ‘director’ of on-the-go feedback during work-in-progress

Debra’s role during the writing process was as a ‘director’ as the students were
always required to change their sentences and structures to what she deemed
satisfactory. As mentioned, her feedback to students was given whenever “she noticed
the need” (DI) as she went around the classroom and observed students’ writing,
meaning that this directorial process occurred frequently. Debra elaborates:

So I was going around making sure that they were on the right track with their
task, and just giving some feedback to kids as they started writing about whether
they have followed what I said and were doing what we had talked about, and
then giving them some suggestion on things that they could do (DI).

Debra favoured this approach, partly as she felt the timing of feedback was an
important process in moving students forward in learning to master the flow of their
writing. Consequently, she often checked her students’ writing by walking around the
class and giving her oral feedback and written feedback on-the-spot:
128
Kieran: The elephant is big and grey.
Teacher: Did you put your capital and full stop? Did you start with a capital?
Kieran: Yes.
Teacher: Ok what is your next sentence?
Kieran: Floppy.
Teacher: What is floppy? Does it mean its skin?
Kieran: No.
Teacher: Ok put your full stop, so now. You need a capital letter to start your next
sentence don’t you? Why are you rubbing it out? You don’t need a capital letter
for grey; you need the capital letter for the next word. Write that ‘y’ back in
again. Good, get it started (DO).

She assumed her feedback comments were manageable and specific to her
students’ learning. An approach Debra employed during this process was to use simple
questions for students to reflect on. Often she had to stimulate them for their answers:

Teacher: What interesting words do you know, Edwin? We could have said
‘African elephant gobbles up gigantic piles of food like a food
machine. What language features?
Students: Simile.
Teacher: Find a sentence and use your own words. Put details into your
sentence. Use your own words. Which words would you use to
your sentences interesting? Did you know an African elephant is
an endangered animal.
Amy: An elephant is a mammal.
Teacher: Is the information here?
Students: No.
Teacher: What else can we add? A mammal has warm blood (DI).

Often the oral feedback was based on their work in progress that enabled
students to add descriptions or details to their writing. She believed she provided
feedback to “stimulate their thinking” (DI) and as a guide in improving their writing
towards a required standard of writing. This was often addressed towards the whole
class so that other students thought about it and included it in their writing:

Teacher: So you are saying nearly the same thing but about the feet. Maybe what you
need to say in the previous paragraph is that their legs are long and round and
you have to say that their feet are round too. You can put them together. I can see
from here what Jeremy has actually done, one paragraph for trunk, one
paragraph for feet and another paragraph for legs which is kind of same. So he
129
 has done a paragraph with a heading. His heading looks like or is the physical
features. He has done 3 paragraphs with it and I really like that. That is a nice
way of dividing it up isn’t it? Where do the tusks come from? Where do you find
the tusks? Are they at their bottom? Where are elephant tusks? (DO)

Approving students’ work and noting standards of writing achieved during the
work in progress is an important form of feedback in Debra’s class. Communicating
how students had met particular criteria to the whole class was a sign of approval to
“build students’ confidence” (DI). Her comments of approval are noted in her interaction
with the students, sometimes individually and more often for the whole class to hear:

I like that (reads Amiri’s draft to the other group members). So this is the order
you are going to be writing, is it? (DO).

Fantastic, you’d rather do this than write about the life cycle huh? A better topic.
Ok keep going. I like the way your sentences are coming together (DO).

Yes, that is correct. Well done. I like the way you have written your paragraph
(DO).

She believed that providing feedback individually and at the same time,
addressing the whole class helped other students in their writing as well. Debra
believed that it encouraged students to engage in learning:

It was to kind of reinforce what I had been teaching and also was to get them to
think that the idea was that they would hear feedback from other kids and think
‘Oh I need to do that with my writing’. I was hoping that that would happen and I
know certainly that one of the kids that came on the mat with me had taken on
what she heard and had changed what she had written (DI).

Chapter Summary

Debra believed that effective formative feedback was feedback delivered on the
spot, and related to the particular work in progress, and this was reflected in her
practice. She found it important to remind students of their learning intentions and
success criteria to enable them to perform well in their written task. The learning
intention was communicated to focus students on their learning goals. This was framed
as a list of items and repeated.

She utilised her knowledge and expertise to provide feedback that she deemed
fruitful and effective. She played a major role in the writing process, and in determining
the direction and quality of the students’ writing. She made decisions on the direction
of students’ writing and provided feedback accordingly. She believed students

130
depended on her judgements to assess quality and improvement in their writing, and
thus gave the students a limited and restricted role in the feedback process. Their role
was as consumers of feedback, and passengers on the teacher’s train of ideas, and
Debra’s feedback had influence on her students’ writing as they final product had all
the ideas she discussed with the whole class. She believed students were not able to do
peer-assessment as they lacked the productive skill and knowledge to evaluate and
provide constructive feedback. Hence, Debra took control of the feedback practices in
the classroom and offered limited opportunities for students to play a role in the
feedback process.

131
 CHAPTER FIVE:
Case Study Two: Lyn

Feedback to students is so they know what is expected of them and what to do

next (Lyn).

Introduction to Lyn

Lyn (pseudonym) is a Pakeha New Zealand teacher who completed her primary
and secondary schooling in New Zealand.

Background, education, and teaching experience

At the time of research, Lyn had no experience either learning or teaching

outside of New Zealand. She had spent 4 years teaching at school B following her
graduation from teacher’s college in New Zealand.

School B is a decile 10, full primary school in a large suburb that caters for
students from Years 1 to 8. The school has a high socio-economic status, with students
coming from an affluent community. At the time of the research, the school roll was
733, and with students from 30 different nationalities. The school’s strategic plan was
developed in consultation with members of the school community. The school focuses
on encouraging all children “to be the best they can be” (LI).

The school’s achievement in reading, writing and numeracy was “at or above
national levels” (LI) and students who were performing below expectations were
supported. The students were considered active participants in their own learning as
they were expected to “lead the three-way conferencing with their parents and teachers,
and share their goals” (LI). Teaching practice was “set a certain way” by the school to
ensure that teachers promoted students to “self-evaluate their class work and [become]
skilled in providing peer feedback” in their classrooms (LI).

The school also offered “buddy classes” (LI) where senior and junior classes
shared activities and learning. In these classes, each junior student was paired with a
senior student, and they met once a day for reading or other kinds of activities planned
by the school. Besides this, students were divided into classes of Year 1/2, Year 3/4,
Year 5/6, and Year 7/8.

As Lyn noted, teachers worked in syndicates to structure their lessons, so she

felt collegially supported when she first came to the school as a provisionally registered
teacher (PRT) five years ago, but also that the “other teachers there [at the school] had a
similar way of organising their teaching of writing” (LI). Lyn felt there were
132
“professionally stimulating reading materials” available for all teachers, and those
resources “were similar to the ones she had used at the university” (LI). All the
classrooms in the school were “well-resourced with reading materials” (LI).

Additionally, according to Lyn, the standards and practices set by the school
provided a benchmark for beginner teachers setting out in their careers. This had
helped Lyn, as she put it, “blend in and work with the other teachers” (LI). Lyn felt that
her school was supportive, partly because staff engaged in “open discussions” with each
other (LI). Student achievement was often discussed during meetings, and teachers
would often “share good examples” (LI). Teachers “planned, discussed, and shared ideas
about the types of transactional writings they would be doing over the next term” (LI).
Teachers would then “set common instructional goals, teach their classrooms and
administer assessment to determine the students’ level” which helped them group their
students (LI).

Furthermore, at Lyn’s school, teachers observed each other according to need,

based on the school’s own “appraisal system” (LI). This observation provided
opportunities for teachers to discuss ideas and gain feedback on their teaching practice.
It also enabled the teachers to “talk about the different levels of achievement and get
better understanding by bouncing ideas off each other” (LI).

Professional learning and development

The Board of Trustees made provision for whole-school professional

development to support the school’s annual goals of “high quality of teaching …
sustained across the school” (LI). Consequently, school B provided professional
development for teachers at the school level. Teachers “don’t have to go out for the
professional development; the school brings it [the professional development] to them”
(LI). The choice of professional development was “according to what they [school and
board of trustees] think the teachers and students need” (LI).

Teachers at Lyn’s school had “had a lot of professional development in other

areas but not in writing” (LI). Lyn recalled professional development focussed “on how
to set up the books, giving children feedback with exemplars and ideas on the way
children learn and understand” (LI). The professional learning was continued in their
syndicate as teachers would then “meet several times and collaborate on their teaching
strategies” (LI). This helped syndicate members identify “areas for improvement” and
set goals for future teaching with literacy leaders that provided the PD from outside
(LI).

133
Lyn’s classroom

On the first day at Lyn’s school, the principal took me to Lyn’s class and
introduced me to both Lyn and her students. Lyn’s classroom was divided into a group
discussion area on the mat, a sofa for students who needed to think and work on their
own, a reading corner, and desks where students sat in their ability groups. There were
current learning materials and many colourful art displays on the walls. Students’
photos, artwork and science experiments were among the materials on display. Lyn
was a teacher with a sense of humour that often had her students laughing as she joked
with them.

Lyn’s class consisted of year 3 and year 4 students “divided into three groups
according to their reading and writing ability” (LI). The students in her class were all at
the same level - “level 2 of the curriculum” based on their asTTLe assessment from the
previous year (LI). Lyn showed me her class roll during our icebreaking session, where
I met her to collect the informed consent forms. There were a total of 29 students in her
classroom. Her classroom consisted of twenty New Zealand European/Pakeha
students, four Indian students (one born in America, one in the Maldives, one in New
Zealand and one in India), one Japanese student, two Thai students (one from Saudi
Arabia and one from Thailand), one Cambodian and one British student.

At the beginning of the year, students from Lyn’s school were assessed using
the New Zealand Curriculum Exemplars for English for Writing and then grouped
“according to their abilities” (LI). The school specifically assessed the written exemplars
across five bands to process indicators at end of the previous year and again the
beginning of the Year. Thus students were expected to progress in their knowledge and
skills as writers and through “classroom observations and their performance [the
teacher] moves them to another group” (LI). In Lyn’s class, students were able to
progress and move from their groups to a higher performing group if they performed.

Lyn’s Understanding of Feedback

Lyn believed feedback was “information that is communicated to a child both

orally, written or through conversation” (LE). The information encompassed
interactions that “confirms what the child is doing well and states their next steps of
learning” (LE). Lyn thought the role of feedback was to “[provide] direction for students
to act on when brought to their attention (LI). Lyn believed that written feedback was
significant only when they were able to “read their feedback comments and act on it”
(LI).

134
 According to Lyn, providing feedback as “written points” in books to remind
students of a teacher/student conversation was an important “reminder” (LI) of a
feedback discussion. This would assist students in acting upon feedback, which Lyn saw
as the most important part of a formative feedback process. She asserted that her
beliefs regarding good feedback strategies had been influenced by “lectures and at
University and through being provisional registered teacher here [at school B]. Her
beliefs about what constituted effective formative feedback practices were further
consolidated “through tutor teacher guidance and observations” (LI). As a result, Lyn’s
beliefs about effective feedback practice influenced her classroom feedback strategies.

Her quality and quantity of feedback was based on “students’ ability in writing
and improving their performance” (LI). Therefore, she believed in helping students
work in their ability group to enhance performance in writing:

Within writing, I have a small group that are sort of at slightly below expectation
I guess you could say and so we are working together in improving but they are
not necessarily L2 learners (LI).

Lyn intended her formative feedback acts to stimulate students’ thinking and
interest in writing, and preferred to offer “prompts and questions rather than telling
students” (LI). She believed that in this process, “a bit of scaffolding, probing,” and
seeing the results of “different types of feedback [had] shaped the way” she provided
effective feedback (LI). One important factor she believed made feedback effective was
providing it as soon as she noticed the need. She reported instantaneous oral feedback
was often her preferred form of feedback, which she saw as effective in the writing
process because it would prevent students from “losing focus on the task” (LI).

Planning the Writing Lesson

Lyn’s school writing policy, her curriculum knowledge, and her knowledge of
her students influenced her during the planning when choosing the learning
goals/intentions and success criteria. The writing task she set for her students was “an
integrated topic of science experiments that the students have been conducting the
previous two weeks” (LI). At the time of my research, Lyn had set producing a piece of
transactional writing - specifically a “factual recount of a science experiment” (see lesson
plan Appendix C2) - as the learning aim for her students. She had developed the same
learning intentions for the whole class, following what was planned in her syndicate
meeting. Lyn stated that the learning intentions for her students were to learn to “write
to show ideas clearly, to recount what has happened in a past experience, make good use
of facts, use ideas based on the writer’s experience, edit for grammar, paragraphing,

135
capital letters, and full stops (Ldoc). Lyn explicitly stated the list of success criteria for
her students in her lesson plan:

 I can plan before I write;

 I can write a draft of a recount based on a plan;
 I can write an introduction stating who, when, where;
 I can write a series of events; clearly related in sequence stating what
happened;
 I can write in past tense, I can include verbs that denote action;
 I can include a range of linking words and phrases that denote time;
 I can add detail to add interest for the reader;
 I can edit my work (LDoc).

Students had another set of success criteria tailored for individual students,
which she did not include in the lesson plan but which the students in question were
given on post-it notes in their draft books. These success criteria were known as the
“two stars and a wish” (LI). These were known in a simplified version of “two success
criteria they were good at and one success criteria they would be working towards” (for
example, some students had “good at writing capital letters and complete sentences and
worked towards adding verbs into their sentences”) (LI). These criteria were developed
during teacher/student conferencing, and through discussion of their writing skills and
performance. Such conferencing was conducted twice a year. Figure 5.1 on the next
page shows Lyn’s learning aims, learning intentions and success criteria:

136
 Learning Learning Success

aims intentions criteria

Transactional writing: Learning intentions Success criteria (WILF)

Level 2 (WALT)
What I am looking for…
-write instructions and We are learning to…
recount events in -I can plan before writing.
-I can write a draft of a
authentic contexts. -write to show ideas
recount based on a plan.
-write instructions and clearly. -I can write a series of events
explanations, state facts -write to recount what clearly related in sequence
and opinion and recount has happened in past stating what happened.
events in a range of experience. -I can write in the past tense.
authentic contexts. -make good use of facts. -I can include verbs that
(Ldoc) -use ideas based on the denote action.
writer’s experience. -I can include a range of
-edit for grammar, linking words and phrases
paragraphing, capital that denote time.
-I can add detail to add
letters and full stops.
interest for the reader.
- I can edit my work.
(Ldoc) (Ldoc)

Figure 5.1: Lyn’s planned lesson with learning intentions, learning goals and success
Criteria.

To achieve these aims, Lyn prepared graphic organisers to model aims for her
students, and provided individual student hand-outs for each of her writing lessons.
Lyn clearly stated which graphic organisers she was going to use during the whole
week of writing lessons in developing the skills required for transactional writing.
These had been discussed in her syndicate meetings.

Lyn also focused on individual students, identifying herself as a teacher who

encouraged writing via “students being provided opportunities to create their own
writing” (LI). She planned that individual students would choose their own writing
topic, stating that:

They will choose their own science topic [the observed lesson] but they all have to
do factual recap as a type of writing, so that we know [through written task] that
they have covered all aspects of skills for the topic by the end of the year that they
need to cover (LI).

137
 Furthermore, she indicated in her lesson plan which group she would be
helping in a smaller group discussion in that writing session. She had placed her
students in three different groups according to their reading and writing ability. Her
lesson plan contained information for the whole week of teaching.

Practice and Observations

Lyn’s writing lesson was conducted in a similar fashion every day. Students
were introduced to the learning intentions, and then she created a writing model on
her whiteboard during the whole class discussion as a guide for the students. She
discussed the success criteria expected to meet each of the learning intentions, and how
they could be identified in the completed graphic organisers. All three observation
sessions started with a new graphic organiser (Day 1: Appendix D1; Day 2: Appendix
D2; Day 3: Appendix D3). Students completed these graphic organisers before writing a
complete draft.

1 2 3 4 5

Creating a Whole class Small group Individual Peer

model discussion discussion writing discussion

Teacher feedback Self-assessment Peer feedback

Based on students learning

intentions and success criteria

Figure 5.2: Lyn’s writing lesson

Figure 5.2 above shows Lyn’s writing lesson, which went through the same
procedure every day (though during the small group discussion on the mat, she helped
different groups each day). Writing was “conducted every day and books [were] collected
daily for written feedback” (LI) from the teacher. Teacher feedback, self-assessment and
peer feedback was carried out during every writing lesson.

138
 Students in Lyn’s classroom were provided with “teacher feedback, and peer and
self-assessment every day” (LI). She modelled the writing content to her students on
graphic organisers, similar to the ones that she later provided to her students, and
generated student discussion and ideas, presenting her model as a standard for desired
achievement and a reference point for her students regarding her expectations of them:

It was an example of what they will be writing to give them an example of what
they will be aiming for and then it is starting to break down the parts of a piece
facts (LI).

Lyn believed that the features exemplified in the writing models she created
would be beneficial for students, as it drew their attention to their own performance in
the production and process of writing. Lyn displayed the completed graphic organisers
as models for students to use as a guide on the whiteboard in front of the class.

Lyn’s structure enabled all students present to participate in the assessment of

their own writing, and writing by their peers. The students were able to “revisit their
writing and add further details” (LI) through the peer assessment strategies
undertaken. The consistent grouping of the students provided a “community of
practice” (LI) within which they could have discussions about improving their writing.
She provided students with opportunities to rework their drafts after explicit
instructions. Lyn’s students were asked to provide multifaceted judgements on their
peers’ written product. Students in her classroom were “able to carry out this complex
evaluative activity” (LI). Students had to check for all the success criteria that she had
discussed with them, the content of the writing and also check for their individual
success criteria.

Observation Day 1

The lesson started with all the students on the mat while Lyn held a question
and answer session on writing a factual recount. She felt it was important for students’
learning, stating in an interview that:

When you are introducing a piece of writing you need to be really explicit on what
you must have, otherwise they would use a piece of writing, but it won't be
specifically a piece of recount writing and it won't have success criteria they need
to achieve to actually completed a piece of writing, and in that way you need to be
quite explicit with what is involved because they could write quite a good piece
but it wouldn’t necessarily be recount (LI).

She discussed the criteria that made a piece of writing a factual recount. She
then picked students to read out a story on the Emperor Penguins, and put up a graphic
139
organiser (Appendix D1) and asked her students ‘Who’, ‘What’, ‘When’, ‘Why’ questions
that could be answered with information from the story. She explained that they would
leave the ‘How’ section on her organizer for the next day. As she asked questions, she
filled in the graphic organizer with student answers. She did this to “show the students
how to fill in the graphic organiser with the 5Ws” (LI).

Lyn then asked students to recall one science experiment they had conducted in
the classroom. They were asked to recall as much information as they could and were
given two minutes to complete a ‘mind bubble’ (Appendix E2) as a brainstorming
method for collecting their ideas and writing them down. As Lyn put it, this was:

So those ideas were not just floating in their head, they were on brainstorm so
they can separate each idea and put it on in order of what aspect they were
talking about, so then the next stage will be they would need to explain the what
the where and the who in the first paragraph of their piece of writing (LI).

She discussed the details about the science experiment in a mind bubble with
her students. She believed it provided “all the students details about science experiments
that were important to recall” (LI). Students then received a graphic organiser
(Appendix D1), similar to the one they discussed and completed with Lyn during the
group discussion. Students were asked to fill it in while thinking about “their own
science experiment” (LO). They were provided with clear instructions for completing
the graphic organisers. Her instructions contained learning intentions for the first
graphic organiser and writing lesson: “to recount what has happened in a past
experience, make good use of facts, and use ideas based on the writers experience (Ldoc).
Following this, students were provided with further instruction on how to paste the
graphic organiser into their books and complete their task.

The success criteria for the writing task of completing the graphic organiser (“I
can plan before I write, I can write a draft of a recount based on a plan and I can write an
introduction stating ‘who’, ‘when’, where’, and ‘what’” (Ldoc) were, however, not
revealed to the students. In place of providing the success criteria, Lyn questioned the
students and explained how to complete the graphic organiser:

Your brainstorm is going to be side by side with your question sheet, and you are
going to look at each box and you are going to try to think of everything you can
remember to answer the questions. ‘When’, you don’t have to have the exact date
but if you want to take your topic book out and have a look, you can probably can
get the exact date. ‘Who’, is for who were you with, who was there. ‘What’ were
you doing? ‘Where’ were you? (LO).

140
 Once students were at work, Lyn walked around the class questioning and
probing students when she spotted them struggling or making errors in their work. I
assumed she went to students randomly to check their work but the post-observation
interview revealed otherwise:

At the back of my mind, I knew who would really struggle with it. Just roaming
around and checking and you often you notice I go to the similar people. I go to
people that I need to check that they are either on focus. I will often go around to
people that are easily distracted or lose focus or need support (LI).

Lyn believed when students were questioned or prompted without being

provided the answers, it would “allow students to progress and development of ideas and
content on their own” (LI). This was visible in her practice; that at no point during the
time she went about checking her students did she provide answers or write anything
down for the students she checked. Instead, she called the “lower ability group” (LI)
students that she had planned to meet with to the mat while other students remained
at their own desks to completing their task. With this smaller group, Lyn discussed
further “how to complete the graphic organiser” (LI). Throughout the small group
discussion Lyn provided some oral feedback but no written feedback.

The students then were told to get into their respective groups and they did this
with ease, as they already knew which group they belonged to. Students in their
respective groups were then asked to find a friend who had chosen the same science
experiment, and to check if they had filled in all the “important information of the
science experiment” (LO). Finally, Lyn asked students to self-assess and check their
written tasks against the predetermined success criteria that she had planned, and
asked them verbally if the items had been included. As a result, students carried out a
self-assessment process after peer-assessment and discussions. Each student then
either edited or added the missing details. Lyn elaborates:

I made them sit together as well, so if they’re doing the same one, so that they
could look at each other’s and share ideas, building those basics and having all
those ideas there (LI).

Lyn never intentionally intervened during the writing process, as she believed it
was “important the ideas and structure of writing were from the students’ own thinking”
(LI). Instead, she checked her students’ produced writing against her expectations.
Therefore she framed her feedback to students during their task as a support to their
learning and acknowledgement of students’ performance throughout a work in
progress. Lyn described that aspect of her feedback process as “feed forward,”
explaining:

141
 Feed forward to them is the wish of what I want them to do next (LI).

Formative feedback was frequently directed to individual students or small

groups as indication of the desired information to be included. At the end of the lesson,
Lyn collected the written drafts for marking and written feedback.

Lyn provided written feedback on their brainstorming mind map (Appendix

E2), which was a holistic evaluation. On the graphic organiser she provided written
feedback on their planning (Appendix E3) such as “great planning and you have caught
on well” (Ldoc). Written feedback was on both the task itself, and the student’s effort.

Observation Day 2

On the second day of my observation, Lyn’s lesson started with the students
again on the mat and Lyn recapping their previous lesson and details of their science
experiment with the previous day’s graphic organiser (Appendix D1) up on the board.
She then put a new graphic organiser (Appendix D2) next to it. The discussion started
with a list of sentence starters, and with transferring details from the first graphic
organiser to the second. However, the discussion and completion of the graphic
organiser was not on their science experiment but the “Emperor Penguin”. She said that
it helped the students know how to fill in the graphic organiser, and once the new
graphic organiser was completed, she distributed a similar graphic organiser
(Appendix D2) to her students. The reason she gave for providing a second graphic
organiser was:

I wanted the children to work like that as well, so the first graphic organiser from
the first day was step one, so it was getting their ideas organised into boxes, and
today’s graphic organiser was using those ideas, and then transferring the ideas
into sentences, and that means they get used to bullet pointing their ideas and
then turning those bullet points into sentences (LI).

The learning intention for the second day observation was ‘paragraphing’, with
success criteria of “I can write an introduction stating who, when, where, what and how”
and “I can write a series of events; clearly related in sequence stating what happened”
(Ldoc). Throughout the discussion the learning intentions and success criteria were
used in the sentences that Lyn conveyed to her students, but she did not specifically
inform the students of them.

Following the discussion outlined above, Lyn probed her students with
questions once more, getting the discussion flowing toward the process of writing the
‘How’ section. Each different science experiment was discussed briefly so that students
got a better understanding of their task. As Lyn explained:
142
 They were becoming more confident … the more able children having their hands
up all the time … because they understand what they are doing, that is their whole
scaffolding things … if you build it up like that then their confidence grows, they
take more risks and the writing becomes a bit more quality (LI).

Lyn believed exposure to a range of writing models “helped develop and

reinforce successful writing examples and provided students with concrete visuals” of her
expectations (LI). When this discussion was complete, she asked students to go back to
their own desks, continuing the writing task individually. She walked around the
classroom checking on her students:

I was checking their yesterday’s graphic organiser and I was making sure that
they were all on the right track, in fact half of them were definitely fine (LI)

She provided oral feedback through prompts when she noticed students
struggling with their writing. She did not provide direct answers or check for grammar
and spelling but however provided suggestion on ideas and content as she felt “editing
for grammar and spelling comes later and is the least important in the process” (LI).
Lyn’s feedback was in the form of questioning and prompts. As soon as she noticed the
need to stimulate students into making further improvement on their written drafts,
she conveyed the expectation that necessary changes would provide opportunities to
meet the desired outcome for their written drafts. As Lyn put it, [Instant oral feedback]
gives them more meaning and makes sure they are focussed (LI).

While students worked at their desks, Lyn called her next group of students, the
“middle ability” group, to the mat, where she sat with them and discussed their graphic
organisers. She then asked them to exchange their books with someone who was
“writing the same science experiment” (LO). Students were asked to check if their peer
had written down all the important details needed to make the science experiment
complete. She told the students:

So swap with your neighbour and get them to just check it. They are not going to
correct it; they are just going to read it to see if it flows. Just the three sentences.
Just check, what is good about it, what do they need to fix. They might not need to
fix anything. It might be perfect, who knows (LI).

The students were then asked to provide peer assessment on each other’s work.
Once this was done, the books were returned to their owners, and students went
through their drafts and did the amendments they deemed necessary. Lyn then
collected all the written drafts for marking and written feedback (Appendix E4). The
students’ list of their ideas from the factual recount was marked and they proceed to

143
write into their draft books. Her written comments were based on whether all their
ideas were present in sequence in the draft.

Observation Day 3

On the third day of my observation, Lyn’s lesson started once more with
everyone together on the mat. She put up the 2 graphic organisers from day 1
(Appendix D1) and day 2 (Appendix D2) side by side. The students recapped the
previous lessons, going through the important points. Lyn then placed a third empty
graphic organiser (Appendix D3) next to the other two. Students discussed the
‘sequence’ of events. Lyn stated that:

I needed to find out their ideas and needed to know if the students knew what
sequence was to start with and establish who knew what it meant (LI).

The learning intention for the lesson was “paragraphing, capital letters, and full
stops” (Ldoc). The success criteria for the writing lesson were “I can write a series of
events and clearly relate in sequence stating what happened, and I can write in past tense,
I can include verbs that denote action, I can include a range of linking words and phrases
that denote time, and I can add detail to add interest for the reader” (Ldoc).

She then chose a specific science experiment and had a whole class discussion
on sequencing the science experiment on the third graphic organiser. In interview, she
stated that her reason for choosing the specific science experiment she did was that she
“knew those children struggled a little more and so that they had the ideas there for them”
(LI). She conducted the whole class discussion with them.

Lyn continued the lesson by modelling how to use the graphic organiser and the
students started their draft writing based on the three previous graphic organisers. Lyn
and the students listed out all the linking words on the boards. Again, there was a
whole class discussion on linking words and how to use them in sentences, and then
students sat in their respective groups to do individual writing.

Lyn’s students were asked to edit their work against the individual success
criteria that she had established and discussed with them. Students were provided with
clear instruction on the process and what they needed to do. Students were next asked
to check their work against their individual criteria, stating:

You will do more editing. You will look at your spelling; you will look at your
sentence. So the first thing you are going to be doing is hunt for your goal. So if

144
 your goal is to check if the full stop is in the correct place, you will spend some
serious time checking. So if it is to add interesting ideas, spend some serious time
checking if you have used some interesting ideas in your science experiment (LO).

For the next step, students were asked to exchange their books with each other
and read their peers’ written drafts, to check their sentences and content and success
criteria. Lyn told her students, “so swap with your neighbour and get them to just check
it. Just check, what is good about it, what do they need to fix (LO).

Following this, students were asked to go through their own work again, self-
assessing their drafts to think about whether there was a need to amend them. Lyn
asked them to check if they had all the steps needed to complete the science
experiment written in their drafts. Lyn then collected the written drafts for marking
and written feedback to check if their written drafts had the complete step-to-step
procedure of completing the science experiment (Appendix E5). She then provided
written feedback for their day 3 graphic organisers (Appendix D3), and checked their
written work against the success criteria of using linking words. Her written feedback
on the graphic organiser was based on students choosing appropriate linking words
when sequencing their ideas before the final draft was completed (Appendix E6).

Observation Day 4

The fourth observation was only a 20 minute lesson, as the teachers had a
school staff meeting to attend. Lyn told me that this lesson would focus only on
students editing their written work. Lyn asked students to sit in their groups and check
their written drafts for their individual success criteria of ‘two stars and a wish’
prepared at the beginning of the term during a three-way conferencing about their
strengths and weaknesses from previous writing. Group Y, the lower ability group, was
then called to the mat so Lyn could go through their work and discusses it individually,
helping them to identify their individual success criteria. A transcript follows:

Teacher: If you can’t find your post it note and you can’t find your wish, where is
it? I am going to come around and see and you have to point out where is the wish
that you have done? Not me fixing it, it is you fixing it yourself. What are the
different wishes that you have? Brian?
Brian: Use the dictionary
Teacher: Mariel?
Mariel: Use a variety of words to describe the same thing.
Teacher: So you should have a variety of post it notes on your work. Do you have

145
 the evidence? Please check. Please tick if you have it. Please do what you were
saying you were going to do. So leave the post it note there and I will check when
we have our three-way conferencing (LO).

After students conducted the self-editing of their work, they were asked to
exchange books with their peers. This time peers read the written draft and checked if
the planned whole class success criteria were identified correctly. In interview, Lyn
explained:

So now it is basically a piece of writing that they have already ticked off 3 parts of
their success criteria. So it will get their ideas in sequence, order and an
introduction that explains ‘who’, ‘what’, ‘where’ and ‘when’, and then the
conclusion will cover why and again recap on the ‘what’. So all those things will be
then quite clear for them… [I make sure of] the quality of their writing and they
can tick off their success criteria (LI).

Lyn did not intervene during the peer assessment stage, and students did not
approach her, but instead approached each other. As she said, “they know who to go to
and they don't have to always come to me, we call it see 3 people before you come to me.
So they see three people before they come to me (LI).

This strategy involved students in the assessment and feedback process of the
final draft. She provided a wider audience for the written draft, as peers contributed in
reading and providing feedback:

They do a lot of pair work and assessment, they look at themselves, they look at
each other they help each other, there are experts in the area that you can go to if
you are stuck, so that is a really good practice to be in with the children (LI).

When the students got their books back after the peer assessment, Lyn asked
them to check and go through their work. Lyn then provided written feedback on their
drafts on both content and surface features based on their task (Appendix E7). Students
then were provided with their self-assessment checklist (Appendix E8) to complete and
Lyn provided written feedback on their attainment of the success criteria.

The Connection between Lyn’s Beliefs and Practices

Lyn’s reported beliefs and understanding of formative feedback were based on

her school’s decisions about teaching the writing programme, her teaching experiences,
the professional learning and development she had undertaken at school, and her own
understanding of students’ development and needs in completing the task. Lyn’s
reported beliefs and understandings were observable in the way she went about
146
teaching writing. Her beliefs that feedback should be about students’ next learning
steps, and was best practised through scaffolding and guiding through open-ended
questions, were evident throughout her teaching. She did not provide her students with
answers but used elaboration through teacher/student interaction. Students were
encouraged to assess their own work and Lyn facilitated them towards using their
success criteria.

She believed oral feedback was more significant and important in student
learning, therefore provided more oral feedback to her students based on her
perceptions of their ability. She did not provide written feedback during work in
progress, but after completion of their task, as she believed written feedback was less
important. Spelling was not seen as important during the students’ work in progress,
and therefore was left to the last stage of the writing, to be edited by the students
themselves. As she believed students should be able to provide feedback, they were
provided information on the success criteria of their task, and self and peer-assessment
were practised. Figure 5.3 bon the next page shows Lyn’s reported beliefs of formative
feedback during her interviews and her feedback practice in the classroom during
observations.

147
 2. Teacher
notices gaps
(current versus
desired standards)

Teacher Teacher
Formative interprets gaps
1. Teacher and
Assessment and
students set goals (current versus
Feedback
desired standards
Practice

Feedback
activities and
strategies to close
the gap

Lyn

Beliefs Practice

Feedback is interactive information

Scaffolding feedback/open-ended
Feedback is information for students next questions
learning steps Instantaneous, specific and task related
Feedback is probing students for understanding feedback
Self and peers assessment is important
Facilitative feedback that directs and
Feedback helps focus and guide students guides students back to the task

Feedback elaboration using students’ own

answers to guide and facilitate them
through their task.

Share Promote
‘Guild knowledge’ self-monitoring

Learner Transfer of evaluative Peer

and productive skills
(peer/self-assessment)

Figure 5.3: Lyn’s reported beliefs and observed practice

148
Themes

Significant themes emerged in assessment of Lyn’s stated beliefs and

description of her feedback practices, and the ways they related to what was revealed
in my observation and her feedback on students’ work (both in progress and the final
written product). The main concepts arising from Lyn’s case was that writing was a
routine set in a particular way, and her role was to be the navigator during feedback in
her writing lesson.

The writing process is ‘set that way’

Lyn’s writing lesson was conducted daily in a set routine. This was because
each lesson was planned at the syndicate level in the school, and each teacher carried
out their own lessons in “similar ways” (LI). The writing lesson was constructed as a
writing workshop:

The way that we [teachers working in syndicates] set it out is probably the way
that this school sets it up. Because I haven't worked in another school, that's the
way I do it (LI).

Students used the graphic organisers as a writing frame to plan their writing
and scaffold writing paragraphs. The writing process took place over “a series of lessons
that lasts usually one to two weeks before their written draft of a topic is completed” (LI).
The writing routines were the same every day so students could become more skilled
in receiving and providing feedback, and also in self and peer editing. As Lyn explained:

In using a graphic organiser, you are organising your ideas so that your writing is
easier to do. So they [the students] are very used to the process (LI).

Success criteria were the benchmark for students’ self and peer-assessment.
The observation of the third and fourth observation involved students specifically
editing against their individual success criteria of ‘two stars and a wish’. She believed
by setting the success criteria with the students, the teachers in the school were able to
teach writing well:

We should all do that, because otherwise it is very difficult for us [teachers] to

teach a child who doesn't know what they have to do, so it [the success criteria]
breaks it down for the children (LI).

Writing lessons were planned “to enable students to use feedback: teachers and
peer feedback, as well as to provide feedback” (LI). They were able to redraft using
feedback in small groups, with peers and individually, and to support each other in this
process. Lyn instructed her students to:
149
 Check that everyone in your group has all the steps that you have, and this will
make the next step writing for your ideas easier to do (LO).

The first two observations involved Lyn communicating success criteria to the
students to enable them to check their drafts against the required standard of quality:

Have you all covered everything you have to cover to go from the beginning of the
experiment to the end? Just mentally tick it off, you don’t have to put a tick on it
but in your mind go ‘we all have got the same thing, we all have it covered’, and
you are going to check that with all the people at your desk (LO).

During the interviews, Lyn constantly specified school B’s method for teaching
writing, and she definitely stuck to a routine of whole class discussion followed by
individual writing, then group discussion, and self and peer-assessment. The length of
time she provided for each different activity was strictly followed.

The ‘navigator’ of the writing and feedback process

Lyn’s expectations for successful writing were stated, and the learning goals
and success criteria were shared with the students, although not necessarily by directly
informing students that they were success criteria (rather, Lyn often did this by
explaining how their written tasks should look). She told them what she wanted them
to do for their writing, and explained the steps they had to take to finish their task so
that it would look similar to the writing model. Students knew what was expected from
them for successful writing. Student self and peer-assessment processes were carefully
navigated throughout her writing lesson so that students did not struggle during the
process. Lyn’s writing lesson was carried out systematically. Her carefully selected
graphic organisers and the writing model she constructed with her students enabled
the writing lesson to be completed successfully in a timely manner, and created
awareness of the “reasons they were writing” (LI).

Learning intentions and success criteria were phrased in simple sentences and
feedback was based around them, so that students were able to comprehend what they
were aiming to achieve in their writing. Teacher/student conferencing enabled her to
help students identify their own strengths and weakness in their writing. Students
were provided opportunities to become involved in their own peer and self-assessment
against the set criteria.

Lyn’s believed her feedback in class “guide[d] and provide[d] students with the
direction their learning [was] going”, claiming that feedback focussed on “students’
development and understanding of tasks” enabled them to construct a successful piece

150
of writing (LI). She used her role to guide students to “bounce ideas off each other and
generate ideas” (LI). She avoided telling students the answers but used questioning,
prompts and probes to elicit and to encourage their thinking:

Teacher: Who was there? I was there with you, Miss McKenna did bath bombs, and
it was me for Oobleck. Sherbet and bath bombs. It would be weird if there was no
teacher. Good, fantastic. Which box should we move to now? Mikiko what do you
think? The ‘Why’ is why are we doing this, what are we trying to find out. The
‘What’ is for what are we doing?
Mikiko: We are doing salt dough.
Teacher: …for…
Marley: a reason…
Teacher: What is the reason?
Mikiko: A science experiment.
Teacher: Yes, that is right, for a science experiment, for science. Write it down. Write
it in the ‘What part’ (LO).

Lyn used different graphic organisers each day to navigate her writing lesson.
This provided students with a sense of direction, and the models created by the graphic
organisers helped the development of detail in their writing. Lyn oversaw the whole
writing lesson, and carefully steered students’ progress through feedback that provided
meaningful direction in their writing, through her belief that scaffolding learning was
important:
I also direct them to photos on the wall, things we have done, and have a look at
that. Just to take them back there so as they will try and remember the experience,
and then they are going to write about that (LI).

She set the course of peer feedback to occur before self-assessment and teacher
feedback, so as to provide students chances to build their skills in providing feedback.
As Lyn explained to her students:

So once you have done that, can you have a look with someone from this group or
another group the ‘2 stars and a wish’ and you are looking at the linking words in
the ‘2 stars and a wish’ as well (LO).

The writing process was navigated in such a way that students had the
opportunity and responsibility of choosing their own writing topics. Lyn believed that it
provided students with sense of empowerment to make their own choices, while at the
same time allowing to Lyn make sure they were working within their own capabilities.
She helped the students that were struggling by scaffolding the writing process with
them:

151
Teacher: Which science experiment are you going to write about Marley?
Marley: I can’t really remember.
Teacher: That is why we need to brainstorm it, Mikiko?
Mikiko: Oobleck.
Teacher: What kind of day was it when we carried out the experiment?
Mikiko: It was kind of rainy and cloudy.
Teacher: Lovely, it was rainy and cloudy. I am just going to give you some ideas, not
all of it.
Paresha: It was a Friday.
Teacher: Yes it was a Friday (writes it down). Just remembered it was a science day.
It was a fun Friday for our science experiment. Ok let’s do a couple of things for
here. (Points to the graphic organiser) Who was involved? It was me, I remember
standing with that group quiet a lot of the time, so I could probably say I was
near, Alanna, Leisha, Marley and I can remember their Oobleck being particularly
good. What group were you in, who were you with? Paresha, can you remember
who you were with? (LO).

Each writing activity and lesson was steered in such a way that there were
opportunities for students to self-assess their work and carry out editing. Peer-
assessment was followed by self-assessment and teacher feedback.

Creating models for writing practices

Lyn modelled new strategies for writing with her students. She took a whole
class approach so that students knew what was expected of them after each whole class
discussion, and followed this with small group discussion and individual writing:

[I like] giving an example on how to use the graphic organiser before we move
into groups (LI).

She gave students concrete writing models of successful writing and showed
them how they should ‘attack’ (LI) the graphic organiser. She placed a lot of emphasis
on creating a model with the students, and connecting the model they created together
and the students’ tasks:

We have talked about the ideas (pointing to the graphic organiser on the white
board). We have our ‘What’, ‘Who’, ‘Where’, ‘When’, ‘Why’ and ‘How’, now I want
you to forget about the penguins but remember the ‘where, when, why, and how’
stuff and I want you to remember some of our science experiments. So what are
the some of the science experiments that we have done? (LO).

152
 Lyn felt that scaffolding writing in this way prepared individual students and
peer groups for feedback and learning. It enabled her to check whether students were
going in the right direction in using the strategies they had been taught for completing
their writing tasks. Before each writing lesson, Lyn had already created the graphic
organiser for the lesson and worked through models with the students to help guide
them through the lesson for their individual writing:

So you guys I want you to explain, when it happened and who it happened… you
have to make sure you have all your sequenced ideas into our plan. If you haven’t,
get your brain in and squeeze it in (LO).

According to Lyn, working through the graphic organiser and modelling

together before going to individual writing helped students to progress in their writing.
As a result, they were able to check their work against their whole class task success
criteria. During the modelling, Lyn also helped the lower ability students more by
choosing the specific science experiment.

Empowering students

Students were decision-makers in choosing the science experiment that they

wanted to write about. Lyn did not select the topic they should write. She empowered
her students to choose according to their own preference, interest, and background
knowledge of which science experiment they would feel confident in writing about:

What are some of the science experiments that we had done that would be fun to
recount? What was an exciting science experiment that you have done? As if you
were writing a page in the newspaper. “Front page news, Room 10” (LO).

She empowered students to choose their own partner for the self- assessment activity
and did not force them to sit with a more able student. She helped students who still
struggled after the peer assessment. She only intervened once during all the four
observations when a student wanted to choose a difficult topic and she was concerned
that he would struggle:

Make sure you are going to choose something you remember lots of details about.
Kasem, although I agree the Volcano was a cool thing to do, I think because you
did not do the volcano and I did it, you are going to find it hard to write and
remember lots of the details. So if you went to the Sherbet, you would remember
more of the bits of details of what you put in it and how you did it, with more
details. So you decide which one you are going to do. Don’t worry about the

153
 recipes or not remembering how to make it, just decide what you are going to do
(LO).

Lyn thought it was important to build their knowledge and ideas by discussion
of their learning goals so students understood the direction of their learning and how
to reach their success criteria. The discussions and explanations that took place among
the whole class, among groups, and at the individual level were all based around
students’ learning intentions and whole class success criteria that she shared with her
students. Students were encouraged to be active contributors to their writing through a
series of questions and prompts during the small group activities:

Teacher: It was in the afternoon. Write it down in the ‘When’ box. Write it was in
the afternoon. So Oobleck, was it first thing in the morning or the afternoon slot?
Marley: In the morning
Teacher: I think it was in the morning too. Ok write it down. Sherbet, it was not on
a fun Friday was it, it was on a Thursday afternoon.
Costner: It was on a Monday afternoon.
Teacher: Yes, it was on a Monday afternoon and what time was it?
Kimberley: It was on the 17th.
Teacher: It was not on a writing time, maths time, it was during a science time?
Paresha: It was on the 17th in the afternoon (LO).

As students’ “confidence increased”(LI), they were encouraged to generate

feedback. Although Lyn guided this, the students had clarity about their success criteria
and were able to self-assess and peer-assess their work based on the criteria.
“Discussion[s],” as Lyn explained, “were based around criteria that were associated with
their success criteria” (LI).

By repeatedly making learning intentions and success criteria transparent and

clear to students, Lyn provided students with transparency regarding what successful
attainment should look like - students were able to see what successful writing looked
like when they created a model of writing with the teacher. Once students understood
the learning process, they were empowered to take more responsibility in their
learning:

So the first thing [action] you are going to be doing is hunt for your goal. So if
your goal is to check if the full stop is in the correct place, you will spend some
serious time checking. So if it is to add interesting ideas, spend some serious time
checking if you have used some interesting ideas in your science experiment (LO).

154
 Students were also decision makers regarding their own written drafts, as Lyn
provided opportunities for them to take on board their peers’ feedback. If they felt that
their written draft did not require changes, they were able to leave it as it was.

Each of Lyn’s students were empowered in the process of maintaining

ownership over their writing, as she did not intervene with written feedback for
content, ideas, grammar or spelling. Students conducted self-editing and self-
assessment of their own drafts. She did not write down what she wanted them to add to
make it interesting, only noted whether or not their writing was up to their own
satisfaction before collecting the drafts for teacher feedback.

Chapter Summary

Lyn believed students should have the freedom to create interesting writing
guided by feedback. Students were encouraged to engage in discussions within their
groups. They were able to generate and provide feedback to their peers with Lyn acting
as a navigator who participated in the discussions from time to time. Lyn consistently
required that students sought feedback from their peers before teacher feedback was
provided. Lyn valued students’ contributions during her discussion sessions, and
provided opportunities for them to share their ideas and work with a wider audience,
therefore instilling the skills of understanding feedback in her students.

155
 CHAPTER SIX:
Case Study Three: Jane

[Feedback is] the next learning step or the things they should work at (Jane).

Introduction to Jane

Jane (pseudonym) is a Pakeha New Zealander with of teaching experience only

from New Zealand primary schools

Background, education, and teaching experience

Jane attended primary, secondary, and tertiary education in New Zealand. She
completed her teacher training at Wellington Teacher’s College. While teaching, she
completed an advanced Diploma in Teaching. She had a Diploma of Communications
and was upgraded to a Bachelor of Education in 2005. She had taught at a range of
schools and at all levels in the primary system. She had been teaching in school C since
2009.

School C was a decile 2 contributing primary school (Years 1-6) and its mission
was to recognise, promote, and enhance multicultural values, which included the
students’ mother-tongue languages. My first meeting with the principal revealed a lot of
information about the background of the school, its policies, and its future direction.
The principal of the school took me around the grounds and personally introduced me
to all the teachers and members of the staff. She then led me back to her office to talk
informally about the school. I was permitted to take notes.

The school had a motto of ‘Together we learn’. Diversity in the school was
celebrated and was supported by parents and families. The programme and
environment for learning reflected the multicultural community, for example the
school had a whānau room where the “teachers and students [could] cook and share
soup once or twice a week” (JI). Students brought one vegetable to school on that day.
They had their own garden at the school from which fruits and vegetables were
harvested and shared during the lunch sessions. The teachers and students knew each
other well; when I was at the school the principal and teachers were able to greet each
other, and students, by name.

At the time of interview, Jane stated that the school was working on “improving
documentation, gathering, and using information about students’ strengths, needs, and
interests” (JI). “School-wide data [was] is collected” (JI) in reading, writing, and
numeracy to assist progress towards strategic goals, targets, and initiatives. Around
156
60% of students achieved at or above the school’s expectations. Teachers had “started
learning to report for English Language Learners (ELLs) and reflect on strengths and
progress” (Principal). Students’ achievement in reading, writing and mathematics were
reported formally to the Education Department and the school and teachers believed
that “one shoe does not fit all”, requiring them to “try to cater to individual needs”
(Principal).

At the time of this study, the school “had not developed its curriculum to align
with the New Zealand Curriculum (NZC)” (ERO report at school website). The teachers
had been working on implementing documents and guidelines for literacy and
numeracy in order to align with the NZC. The school’s principal explained that “a
discovery programme had been introduced to integrate student learning through
research, investigation, and inquiry” (Principal). Teachers were learning how to
incorporate information and communication technologies (ICT) into their classrooms.

Parents and whānau were provided with opportunities to engage with the
school through a “planned parent survey” where they could “deliver feedback of ways to
improve student learning and development” during meetings (JI). In response to surveys
and meetings, “teaching process and practices [were] changed to suit students and the
community needs” (JI). Jane believed that teachers and parents had built a healthy
school community.

The school’s appraisal system provided opportunities for “teachers to reflect on

their performance and personal goals” (JI). However, teachers at the school had no
opportunities to “observe or share their teaching strategies with each other” (JI). Jane did
not know how other teachers conducted their writing lesson or if there was, a “specific
way” (JI) the school wanted them to carry out their writing practice.

Even so, the school board and teachers were “working together” to enhance
students’ outcomes. In promoting writing “[the school] put students into different
writing levels and taught writing in groups [according to their abilities] (JI). Students
from Jane’s class wrote for different audiences, for example for assemblies and for
newsletters. She said, “it [was] quite positive” (JI).

Jane believed the school was moving to a new level of thinking about feedback
on writing, following the implementation of the National Standards into schools:

We [teachers] are all looking at feedback that we are giving in relation to Next
Steps. I guess we are moving forward and we are beginning to think about the
National Standards coming in [being implemented in school] (JI).

157
 As a result, Jane felt teachers in her school were more aware of assessment and
their writing lessons.

Professional learning and development

Jane’s professional development and learning had been on “using assessment to

develop teaching and learning in literacy for the students” (JI). This she said the school
felt was significant, as it was based on responding to students’ diverse needs. The
teachers’ latest round of professional development was targeted at “enhancing students
in mathematics” (JI).

The board of trustees were committed to “resourcing interventions and

professional development to enhance student outcomes” (Principal). The teachers and
board of trustees reassessed these programmes at the end of each year. At the time of
this study, the teachers were learning about facilitating learning and reporting on
English Language Learners (ELLs) through professional development in collaboration
with the university. The teachers received feedback on their literacy practice from
their professional development leaders.

Jane’s classroom

Jane’s classroom consisted of Year 4, Year 5 and Year 6 students. Her classroom
consisted of 45% students with English as their first language and 55% of students
with English as their second language. Jane’s students were the only students in this
study that approached me to find out personally how I was and where I was from.
Every day of the observation, I was greeted by my first name and asked how I was. The
students in her classroom were very helpful and friendly and were always smiling. Jane
was a soft-spoken teacher who, in the whole time I was in the classroom observing,
never raised her voice and always spoke gently to students. It was helpful that I had
placed more than one digital voice recorder around the class, as this enabled me to
capture her interactions during the observations. From the second day onwards, she
offered to carry one digital voice recorder when she walked and talked to students in
their groups.

School C placed a lot of emphasis on using success criteria and worked towards
helping students achieve these. Jane explained:

We have school wide success criteria [established through asTTle assessment] for
what they [students] should be able to do [write] at their age and what are the
steps we put in play for them to know and to learn (JI).

158
 However, Jane’s multi-age students were working on curriculum level 1 to 4.
Some of her students in Years 4 to 6 were on curriculum level 1. Jane‘s decided on a
topic for writing after taking into account the diversity of her students’ language
proficiency. She felt that choosing a topic required her to be mindful of her students’
familiarity with the context of the topic. Not surprisingly, she felt that the feedback
given to new migrant students involved more oral and written feedback, hence quantity
of feedback, or as she put it:

These students (L2) students need more support prompts, and questioning to help
them in their writing (JI).

Jane placed her students in groups according to proficiency and moved them if
they achieved the performance level of another group. As a result, she felt the students
should be aware of their writing performance against the desired standard, and would
be able to work towards better achievement if they talked through the success criteria
with the teacher. Jane stated that:

I think [it benefits students] talking about the strengths in the writing and
discussing ways in which they can improve that (JI).

Jane’s Understanding of Feedback

Jane believed that feedback should be “a specific task-related statement” (JI). A

statement “which commends what has been achieved” by the students, and which should
also “recommend a next step” in learning and outline “the efforts made” in achieving a
desired performance (JI). Jane believed that the oral feedback that she utilised more
frequently in her writing lesson enhanced students’ thinking and probed them “for their
ideas” (JI). As a result of her opinions on what constituted good feedback, she
emphasized “questioning, prompting, asking and checking” students’ understanding (JI).

According to Jane, students reading and acting on her feedback comments

helped to “get them thinking about what they did” (JI). She believed that her knowledge
of “different kinds of feedback” and her experience as a teacher had widened her
approach (JI). Subsequently, her beliefs regarding feedback were further consolidated
by her “professional development courses and the self-reflection after the professional
development” (JI).

Jane found that resources were not readily available on feedback and that the
reading materials and literature on feedback that were available for her were from
“hand-outs given” (JI). She believed that if she was not provided information on
feedback, she would “not know how to provide feedback” (JI). Her original belief that
feedback was limited to telling students that they were “right or wrong” or “whether
159
you were A, B, C or D” had changed over the last 10 years. In Jane’s opinion, previous
models of giving feedback had meant that students were often just “assessed” for where
they were, meaning there “wasn’t a lot of thinking” about feedback or “being told about
the next learning steps or the things to look at” in the writing (JI). She believed that if
students were not told about the quality of what they “had done”, they could not
“improve the next time around”. She felt “written feedback with a mark and very few
comments” did not help students (JI).

Jane’s assessment of her students’ linguistic proficiency was a significant factor

influencing her feedback beliefs. Her impressions of her students informed her beliefs
that “students who are L1 are quite fluent in writing in English” (JI). However, she
believed “the disadvantage for L2 students [was that] they first [had] to translate what
they hear[d] into their own language and then re-translate it back to English” (JI). As a
result, in writing, “L1 students [had] a lot more language or vocabulary to draw from”
(JI). She assumed that the L1 students’ problems with writing were “more through
misunderstanding or they are not sure what do with that next step” (JI).

In consequence, Jane considered that L2 students needed “a lot more

conferencing and questioning” in order to meet the learning criteria (JI). Therefore, “L2
students spen[t] a lot more time on basic language structure, spelling, and vocabulary”
(JI). In consequence, her feedback to L2 students involved “a lot more talking about
language features”, such as vocabulary or spelling (JI) than on the content and structure
of their writing. Jane’s beliefs influenced her to provide written corrections on every
error she came across, especially to her L2 students, as she felt the “good students could
detect” their errors (JI). She provided “the lower proficiency students more written
feedback” believing that this helped her students, as they did not have to “worry about
not being able to spell those words” but could concentrate on becoming confident
writers (JI). She reported her L2 students could not spell and if were asked to spell
they would find it too challenging and not “produce anything” (JI). Written feedback, she
felt, helped students to concentrate less on trivial issues such as surface features and
move to completing their writing, thus reaching criteria attainment.

Jane believed that the L2 students were “unable to provide peer feedback.” as
language was a barrier so she had to play a bigger role in the feedback process. As an
alternative, she tried to overcome this problem through pairing students with “a more
able student” (JI). She did not “consider what year they [were]” but instead their “ability
and who would be able to help them most (JI).

She was knowledgeable about her students’ individual abilities in writing; and
was confident that her feedback helped them:

160
 [Anua] has just come from Tonga and very little English, I use a lot of mime to her
because, and she needs it. I have worked one to one with her just with pictures and
to write sentences and I am hoping today when she is working independently, she
will be able to write the sentences (JI).

[Taylah] very much lacks confidence and it is hard sometimes to work out with
her how much she understands. When I said can you read out what you have got
written down, I ended up reading it out for her and I realised she got her ideas
down but her language features in her sentence were wrong (JI).

Jane believed in providing feedback that consisted of “a lot of questioning and

based on their next learning steps orally” to help students “develop their thinking” (JI).
She kept working on improving her feedback to students because of the “things” that
she saw and “observed” (JI). It encouraged her to “keep thinking about [feedback]” (JI).
Therefore there was greater emphasis on “providing WALTS and success criteria before
students begin so they know, before they begin, what they are supposed to do and how to
do it (JI). Because of this, feedback was very “much related to what things they did do
and how they are going make their writing interesting” (JI).

Planning the Writing Lesson

Jane’s lesson plan (Appendix C3) was divided into two sections: one each for L1
and L2 students. Although her class consisted of Year 4, 5 and 6 students, her learning
task was divided into two categories of “narrative writing” and “writing sentences”
(Jdoc). The narrative writing for her higher proficiency students was completing a
narrative entitled “Hard to believe…”. Students in the writing sentences group had to
write six sentences of “At the farm” (Appendix D4) and “A day at the beach” (Appendix
D5).

Jane’s learning aims were: “students will show some/ a developing understanding
of how to shape texts for different purposes and use language features appropriately and
organise and sequence ideas with increasing confidence” (Jdoc). Jane had two sets of
learning intentions for her students that were influenced by her knowledge of their
proficiency and background in the English language, “most L1 learners will write a
complete narrative that includes some language features including simile, alliteration,
metaphor and/or onomatopoeia”, and “L2 learners will work together to write a
cooperative narrative” (JI).

A cooperative narrative was reported as a shared writing exercise involving her

two Year 6 students and her highest proficiency Year 4 students. The success criteria

161
for the higher proficiency students were the same: “the story should have a title,
orientation, complication or problem, resolution and conclusions”, and the stories were
checked for language features such as “adjectives, alliteration, and simile” (Jdoc). The
lower proficiency students who were working on sentences had learning intentions “to
write sentences which included a verb and an adjective” (Jdoc).

Jane did not specify particular teaching materials she would use in her lesson,
but planned the writing tasks. Jane changed her writing topic weekly, so each student
worked daily on the same piece of writing for five days. Jane ran her writing lessons
every day for 50 minutes. She planned and prepared her lesson, worksheets and hand-
outs in colour as “it made students interested when things were colourful” (JI).

Practice and Observations

Jane created a model for writing with the students in their respective groups.
Her writing practice provided opportunities for students to carry out peer and self-
assessment. Jane’s writing practice and feedback practice is illustrated in figure 6.1 on
the next page.

1 2 3 4 5

Introduces the Peer and

learning intention Small group Individual Individual
teacher
and success discussion writing writing
criteria discussion

Teacher Self-
Peer feedback
feedback assessment

Based on students’ learning

intentions and success criteria

Figure 6.1: Jane’s writing practice

Every writing lesson started with Jane creating a model with the lower level
proficiency students for what successful writing would look like. Although she created
this model for her lower proficiency group, the higher proficiency students were simply
told their task. Students then carried out individual writing. Jane then helped students

162
in their writing tasks as she walked around or saw students struggling. Oral feedback
was often followed with written feedback.

She then provided opportunities for students to carry out peer discussion and
help each other in their writing tasks using the success criteria she had discussed for
the language features. Once this was completed, she followed with teacher feedback
and discussion on the strengths and shortcomings of individual students’ writing and
how to amend or add details to achieve attainment of the success criteria. Once the
peer and teacher-assessment was completed, students could then self-assess their
work against their individual success criteria.

At times during the observations, the order of the peer and self-assessments
were swapped in, depending on which Jane felt should be carried out first. Each of the
teacher, peer and self-assessments were conducted against students’ learning
intentions, and against success criteria designed for the individual students that
students were not told.

Observation Day 1

Jane started the lesson by distributing worksheets to the students, and asking
the higher proficiency students to start writing the narrative. Jane then instructed the
students writing a narrative ‘Hard to believe…’ to continue from “Ryan pulls back the
branches and….” and distributed their worksheets. The students had to write a
narrative on what they thought ‘Ryan’ saw. She told her students that their success
criteria were “writing a title, and opening, at least six sentences and a conclusion” (JO).
She prompted these students to think about making their writing interesting for the
readers:

Teacher: We have to make sure we have all the list of things in our narrative WALT
which is to write an interesting narrative. What do you mean by the
word interesting?
James: That you write something and people think it is interesting.
Teacher: So when we put our writing together that is one thing I want you to
think about. Think about your criteria of writing an interesting narrative (JO).

Jane clarified that she placed significant emphasis on providing students their
“WALTs and success criteria before students begin so they know, before they begin, what
they are supposed to do” (JI).

She called the lower proficiency group that had the learning intentions “to write
sentences which included a verb and an adjective” to the mat (LO). She distributed two
sets of worksheets to those students. One was a picture of a farm and the other a beach.
163
Jane then discussed in detail the vocabulary of the things that they could see in the
picture on the farm. Students were asked to point to the objects and repeat after her.
She taught students to form sentences and wrote down the sentences for them. Once
she completed the first picture students were asked to write individually and form six
complete sentences.

She then went to check her higher proficiency students who were writing their
narrative. She sat at different desks with students and discussed their narrative
although she did not explain exactly how this should be constructed. She questioned
and prompted the students to help them understand useful vocabulary. She then got
the attention of all the higher ability students and discussed “some language features
including simile, alliteration, metaphor, and/or onomatopoeia” which were their
learning intentions (LI).

Teacher/student discussion continued as she told students the success criteria

for their narrative, specifically that “the story should have a title, orientation,
complication or problem, resolution, and conclusion” (JO). Jane and her students then
discussed how students could make their writing interesting for readers. She provided
a lot of examples about language features that they could add into their writing.

She went back to the group on the mat. She asked students to read out their
sentences. When she realised the students were quiet or had not finished their tasks,
she asked them to share their ideas with their peer so as to help each other complete
the sentences. She used word cards showing complete sentences with a capital letters
and full stops to help them achieve the success criteria for their written work.

The lesson ended while Jane was still helping the group on the mat. She did not
collect the students’ written drafts.

Observation Day 2

Jane started the lesson with a whole class discussion. She asked students to
describe and explain adjectives, alliteration, onomatopoeia, metaphor and similes. She
asked students to form sentences using the word simile in it. Students were then asked
to write to make their narrative interesting. Students were given the freedom to choose
the number of a language features they wanted to add into their writing.

Jane then wrote the success criteria for writing a narrative on the board. She
wrote down that a narrative should have “a title, orientation, complication or problem,
resolution and conclusions” (Jdoc). She discussed the success criteria in detail with the
students, using examples of students’ sentences. Students were asked to read out their
sentences and identify which of the success criteria they had met:
164
 So it was trying to get from them what words they might need for their sentences
and that part there was just talking about our opening sentences. So we have got
our opening, now we need to work on that (JI).

Once she established that students understood her instructions and their tasks,
they were asked to write individually. She then called the lower proficiency students to
the mat. She asked the students to “go over [their] narrative” of ‘A day at the beach’ (JO).
She stressed to the students that “title” in their narrative was important, as it was one
of their success criteria.

Jane then read the students’ sentences aloud. When she realised some students
had not written all 6 sentences, she instructed the students “to write 6 sentences” and
“put the editing cards” out (JO). These were high frequency words used by the students,
listed alphabetically and in the correct spelling (JO) for the students to refer to. She
then instructed her students that “the last thing in the report was going to be the
conclusion” (JO). She clearly indicated their success criteria, that they were “going to
write a title, an opening, at least 6 sentences and a conclusion (JO).

This time around, Jane asked two students to pair with another student in
sharing their writing. She then went around the class, once the group on the mat
started their writing. She kept asking the higher proficiency group to check their
writing against their success criteria of using language features:

Teacher: So if we want to write an interesting narrative what else might we

use?
James: Adjectives, alliteration, onomatopoeia, metaphor and simile.
Teacher: So you are going to make sure you have adjectives, alliteration,
onomatopoeia, metaphor and simile in your writing. Would you want the
narrative you write to have all of them? (JO).

Jane walked around helping students individually in their writing, often writing
down the vocabulary, spelling, or correcting their sentence structure. She then asked
the students to exchange their books and read their peers’ sentences. They were asked
to help each other add language features to make the drafts more interesting. Jane did
not collect the written drafts after the lesson.

Observation Day 3

At the beginning of the third lesson, Jane recapped their previous lessons and
discussed the students’ learning intentions and success criteria for writing a narrative.
She provided the higher ability students with marking rubrics by writing them on the
white board, which students were able to refer to as they did self- assessment of their
165
writing. Students were provided with opportunities to assess their attainment of
success criteria in their writing by using the rubrics for themselves.

She indicated that she was making the “their success criteria clearer to them (JI).
Students were given time to self-assess their written drafts against their success
criteria. Then, she asked the students to exchange their books and carry out a peer-
assessment. She provided clear instruction while pointing to the marking rubrics
written on the board:

Teacher: You need to mark in the margin the orientation, title, and the
resolution. The second time you go through the writing, go through
the language features for example the adjectives. What do you
need to do?
James: Edit it
Teacher: Yes, Now I want you to look at the board. Can you see the words? I
want you to edit your written drafts and you see the language
features. Not rewrite it but you have your story so you need to
show where the language features are. Then in 20 minutes you are
going to give your book to somebody else so they can check all
those things (JO).

While the other students went on their peer and self –assessments, Jane went to
help the lower ability students on the mat. She discussed their success criteria for
writing the sentences:

Teacher: What do sentences start with?

Students: Capital letters.
Teacher: How do you end the sentence?
Students: Full stop.
Teacher: Look at the board. Look at the words. They are verbs. They are doing words.
What are adjectives [points to the magnetic words that are in different colours]?
You need to write a list of words. You look at your book. Now you check. Every
sentence should have a verb and every sentence should have an adjective. It must
start with a capital and end with a full stop. These are some ideas of words that
you might use ‘make, went, read, talk, and show’ (all the words in yellow) and
‘bad, nice, happy’ and all the other words that are adjectives. Every sentence
should start with a capital and end with a full stop. You must have an adjective
and a verb in your sentence (JO).

Jane then asked students to check their written drafts against these success
criteria. She asked everyone to go back to his or her place, and conducted peer and

166
teacher-feedback as a whole class discussion. Jane selected students to read their
written drafts, while discussing the success criteria. Peer feedback was provided to
students on their written work, and Jane collected their drafts at the end of the lesson.
An example is provided below of both peer and teacher feedback. She specifically
indicated that he was a L2 student:

Teacher: Qiomars, read your sentences.

Qiomars: I went hunting in the middle of the jungle.
Teacher: What language feature is in the sentence?
All: A verb.
Teacher: James?
James: I heard something go crack.
Teacher: When I say ‘crack’, what language features did James use?
All: (silence).
Teacher: Onomatopoeia. What is onomatopoeia?
James: When something goes with a sound.
Teacher: Yes, bang crash, Celia?
Celia: Head was small as one millimetre peanut.
Teacher: Head was small as one millimetre peanut. What language features does it
have? (JO).

Jane’s written feedback identified students’ attainment of their success criteria.

In the final marking for ‘Hard to believe…’ students, Jane provided feedback on content,
spelling, capital letters, grammar and structure of their sentences (Appendix E9). She
also provided written feedback by ticking off their checklist. For the students in the
lower proficiency group, she provided feedback comments on their effort and the
contents (Appendix E10), even adding written sentences that they might have created.
Jane did not require students to revise their drafts after the written feedback. Jane then
reported that she had a teacher student conferencing and provided written feedback
and comments to her higher proficiency students during that time (Appendix E11-
student 1 and 2). A sample of self-assessment checklist (Appendix E12) for L1 students
was provided after the observations and interviews. However I did not see students
using the self-assessment checklist during the teaching of writing.

The Connection between Jane’s Beliefs and Practices

Jane reported that her beliefs had been formed from her teaching experience,
professional learning and development and knowledge of her students’ proficiency and
needs. Her feedback was conducted while the students’ writing was in progress. She
believed her L2 students needed instantaneous oral and written feedback. Jane’s
167
understanding that feedback involved guiding students towards their next learning
steps was influenced by her conception of students’ linguistic proficiency and ability to
complete the task. As a result, her L2students who were provided elaborative feedback
during the teacher/student interaction and her L1 students verification of teacher’s
answers. She specifically concentrated, on her L2 students during the writing progress
as she felt her L1 students were capable in producing the written task.

She used open-ended questions with her higher proficiency and close-ended
questions with her L2 students, questions that were directed towards them meeting
their success criteria in their writing. Spelling was seen not important for them during
their writing, so she practised writing it for them during the work in progress, as she
felt too much focus on spelling prevented students from flowing with their ideas, and
that the content was more important. Feedback too was task related, and simple and
short enough for students to understand. She did not engage in lengthy discussions
with her students. She believed language was a barrier for L2 students and their
linguistic proficiency prevented her implementing self, and peer assessment with the
whole class with the L2 students.

As a result of her beliefs her L1 students knew of the quality Jane wanted in the
written draft and were able to detect the quality in their peer’s written drafts. She
however did not have to go into details with her L1 students, because of their level of
proficiency; she believed they would give her the standard required. Figure 6.2 on the
next page shows Jane’s reported beliefs of formative feedback during her interviews
and her feedback practice in the classroom during observations.

168
 2. Teacher
notices gaps
(current versus
desired standards)

Teacher Teacher
Formative interprets gaps
1. Teacher and Assessment and
students set goals (current versus
Feedback
desired standards)
Practice

Feedback
activities and
strategies to close
the gap

Jane

Beliefs Practice

Feedback should be instantaneous Open-ended questioning to L1 students

Feedback should be specific and task related Close-ended questioning and verification to
Feedback should commend on achievement L2 students.
Self and peer assessment important but difficult Feedback was task specific.
to implement Elaboration and verification depended on
Self and peer assessment depended on students student ability.
ability and proficiency Simple and short feedback comments.
Feedback is informing students their next Instantaneous oral and written feedback
learning steps Directive feedback for L2 students
Facilitative feedback L1 students.

Share Promote
‘Guild knowledge’ self-monitoring

L1 Learners Transfer of evaluative L2 Leaners

and productive skills
(peer/self-assessment)

Figure 6.2: Jane’s reported beliefs and observed practice

169
Themes

Jane’s beliefs and description of feedback practices were visible in her planning, and as
I observed, her feedback on students’ work (both in progress and as final written
product). This was most prominent in the following themes.

Shared learning and teaching opportunities

Jane’s writing lesson was designed to monitor students’ progress according to

their linguistic proficiency. Her understanding of her students’ learning and proficiency
guided her to provide peer teaching, learning, and feedback opportunities. Students
were provided with opportunities to produce shared writing, especially when she
assumed their linguistic and personal attributes were hindrance to producing
individual work. She reported and practised “paired up” (JI) writing, where a student
who struggled was teamed with a more able student.

Jane indicated that she tried to provide students with opportunities for self-
assessment and peer-assessment on their written drafts, but she believed that students’
language proficiency was a barrier to optimising these practices within her classroom.
She felt that group opportunities to interact and write would be a strategy to overcome
language barriers, shyness and isolation during students’ drafting time:

The other thing I guess you really don’t want them to be isolated working on their
own. A lot of time, there are certain things they can do on their own, it is also
important to put them within a group. A lot of that language and the talking that
is happening in that group, you know it is helps them and supports them in
building up their own vocabulary and things like that (JI).

If the students still struggled in a group she would specifically seek other
individuals to help them in crafting their tasks to achieve the success criteria that she
had planned.

Anahira, are you happy to help Alame with the rest of the sentences? (JO).

Jason, could you help Tayla in her writing and checking if she has the language
features required or if the language features she has identified are correct? (JO).

Pairing students with the same ability provided opportunities to teach students
to complete their required tasks:

Teacher: Alame, show me the castle? (Alame stares blankly at the teacher).
Teacher: Anahira, show Alame the sandcastle (Anahira doesn’t know so teacher
points to it).
170
Teacher: Alame, show the word bird (She doesn’t know so the teacher points and
then points to the object on the picture where the bird is. Teacher continues with
the same process with the word fish and Alame points to the fish). Good girl! You
might use these words in your sentences (JO).

Providing opportunities for students to develop evaluative skills to make

judgements on their peer’s writing was also important to Jane. Although she reported
that she believed that peer assessment was a “difficult process as the language
proficiency was a hindrance” which prevented it from being carried out by all the
students, the more able students were given the opportunity to provide examples that
she used to identify the success criteria (JI). This was in evidence during my
observations:

Selena: Simile.
Teacher: Excellent description that gives you a very clear picture of what the head
looks like. Selena?
Selena: It was roundish and kind of a green brownie colour (JO).

Although sharing the criteria was a challenge, Jane was able to provide
opportunities for peer feedback in the teaching and learning process. A bigger
challenge that Jane faced in the implementation of this feedback strategy was students’
shyness in opening up during the individual and peer feedback sessions. Hence, Jane
took sole responsibility for guiding the feedback and interaction. This she overcame in
some cases by encouraging students’ with higher linguistic proficiency to participate.

Specifying the criteria beforehand so students were clear during the peer
feedback process was carried out as a whole class activity. Jane specified to students
that feedback should be task specific and based on the success criteria that she wanted
them to identify:

So that was sort of part of making success criteria clear to them and it is so that
whoever has picked up their narrative and their story would be able to, say, assess
it against the criteria that we have established "Yes, I have that" (JI).

Most of the students were provided opportunities to participate in the

discussion and provide peer feedback.

Designing ‘linguistically matching’ writing lessons

Jane planned her writing lesson to suit both her L1 and L2 students. Although
the students had the same success criteria, their writing tasks were designed to suit
both their ability with writing and their linguistic proficiency. Students of higher

171
proficiency had to write a complete narrative, the best of which would be published in
the school newspaper. The lower proficiency group, however, had to “write sentences
which included a verb and an adjective” as learning intentions. Jane reasoned that:

It is very different for every child because they have such a wide range of
vocabulary. I think too with ESOL students, we are assessing them on different
things because we want their understanding of the vocabulary first and foremost
and so it is very much important with them building sentences and writing
sentences and then helping them to understand what they’re writing about (JI).

The lesson was planned not only to include tasks matching each students’
linguistic ability in English, but was checked against the specific success criteria that
Jane had planned from the curriculum. As she believed students with lower proficiency
in English language needed extra support, she created a model with these students of
“how and what the completed sentences should have and look like” (JI). She also provided
these students with a list of essential spelling and vocabulary words to help them in
their writing, stating:

Students work on their essential skills on the spelling list, and so in the beginning
of the year, I have sorted them out with words that each of them knew, and so
these spelling lists they have are individually designed for them. It’s the words that
they need to learn. Some of the students, not many have completed the essential
list up to essential list 7, and then there is the commonly misspelt words, and some
of them have moved from that. The hope is by the end of Year 4, they will be able
to spell all the words from the essential spelling list 1-7, some of them will achieve
that, some of them won’t (JI).

Students with higher linguistic ability were not provided with a writing frame
or vocabulary samples. They were told to produce writing that fulfilled the learning
intentions and success criteria without this help, but misunderstanding and errors
were minimised with shared learning between students with higher linguistic abilities
and students whose language skills were weaker. All students, however, had colourful
teaching materials distributed as Jane felt that practice could “increase the interest and
student engagement in writing” (JI).

As a result of her beliefs, Jane felt that positive feedback helped her students
“build their confidence” (JI). She felt it motivated students to try harder in their writing
lessons, lessons which matched their specific needs, for example Jane might say
something like:

172
 Good, but if you have 8 you write 8 sentences. So you are going to try and write 6
sentences as good as you can (JO).

Or:

Teacher: And after the complication what do we have, Selena?

Selena: Resolution
Teacher: Good. After that, what do we have…? Finally we have, Solomon?
Solomon: Conclusion.
Teacher: Good (JO).

Jane believed the difference in writing and performance in her classroom was
mainly due to the linguistic proficiency of her students. As a result, she differentiated
her planning and practice in teaching writing.

Student proficiency impacts ownership of writing

Jane believed student proficiency levels were indicators of their understanding

of writing. She used instructional strategies and activities relevant to the students’
stage in learning:

Jason’s [work is] very slow and quite laboured and he doesn't have lot of
confidence putting words on paper, he is very able to write a complete paragraph,
so we are working on building sentences up with him, but he also needs reminders
to stay focused (JI).

As a result she believed she needed to provide as much vocabulary information

as possible for him to write successfully. The lower proficiency students were not only
provided with the vocabulary; often the written feedback provided almost completed
their writing tasks. This was done although they had their editing checklist with them.
Jane believed they would lose interest and would not fully “engage” (JI) in the written
tasks if there were “vocabulary and spelling as obstacles” (JI) during their writing
process. Once the writing task was completed, most of the students had written
identical sentences and these were similar to the examples provided by Jane.

She did not provide written feedback for her higher proficiency students,
therefore their writing was far more authentic, and their ownership clearer. Her
feedback to higher proficiency students focused on their learning intentions and
success criteria. Their paragraphing and sentencing of their narrative remained their
own.

In contrast to their classmates in the lower group, the higher proficiency

students produced colourful and interesting narratives. No two narratives were the

173
same, and students had thought of “a lot of interesting language features which they had
successfully included into their writing” (JI). They were also capable of checking their
work and providing “peer feedback” that did not influence or alter the original written
draft.

In Jane’s classroom, a students’ proficiency was a clear indicator of how much

ownership they had of their own writing. Jane believed less proficient students needed
her help as the ‘expert’ in the teaching and learning of writing.

Self-taught writing teacher

Jane believed her writing lesson and feedback practices were influenced mainly
by her experience as a teacher and by observing students. Her assumption of best
practice in the teaching of writing, from planning to practice, was based on her
perceptions of a student’s linguistic ability. The writing lesson plan was a clear
indication of her understanding, as she had placed students into groups of L1 and L2
students; further identifying this for me on the written drafts I was shown.

She asked students to share and produce a piece of written draft as she felt “the
L1 students were capable of writing on their own” but wanted the L2 to “feed off their
ideas and create a [piece of] writing together” (JI). Students were at different stages
with writing in her classroom, but she managed to assist students as they progressed
according to their level. She wanted the students to teach each other and become more
involved in their writing, rather than creating writing tasks following the thinking of
“one shoe fits all” (JI).

Thus Jane’s form of feedback often entailed questioning and prompts to her
students, as some students were “very shy and would not contribute to the teacher but
among friends” (JI). She did not force students to reply to her questions or read aloud if
they were uncomfortable. She felt that cultural difference among her students affected
students’ willingness to speak, and said that this was something she had learnt during
her professional development and through teaching a diverse population of students.
This established, Jane would still allow plenty of wait time, and would try to coax her
students before providing them with answers.

Chapter Summary

Jane provided feedback based on learning intentions and success criteria, both
of which she used to monitor student success with written drafts. She provided
students with teaching materials and writing tasks based on her perception of their
linguistic proficiency level. The students worked at their own level and in some cases in

174
groups to produce a written draft. Recognising that native speakers of English were
able to write and provide both oral and written feedback, Jane used this strength as a
form of helping the lower proficiency students in developing their writing. The
potential challenge of using peer and self-assessment was overcome by Jane playing a
prominent role in the feedback process by providing assessment rubrics for the written
peer editing process. She often specifically guided the lower proficiency students with
vocabulary and spelling using written feedback. The higher proficiency students were
given freedom to develop their writing skills by writing their narrative independently.
However, during the teacher feedback and peer feedback for the higher proficiency
students, she often emphasized their learning intentions and success criteria.

175
 CHAPTER SEVEN:
The Influence of Teachers’ Beliefs and Understanding on
Formative Feedback Practices: A Discussion

In this study Sadler’s (1989) theory of formative assessment and feedback was
utilised to explore teachers’ feedback practices in primary classrooms. Findings from
Chapters Four, Five and Six revealed that teachers held some common understandings
in regards to feedback that was formative in nature. These chapters also drew attention
to some of the differences between teachers and their practices. The interpretive
nature of my research makes it important to look for explanations for similarities and
differences in teachers’ beliefs and practice in providing feedback. These explanations
provide better understanding of the complex meanings teachers attribute to their
situation (Ezzy, 2002; Punch, 2005). As a result of an in-depth exploration of teachers’
beliefs and formative feedback practices, the influence of teachers’ beliefs and
understanding on their practices became clearer.

The teachers’ beliefs about formative feedback during the teaching and learning
of writing, and about the students themselves, had significant effect on how feedback
was promoted practiced in their classrooms. Therefore, in accordance with pre-existing
theory, I considered teachers’ beliefs significant in providing insights into the formative
feedback practices of the teachers. The following discussion is structured into two
sections; the first section consists of teachers’ uptake and enactment of formative
assessment and feedback practice. In this section, difference and similarities based on
the findings, and the roles of teachers and students played in the process are compared
in relation to effective formative assessment and feedback practice. In the second
section, the influence of teachers’ beliefs on their formative feedback strategies and
how these beliefs influence the uptake and enactment of effective formative assessment
and feedback is discussed. The discussion is supported by a combination of scholarly
literature and research findings from the field of formative assessment and feedback
and teacher beliefs.

The Uptake and Enactment of the Formative Assessment and Feedback

Formative assessment and feedback encompasses strategies that teachers

engage during teaching and learning. It serves the purpose of supporting and
developing students’ learning, and enabling students to become autonomous and self-
regulating learners (Sadler, 2009b, 2010; Swaffield, 2011). These strategies embrace
the promotion of students’ understanding of learning goals and expected performances,

176
and emphasise generation of feedback by both teachers and students on students
current versus desired performances, to enhance and effect improvement (James &
Pedder, 2006). Students’ engagement in peer and self-assessment and taking control of
their learning through self-monitoring is significant in the process of assessment to
support learning (Clarke, 2001; McCallum et al., 2000).

Teachers’ role in promoting formative assessment and feedback

Within the formative assessment and feedback process, teacher’s role is more
than just providing feedback on the content but it is to promote learning and help
students understand to goal they are aiming for (Hattie & Timperley, 2007), support
them to develop skills to make judgments about their learning and the required
standards (Sadler, 2009a), and help students establish a repertoire of strategies to
regulate their own learning (Sadler, 1989). Hence, the role of teachers in the process is
significant to ensure students have the resources to monitor their own learning and
engage in activities that develop their skills as self-sustaining learners. Sadler’s (1989)
foundational view of formative assessment as a practice and process centred on
feedback loops for both teachers and students use information to close the gap is
significant to identifying effective practice.

Divergent and differential learning pathways for students

Teachers’ familiarity with teaching of writing through the application of

standard of reference/goals, learning intentions and success criteria was a common in
the planning stage among all three teachers. Teachers reported they had put in
significant thought in the standard of reference/goals, learning intentions and success
criteria for each individual student and the groups they belonged to. These standards
were evident in their lesson plans. Black and Wiliam’s (2004) paper distinguished the
‘formative’ way that teachers can respond and interpret information to help to build a
sound model of a student’s progression in the learning of the specific subject matter,
and therefore select criteria that guides the formative strategy matches the students
“trajectories of learning” (p.37). The learning progression articulates the trajectory by
which students are expected to progress and improve in learning, significant for the
formative assessment process.

Teachers in this study had divergent developing pathways for each student in
their classroom. Teachers had to deal with students struggling to write a single
complete sentence and generating coherent narrative during the writing lesson. As a
result, there were significant differences in learning between high and low-progress
learners in one classroom. Rather than a single goal, all three teachers had a range of
177
success criteria that might be appropriate for a particular student, and another range of
criteria of success that was different for other students at different times planned. In
the teaching of writing practice, teachers had a common context to teach to, but
provided diverse opportunities for learning. It is important to note that teachers
reported they did not operate with the concept of ‘anything goes’ in the classroom
when teaching of writing, but rather were operating around the standard of
reference/goals, learning intentions and success criteria (Black & Wiliam, 2004).

However teachers’ inequalities in the knowledge and skills essential to teaching

writing in a formative way can either impede or accelerate further learning, thus
contribute to an ever-increasing gap between learners of differing abilities. The
findings of this study clearly indicate teachers had their own perception of students’
current abilities and what they were aiming for the students to achieve. A consequence
of this knowledge is that all three teachers had their own method of teaching writing
that led to students achieving the desired standard/goal. During the teaching and
learning of the written language, Debra and Jane’s formative feedback was often
focussed on misconception/misunderstanding or errors that they noticed. Both the
teachers did not focus on the specific learning intentions or success criteria as a point
of reference for the feedback they provided. Their tacitly held knowledge of what the
successful written product should consist of was presented as feedback in the form of
‘telling’ students. Teachers’ ideas were presented to students, and students were
required to modify and act on these ideas. This was specifically inherent in Debra’s
classroom, as feedback to students involved any set of criteria she believed was needed
for the students. As a result students she intended to write one sentence were given
complex set of criteria to work on.

Another significant difference that was evident in Debra’s practice was that
students were introduced to new criteria at the final stages of writing. These criteria
were added as new properties and a more complicated notion of quality that was
required, without the basic set of standards/goals, learning intention or success criteria
being explained first. This contradicts Sadler’s (2009b) notion that teachers need to
share their tacitly held knowledge about the quality of writing at all stages of the
writing process so that students become aware of the criteria of success, and thus able
to translate them into their writing process. Debra’s role during the various stages of
the writing process was as an ‘expert’, and students were not fully emerged or were
absent from having significant experience through conferencing on the specific learning
intentions and success criteria that she had planned.

In Lyn’s case, students were alerted to the notion of criteria on a piece of

written draft, and were encouraged to consider methods by which the criteria
178
complemented the quality of their work, as well as to make judgements with reference
to their whole drafts, requiring them to make judgements on their individual success
criteria, and to justify their appraisal both to the teacher and their peers (Sadler 1989,
2009b). As a collective process these factors mirrored the way holistic, qualitative,
multi-criterion judgements (Sadler, 2009b) were formulated by Lyn. Apparently, to
Debra and Jane, they believed they had practiced the formative aspect of feedback
criteria and students were aware of the direction of their learning. Both Debra and Jane
believed they had inducted students to understand the sophisticated constitution of
quality in a piece of work as they were able to produce the work according to the
teachers’ desired standards. This was visible among Jane’s L1 students as she had
whole class discussion, and students were able to list of all their success criteria in their
written product. Both Debra and Jane believed that students at least knew what was
expected of them and were brought partly into the guild knowledge, and were able to
make appraisals of their own work. Lyn’s students were well positioned to evaluate
their work, and demonstrated considerable capacity to improve learning of their own
accord, as they were accustomed to a classroom culture of formative assessment and
feedback.

Teacher the ‘expert’ or ‘students as insiders’ formative practice

As learning intentions and success criteria provide teachers the standard

reference of which evidence learning and performance are compared by both teachers
and students, effective formative feedback is generated to close the gap between a
student’s current learning and their desired learning goals (Sadler, 1989, 2009b). It is
significant to note that while learning goals provide the trajectory of learning
progression and lead students towards desired learning, it identifies what immediate
learning for the student is intended to work consistently in the zone of proximal
development (ZPD) (Vygotsky, 1978). As this is the area of effective learning, utilising
formative assessment involves teachers scaffolding information, making it possible for
students to achieve related to their ability, through careful observation. Significant to
formative assessment is teachers providing students with experiences and support that
allow them to incorporate new learning. Lyn was consistent in her classroom practice
in providing students with the experience and support they needed to work on their
own trajectory of learning, and providing students with support through both teacher
and peer feedback.

In Lyn’s classroom, formative feedback was not solely provided by the teacher,
but was done with the belief that students, through engagement in teaching and
learning activities, would gain a range of evaluative and productive skills in writing by

179
becoming ‘insiders’ (Sadler, 1989). Such beliefs were strong in Lyn’s case, as she
permitted teaching and learning in the form of equality (James & Pedder, 2006).
Feedback that functioned as scaffolding information was observed in Lyn’s classroom
and the effectiveness was in the mutual engagement between teacher and student. Her
feedback process involved eliciting, interpreting and acting on the information, as
recognising and acting on the feedback information is critical to learning (Bell & Cowie,
2001). In contrast, although Jane seemingly practiced a socio-cultural perspective of
feedback from her reported beliefs of understanding and providing feedback to suit the
needs of learner, she maintained the control in the classroom, situating herself as the
‘expert’ in trying to help students close their gap. As a result, although during their self-
reported practice Debra and Jane claimed their feedback was formative in nature which
led students to close the gap between their current and desired performance, and both
teachers claimed they tried to discard the practice associated with behaviourism,
during the observation its strong influence in their classroom feedback practices was
visible, even though it was done unconsciously (Black, 2000; Delandshere, 2002;
Shepard, 2000).

Encapsulating task related feedback of ‘closing the gap’

The purpose of feedback is to improve learning while learning is occurring.

Descriptive feedback in the form of ideas and strategies by which students may employ
to complete their tasks provides opportunities to close the ‘gap’ between their current
and desired performance. Within this notion, feedback becomes instructional
scaffolding in the ZPD. Interaction between Lyn and her students during observations
reveal her role in supporting learning through scaffolding. According to Lyn the
underlying premise of her scaffolding feedback was to provide students with
temporary support that ultimately led to transfer the responsibility of learning to the
students through peer and self-assessment. This was in contrast to Debra and Jane’s
approach. Both of these teachers displayed evidence of unidirectional and directive
approaches to scaffolding that involved teacher-controlled discourse and acceptable
answers, and often teachers predetermined answers or a preferred option. Supportive
scaffolds, reciprocal teaching, and active learning approaches directly mirror
Vygotsky’s (1978) view of ZPD used for improving learning in the teacher/student
interaction of closing the gap (Sadler, 1989). This was considerably evident in Lyn’s
classroom in the uptake and enactment of effective formative assessment and feedback
strategies.

Despite the fact that the teachers I interviewed shared a common belief about
their own ability to use feedback to support and enhance learning, there was significant

180
difference among the teachers on how feedback should be framed to students to this
effect. Debra and Jane at times seemed to articulate beliefs that reflected the
behaviourist theories of learning, consistent with behaviourism, the long term
influence and effect of being learners themselves during the period behaviourism was
influential in the assessment and feedback process (Skinner, 1968; Thorndike, 1912;
Watson, 1919). This has indirect influence on some of their formative feedback
strategies that they believed due to ‘not knowing’ alternative strategies. It was evident
as both Debra and Jane articulated belief in providing feedback by ‘telling’. Debra, and
at times Jane, believed that the act of providing constant feedback would assist student
learning, as students took on board the feedback to improve their performance.

Findings from this study indicate convenience manifest criteria were their
reference for their feedback. Manifest criteria, according to Sadler (1989), are criteria
that are consciously attended to while work is in progress to close the gap. All three
teachers were consciously providing feedback against the manifest criteria. Criteria
that were in the background known as the latent criteria is often “triggered or activated
as occasions demands by some (existential) property of work that deviates from
expectation” (Sadler, 1989, p.134) seemed to create challenges for teachers. This was a
challenge that Lyn was able to overcome, but in Debra’s case she believed she had to
provide the answer to overcome the problem. Both Debra and Jane provided feedback
that directly answered the students’ needs when the latent criteria appeared. However,
Sadler (1989) explained that the art providing formative assessment was in generating
reversible progression in which criteria can be utilised for student benefit (from either
latent or manifest criteria), as the aim was to provide feedback that benefited students
in identifying quality, and in closing the gap. Both Debra and Jane considered the pre-
specified goals were more important to their students’ learning, therefore they were
hesitant to embark on latent criteria, thus loosing significant teaching and learning
moments. By comparison, Lyn appeared to induce other criteria when necessary and as
a result adopted a more divergent practice when implementing formative assessment
and feedback approaches (Torrance & Pryor, 1998).

All teachers resorted to positive reinforcement during interaction with

students, providing feedback in the form of praise to students as approval of accepted
answers, a practice in contrast with what is currently know with feedback (Sadler,
1998). This feedback is considered ineffective, as praise can shift attention from the
task to the self (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Kluger & DeNisis, 1996), and promote
surface learning that is performance focussed (Crooks, 1988; Dweck, 1986). Informed
by behaviourist theories of learning principles, feedback historically was procedures of
telling a learner if their response was “right or wrong” (Kulhavy, 1977, p. 211), and that

181
corrected their response to learners in the form of telling who were then responsible to
identify and correct their responses. Kulhavy (1977) argued the corrective function of
feedback was the most important aspect. This idea was influential in Debra’s classroom
and in her definition and beliefs about formative feedback. She provided evaluative
feedback, and believed it fulfilled the requirement of students gaining information that
could be used to promote learning and in closing the gap between students’ current and
desired performance outcomes (Askew & Lodge, 2000). Jane believed feedback in that
same manner was effective with her weaker students, who needed feedback that
identified the correct answers.

Teachers considered themselves experts that afforded feedback to learners, yet

the set of responsibilities they undertook and role in teaching they envisaged were very
distinct. This was significant within which paradigm of assessment they believed was
effective. Within the formative assessment and feedback, the emphasis was on the role
of teacher providing feedback, with students positioned as passive recipients. However,
formative feedback within the assessment for learning paradigm shifts the emphasis
onto the students’ role in their own learning. This belief, while present in interviews,
was a weakened practice in Debra and Jane’s classrooms due to their view of students.
They believed students were resistant to change because of behavioural and language
proficiency issues. They felt that the challenge they faced in implementing good
feedback practice was students fault, therefore maintaining the traditional view of the
role of students. While they articulated beliefs to develop students’ skill and expertise
during formative feedback practice, the resistance they faced during implementation
prevented the necessary productive skills being utilised, and times they felt
overwhelmed by the feedback task itself, as they were still learning about the process.

This is another instance at which the paradigm shift between behaviourism and
later models was visible in my observed classrooms. Behaviourism locates learning
external to learners and as something that has to be transmitted to the learners. In this
model, students are viewed as passive recipients in the learning process, with teachers
playing the more prominent role. The teacher holds the expert status, and is the
primary source of feedback in the classroom. In short, in a behaviourist model, it is the
teachers’ responsibility to tell the learners how to learn. The influence of behaviourism
– and the traditional role of teachers within it - was still visible in my observed
classrooms (Buhagiar, 2007). Both Debra and Jane maintained their expert status
throughout the process of teaching of writing and feedback information by the way
they articulated and provided their feedback, which they considered formative.

It is worthy to note the common assumption that all three teachers held: the
strategies and ways they provided feedback were effective. Firstly, teachers believed
182
students had successfully completed their written task, therefore their feedback was
effective and students had achieved attainment. These beliefs protracted to the fact that
students had moved from their current performance to the desired performance,
therefore the students understood the feedback. Secondly, teachers anticipated
students would be able to extrapolate from the whole class feedback particular aspects
of feedback that applicable to them and take the necessary actions to make the
required changes to their work in relation to the success criteria.

Students’ role in the formative assessment and feedback process

The socio-cultural perspective in the assessment for learning strategies

promotes student participation in the process, suggests that developing a sense of
belonging by becoming an insider in the practice of learning while developing their
autonomous learner identity is beneficial (Black & Wiliam, 1998b). Thus, assessment
for learning necessitates a need for students and teachers to radically change their
roles from being teacher-centred to having teacher and student work in partnership.
Research suggests that students ought not to be dependent on teachers, but rather that
they should hold the key role in the process of effective learning (James & Pedder,
2006). Teachers now hold the responsibility for helping students become autonomous
and self-regulating learners. In order for students to be able to judge their performance
against the required goals and progress towards that goal (Butler & Winne, 1995),
teachers’ tacitly held ‘guild knowledge’ should be shared with their students. This is to
enable students to hold concepts of quality similar to their teacher (Sadler, 1989) and
to assist them in becoming ‘insiders’ in the process.

Teacher’s perception of quality

It is significant for students to understand what constitutes quality of a written

product, through the development of evaluative and productive expertise and
understanding learning goals and success criteria (Sadler, 1989, 2009b, 2010). Another
important aspect is for teachers to frame learning goals/intentions and success criteria
in a manner that impacts students understanding of their written product and the
process that guides their behaviour. When Debra and Jane expressed learning
goals/intentions during the writing lesson, they drew attention to the task completion
rather than the more significant element of the writing process (Hawe & Parr, 2013).
When the writing process is conducted in a manner that it draws attention to the
completed product, the specified success criteria becomes a checklist where quality can
be ticked off (Timperley & Parr, 2009).

183
 When success criteria are equated to a checklist for quality, then teachers and
students unintentionally adopt the analytic approach of assessment of the written text
(Sadler, 1989). Although Lyn provided students the learning goals/intentions and
success criteria, she drew students’ attention to the writing process from
brainstorming, planning, until the full written draft was completed. In her classroom,
the essential elements of the writing product and the writing process were equally
important to the learning goals/intentions and success criteria. In addition students
had opportunities to self-monitor their written work for the presence of the desired
quality (Sadler, 2009b). In addition, Debra and Jane’s students embraced the
convergent approach (Torrance & Pryor, 1998), checking their written product for the
presence of the required criteria methodically. However, Debra and Jane’s students
perception of whether or not they had successfully completed their work as they ticked
of the checklist was not the attribution of their own thinking, but resulted from the
notion of quality being inducted to them by properties identified as success criteria by
their teachers. As a result, students were bounded by confining goals and success
criteria that were expressed in a restricted and narrow manner, identified by teachers’
as the expected quality.

Opportunities during learning: Insider or passive-outsider

In assessment for learning it is essential for students to develop their own

evaluative and productive knowledge as they participate in an authentic appraisal of
their written work, through peer and self-assessment. As a result, students develop a
deeper understanding of quality similar to teachers, based on their own experience in
the assessment process (Sadler, 1989; 2009b). Despite the significance of students’
involvement in their own learning, especially within the teaching of written language,
research often indicates that teachers have yet to fully comprehend the concept and
still hold on to the traditional, teacher-centred approach (Dixon et al., 2012; Hawe &
Parr, 2013; Parr & Timperley, 2010). As illustrated in the case of Debra and Jane,
students were required to assess their written products during learning; however these
self-assessment led to little change in students learning, as teachers retained control of
the process within the nature and scope of their feedback. Teachers maintained the
expert role with their influential and authoritative style of instruction, resulting in
students taking on the passive outsider role in their own learning. This style of
instruction denies students access into teachers ‘guild knowledge’ (Sadler, 1989), the
access to which would ideally promote them to make comprehensive judgements about
the quality of their work during learning. As a consequence, students are unable to
make sound judgments on their own work for improvement purposes. This then leads

184
to students becoming reliant and dependent on teachers judgements about their work
or specifics on how to make improvements (Sadler, 1989; 2009b; 2010). This
suspension of students’ involvement, and creating of teacher dependency, often done
unconsciously, reflects teachers’ belief that they hold the expertise and capabilities to
generate feedback on students written language, a skill that is not transferable, as
observed in Debra and Jane’s (among L2 students) students.

In contrast, Lyn viewed her students as ‘insiders’ who were capable,

autonomous learners. Her students contributed in the teaching and learning process
through decision-making, adoption and pedagogical practices of both peer and self-
assessment (Topping, 2009). Student participation in a sustained and authentic,
evaluative and productive experience enables them to engage with the content being
taught and initiates them into the ‘guild knowledge’ of their writing community (Sadler,
1989, 2009b). Lyn understood the significance of students’ development in this regard:
in her classroom, independence and autonomy was facilitated and guided in a way
where power in learning was a shared process. Therefore, Lyn created a structure of
teaching and learning to enable students to have valid, authentic insights into their own
writing that encouraged meta-cognitive reflection to develop students’ understanding
about writing (Ward & Dix, 2001). Teacher/student interaction and formative
assessment and feedback as a co-constructed activity provided opportunities for
students to move forward, while at the same time understanding the critical elements
necessary in developing their writing. This was a significant feature in Lyn’s classroom
when she encouraged students to work in groups as a community of writers. Students
were encouraged during the writing process to respond to her and also their peers.

Differential evaluative and productive learning opportunities

Peer assessment and feedback encourage the process of self-monitoring to

become embedded in their writing lesson and was carried out as a daily activity. These
activities enable students to exchange be exposed to various authentic works produced
by others and access a wider range of quality, a significant element in the development
of students evaluative and productive knowledge and expertise (Sadler, 1989, 2009b).
As a result of Lyn’s practice, her students were provided opportunities to build on their
productive and evaluative skills, and to become insiders in their learning, thus moving
from being teacher-dependent to being independent self-monitoring students. Students
who are able to become both the provider and recipient of feedback (Wiliam, 2006) are
able internalize their learning that leads to improvement.

Teachers’ individualistic identities and knowledge of teaching writing (Dix,

2012) often fitted with their theoretical beliefs and perception of writing. However, the
185
political and theoretical shifts in both writing and formative assessment and feedback
have teachers grappling with limited experience and skills in the teaching of writing
(Dix, 2012). Both Debra and Jane’s observations, and subsequent reported beliefs on
their actions revealed limited experience and skills in implementing peer and self-
assessment among students in their classroom. Jane’s belief that her L2 learners were
linguistically incapable of carrying out evaluative and productive skills led her to
continue to embrace the expert role in the classroom, but she provided more freedom
and experience of peer and self- assessment with her L1 students. Debra on the other
hand, enabled and engaged students in the process of peer and self- assessment at the
end of the writing lesson in a controlled manner. It is significant to note that both
teachers understood formative assessment and feedback strategies during the planning
stage, but still employed a traditional approach that emphasized on explicit instruction
in practice, emphasising an error-free written product with topic selected and
completed within limited independent writing time (Hairston, 1982; Raimes, 1991).

Lyn embraced and practiced the process approach when teaching of writing,
utilising teacher-students interaction and promoted learner autonomy and self-
monitoring (in no small part, as she herself noted during interview, a result of the
school writing programme). Lyn was successful in combining the writing as a process
approach with formative assessment and feedback to include students in the process of
learning. Her teacher/student interactions and engagement highlighted significant and
important aspects of joint constructed patterns during learning (Good & Brophy, 1978).
Within these activities, Lyn’s students still had their goals, methods of participating,
strategies and ways of self-regulating their performance. She undertook appropriate
actions to lead students to close the gap between their current performance and the
desired performance that was planned and co-constructed within her school syndicate
and with students. As research indicates (Wiliam, 2006) feedback benefits learners
when it is internalised through learning intentions and success criteria, as it can also be
an element for teacher’s formative assessment practice. This is because students’ peer
and self-assessment is a good indication of their understanding of their learning goals
and success criteria and the depth of their thinking.

The differences between the roles both teachers and students played in the
formative assessment and feedback process of all three teachers was individualistic
and influenced by their beliefs about students’ ability, their school writing programmes,
and their contextual collegiality. In the next section, the interplay of teachers’ beliefs
and how these beliefs influenced teacher uptake and enactment of their formative
assessment and writing practice is discussed. Teachers’ beliefs about learning were
revealed through their understanding of the roles both teachers and students should

186
play in learning, something that consequently influenced by the roles attributed in the
formative feedback process. Teachers’ beliefs about teacher and students roles in the
feedback process influenced how they framed and constructed feedback in their
classroom. This is consistent with Gipps’ (1994) work, in particular the idea that beliefs
about learning affect how content is taught to students and how it is assessed.

The Relationship between Teachers’ Beliefs and their Practice

Despite the fact that studies provide evidence that teachers’ beliefs influence
their practice (Clark & Peterson, 1986; Munby, 1984), other studies have revealed
inconsistencies between teachers’ espoused beliefs and their classroom practice (for
example Basturkaman et al., 2004; Lee, 2009; Phipps & Borg, 2009). In my
observations, teachers’ formative feedback practice supported Fang’s (1996)
‘consistency or inconsistency’ theory. This was similar to Marshall and Drummond’s
(2006) observations, in which they found that teachers had adopted aspects associated
with good feedback practice such as communicating goals of learning, promoting self
and peer-assessment and the use of feedback in closing the gap between the current
and desired performance (Sadler, 1989, 2009b). Nevertheless, there were distinctive
differences between the teachers’ classroom practices, a consequence of the divergent
understanding that teachers held. Since teaching of writing was selected as the context
for divining rich data in investigating teachers’ ability to implement theoretically fitting
strategies, stipulating quality of written language was challenging (Sadler, 1989,
2009b). Teachers should provide opportunities for students to develop evaluative and
productive opportunities (Sadler, 2010) and not restrict formative feedback strategies
to stipulating a list of criteria (Marshall, 2004).

In this study, there were distinctive differences in evaluative and productive

opportunities for students, a significant aspect of formative assessment and feedback
strategies promoted by teachers in their classrooms. This was particularly visible in the
nature of judgement teachers asked students to make to help close gaps in their
learning, student involvement in the process through self and peer-assessment
activities, and the amount of control teachers exercised during the learning process. It
has often been argued that teachers find promoting learner autonomy in the teaching
and learning process difficult to achieve (James & Pedder 2006; Marshall & Drummond,
2006). Figure 7.1 on the next page highlights the influence of teachers’ beliefs in the
uptake and enactment of formative assessment and feedback strategies in the teaching
of writing classroom.

187
 2. Teacher
notices gap
(current versus Teachers’
desired standards) reported
beliefs,
planning and
understanding
of effective
formative
assessment and
1. Teacher set Teacher
Formative feedback
goals interprets gaps
Assessment consistent with
(process, and Feedback (current versus formative
standards, criteria) desired standards) assessment and
feedback
theory

3. Feedback
activities and
strategies to close
the gap

Teacher Beliefs

Formative assessment and feedback strategies are influenced by

teachers’ beliefs about students’ ability & language proficiency

Debra Lyn Jane

Teacher Shares Shares

Feedback ‘Guild Promotes ‘Guild Promotes
Knowledge’ self-monitoring Knowledge’ self-monitoring

Learner Learner Peer L1 Learner L2 Learner

Transfer of evaluative Transfer of evaluative

& productive skills & productive skills
(peer/self-assessment) (peer/self-assessment)

Figure 7.1: The relationship between teachers’ beliefs and their formative assessment
and feedback strategies

188
 Figure 7.1 shows inconsistency between teachers’ reported beliefs and the
range of opportunities provided to students for their students to develop their self-
regulatory skills. Debra and Jane’s (L2) learners during teaching of writing, students
did not have an authentic setting to engage in evaluative productive decisions about
their expected learning outcomes and future learning directions. Lyn was the only
teacher that provided opportunities for her students’ voices to be given authentication,
as they personally viewed and discussed the success criteria of their written product.
As a result, in Lyn’s class, students were free to respond to each other through
facilitation (Smith & Higgins, 2006). Some of the opportunities were engineered by Lyn
to enable students to provide feedback, a skill that the school believed each student
should be able to execute. At each stage of their work-in progress, students were able to
become an ‘insider’, with knowledge of the expected quality of performance. Lyn
shared her tacitly held ‘guild knowledge’ with her students and promoted self-
monitoring as a strategy in the classroom. Students in Lyn’s classroom were able to
practice their evaluative and productive expertise with the knowledge of quality within
their groups.

In contrast, this significant strategy was absent from Debra’s classroom

practice. Students were not provided opportunities to practice their evaluative and
productive skills during the work-in-progress. Debra believed that students were not
capable of such a strategy because of their limited language proficiency. She adopted
the role of teacher as the expert and sole provider of feedback who needed to transfer
knowledge and skills to her students. Her tacitly held knowledge of quality was shared
during the learning stages that she deemed necessary, a contrast to Sadler’s (1989,
2009a, 2009b, 2010) argument that all learners be brought nearer to the concept of
quality that is held by teachers and be able to practice using their evaluative and
productive skills. Jane’s belief that students with lower proficiency levels such as her L2
students were not capable of understanding the learning goals/intentions and success
criteria and practicing formative feedback strategies with each other influenced her
practice. Jane shared her guild knowledge and promoted self-monitoring among her L1
students. These students then provided feedback to their L2 peers and were able to
self-assess both their own work and the work of their peers work against the success
criteria that was given to them.

Debra and Jane reported beliefs that the students were aware of the quality of
performance that was required of them and they were provided opportunities for peer
feedback, but in practice that was not always the case. They still adopted a teacher
centred role, and controlled the process and the scope and nature of feedback, and the
information and the interaction (Marshall & Drummond, 2006). Their style of

189
instruction and restriction around allowable answers and interaction reflected the
initiation-response-feedback (I-R-F) sequence (Sinclair & Couldthard, 1975). There
was limited evidence of student interaction that was exploratory and in-depth (Smith &
Higgins, 2006). While, Jane had tried to incorporate procedural features of good
feedback (James, 2006), there was still significant teacher control in the process, which
limited student input, especially with Jane’s L2 learners. As a result they became
passive recipients. The role of learners, in both Jane and Debra’s classes, was to carry
out teacher directives.

The discrepancy between the espoused beliefs and practice of teachers draws
attention to the socio-historical dimensions of belief construction as suggested by
Poulson and Avramidis (2004), and how this affects an individual’s wider belief
systems (Pajares, 1992). One possible explanation for this inconsistency in relation to
Debra and Jane is the lack of connection between the beliefs and practice that occurs
when teachers go through policy or theory changes (Black & Wiliam, 2009; Brownlee et
al., 1998; Richardson et al., 1991). Another possible answer is the lack of theoretical
understanding of formative feedback practices, and their tacit beliefs continuing to
influence; traditional feedback beliefs affecting current practice (Shepard, 2008).
Although it is challenging to ascertain the reason for the inconsistency, tacitly held
beliefs influencing teachers’ practice was evident. Specifically in relation to teachers
describing their practice of how they formed their learning intentions and success
criteria and used it as a reference point for the feedback.

In order to make learning goals explicit, teachers reported that they believed
feedback should provide information to students on their next learning steps. The
difference in the way the three teachers presented this information to students was
observed in practice. All the teachers mentioned the use of success criteria in their
feedback information to the students. This was their point of reference for their
feedback strategies, whether they supplied the success criteria or generated it with the
students (as, for example, Lyn did). Their description, though, was sometimes short of
best practice of effective formative assessment and feedback as outlined by Sadler
(1989).

This was observed in the way learning intentions were used to make
judgements on students’ performance in both Debra and Jane’s classes. Their adopted
practice was informed by the behaviourist theory of learning. In this, it was apparent
that these teachers were still had limited knowledge and skill in the process of
formative assessment and feedback strategies, which was influenced by their own
learning and experience (Black, 2005; Gipps, 1994; Shepard, 2000), something both
teachers also expressed in interview. This is significant as two teachers in this study
190
would have learnt and taught from the time behaviourism had a significant influence on
teaching, learning and assessment, and evidently were not provided adequate
professional learning and development on the teaching of writing or assessment for
learning process, a significant point in Jane’s reported beliefs. Jane had the most years
of experience in teaching, and did not profess having had professional learning and
development on assessment or teaching of writing since she graduated. Debra had a
few years teaching experience before doing an online course to qualify as a teacher and
at the time of research was involved in a professional learning and development course
on feedback. While teachers at a conscious level sought to conform to new innovation
and reformation in assessment and feedback practice, the teachers’ deep-seated and
unconscious beliefs continued to shape and influence aspects of their formative
feedback strategies.

Given the nature of information about quality, it is important for feedback to

function qualitatively (Sadler, 1989, 2009b), and in this aim the usefulness of implicit
success criteria is void. When teachers’ guild knowledge is inaccessible to students,
students are impacted in their learning. If students have the concept of quality roughly
similar to their teachers (Sadler, 1989), it enables them to become self-monitoring and
autonomous learners. This was evident both Debra and Jane’s classroom. While
students were requested to make judgements on their work, they had limited
knowledge of what was required of them, thus impeding their self-monitoring process.
By comparison, Lyn’s use of lists and models of criteria for success enabled the students
in her class to enter into the guild knowledge (Sadler, 1989, 2009b).

Two teachers, Debra and Jane, reported beliefs that learning intentions and
success criteria were the point of reference from which they made judgements on
students’ performance; the influence of behaviourist thinking of teacher-centred
learning was evident when the overall judgement on achievement was made. Both
teachers supplied students with feedback information that required them to make
changes, which led teachers to then accept the corrections as the quality being attained
in their writing. Students’ peer-feedback practice was at the end of the production and
evaluative in nature as the students did not have opportunity to develop their thinking
after the assessment. Lyn, by contrast, practiced peer feedback and executed the
learning intentions and criteria of success while work was in progress, meaning the
students had opportunities to develop their productive skills to their desired standard
and close the gap (Sadler, 1989). The criteria were a predetermined checklist to be
ticked off by both Debra and Jane. As the unit progressed, Lyn was the only teacher who
talked often about the pre specified criteria and their individual criteria. As Sadler

191
(1989) argues, assessment is only formative as long as there is flexible development of
criteria being translated for students benefit and learning.

Outcome and efficacy expectations about students and learning

Teachers’ beliefs about personal efficacy have strong influence on their

individual thoughts and actions. These beliefs provide teachers an avenue to exercise
control over their own actions (Pajares, 1996). Self-efficacy that is goal, task and
situation specific, refers to the belief in one’s capabilities to “organise and execute
courses of action required to deal with situations” (Bandura, 1981, p. 200). The
differences between teachers in this research became obvious during the analysis of
teachers self-reported beliefs (Bandura, 1977), and the efficacy beliefs in this study are
my own interpretation. Teachers in this study believed they had the ability and
knowledge to provide formative assessment and feedback to support students in
learning, and to inform their own teaching. They believed they framed the feedback to
move students to their next learning steps. Hattie and Timperley (2007) and Sadler
(1998, 2009b) suggest feedback that promotes learning and is effective should contain
information for students about where they are heading, how they are achieving, where
they need to go next, and how to close their learning gaps. Teachers reported they
identified the formative function of feedback by centring it on ‘next steps’ and in using
feedback strategies to ensure improvement in performance.

As discussed in previous chapters, the current conception of formative feedback

has radically transformed over recent decades from teacher-centred to student-
centred. This transformation has involved the roles of teachers and students in its
process. Effective teaching and learning practice has been reconstructed to teachers
forging partnerships with students, and bringing students into the assessment process
through sharing of learning goals and success criteria (Sadler, 2009b). Consequently
promoting the development of self-regulatory skills and behaviour that expands the
‘insider’ role of students in the process of learning has been vital. As it has been argued
in the literature, the current conception of feedback that is formative is challenging and
complex (James, 2006; Perrenoud, 1998). Teachers therefore have to actively engage
with the underpinning ideas and principles of formative feedback in their practice
(James & Pedder, 2006).

Schon (1983) provides an explanation, drawing upon the concept of tacit

knowledge (Polanyi, 1967). Schon (1987) contends that individuals learn to implement
complex performances without being able to articulate descriptions of their actual
performance. He argued that often the explanation of complex performance is not only
incomplete, it is often inaccurate, as the teachers often attempt to articulate tacitly held
192
knowledge, but are unable to describe their practices (Kagan, 1992). This may be the
case of teachers in this study, as their description of their practice of formative
feedback may have been inadequate and inaccurate because they were unable to access
the tacitly held knowledge. This is an issue in this study as if teachers are not able to
specify which aspects of their feedback are formative, but can distinguish feedback,
meaning it could be difficult for them to assess whether or not they are providing
feedback that is formative to their learners.

Another possibility is that if teachers felt their knowledge and implementation

of formative feedback fell short of the parameters of the current context of teaching of
writing, providing information could have been difficult. In an attempt to appear
professional and protect their self-image and self-esteem, teachers may have
intentionally or subconsciously preferred to keep their knowledge private to avoid
emotional distress or embarrassment (Miller & Brewer, 2003). Undoubtedly the line of
questioning in the interviews aimed at probing teachers’ professional knowledge of
formative feedback seemed to cause uneasiness. As a result, that facet of formative
feedback was not fully explored.

In my research, I found that teachers were selective in taking on the elements of

good feedback practice. Based on my observations of the writing lessons and feedback
opportunities, there were key differences between the teachers in the amount of
teacher/student engagement during the formative assessment and feedback process,
and the roles each participant teacher took in the feedback, particularly in the extent to
which teachers perceived themselves to be the experts in the formative feedback
practice. Teachers’ willingness to preserve with the challenges in implementing
formative feedback was balanced against self-doubt about their abilities.

Teacher efficacy expectation can differ significantly between teachers (Bandura,

1977). Efficacy expectation can be limited to task related goals, while others may
expect complex tasks of themselves. While teachers in this study believed they utilised
feedback to support learning, there was a significant difference among the teachers.
This was observed in the way to which they articulated and shared learning goals with
students, something that was challenging to teachers, especially when negotiating the
notion of roles and boundaries in the teaching and learning of writing. An example is
the requirement of student-centred learning that requires teachers to promote self-
regulating and autonomous learning through developing of self-regulatory skills is
significantly more challenging to achieve. Teachers should be in a position of sharing
power and control with the students in their learning and assessment process (James &
Pedder, 2006).

193
 As for two teachers, Debra and Jane, their efficacy expectations were limited to
sharing the learning intentions and success criteria with the students. They did not
have any other expectation from their students, given their view that fostering students
in developing their evaluative and productive skills was problematic due to their beliefs
about students’ ability. Although they recognised and shared the goals of learning with
their students, they were far less sure of their ability to foster students’ self-regulatory
skills and autonomy in learning. As a result, they did not expect students to be able to
embark on peer or self-assess strategies during their written work, an important aspect
of assessment for learning that emphasises the role of students in the teaching and
learning process. This expectation was more extensive with one teacher, Lyn, as she
recognised the need to promote the active involvement of the students in the process of
formative feedback, as she was confident in her competence with regard to the process
of including the students as insiders in the assessment and learning process.

Teachers’ efficacy expectation about students and learning not only was
distinctive to their classroom practice, but also in the aspect of strength (Bandura,
1977), and influence, determination, persistence and effort of teachers when faced by
challenges. In my research, I found differences in the strengths of teacher efficacy
expectations. Debra and Jane’s interpretation of their mastery seemed to weaken when
they were faced by challenges. As Bandura (1977) described, weak expectancies are
easily extinguishable by experiences that do not conform to individual expectation,
whereas strong expectations will persevere when faced with challenges and try to cope.
This was significant both in Debra and Jane’s expectations of their students’
involvement in the formative assessment and feedback strategies of peer and self-
assessment. Students’ reactions, skills and language proficiency were seen as a
significant hindrance in regards to achieving greater student involvement at various
stages of the feedback process. They felt it was challenging to involve students in the
development and co-construction of the learning intentions and criteria of success. In
facing challenges and resistance from students due to behavioural issues and language
barriers, they reduced their effort in involving students in the process. As a result they
resorted to going back to an easier practice of creating the criteria for the students
themselves, although it was against the appropriate formative feedback practice and
students did not benefit fully by becoming insiders in the assessment process.

Lyn’s mastery experience was a bit different, as she had school and collegial
support. She did not voice any uncertainty on students’ involvement in the process of
formative assessment and strategies. Her description of formative feedback practices
revealed that her expectation of students did not diminish during the teaching and
learning process or the enactment of formative assessment and feedback strategies

194
such as peer and self-assessment. Lyn was confident about the students’ ability in
mastering the skills, and maintained that increased support would see successful
attainment. Moreover the belief that effort on her part and students working in
partnership would eventually lead to students’ success and was not a difficult to
overcome if students were struggling. In contrast, Debra and Jane felt that deploying a
formative assessment and feedback process involving students, and moving towards
student-centred learning was a difficult obstacle to overcome unless the students
improved their language proficiency.

Self-doubt in the teaching process

The early conception of masterful performance is seldom interpreted into

action during first attempt. This attempt will often be encountered by obstacles that in
return will generate self-doubt (Bandura, 1989). It is therefore the individual response
to this self-doubt that is critical. In my observations, Debra encountered difficulties
introducing a new topic and thought incorporating sharing the goals of learning was
easy. However during her course of action, she encountered difficulties, and the
reaction of her students made her self-doubt and think of changing her way of teaching.
She made references to the fact that she was still learning about the process of
formative assessment and feedback strategies in interview, therefore indicating that it
was natural for challenges to occur in her classroom during the teaching and learning
process. As a result, she reported she would have to try new ways to overcome her
obstacle, as she clearly questioned her capabilities in implementing the formative
feedback strategies.

Jane on the other hand seemed to reflect that her years of teaching experience
helped her overcome self-doubt, and was motivated to try to implement new strategies
that she came up with herself when she paired them during the writing and as a
formative feedback strategy to help the L2 students. Questioning themselves and self-
doubt became challenges in teaching and learning progression and prevented Debra
and Jane to move forward. Additionally, their perception of students working towards
their learning goals either weakened or strengthened their attempt towards mastery in
the enactment of formative feedback strategies. This in turn seemed to be connected to
their beliefs about their choice of selected actions and their desired effects upon
teaching and learning.

The implementation of formative feedback strategies was stronger and more

resilient with Lyn and Jane’s self-efficacy, specifically Jane’s L1 students. This echoes
Locke & Latham’s (1990) statement that teachers with strong self-efficacy set higher
goals and challenges. They are open to new ideas, and willing to explore new
195
approaches (Tschnnen-Moran & Woolfolk-Hoy, 2001) and become vigorous in
pursuing success. Challenges are perceived as a learning curve and motivations to
learn. This was not the case with Debra, as she did not show self-doubt in regards to
difficult aspects of formative feedback but kept trying to implement what she knew.
This is consistent with Linnenbrink and Pintrich’s (2003) notion of calibration, the
match concerning self-efficacy judgements and actual performance. It would appear
Debra over-estimated her capabilities and had still some journey to go in implementing
formative assessment and feedback strategies with a student centred approach.

Beliefs are not only about individual self but about their surroundings, and the
world they live in, particularly teaching. Teachers hold a numerous educational beliefs
that exist in many forms to understand the world of teaching, to create understanding
and meaning. Teacher beliefs are exemplified in many ways, in their expectation of
their students, and their view of teaching and learning. This is particularly significant in
the findings of this study, as all three teachers had their own beliefs about formative
assessment and feedback, from the uptake to enactment, and how it affected learning.

Chapter Summary

Sadler’s (1989) theorisation of formative assessment and feedback clearly

indicates the need for feedback in closing the gap between the current versus the
desired performance. The findings of this study extends research on formative
assessment and feedback among teachers in classrooms with students of diverse
abilities and linguistic proficiency, varied professional learning and development
experience, different amounts of collegial support and distinctive school settings. The
study found that the interplay of teachers’ beliefs, knowledge and skills in the formative
assessment and feedback (re)creates the teachers and students role(s) and
(re)positions the formative assessment and feedback process to fit their classroom
settings. The (re)creation of students role(s) according to teachers conception of what
is applicable in their own classroom setting and based on teachers understandings,
knowledge and skills of students and pedagogical knowledge.

These findings on formative assessment and feedback on the teaching of

writing in the primary classroom support the idea that teachers are aware of the
importance of effective formative feedback, particularly teachers’ and students’ roles in
the formative assessment practice of setting learning goals/intentions in order to close
the gap between the current and desired performance, and facilitating students
becoming insiders in their learning through formative feedback. However, the
differences between the teachers’ conceptions and practices revealed a lack of
knowledge about how to conduct formative assessment to sustain long-term learning, a
196
significant requirement for effective formative assessment practices. This indicates a
necessity for teachers to address issues pertaining to empowerment, and autonomous
and self-regulating learning. Teachers need to identify and assert issues with students
roles in the assessment practice and assess their own constructs of learning
goals/standards and success criteria, in order to facilitate student involvement and
engagement in their learning, thus increasing students peer and self-assessment
abilities.

The findings of this study extend the findings of research on formative

assessment and feedback through investigating the influence of teachers’ beliefs and
their teaching practice, where similar findings show that teachers are influenced by
their own perceptions and classroom settings and at times their professional learning
and development experiences. In conclusion, teachers’ knowledge and skills in the
accurate use of formative assessment and feedback through support from professional
learning and development, their schools and collegial settings is the hallmark of
effective formative assessment and feedback practice in the diverse New Zealand
primary school context. In New Zealand, where both individual and group learning
process are important, the emphasis of peer and self- assessment has some way to go
as the teachers find diverse student ability and linguistic proficiency challenging in the
enactment of the specific formative assessment and feedback process.

The examination of teacher’s beliefs and the influence of these beliefs in

teachers understanding and practice highlight the need for significant scholarly
attention on the aptitude of teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs on their formative assessment
and feedback practice. The traditional approach of teacher-centred teaching, with
teacher as expert controlling the learning, was still prevalent in their classroom
practices such as Debra and Jane’s classrooms. Students did not become insiders in the
process and instead were consumers of the feedback information (Sadler, 1989;
2009b). While the teachers reported that their beliefs were that feedback should be
formative in nature, they still struggled and found including students into the
assessment process challenging. They regarded students as outsiders with limited
ability to understand and embrace both peer and self-assessment to become
autonomous learners. Moreover, their strong beliefs, arguably inaccurate, limited their
progress towards fully embracing effective the formative assessment and feedback
strategies that helped to enhance learning.

Although teachers at times tried to discard aspects of traditional feedback, a

considerable amount of their practice still aligned with the traditional approach of
teacher as expert, strongly observed in both Debra and Jane’s classrooms and teaching
of writing. As a result, developing partnerships with the students, and giving them
197
greater control over their learning in certain areas of feedback, such as peer and self-
assessment, was a struggle and created tensions between their beliefs and practices.
Jane seemed to be negotiating her beliefs and ability to establish the best feedback
practice for her students between her L1 and l2 students and their differences in
proficiency. Her struggle in understanding the different needs of the students resulted
in juggling between traditional and current expectations of good and effective feedback
practice.

Lyn was the teacher closest to mastering the inculcation of formative

assessment and feedback strategies into her classroom. Her beliefs about the role of
teachers, and making students insiders in the assessment process, were influenced by
the school writing and assessment process, which helped her assimilate good formative
feedback strategies. Her beliefs about effective formative were embedded into her
practice. Lyn’s beliefs enabled her to think and act in ways that encouraged student
involvement in the process. She displayed willingness to forge partnerships with
students to become active participants in their learning, able to monitor and self-
regulate their learning that led to them becoming autonomous learners. She provided
opportunities for students to practice their evaluative and productive skills in an
authentic setting. She not only gave students’ knowledge and skills, but was able to
make her lessons student-centred (Sadler, 1989). The tenacity in which she resolved to
keep learning student-centred was a strong indicator of her movement towards gaining
mastery, facing and overcoming obstacles during the uptake and enactment of
formative assessment and feedback strategies.

198
 CHAPTER EIGHT:
Conclusion

Introduction

In this chapter, I present the summary of my research findings and the

pedagogical and instructional implications that arose from them. Next I discuss the
limitation of the study and posit recommendations for future research. I end this
chapter with a concluding statement. Central to this research has been an
understanding of teachers’ beliefs and conception with the formative feedback.

Summary of Research

In Chapter Two, the review of literature, I explained that assessment in

education has gone through significant changes since the late 70s, significantly a
reconceptualization of assessment from serving as evaluation into something formative
in nature. Since then, both understanding and implementation of new feedback
practices have been complex and challenging for teachers (James, 2006; Perrenoud,
1998; Shepard, 2005). The core differences have been in the role teachers and students
play, the nature and purpose of feedback and its role in teaching and learning. Sadler’s
(1989) argument is that in order for feedback to be formative, students’ involvement in
the process through understanding their learning goals and engagement in strategies
that will close gaps in their learning achievements (Black & Wiliam, 1998b; Boud, 2000;
Hattie & Timperly, 2007; Nicol & MacFarlane-Dick, 2006). In New Zealand, teachers
have been encouraged to share learning goals with students (Ministry of Education,
2007a) through student friendly language in learning intentions and success criteria
(Clarke et al., 2003).

An in-depth study of primary teachers’ understanding of formative feedback in

relation to their practices is therefore significant. This research aimed to explore three
primary teachers’ beliefs about and practices of formative assessment and feedback.
The literature review located my study within the qualitative paradigm, as it was my
aim to get the breadth and depth of the research through interviews and observations
to answer the two research questions formed:

1. What beliefs do teachers hold about formative feedback in the writing

classroom?

199
 2. How do primary teachers provide formative assessment and feedback to
their students during the writing lessons?

Qualitative multiple case studies were used to investigate three primary teachers’
conceptions of effective formative feedback practice, and the role it played in their
classroom practice. This study thus adds to the existing research in the field of
formative assessment and feedback, by complementing studies that use questionnaires
and surveys as a self-report instrument. Three primary teachers’ beliefs and
understandings of formative assessment and feedback, factors that influenced their
beliefs and their formative assessment and feedback strategies were explored. The
primary data sources were interviews with the teachers that were carried out over the
period of one writing unit. The observations, field notes and documents were
secondary data sources and helped gain insight into teachers’ implementation of
formative assessment and feedback strategies. Each participant teacher’s formative
assessment and feedback beliefs and strategies were interpreted through Sadler’s
(1989) theoretical framework for formative assessment and feedback. Sadler’s
theorisation of formative feedback brings students into the assessment process, and
closer to understanding the teachers’ guild knowledge and through self and peer
assessment help gain evaluative and productive knowledge. As a result, students would
ideally be able to self-monitor their progress. The conclusions of this study arose from
analysis of the individual cases and cross-case analysis.

Summary of Research Findings

This study reflects three important areas of complication for implanting

formative assessment: firstly there were significant differences among teachers when
they reported their understanding of formative feedback was and how they practiced it
in their writing classroom. Secondly, these differences can be understood in terms of
teachers’ contexts, for example school-specific writing programmes, collegial support
and interaction, students’ ability, and each teacher’s professional development and
learning experiences. Lastly, emphasis on and implementation of formative assessment
and feedback may be limited, due to the influence of teachers’ pedagogical knowledge
and skills.

My findings revealed that the teachers in this study were aware of and believed
in feedback that is formative, using the terms consistent with contemporary literature
on feedback directed towards enhancing student learning. They highlighted the need to
ascertain students’ current performance, and to identify where they should be heading,
and understood that feedback could benefit students in their learning. This emphasized
200
the formative function of feedback. It was clear that these teachers’ beliefs about
assessment, teaching and learning played a significant role in their enactment of
formative feedback processes in their classrooms.

Additionally, however, teachers had incomplete conceptualisations of the role

of formative assessment and feedback, learning intentions or success criteria of, and
how they should be framed as part of formative feedback. As a result of teachers’
behaviourist beliefs, learning intentions and criteria shared by the teachers failed to
meet the standards of good feedback practice at times. The implication of this finding is
that feedback strategies in some New Zealand classrooms do not apprentice students
into becoming active participants in their learning, resulting in students being passive
consumers of feedback.

Criteria only function as part of formative feedback when they contain

information of expected quality, supported by exemplars to provide students access
into the ‘guild’ knowledge of the teacher, and encourage student engagement in self-
monitoring and self-regulatory behaviour. My findings indicate that teachers do share
learning intentions and success criteria, but do so on their own terms, giving little
consideration to the quality of the learning intentions and criteria as a means of sharing
guild knowledge with their students. This study highlights the importance of teachers
framing learning intentions and success criteria as part of a discussion, if their practice
is to become formative in nature, rather than merely instructive. Again, this might best
be achieved through a comprehensive and nationwide approach to professional
development.

Sadler (1989) argued that self and peer-assessment are authentic ways
students can acquire evaluative and productive expertise in making judgements during
working progress. The practice is of little value unless teachers build an understanding
of this process with them. Teachers may still have a distance to go to understand the
potential of implementing effective self and peer-assessment. Teachers may still
incorporate practices into their classroom without fully understanding the principles of
such practices (James & Pedder, 2006). If students are to meet the second and third of
Sadler’s conditions for effective feedback, a pre-requisite of evaluative and productive
knowledge and skills, teachers will need to allocate time to learning and practising the
process of peer and self-assessment in the classroom.

Despite the conclusion that teachers’ beliefs have been influential in their
interpretation and enactment of formative feedback, this study, like others, has
highlighted the complex interplay between beliefs and practice. Certain pervasive
aspects influence teachers’ thinking and action, and findings in this study strongly

201
suggest that these teachers were caught in a paradigm shift between behaviourist and
socio-cultural approaches to teaching and learning. This may have come about because
teachers were trained under a behaviourist paradigm, while current educational
reform advocates for student-centred, facilitative teaching and learning which reflect a
socio-cultural understanding of learning. It appears that teachers may still be
influenced by behaviourist analytical approaches that perceive feedback to be a matter
of making judgements (Torrance & Pryor, 1998).

The complex interplay between belief and practice corroborated in this study
reflects Fang’s (1996) consistency versus inconsistency theory. At times, teachers’
espoused beliefs had a high amount of consistency with their classroom practice. At
other times, unconscious beliefs about both student empowerment, and about how to
implement formative assessment influenced teachers’ practice in a manner
inconsistent with their espoused beliefs. This may have resulted from the teachers’
incomplete understanding of the purposes of feedback in the formative assessment
process. The conclusion of this study is that the relationship between teachers’ beliefs
and practices should not be underestimated. In fact, this interplay should be
investigated further, as it will likely reveal important indicators of the specific (and
powerful) ways teachers’ knowledge indirectly influences students’ learning outcomes.

Implications

This study indicates that not all teachers may have a complete understanding of
what formative feedback means in classroom practice (Sadler, 1998). Therefore,
serious consideration has to be given to the gap in teachers’ understanding and
knowledge, and their practice. In the following section, significant attention is paid to
some of the findings from the study. The implications of the study are considered in
relation to the formative assessment practice and teacher professional development.
The significance of the findings is left to the reader, as the nature of this study is small-
scale, and as I have noted, while cross-case analysis is intended to suggest broader
implications, total generalisation is both difficult and ill-advised.

Teachers’ formative assessment and feedback practice

It has been widely accepted that formative feedback is effective when students hold the
concept of quality as similar to teacher through sharing of ‘guild knowledge’. Sadler’s
(1989) argument is that students then possess the concept of standards/goals to close
the gap between their current performance and their desired performance and engage
in activities to close the gap. This concept has been accepted by other scholars
(Buhagiar, 2007; Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Nicol & MacFarlane-Dick, 2006). Policy
202
makers have promoted the concept and teachers have been encouraged to promote
similar strategies in their classrooms. For example, teachers in New Zealand are
encouraged to share learning goals with students (Ministry of Education, 2007b,
2010a), in the form of learning intentions and success criteria (Clarke et al., 2003). As
the findings of this study revealed, all three teachers understood this, and planned the
notion of learning goals/intentions and success criteria for their students. They
believed it was an important element to be incorporated into their classroom practice.
These learning goals/intentions and success criteria became a reference point of their
feedback. However, this seemed a challenge for teachers as their feedback was often in
reference to the pre-specified criteria and not responsive to the writing process, thus
missing significant teachable moments. Teachers believed good formative feedback
practice related to feedback on students’ success criteria. As a result, teachers failed to
recognise that good formative assessment and feedback practice encourages teachers
to utilise both manifest and latent criteria that emerge during the teaching and learning
process. This was prevalent in Lyn’s classroom but both Debra and Jane failed to
understand and use these criteria to enhance students learning.

Thus, it is argued that teacher had inadequate knowledge and conceptualisation

of formative assessment and feedback in regards to criteria and closing the gap (Sadler,
1989). The teachers had yet to gain full understanding of latent criteria in their
formative feedback practice. Little attention has been given to this aspect of Sadler’s
theory, and the findings of this study indicate a need to address this ‘gap’ in teachers.
Sadler’s concept of ‘closing the gap’ should be undertaken, but this time with focus on
teachers, who through targeted professional development might be helped to
understand and adopt good formative feedback practice. Teachers in this study, had
inadequate conceptualisations of learning goals and intentions and success criteria, and
struggled with framing feedback in a formative manner. As a result, Debra and Jane
often resorted to the action of ‘telling’ as their feedback. Teachers were unable to
provide formative feedback on the planned learning intentions and success criteria for
their students, thus the criteria of closing the gap between the current and desired
performances fell short of good formative feedback strategy. In order for formative
assessment to be effective, teachers need to plan the goals of teaching to fit the goals of
students’ learning, and be made aware of two distinctive types of assessment and
feedback, convergent and divergent (Torrance & Pryor, 1998).

Although teachers planned the criteria for students, their significance in

learning is observed when the feedback contains essential information to students on
the expected quality. This information alone does not show good formative feedback if
it is not supported by exemplars, informative of quality through teachers sharing of

203
guild knowledge with students, and students’ engagement in self-regulatory exercise. In
these findings, teachers have placed significant importance to sharing learning
intentions and success criteria (as reported in their interviews), with exception of Lyn,
who gave significant thought to the process with her students throughout her teaching
practice. Debra and Jane held the notion of quality tacitly, thus while they did provide
feedback based on learning intentions and success criteria, students lacked insider
knowledge of the quality, and took on the feedback as providing them with the correct
structure and answers. While it is impossible for all teachers to provide similar
formative feedback practice, quality in relation to learning intentions and success
criteria should become a point of reference of their feedback. Significant attention
should be paid to how it may be utilised in the teaching and learning process,
specifically regarding creating awareness within learners about the identification of
quality.

Peer and self-assessment are two formative assessment and feedback strategies
that Sadler (1989, 2009b) has argued create authentic experiences for students to
attain evaluative and productive skills to make qualitative judgements on their work
during learning. Yet, as the findings revealed not all teachers were in favour of the
practice. Some teachers believed that the practice was only reserved for native L1
students who had higher linguistic ability, thus the practice of peer and self-assessment
was the least utilised strategy in the classroom. Teachers were unwilling to share their
guild knowledge with students they deemed has lower proficiency or ability in the
process. As a result of teachers’ beliefs and the limited value that teachers placed on
peer and self-assessment, students were unable to develop their evaluative and
productive knowledge and expertise. Teachers in this study also struggled to make
explicit the expected quality of learning to students; although students were observed
participating in peer and self-assessment, the full concept of formative practice was
only observed in Lyn’s classroom. As Sadler (1989) argues, for peer and self-
assessment to be successful, and students reach their potential in learning, teachers
need to re-educate both teachers and students minds and recognize students as
insiders. Teachers need to accept students are capable of making qualitative
judgements if the necessary tools were provided and a culture of shared learning
practices is developed in the classroom. This is in contrast to a behaviourist
understanding of student learning, but central to formative assessment.

The findings from this study revealed many instances where teachers
incorporated formative assessment and feedback strategies into their teaching, or
utilising effective strategies to move students forward in their learning to the ‘next
learning steps’. However findings revealed that teachers’ conception of formative

204
assessment practices often did not include teachers’ fully understanding the principles
or strategies underpinning good and effective practice (James, 2008). These findings
indicate that formative assessment is neither fully understood nor implemented by
teachers, irrespective of their own learning experience as pre-service and in-service
teachers (Dixon et al., 2011; Marshall & Drummond, 2006).

School’s support

Teachers in this study were supported by distinctly different school-driven

initiatives to help teachers gain the skill in teaching of writing. As noted, if students are
to become active participants in their learning, teachers need sustained opportunities
and support to reflect on their practice and share their experience, especially about
students’ ability/disability further to their own classrooms. One concern is that not all
teachers have been introduced to formative feedback practice or had their existing
lesson planning and implementation monitored or supported. Findings from this study
indicate that teachers need continuous collegial support through discussions,
syndicates meeting and opportunities to widen their experience, significantly in their
planning, choices of teaching materials, and awareness of students’ ability/disability.

Although collegial support by itself does not strengthen teachers’

understanding of formative feedback, skill development and encouragement toward
reflection on practices enables teachers to examine and alter their beliefs and teaching
practices toward more effective practice (Desimone, et al., 2002). My study has
highlighted how teachers’ writing practice is distinctive in their contextual settings,
indirectly influencing the opportunities to practice the process approach in teaching of
writing and creating feedback opportunities for students. In fact, teachers in the study
consistently believed they did not have knowledge or access to information on the
teaching of writing, with only one teacher reporting having the support of a school
writing practice. These findings underscore the importance of getting teachers into the
process of deciding the knowledge and skills they want and need, through peer
interactions and strong collegial support.

Teacher professional development

A range of professional development programmes (such as AToL) are available

to New Zealand teachers. However, not all teachers are able to embrace all the
professional learning and development programmes available; schools are free to
choose the PD they want their teachers to attend, and also select the providers. Ad hoc
professional development allows classrooms to become a ‘black box’ of information,

205
where teachers practise their own interpretations of how writing should be taught and
how best to provide formative assessment.

The scope of this study included the effects of teacher engagement in

professional development on their feedback related beliefs, understanding and
practices, and revealed that teachers may believe they have not had access to PD with a
focus on assessment or teaching of writing. Therefore, the findings of this study may be
of interest to those who are responsible for assessment related teacher PD, in that it
reveals a gap in teachers’ professional learning which may also exist in other primary
schools.

My study, like other studies, has highlighted how both teacher practice and also
teacher belief may be influenced by PD. Teachers’ teaching of writing was influenced by
the type of PD they attended and this had an effect on the specific approaches they used
such as graphic organisers, modelling, the influence of students’ L1 and L2 and the use
of video to gain further insight into feedback strategies. This indication that PD does
have the power to change teachers’ beliefs and practices is a further incentive to engage
teachers in professional learning about formative assessment.

As PD for teachers on formative assessment and feedback and teaching of

writing has been available for teachers for many years, this study suggests that there
has been a negative impact from schools having the freedom to choose their PD,
especially in that it appears that not all primary school teachers have been exposed to
the same new learning. Although PD is not a quick fix that immediately improves
teachers’ existing knowledge and practice (Black & Wiliam, 2004), it can enhance
teachers’ knowledge and confidence to use this knowledge in a changing educational
environment (Glasswell et al., 2003; Torrance 2007). This study, like others conducted
through questionnaire, suggests that teachers need more knowledge about the teaching
of writing (Parr & Timperley, 2010). Certain innovations and knowledge introduced
through PD have fallen short in making significant changes, which may result from the
fact that primary schools in New Zealand set and develop their own targets for
performance (Brown, 2004). The results of this study suggest that such a model does
not offer equal opportunities for all primary teachers to gain from educational
innovations (Ladd & Fiske, 2001).

PD on formative assessment and feedback may not have an immediate effect on

teachers’ practices. It is not a matter of knowledge of a set of strategies being picked up
by teachers and implemented into the classroom with little other adjustment made
(James & Pedder, 2006). Teachers engaged in PD need continuous support and
opportunities to reflect on their practice and examine how outmoded ideas and

206
assumptions can be transformed to meet the current practice (Broadfoot, 2001;
Shepard, 2008). Furthermore if teachers want to make students active participants in
the process of learning, attention has to be paid to developing teachers’ knowledge,
understanding and skills in utilising feedback that is formative and fostering self-
monitoring and self-regulatory behaviour.

As discussed in Chapter Seven, teachers’ espoused beliefs and tacitly held

beliefs were influential on their practice of formative assessment and feedback.
Teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning have received little attention in the rush
to implement new innovation and strategies into classroom practice. Therefore, it is
important for those who run PD programmes encourage teachers to examine their
deep-seated beliefs (James & Pedder, 2006). The enactment of PD, while it is a gradual
and challenging process (Guskey, 2002), is acknowledged to some extent to have
influence on teachers’ changing practice. PD programmes must pay attention in helping
teachers gain skill in including students in the process.

Limitations of the study

Sadler’s (1989) proposed theorisation of formative assessment and feedback is

an attempt to offer a broader perspective on effective formative assessment and
feedback practice that involves students as insiders in the process of teaching and
learning. He argues that traditional feedback practice emphasized teachers as having
the main role in the implementation of good feedback practice. According to him,
research on formative assessment has often put teachers into the spotlight, however
the focus on teachers’ judgement should be concerned with more than just the
presence or absence of criteria and attention paid to students. He argues that formative
assessment and feedback works in any context, provided there is a teacher/student
partnership and interaction in the learning process.

Although Sadler’s (1989) theory was consistent with effective formative

feedback, the ‘closing the gaps’ concepts has been inferred as too limited to account for
the effectiveness of feedback (Gibbs & Simpson, 2004). These findings address the need
to reposition formative assessment and feedback within a wider framework that
consists of self-regulation theories, as well as behavioural and cognitive theories of
learning. Formative feedback, for example, involves students becoming ‘insiders’ to
their learning, actively taking control of their learning (behaviour) and learning to
monitor their own learning through self-regulations, eventually becoming autonomous
(self-regulation). Sadler’s (1989) formative assessment and feedback encompassed all
strategies undertaken by teachers and students to modify both teaching and learning in
closing the gap, through peer and self-assessment, learning goals/intentions, and
207
attainment. It is therefore difficult to ascertain the specific strategy by which to conduct
formative assessment and feedback in a manner that attributed learning and
attainment to students, as according to all three teachers’ students had successfully
completed their task.

As a small-scale qualitative inquiry, rather than focussing on reliability of the

findings, Lincoln and Guba (1985) suggest discerning the dependability and
consistency of the findings. This involves the audit trail as discussed earlier to augment
the trustworthiness of my study (Rosman and Rallis, 2012). As discussed in the
previous sections, the aim of my research was not to generalise the findings and
provide conclusions, but on exploring the complexity of formative assessment and
feedback within one the writing lesson. So while my study identifies some significant
insights into the primary classroom during the teaching of writing, particularly with
regard to how teachers’ beliefs influence the uptake and enactment of formative
assessment and feedback practices, it has a number of limitations. For example, the
utilisation of Sadler’s (1989) theoretical framework was constrained by my inability to
explore the link between socio-cultural aspects, professional learning and development
of teachers, and their planning, or their conferencing with students for the
identification of students’ current level of proficiency according to teachers’
perceptions of standards. To enable such connections and links to be explored, more
research and further commitment from teachers would be required. In the next section,
I propose further research and exploration within this area, which could form a
significant to the contribution to field of research on formative assessment and
feedback.

Another limitation is this research arose from the inability to report in–depth
on the influence of teachers’ selected formative assessment and feedback strategies on
students’ efficacy beliefs, motivation and achievement. It is very likely that these
aspects are significant to students’ achievement, and to their involvement in the
assessment and feedback process (Ashwell, 2000; Askew & Lodge, 2000), that teachers’
beliefs and practices were the focus of my study eliminated the prospects of collecting
data from students. Therefore further research focussing on how students’ efficacy
beliefs, motivation and achievement influence them in uptake of formative feedback
from teachers would be a valuable contribution for future research.

Future Research Directions

This study aimed to provide a rich description of teacher’s beliefs,

understanding, and formative feedback practice. As it was explained in Chapter 3,
deliberate decisions to not include students’ perception of the feedback process was
208
highlighted in the methodology, as this study was aimed at understanding teacher
beliefs and practice. As other studies have noted (Broadfoot, 2001; Cowie, 2005), while
the role of students have been given importance theoretically, a student perspective
has been absent from the research agenda. Evidence from this study suggests that it
may be challenging to teach students to become active participants in assessment or
take on a role that provides them with opportunities to build their evaluative and
productive knowledge. Therefore, an investigation into students’ perceptions of
formative feedback and their role within it would make a further contribution to the
field of research regarding assessment, and would complement this study.

There have been calls to investigate the assessment process in the classroom in
detail (Peddie, 2000), and to some extent this been researched overseas, and an
increase of studies reporting the practice of feedback can be found (Black et al., 2003;
Marshall & Drummond, 2006). However, research studies in New Zealand have been
both limited and small scale (Knight, 2003; Hawe et al., 2008); therefore there is a need
for more qualitative studies detailing New Zealand primary teachers’ formative
feedback practices within a range of different contexts, professional development
histories and student settings. Further study on gender, ethnicity, immigration status,
and linguistic differences in the formative assessment and feedback process could be
conducted. There is also a need for further research on teachers’ understanding of
learning goals, learning intentions and criteria for success and the role they play in the
feedback practice, and how teachers and students make use of them to make decisions
about teaching and learning. This might include teachers’ use of exemplars in
developing students’ evaluative and productive knowledge and feedback skills.

Findings from this study substantiated previously made claims about the
relationship between teacher beliefs and practice as complex and challenging.
Teachers’ beliefs were influential in regards to their teaching and learning, and
enactment of feedback practices in their classroom. It was beyond the scope of this
study to investigate teachers’ learning experience, all of their professional learning and
development experience, and their family and cultural background in depth. Research
that looked into these aspects would make valuable contributions to the field of
formative assessment and feedback.

As I have acknowledged in Chapter 3, no one research paradigm is better than

another, nor will it be able to solve all problems. The strength of qualitative,
interpretive research is its ability to provide rich description of the phenomenon it
investigates, especially from the perspective of the participants (Creswell, 2009).
However the weakness of the qualitative research is its lack of generalizability. I
acknowledge that utilising a quantitative approach to investigate teacher’s formative
209
feedback beliefs, understanding and practices would afford complementary
information. Survey questionnaires, like those utilised by Brown (2004) or James and
Pedder (2006) focussed on formative feedback beliefs and practices, could be
administered to a larger sample of primary teachers across New Zealand, hence
extending the scope and breadth of understanding. This would allow generalisation to a
wider cross-section of the population.

Contribution of the Current Research

There have been calls for continued contribution to the field of formative
assessment practice (Black & Wiliam, 2006, Sadler, 2010; Torrance & Pryor, 1998),
though in all cases these calls have accepted the problems inherent to investigating
teacher practice within the classroom setting. This study responds to calls for
contributions to knowledge of formative feedback and feedback-related beliefs of
teachers and their practices. A significant contribution of this research is its rich and
detailed description of teachers’ classroom practices, which has hopefully highlighted
the complexity of the enactment of formative assessment and feedback. In-depth
studies of the teachers in their contexts illustrate the fact that teachers’ experiences
and knowledge about the teaching and learning of writing do not completely fit with
the current philosophy of teaching and learning.

This is significant for practising teachers who may be exploring alternative

methods of effective assessment process. The three interviewed teachers provide
important insights into how teachers are caught in a paradigm shift, and acknowledge
that more information and skills may be needed to deal with their dynamic and
changing classrooms, specifically the diverse classroom and teaching multilevel or
multi-age classrooms. Within the primary school setting, little attention has been paid
to these facets of teachers’ practices, even though New Zealand classrooms are
becoming increasingly multicultural.

My research and analysis makes a valuable contribution to the field of

assessment and feedback, with respect to identifying a gap between teachers’
understanding about formative assessment and feedback when compared to the three
conditions for effective feedback laid out by Sadler (1989). It draws attention to
teachers’ limited understandings of students’ ability and linguistic proficiency, noting
that it often restricted them in fully utilising the formative assessment strategies in the
classroom. Teachers’ beliefs and assumptions about the linguistic proficiency of their
students influenced the selection formative feedback strategies such self and peer-
assessment.

210
Concluding Statement

My research has shown that teachers espouse beliefs about formative feedback
that are incomplete. While I found that teachers’ reported beliefs about their practice
had some similarities, the way those beliefs were enacted into practice showed
considerable variation. These variations were not only affected by teachers’ stated
beliefs, but by those beliefs they held tacitly. It is apparent that feedback that is
formative cannot be enacted into classroom practice without making changes to
teachers’ beliefs. It is therefore important to reflect on the embedded beliefs that
influence teachers’ teaching and learning practice if the three conditions of effective
feedback are to be met. Most importantly, teachers need professional support if they
are to acquire and use this knowledge.

211
 References

Abelson, R. (1979). Differences between belief systems and knowledge systems.

Cognitive Science, 3, 355-366.
Absolum, M., Flockton, L., Hattie, J., Hipkins R., & Reid, I., (2009). Directions for
Assessment in New Zealand (DANZ), Ministry of Education. Retrieved January
2012 from http://www.assessment.tki.org.nz/Assessment-in-the-
classroom/Directions-for-assessment-in-New-Zealand-DANZ-report.
Aguirre, J., & Speer, N. M. (2000). Examining the relationship between beliefs and goals
in teacher practice. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 18(3), 327-356.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social
behaviour. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Anderson, H. (1999). Collaborative learning communities. In S. McNamee & K. Gergen
(Eds.), Relational responsibilities: Resources for sustainable dialogue (pp. 65-70).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Andrade, H., & Valtcheva, A. (2009). Promoting learning and achievement through self-
assessment. Theory into Practice, 48(1), 12-19.
Arndt, V. (1992). Response to writing: Using feedback to inform the writing process.
Multilingual Matters, 90-90.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Razavieh, A., & Sorensen, C. (2006). Introduction to research
in Education (7th ed.). Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth.
Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers’ sense of efficacy and
student achievement. New York, NY: Longman.
Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft
composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best
method? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 227-257.
Askew, S. & Lodge, C. (2000). Gifts, ping-pong and loops. In S. Askew (Ed.) Feedback for
Learning (pp. 1-17) London: Routledge.
Assessment Focus Group. (2004). Assess to learn: Promoting excellence in teaching.
Wellington: Ministry of Education.
Assessment Reform Group. (1999). Assessment for learning: Beyond the Black Box.
Cambridge: Cambridge University School of Education.
Assessment Reform Group. (2002). Assessment for learning: I0 principles. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Faculty of Education.
Avalos, B. (2011). Teacher professional development in teaching and teacher
education over ten years. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), 10-20.
Baker, T.L. (1994). Doing social research (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Inc.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioural change.
212
 Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1981). Self-referent thought: A developmental analysis of self-efficacy. In J.
Flavell & L. Ross (Eds.), Social cognitive development: Frontiers and possible
futures (pp. 200-239). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive
theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 248-287.
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human
behaviour. (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81) New York: Academic Press.
Bandura, A. (1995). Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies.
Cambridge, USA: Cambridge University Press.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1983). Self-evaluative and self-efficacy mechanisms
governing the motivational effects of goal systems. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 45(5), 1017-1028.
Bangert-Drowns, R., Hurley, M. M., & Wilkinson, B. (2004). The effects of school-based
writing-to-learn interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis.
Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 29-58.
Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, C. L., Kulik, J. A., & Morgan, M. T. (1991). The instructional
effect of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research, 61,
213–237.
Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S., & Ellis, R. (2004). Teachers' stated beliefs about
incidental focus on form and their classroom practices. Applied Linguistics,
25(2), 243-272.
Battista, M. (1994). Teacher beliefs and the reform movement in mathematics
Education. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(6), 462-468.
Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and
implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544-559.
Bell, B., & Cowie, B. (1997). Formative assessment and science education. Research
report of the Learning in Science Project (Assessment). Hamilton, New Zealand:
University of Waikato.
Bell, B., & Cowie, B. (1999). Researching formative assessment. In J. Loughran (Ed.),
Researching teaching: Methodologies and practices for understanding pedagogy
(pp. 198-214). London: Falmer Press.
Bell, B., & Cowie, B. (2001). The characteristics of formative assessment in science
education. Science Education, 85(5), 536-553.

213
Bell, B. & Gilbert, J. (1996). Teacher development. London: Falmer Press.
Berg, B. L. (2007). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (6th ed).
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Birenbaum, M., Kimron, H., & Shilton, H. (2011). Nested contexts that shape
assessment for learning: School-based professional learning community and
classroom culture. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(1), 35-48.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant
and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 409-431.
Black, P. (2000). Research and the development of educational assessment. Oxford
Review of Education, 26(3 &4), 47-419.
Black, P. (2005). Formative assessment: views through different lenses. Curriculum
Journal, 16(2), 133-135.
Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2003). Assessment for
learning: Putting it into practice. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2004). Working inside the
black box: Assessment for learning in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(1), 8-
14.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998a). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in
Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7-74.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998b). Inside the black box: Raising standards through
classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 139-148.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2004). The formative purpose: Assessment must first promote
learning. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 103(2), 20-
50.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2006). Developing a theory of formative assessment. In J.
Gardner (Ed.), Assessment and learning (pp. 81–100). London: Sage.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment.
Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability (formerly: Journal of
Personnel Evaluation in Education), 21(1), 5-31.
Bloom, B. S. (1954). The thought processes of students in discussion. In S. J. French
(Ed.), Accent on teaching: Experiments in general education, New York: Harper
Brothers
Bloom, B., Hastings, J., & Madaus, G. (1971). Handbook on the formative and summative
evaluation of student learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Boekaerts, M. (2006). Self-regulation and effort investment. In K. A. Renninger & I. E.
Sigel (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology volume 4: Child psychology in practice
(6th ed., pp. 345–377). New York, NY: Wiley.

214
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2006). Qualitative research in (validation) and qualitative
(inquiry) studies. Boston, MA: Allyn &Bacon.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction
to theories and methods. Boston: Pearson.
Boramy, S. (2010). Using directive and facilitative feedback to improve student writing:
A case study of a Higher Education setting in Cambodia. Language Education in
Asia 1.
Borg, M. (2001). Key concepts in ELT. Teachers beliefs. ELT Journal, 55(2), 186-188.
Borich, G. (1999). In R. P. Lipka, & T. M. Brinthaupt (Eds.) The role of self in teacher
development (pp. 92-117). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Borko, H. (2004). Professional Development and Teacher Learning: Mapping the
Terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3-15.
Borko, H., & Putnam, R. (1996). Learning to teach. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.),
Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 673–708). New York: MacMillan.
Boscolo, P. (2008). Writing in primary school. Handbook of research on writing: History,
society, school, individual, text, 293-309.
Boston, C. (2002). The concept of formative assessment. Practical Assessment, Research
& Evaluation, 8(9), 1-5.
Boud, D. (1995). Assessment and learning: contradictory or complimentary? 35-48 in
Knight, P. (Ed.) Assessment for Learning in Higher Education, London: Kogan
Page/SEDA.
Boud, D. (2000). Sustainable assessment: Rethinking assessment for the learning
society. Studies in Continuing Education, 22(2), 151-167.
Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2006). Aligning assessment with long‐term learning.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(4), 399-413.
Bouma, G. (1996). The research process. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Bourke, R. (2000). Students’ conceptions of learning and self-assessment in context.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massey University, Palmerston North, New
Zealand.
Bourke, R., Mentis, M., & Todd, L. (2010). Visibly learning: teachers’ assessment
practices for students with high and very high needs. International Journal of
Inclusive Education, 15(4), 405-419.
Bradley, J. (1993). Methodological Issues and Practices in Qualitative Research. The
Library Quarterly, 63(4), 431-449.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind,
experience and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Briscoe, C. (1991). The dynamic interactions among beliefs, role metaphors, and

215
 teaching practices: A case study of teacher change. Science Education, 75(2),
185-199.
Broadfoot, P. (1998). Records of achievement and the learning society: A tale of two
discourses. Assessment in Education, 5(3), 447-477.
Broadfoot, P. (2001). Editorial: New Wine in old bottles? The challenge of change for
educational assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice,
8(2), 109-112.
Brookhart, S. M. (2004). Classroom assessment: Tensions and intersections in theory
and practice. Teachers College Record, 106(3), 429-458.
Brookhart, S. M. (2012).Teacher feedback in formative classroom assessment. In C. F. F.
Webber & J. L. L. Lupart (Eds.), Leading student assessment (pp. 225-239). New
York: Springer.
Brookhart, S. M., & Freeman, D. J. (1992). Characteristics of entering teacher candidates.
Review of Educational Research, 62(1), 37-60.
Brown, G. T. L. (2004). Teachers' conceptions of assessment: implications for policy
and professional development. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy &
Practice, 11(3), 301-318.
Brown, G.T.L. (2008). Assessment literacy training and teachers’ conceptions of
assessment. In C. Rubie- Davies & C. Rawlinson (Eds.), Challenging Thinking
about Teaching and Learning (pp. 269–285). New York: Nova Science.
Brownlee, J., & Dart, B., Boulton-Lewis, G., & McGrindle, A. (1998). The integration of
pre-service teachers’ naïve and informed beliefs about learning and teaching.
Asia-Pasific Journal of Teacher Education, 26(2), 107-120.
Bruner, J. S. (1961). Towards a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University.
Bryman, A. (2001). Social research methods. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Bryman, A. (2008), The end of the paradigm wars?. In P. Alasuutari, L. Bickman, L. & J.
Brannen, (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Social Research Methods(pp. 13-25),
London: Sage.
Buhagiar, M. A. (2007). Classroom assessment within the alternative assessment
paradigm: revisiting the territory. The Curriculum Journal, 18(1), 39-56.
Bullock, D. (2011). Learner self-assessment: an investigation into teachers’ beliefs. ELT
Journal, 65(2), 114-125.
Buly, M. R., & Valencia, S. W. (2002). Below the bar: Profiles of students who fail state
reading assessments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(3), 219-
239.
Butler, R. (1987) Task-involving and ego-involving properties of evaluation: effects of

216
 different feedback conditions on motivational perceptions, interest and
performance, Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(4), 210–216.
Butler, D., & Winne, P. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical
synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245–274.
Calderhead, J. (1981). Stimulated recall: A method for researching on teaching. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 51(2), 211-217.
Carless, D. (2005). Prospects for the implementation of assessment for learning.
Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 12(1), 39-54.
Carnell, E. (2000). Dialogue, discussion and feedback - views of secondary school
students on how others help their learning. In S. Askew (Ed.), Feedback for
learning (pp. 46–61). London: Routledge.
Cauley, K. M., & McMillan, J. H. (2009). Formative assessment techniques to support
student motivation and achievement. Clearing House, 83, 1–6.
Cazden, C., Cope, B., Fairclough, N., Gee, J., Kress, G., Kalantzis, M., et al. (1996). A
pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational
Review, 66(1), 60-92.
Clark, I. (2010). Formative assessment: 'There is nothing so practical as a good
theory.’ Australian Journal of Education, 54(3), 341-352.
Clark, I. (2011). Formative assessment: Assessment is for self-regulated learning.
Educational Psychology Review, 1-45.
Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers' thought processes. In M. Wittrock (Ed.),
Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 255-296). New York: Macmillan.
Clarke, S. (2000). Getting it right- distance marking as accessible feedback in the
primary classroom. In S. Askew (Ed.), Feedback for learning (pp. 32-45).
London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Clarke, S. (2001). Unlocking formative assessment: practical strategies for enhancing
pupils' learning in the primary classroom. Hodder & Stoughton Educational.
Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional
growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(8), 947-967.
Clarke, S., Timperley, H., & Hattie, J. (2003). Unlocking formative assessment.
Auckland: Hodder Moa Beckett.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1990). Research on teaching and teacher research:
The issues that divide. Educational researcher, 19(2), 2-11.
Cohen, S. (2004). Teachers’ professional development and the elementary mathematics
classroom: Bringing understandings to light. Mahwah,New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Cohen, D. K., & Ball, D. L. (1990). Relations between policy and practice: A commentary.

217
 Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 331-338.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2003). Research methods in education (5th ed.).
London: Routledge-Falmer.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6 ed.). New
York, NY: Routledge-Falmer.
Connors, R. J., & Lunsford, A. A. (1993). Teachers’ rhetorical comments on student
papers. College Composition and Communication, 44, 200–223.
Conrad, S., & Goldstein, L. (1999). ESL student revision after written comments: Texts,
contexts and individuals. Journal of Second Language Learning, 8, 147–180.
Corbett, A. T., & Anderson, J. R. (2001). Feedback timing and student control in the LISP
intelligent tutoring system. In D. Bierman (Ed.), Proceedings of the
fourth international conference on artificial intelligence and education (pp. 64–
72). Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press.
Corno, L., & Snow, R. (1986). Adapting teaching to individual differences among
learners. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 605-629).
New York: Macmillan.
Cowie, B. (2005). Pupil commentary on assessment for learning. Curriculum Journal,
16(2), 137 - 151.
Cowie, B., & Bell, B. (1999). A Model of Formative Assessment in Science Education.
Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 6(1), 101-116.
Creswell, J.W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches.
Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
Creswell, J.W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
traditions. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five
approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Prentice
Hall.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods
approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage
Crisp, B. (2007). Is it worth the effort? How feedback influences students’ subsequent
submissions of assessable work. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,
32, 571–81.
Crooks, T. J. (1988). The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students. Review
of Educational Research, 58(4), 438-481.
Crooks, T. J. (2002). Educational assessment in New Zealand schools. Assessment in

218
 Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 9(2), 237-253.
Crooks, T., & Flockton, L. (2004). Science assessment results 2003. Dunedin: Educational
Assessment Research Unit.
Crooks, T. J., Kane, M. T., & Cohen, A. S. (1996). Threats to the valid use of assessment.
Assessment in Education, 3(3), 265-285.
Crossouard, B. (2009). A sociocultural reflection on formative assessment and
collaborative challenges in the states of Jersey. Research Papers in Education,
24(1), 77-93.
Cutler, L., & Graham, S. (2008). Primary grade writing instruction: A national survey.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 907.
Dalke, A., & Grobstein, P. (2010). Three-dimensional story telling: An exploration of
teaching reading, writing, and beyond. Journal of Teaching Writing, 23(1), 91-
114.
Dadds, M. (1998). Supporting practitioner research: A challenge. Educational Action
Research, 6(1), 39–52.
Dalke, A., & Grobstein, P. (2010). Three-dimensional story telling: An exploration of
teaching reading, writing, and beyond. Journal of Teaching Writing, 23(1), 91-
114.
Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Policies that support professional
development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 597–604.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Sykes, G. (1999). Teaching as the learning profession:
Handbook of policy and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publisher.
Day, J. D., & Cordón, L. A. (1993). Static and dynamic measures of ability: An
experimental comparison. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(1), 75.
Delamont, S. (1992). Fieldwork in educational settings. London: Falmer Press
Delandshere, G. (2002). Assessment as inquiry. The Teachers College Record, 104(7),
1461-1484.
Denscombe, M. (2003). The good research guide for small-scale social research
projects, (2nd ed.). Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Denscombe, M. (2007). The good research guide: For small-scale social research
projects (3rd ed.). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of
qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (3rd Eds.), The SAGE
handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1-32). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2008). The landscape of qualitative research. London: Sage

219
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (4th
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Desimone, L. M., Porter, A. C., Garet, M. S., Yoon, K. S., & Birman, B. F. (2002). Effects of
professional development on teachers’ instruction: Results from a three-year
longitudinal study. Educational Evaluation and policy Analysis, 24(2), 81-112.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relationship of reflective thinking
to the educative process. Boston: D.C. Heath.
Dix, S. (2012). Discursively complex identities of New Zealand teachers of writing in
times of contestation and change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(3), 405-
417.
Dix, S., & Cawkwell, G. (2011). The influence of peer group response: Building a teacher
and student expertise in the writing classroom. English Teaching: Practice and
Critique, 10(4), 41-57.
Dixon, H. (1999). The effects of policy and practice: An analysis of teachers’ perception of
school based assessment practice. Unpublished MedAdmin thesis, Massey
University, Palmerston North, New Zealand.
Dixon, H. (2011a). The influence of teachers’ efficacy beliefs on their uptake and
implementation of new ideas and practices. Assessment Matters, 3, 71-92.
Dixon, H. R. (2011b). Infusing peer assessment into classroom programmes:
Descriptions of practice. SET: Research Information for Teachers, 2, 3-10.
Dixon, H. R., Hawe, E., & Parr, J. (2011). Enacting Assessment for Learning: the beliefs
practice nexus. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(4), 365-
379.
Dixon, H. R. & Wiliams, R. (2003). Formative assessment and the professional
development of teachers: Are we focussing on what is important. SET:
Research Information for Teachers, 2, 35-39.
Dobber, M., Akkerman, S. F., Verloop, N., & Vermunt, J. D. (2012). Student teachers’
collaborative research: Small-scale research projects during teacher education.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(4), 609-617.
Duijnhouwer, H., Prins, F. J., & Stokking, K. M. (2012). Feedback providing improvement
strategies and reflection on feedback use: Effects on students’ writing
motivation, process, and performance. Learning and Instruction, 22(3), 171-184.
Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Conceptual change: A powerful framework for
improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science
Education, 25, 671–688.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American psychologist,
41(10), 1040-1048.

220
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and
personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256.
Dyson, A. H., & Freedman, S. W. (2003). Writing. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. R. Squire, & J. M.
Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (2nd
ed., pp. 967‐992). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Earl, L., & Katz, S. (2000). Changing classroom assessment: Teachers' struggles.
In N. Bascia & A. Hargreaves (Eds.), The sharp edge of educational change:
Teaching, leading and realities of reform (pp. 97 -111). London: Routledge
Falmer.
Earl, L., & Katz, S. (2008). Getting to the core of learning: Using assessment for
self-monitoring and self-regulation. In S. Swaffield (Ed.), Unlocking assessment:
understanding for reflection and application. New York: Routledge.
Ecclestone, K. (2002). Learning autonomy in post-16 education: The politics and practice
of formative assessment. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Ecclestone, K., & Pryor, J. (2003). ‘Learning careers’ or 'assessment careers’? The
impact of assessment systems on learning. British Educational Research Journal,
29(4), 471-488.
Education Review Office. (2007). Quality teaching in years 4 and 8: Writing. Wellington:
Education Review Office.
Elliott, J. (1998). The curriculum experiment: Meeting the challenge of social change.
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Elliott, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement.
Journal of personality and social psychology, 54(1), 5-12.
Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97-
107.
Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and
unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language
context. System, 36(3), 353-371.
Elmore, R. F. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard
Educational Review, 66(1), 1.
Elwood, J. (2006). Formative assessment: possibilities, boundaries and
limitations. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 13(2), 215-
232.
Emmer, T. E., & Hickman, J. (1991). Teacher efficacy in classroom management and
disciplines. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 51 (3), 755-765.
Evers, W. J., Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (2002). Burnout and self‐efficacy: A study on

221
 teachers' beliefs when implementing an innovative educational system in the
Netherlands. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(2), 227-243.
Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational
Research, 38(1), 47-65.
Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does
it need to be?. Journal of second language writing, 10(3), 161-184.
Flockton, L., Crooks, T., & White, J. (2007). New Zealandʹs National Education Monitoring
Project: Assessing writing: 2006 report. Dunedin, NZ: Educational Assessment
Research Unit. Retrieved January 12, 2010, from
http://nemp.otago.ac.nz/writing/2006/assessing/index.htm.Report available
in pdf at http://nemp.otago.ac.nz/PDFs/writing_06/chapter2.pdf
Flower, L. & Hayes, J. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College
Composition and Communication, 32, 365-387.
Frey, N., & Fisher, D. (2009). Using common formative assessments as a source of
professional development in an urban American elementary school. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 25(5), 674-680.
Fullan, M., & Mascall, B. (2000). Human resource issues in education: A literature
review. Wellington: New Zealand Ministry of Education.
Gardner, J. (2006). Assessment and learning: An introduction. In J. Gardners (Ed.),
Assessment and learning (pp. 1-5). London: SAGE Publications.
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language
research. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gebhardt, R. (1980). Teamwork and feedback: Broadening the base of collaborative
writing. College English, 42(1), 69-74.
Ghaith, G., & Yaghi, H. (1997). Relationships among experience, teacher efficacy, and
attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 13(4), 451-458.
Gibbs, G. & Simpson, C. (2004) Conditions under which assessment supports students’
learning? Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1, 3–31.
Gipps, C. (1994). Beyond testing: Towards a theory of educational assessment.
London: Falmer Press.
Gipps, C. (1999). Socio-cultural aspects of assessment. Review of Research in Education,
24 (1), 355-392.
Gipps, C. (2002) Sociocultural perspectives on assessment. In G. Wells & G. Claxton
(Eds), Learning for life in the 21st century: sociocultural perspectives on the
future of education (pp. 21–31). Oxford: Blackwell.
Gipps, C., McCallum, B. & Hargreaves, E. (2000). What makes a good primary school

222
 teacher? Expert classroom strategies. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Glasswell, K., Parr, J. M., & McNaughton, S. (2003). Four ways to work against
yourself when conferencing with struggling writers. Language Arts,
80(4), 291‐299.
Good, T., & Brophy, J. (1978). Behavioral expression of teacher attitudes. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 63, 617-624.
Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Troia, G. A. (2000). Self-regulated strategy development
revisited: Teaching writing strategies to struggling writers. Topics in Language
Disorders, 20(4), 1-14.
Graves , D. H. (2003). Writing: Teachers and children at work (20th anniversary Ed.).
Portsmouth , NH : Heinemann.
Gregory, I. (2003). Ethics in research. London: Continuum.
Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher
education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Grossman, P. L., Smagorinsky, P., & Valencia, S. (1999). Appropriating tools for teaching
English: A theoretical framework for research on learning to teach. American
Journal of Education, 1-29.
Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1985). Effective evaluation: improving the usefulness of
evaluation results through responses and naturalist approaches. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Gué nette, D. (2013). The pedagogy of error correction: Surviving the written corrective
feedback challenge. TESL Canada Journal, 30(1), 117.
Guskey, T. R. (1988). Teacher efficacy, self-concept, and attitudes toward the
implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4,
63-69.
Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and
Teaching, 8(3), 381-391.
Hairston, M. (1982). The winds of change: Thomas Kuhn and the revolution in the
teaching of writing. College Composition and Communication, 33(1), 76-88.
Hall, K., & Burke, W. (2004). Making formative assessment work: Effective practice in the
primary classroom, Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Hammersley, M. (2002). The relationship between qualitative and quantitative
research: Paradigm loyalty versus methodological eclecticism. In J. T. E.
Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of qualitative research methods for psychology and
the social sciences (pp. 159-174). Oxford: BPS Blackwell.
Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (1998). What's worth fighting for in education?
London: Open University Press.

223
Hargreaves, E. (2005). Assessment for learning? Thinking outside the (black) box.
Cambridge Journal of Education, 35(2), 213-224.
Hargreaves, E. (2011). Teachers’ feedback to pupils: “Like so many bottles thrown out
to sea”? In R. Berry & B. Adamson (Eds.), Assessment Reform in Education. (Vol.
14, pp. 121-133). Springer Netherlands.
Hargreaves, E., &McCallum, B. (1998). Written feedback to children from teachers ESRC
Project ‘Teaching, Assessment and Feedback Strategies’. Project Paper No. 7.
London: University of London, Institute of Education.
Hargreaves, E., McCallum, B., & Gipps, C. (2000). Teacher feedback strategies in primary
classrooms: New evidence. In Askew, S. (Ed.), Feedback for learning (pp 21-3).
London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Harlen, W. (1998, December). Classroom assessment: A dimension of purposes and
procedures. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the New Zealand
Association for Research in Education, University of Otago, Dunedin.
Harlen, W. (2000). Teaching, learning and assessing science 5–12. London: Paul
Chapman Publishing.
Harlen, W. (2005). Teachers' summative practices and assessment for learning
tensions and synergies. Curriculum Journal, 16(2), 207 - 223.
Harlen, W., Gipps, C., Broadfoot, P., & Nuttall, D. (1992). Assessment and the
improvement of education. The Curriculum Journal, 3(3), 215-230.
Harlen, W., & James, M. (1997). Assessment and Learning: differences and relationships
between formative and summative assessment. Assessment in Education:
Principles, Policy & Practice, 4(3), 365-379.
Harris, L. R., & Brown, G. T. L. (2009). The complexity of teachers’ conceptions of
assessment: Tensions between the needs of schools and students. Assessment in
Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 16(3), 365-381.
Hartman, H. (2002). Scaffolding & cooperative learning. Human Learning and
Instruction. New York: City College of City University of New York.
Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. Albany: State
University of New York Press.
Hattie, J. A. (2009). The black box of tertiary assessment: An impending revolution.
Tertiary assessment & higher education student outcomes: Policy, practice &
research, 259-275.
Hattie, J. A., Brown, G. T. L., & Keegan, P. J. (2003). A national teacher managed,
curriculum-based assessment system: Assessment Tools for Teaching &
Learning (asTTle). International Journal of Learning, 10, 771-778.
Hattie, J., & Jaeger, R. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning: A deductive

224
 approach. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 5(1), 111–
122.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational
Research, 77(1), 81-112.
Hawe, E., Dixon, H., & Watson, E. (2008). Oral feedback in the context of written
language. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 31(1), 43-58.
Hawe, E. M., & Parr, J. M. (2013). Assessment for learning in the writing classroom: An
incomplete realisation. The Curriculum Journal, 1-27
Heritage, M. (2007). Formative Assessment: What Do Teachers Need to Know and Do?
Phi Delta Kappan, 89(2), 140-145.
Hill, M. (2000). Dot, slash, cross: How assessment can drive teachers to ticking
instead of teaching. Set 1, 21-25.
Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories:
Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of
Educational Research, 67(1), 88-140.
Holt-Reynolds, D. (2000). What does the teacher do?: Constructivist pedagogies
and prospective teachers’ beliefs about the role of a teacher. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 16(1), 21-32.
Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. B. (2002). The qualitative researcher's companion.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Huot, B. (2002). Re-articulating writing. Logan: Utah State University Press.
Hyland, F. (2000). ESL writers and feedback: Giving more autonomy to students.
Language Teaching Research, 4(l), 33 -54.
Irons, A. (2008). Enhancing learning through formative assessment and feedback. New
York: Routledge.
James, M. (2006). Assessment, teaching and theories of learning. In J. Gardner (Ed.),
Assessment and learning (pp. 104-115). London: Hodder & Stoughton.
James, M. (2008). Assessment and learning. In S. Swaffield (Ed.), Unlocking assessment:
Understanding for reflection and application (pp. 20-35). Abingdon: Routledge.
James, M., & Pedder, D. (2006). Beyond method: assessment and learning practices and
values. The Curriculum Journal, 17(2), 109-138.
Joyce, C., Spiller, L., & Twist, J. (2009). Self-assessment: What teachers think?. New
Zealand Council for Educational Research.
Kagan, D. M. (1992). Implication of research on teacher Belief. Educational
Psychologist, 27(1), 65-90.
Kahl, S. (2005). Where in the world are formative tests? Right under your
nose! Education Week, 25(9), p. 38.

225
Kaplan, J. S. (2008). The national writing project: Creating a professional learning
community that supports the teaching of writing. Theory into Practice, 47 (4),
336-344.
Kennedy, E., & Shiel, G. (2013). Raising literacy achievement levels through
collaborative professional development. International Handbook of Research on
Children's Literacy, Learning, and Culture, 485-498.
Kepner, C. G. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback
to the development of second‐language writing skills. The Modern Language
Journal, 75(3), 305-313.
Kingston, N., & Nash, B. (2011). Formative assessment: A meta-analysis and a call for
research. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30, 28–37.
Klenowski, V., Askew, S., & Carnell, E. (2006). Portfolios for learning, assessment and
professional development in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education, 31(3), 267-286.
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance:
A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention
theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254.
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1998). Feedback interventions: Toward the understanding of
a double-edged sword. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 7(3), 67-72.
Knight, N. (2003). Teacher feedback to students in numeracy lessons: Are students
getting good value? SET: Research Information for Teachers, 3, 40–44.
Kulhavy, R. (1977). Feedback in written instruction. Review of Educational Research,
47(2), 211-232.
Kulhavy, R. W., & Stock, W. A. (1989). Feedback in written instruction: The place of
response certitude. Educational Psychology Review, 1(4), 279-308.
Kulhavy, R. W., White, M. T., Topp, B. W. C., Chan, A. L., & Adams, J. (1985). Feedback
complexity and corrective efficiency. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
10(3), 285–291.
Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ladd, H. F., & Fiske, E. B. (2001). The uneven playing field of school choice: Evidence
from New Zealand. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 20, 1, 43-63.
Leat, D., & Nichols, A. (2000). Brains on the table: Diagnostic and formative assessment
through observation. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 7(1),
103-121.
Lee, I. (2007). Feedback in Hong Kong secondary writing classrooms: Assessment for
learning or assessment of learning? Assessing Writing, 12(3), 180-198.

226
Lerner, R. M. (2002). Concepts and theories of human development (3rd ed.). Mahwah,
NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
Levin, B. (2001) Reforming Education: From origins to outcomes. London:
RoutledgeFalmer.
Levin, T., & Wadmany, R. (2005). Changes in educational beliefs and classroom
practices of teachers and students in rich technology-based classrooms.
Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 14(3), 281-307.
Levin, T., & Wadmany, R. (2008). Teachers’ views on factors affecting effective
integration of information technology in the classroom: Developmental scenery.
Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16(2), 233-263.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Limbrick, L., Buchanan, P. Z., Goodwin, M., & Schwarcz, H., (2005). Developing
a self-sustaining professional development programme in writing in a group of
schools in the Manurewa Enhancement Initiative. Unpublished report on a
collaborative project between the Faculty of Education, University of Auckland,
Auckland, New Zealand, and the Manurewa Enhancement Initiative.
Limbrick, L., Buchanan, P., Goodwin, M., & Schwarcz, H. (2010). Doing things differently:
The outcomes of teachers researching their own practice in teaching writing.
Canadian Journal of Education, 33(4), 897-924.
Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). The role of self-efficacy beliefs in student
engagement and learning in the classroom. Reading &Writing Quarterly, 19(2),
119-137.
Lock, C. L., & Munby, H. (2000). Changing assessment in the classroom: A study of one
teacher’s change. The Alberta Journal of Education Research, 46, 267-279.
Locke, T. (2005). Writing positions and rhetorical spaces. In B. Doecke & G. Parr
(Ed.), Writing=Learning (pp. 75-95). Kent Town, SA: AATE/Wakefield Press.
Locke, E., & Latham, G. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Locke, T., Whitehead, D., Dix, S., & Cawkwell, G. (2011). New Zealand teachers respond
to the ‘National Writing Project’ experience. Teacher Development, 15(3), 273-
291.
Looney, J. (2007). Formative Assessment in adult language, literacy and numeracy.
Assessment in Education, 14(3), 373-386.
Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study (pp. 1-54). Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Maloney, C., & Konza, D. (2011). A case study of teachers' professional learning:

227
 Becoming a community of professional learning or not?. Issues in Educational
Research, 21(1), 75-87.
Marsh, C. (2007). A critical analysis of the use of formative assessment in schools.
Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 6(1), 25-29.
Marshall, B. (2004). Goals or horizons-The conundrum of progression in English: Or a
possible way of understanding formative assessment in English. The Curriculum
Journal, 15(2), 101-113.
Marshall, B., & Drummond, M. (2006). How teachers engage with assessment for
learning: Lessons from the classroom. Research papers in Education, 21(2), 133-
149.
Matsumura, L., Patthey-Chavez, G., Valdes, R., & Garnier, H. (2002). Teacher feedback,
writing assignment quality, and third-grade students’ revision in lower- and
higher-achieving urban schools. The Elementary School Journal, 103, 3–25.
McCallum, B., Hargreaves, E., & Gipps, C. (2000). Learning: The pupil's voice. Cambridge
Journal of Education, 30(2), 275-289.
McConlogue, T. (2012). But is it fair? Developing students’ understanding of grading
complex written work through peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education, 37(1), 113-123.
McCormick, C. B. (2003). Metacognition and learning. In W. M. Reynolds & G. E. Miller
(Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 79-102). New York: Wiley
McDonald, L. (2011). Transfer of Training in Teacher PD: a Process-outcome
orientation. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29(0), 1885-1894.
McKay, P. (2006). Assessing Young Language Learners. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
McNaughton, S., & Lai, M. K. (2009). A model of school change for culturally and
linguistically diverse students in New Zealand: A summary and evidence from
systematic replication. Teaching Education, 20(1), 55-75.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. B. (2001). Qualitative research and case study applications in education:
Revised and expanded from case study research in education. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M.B., and Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Miller, R., & Brewer, J. (2003). The A-Z of social research. London: SAGE
Publication.
Ministry of Education. (1992). Dancing with the pen. Wellington, New Zealand:

228
 Learning Media.
Ministry of Education. (1993). The New Zealand Curriculum Framework. Wellington:
Learning Media.
Ministry of Education. (1994). Assessment: Policy to practice. Wellington: Learning
Media.
Ministry of Education. (1999). Report of the literacy taskforce. Wellington: Ministry of
Education.
Ministry of Education. (2002). Curriculum Stocktake Report to the Ministry of Education.
Wellington.
Ministry of Education. (2003a). Effective literacy practices in years 1 to 4. Wellington,
NZ: Learning Media Ltd.
Ministry of Education. (2003b). English in the New Zealand curriculum; English
writing exemplars. Wellington, NZ: Learning Media Ltd.
Ministry of Education. (2006). Effective literacy practice in years 5 to 8. Wellington,
NZ: Learning Media Ltd.
Ministry of Education. (2007a). The New Zealand curriculum. Wellington: Learning
Media.
Ministry of Education. (2007b). New Zealand curriculum for English-medium teaching
and learning in years 1-13. Wellington: Learning Media.
Ministry of Education. (2010a). Assessment tools for teaching and learning, writing.
Retrieved 6 November 2012, from
http://www.tki.org.nz/r/asttle/user/writing-tuhituhi-ex_e.php
Ministry of Education. (2010b). National Standards factsheet: Overall teacher
judgment (OTJ). Retrieved 4 December 2012, from Te Kete Ipurangi: http://
nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/National-Standards/Key-information/Fact-sheets/
Overall-teacher-judgment
Moreno, R. (2004). Decreasing cognitive load for novice students: effects of explanatory
versus corrective feedback in discovery-based multimedia. Instructional
Science, 32, 99–113.
Mory, E. H. (2004). Feedback research revisited. In D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Handbook of
research on educational communications and technology (2nd ed.). (pp. 745-
783). New York: Erlbaum.
Munby, H. (1984). A qualitative approach to the study of a teacher’s beliefs. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 21(1), 27-38.
Mustaffa, R., Aman, I., Teo Kok, S., & Noor, N. (2011). Pedagogical practices of
English language lessons in Malaysian primary schools: A discourse analysis.
Journal of Language Teaching & Research, 2(3), 626-639.
Myhill, D., & Jones, S. (2007). More than just error correction students' perspectives on
229
 their revision processes during writing. Written Communication, 24(4), 323-
343.
Natriello, G. (1987). The impact of evaluation processes on students. Educational
Psychologist, 22(2), 155-175.
Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum
Studies, 19(4), 317–328.
Newman, W. (2003). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches
(5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Nicol, D., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated
learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in
Higher Education, 31(2), 199-218.
Nixon, R., & McClay, J. K. (2007). Collaborative writing assessment: Sowing seeds
for transformational adult learning. Assessing Writing, 12(2), 149-166.
O'Donoghue, T. A. (2007). Planning your qualitative research project: An introduction to
interpretive research in education. Taylor & Francis.
Pajares, F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy
construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-Efficacy Beliefs in Academic Settings. Review of Educational
Research, 66(4), 543-578.
Parr, J. M. (2013). Classroom assessment in writing. In J. H. McMillan (Ed.), SAGE
Handbook of research on classroom assessment (pp. 489-501). Thousand Oaks:
Sage.
Parr, J. M., & Timperley, H. S. (2010). Feedback to writing, assessment for teaching and
learning and student progress. Assessing Writing, 15(2), 68-85.
Parr, J. & Limbrick, L. (2010). Contextualising practice: Hallmark of effective teachers of
writing. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 583-590.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Pedder, D., & Opfer, V. D. (2010). Planning and organisation of teachers’ Continuous
Professional Development in Schools. The Curriculum Journal 21(4), 433–52.
Pedder, D., James, M., & MacBeath, J. (2005). How teachers value and practise
professional learning. Research Papers in Education, 20(3), 209-243.
Peddie, R. (2000). Evaluation of the assessment for better learning professional
development programmes. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
Perrenoud, P. (1998). From formative evaluation to a controlled regulation of learning

230
 processes. Towards a wider conceptual field. Assessment in Education:
Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 85-102.
Phelan, P & Reynolds P. (1996). Evidence and Argument: critical analysis for the social
sciences. London: Routledge.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000a). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M.
Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp.
451-502). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000b). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation
in learning and achievement. Journal of educational psychology, 92(3), 544.
Polanyi, M. (1967). The tacit dimension. New York: Doubleday.
Polit, D.F., Beck, C.T. & Hungler, B.P. (2001). Essentials of nursing research:
methods, appraisal and utilization. (5th ed.), Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams &
Wilkins.
Popham, W. J. (2013). On serving two masters: Formative and summative teacher
evaluation. Principal Leadership, 13(7), 18-22.
Porter, A. C. (1989). External standards and good teaching: The pros and cons of telling
teachers what to do. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(4), 343-356.
Poulou, M., & Norwich, B. (2000). Teachers’ causal attributions, cognitive, emotional
and behavioural responses to students with emotional and behavioural
difficulties. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(4), 559–581.
Poulson, L., & Avramidis, E. (2004). Elementary school teachers’ theoretical beliefs
about literacy: An exploratory study. In L. Poulson & M. Wallace (Eds.),
Teaching and learning (pp. 173–197). London: Sage.
Preedy, M. (2003). Strategic Leadership and educational improvement. London: Open
University Press.
Pridemore, D. R., & Klein, J. D. (1995). Control of practice and level of feedback in
computer-based instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20(4),
444–450.
Pryor, J., & Crossouard, B. (2008). A socio‐cultural theorisation of formative
assessment. Oxford Review of Education, 34(1), 1-20.
Punch, K. F. (2005). Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative
approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Putnam, R. & Borko, H. (1997). Teacher learning: Implications of new views of
cognition. In B. J. Biddle, T. L. Good, & I. F. Goodson (Eds.), The international
handbook of teachers and teaching (pp. 1223–1296). Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Kluwer.
Putnam, R., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to

231
 say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4-15.
Raimes, A. (1991). Out of the woods: Emerging traditions in the teaching of writing.
TESOL Quarterly, 25(3), 407-430.
Ramaprasad, A. (1983). On the definition of feedback. Behavioral Science, 28(1), 4-13.
Remesal, A. (2011). Primary and secondary teachers’ conceptions of assessment:
A qualitative study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2), 472-482.
Richardson, V., Anders, P., Tidwell, D., & Lloyd, C. (1991). The relationship
between teachers' beliefs and practices in reading comprehension instruction.
American Educational Research Journal, 28(3), 559-586.
Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59(1),
23-30.
Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, attitudes, and values: A theory of organization and change.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rokeach, M. (1972). Beliefs attitudes and values. San Francisco: Josey-Bass.
Rosenfeld, M., & Rosenfeld, S. (2008). Developing effective teacher beliefs about
learners: the role of sensitizing teachers to individual learning differences.
Educational Psychology, 28(3), 245-27.
Ross, J. A. (1998). The antecedents and consequences of teacher efficacy. In J. Brophy
(Ed.), Advances in research on teaching. Vol 7(pp. 49-74). Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.
Rossman, G. B., & Rallis, S. F. (2012). Learning in the field: An introduction to
qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2005). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sadler, D. R. (1987). Specifying and promulgating achievement standards. Oxford
Review of Education, 13, 191-209.
Sadler, R. D. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems.
Instructional Science, 18(2), 119-144.
Sadler, R. D. (1998). Formative Assessment: revisiting the territory. Assessment in
Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 77-84.
Sadler, R. D. (2000). A Bird's Eye View of Assessment in Schools. Paper presented at the
National Assessment Regional Seminar, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Sadler, R. D. (2005). Interpretations of criteria‐based assessment and grading in higher
education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(2), 175-194.
Sadler, R. D. (2009a). Indeterminacy in the use of preset criteria for assessment and
grading. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(2), 159-179.
Sadler, R. D. (2009b). Transforming holistic assessment and grading into a vehicle for

232
 complex learning. In G. Joughin (Ed.), Assessment, learning and judgement in
higher education (pp. 45-64). New Jersey: Springer.
Sadler, R. D. (2010). Beyond feedback: developing student capability in complex
appraisal. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 535-550.
Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.
Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. Washington, DC: American
Educational Research Association.
Sharkey, N. S., & Murnane, R. J. (2006). Tough choices in designing a formative
assessment system. American Journal of Education, 112(4), 572-588.
Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational
Researcher, 29(7), 4-14.
Shepard, L. A. (2005). Linking formative assessment to scaffolding. Educational
Leadership, 63(3), 70-15.
Shepard, L. A. (2008). Formative assessment: Caveat emptor. In C. A. Dwyer (Ed.), The
future of assessment: Shaping teaching and learning (pp. 279-303). New York:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Shepard, L. A. (2009). Commentary: Evaluating the validity of formative and interim
assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 28(3), 32-37.
Schunk, D. H. (2000). Learning theories: An educational perspective. New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall.
Schunk, D. H. (2003). Self-efficacy for reading and writing: Influence of modelling, goal
setting, and self-evaluation. Reading &Writing Quarterly, 19(2), 159-172.
Schwandt, T. A. (2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry. In N. K.
Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 189-214).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on Formative Feedback. Review of Educational Research,
78(1), 153-189.
Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English
used by teachers and pupils: Oxford University Press London.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Skinner, B. F. (1968). The technology of teaching. New York: Appleton-Century Crofts
Smith, K. (2011). Professional development of teachers—A prerequisite for AfL
to be successfully implemented in the classroom. Studies in Educational
Evaluation, 37(1), 55-61.
Smith, H., & Higgins, S. (2006). Opening classroom interaction: the importance of
feedback. Cambridge Journal of Education, 36(4), 485-502.

233
Sommers, N. (1982). Responding to student writing. College Composition and
Communication, 33, 148–156.
Soodak, L. C., Podell, D. M., & Lehman, L. R. (1998). Teacher, students and school
attributes as predictors of teacher responses to inclusion. Journal of Special
Education, 31(4), 480-497.
Spillane, J. (1999). External reform initiatives and teachers' efforts to reconstruct
their practice: The mediating role of teachers' zones of enactment. Journal of
Curriculum Studies, 31(2), 143-175.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Stake, R. E (2006). Multiple case study analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Stake, R. E. (2010). Qualitative research: Studying how things work. New York: The
Guilford Press.
Stern, L. A., & Solomon, A. (2006). Effective faculty feedback: The road less travelled.
Assessing Writing, 11(1), 22-41.
Stiggins, R., & Chappuis, J. (2005). Using student-involved classroom assessment
to close achievement gaps. Theory into Practice, 44(1), 11-18.
Stiggins, R., & DuFour, R. (2009). Maximizing the power of formative assessment. Phi
Delta Kappan, 90(9), 640-644.
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of
corrective feedback on writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2),
303-334.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin J. (1994). Basics of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
Strijbos, J. W., & Sluijsmans, D. (2010). Unravelling peer assessment: Methodological,
functional, and conceptual developments. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 265-
269.
Swaffield, S. (2011). Getting to the heart of authentic Assessment for Learning.
Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(4), 433-449.
Taras, M. (2008). Summative and formative assessment. Active Learning in Higher
Education, 9(2), 172-192.
Thorndike, E. (1912). The measurement of educational products. The School Review,
20(5), 289-299
Thomas, J., & Pedersen, J. (2003). Reforming elementary science teacher
preparation: What about extant teaching beliefs? School Science and
Mathematics, 103(7), 319-330.
Tierney, R. (2006). Changing practices: Influences on classroom assessment.
Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 13(3), 239-264.

234
Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H., & Fung, I. (2007). Teacher professional learning and
development: Best evidence synthesis iteration. Wellington: Ministry of
Education.
Timperley, H. S., & Parr, J.M. (2009).What is this lesson about? Instructional process
and student understandings in writing classrooms. The Curriculum Journal,
20(1), 43-60.
Topping, K. J. (2009). Peer assessment. Theory into Practice, 48(1), 20-27.
Torrance, H. (2007). Assessment as learning? How the use of explicit learning
objectives, assessment criteria and feedback in post‐secondary education and
training can come to dominate learning. 1. Assessment in Education, 14(3), 281-
294.
Torrance, H., & Pryor, J. (1998). Investigating formative assessment: Teaching,
learning and assessment in the classroom. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Torrance, H., & Pryor, J. (2001). Developing formative assessment in the
classroom: Using action research to explore and modify theory. British
Educational Research Journal, 27(5), 615-631.
Thrupp, M., & Easter, A. (2012). Research, Analysis and Insight into National Standards
(RAINS) Project. First Report: Researching Schools’ Enactments of New Zealand’s
National Standards policy. Report commissioned by the New Zealand
Educational Institute Te Rui Roa (NZEI). Wellington, NZ: NZEI.
Tschanen-Moran, M., & Woolfol-Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy capturing an elusive
construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(6), 783-805.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk-Hoy, A. (2007). The differential antecedents of self
efficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 23, 944-956.
Tunstall, P. (2001). Assessment discourse and constructions of social reality in
infant classrooms. Journal of Educational Policy, 16(3), 215-231.
Tunstall, P., & Gipps, C. (1996). Teacher feedback to young children in formative
assessment: A typology. British Educational Research Journal, 22(4), 389–404.
Vickerman, P. (2009). Student perspectives on formative peer assessment: an attempt
to deepen learning? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(2), 221-
230.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ward, R., & Dix, S. (2001). Support for the reluctant writer. Teachers and Curriculum, 5,
68–71.
Ward, R., & Dix, S. (2004). Highlighting children’s awareness of their texts through
talk. SET: Research Information for Teachers, 1, 7–11.

235
Watkins, D. (2000). Learning and Teaching: A cross-cultural perspective. School
Leadership & Management, 20(2), 161-173.
Watson, J.B. (1919). Psychology from the standpoint of a behaviorist. Philadelphia:
Lippincott.
Webb, M., & Jones, J. (2009). Exploring tensions in developing assessment for learning.
Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 16(2), 165-184.
Wheatley, G. H. (1991). Constructivist perspectives on Science and Mathematics
learning. Science Education, 75 (l), 9-2I.
Weaver, M. (2006). Do students value feedback? Students’ perception of tutors’ written
response. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 31, 379–94.
Wiggins, G. (1993). Assessing student performance. California: Jossey-Bass.
Wiggins, G. (2011). Moving to modern assessments. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(7), 63.
Wiliam, D. (2006). Formative Assessment: Getting the Focus Right. Educational
Assessment, 11(3-4), 283-289.
Wiliam, D. (2011). What is assessment for learning? Studies in Educational Evaluation,
37(1), 3-14.
Wiliam, D., & Thompson, M. (2008). Integrating assessment with instruction: What will
it take to make it work? In C. A. Dwyer (Ed.), The future of assessment: Shaping
teaching and learning (pp. 53–82). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wilkinson, I. A., & Townsend, M. A. (2000). From Rata to Rimu: Grouping for instruction
in best practice New Zealand classrooms. The Reading Teacher, 53(6), 460-471.
Wilson, M., & Sloane, K. (2000). From principles to practice: An embedded assessment
system. Applied Measurement in Education, 13(2), 181–208.
Wyatt-Smith, C., Castleton, G., Freebody, P.,&Cooksey, R. (2003). Teachers’ qualitative
judgements: A matter of context and salience, Part 1. Australian Journal of
Language and Literacy, 26, 11–32.
Wyse, D., & Torrance, H. (2009). The development and consequences of national
curriculum assessment for primary education in England. Educational Research,
51(2), 213-228.
Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to Student Writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19(1), 79-101.
Zeichner, K. M. (1989). Preparing teachers for democratic schools. Action in Teacher
Education, 11(1), 5-10.
Yin, R.K. (1984) Case Study Research - Design and methods. Beverly Hills: Sage
Publications.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). California: Sage.

236
Zellermayer, M. (1989). The study of teachers' written feedback to students' writing:
changes in theoretical considerations and the expansion of research contexts.
Instructional Science, 18(2), 145-165.
Zhao, H. (2010). Investigating learners’ use and understanding of peer and teacher
feedback on writing: A comparative study in a Chinese English writing
classroom. Assessing Writing, 15(1), 3-17.

237
Appendices

238
 Appendix A:
Research information Sheets and Consent Forms

239
Appendix A1: Research information sheet: School principal

Prema Shoba Perumanathan

PhD candidate
c/o Postgraduate Office
Faculty of Education
Victoria University of Wellington
PO Box 17-310
Karori, Wellington
Ph (04) 463 5233 ext. 9852 (wk)
Ph (04) 938 7799 (hm)
Cell: 021 026 57078
E-mail: [email protected]
Date: 20th May 2010

Dear …..

Title of project: Teachers’ beliefs and formative feedback practices in New

Zealand primary classrooms.

Researcher: Prema Shoba Perumanathan, Faculty of Education, Victoria University of

Wellington

Research Information Sheet: School Principal

I am studying for a PhD in Education at Victoria University of Wellington. As part of this

degree, I am undertaking research in the area of teacher feedback to a linguistically
diverse class. My PhD research is supervised by Dr. Lex McDonald and Margaret
Gleeson, both at the Faculty of Education, Victoria University. The Victoria University
Faculty of Education subcommittee of the Research and Human Ethics Committees
have assessed approved my research (SEPP/2010/04:RM17267).

This research aims to investigate how feedback is conceptualised and implemented by

teachers. Specifically the proposed investigation will seek answers to the following
questions:

1. What beliefs do teachers hold about formative feedback in the writing classroom?”

2. How do primary teachers provide formative assessment and feedback to their

students during the writing lessons?

More specifically, the research pursued to answer the following questions:

 What beliefs and knowledge do teachers hold about formative feedback
in teaching of writing?
 Is feedback connected to setting of goals, learning intentions and
success criteria by teachers?

240
  When and how do teachers inculcate feedback into their writing
lessons?
 What formative assessment feedback strategies are utilised the most
during the writing lessons?
 What roles do teachers take on during the feedback sessions?
 Do teachers hold different beliefs and conceptions of feedback?
 How do teachers’ beliefs influence and impact their formative feedback
strategies?
 If there are differences in teachers’ beliefs and practices in providing
feedback, how can those dissimilarities are explained?

This research aims to provide greater understanding of feedback, and understanding

feedback and feedback strategies in linguistically diverse classrooms in New Zealand.
This includes exploring the teachers' beliefs towards oral and written feedback to
students. It also looks at their classroom practices in writing, in particular an
examination of their written feedback practices in students' written drafts. The study
will also include analysing the teaching materials. I would like to invite your school, as
one of four case study primary schools in New Zealand to participate in this research.
Your school has been invited as a result of the diversity of the student population.

If you are interested in your school being involved in the project I would like to invite
you to complete the consent form and return this to me in the stamped addressed
envelope provided. I would like permission to approach and would seek your advice on
which Year 4 teacher(s) are the most appropriate for me to invite to participate in this
project. I will provide the teachers with the information sheets, consent forms and
stamped addressed envelope. In the event of more than one teacher wishing to be
involved, I will use the first come first chosen basis of selection.

The teacher volunteer in this project by your school will be interviewed and classroom
observations will be carried out. The interview would take 60-90 minutes and would be
held at the time and place of the teacher’s convenience. If the teacher agrees, I would
like to audio tape the interview. Interviews will be transcribed and the transcriber
asked to sign a confidentiality agreement. A transcript of the interview will be sent as
soon after the interview as possible for verification, addition, deletion and/or
amendment by the teacher.
The phase two of the research will involve:
 Three to five classroom observations taken over the course of March to July
2010. Each observation would involve me, as the researcher, observing the
teacher teaching for approximately 45-60 minutes. The focus of the observation
will be on aspects of feedback practices as outlined above. During the
observation, I would seek permission to take written field notes about the
teacher’s feedback practices.
 A follow-up interview after each classroom observation will be conducted using
stimulated recall method (the technique of playing back video recordings to
participants and ask them to report and reflect their practices). Each interview
will take approximately 30-45 minutes.

The information gathered from the interviews will be analysed and reported around
common themes. All names of schools, teachers and students in this research will
remain confidential to the researcher (and her supervisors). Your school will not be
named in the final reports (unless you request otherwise) and will be given
pseudonym. All data collected in this research will be stored with care to protect the
confidentiality of participants. The information from this research will be published in
my PhD thesis and some articles will be submitted for publication in academic journals
and conferences.

241
Parents/ Guardians and students will be fully informed about the nature and the
requirements of the research. Following the research, I would like to offer the school a
chance to hear the findings and/or an electronic link to the final PhD thesis.

The teacher delegated has the right to withdraw from this study at any time, or
withdraw information provided up until two weeks after he/she received a transcript
of the interview. Transcripts, consent forms and video tapes will be stored securely for
five years by the researcher and then destroyed.

If you require further information about the proposed research project on any of the
above points, please do not hesitate of contact me (details above) or my supervisors at
Victoria University of Wellington (details below).

I look forward to your reply.

Regards,

Prema Shoba Perumanathan

Supervisors Contact Details

Dr Lex McDonald Margaret Gleeson

Head of School Lecturer ESOL (S)

School of Educational Psychology and School of Educational Psychology and
Pedagogy, Pedagogy,
Faculty of Education, Faculty of Education,
Victoria University of Wellington, Victoria University of Wellington,
PO Box 17-310 PO Box 17-310
Karori, Karori,
Wellington Wellington
Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]
Phone: 04 463 5173 Phone: 04 463 9563

242
Appendix A2: Consent of participation form: Principle

Consent to participate in research: Principal

Title of project: Teachers’ beliefs and feedback practices to L1 and L2 learners in

diverse New Zealand primary classrooms.

Researcher: Prema Shoba Perumanathan, Faculty of Education, Victoria University of

Wellington

I have been provided adequate information and explanation of the research

project. My questions and concerns have been answered to my satisfaction.

I understand that the participation of my school is voluntary. I understand that I

can withdraw access to the school site at anytime (before analysis begins)
without having to give reasons or without penalty of any sort.

I give consent to the researcher coming onto the school site to undertake three
to five classroom observations. The permission has been given voluntarily.

I agree to a parent information sheet and consent form being sent home to
parents informing of the project.

I understand that any information provided will be kept confidential to the

researcher and the supervisors. The school’s name will not be used for
publication and conference presentations.

I request a summary of the research findings.

Suggested Year 4 teachers: ______________________ ____________________

______________________ ____________________

Name of Principal : ________________________

Signed : ________________________

Date : ________________________

243
Appendix A3: Research information sheet: Teacher

Prema Shoba Perumanathan

PhD candidate
c/o Postgraduate Office
Faculty of Education
Victoria University of Wellington
PO Box 17-310
Karori, Wellington
Ph (04) 463 5233 ext 9852 (wk)
Ph (04) 938 7799 (hm)
Cell: 021 026 57078
E-mail: [email protected]
Date : 20th May 2010

Dear …..

Title of project: Teachers’ beliefs and formative feedback practices in New

Zealand primary classrooms.

Researcher: Prema Shoba Perumanathan, Faculty of Education, Victoria University of

Wellington

Research Information Sheet: Teacher

I am studying for a PhD in Education at Victoria University of Wellington. As part of this

degree, I am undertaking research in the area of teacher feedback to a linguistically
diverse class. My PhD research is supervised by Dr. Lex McDonald and Margaret
Gleeson, both at the Faculty of Education, Victoria University. The Victoria University
Faculty of Education subcommittee of the Research and Human Ethics Committees
have assessed approved my research (SEPP/2010/04:RM17267).

This research aims to investigate how feedback is conceptualised and implemented by

teachers. Specifically the proposed investigation will seek answers to the following
questions:

1. What beliefs do teachers hold about formative feedback in the writing classroom?”

2. How do primary teachers provide formative assessment and feedback to their

students during the writing lessons?

More specifically, the research pursued to answer the following questions:

 What beliefs and knowledge do teachers hold about formative feedback
in teaching of writing?
 Is feedback connected to setting of goals, learning intentions and
success criteria by teachers?

244
  When and how do teachers inculcate feedback into their writing
lessons?
 What formative assessment feedback strategies are utilised the most
during the writing lessons?
 What roles do teachers take on during the feedback sessions?
 Do teachers hold different beliefs and conceptions of feedback?
 How do teachers’ beliefs influence and impact their formative feedback
strategies?
 If there are differences in teachers’ beliefs and practices in providing
feedback, how can those dissimilarities are explained?

If you are interested in being involved in this research I would like to invite you to
complete the enclosed consent form and return to me in a stamped addressed envelope
provided. If you consent to participate; you will be one of the four case study teachers
in the research.

You will be interviewed and classroom observations will be carried out. The interview
would take 60-90 minutes and would be held at the time and place of your
convenience. If you agree, I would like to audio tape the interview. Interviews will be
transcribed and the transcriber asked to sign a confidentiality agreement. A transcript
of the interview will be sent as soon after the interview as possible for verification,
addition, deletion and/or amendment by you.
The phase two of the research will involve:

 Three to five classroom observations taken over the course of March to July
2010. Each observation would involve me, as the researcher, observing the
teacher teaching for approximately 45-60 minutes. The focus of the observation
will be on aspects of feedback practices as outlined above. During the
observations, I seek permission to take written field notes about your feedback
practices.

 A follow-up interview after each classroom observation will be conducted using

stimulated recall method (the technique of playing back video recordings to
participants and ask them to report and reflect their practices). Each interview
will take approximately 30-45 minutes.

The information gathered from the interviews will be analysed and reported around
common themes. All names of schools, teachers and students in this research will
remain confidential to the researcher (and her supervisors). Your school will not be
named in the final reports (unless you request otherwise) and will be given
pseudonym. All data collected in this research will be stored with care to protect the
confidentiality of participants. The information from this research will be published in
my PhD thesis and some articles will be submitted for publication in academic journals
and conferences.

You have the right to withdraw from this study at any time, or withdraw information
you have provided up until two weeks after you have received a transcript of the
interview. Transcripts, consent forms and video tapes will be stored securely for five
years by the researcher and then destroyed.

If you require further information about the proposed research project on any of the
above points, please do not hesitate of contact me (details above) or my supervisors at
Victoria University of Wellington (details below).

245
I look forward to your reply.

Regards,

Prema Shoba Perumanathan

Supervisors’ Contact Details

Dr Lex McDonald Margaret Gleeson

Head of School Lecturer ESOL (S)

School of Educational Psychology and School of Educational Psychology and
Pedagogy, Pedagogy,
Faculty of Education, Faculty of Education,
Victoria University of Wellington, Victoria University of Wellington,
PO Box 17-310 PO Box 17-310
Karori, Karori,
Wellington Wellington
Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]
Phone: 04 463 5173 Phone: 04 463 9563

246
Appendix A4: Consent of participation form: Teacher

Title of project: Teachers’ beliefs and feedback practices to L1 and L2 learners in

diverse New Zealand primary classrooms.

Researcher: Prema Shoba Perumanathan, Faculty of Education, Victoria University of

Wellington

I have been provided adequate information and explanation of the research

project. My questions and concerns have been answered to my satisfaction.

I understand that my participation is voluntary. I understand that I can

withdraw (before data analysis begins) without having to give reasons or
without penalty of any sort.

I give consent to the researcher coming into the classroom to undertake three
to five classroom observations. The permission has been given voluntarily.

I agree to the interview being audio-taped.

I agree to the observations to be video recorded.

I understand that any information provided will be kept confidential to the

researcher and the supervisors. I understand that my name will not be used for
publication and conference presentations.

I request a summary of research findings.

Name of Teacher: ________________________

Signed : ________________________

Date : ________________________

247
Appendix A5: Research information sheet: Parents/Guardian

Prema Shoba Perumanathan

PhD candidate
c/o Postgraduate Office
Faculty of Education
Victoria University of Wellington
PO Box 17-310
Karori, Wellington
Ph (04) 463 5233 ext 9852 (wk)
Ph (04) 938 7799 (hm)
Cell: 021 026 57078
E-mail: [email protected]
Date :

Dear [Parent/Guardian]

Title of project: Teachers’ beliefs and formative feedback practices in New

Zealand primary classrooms.

Researcher: Prema Shoba Perumanathan, Faculty of Education, Victoria University of

Wellington

Research Information Sheet: School Principal

I am studying for a PhD in Education at Victoria University of Wellington. As part of this

degree, I am undertaking research in the area of teacher feedback to a linguistically
diverse class. My PhD research is supervised by Dr. Lex McDonald and Margaret
Gleeson, both at the Faculty of Education, Victoria University. The Victoria University
Faculty of Education subcommittee of the Research and Human Ethics Committees
have assessed approved my research (SEPP/2010/04:RM17267).

This research aims to investigate how feedback is conceptualised and implemented by

teachers. Specifically the proposed investigation will seek answers to the following
questions:

1. What beliefs do teachers hold about formative feedback in the writing classroom?”

2. How do primary teachers provide formative assessment and feedback to their

students during the writing lessons?

More specifically, the research pursued to answer the following questions:

 What beliefs and knowledge do teachers hold about formative feedback
in teaching of writing?
 Is feedback connected to setting of goals, learning intentions and
success criteria by teachers?

248
  When and how do teachers inculcate feedback into their writing
lessons?
 What formative assessment feedback strategies are utilised the most
during the writing lessons?
 What roles do teachers take on during the feedback sessions?
 Do teachers hold different beliefs and conceptions of feedback?
 How do teachers’ beliefs influence and impact their formative feedback
strategies?
 If there are differences in teachers’ beliefs and practices in providing
feedback, how can those dissimilarities are explained?

I need to observe in the classrooms to gain answers to these questions. _________, your
child’s teacher, has kindly agreed to take part in this study. I will be observing your
child’s class on three to five different occasions. Each observation will take about 45-60
minutes. The focus of my observation will be on the teacher’s feedback practice as it
naturally occurs within their classroom daily interactions with children. The lesson that
I will observe will be one that the teacher takes part in normal classroom programme.
As part of my data collection I will be video recording the lesson. Your child might
appear in the video recording. If you do not wish your child to be videoed, the child will
be placed in a seating position not visible to the video.

I can assure you that neither the teacher’s involvement in the project or my
undertaking the classroom observation will disrupt the regular classroom activities in
any way. The observation will not focus on the children and no identifying information
will be recorded relating to any child. Prior to the observations I will speak with the
children in the class to explain the project and what I will be doing in the classroom. I
will emphasize to the children during the explanation that my interest is in what the
teacher says and does. Please explain the purpose of my project to your child before he
or she completes the children’s consent form.

Yours sincerely,

Prema Shoba Perumanathan

Supervisors Contact Details

Dr Lex McDonald Margaret Gleeson

Head of School Lecturer ESOL (S)

School of Educational Psychology and School of Educational Psychology and
Pedagogy, Pedagogy,
Faculty of Education, Faculty of Education,
Victoria University of Wellington, Victoria University of Wellington,
PO Box 17-310 PO Box 17-310
Karori, Karori,
Wellington Wellington
Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]
Phone: 04 463 5173 Phone: 04 463 9563

249
Appendix A6: Consent of participation form: Parent/Guardian

Title of project: Teachers’ beliefs and feedback practices to L1 and L2 learners

in diverse New Zealand primary classrooms.

Researcher: Prema Shoba Perumanathan, Faculty of Education, Victoria University of

Wellington

I have been provided adequate information and explanation of the research

project. My questions and concerns have been answered to my satisfaction.

I understand that my child’s participation is voluntary. I understand that I can

withdraw my child (before data analysis begins) without having to give reasons
or without penalty of any sort.

I give consent to the researcher going into the classroom to undertake three to
five classroom observations. The permission for my child to be in the video
recordings has been given voluntarily.

I agree to my child being video-taped during classroom interactions.

I understand that any information provided will be kept confidential to the

researcher and the supervisors. I understand that my child’s name will not be
used for publication and conference presentations.

I request a summary of research findings.

I agree/ disagree that ______________________, who is my son/daughter/under my

guardianship, may take part in this research.

Name of Parent/Guardian : ________________________

Signed : ________________________

Date : ________________________

250
Appendix A7: Consent of participation form: Students

Title of project: Teachers’ beliefs and feedback practices to L1 and L2 learners in

diverse New Zealand primary classrooms.

Researcher: Prema Shoba Perumanathan, Faculty of Education, Victoria University of

Wellington

I have been provided with enough information about Shoba’s research project.

I understand that I do not have to participate.

I understand that I can tell Shoba that I do not want to take part in the research
at any time.

I agree for Shoba to observe my class.

I agree for Shoba to video record my class.

I understand that Shoba will not use my name when she writes about my class.

Name of Student : ________________________

Signed : ________________________

Date : ________________________

251
Appendix A8: Agreement of non-disclosure/confidentiality of audiotape/
videotape recordings

Title of project: Teachers’ beliefs and feedback practices to L1 and L2 learners

in diverse New Zealand primary classrooms.

Researcher: Prema Shoba Perumanathan, School of Education, Victoria University of

Wellington

I agree to the audiotapes and video recordings for the above research and information
may not be disclosed to, or discussed with anyone other than the researcher, Prema
Shoba Perumanathan.

I hereby agree to keep all information that I hear and see, as a result of my research as a
transcriber, confidential.

Name : ________________________

Signature : ________________________

Date : ________________________

252
Appendix B: Semi-structured interview questions

Title of project: Teachers’ beliefs and formative feedback practices in New

Zealand primary classrooms.

Researcher: Prema Shoba Perumanathan, School of Education, Victoria University of

Wellington

Possible questions to participants (probes will be used when deemed necessary).

General questions on background and education

 How many years of teaching experience do you have?

 How many years have you taught in the current school?

 What are the year level or curriculum level students you have taught?

 Can you tell me about your professional and academic qualifications? Where
did you receive your qualifications?

 What professional development and learning have you participated in? [ e.g
Assessment/ writing / feedback]

General beliefs and understanding about feedback

 What is your understanding of feedback?

 Where did you learn about feedback on writing? School experience, college,
university?

 What is your definition of feedback?

 Why and when do you provide feedback?

 How do you provide feedback to your students during writing? [Oral/

written/non-verbal/ whole class/groups/ individual]

 Can you tell me about the types of feedback that you received when you were a
student? School, college, university?

 How did you respond to the feedback that you received when you were a
students? Why?

 Has your university or college experience shaped the way you now provide
feedback on writing? How?

 Can you tell me about the professional development writing programmes you
have attended that have informed you about formative feedback on writing?

253
  Can you tell me about the literature you have read about giving feedback on
writing to students?

 How do you describe your school writing programme and environment?

 Do you think there is a characteristic way of teaching writing in your school?

- Do teachers discuss the teaching of writing skill with each other? [e.g Exchange ideas
and methods/ discussions/meetings]
- Do you observe each other during the writing lessons?

 How do the school practices impact the way you provide feedback on writing?

 How would you describe your students in terms of their writing ability?

Teachers’ formative feedback practice

 How do you provide feedback on writing to students?

 How do you plan you lesson to incorporate feedback? Do you incorporate

learning intentions with the students?

 How do you set your learning intention and success criteria for your students?
How are they developed? Who else is involved in the process?

 Can you tell me how do you use the success criteria with your student? Where
does the success criteria come from? Can you give me examples of the success
criteria?

 What are the challenged that you face in implementing the learning intentions
and success criteria in your classroom?

 Tell me about the way you provide formative feedback to your students during
the teaching of writing? How is it formative in nature?

254
 Appendix C:
Participant Teachers’ Lesson Plans

255
Appendix C1: Debra’s lesson plan

Task/L1: To write interesting and full sentence from key words/ statements- we will
make our writing interesting by using our own words, including descriptive language
Learning Success Tasks DATS
intention: Criteria
WALT
Handwriting Form letters -Letters are -Write date at Where should
correctly with positioned top of page or these letters
linking correctly under ruling sit?
-Have even off What angle
slope and size -Copy writing should each
-Copy the off white be?
writing off the board
board
-Link
appropriate
letters
Shared Writing Turn ideas into -Using nouns, -Take ideas What does that
feedback verb, I’ve been mean?
(Focus on adjectives, given and How could you
feedback) adverbs write them say it
-Using into sentences differently?
descriptive to make an What would
language interesting make that
-Put in all the paragraph more
‘little’ words interesting?
that make What’s another
sentences word for..?
sound right
-Add my own
ideas
Guided Writing

Kieran(L1),Justin Write -Begin a Write an How do you

(L1), Josephine sentences sentence with interesting start?
(L1), correctly a capital paragraph Tell m what
Hemi (L1), Laiqa -Write one you want to
(L2) Keera idea in each say next
(L1),Cassie (L1) sentence-star
scene and
action
-End sentence
with a full stop

Taine (L2), Amy Add detail to -Use key Write an What

(L1), Elizabeth their writing words in my interesting descriptive
(L1), Edwin (L1), plan paragraph features to
Sandra (L1), -Use use?
Amiri (L1) descriptive How does it
language sound?
-Find
synonyms

256
Ngina (L2), Kilee Add interesting -Use key Write an What
(L2), Belinda details to their words in my interesting descriptive
(L1), Marika writing plan paragraph features to
(L1), Mathew -Use use?
(L1), Jemima descriptive How does it
(L1) language sound?
-Find
synonyms

Bejide Use correct -Identify past, Write an Is that past

(L2),Avnita (L2), grammar in present, future interesting tense or
Chesa (L2), their writing tense paragraph future?
Adolpho (L2) -Use correct Demonstrate
verb ending walk, walked
for tense and walking
-Read etc
sentence to
make sure it
sounds right
Independent Process of Notes:
writing writing Create “I am learning to …’ cards to go in the back
Students need 1.Forming of each students’ book so they are reminded of
time to write for intentions their personal writing goal whenever they write
their own 2.Composing
purposes while 3.Revising
engaging with 4.Publishing
topics that are for an audience
significant to
them

257
Appendix C2: Lyn’s lesson plan

Achievement Objectives: Level 2 Text type: Factual recount writing

Functions: Transactional writing
Processes: Exploring language
Learning intentions: Students will be able to
Write a variety of topics, shaping, editing, and reworking texts in the genre of factual
recount writing
WALT: WILF:
-write to show ideas clearly -I can plan before writing
-write to recount what has happened in -I can write a draft of a recount based on a
past experience. plan.
-make good use of facts -I can write a series of events clearly
-use ideas based on the writer’s related in sequence stating what
experience. happened
-edit for grammar, paragraphing, capital -I can write in the past tense
letters and full stops. -I can include verba that denote action eg:
went, saw, ate, returned
-I can include a range of linking words
and phrases that denote time eg:
yesterday, before, during, eventually
-I can add detail to add interest for the
reader.
- I can edit my work.

Modelling Modelling Modelling

-Introducing factual -Introduce orientation- Sequence events- Jigsaw

recount writing- describes Referring back to the activity in groups at their
an event that has happened penguins as discussion desks ordering what
in the past. points then explaining happened in science
-It has a title that sums up ‘Who’ ‘Where’ ‘When’ experiment and numbering
what you are about to during science experiments them 1-5.
explain. and completing the first Continuing to complete
-Background information: box on the graphic graphic organiser
Who was involved? organiser pg 109. focussing on the events
What happened? “Something happened”. and the order in which
When did it happen? -Focus on details of time they come.
Why did it happen? place and events need to be -Recap choosing sentence
-Using “voices” read clearly stated in the starter to show time
Antarctic egg pg 7 and 8. orientation. sequence
-Students to discuss Who, -Point out the need to
What, When, How and the choose a time sequence
teacher to fill in graphic word to explain the When
organiser -Provide details of science
experiments for the
students to refer back for
the facts

Task: Task: Task:

Students to discuss science Students to complete Part Students to complete their

ideas and fill in graphic 1 and 2 of graphic graphic organiser using the
organiser page 19 (The big organiser based on sequence starters and
question) in relation to yesterday chosen ensuring all of the facts are
258
science experiment . experiment. added for the detailed
Choose from sherbet, salt -Students need to ensure planning.
dough, oobleck, blowing up that they have covered
balloons. Who Where When and
-Considering Who What What in the first two boxes
Where etc.
Target Group Target Group Target Group
X Y Z

259
Appendix C3: Jane’s lesson plan

Year 4-6 Writing a narrative

Achievement Objectives Level 2/3
Students will show some/ a developing understanding of how to shape texts for
different purposes & use language features appropriately
Organise and sequence ideas with increasing confidence
Prior Learning and Teaching: The class has been introduced to narrative form in the
context of story writing. We have concentrated on writing a story which has a
beginning, middle and end and the components of a narrative have been introduced
Title
Orientation
Complication/Problem
Resolution
Conclusion
(Most L1 leaners have already had previous experience of using some or all of these
features but not in a narrative format. Some L2 learners have been introduced to
alliteration and simile)

Expectations
It is expected that most L1 learners will write a complete narrative that includes some
language features including simile, alliteration, metaphor and/or onomatopoeia.
It is expected that L2 learners will work together to write a cooperative narrative.
Lesson sequence
L1 learners L2 learners
L1 learners-Introduce students to their L2 learners-Introduce students to their
Learning intentions Learning intentions
- WALT write an interesting -WALT sentences which
Narrative Include a verb and an
-Discuss with students the components of adjective
a narrative and record these.
-Recap what verbs and adjectives are
-Discuss with students why I have written
an ‘interesting narrative and what -Hand out illustration of the seaside and
features we might use to enable us to discuss with students what they can see.
write and interesting narrative. (it is expected that students will identify
with the illustration and have the
-Teacher and students establish: Success vocabulary to describe what they see in
criteria for writing an interesting the illustration and, with support write
narrative. sentences about what they see).

-Hand out illustration with title (It’s Hard Each student to say what they cansee in a
to Believe’ and opening sentence- ‘As Ryan sentence with particular emphasis on
pulled back the branches, he couldn’t verbs and adjectives. Eg ‘I can see a little
believe his eyes. There, right there in front girl fishing.’
of him.. .’
Explain that they will write 6 sentences
Discuss illustration and opening sentence using verbs and adjectives about what
with students. Students begin thinking they can see in the picture and discuss
about the ‘who, what when where and what words they might need.
why’
Record these words and provide each
Discuss what problems might Ryan face student with an editing checklist of
and how these might be solved essential words.
260
L1 students begin first draft. L2 students to begin writing their
sentences.
Teacher checkpoint for L1 learners: ‘What
language features have you used?’ Each L2 leaners to share a sentence they
student to read out a sentence which written. Discuss as necessary and then
contains one of the language features complete sentence independently.
listed.
Meet with L2 learners to construct and
L1 learners to give their work to a partner write narrative- ‘Hard to believe’ as a
who will assess their story against the group, voting on and recording the most
success criteria established. popular ideas, ensuring there is an

Does the story have : Title

Title Orientation-who what when and where
Orientation Complication/Problem
Complication/Problem Resolution
Resolution Conclusion
Conclusion
And that we have used a range of verbs
What features have been used? and adjectives
Adjectives
Alliteration
Simile
Metaphor
Onomatopoeia
Students to read partner’s story and
report back

Individual teacher Conference with L1 and L2 students.

Collect L1 learners first draft and provided written feedback for second draft and
collect L2 learners sentences.

Hand out L1 learners’ stories and written feedback. Explain what they need to do for
their second drafts (‘next steps’) L1 learners to work on 2nd draft.

Students will be given opening ‘As Ryan pulled the branches, there right in front of him..
.’
Each student will complete the sentences. Teacher will record this and the second
descriptive sentence. Group will decided on the next sentence. Teacher will record this.
Students will think of their own problem and resolution. Teacher will record this.
Students will then rewrite their story.

Teacher to collect L1 learners 2nd drafts.

Topic: -‘Hard to believe…’
Groups Celia, Selena, Qiomars, Ione, Yukika, Solomon, Maaka, Stephen, Silei,
James, Hiwa, Aveilela
Topic: A day at the beach
At the farm
Anahira, Alame, Fetuu, Shanon, Fetuao, Hasani

261
 Appendix D:
Teaching Resources and Hand-outs

262
Appendix D1: Lyn’s day 1 graphic organiser

263
Appendix D2: Lyn’s day 2 graphic organiser

264
Appendix D3: Lyn’s day 3 graphic organiser

265
Appendix D4: Jane’s hand-outs to lower proficiency students A

266
Appendix D5: Jane’s hand-outs to the lower proficiency group B

267
 Appendix E:
Students Written Drafts with Teacher’s Feedback

268
Appendix E1: Debra’s written feedback on students’ drafts

Student A

Student B

269
Appendix E2: Lyn’s student’s mind map

270
Appendix E3: Lyn’s day 1 written feedback

271
Appendix E4: Lyn’s day 2 written feedback

272
Appendix E5: Lyn’s day 3 written feedback

273
Appendix E6: Lyn’s day 4 written feedback on graphic organiser

274
Appendix E7: Lyn’s day 4 written feedback on drafts

275
Appendix E8: Lyn’s students’ self-assessment checklist feedback

276
Appendix E9: Jane’s written feedback to higher proficiency students

277
Appendix E10: Jane’s written feedback to lower proficiency

278
Appendix E11: Jane’s written feedback and comments from teacher
students’ conferencing

Student 1

279
Student 2

280
Appendix E12: Jane’s students’ self-assessment checklist for higher
proficiency students

281