Teacher-Perceived Factors Affecting the Sustainability of Formative Feedback Practices
Keywords:
Formative feedback, teacher beliefs, sustainability, assessment practices, student engagement, professional development, qualitative researchAbstract
This study aimed to explore the teacher-perceived factors that influence the sustainability of formative feedback practices in secondary school classrooms. The research employed a qualitative design grounded in an interpretive paradigm to examine the experiences of 29 secondary school teachers in Tehran. Participants were selected using purposive sampling to ensure relevant experience with formative assessment practices. Data were collected through in-depth, semi-structured interviews and analyzed using thematic analysis. The coding process followed open, axial, and selective coding stages, supported by the use of NVivo software. Data collection continued until theoretical saturation was reached, and ethical protocols including informed consent and confidentiality were strictly observed. Analysis revealed three main themes: (1) teacher beliefs and professional identity, (2) institutional and structural support, and (3) student engagement and response. Within these themes, subcategories such as growth-oriented mindsets, feedback confidence, workload constraints, leadership support, peer collaboration, student receptivity, and feedback literacy emerged as key factors influencing sustainability. Teachers described formative feedback as a dynamic and reflective process shaped by their educational philosophy, institutional culture, and student behaviors. The sustainability of feedback practices depended on the interplay of internal motivation, systemic facilitation, and student participation. Sustaining formative feedback requires more than individual commitment; it necessitates coherent policy support, school leadership, professional development, and student readiness. Teachers’ identities, confidence, and collaboration with peers enhance feedback persistence, while institutional constraints and student disengagement pose significant barriers. Enhancing feedback sustainability will involve empowering teachers and students alike within a supportive and aligned educational ecosystem.
Downloads
References
Andrade, H. (2010). Students as the definitive source of formative assessment: Academic self-assessment and the self-regulation of learning. Handbook of formative assessment, 90–105.
Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(1), 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2010.513678
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102
Brookhart, S. M. (2011). Educational assessment knowledge and skills for teachers. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2010.00195.x
Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315–1325. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354
Carless, D., & Chan, K. K. H. (2017). Managing dialogic use of exemplars. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(6), 930–941. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2016.1211246
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
Havnes, A., Smith, K., Dysthe, O., & Ludvigsen, K. (2012). Formative assessment and feedback: Making learning visible. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 38(1), 21–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2012.04.001
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.
Lee, I., & Thompson, G. (2017). Assessing teaching effectiveness in university language centres: The role of student evaluation. Language Assessment Quarterly, 14(4), 330–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2017.1350823
Nicol, D. J. (2010). From monologue to dialogue: Improving written feedback processes in mass higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 501–517. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602931003786559
Panadero, E., Andrade, H., & Brookhart, S. (2018). Fusing self-regulated learning and formative assessment: A roadmap of where we are, how we got here, and where we are going. Australian Educational Researcher, 45, 13–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-018-0258-y
Pishghadam, R., Rezaee, S., & Noghani, M. (2013). Iranian EFL teachers’ conceptions of assessment: Implications for teacher development. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4(3), 608–614. https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.4.3.608-614
Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00117714
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313795
Smith, E., & Gorard, S. (2005). ‘They don’t give us our marks’: The role of formative feedback in student progress. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 12(1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594042000333891
Torrance, H. (2012). Formative assessment at the crossroads: Confusion, contradiction and complexity. Oxford Review of Education, 38(3), 323–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2012.689693
Winstone, N. E., & Nash, R. A. (2016). The developing engagement with feedback toolkit (DEFT). Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(5), 705–714. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1052771
Winstone, N. E., Nash, R. A., Rowntree, J., & Parker, M. (2017). ‘It’d be useful, but I wouldn’t use it’: Barriers to university students’ feedback-seeking behavior. Studies in Higher Education, 42(11), 2026–2041. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1130032
Zhu, Q., & Carless, D. (2018). Dialogue within peer feedback processes: Clarifying student perspectives. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(4), 883–897. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1446417
Downloads
Published
Submitted
Revised
Accepted
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
