research paper on effective feedback

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

What Good Feedback Really Looks Like

• Craig Chappelow
• Cindy McCauley

Constructive criticism has its place.

Feedback — both positive and negative — is essential to helping managers enhance their best qualities and address their worst so they can excel at leading. Strengths-based development can, unfortunately, lull people into believing there are no areas in which they need to improve. So instead of encouraging people to avoid negative feedback, we should focus on how to deliver it in ways that minimize the fight-or-flight response. One approach is called Situation-Behavior-Impact (SBI). Feedback providers first note the time and place in which a behavior occurred. Then they describe the behavior — what they saw and heard. The final step is to describe the impact the behavior had in terms of the feedback providers’ thoughts, feelings or actions.

According to a recent Harvard Business Review  cover story , it’s rarely useful to give feedback to colleagues. The authors argue that constructive criticism won’t help people excel and that, when you highlight someone’s shortcomings, you actually hinder their learning. They say that managers should encourage employees to worry less about their weaknesses and instead focus on their strengths.

• Craig Chappelow is a leadership solutions facilitator, Americas, at the Center for Creative Leadership.
• Cindy McCauley is a senior fellow, Americas, at the Center for Creative Leadership.

Partner Center

• Search Menu
• Author Guidelines
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Advertising
• Reprints and ePrints
• Sponsored Supplements
• Branded Books
• About Critical Values
• About the American Society for Clinical Pathology
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Feedback starts with observation, feedback is constructive and purposeful, feedback includes self-reflection.

• < Previous

Effective Feedback in the Workplace

Dr. Prayson is Section Head of Neuropathology at the Cleveland Clinic and Professor of Pathology at the Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University. Dr. Rowe is a Breast Pathologist and Assistant Professor of Pathology at the Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University.

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Richard A. Prayson, J. Jordi Rowe, Effective Feedback in the Workplace, Critical Values , Volume 10, Issue 3, July 2017, Pages 24–27, https://doi.org/10.1093/crival/vax017

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Dr. Prayson

Effective feedback is a critical component of a productive work environment. It provides a mechanism for assessing an employee’s performance, a guide for promoting the development of an employee trying to master a new task or competency, fodder for self-reflection, and a potential inducement to improve performance. The key word here, though, is effective.

A number of key features make for effective feedback. Probably the most important is good observation. Observations represent behaviors that we see, and giving feedback is reporting on our observations. Direct observation allows for the generation of specific feedback. But what makes for good observational skills? First, identifying performance criteria, such as competencies, milestones, or standards, up front is important. This focuses our observations and ensures that we are paying attention to what we are supposed to be assessing. The observer should be familiar with these criteria beforehand. The criteria are also useful to the person being assessed in terms of setting expectations, so he or she knows ahead of time what is being assessed. And observing the subject when he or she is actually performing a task that needs to be assessed is essential to maximizing high-yield opportunities for observation. The observer must stay focused on the person being observed, which can be difficult, as the current workplace environment has numerous distractions. Staying focused on the task ensures that nothing is overlooked and means one has genuine interest in the task at hand.

Minimizing the impact of one’s presence while observing, safeguards against interruptions and intrusions, facilitating the effectiveness of the encounter. Taking written notes is useful; the more details and examples one can enumerate, the more effective the feedback. Additionally, be cognizant of potential threats to observation.

A number of threats or biases can impact one’s ability to observe things in an objective fashion. Take the halo effect, which occurs when an observer’s overall impression of a person impacts her or his observations and compromises the feedback rendered; eg, the observer perceives the employee to be “a nice guy,” her feedback might reflect that sentiment, and tasks performed improperly might be ignored. The leniency effect is the tendency to evaluate everyone in a favorable light. Conversely, the severity effect is the tendency to rate everyone harshly. The same-as-me bias reflects the tendency of some to rate favorably people who are similar to themselves. The different-from-me bias is the proclivity to rate people who are different more harshly. First-impression bias is the tendency to assess people based on initial interactions, either favorably or unfavorably. Being aware of these potential threats to objective observation and feedback is important.

In addition to careful observation, effective feedback should be constructive and purposeful. This notion ties back to the tenet that familiarity with the goals and objectives of the observation is critical.

As previously mentioned, feedback should be detailed. The more examples and specifics you can give, the more likely the employee will understand your point. Vague comments such as “That was bad” or “That wasn’t done well” are not very useful; they convey a sense of dissatisfaction with the observed performance but give no indication as to specifically what was suboptimal, and thus provide no concrete way to improve.

Feedback should be balanced and delivered in a professional manner. Find an appropriate time and place to deliver the feedback confidentially. Always lead with what went well before launching into discussion of areas for improvement. There is no place for belittling or bullying in feedback delivery; these are ineffective strategies. To quote politician and lawyer Frank A. Clark, “Criticism, like rain, should be gentle enough to nourish a man’s growth without destroying the roots.”

Likewise, you should listen respectfully to the employee’s response to the feedback. You should not always assume that your feedback and interpretation of your observations are correct. A good strategy is to ask the individual about his or her impressions of your feedback. Often, but not always, employees are already aware of the areas in which they need improvement. If not, there may be a variety of reasons, including unclear expectations, improper training, other variables in the environment, or a lack of insight or ability to reflect. Again, sometimes what an observer perceives as an area for improvement is just that, a perception (and yes, sometimes a misperception).

Feedback should be delivered in a timely fashion; this gives a sense of relevancy and makes it more likely that details will be remembered accurately. Frequent feedback is better than feedback given only once a year.

Lastly, feedback should be actionable. When areas for improvement are identified, a concrete and doable plan for addressing them should be agreed upon and a mechanism for monitoring progress put in place. Some individuals are capable of generating such plans themselves; others will require assistance in creating a plan. Remember that the end goal is to have a rational and actionable plan.

One of the goals of providing frequent feedback is to engender self-reflection. Ideally, we should all reflect on our experiences and, along with any external feedback that we might receive, how we are doing. This involves recognition of what is going well and identification of areas where we could improve. We all have things we can improve upon!

Given the proper motivation, we should be able to come up with a concrete and doable plan to address any deficiency and continue to reflect on the impact our plan has on our attempts to improve overall. Some individuals are able to engage in this reflective practice on their own. Others may need more coaching or mentoring on how to accomplish this.

In the words of Bill Gates, “We all need people who will give us feedback. That’s how we improve.”

Author notes

Email alerts, citing articles via.

• Development Board
• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 2378-8372
• Print ISSN 2378-8321
• Copyright © 2024 American Society for Clinical Pathology
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Giving and Receiving Effective Feedback: A Review Article and How-To Guide

Affiliation.

• 1 From the Department of Pathology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
• PMID: 30102068
• DOI: 10.5858/arpa.2018-0058-RA

Context.—: Feedback is the delivery of information based on direct observation that is meant to improve performance. Learning is at the heart of feedback, and as such, feedback is a required competency in pathology resident education. In the laboratory setting, the ability of laboratory professionals in all practice settings and experience levels to give and receive feedback is crucial to workflow and ultimately patient care.

Objective.—: To summarize the importance of feedback, strategies for optimizing feedback exchange, and overcoming barriers to giving and receiving feedback.

Data sources.—: Peer-reviewed original articles, review articles, medical education literature, and published books on feedback and communication were reviewed to explore ideal methods of giving and receiving feedback and to identify common barriers to feedback exchange.

Conclusions.—: Medical education literature emphasizes techniques for giving feedback and describes barriers often encountered to feedback exchange in medical practice. Effective feedback requires that the giver, receiver, and environment be carefully considered. Likewise, each of these factors can impose barriers to feedback exchange. Various methods for giving feedback have been described. All feedback should address a specific behavior, be nonevaluative in nature, and be followed by confirmation of understanding and an action plan. Few articles describe the importance of receiving feedback. Receiving feedback can be difficult, but it is enhanced by learning to listen and making conscious decisions regarding implementing the messages heard. Giving and receiving feedback become easier with practice.

Publication types

• Communication*
• Education, Medical / methods

Advertisement

Feedback literacy: a critical review of an emerging concept

• Published: 19 July 2022
• Volume 85 , pages 1381–1400, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Juuso Henrik Nieminen   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3087-8933 1 &
• David Carless   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1449-5174 1  

7533 Accesses

22 Citations

46 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Systemic challenges for feedback practice are widely discussed in the research literature. The expanding mass higher education systems, for instance, seem to inhibit regular and sustained teacher-student interactions. The concept of feedback literacy , representing students’ and teachers’ capacities to optimize the benefits of feedback opportunities, has gained widespread attention by offering new ways of tackling these challenges. This study involves a critical review of the first 49 published articles on feedback literacy. Drawing on science and technology studies, and in particular on Popkewitz’s concept of fabrication, we explore how research has invented feedback literacy as a way of reframing feedback processes through the idea of individual skill development. First, we analyze how research has fabricated students and teachers through their feedback literacies that can be tracked, measured, and developed. Here, there exists a conceptual shift from analyzing feedback as external input to feedback literacy as a psychological construct residing within individuals. This interpretation carries positive implications of student and teacher empowerment, whilst downplaying policy-level challenges facing feedback interactions. The second contrasting fabrication positions feedback literate students and teachers as socio-culturally situated, communal agents. We conclude that feedback literacy is a powerful idea that, if used carefully, carries potential for reimagining feedback in higher education. It also, however, risks psychologizing students’ and teachers’ feedback behaviors amidst prevalent assessment and grading policies. We call for further reflexivity in considering whether feedback literacy research aims to challenge or complement the broader socio-political landscapes of higher education.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

What matters in the cultivation of student feedback literacy: exploring university EFL teachers’ perceptions and practices

Zhenfang Xie & Wen Liu

Discipline-specific feedback literacies: A framework for curriculum design

Naomi E. Winstone, Kieran Balloo & David Carless

Feedback seeking and student reflective feedback literacy: a sociocultural discourse analysis

David Carless & Stephanie Young

The studies in our review are marked with an asterisk (*).

* Arts, J. G., Jaspers, M., & Joosten-ten Brinke, D. (2021). Enhancing written feedback: The use of a cover sheet influences feedback quality. Cogent Education , 8(1), 1901641.

Bagger, A. (2022). Opportunities to display knowledge during national assessment in mathematics: A matter of access and participation. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 37 (1), 104–117.

Article   Google Scholar  

* Banister, C. (2020). Exploring peer feedback processes and peer feedback meta-dialogues with learners of academic and business English. Language Teaching Research . https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820952222

Biesta, G. (2009). Good education in an age of measurement: On the need to reconnect with the question of purpose in education. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21 (1), 33–46.

* Boud, D., & Dawson, P. (2021). What feedback literate teachers do: an empirically-derived competency framework. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 1-14.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1910928

Broadfoot, P. (1998). Quality, standards and control in higher education: What price life-long learning? International Studies in Sociology of Education, 8 (2), 155–180.

Buckley, A. (2020). Crisis? What crisis? Interpreting student feedback on assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 1-12.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1846015

Bunce, L., Baird, A., & Jones, S. E. (2017). The student-as-consumer approach in higher education and its effects on academic performance. Studies in Higher Education, 42 (11), 1958–1978.

Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65 (3), 245–281.

Carless, D. (2015). Excellence in university assessment: Learning from award-winning practice . Routledge.

Book   Google Scholar  

* Carless, D. (2019). Feedback loops and the longer-term: towards feedback spirals. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 44 (5), 705–714.

* Carless, D. (2020). Longitudinal perspectives on students’ experiences of feedback: a need for teacher–student partnerships. Higher Education Research & Development , 39 (3), 425–438.

* Carless, D. (2022). From teacher transmission of information to student feedback literacy: Activating the learner role in feedback processes. Active Learning in Higher Education , 23 (2), 143-153.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787420945845

* Carless, D., & Winstone, N. (2020). Teacher feedback literacy and its interplay with student feedback literacy. Teaching in Higher Education , 1-14.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1782372

* Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 43 (8), 1315–1325.

* Chan, C. K. Y., & Luo, J. (2021). Exploring teacher perceptions of different types of ‘feedback practices’ in higher education: implications for teacher feedback literacy. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 1-16.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1888074

* Chong, S. W. (2021). Reconsidering student feedback literacy from an ecological perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 46 (1), 92–104.

* Dawson, P., Carless, D., & Lee, P. P. W. (2021). Authentic feedback: supporting learners to engage in disciplinary feedback practices. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 46 (2), 286–296.

* de Kleijn, R. A. (2021). Supporting student and teacher feedback literacy: an instructional model for student feedback processes. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 1-15.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1967283

* Deneen, C. C., & Hoo, H. T. (2021). Connecting teacher and student assessment literacy with self-evaluation and peer feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 1-13.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1967284

Evans, A. M. (2011). Governing student assessment: Administrative rules, silenced academics and performing students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36 (2), 213–223.

Evans, C. (2013). Making sense of assessment feedback in higher education. Review of Educational Research, 83 (1), 70–120.

* Esterhazy, R., de Lange, T., & Damşa, C. (2021). Performing teacher feedback literacy in peer mentoring meetings. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1980768

* Fernández-Toro, M. & Duensing, A. (2021) Repositioning peer marking for feedback literacy in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 46 (8), 1202–1220

Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26 (2), 91–108.

* Gravett, K. (2022). Feedback literacies as sociomaterial practice. Critical Studies in Education , 63 (2), 261–274.

* Han, Y., & Xu, Y. (2020). The development of student feedback literacy: the influences of teacher feedback on peer feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 45 (5), 680–696.

* Han, Y., & Xu, Y. (2021). Student feedback literacy and engagement with feedback: a case study of Chinese undergraduate students. Teaching in Higher Education , 26 (2), 181–196.

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77 (1), 81–112.

* Heron, M., Medland, E., Winstone, N., & Pitt, E. (2021). Developing the relational in teacher feedback literacy: exploring feedback talk. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 1-14.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1932735

* Hey-Cunningham, A. J., Ward, M. H., & Miller, E. J. (2021). Making the most of feedback for academic writing development in postgraduate research: Pilot of a combined programme for students and supervisors. Innovations in Education and Teaching International , 58 (2), 182–194.

* Hill, J., & West, H. (2019). Improving the student learning experience through dialogic feed-forward assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 45 (1), 82–97.

* Hoo, H. T., Deneen, C., & Boud, D. (2021). Developing student feedback literacy through self and peer assessment interventions. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 1-14.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1925871

Ibarra-Sáiz, M. S., Rodríguez-Gómez, G., & Boud, D. (2020). Developing student competence through peer assessment: the role of feedback, self-regulation and evaluative judgement. Higher Education , 80 (1), 137–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00469-2

* Joughin, G., Boud, D., Dawson, P., & Tai, J. (2021). What can higher education learn from feedback seeking behaviour in organisations? Implications for feedback literacy. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 46 (1), 80–91.

Lea, M. R., & Street, B. V. (1998). Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education, 23 (2), 157–172.

Lea, M. R., & Street, B. V. (2006). The" academic literacies" model: Theory and applications. Theory into Practice, 45 (4), 368–377.

* Li, F., & Han, Y. (2022). Student feedback literacy in L2 disciplinary writing: insights from international graduate students at a UK university. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 47 (2), 198–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1908957

Lipnevich, A., & Panadero, E. (2021). A Review of Feedback Models and Theories: Descriptions, Definitions, and Conclusions. Frontiers in Education, 6 , 720195. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.720195

Mahoney, P., Macfarlane, S., & Ajjawi, R. (2019). A qualitative synthesis of video feedback in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 24 (2), 157–179.

* Malecka, B., Boud, D., & Carless, D. (2020). Eliciting, processing and enacting feedback: mechanisms for embedding student feedback literacy within the curriculum. Teaching in Higher Education , 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1754784

* Malecka, B., Boud, D., Tai, J., & Ajjawi, R. (2022). Navigating feedback practices across learning contexts: implications for feedback literacy. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 1–15.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2022.2041544

Marginson, S. (2016). The worldwide trend to high participation higher education: Dynamics of social stratification in inclusive systems. Higher Education, 72 (4), 413–434.

* Molloy, E., Boud, D., & Henderson, M. (2020). Developing a learning-centred framework for feedback literacy. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 45 (4), 527–540.

Nicol, D. (2021). The power of internal feedback: Exploiting natural comparison processes. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46 (5), 756–778.

Nicol, D., Thomson, A., & Breslin, C. (2014). Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: A peer review perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39 (1), 102–122.

Nieminen, J. H., Bearman, M., & Tai, J. (2022a). How is theory used in assessment and feedback research? A critical review. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 1-18.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2022.2047154

* Nieminen, J. H., Tai, J., Boud, D., & Henderson, M. (2022b). Student agency in feedback: beyond the individual. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 47 (1), 95–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1887080

* Noble, C., Billett, S., Armit, L., Collier, L., Hilder, J., Sly, C., & Molloy, E. (2020). “It’s yours to take”: generating learner feedback literacy in the workplace. Advances in Health Sciences Education , 25 (1), 55–74.

* O’Connor, A., & McCurtin, A. (2021). A feedback journey: employing a constructivist approach to the development of feedback literacy among health professional learners. BMC Medical Education , 21 (1), 1–13.

O’Donovan, B. (2017). How student beliefs about knowledge and knowing influence their satisfaction with assessment and feedback. Higher Education, 74 (4), 617–633.

Ostrowicka, H. (2022). Economization of discourse on education and pedagogization of economic problems: media debate on higher education reform in Poland. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education , 43 (1), 86–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2020.1811957

Pangrazio, L., & Selwyn, N. (2019). ‘Personal data literacies’: A critical literacies approach to enhancing understandings of personal digital data. New Media & Society, 21 (2), 419–437.

Pitt, E., & Carless, D. (2021). Signature feedback practices in the creative arts: Integrating feedback within the curriculum. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher  Education, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1980769

* Pitt, E., Bearman, M., & Esterhazy, R. (2019). The conundrum of low achievement and feedback for learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 45 (2), 239–250.

Popkewitz, T. S. (2008a). The social, psychological, and education sciences: From educationalization to pedagogicalization of the family and the child. In P. Smeyers & M. Depaepe (Eds.), Educational Research: The Educationalization of Social Problems (pp. 171–190). Springer.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Popkewitz, T. S. (2008b). Cosmopolitanism and the age of school reform: Science, education, and making society by making the Child . Routledge.

Google Scholar  

Popkewitz, T. S. (2013). The sociology of education as the history of the present: Fabrication, difference and abjection. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 34 (3), 439–456.

Raaper, R. (2017). Tracing assessment policy discourses in neoliberalised higher education settings. Journal of Education Policy, 32 (3), 322–339.

* Rovagnati, V., & Pitt, E. (2021). Exploring intercultural dialogic interactions between individuals with diverse feedback literacies. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.2006601

* Rovagnati, V., Pitt, E., & Winstone, N. (2022). Feedback cultures, histories and literacies: international postgraduate students’ experiences. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 47 (3), 347–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1916431

* Song, B. K. (2022). Bifactor modelling of the psychological constructs of learner feedback literacy: conceptions of feedback, feedback trust and self-efficacy. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2022.2042187

* Sutton, P. (2012). Conceptualizing feedback literacy: Knowing, being, and acting. Innovations in Education and Teaching International , 49(1), 31–40.

* Tai, J., Bearman, M., Gravett, K., & Molloy, E. (2021). Exploring the notion of teacher feedback literacies through the theory of practice architectures. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1948967

Tannock, S. (2017). No grades in higher education now! Revisiting the place of graded assessment in the reimagination of the public university. Studies in Higher Education, 42 (8), 1345–1357.

Torrance, H. (2017). Blaming the victim: assessment, examinations, and the responsibilisation of students and teachers in neo-liberal governance. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural politics of Education, 38 (1), 83–96.

Vincent, D. (2003). Literacy literacy. Interchange, 34 (2), 341–357.

* Wei, W., Sun, Y., & Xu, X. (2020). Investigating the impact of increased student feedback literacy level on their expectations on university teachers’ feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 46 (7), 1092–1103.

Wheelahan, L., Moodie, G., & Doughney, J. (2022). Challenging the skills fetish. British Journal of Sociology of Education , 43 (3), 475–494. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2022.2045186

Winstone, N. E., & Carless, D. (2019). Designing effective feedback processes in higher education: A learning-focused approach . Routledge.

Winstone, N. E., Bourne, J., Medland, E., Niculescu, I., & Rees, R. (2021a). “Check the grade, log out”: Students’ engagement with feedback in learning management systems. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46 (4), 631–643.

Winstone, N. E., Ajjawi, R., Dirkx, K., & Boud, D. (2021b). Measuring what matters: the positioning of students in feedback processes within national student satisfaction surveys. Studies in Higher Education , 1–13.

Winstone, N., Boud, D., Dawson, P., & Heron, M. (2022a). From feedback-as-information to feedback-as-process: a linguistic analysis of the feedback literature. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 47 (2), 213–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1902467

* Winstone, N. E., Balloo, K., & Carless, D. (2022b). Discipline-specific feedback literacies: A framework for curriculum design. Higher Education , 83(1), 57–77.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00632-0

* Winstone, N. E., Mathlin, G., & Nash, R. A. (2019). Building feedback literacy: students’ perceptions of the Developing Engagement with Feedback Toolkit. Frontiers in Education , 4 , 39.

* Winstone, N. E., Nash, R. A., Parker, M., & Rowntree, J. (2017). Supporting learners' agentic engagement with feedback: a systematic review and a taxonomy of recipience processes. Educational Psychologist , 52 (1), 17–37.

Wisniewski, B., Zierer, K., & Hattie, J. (2020). The power of feedback revisited: A meta-analysis of educational feedback research. Frontiers in Psychology, 10 , 3087.

* Wood, J. (2020). A dialogic technology-mediated model of feedback uptake and literacy. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 46 (8), 1173–1190.

* Wood, J. (2022). Making peer feedback work: the contribution of technology-mediated dialogic peer feedback to feedback uptake and literacy. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 47 (3), 327–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1914544

* Xiang, X., Yuan, R., & Yu, B. (2021). Implementing assessment as learning in the L2 writing classroom: a Chinese case. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 1–15.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1965539

* Xu, Y., & Carless, D. (2017). ‘Only true friends could be cruelly honest’: cognitive scaffolding and social-affective support in teacher feedback literacy. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 42 (7), 1082–1094.

* Yan, Z., & Carless, D. (2021). Self-assessment is about more than self: the enabling role of feedback literacy. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.2001431

* Yu, S. (2021). Feedback-giving practice for L2 writing teachers: friend or foe? Journal of Second Language Writing , 52 , 100798.

* Yu, S., & Liu, C. (2021). Improving student feedback literacy in academic writing: an evidence-based framework. Assessing Writing , 48 , 100525.

* Zhan, Y. (2021a). Developing and validating a student feedback literacy scale. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.2001430

* Zhan, Y. (2021b). Are they ready? An investigation of university students’ difficulties in peer assessment from dual perspectives. Teaching in Higher Education, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2021.2021393 .

* Zhou, J., Dawson, P., Tai, J. H. M., & Bearman, M. (2021). How conceptualising respect can inform feedback pedagogies. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 46 (1), 68–79.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to express our heartfelt gratitude to Dr. Karen Gravett and Dr. Zi Yan for their thoughtful comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. Their feedback literacies were vital for sharpening our argumentation.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, SAR, China

Juuso Henrik Nieminen & David Carless

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Juuso Henrik Nieminen .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Nieminen, J.H., Carless, D. Feedback literacy: a critical review of an emerging concept. High Educ 85 , 1381–1400 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00895-9

Download citation

Accepted : 23 June 2022

Published : 19 July 2022

Issue Date : June 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00895-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Feedback literacy
• Learner-centred feedback
• Critical review
• Science and technology studies
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Breathe (Sheff)
• v.13(4); 2017 Dec

How to give and receive feedback effectively

Georgia hardavella.

1 Dept of Respiratory Medicine, King’s College Hospital, London, UK

2 Dept of Respiratory Medicine and Allergy, King’s College London, London, UK

Ane Aamli-Gaagnat

3 Dept of Clinical Science, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

4 Faculty of Medicine, National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College, London, UK

Ilona Rousalova

5 1st Dept of Tuberculosis and Respiratory Care, 1st Medical School and General University Hospital, Charles University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic

Katherina B. Sreter

6 Dept of Clinical Immunology, Pulmonology and Rheumatology, University Hospital Centre “Sestre Milosrdnice”, Zagreb, Croatia

In most European countries, feedback is embedded in education, training and daily professional activities. It is a valuable tool for indicating whether things are going in the right direction or whether redirection is required. In the world of healthcare professionals, it is intended to provide doctors with information about their practice through the eyes of their peers. Feedback is a valuable tool for doctors to gather information, consolidate their awareness of strengths and areas to improve, and aims to support effective behaviour. Doctors of all levels may be approached by peers or juniors to give feedback, or they may ask others to give feedback on their own performance.

Short abstract

Giving and receiving effective feedback are skills that are central in healthcare settings http://ow.ly/zZ1C30eVrH1

Feedback is the breakfast of champions . Ken Blanchard

Feedback is the fuel that drives improved performance . Eric Parsloe

Giving and receiving feedback is not an easy task and poses significant challenges for both sides. In this article, we will discuss pragmatic feedback models, how to overcome barriers to an effective feedback and tips for giving effective feedback, as well as how to receive feedback and make the most out of it.

Types of feedback

• Informal feedback is the most frequent form. It is provided on a day-to-day basis, and is given on any aspect of a doctor’s professional performance and conduct, by any member of the multidisciplinary team. It is usually in verbal form.
• Formal feedback comes as part of a structured assessment; it can be offered by any member of the multidisciplinary team, but most frequently by peers or superiors. It is usually in written form.
• Formative feedback, “for learning”, is about a learner’s progress at a particular time through a course or during the acquisition of a new skill. It provides opportunities to gain feedback, reflect and redirect effort (where appropriate) before completing a final assessment. It gives you the experience of writing or performing a task without it having a direct impact on your formal progress and relies on continuous encouragement.
• Summative feedback, “of learning”, measures performance, often against a standard, and comes with a mark/grade and feedback to explain your mark. It can be used to rank or judge individuals

For the purpose of this article, we will focus on formal and informal feedback.

Why is feedback important?

As a general rule, it seems that learners value feedback more when it is given by someone they respect as a role model. Appropriate feedback contributes significantly in developing learners’ competence and confidence at all stages of their professional careers; it helps them think about the gap between actual and desired performance, and identify ways to narrow the gap and improve. For health professionals in particular, it promotes reflective and experiential learning ,which involves “training on the job”, and reflecting on experiences, incidents and feelings. More importantly, feedback aims to develop performance to a higher level by dealing with underperformance in a constructive way.

If we do not give feedback, this will come with a cost. The learner can assume that everything is fine and will continue practicing in the same way. This leads into a false assessment of their own skills and abilities, and builds up a false perception.

Who gives feedback?

In professional life, your patients and anyone working with you as a member of the multidisciplinary team can give you feedback. Feedback in these cases is meant to be given reciprocally, i.e. you will also need to give feedback to your peers. We have listed the most common sources of feedback in figure 1 .

Sources of feedback.

Educational or clinical supervisors

Your educational or clinical supervisor can be a major source of feedback. They are meant to act as your mentor, monitor your clinical and educational progress, and ensure you receive appropriate career guidance and planning. Educational or clinical supervisors do not formally exist in all respiratory medicine training programmes across Europe and this role may be informally undertaken ad hoc by the clinical lead of the department, a supervising consultant or a PhD/MSc supervisor. Regardless of the role allocation, feedback is integral to the process, and should cover clinical and academic practice, professional conduct, complaints and/or serious incidents that should be discussed in a reflective, nonjudgmental manner to allow improvement and personal development. Should this occur in a structured and organised manner with a delegated supervisor, it will be helpful for the learner.

As previously stated, the feedback process should be reciprocal. Departmental trainee feedback is essential to monitor and improve the quality of specialty training. Trainees’ feedback must be used with other sources of information to review and improve the training programmes and posts. Obtaining this type of feedback can sometimes be challenging as it may be biased by the fear of identification and labelling of trainees; therefore, in some countries, it is given anonymously. This feedback should also be an opportunity to raise concerns about patient safety or colleague bullying and undermining.

Peers and colleagues

People you work with as members of a multidisciplinary team are expected to provide their feedback in a constructive manner, being open and supportive. This multisource feedback aims to improve your own understanding of where things stand; it is a clear “reality check” and, at the same time, gives a clear direction of travel in terms of improving behaviours, attitudes and skills. If you have not received such feedback, ask for it.

Patients’ feedback provides valuable information about what patients and service users think about the healthcare services offered. Examining patients’ feedback will give a direct insight into what is working well and what needs further improvement in the way care is delivered. Furthermore, patient feedback to healthcare professionals is also important as it highlights examples of good practice where lessons can be learnt and areas of concern where improvements can be made. Measuring patients’ feedback and experiences of care/treatment highlights areas that need to improve to provide a patient-led healthcare service.

Feedback models

There are several different models of giving feedback. Not every model is applicable in all daily cases of providing feedback. Below we have listed some feedback models.

The “feedback sandwich”

The feedback sandwich starts and concludes with positive feedback, and what can be considered as the more critical feedback is “sandwiched” between the positive aspects. This can be applicable in everyday clinical practise. However, if you use this method continuously, it might lose its effectiveness. The person receiving our feedback will only wait for the “but” in the middle of your sentence. In this case, make sure to give positive feedback on its own when the opportunity arises. If your coworkers feel acknowledged daily, they will be more open to all kinds of feedback when applicable. A couple of examples of the feedback sandwich follow.

“You have done really well in the acute take; you prioritised cases efficiently and your management plans were well structured. I was thinking we could discuss a few things I believe you can further improve such as timely communication of messages to the nursing staff and emphasising the urgency of particular tasks. After completing your management plan in the medical notes, you can consider discussing verbally the urgency of some tasks with the nurse looking after the patient so that they are alerted and can proceed with them promptly rather than relying on them going back to read the medical notes, which can take longer due to the overwhelming emergency department. Additional verbal communication will complement the excellent quality of your work, will ensure your well-structured management plan is implemented in a timely manner for the patient’s benefit and will further improve your patient’s outcome.”

“I noticed you made the patient and relatives feel very comfortable while you explained the bronchoscopy test to them, and your explanation was very clear. It would have helped further if you had given them patient information leaflets, as at times they were looking a bit overwhelmed. However, you have set a time for meeting with them again, and this will give you the opportunity of answering any questions and giving the leaflets.”

“Chronological fashion” feedback

Chronological fashion feedback focuses on reflecting observations chronologically, reiterating the events that occurred during the session back to the learner. For instance, an observer can go through a learning session and give feedback from beginning to the end.

“The first thing you did really well when you entered the room was to introduce yourself to the patient. Then, you proceeded with physical examination without getting the patient’s consent for this and at that point, the patient looked distressed. It was after that when you explained what you would do and got their consent, and consequently, the patient was more relaxed during the rest of the physical examination.”

This is helpful for short feedback sessions but you can become bogged down in detail during long sessions.

Pendleton model

The Pendleton model was developed in 1984. It is more learner centred, conversation based and identifies an action plan or goals: “reflection for action”. The facilitator needs to check whether the learner wants and is ready for feedback. Then, the learner gives some background about what is being assessed and states what was done well. This aims to create a safe environment first by highlighting positives and consequently this prevents defensiveness. The facilitator then reinforces these positives and the learner suggests what could be improved. This is important, as weaknesses are dissected to offer opportunities for reflection. The facilitator advises how this could be improved and a mutually agreed action plan is formed. The main idea is to use open questions and give the learner the opportunity to think and reflect.

“What do you think went well?”

“What do you think could be done differently?”

“What could be further improved?”

“How can this be achieved?”

Barriers to effective feedback

Various factors can impact on effective feedback and act as barriers ( table 1 ). It is important to be able to identify and overcome them. Effective feedback is dependent on communication skills and as such, it is vital that the message intended by the sender is understood by the receiver in the same terms.

Generalised feedback that is not related to specific facts and does not give advice on how to improve behaviour

Generalised feedback is unhelpful and can be confusing. The person receiving feedback remains unclear about the actual purpose of the session and usually starts exploring hidden agendas that might have triggered the feedback. It disrupts professional relationships and causes unnecessary suspicion.

A lack of respect for the source of feedback

We all tend to accept feedback more from people we value. In the opposite case, it is advised that you ask another colleague that was present to provide informal feedback rather than doing it yourself as otherwise, this might impact on professional relationships and feedback will be ignored.

Fear of upsetting your colleague or damaging your professional relationship with them

The person giving feedback might be different from the recipient in terms of sex, age, hierarchy, and educational and cultural background. These factors may result in a demotivating feedback session. Therefore, feedback needs to be given in a supportive, empathic and relaxed manner, and on a background of a working relationship based on mutual respect.

The recipient of feedback being resistant or defensive when receiving it

Poor handling of situations in which the recipient is resistant or defensive can result in a dismissive approach; therefore, feedback will be disregarded.

Physical barriers

Giving feedback loudly in a noisy corridor, or in the presence of other colleagues or patients, is inappropriate. Such feedback loses its objectivity and the recipient may consider this as an insult that will impact their professional relationship with their peers and patients.

Language barrier or lack of knowledge regarding cultural diversity

Language and cultural barriers convey unclear messages and result in unclassified assumptions. It is important to confirm the message sent is the message that is actually received. All feedback sessions should be held in a respectful and supportive manner.

Personal agendas

Personal agendas should not influence feedback. As soon as you realise this is a possibility, it is best not to give feedback as this will be perceived by the recipient negatively. Personal reflection will identify the reasons behind this and will be crucial in improving this aspect.

Lacking confidence

A person given feedback who lacks confidence may exhibit shyness, difficulty in being assertive, or lack of awareness of their own rights and opportunities.

Tips for and principles of giving effective feedback

When preparing to give feedback, think about what you would like to achieve. What do you want to highlight, what went well and where could there be some improvements? Table 2 summarises tips on giving feedback. Planning in advance is crucial to the process. Planning should encounter to whom you are giving feedback. There is no “one-size fits all” approach; feedback should be tailored to each individual and the corresponding situation. It is of vital importance that you reflect carefully about how you want to convey your message and focus on a couple of key points without overwhelming the learner. The learner might not be ready ( i.e. not receptive), which could have adverse effects. Therefore, think about how they will react to the feedback and what your response might be.

Tips on giving effective feedback

Generally, you will provide one-on-one feedback and you must make sure to give it privately. Offering public feedback will only be perceived as a criticism by the learner and overall it may have detrimental effects on departmental relationships. The learner may feel insulted and undermined whereas their self-confidence will also be affected as they feel this may result in losing their colleagues’ respect. On some occasions, it is possible to give group feedback but then you need to restrict your feedback to the group as a whole without singling out individuals.

It is best to ensure that feedback is given in a timely manner, i.e. as soon after the event as possible, and most organisations will have a regular feedback scheduled (weekly or monthly). However, should the situation mandate it, you can schedule an ad hoc session. Feedback and reflection work best when the memory is still fresh. When feedback is given with great delay ( i.e. months after the incident), then its objectivity will be debated.

In preparing for the feedback, think of specific situations and, if you want to highlight some negative actions, potential alternatives. Do not bring up past actions unless you wish to underscore a certain behaviour or pattern. Also, focus on tasks, actions and objective events rather than personality traits, which tend to be more subjective.

When giving feedback, start off gently trying to implement one of the feedback models mentioned above. For example, you could ask the learner how they think things went. This will give you insight into their experience and enables you to assess how well they can judge their actions, behaviour or performance. Encourage self-reflection as this will allow the learner to be mindful of their actions or behaviour ( table 3 ). As a rule, start with the positive and then move on to negative events. Be very specific and give examples of certain actions or situations, and use “I” when giving feedback.

Open-ended questions for giving feedback that encourage self-reflection

“When you said…, I thought that you were…”

Moreover, link the feedback to the learner’s overall development and/or stated outcomes, which might provide an additional reason for being receptive to the feedback.

Finally, be aware of nonverbal clues, such as your facial expression, body language, posture, voice and eye contact. These might convey their own message, which could be in contrast with what you are trying to achieve.

• Emotions are deduced through facial expression. Thus, smile in the correct manner to express warmth and goodwill.
• Eye contact creates a feeling of connection but can also be too intense. Make eye contact without staring.
• The way we feel about different people effects the way we speak. The tone and the volume of your voice can give away how you feel. Try to match body language, how you use your voice and tone in a natural way.
• Avoid looking strict by keeping your arms crossed or like you don’t care by sitting slumped. An open posture gives the expression of an open conversation.
• Stressed situations make us breathe faster; when we are tired, it is easy to sigh more. Long breaths make us calmer and are likely to make people around us calmer. Try to take a few deep breaths before giving feedback.
• Smartphones and screens with emails, Facebook messages, recent meetings or phone calls: there are so many things to steal our attention and this can only be evident. The person in front of you will notice when you are looking at the screen, and you are less likely to hear and understand what they are saying. Focus your attention on the person in front of you when giving feedback and when you are listening. After giving the feedback, reflect on how it went. Did it go as you expected and how do think it was perceived by the learner? Sometimes, you can misjudge the delivery of your feedback but make sure you learn from this for the next time. Every learner is different and requires a different approach.

In the end, remember to summarise the session in a letter/e-mail and to follow up on what has been discussed. Feedback aims to improve performance and it is advised that time is given to the recipient of feedback to rectify behaviours, then proceed with a follow up session to measure whether or not that is happening, and then make adjustments as you go.

Receiving feedback

A learner-centred approach is often recommended to effectively receive feedback. This involves adopting an open-minded listening strategy, reflection and a willingness to improve one’s performance. The recipients of the feedback are asked to evaluate their own performance and assess how their actions impact others. This approach works best when the feedback is ongoing, regular, supportive, and originating from a wide range of reliable and valid external sources. When this is not the case, the learners may not have sufficient understanding to self-assess and correct behaviours that may hinder their development. However, when constructive feedback is used wisely, it can positively impact the learners’ personal and professional development.

It is very helpful to receive feedback from leaders/teachers in real time and firsthand. When the learner is unable to respond positively, however, this often inhibits the feedback providers from giving direct face-to-face, personalised feedback on a regular basis. Learners’ responses to criticism may present in negative ways ( i.e. anger, denial, blaming or rationalisation), particularly when they discount their own ability to take responsibility for their learning. It is important to view feedback as a means to reflect on strengths and weaknesses, and build on previously learned competencies. The result will be increased confidence and independence, while facilitating a stronger rapport with colleagues, other medical staff and patients.

In order for feedback to be effective, it has to be received well. How a recipient interprets and reacts to feedback is very important to the outcome of the teacher–learner relationship and future learning opportunities. Differing interpretations or uptakes of feedback may be based on a number of factors that include: personality, fear, confidence, context and individual reasoning processes. It is essential to develop an open dialogue between the person giving feedback and the recipient. Differences of opinion should be handled in a professional manner. Both parties should be comfortable, and able to focus on actively listening, engaging, reflecting and developing action points for future development. Effective communication is key to a successful feedback interaction.

Table 4 presents tips to the learner on receiving constructive feedback.

Tips for receiving feedback

Be a good listener

First, truly listen to what the feedback provider is saying, instead of immediately preparing a response, defence or attack. The feedback provider will feel more comfortable giving feedback if you are approachable and welcoming.

When in doubt, ask for clarification

If you did not hear it clearly the first time, politely ask for it to be repeated, then restate it in your own words. This will help you understand more about yourself and how others interpret your actions.

Embrace the feedback session as a learning opportunity

Assume that the feedback is constructive until proven otherwise, then consider and use those elements that are truly constructive. Thinking about your own actions in the context of the feedback provider’s comments is beneficial to making appropriate changes.

Remember to pause and think before responding

Your aim is to have a professional conversation that benefits you. Focus on understanding the feedback first, not on your immediate innate reaction. Reflection, and particularly self-reflection, is essential to feedback acceptance.

Avoid jumping to conclusions, and show that you are invested in the learning process and keen to improve

Ask for clarification and examples if statements are general, unclear or unsupported. It is important to validate the feedback by inviting details and specifics about the criticism. Assuming the feedback provider’s comments as reality, in the context of their perceptions and impressions, defuses your own negative feelings in the face of criticism.

Think positively and be open to helpful hints

You will get more out of the feedback session if you accept the comments positively (for consideration) rather than dismissively (for self-protection). You may disagree with the criticism if the facts are incorrect but this should be done in a graceful manner.

Learn from your mistakes and be motivated

Ask for suggestions of ways you might modify or change your behaviour. Do not be afraid to ask for advice on what and how to do differently. Seek to meet expectations and promptly address the undesired behaviours.

Be a good sport and show appreciation

Be respectful throughout the discussion and thank the person giving feedback. Being polite and appreciative will encourage future feedback.

Be proactive

Try out some of the suggestions, and make careful notes regarding any improvements and changes in behaviour. Following-up with the feedback provider enables the receiver to share how the feedback was helpful.

Giving and receiving effective feedback are skills that are central in healthcare settings. The whole process is closely linked with professional development and improved performance. Both of these impact the quality of healthcare services and patient satisfaction. Feedback should be constructive by focusing on behaviours that can be improved. Developing robust professional relationships is a prerequisite for giving/receiving constructive feedback that will act as a powerful motivator.

Conflict of interest None declared.

Suggested reading

• Open supplemental data
• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Original research article, creating a supportive classroom environment through effective feedback: effects on students’ school identification and behavioral engagement.

• 1 Centro de Investigação em Educação, ISPA – Instituto Universitário, Lisboa, Portugal
• 2 UIDEF, Instituto de Educação da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal

Previous research revealed the connection between students’ behavioral and emotional engagement and a supportive classroom environment. One of the primary tools teachers have to create a supportive classroom environment is effective feedback. In this study, we assessed the supportive classroom environment using the perception shared by all students from the same classroom of teachers’ use of effective feedback. We aimed to explore the effect of such an environment on students’ behavioral engagement and school identification. Using a probabilistic sample of 1,188 students from 75 classrooms across 6th, 7th, 9th, and 10th grades, we employed multilevel regression modeling with random intercept and fixed slopes. We explored the effects of both individual perceptions of teachers’ use of effective feedback and the supportive classroom environment on student engagement. The analyses identified that students who perceived that their teachers use more effective feedback had a higher level of behavioral engagement and school identification. Once we controlled the effects of these individual perceptions of teachers’ effective feedback, we still observed the effect of a supportive classroom environment on student engagement. So, in classrooms where teachers used more effective feedback creating a supportive classroom environment, students had higher school identification and behavioral engagement levels, regardless of their individual perceptions of teachers’ feedback. The association between variables remained significant even after controlling students’ characteristics (gender, nationality, mother’s level of education, history of grade retention) and classroom characteristics (grade level, type of school, number of students at grade level). Our findings support the potential of teachers’ feedback practices to foster students’ school identification and behavioral engagement to build a more inclusive school environment and value students’ diversity.

Introduction

Students’ behavioral engagement and school identification are considered a critical catalyst for their learning and performance ( Korpershoek et al., 2019 ). Students who value school and feel that they belong there are more likely to behaviorally engage in school activities, experience more in-depth learning, and improve their academic achievement ( Voelkl, 2012 ). These feelings can contribute to reducing school dropout and social exclusion. According to Voelkl (2012) , the development of a sense of identification is mediated by contextual factors–namely, perception of teacher support. These factors can be modified to improve school outcomes. According to Voelkl (2012) , a caring, supportive teacher can impact students’ identification with school. If students feel that they are cared for and are allowed to participate actively in classroom activities, they believe that the school climate is positive, supportive and it promotes the sense of belonging and value of the school ( Adomnik, 2012 ). Therefore, understanding what teachers can do to support and foster students’ engagement is vital. In the present study, we investigated one factor identified as having critical effects on students’ achievement and students’ engagement: teachers’ feedback ( Wisniewski et al., 2020 ). When performing learning tasks and activities, feedback is a relevant aspect present in the teacher-student relationship that can create a positive and supportive classroom environment ( Black and Wiliam, 1998 ; Black et al., 2004 ; Voelkl, 2012 ). Feedback may have consequences on students’ school experience, subsequently improving or impairing their school identification and behavioral engagement and, in turn, affecting their academic achievement ( Reeve, 2012 ; Reschly and Christenson, 2012 ; Voelkl, 2012 ; Burns et al., 2019 ; Wang and Zhang, 2020 ). Previous research has demonstrated that students’ perception of teachers’ use of feedback plays a significant role in student engagement ( Koka and Hein, 2005 , Koka and Hein, 2006 ; Price et al., 2011 ; Leh et al., 2014 ; Conboy et al., 2015 ; Burns et al., 2019 ; Kyaruzi et al., 2019 ; Wang and Zhang, 2020 ). Most of this research had investigated perceived teacher feedback at the individual level (e.g., Koka and Hein, 2005 : Koka and Hein, 2006 ; Leh et al., 2014 ; Conboy et al., 2015 ; Vattøy and Smith, 2019 ; Wang and Zhang, 2020 ). This means that the effectiveness of teacher feedback can promote learning, increase achievement and foster student motivation and engagement.

Thus, as mentioned before, students’ perception of teacher “feedback has individual effects on students” engagement and on their school identification ( Pianta et al., 2012 ; Voelkl, 2012 ). However, the teaching and learning process is not only a simple relationship between the teacher and students, but also among students themselves. In this interrelation, teachers’ behaviors are fundamental in promoting positive interactions in the classroom ( Conroy et al., 2009 ). As teachers and students share several learning environments and experiences, they build perceptions about the teaching-learning process that allows them to make interpretations about the interactive dynamics in the classroom in a very consistent way. In these interactions, teachers can help model constructive feedback and can help develop the group’s competence to give effective feedback and create a positive classroom climate, increasing students’ engagement.

Consequently, it is relevant to understand how the context created by teachers’ feedback are likely to impact on students’ behavioral engagement and on their school identification. Based on previous studies (e.g., Burns et al., 2019 ; Kyaruzi et al., 2019 ), we suggest that the use of effective feedback (assessed by the shared perceptions among students of the same classroom about their teachers’ feedback) create a supportive classroom environment that will positively influence of students’ school identification.

The majority of research regarding students’ perceived feedback and their engagement has focused on the student-level characteristics with less consideration for the contexts in which they are taught ( Burns et al., 2019 ). Therefore, in the present study, we used a multilevel design to investigate how these factors function at both the student and classroom level. We studied the link between perceived teachers’ use of effective feedback and students’ levels of school identification and behavioral engagement at the individual and classroom levels. The central question is whether the supportive classroom environment created by the teachers' use of effective feedback affects students’ behavior after controlling their individual perceptions and the differences at the individual level and at classroom-level.

Teachers’ Feedback

One of the primary tools teachers have to create this supportive class environment is feedback ( Price et al., 2011 ; Reeve, 2012 ; Reschly and Christenson, 2012 ). Feedback is conceptualized as information students receive about their performance or understanding ( Hattie and Timperley, 2007 ) that reduces the discrepancy between what the student knows and what is aimed to be known. Students must also make sense of that information and use it to enhance their learning (Carless and Bound, 2018).

Much has been studied about the effectiveness of feedback, but there is much more to learn about how to optimize its power in the classroom. As Janosz (2012) indicated, the feedback information that students receive and interpret from their schooling experience plays a crucial role in assisting students in improving their motivation and engagement and is a decisive factor implicated in academic achievement ( Hattie and Timperley, 2007 ). Nevertheless, we also know that the variability of feedback effectiveness is vast and that there are certain types of feedback that are more effective than others ( Hattie and Yates, 2014 ). Thus, different types of feedback allow the student to close the gap between current knowledge and a more desirable level of achievement with different levels of effectiveness. Hattie and Timperley (2007) specified some forms it should take; The authors use three feedback questions such as where am I going (feeding up), how am I going (feeding back) and where to next (feeding forward) to clarify the goals and criteria for students. For feedback to be effective, these questions must be answered by the student and feedback needs to work at different levels of cognitive complexity: Task and product level, i.e., corrective feedback; Process level, i.e., providing task processing strategies and cues for information search so students can develop their own learning strategies; Self-regulation level, i.e., providing students with information that allows them to improve their competence to monitor their own learning and progress. According to the authors ( Wisniewski et al., 2020 ), feedback is more effective the more information it contains. So high-information feedback contains information on task, process and (sometimes) self-regulation.

Hattie and Timperley (2007) considered that the feedback needs to focus on the appropriate question and level of cognitive complexity. If not, it risks being ignored and misunderstood and never used by the student. Generally, it has been shown that feedback at the process and self-regulation levels seems to be more effective in enhancing deeper learning, improving task confidence and self-efficacy, and leading to more internal attributions about success or failure ( Hattie and Yates, 2014 ). Furthermore, the meta-analyses of Wisniewski et al. (2020) also suggest that feedback is more effective the more information it contains, while simple forms of reinforcement and punishment have low effects.

The literature also suggests that feedback is related to a positive student-teacher relationship, which is an essential aspect of a positive classroom environment (e.g., Burnett, 2002 ; Gutierrez and Buckley, 2019 ). Burnett (2002) observed that students who perceived receiving feedback focused on their effort were more likely to report a positive teacher-student relationship. The author also reported that students who perceived receiving frequent ability feedback from their teachers were also more likely to perceive the classroom environment in a positive way. On the contrary, teacher praise was not related to students’ perception of the classroom environment or their relationships with their teachers.

Therefore, teachers’ feedback is crucial in improving this supportive class environment by establishing good relationships with students and offering both personal and academic support ( Allen et al., 2018 ). Studies have also determined that a supportive class environment could improve students’ school identification and behavioral engagement ( Voelkl, 2012 ; Allen et al., 2018 ; Olivier et al., 2020 ). Students need to be supported and cared for by teachers to develop and maintain a sense of identification with the school that reinforces their behavioral engagement with the school’s activities ( Voelkl, 2012 ). So, Burnett (2002) recommends that teachers should be careful when providing feedback to students as their relationships with students can influence how students perceive the classroom environment.

In sum, feedback is more effective if it helps students understand what mistakes they made, why they made these mistakes, and what they can do to avoid them in future ( Wisniewski et al., 2020 ). Therefore, the effective feedback sets clear standards and expectations that promote a supportive classroom environment, encouraging students’ autonomy, school identification and engagement ( Pianta et al., 2012 ; Voelkl, 2012 ).

Behavioral Engagement and School Identification

The role of student engagement has been considered to be relevant in the literature since authors identified that it improves achievement and persistence in secondary school ( Finn and Zimmer, 2012 ; Korpershoek et al., 2019 ). Engagement is a complex multidimensional construct defined as

the energy and effort that students employ within their learning community, observable via any number of behavioral, cognitive or affective indicators across a continuum. It is shaped by a range of structural and internal influences, including the complex interplay of relationships, learning activities and the learning environment ( Bond et al., 2020 , p. 3).

Similarly, well supported by research, school identification has become an important educational goal (e.g., Christenson et al., 2008 ; Christenson et al., 2008 ; Reschly and Christenson, 2012 ; Voelkl, 2012 ). School identification can be defined as students’ attitudes about their school, and it is an affective form of student engagement comprising two needs: Belongingness and Valuing. Belongingness refers to “feelings that one is a significant member of the school community, is accepted and respected in school, has a sense of inclusion in school, and includes school as part of one’s self-definition.” ( Voelkl, 1996 , p. 762). On the other hand, Valuing has been defined as students “feeling that school and school outcomes have personal importance and/or practical importance” ( Voelkl, 2012 , p. 198).

School identification, also referred to in the literature as affective engagement ( Christenson et al., 2008 ; Reschly and Christenson, 2012 ), is strongly related to behavioral engagement ( Voelkl, 2012 ; Korpershoek et al., 2019 ); the latter is associated with students' active participation and involvement in school and classroom activities, their effort, attendance, active classroom participation, paying attention and homework completion ( Appleton et al., 2006 ; Fredricks et al., 2011 ). Students who identify with school tend to engage in classroom activities more than others. Research shows that students’ behavioral engagement mediates the relation between school identification and students’ academic trajectories ( Reschly and Christenson, 2006 ; Voelkl, 2012 ). Students who develop a sense of identification with the school are more involved in classroom work, actively participating in their learning and autonomously developing new activities, improving their academic achievement ( Korpershoek et al., 2019 ). As indicated by Voelkl (2012) , “classroom participation is the most proximal outcome of identification” (p. 208). Contrarily, students who do not have a sense of belonging or value their school are more likely to disengage or withdraw, and soon drop out ( Voelkl, 2012 ; Lovelace et al., 2014 ; Lovelace et al., 2017 ).

Teachers’ Feedback, School Identification and Engagement

Although recent meta-analyses had found that feedback that contains information on task, process and self-regulation levels is more effective for cognitive outcomes, like students’ achievement ( Wisniewski et al., 2020 ), research also supports that it enhances academic engagement and motivational outcomes ( Gettinger and Ball, 2007 ; Valente et al., 2015 ; Wisniewski et al., 2020 ). In addition, according to Wang and Zhang (2020) , learning engagement had a mediating effect on the relationship between teachers’ feedback and students’ academic performance. The association between teachers’ feedback and students’ engagement seems to exist regardless of the students liking or disliking the learning subject ( Valente et al., 2015 ), although the utility of the feedback depends on how students perceive it ( Handley et al., 2011 ; Kyaruzi et al., 2019 ; Wang and Zhang, 2020 ). Feedback that “draws attention away from the task and toward self-esteem can have a negative effect on attitudes and performance” ( Black and Wiliam, 1998 , p. 13). Hattie (2009) indicates that feedback directed to the self or at the self-level, even if it is positive, like praise, often directs attention away from the task, diluting the power of feedback. Negative and uninformative feedback has the most evident negative influences, because it reduces the experience of autonomy and self-efficacy and because students need to feel that they belong in learning and that there is a trusting relationship between them, their teachers and their peers ( Hattie, 2009 ; Wisniewski et al., 2020 ). For example, Strambler and Weinstein (2010) observed that students who perceive teachers’ feedback as negative or unsupportive respond by devaluing the importance of school, which was negatively related to students’ academic achievement.

The types of interactions teachers have with their students can promote or inhibit student engagement in the classroom. If teachers offer challenging and fun learning activities, encourage students’ participation and provide feedback about how to reach their goals, they are promoting students’ engagement ( Pianta et al., 2012 ). Authors like Voelkl (2012) believe that school identification has its roots in earlier school grades and becomes stronger over time due to the interactions and school experiences. Consequently, if students feel accepted by their peers and supported by teachers, it is expected that they develop an identification with school. According to this author, the development of identification is mediated by contextual factors, namely perceptions of teacher support. Supportive interactions with teachers contribute to positive self-perceptions such as identification with the school, promoting student engagement with academic activities.

High-quality or effective feedback provides students with rich information about the quality of the student answer but principally about the ways to get the right answer and be sure that students use that information to promote learning. This process implies frequent exchanges of information between the student and the teacher. Teachers’ feedback to students’ responses are critical in their engagement in the learning activities ( Pianta et al., 2012 ). Therefore, supportive class environments are essential to develop and maintain students engagement. The use of high-quality feedback by the teacher over time contributes to progressively increase the sense of belongingness and the value the students attribute to school. This development of school identification can facilitate and promote students’ engagement ( Voelkl, 2012 ).

In sum, previous research suggests that students’ perceptions of teachers’ feedback play an important role in creating a supportive classroom environment ( Price et al., 2011 ; Reeve, 2012 ; Reschly and Christenson, 2012 ). Furthermore, supportive classroom environments have been found to significantly impact students’ engagement ( Voelkl, 2012 ; Allen et al., 2018 ). Therefore, we suggest that students’ shared perceptions of teachers’ use of feedback will positively influence students’ engagement and school identification.

Present Study–The Contextual Effect of Teachers’ Feedback

Previous research had explored the link between students’ individual perceptions of teachers’ feedback, students’ behavioral engagement and school identification at the individual level (e.g., Conboy et al., 2015 ; Carvalho et al., 2020 ). Results confirmed that students’ perceptions about teachers’ use of effective feedback were associated with increased behavioral engagement via increased school identification. In the present study we started by confirming that students’ individual perception of teachers’ use of effective feedback was positively related to their school identification and behavioral engagement.

The second purpose of the present study was to expand previous research by analyzing the effects of teachers’ use of effective feedback as an indicator of a supportive classroom environment that influences students’ school identification and behavioral engagement. We considered that a classroom where students shared the perception that their teachers use effective feedback frequently was a classroom with supportive environment. We hypothesized that in a supportive classroom environment students would have greater levels of school identification and behavioral engagement, even after controlling for the effect of their individual perceptions of teachers feedback (if confirmed in our first hypothesis) and after controlling other differences at the individual and at the classroom-level. This means that if two students perceived that their teacher used little effective feedback, the student that is in a classroom with a highly supportive environment will still present higher levels of behavioral engagement and school identification than the student that is in a classroom with lower supportive environment.

Previous studies have reported that when teachers’ behavior or characteristics are assessed via students’ reports, they should be studied as classroom or school level constructs from a multilevel perspective (e.g. Marsh et al., 2012 ). As a result, we implement multilevel analyses to examine the climate effect of a supportive classroom environment created by the use of effective feedback.

Climate studies evaluate whether school, classroom, or teacher characteristics contribute to predicting students’ outcomes beyond what can be explained by students’ individual characteristics ( Marsh et al., 2012 ). A climate analysis model includes the same variable at both the individual and group levels. Such analyses represent an effort to explain dependent variables (in this case, students’ school identification and behavioral engagement) using a combination of individual and group level independent variables (in this case, students’ perceptions about teachers’ use of effective feedback) ( Blalock, 1984 ). These models allow researchers to investigate the climate effects that teachers’ feedback is presumed to have on the individual students over and above the effect of any individual-level variable that may be operating ( Blalock, 1984 ).

Participant and Procedures

Data collected for this study were part of a broader research project ( Carvalho and Conboy, 2015 ), the main aim of which was to understand the dynamics of teacher feedback in developing students’ identity and the consequences of this dynamic on students’ school trajectories. This project’s target population consisted of middle school and early secondary education students from Portuguese public schools. In Portugal, basic education level is divided into three cycles: first (1st to 4th grades), second (5th to 6th grades), and third cycle (7th to 9th grades). The project focuses on students attending the transitional years between study cycles (6th, 7th, 9th, and 10th grades). In these grade levels, students have several teachers, each one teaching a different subject (Eurydice, 2019).

The sample was selected through a probabilistic, multi-stage sampling procedure in continental Portugal, based on the number of students enrolled in the chosen grades by each Territorial Unit for Purposes Statistics (NUTS II–with five regions). Schools were randomly selected for each grade level. Only one or two classrooms of the same grade were collected in each school.

The final sample consisted of 1,188 students spread over 75 classrooms in 48 schools in continental Portugal. The average number of students by classroom was 16. The sample presented similar patterns of population distribution for grade level and NUTS II region, which indicated that the sample was representative of the Portuguese population. Overall sample characteristics are illustrated in Table 1 .

TABLE 1 . Sample characteristics.

The students responded to a paper-and-pencil questionnaire that included a first section intended to measure students’ school identification, a second section focused on behavioral engagement and a third section that assessed student perception of teacher feedback. The instrument also included a demographic section: gender (0 = girls; 1 = boys), age, nationality (0 = Portuguese; 1 = other nationalities), year of schooling (6th, 7th, 9th or 10th grade), and mother/stepmother’s and father/stepfather’s level of education (1 = 1st cycle of basic education, 2 = 2nd cycle, 3 = 3rd cycle, 4 = secondary education, 5 = higher education).

Students’ Perceptions of Teachers’ Use of Effective Feedback

To measure students’ perceptions of their teachers’ feedback practices, we used eight items from the Teachers’ Feedback Scale, developed by Carvalho et al. (2015) . Students reported their perceptions about teachers’ use of effective feedback in a subject they like. The instruction stated, “Think of a subject that you like”. The reason for including this instruction was to avoid negative experiences associated with a discipline that could interfere with their perceptions of the feedback. The questionnaire included items questioning the feedback at the process level (e.g., “Teachers clearly describe what is not correct and make suggestions for improvement”) or self-regulation level (e.g., “The teachers ask questions that help us reflect on the quality of our work”). Items were answered on a four-point scale (0 = never and 3 = always).

To confirm that the design on the survey did not cause raters to bias their response, we assessed the common method variance (CMV) through the Harman Single Factor technique, as described by Eichhorn (2014). The common latent factor explained less than 50% of the variance (47.22%), indicating that common method bias was not present (Eichhorn, 2014). We conducted confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) to verify the measure’s structural validity in our sample, using the Weighted Least Square Mean and Variance (WLSMV) estimator. Good fit index values were adequate (χ 2 (18) = 61.30, p < 0.001; comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.992; Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) = 0.987; root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.045, 90% IC = [0.033, 0.058], p = 0.716). The measure presented adequate levels of reliability (Composite Reliability, CR = 89) (complete results are presented in the Supplementary Material ).

Students’ perceptions of teachers’ effective feedback were aggregated at the classroom level to create a climate variable that reflects the supportive classroom environment. Climate variables are classroom aggregations of ratings by students in which each student is asked to rate a particular classroom characteristic (in this case, the frequency of effective feedback used by the teacher of the discipline they like) that is common to all students ( Marsh et al., 2012 ). Since students like different disciplines, the aggregation of the ratings provides an indicator of the frequency of effective feedback received by students during the time they are in the school. Students’ rates of teachers’ use of effective feedback were aggregated at the classroom level using a manifest measurement–latent aggregation approach ( Marsh et al., 2009 ). The manifest-latent approach uses multilevel models to aggregated student-level responses (the manifest observed variable) to form an unobserved latent variable as an indicator of the climate construct. This procedure permitted correct sampling errors in the aggregation of individual-level constructs to form classroom level climate variables ( Marsh et al., 2009 ). Hence, our supportive classroom environment construct was a latent variable at the classroom level based on shared perceptions among different students with the same teachers. Differences among students within the same classroom (the variable at the student level) do not reflect the classroom environment, representing each student’s unique perceptions that are not explained by the shared perception of different students ( Marsh et al., 2012 ). If there was no significant agreement among students from the same classroom about teachers’ use of feedback, then it could be argued that the classroom level variable did not reflect the classroom environment ( Marsh et al., 2012 ). Consequently, we test the agreement between students in the same classroom using intraclass correlation (ICC2, Lüdtke et al., 2009 ) to indicate the reliability of our classroom environment latent variable. The measure presented an ICC2 of 0.77, which falls within the acceptable threshold of 0.70 and 0.85 recommended by Lüdtke et al. (2009) .

Students’ Behavioral Engagement

A nine-item scale authored by Carvalho et al. (2016) was used to assess the behavioral engagement of the students in the school. The scale assesses two dimensions: academic work, with six items (e.g., “I study the material given in class”) and class participation, with three items (e.g., “I raise my hand to answer a question”). Students answered each on a four-point Likert scale (0 = never and 3 = always). Students were asked to think of a subject they liked. We only used the global measure composed by these dimensions.

We also assessed the CMV of this scale through the Harman Single Factor technique. There was no evidence that common method bias was present (the common latent factor explained only 39.21% of the variance). To confirm the validity of the two-dimensional hierarchical structure of the measure in our sample, we conducted a CFA using the WLSMV estimator. The results indicated that there was also evidence of structure validity (χ 2 (27) = 60.38, p = 0.002; CFI = 0.992; TLI = 0.990; RMSEA = 0.032, 90% IC = [0.021, 0.043], p = 0.996). Composite reliability was also adequate for the global measure (CR = 0.88) (complete results are presented in the Supplementary Material ).

Students’ behavioral engagement outcome variable was aggregated at the classroom level. Once again, we used the manifest-latent approach and calculated the ICC2 as an indicator of reliability ( Lüdtke et al., 2009 ; Marsh et al., 2012 ). The value of ICC2 was 0.67, just below the 0.70 value recommended by Lüdtke et al. (2009) .

Students’ School Identification

The School Identification Scale, authored by Carvalho et al. (2015) , was used to measure students’ school identification. The scale assesses three dimensions of school identification. Three items assess students’ perceptions about their school’s practical value (e.g., “My future depends on what I do in school”). Three items question their feelings of belonging and well-being in school (e.g., “I am happy in this school”). Finally, four items assess students’ perceptions of their capacity and will (e.g., “My skills make me confident about my future”). Items were answered on a four-point Likert scale (0 = completely disagree to 3 = completely agree). In the present study, we only used the global measure composed by these dimensions to avoid multicollinearity problems.

The Harman Single Factor test indicates there was no evidence that common method bias was present in this scale either (the common latent factor explained only 32.25% of the variance). We conducted a CFA to confirm the validity of the three-dimensional hierarchical structure of the measure in our sample using the WLSMV estimator. Good fit index values were adequate (χ 2 (31) = 177.35, p < 0.001; CFI = 0.969; TLI = 0.955; RMSEA = 0.063, 90% IC = [0.054, 0.072], p = 0.008). The global measure presented good levels of reliability (CR = 0.84) (complete results are presented in the Supplementary Material ).

Students’ school identification outcome variable was also aggregated at the classroom level, again using the manifest-latent approach. We tested the ICC2 ( Lüdtke et al., 2009 ) to assess the classroom-average identification level latent variable's reliability. The value of ICC2 was 0.77, indicating adequate reliability levels ( Lüdtke et al., 2009 ).

Data Analyses

All models were estimated using Mplus 8.4. Missing data (1.6% of all data) was handled by allowing missingness to be a function of the observed covariates but not the observed outcomes, the default Mplus procedure ( Muthén and Muthén, 2017 ). Factor scores of the measures were saved and used as observed manifest variables to make the models more parsimonious, reducing the number of variables involved ( Wang and Wang, 2020 ).

We employ multilevel regression modeling with random intercept and fixed slopes using the robust maximum likelihood (MLR) estimator. Respondents (level 1) were “nested” within the classroom (level 2) to account for classroom-level baselines in students’ perceptions. We ran an intercept-only model to examine ICC2 that indicated the proportion of the total variance explained by differences between schools. Next, we estimated two models to evaluate the supportive classroom environment created by teachers’ use of effective feedback. For all the models tested, the predictor variables, except the dichotomous variables, were grand-mean-centred.

In Model 1, we assess a model already tested in previous publications ( Conboy et al., 2015 ; Carvalho et al., 2020 ) based on Voelkl (2012) theory. At the individual level, students’ perceptions of teachers’ feedback contribute to students’ school identification and behavioral engagement. At the classroom level model, the supportive classroom environment contributed to students’ school identification and behavioral levels. We also propose that school identification (both at the individual and classroom levels) contribute to students’ behavioral engagement (see Figure 1 ).

FIGURE 1 . Conceptual model. Latent classroom-level constructs are represented as circles, and student-level indicators of these latent variables are represented as squares.

In Model 2, we incorporated the control variables. It was important to consider and neutralize individual and group variables that could explain our outcome variables (students’ engagement and school identification) ( Creswell, 2012 ). This will allow us to assess more accurately the relationship between teachers’ feedback and our outcomes because of a reduction in the number of errors ( Creswell, 2012 ). At the individual level, we control gender, mother’s and father’s education level, history of grade retention and nationality. These variables had previously been shown to be related to students’ engagement and school identification ( Allen et al., 2018 ; Bear et al., 2019 ; Cunha et al., 2019 ; Olivier et al., 2020 ). At the classroom level, we control grade level and the number of students at the grade level in the school. Previous studies indicated that the odds of a student having low levels of engagement and school identification increased in classrooms in schools with a large number of students ( Finn and Voelkl, 1993 ; Willms, 2003 ; Weiss et al., 2010 ). Moreover, students in the lower grades tend to perceive that their teachers use more effective feedback ( Carvalho et al., 2020 ) and present higher engagement levels ( Eccles et al., 1993 ; Mahatmya et al., 2012 ). We also control for classrooms in schools that were part of the Portuguese TEIP Program for priority intervention educational areas, whose aim was to promote educational inclusion in schools located in socially and economically disadvantaged areas ( European Commission, 2013 ).

Model fit was assessed using the indices and cut-off points suggested by Hu and Bentler (1999) : non-significant values of chi-square (χ 2 ) or less than three times the degrees of freedom; values higher than 0.95 of CFI and TLI; and values lower than 0.08 of RMSEA and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR).

Preliminary Analyses

The unconditional “null” model showed that the ICC2 was between 0.111 and 0.179; in other words, between approximately 11.1 and 17.9% of the total variance in the target variables was associated with classroom characteristics (see Table 2 ). Still, the largest proportion of the variance was associated with individual characteristics. Considering that the average cluster size was 16 students, the design effects were between 2.66 and 3.68. Muthén and Satorra (1995) indicated that design effects higher than 2.00 suggest systematic variation between groups that deviate from simple random sampling. Therefore, we confirm that multilevel modeling was necessary ( Heck and Thomas, 2015 ). In Table 2 , we also present the correlation between variables at the student and classroom levels.

TABLE 2 . Classroom Level Intraclass Correlations (ICC) and intercorrelations at students and classroom level.

Teachers’ Feedback Effects on School Identification and Behavioral Engagement

The multilevel analysis results indicate that students’ individual perceptions about teachers’ use of effective feedback were positively related to both students’ school identification and behavioral engagement (see Model 1 in Table 3 ). Students who perceived that their teachers used more effective feedback presented a higher level of school identification and behavioral engagement. More importantly, the results indicated that, after controlling the individual effect, the supportive classroom environment had a significant effect on school identification and behavioral engagement levels. These results indicated that students in classrooms where teachers used more effective feedback, thus creating a supportive classroom environment, had higher levels of school identification and behavioral engagement, regardless of their individual perceptions of teachers’ use of effective feedback.

TABLE 3 . Coefficients of the multilevel models tested.

Students’ school identification also predicted students’ behavioral engagement, but only at the individual level. We observed that students in classrooms with more students with higher school identification levels did not present higher engagement levels as expected. Indeed, individual levels of school identification were more relevant in explaining students’ behavioral engagement.

In model 2, we added the control variables at the individual level (gender, nationality, mother’s education level and history of grade retention) and classroom level (grade-level, number of students in the grade-level, TEIP school). To make the model parsimonious, we removed all non-significant paths that did not affect the fit or the predictive power of the model. The final model results are presented in Table 3 and Figure 2 .

FIGURE 2 . Standardize coefficients of the multilevel Model 2 tested (with MLR estimator). Latent classroom-level constructs are represented as circles and student-level indicators of these latent variables are represented as squares. Dotted lines represent non-significant relations.

At the individual level, besides students’ perceptions of teachers’ feedback, mother’s education level also contributed to students’ school identification and behavioral engagement. The fathers’ educational level only contributed to students’ school identification but not to their behavioral engagement. Gender explained students’ behavioral engagement and school identification, while grade retention explained only school identification. Male students, non-retained students, students whose mother and father had a higher level of education and students who perceived that their teachers used more effective feedback presented higher school identification levels. Female students, students whose mother had a higher level of education, students with a higher level of school identification and students who perceived that their teachers used more effective feedback had higher behavioral engagement levels. Students’ nationality was not related to any variable under study.

Results also indicated that students’ perception of teachers’ feedback was related to students’ history of grade retention. Retained students perceived that their teachers used less effective feedback than non-retained students. Despite this, the relation was very week.

At the classroom level, we observed that the classroom environment effect on school identification and behavioral engagement levels remained significant, with considerable size effects. Students in classrooms with higher levels of supportive environments (i.e., where teachers used more effective feedback) had higher school identification and behavioral engagement levels. Additionally, students in classrooms from schools with fewer students also had higher school identification and behavioral engagement levels. The number of students was not related to the supportive classroom environment.

Table 3 shows that students in classes from lower grade levels presented higher levels of school identification and indicated a more supportive environment where teachers used more effective feedback. There was a less supportive environment in classrooms from higher grade levels. Belonging to a TEIP school was not related to the supportive classroom environment, school identification or behavioral engagement levels.

The final model presented very good indicators of model fit: χ 2 (8) = 6.53, p = 0.588; CFI = 1.000; TLI = 1.004; RMSEA <0.001; SRMR = 0.009 (within), 0.029 (between). The model clearly explained the variance, both at the individual and classroom levels, in students’ behavioral engagement (37.3 and 75.0%, respectively) and school identification (19.6 and 52.8%, respectively). Teachers’ feedback variance is only distinctly explained by the variables at the classroom level (1.1 and 49.2%, respectively).

In this study, we aimed to understand if a supportive learning environment generated by teachers’ use of effective feedback can boost students’ school identification and behavioral engagement. We used teachers’ feedback as an indicator of a supportive classroom environment. Our results confirm previous studies that indicated that students’ perceptions about teacher feedback are positively related with their school identification and behavioral engagement (e.g., Koka and Hein, 2005 , Koka and Hein, 2006 ; Leh et al., 2014 ; Conboy et al., 2015 ; Vattøy and Smith, 2019 ; Carvalho et al., 2020 ; Wang and Zhang, 2020 ). The feedback directly experienced by students enhance their sense of autonomy and self-efficacy by offering information about where they are going, how they are going there and how to reach their goals ( Hattie, 2009 ; Wisniewski et al., 2020 ). Therefore, by offering effective feedback, the teacher is communicating to the student (and, by extension, to all students in the classroom) that learning is essential and relevant to students’ personal goals (where they are going), that they can succeed and are valued by the teacher (by caring about how they are going) and informing them about the behaviors they need to exhibit to better meet expectations in the future (where to next). In other words, effective feedback reinforces the value of school for the students, their feelings of belongingness and their behavioral engagement in school activities, avoiding dropout and social exclusion.

Our results also indicated that other individual variables like mother’s and father’s educational level, gender and grade retention were related to students’ school identification and behavioral engagement, all of which is consistent with previous studies (e.g., Allen et al., 2018 ; Bear et al., 2019 ; Cunha et al., 2019 ; Olivier et al., 2020 ). We found that mothers’ educational level was positively related to students’ school identification and behavioral engagement levels, while the fathers’ educational level was only positively related to students’ school identification. Parents’ educational attitudes and beliefs are considered to be significant influences on their children’s educational attitudes. Mothers with higher education levels are more intellectually involved in school activities, providing intellectual resources and helping with schoolwork, thus creating a positive environment in which students develop their school identification and behavioral engagement ( Bempechat and Shernoff, 2012 ). According to Vieira (2013) , recent research on families and family dynamics in Portugal confirm that mainly mothers are the ones that help children with schoolwork, take them to school, and talk with them about school and their studies. Therefore, behavioral engagement seems to be more affected by the mothers’ level of education than for the fathers’ level of education.

Previous studies have also indicated that female students score higher in all engagement dimensions, especially in the behavioral engagement (e.g., Lietaert et al., 2015 ). Still, our results were not completely consistent with previous studies. In the present study, girls presented higher levels of behavioral engagement, as expected, while males presented higher levels of school identification. It is possible that our results differ from previous research because of the dimensions that were assessed by the school identification measure. Research indicates that males have higher levels of academic self-efficacy (e.g., Huang, 2013 ). In the present study, the school identification measure included a dimension that assesses students’ perceptions of their capacity and will, which contribute greatly to the school identification latent factor (see Supplementary Figure S2 in the Supplementary Material). Therefore, males’ higher levels of school identification might be related to a higher sense of self-efficacy.

Researchers suggest that girls scored higher in their behavioral engagement because activities are focused on language and verbal learning, competences stereotypically related to girls ( Lietaert et al., 2015 ). Still, Lietaert et al. (2015) observed in their study that teachers offered less support to male students, which was related to their lower engagement compared to girls. Authors suggest that teachers offer more support to girls because they are less tolerant of negative behaviors from boys. In contrast, they associated more positive behaviors (more compliance, better organization skills, etc.) to girls. Portuguese teachers also described boys as being disconnected and irresponsible and girls as more focused and responsible ( Wall et al., 2017 ). Although we only find a marginally significant effect of gender on students’ perception of teachers’ feedback, our results seem to correspond to Lietaert et al. (2015) findings: boys perceive that teachers used less effective feedback than girls. Nevertheless, given that the gender bias in feedback observed in this study was small, it could be argued that these students believe that their teachers do not make much difference between genders in the use of effective feedback. Additionally, Lietaert et al. (2015) indicated that it is possible that these lower levels of engagement from boys could explain why teachers are less supportive. Consequently, future research may need to consider the reciprocal effect between teacher support through effective feedback and engagement to better understand this classroom dynamic.

Regarding the effect of grade retention, previous studies indicated that retention seems to leave a significant mark on students that lead them to develop a more negative attitude toward school, associating school with negative experiences (e.g., Martin, 2011 , Santos et al., submitted). A highly interesting finding from our study was that retained students also perceived that their teachers used less effective feedback. Although the effect was small, it could indicate that teachers had lower expectations about retained students (e.g., OECD, 2012 ), using less effective feedback with students with lower achievements. For example, Gentrup et al. (2020) observed that teachers communicate their expectations through different feedback practices, giving less positive feedback and more negative feedback to students for whom they have low expectations. Furthermore, Monteiro et al. (2019) observed that teachers gave less feedback at the process and self-regulation levels to students with low achievement. In Santana’s study ( Santana, 2019 ), a number of Portuguese school directors admitted that teachers tend to ignore retained students.

However, the central question of the present study is whether the aggregated classroom characteristic of teachers’ feedback, as a measure of a supportive classroom environment, affects students’ school identification and behavioral engagement after controlling for other inter-individual differences at the individual level. The answer was positive: Our findings demonstrated that the supportive environment created by teachers’ feedback varies across schools and that students in classrooms where, on average, teachers used more effective feedback and created a supportive classroom environment, had higher levels of school identification and behavioral engagement than students in classrooms without this supportive environment. This was true regardless of students’ individual perceptions about teachers’ feedback.

These findings represent a significant contribution to the theoretical discussion about perceived feedback. Even if a student perceived that his/her teachers used little effective feedback, if s/he was in a classroom with a highly supportive environment, the student would have higher levels of school identification and behavioral engagement than if s/he was in a classroom with a less supportive environment. These results suggest that feedback interactions may affect the learning and engagement of other students in the classroom because they are exposed to both their peers’ behavior and performance and teachers’ feedback to their peers, as observed by Conroy et al. (2009) . By contrast, if teachers display differential feedback for some students based on their individual characteristics (gender, nationality or achievement levels), creating an unsupportive classroom environment, students’ trust for or receptivity to the teacher as a source of support and feeling of belonging will be reduced ( Voelkl, 2012 ). Therefore, similarly to what Hattie and Timperley (2007) and Wisniewski et al. (2020) have said, the feedback has huge power. The use (or not) of effective feedback can have an overall impact on the classroom environment and climate, increasing (or decreasing) students’ engagement and school identification. This conclusion deserves to be studied more deeply in future research because students were asked to think about a discipline they liked. In a discipline where students have negative experiences, this impact can have other effects on their behavioral engagement and identification.

More importantly, the quality of the supportive classroom environment was not related to the number of students in the school, suggesting that teachers in schools with both large and small numbers of students were able to create a supportive environment using effective feedback. Nevertheless, our results indicated that students in classrooms from schools with fewer students had higher levels of school identification and behavioral engagement, which is coherent with previous studies ( Finn and Voelkl, 1993 ; Willms, 2003 ; Weiss et al., 2010 ). However, the size effect of the number of students in the school is smaller than the effect of the supportive classroom environment. As a result, our findings indicated that the classroom environment is more critical than the number of students in the school to predict students’ engagement. As mentioned by Weiss et al. (2010) , the reduction of the number of students in a class does not guarantee that students will experience the same benefits as students in smaller schools, especially if their feedback environment is not adequate to prompt students’ engagement.

At the classroom level, the results indicated that students in classes from lower grade levels presented higher school identification levels. This was expected since the literature indicates that affective engagement tends to decrease upon the transition to adolescence ( Eccles et al., 1993 ; Mahatmya et al., 2012 ). Eccles et al. (1993) suggested that the mismatch between the needs of developing adolescences and the opportunities afforded by their social environments could decrease their school identification. Our results are consistent with this theory since we observed a less supportive classroom environment in classrooms from higher grade levels. Therefore, students in higher grades perceive that their teachers offer less feedback than what they feel they need. It could be that students in lower grade levels perceive a more supportive environment because in 6th and 7th grades teachers focused more on mastery than on performance ( Guo, 2020 ). Teachers’ primary goal in the middle school years is to help students master certain knowledge and skills to prepare for secondary school. Consequently, they may provide more feedback at the process and self-regulation levels to enhance learning habits and abilities ( Guo, 2020 ). On the contrary, in the higher grade levels, teachers may focus most on providing correct answers or solutions to students because teachers are more focused on performance to help students prepare for their upcoming examinations ( Guo, 2020 ). Future studies could test this hypothesis by assessing both the supportive classroom environment and teachers’ goals and beliefs about feedback in several grade levels.

Although the present investigation contributes to the theory about feedback and students’ engagement by accounting for both individual and classroom factors that may impact students’ schooling experience, it has some important limitations to consider for future research. For the assessment of the supportive classroom environment, we relied on the perception that students have of their teachers’ feedback practices. Although classroom-level aggregated measures of students’ perceptions are reliable indicators of a learning environment ( Marsh et al., 2012 ), using classroom observations, interviews, and teacher reports would have provided a complementary evaluation of teachers’ feedback practices. Additionally, we used a manifest-latent approach to aggregate the classroom level variable. Although it controlled sampling errors at the classroom level, we did not control measurement errors at the individual level. A doubly latent approach was necessary to control both types of errors ( Marsh et al., 2009 ). Unfortunately, double latent models required a larger sample than used in the present study ( Marsh et al., 2009 ). Future studies should replicate this research using a larger size sample, with a higher number of classrooms. Another limitation of this research was the use of a single research method. To produce in-depth and richer information in order to better understand the relations between the variables of the problem being studied, it would be better to have leaned toward a mixed methods approach to get potentialities that together give a more precise view of the role of feedback on school identification and student engagement ( Hughes, 2016 ).

Despite these limitations, in the present study we found evidence that indicated that students’ perceptions of teachers’ feedback and the classroom environment created by the effective feedback were more critical for explaining students’ school identification and behavioral engagement than their individual characteristics (like mother’s level of education, gender and grade retention) or the size of the school. Therefore, improving teachers’ use of effective feedback, especially in the upper grade levels, could impact students’ engagement levels. It is essential to provide teachers with training that focuses on giving effective and high-quality feedback. This training should enable teachers to provide a supportive environment to all their students, independent of their gender or what achievements they expect from their students, based on their school trajectory.

Being competent as a teacher to develop a supportive environment in a classroom also means being alert to the expectations constructed around the students. If teachers hold different expectations based on achievement levels or gender, this can influence students’ trust to see teachers as a source of support or as a person that allows her or him to develop feelings of school belonging ( Voelkl, 2012 ).

The evidence suggests that teachers can improve school identification and behavioral engagement by using effective feedback. If there is a supportive environment developed by teachers in the classroom through the use of effective feedback, students will learn better and achieve their psychological and social goals. A supportive environment will motivate the students to communicate with their teachers and peers, to engage in different activities and forms of learning environments and to increase their sense of school identification.

Data Availability Statement

The data analyzed in this study is subject to the following licenses/restrictions: The datasets generated for this study are available on request. Requests to access these datasets should be directed to Carolina Carvalho, [email protected].

Ethics Statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the Comissão de Ética (CdE) of the Instituto de Educação (IE) da Universidade de Lisboa. Written informed consent to participate in this study was provided by the participants’ legal guardian/next of kin.

Author Contributions

All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work and approved it for publication.

This study was supported by the FCT–Science and Technology Foundation–UIDP/04853/2020.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2021.661736/full#supplementary-material

Adomnik, J. G. (2012). The Effects of Self-Determination, Identification with School, and School Climate on Middle School Students’ Aspirations for Future educationDoctoral Dissertation . Tuscaloosa: Graduate School of the University of Alabama Available at: https://ir.ua.edu/bitstream/handle/123456789/1402/file_1.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y .

Allen, K., Kern, M. L., Vella-Brodrick, D., Hattie, J., and Waters, L. (2018). What Schools Need to Know about Fostering School Belonging: A Meta-Analysis. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 30, 1–34. doi:10.1007/s10648-016-9389-8

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., Kim, D., and Reschly, A. L. (2006). Measuring Cognitive and Psychological Engagement: Validation of the Student Engagement Instrument. J. Sch. Psychol. 44, 427–445. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.002

Bear, G. G., Harris, A., Saraiva de Macedo Lisboa, C., and Holst, B. (2019). Perceptions of Engagement and School Climate: Differences between Once-Retained and Multiple-Retained Students in Brazil. Int. J. Sch. Educ. Psychol. 7 (1), 18–27. doi:10.1080/21683603.2017.1376725

Bempechat, J., and Shernoff, D. J. (2012). “Parental Influences on Achievement Motivation and Student Engagement,” in Handbook of Research on Student Engagement . Editors S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, and C. Wylie (London: Springer ), 315–342. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_15

Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., and Wiliam, D. (2004). Working inside the Black Box: Assessment for Learning in the Classroom . London: GL Assessment 86, 8–21. doi:10.1177/003172170408600105

CrossRef Full Text

Black, P., and Wiliam, D. (2010). Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards through Classroom Assessment. Phi Delta Kappan 92 (2), 81–90. doi:10.1177/003172171009200119

Blalock, H. M. (1984). Contextual-Effects Models: Theoretical and Methodological Issues. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 10, 353–372. doi:10.1146/annurev.so.10.080184.002033

Bond, M., Buntins, K., Bedenlier, S., Zawacki-Richter, O., and Kerres, M. (2020). Mapping Research in Student Engagement and Educational Technology in Higher Education: A Systematic Evidence Map. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High Educ. 17, 2. doi:10.1186/s41239-019-0176-8

Burnett, P. C. (2002). Teacher Praise and Feedback and Students' Perceptions of the Classroom Environment. Educ. Psychol. 22 (1), 5–16. doi:10.1080/01443410120101215

Burns, E. C., Martin, A. J., and Collie, R. J. (2019). Examining the Yields of Growth Feedback from Science Teachers and Students' Intrinsic Valuing of Science: Implications for Student‐ and School‐level Science Achievement. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 56 (8), 1060–1082. doi:10.1002/tea.21546

Carvalho, C., and Conboy, J. (2015). Feedback, identidade, trajetórias escolares: Dinâmicas e consequências [Feedback, identity, school trajectories: Dynamics and consequences] . Lisbon: Instituto de Educação da Universidade de Lisboa

Carvalho, C., Conboy, J., Santos, J., Fonseca, J., Tavares, D., Martins, D., et al. (2015). An Integrated Measure of Student Perceptions of Feedback, Engagement and School Identification. Proced. - Soc. Behav. Sci. 174, 2335–2342. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.896

Carvalho, C., Conboy, J., Santos, J., Fonseca, J., Tavares, D., Martins, D., et al. (2017). Escala de Perceção dos Alunos sobre o seu Envolvimento Comportamental Escolar: Construção e Validação. Psic.: Teor. e Pesq. 32 (3), e323219. doi:10.1590/0102-3772e323219

Carvalho, C., Santos, N. N., António, R., and Martins, D. S. M. (2020). Supporting Students' Engagement with Teachers' Feedback: the Role of Students' School Identification. Educ. Psychol. , 1–20. doi:10.1080/01443410.2020.1849564

Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L., Appleton, J. J., Berman, S., Spanjers, D., and Varro, P. (2008). “Best Practices in Fostering Student Engagement,” in Best Practices in School Psychology V . Editors A. Thomas, and J. Grimes (Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists ), 1099–1120.

Google Scholar

Conboy, J., Caravalho, C., and Santos, J. (2015). “Feedback, identificação, envolvimento: Construção de um modelo explicativo,” in Feedback, identidade, trajetórias escolares: Dinâmicas e consequências . Editors C. Carvalho, and J. Conboy (Lisbon: Instituto de Educação da Universidade de Lisboa ), 83–108.

Conroy, M. A., Sutherland, K. S., Snyder, A., Al-Hendawi, M., and Vo, A. (2009). Creating a Positive Classroom Atmosphere: Teachers’ Use of Effective Praise and Feedback. Beyond Behav. 18, 18–26. Available at: https://johnston1025.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/creating-a-positive-classroom-environment.pdf .

Creswell, J. (2012). Educational Research. Planning, Conducting and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research . Boston: Pearson .

Cunha, J., Rosário, P., Núñez, J. C., Vallejo, G., Martins, J., and Högemann, J. (2019). Does Teacher Homework Feedback Matter to 6th Graders' School Engagement? a Mixed Methods Study. Metacognition Learn. 14 (2), 89–129. doi:10.1007/s11409-019-09200-z

Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C. M., Reuman, D., Flanagan, C., et al. (1993). Development during Adolescence: The Impact of Stage-Environment Fit on Young Adolescents' Experiences in Schools and in Families. Am. Psychol. 48, 90–101. doi:10.1037//0003-066x.48.2.9010.1037/0003-066x.48.2.90

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

European Commission (2013). Reducing Early School Leaving: Key Messages and Policy Support. Final Report of the Thematic Working Group on Early School Leaving. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/education/sites/education/files/early-school-leaving-group2013-report_en.pdf . (Accessed November 20, 2020).

Finn, J. D., and Voelkl, K. E. (1993). School Characteristics Related to Student Engagement. J. Negro Edu. 62 (3), 249–268. doi:10.2307/2295464 Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2295464

Finn, J. D., and Zimmer, K. S. (2012). “Student Engagement: What Is it? Why Does it Matter?,” in Handbook of Research on Student Engagement . Editors S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, and C. Wylie (London: Springer ), 97–131. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_5

Fredricks, J., McCloskey, W., Meli, L., Mordica, J., Montrose, B., and Mooney, K. (2011). Measuring Student Engagement in Upper Elementary School through High School: A Description of 21 Instruments (Issues and Answers Report, REL 2011 No. 098). Available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED514996.pdf .

Gentrup, S., Lorenz, G., Kristen, C., and Kogan, I. (2020). Self-fulfilling Prophecies in the Classroom: Teacher Expectations, Teacher Feedback and Student Achievement. Learn. Instruction 66, 101296. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101296

Gettinger, M., and Ball, C. (2007). “Best Practices in Increasing Academic Engaged Time,” in Best Practices in School Psychology V . Editors A. Thomas, and J. Grimes (Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists ), 1043–1075.

Guo, W. (2020). Grade-Level Differences in Teacher Feedback and Students' Self-Regulated Learning. Front. Psychol. 11, 783. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00783

Gutierrez, A. S., and Buckley, K. H. (2019). Stories from the Field: Building strong Teacher-Students Relationships in the Classroom. Transform. Educ (1). Available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED601206.pdf .

Handley, K., Price, M., and Millar, J. (2011). Beyond 'doing Time': Investigating the Concept of Student Engagement with Feedback. Oxford Rev. Edu. 37 (4), 543–560. doi:10.1080/03054985.2011.604951

Hattie, J., and Timperley, H. (2007). The Power of Feedback. Rev. Educ. Res. 77 (1), 81–112. doi:10.3102/003465430298487

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning: A Synthesis of over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement . London: Routledge .

Hattie, J., and Yates, G. (2014). Visible Learning and the Science of How We Learn . New York, NY: Routledge .

Heck, R. H., and Thomas, S. L. (2015). An Introduction to Multilevel Modeling techniquesMLM and SEM Approaches Using Mplus . London: Routledge .

Hu, L. t., and Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria versus New Alternatives. Struct. Equation Model. A Multidisciplinary J. 6 (1), 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118

Huang, C. (2013). Gender Differences in Academic Self-Efficacy: a Meta-Analysis. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 28, 1–35. doi:10.1007/s10212-011-0097-y

Hughes, A. S. (2016). Mixed Methods Research. Observer 29 (5). Available at: https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/mixed-methods-research (Accessed November 20, 2020).

Janosz, M. (2012). “Part IV Commentary: Outcomes of Engagement and Engagement as an Outcome: Some Consensus, Divergences, and Unanswered Questions,” in Handbook of Research on Student Engagement . Editors S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, and C. Wylie (London: Springer ), 695–703. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_33

Koka, A., and Hein, V. (2006). Perceptions of Teachers' Positive Feedback and Perceived Threat to Sense of Self in Physical Education: a Longitudinal Study. Eur. Phys. Edu. Rev. 12 (2), 165–179. doi:10.1177/1356336X06065180

Koka, A., and Hein, V. (2005). The Effect of Perceived Teacher Feedback on Intrinsic Motivation in Physical Education. Int. J. Sport Psychol. 36 (2), 91–106.

Korpershoek, H., Canrinus, E. T., Fokkens-Bruinsma, M., and de Boer, H. (2019). The Relationships between School Belonging and Students' Motivational, Social-Emotional, Behavioural, and Academic Outcomes in Secondary Education: a Meta-Analytic Review. Res. Pap. Edu. 35, 641–680. doi:10.1080/02671522.2019.1615116

Kyaruzi, F., Strijbos, J.-W., Ufer, S., and Brown, G. T. L. (2019). Students' Formative Assessment Perceptions, Feedback Use and Mathematics Performance in Secondary Schools in Tanzania. Assess. Educ. Principles, Pol. Pract. 26 (3), 278–302. doi:10.1080/0969594X.2019.1593103

Leh, L. Y., Abdullah, A. G., and Ismail, A. (2014). The Influence of Feedback Environment towards Self-Efficacy for Students Engagement, Classroom Management and Teaching Strategies. Int. J. Manag. Sci. 4 (6), 253–260. doi:10.5296/jse.v4i4.6456

Lietaert, S., Roorda, D., Laevers, F., Verschueren, K., and De Fraine, B. (2015). The Gender gap in Student Engagement: The Role of Teachers' Autonomy Support, Structure, and Involvement. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 85, 498–518. doi:10.1111/bjep.12095

Lovelace, M. D., Reschly, A. L., and Appleton, J. J. (2017). Beyond School Records: The Value of Cognitive and Affective Engagement in Predicting Dropout and On-Time Graduation. Prof. Sch. Couns. 21, 70–84. Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.5330/1096-2409-21.1.70 doi:10.5330/1096-2409-21.1.70

Lovelace, M. D., Reschly, A. L., Appleton, J. J., and Lutz, M. E. (2014). Concurrent and Predictive Validity of the Student Engagement Instrument. J . Psychoeducational Assess . 32 (6), 509–520. doi:10.1177/0734282914527548

Lüdtke, O., Robitzsch, A., Trautwein, U., and Kunter, M. (2009). Assessing the Impact of Learning Environments: How to Use Student Ratings of Classroom or School Characteristics in Multilevel Modeling. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 34 (2), 120–131. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.12.001

Mahatmya, D., Lohman, B. J., Matjasko, J. L., and Farb, A. F. (2012). “Engagement across Developmental Periods,” in Handbook of Research on Student Engagement . Editors S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, and C. Wylie (London: Springer ), 45–63. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_3

Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Nagengast, B., Trautwein, U., Morin, A. J. S., Abduljabbar, A. S., et al. (2012). Classroom Climate and Contextual Effects: Conceptual and Methodological Issues in the Evaluation of Group-Level Effects. Educ. Psychol. 47 (2), 106–124. doi:10.1080/00461520.2012.670488

Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Robitzsch, A., Trautwein, U., Asparouhov, T., Muthén, B., et al. (2009). Doubly-latent Models of School Contextual Effects: Integrating Multilevel and Structural Equation Approaches to Control Measurement and Sampling Error. Multivariate Behav. Res. 44 (6), 764–802. doi:10.1080/00273170903333665

Martin, A. J. (2011). Holding Back and Holding behind: Grade Retention and Students' Non-academic and Academic Outcomes. Br. Educ. Res. J. 37, 739–763. doi:10.1080/01411926.2010.490874

Monteiro, V., Mata, L., Santos, N., Sanches, C., and Gomes, M. (2019). Classroom Talk: The Ubiquity of Feedback. Front. Educ. 4, 140. doi:10.3389/feduc.2019.00140

Muthén, B. O., and Satorra, A. (1995). Complex Sample Data in Structural Equation Modeling. Sociological Methodol. 25, 267–316. doi:10.2307/271070

Muthén, L. K., and Muthén, B. O. (2017). Mplus Statistical Analysis with Latent Variables. Mplus User’s Guide . 8th Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén .

OECD (2012). Equity and Quality in Education: Supporting Disadvantaged Students and Schools . Paris: Author . doi:10.1787/9789264130852-en

Olivier, E., Galand, B., Hospel, V., and Dellisse, S. (2020). Understanding Behavioural Engagement and Achievement: The Roles of Teaching Practices and Student Sense of Competence and Task Value. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 90, 887–909. doi:10.1111/bjep.12342

Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., and Allen, J. P. (2012). “Teacher-Student Relationships and Engagement: Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Improving the Capacity of Classroom Interactions,” in Handbook of Research on Student Engagement . Editors S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, and C. Wylie (London: Springer ), 365–386. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_17

Price, M., Handley, K., and Millar, J. (2011). Feedback: Focusing Attention on Engagement. Stud. Higher Edu. 36 (8), 879–896. doi:10.1080/03075079.2010.483513

Reeve, J. (2012). “A Self-Determination Theory Perspective on Student Engagement,” in Handbook of Research on Student Engagement . Editors S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, and C. Wylie (London: Springer ), 149–172. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_7

Reschly, A. L., and Christenson, S. L. (2012). “Jingle, Jangle, and Conceptual Haziness: Evolution and Future Directions of the Engagement Construct,” in Handbook of Research on Student Engagement . Editors S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, and C. Wylie (London: Springer ), 3–19. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_1

Reschly, A. L., and Christenson, S. L. (2006). Prediction of Dropout Among Students with Mild Disabilities. Remedial Spec. Edu. 27 (5), 276–292. doi:10.1177/07419325060270050301

Santana, M. R. R. (2019). Práticas e representações acerca da retenção escolar [Practices and representations about school retention] (Doctoral dissertation) . Lisbon, Portugal : Universidade Nova de Lisboa. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10362/89715 .

Santos, N. N., Monteiro, V., and Carvalho, C. (2021). The Impact of Grade Retention and School Engagement on Students’ Intention to Enrol in Higher Education . Lisboa, Portugal: Centro de Investigação em Educação, ISPA - Instituto Universitário; UIDEF, Instituto de Educação da Universidade de Lisboa .

Strambler, M. J., and Weinstein, R. S. (2010). Psychological Disengagement in Elementary School Among Ethnic Minority Students. J. Appl. Develop. Psychol. 31, 155–165. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2009.11.006

Valente, M. O., Conboy, J., and Carvalho, C. (2015). “Teacher Communication of Evaluation Results: Impact on Students’ Engagement in School,” in Feedback, identificade, trajetórias escolares: Dinâmicas e consequências [School trajectories: Dynamics and consequences] . Editors C. Carvalho, and J. Comboy (Lisbon: Instituto de Educação da Universidade de Lisboa ), 13–30.

Vattøy, K.-D., and Smith, K. (2019). Students' Perceptions of Teachers' Feedback Practice in Teaching English as a Foreign Language. Teach. Teach. Edu. 85, 260–268. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2019.06.024

Vieira, M. M. (2013). “Pais desorientados? O apoio à escolha vocacional dos filhos em contextos de incerteza [Disoriented parents? Support for the vocational choice of children in contexts of uncertainty],” in Habitar a escola e as suas margens Geografia Plurais em Confronto . Editors M. M. Vieira, J. Resende, M. A. Nogueira, J. Dayrell, A. Martins, A. Calhaet al. (Portalegre: Instituto Politécnico de Portalegre - Escola Superior de Educação ), 51–64.

Voelkl, K. E. (1996). Measuring Students' Identification with School. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 56, 760–770. doi:10.1177/0013164496056005003

Voelkl, K. E. (2012). “School Identification,” in Handbook of Research on Student Engagement . Editors S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, and C. Wylie (London: Springer ), 193–218. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_9

Wall, K., Cunha, V., Atalaia, S., Rodrigues, L., Correia, R., Correia, S. V., et al. (2017). White Paper. Men and Gender equality in Portugal . Lisbon: Institute of Social Sciences of the University of Lisbon .

Wang, J., and Wang, X. (2020). Structural Equation Modeling. Applications Using Mplus . 2nd Edition. Oxford, United Kingdom: Wiley .

Wang, S., and Zhang, D. (2020). Perceived Teacher Feedback and Academic Performance: the Mediating Effect of Learning Engagement and Moderating Effect of Assessment Characteristics. Assess. Eval. Higher Edu. 45, 973–987. doi:10.1080/02602938.2020.1718599

Weiss, C. C., Carolan, B. V., and Baker-Smith, E. C. (2010). Big School, Small School: (Re)testing Assumptions about High School Size, School Engagement and Mathematics Achievement. J. Youth Adolescence 39, 163–176. doi:10.1007/s10964-009-9402-3

Willms, J. D. (2003). Students Engagement at School. A Sense of Belonging and Participation. Results from PISA 2000 . Paris, France: OECD publishers . doi:10.4324/9780203299456

Wisniewski, B., Zierer, K., and Hattie, J. (2020). The Power of Feedback Revisited: A Meta-Analysis of Educational Feedback Research. Front. Psychol. 10, 3087. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03087

Keywords: teachers’ feedback practices, school identification, behavioral engagement, supportive classrooms, multilevel analisys, middle school, secondary school

Citation: Monteiro V, Carvalho C and Santos NN (2021) Creating a Supportive Classroom Environment Through Effective Feedback: Effects on Students’ School Identification and Behavioral Engagement. Front. Educ. 6:661736. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2021.661736

Received: 31 January 2021; Accepted: 11 June 2021; Published: 25 June 2021.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2021 Monteiro, Carvalho and Santos. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Natalie Nóbrega Santos, [email protected]

This article is part of the Research Topic

The Role of Teacher Interpersonal Variables in Students’ Academic Engagement, Success, and Motivation