Cogent Education

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/oaed20

Students’ perspective on feedback in mathematics

in high school

Ann Karin Sandal & Ann Kristin Sperle

To cite this article: Ann Karin Sandal & Ann Kristin Sperle (2024) Students’ perspective
on feedback in mathematics in high school, Cogent Education, 11:1, 2343523, DOI:
10.1080/2331186X.2024.2343523

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2343523

© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group

Published online: 25 Apr 2024.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 807

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=oaed20
COGENT EDUCATION
2024, VOL. 11, NO. 1, 2343523
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2343523

EDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT & EVALUATION | RESEARCH ARTICLE

Students’ perspective on feedback in mathematics in high school

Ann Karin Sandala and Ann Kristin Sperleb
a
Department of Education, Arts and Sports, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Sogndal, Norway; bSogndal
Upper Secondary School, Sogndal, Norway

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The aim of the study is to examine assessment experiences and practices in mathem- Received 10 July 2023
atics in high school from the students’ perspective. To gain insight into the students’ Revised 4 April 2024
experiences and practices, we used a qualitative approach. The data are based on Accepted 11 April 2024
qualitative focus group interviews with first year students in the general studies edu-
KEYWORDS
cation programme. The findings show that the students mostly receive summative Feedback; mathematics;
feedback on achievements which is expressed through grades. To varying degrees, student perspective; high
the students seek feedback during the learning processes, thereby leading to differen- school
ces in the amount and type of feedback that the students receive as well as the
extent to which feedback improves learning and outcomes for all students. The stu- REVIEWING EDITOR
dents’ perceived usefulness and active use of feedback is mediated through the teach- Sammy King Fai Hui,
er’s manner which also influences motivation and effort. The study shows a potential Curriculum & Instruction,
for involving students in assessment and using feedback during a learning process as The Education University of
Hong Kong, Hong Kong
a significant tool to promote mathematics achievement.
SUBJECTS
Classroom Practice;
Assessment & Testing;
Classroom Management &
Organisation

Introduction
Feedback is a valuable tool in terms of promoting students’ learning and is a central element in assess-
ment for learning (AFL) (Black & Wiliam, 1998a; Schildkamp et al., 2020; Shute, 2008; Wiliam, 2011).
Shute (2008) defines feedback as information provided to the learner to enhance and improve learning.
In Hattie’s and Timperleys’ definition (2007), while building on Ramaprasad (1983), feedback relates to
performance and aims to reduce the gap between current achievement and the desired outcomes of a
learning process. In addition, feedback should have an influence on future performance (Schildkamp
et al., 2020; Spooner & Pawlikowska, 2023), and it should be designed for students’ use of the feedback
during learning processes (Rakoczy et al., 2019; Spooner & Pawlikowska, 2023). Students’ feedback liter-
acy, such as understanding the feedback and capacity to act upon the feedback, is also a key element
for feedback to enhance students’ learning (Carless & Boud, 2018; Esterhazy & Damşa, 2019; Nieminen &
Atjonen, 2023). Black and Wiliam (2009) and Henderson et al. (2019) argue that feedback must be inte-
grated in classroom teaching to be effective, which may imply changes in teaching and assessment cul-
ture in schools.
Norway has implemented AFL and formative feedback in assessment legislation and curricula since
2006 (Ministry of Education & Research, 2020; Norwegian Directorate for Education & Training, 2017).
Students have a legal right to receive formative feedback and be involved in assessment, including self-
assessment (Ministry of Education & Research, 2020). The educational authorities have initiated several
strategies since 2007 related to the implementation of AFL in both school-based development projects

CONTACT Ann Karin Sandal [email protected] Department of Education, Arts and Sports, Western Norway University of
Applied Sciences, Røyrgata 6, N-6856 Sogndal, Norway
ß 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms on which this article has been
published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.
2 A. K. SANDAL AND A. K. SPERLE

and further education courses and programmes (Norwegian Directorate for Education & Training, 2017;
Tveit, 2014).
However, several studies point to challenges in the implementation of AFL (Havnes et al., 2012;
Hopfenbeck et al., 2013; Nortvedt et al., 2016; Rambøll Management Consulting, 2020; Tveit, 2014).
Gamlem and Smith (2013) argue that students must be provided with sufficient opportunities to use
feedback, and several studies refer to the inadequate systematic use of aims and criteria in assessment
(Hopfenbeck et al., 2012; 2013; Tveit, 2014). Students’ need for adapted feedback in all phases of a learn-
ing process to enhance learning is also stressed as a ___domain for improvements (Hattie & Gan, 2011;
Nortvedt et al., 2016; Nortvedt & Pettersen, 2015; Wisniewski et al., 2019). Havnes et al. (2012) show that
teachers regard their feedback to students as useful, while almost half of the students disagree. Havnes
et al. (2012) also show that teachers in high schools believe that students use feedback in their learning
to a greater extent than reported by the students. The Annual Pupil Survey 2022 (Wendelborg & Hygen,
2022) shows that the students in the programme for general studies report less formative feedback prac-
tices than in all the other programmes in high school. The students experience receiving less feedback
in mathematics than in subjects such as Norwegian and English (Bueie, 2016; Havnes et al., 2012).
Mathematics stands out as a subject in which the students report limited opportunities to engage in dis-
cussions about the assessment criteria (Havnes et al., 2012). Gamlem (2019) finds limited evidence of
feedback dialogues in mathematics classrooms. Stovner (2021) and Stovner et al. (2021) show that feed-
back from Norwegian mathematics teachers mostly regarding procedural skills and to a less extent facili-
tates student agency in feedback. To our knowledge, rather few studies of formative feedback in
mathematics in high school have been conducted in the Nordic context (Grevholm, 2021; Nieminen &
Atjonen, 2023). Most studies examine teachers’ assessment practices (Nieminen & Atjonen, 2023;
Stovner, 2021; Stovner et al., 2021) and even fewer studies have investigated students’ experiences with
formative feedback as well as engagement in and use of feedback (Gamlem & Smith, 2013; Nieminen
et al., 2021).
In the light of the studies referred to and to address the gap in the literature, this qualitative study
examines students’ experiences with feedback in mathematics specialisation in general studies in high
school. The aim of the study is to explore feedback practices in mathematics exclusively from the stu-
dents’ perspective and give students a voice in the feedback discourse (Dawson et al., 2019; United
Nations Human Rights, 2002). The research question is What characterises high school students’ experien-
ces with feedback in mathematics? and it is investigated through the themes (a) students’ understanding
of the concept feedback, (b) students’ experiences of feedback practice and (c) students’ use of feedback.
The study will contribute to the research literature regarding students’ experiences and perceptions of
feedback in mathematics in high school.

Theoretical background
Black and Wiliam (2009) discuss AFL as processes of eliciting information about students’ learning, which
students and teachers can both use to understand where the students are in their learning process and
decide on the next step in a learning process (Black & Wiliam, 2009; Schildkamp et al., 2020). Such
assessment activities function as formative feedback when the information is used to adjust the teaching
to meet the students’ needs as well as strengthen students’ learning (Black & Wiliam, 1998b; Henderson
et al., 2019). The Assessment Reform Group defined formative assessment as ‘the process of seeking and
interpreting evidence for use by learners and their teachers to decide where the learners are in their
learning, where they need to go and how best to get there’ (Broadfoot et al., 2002, p. 2–3).
Consequently, the students’ must be given opportunities to respond to the formative feedback as part
of teaching lessons. Therefore, formative feedback should be planned for and integrated in the instruc-
tional design (Gamlem & Smith, 2013; Hattie & Gan, 2011; Wiliam & Thompson, 2008). Formative feed-
back does not by itself generate learning; it must be put into an understandable context that students
can relate to; formulated, delivered and framed in a way that allows the students to play an active part
in their own learning (Gamlem & Smith, 2013; Havnes et al., 2012; Pippitt et al., 2022). Feedback must
also be specific and detailed for students to respond to the feedback and use it in further learning
(Henderson et al., 2019; Spooner & Pawlikowska, 2023; Wylie & Lyon, 2015). The usefulness of feedback
 COGENT EDUCATION 3

also depends on the timing of the feedback and how the teacher arranges for and organises learning
activities, making opportunities and time for students’ active use of the feedback (Dawson et al., 2019;
Gamlem & Smith, 2013; Hattie & Gan, 2011; Jo
nsson et al., 2018; Schildkamp et al., 2020).
Sadler (1989) and Black and Wiliam (1998b) emphasise three aspects of feedback for enhancing learn-
ing: establish a mutual understanding of learning aims and success criteria, provide feedback about the
current state in the learning process, and identify the next step in the learning process. Henderson et al.
(2019) especially stresses the importance of promoting students’ agency and feedback as a learner-cen-
tred process. In line with Black and Wiliam (1998b), Hattie and Timperley (2007) argue that quality feed-
back must answer three questions: Where am I going?, How am I going? and Where do I go next? These
questions are related to four levels in the student’s learning. At the task level, feedback relates to the
quality of the student’s work with specific tasks. At the process level, feedback focuses on students’ learn-
ing strategies and processing of information. Feedback at the self-regulation level deals with the stu-
dent’s ability to assess themselves, their ability to organise their work, their motivation, their belief in
their own abilities and their willingness. The self-level relates to general feedback that is not specifically
addressed, such as praise, encouragement or criticism that is not specific or connected to future achieve-
ments (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Wisniewski et al., 2019). Wiliam and Thompson (2008) refer to
Ramaprasad (1983) in their instructional design framework conceptualising AFL in five key strategies: (1)
Clarifying and sharing learning intentions and criteria for success; (2) Engineering effective classroom discus-
sions, questions and learning tasks; (3) Providing feedback that moves learners forward; (4) Activating stu-
dents as instructional resources for one another; and (5) Activating students as the owners of their own
learning (Wiliam & Thompson, 2008, p. 15). However, for these key strategies to enhance students’ learn-
ing, students’ interpretation and comprehension of feedback information is associated with their under-
standing of feedback as a source for learning (Hattie et al., 2021; Henderson et al., 2019; Schildkamp
et al., 2020).
In Wiliam and Thompson’s framework (2008), an interactive, supportive classroom practice involving
students in assessment dialogues is an underlying premise for feedback to function formatively and to
promote learning. For formative feedback to be useful, students’ agency in seeking feedback and
engagement in mutual dialogues with peers and the teachers is crucial for feedback to promote learning
(Boud & Molloy, 2013; Panadero et al., 2018; Winstone & Boud, 2020). Dialogues and discussion in the
classroom can promote learning, for example by discussing misunderstandings, different solutions and
arguments (Dysthe, 2013; Havnes et al., 2012). However, it can be challenging to engage students in
learning dialogues if the students themselves are not active participants. Havnes et al. (2012) argues
that learning dialogues can be particularly difficult to steer when it comes to diversity in students’ levels
of performance.
The interaction between assessment and students’ motivation can affect the students’ learning (Hattie
& Timperley, 2007; Smith et al., 2016), and we relate this to the concepts of self-efficacy and self-regula-
tion (Bandura, 1997; Zimmerman, 2000). Students’ self-efficacy is connected to previous mastery experi-
ences in specific areas, tasks and challenges (Bandura, 1997; Bong & Skaalvik, 2003; Jungert &
Andersson, 2013; Smith et al., 2016). Feedback may have an impact on a student’s self-efficacy in terms
of setting realistic goals as well as providing verbal support during a task and specific feedback that
makes students believe in themselves and their future achievements (Bandura, 1997; Black & Wiliam,
1998b; Hattie & Timperley, 2007). The concept self-regulation refers to the process of setting learning
goals, regulating and controlling one’s attention, motivation and work input towards achieving the goal
(Pintrich, 2000; Zimmerman, 2000). Self-regulation involves metacognitive skills and the ability to assess
own learning. A student’s self-regulation is affected by feedback from fellow students and teachers as
well as feedback that promotes the student’s sense of control, competence and belief in their own abil-
ities is a key element of assessment for learning (Smith et al., 2016; Vattøy & Gamlem, 2023; Wiliam,
2011). Whether or not a student will use the feedback they receive depends on their ability to self-regu-
late as well as their engagement in their own learning process (Smith et al., 2016). Self-efficacy might
affect how students interpret feedback, and students’ ability to self-regulate could affect how they use
feedback in their further learning (Smith et al., 2016; Zimmerman, 2000). In Hattie and Timperley (2007)
feedback model, one aim is to reduce the gap between what the student achieves here and now and
the student’s future goals. To reduce the gap, students can increase their effort and change their
4 A. K. SANDAL AND A. K. SPERLE

strategy or goal, while teachers’ adjustments and scaffolding might enhance students’ learning and per-
formances. Teachers can also help students with good learning strategies and by giving feedback on
these during a process (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Smith et al., 2016). The present study was conducted
based on these perspectives.

Methods
Study approach
The investigation of students’ perceptions through a qualitative approach, in which the informants are
given the opportunity to elaborate and deepen their arguments, might provide valuable information
about feedback in mathematics from the students’ perspective (Gill et al., 2008; Kvale & Brinkmann,
2015). Focus group interviews were chosen to illuminate the complexity of students’ experiences by pre-
senting the various aspects of the students’ experiences with feedback in mathematics (Halkier, 2010).
Focus group interviews involve group interaction and are commonly used to explore the informants’
attitudes, experiences, perceptions and thoughts (Kitzinger, 1995). The social interaction between the
participants in the focus group is a key element in the method. However, the researcher’s role as the
moderator is crucial for the quality of the data collection. Steering the discussions by paying close atten-
tion to different opinions and perceptions, showing interest in disagreement as well as stimulating the
sharing of experiences and attitudes might provide valuable information and quality data (Grønkjær
et al., 1970).

Participants
The participants (N ¼ 20) were recruited from two high schools situated in the same region in Norway
with approximately five hundred students in each school. The inclusion criteria for the participants were
1st year students in the Specialisation in General Studies Programme in medium-sized high schools and
representing both 1 P mathematics classes (practical mathematics, first year) and 1 T mathematics classes
(theoretical mathematics, first year) (Table 1). The learning aims in the subject practical mathematics
concerns problem solving, modelling and the practical use of mathematics in society and everyday life.
1 P is a choice for students who do not plan to study natural sciences. The learning aims in theoretical
mathematics concern modelling, reasoning and the theoretical use of mathematics and is a basis for
studying natural sciences (Utdanning.no, 2024).
The potential participants were given written and oral information about the research project, which
was organised by researcher two (R2), and twenty students volunteered as informants. The mathematics
teachers selected three random groups of participants among the students who volunteered and gave
their consent, and organised the students in groups, representing 1 P and 1 T mathematics in each
school. Since gender differences were not a topic in this study, the females and males in the three
groups were randomly distributed. The information to the participants included information about confi-
dentiality, anonymity and the possibility to withdraw from the study.

Data collection process and analysis

The topics in the focus group interviews were structured in two steps. The first step consisted of open
questions and themes for discussion; definitions and experiences of feedback, content in feedback,
extent, context and perceived benefits of feedback. To assist the dialogue in the focus groups, we made
a scheme for ourselves with keywords to each main question, building on the literature, to use, if neces-
sary. Some examples of keywords to definitions and experiences of feedback: planned dialogues at

Table 1. Informant information.

Groups F M
School 1 Group 1 (1 P þ 1T) 1 6
Group 2 (1 P þ 1T) 3 3
School 2 Group 3 (1 P þ 1T) 6 1
 COGENT EDUCATION 5

appointed hours, spontaneous dialogues in lessons/written feedback/oral feedback given by the teacher/
requested by the student. In the second step, the students discussed statements based on Hattie and
Timperley’s model (2007); task, process, self-regulation, and self. The statements started with ‘After receiv-
ing feedback from teachers,’ followed by, for example, ‘I get a good impression and understanding of
my process and performances, I learn more and it is easier to ask for help the next time.’ In addition, we
asked questions such as: ‘Talk about the last mathematics lesson. Did you receive feedback? How did
you receive feedback?’ Each interview lasted approximately 60 minutes and was conducted by using
audio recordings and then transcribed.
The data was analysed by both researchers in several steps. In the first step, a deductive analysis of
all the statements was conducted by R2, structured according to the topic of discussion in the interview
guide. Concept maps were established as a tool for further analysis and provided an overview of the
topics and concepts as well as the relationship between them (Butler-Kisber & Poldma, 2010; Rosas &
Kane, 2012). The second step focused on meaning condensation based on the concept maps (Kvale &
Brinkmann, 2015) and made a framework for establishing the categories: teacher’s role, communication
and dialogues, motivation, need for feedback, content of feedback, context, effort, mathematics vs other
subjects. In step three, the codes were quantified to study patterns, frequencies and thematic connec-
tions between various codes. Based on these steps in the analysis, the findings were organised as cate-
gories, constituting the themes in the findings: Conceptual understanding and content of feedback,
timing, types and context of feedback, effort and self-regulation, communication and dialogues, motivation
and teacher’s role in feedback practice.

Quality criteria
Data analysis by two researchers may strengthen the validity and reliability of the study. Both research-
ers followed the same steps throughout the analysis but not at the same time. R2 conducted the first
analysis process, while researcher one (R1) repeated the analysis using the same steps and framework at
a later stage in the research process. The analysis was then compared to ensure consistency in identify-
ing codes and categories. Since all interviews were performed by one researcher (R2), this may ensure
consistency in the execution of the interviews, at the same time presenting challenges in terms of con-
sistency in the analysis and interpretation of data. R2 gained an initial understanding of the data by
meeting the informants and conducting the interviews. For example, the specific context of the inter-
views and the interaction in the focus groups, may affect R2’s interpretation of the data. However, R1’s
distance to the context for data collection and informants may provide supplementary approaches to
the interpretation (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2015; Silverman, 2011). The study followed ethical guidelines in
research (National Committee for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities (NESH),
2022).

Findings
The findings are presented according to the categories and themes from the analysis: Conceptual under-
standing and content of the feedback, timing, types, and context of feedback, effort and self-regulation,
communication, dialogues and motivation, and the teacher’s role in feedback practice. Some of the findings
are also supplemented with quotes from the informants, as examples of the findings.

Conceptual understanding and content of feedback

The students define feedback in mathematics as both formative and summative, and one student
describes feedback as: ‘Response to what I have performed that is okay, and what I can improve or
should improve.’ However, it was repeatedly stressed through all the interviews that grades function as
evidence of achievements and is the dominating assessment: ‘Grades are a kind of feedback and are the
most important feedback. That’s what we have learnt during schooling; you must get high grades.’
When the students describe the content of the feedback from teachers, they stress feedback on the
task level and to some degree on the process level and self-regulation level (Hattie & Timperley, 2007). At
6 A. K. SANDAL AND A. K. SPERLE

the task level, the students mostly receive feedback on what is correct and incorrect in their work, as
one student expressed:
When we receive feedback on assignments, I only get a grade, but sometimes the teacher writes ‘good’.
However, there is no information in the grade about what I should further learn and improve on, and an
explanation as to why some answers are wrong.

Another student says:

Generally, you don’t get specific feedback. They say: ‘This is very good, and to just continue like this.’
However, if I must continue, it isn’t good enough, is it? Still, I don’t know what to improve. It is difficult to
know what exactly I need to work on.

However, the students express that they receive detailed feedback if they actively seek feedback. Some
students report receiving feedback more often in mathematics than in other subjects in school. They
argue that since problem-solving strategies are often discussed in class, they seek feedback to complete
tasks and the teachers are responding during the learning activity.
Feedback on homework differs between oral feedback related to students’ effort, and written feed-
back on assignments, followed by a grade. However, there are differences between 1 P- and 1 T-students
regarding homework and feedback. 1 T-students do homework every week and the feedback from
teachers relate to the academic results at the task level as well as effort and problem-solving strategies.
In most 1 P- classes, homework is an optional and individualised activity since the students decide them-
selves whether they will complete mathematics tasks at home, if they run out of time at school.
Homework is seldom followed up on by the teacher, nor do the 1 P- students receive feedback on their
optional homework. However, the students argue that homework and feedback on homework have a
potential for learning, especially if they drop behind the rest of the class. These findings indicate that
there is a difference between 1 P- and 1 T- students as regards receiving feedback on homework, the
use of homework and the possibilities to use feedback on homework as a tool for learning.

Timing, types and context of feedback

Feedback in mathematics is given both verbal and written. Verbal feedback is provided in the lessons,
but also individually and frequently in the corridor outside the classroom, which is due to the lack of
available rooms. Verbal feedback mainly concerns results on assignments and tests and task solving dur-
ing lessons if the students ask for help. The students express that it is important to receive rapid feed-
back, both in lessons and after tests. One student spoke about the dilemma in the timing of feedback:
After a test, we usually start on a new topic and chapter in the textbook. And, after three weeks we get the
test results and feedback from the teacher, often with grades. And the teacher expects us to go through the
test and correct the mistakes. At that time, I have already forgotten what we did three weeks ago. I have
even forgotten what the test was about! How can I learn from my mistakes in this way?

As a result, the students find it challenging to use feedback after a test as a resource for further learning.
They also express a need for diverse types of feedback during the school year, also related to seasons.
In autumn, the students would like to receive specific feedback which also promotes self-efficacy. They
argue that when the school year has just begun, their motivation is high, and the students are more
eager to receive feedback. One student says: ‘I believe that specific and positive feedback in the begin-
ning of the school year is much more important than receiving such feedback at the end of the year.’
And ‘as the days becomes darker in winter’ as one student says, the feedback should also be motivating:
‘You need the feeling like ‘I can manage this, I will’!’ According to the students, specific feedback in the
spring term has little influence on their learning; one student expressed this as ‘it is too late’.

Effort and self-regulation

The students are in their first year in high school and must adjust to the new learning contexts and
teaching methods, which has challenged their self-regulation skills. This is particularly manifest in terms
of planning their work and the effort put into learning mathematics. The students relate effort to their
degree of motivation and to the teachers’ teaching methods. Effort is also linked to mathematics
 COGENT EDUCATION 7

achievement and self-efficacy, which in turn affects the extent to which they use the feedback in further
learning. For example, the students state that feedback influences their effort put in mathematics the
first week after receiving feedback from the teacher. However, if their continuing work after receiving
feedback does not promote progress, their effort tends to decline, according to the students.
Consequently, effort is related to mastery experiences in mathematics and a belief in one’s abilities to
succeed within a brief time span.
The students also link their own effort to the teacher’s facilitation of learning and the learning envir-
onment in the classroom. The students are explicit when arguing that a committed teacher who tries to
motivate the students and apparently cares about the students’ progresses and achievements is crucial
for students’ effort, motivation and the learning environment in mathematics classrooms. One student
says: ‘You easily forget feedback from a teacher if they don’t honestly show that it is important for them
as well that I succeed.’ These experiences show students’ sensitivity towards whether the teacher genu-
inely cares about their academic progress.
Those 1 T and 1 P students who describe themselves as active in the lessons tend to receive more
feedback than those who are less active, and the feedback is often directed at the task level. The stu-
dents in 1 T - classes have also noticed a difference in their achievement level and the degree of feed-
back received, as one student explained: ‘The students who struggle with understanding mathematics
and do not achieve very well do not get as much help as those students who understand and are active
in lessons’. The students also discuss that individual differences in the need for feedback and the type
of feedback from teachers may influence the teacher’s actions.

Communication, dialogues and motivation

The students underline the reciprocal dialogues between students and teachers as important to the stu-
dents, as commented on by a student: ‘We listen to the teacher more carefully if she listens to us.’
According to the students, mutual engagement in dialogues between students and teachers will, there-
fore, also influence their learning. The students also notice the teachers’ choice of words and the way
feedback is provided to the students, and the students are sensitive to whether the teachers mean what
they say. Constructive criticism can be communicated in a positive manner, and the students who strug-
gle with mathematics and work hard need praise and positive reinforcement with encouraging feedback.
One student describes:
You notice when a teacher wishes you well and for you to succeed. When you ask for help, they give specific
feedback on my specific mathematics challenge, and they really try to help. And he says ‘Don’t hesitate to ask
if you don’t understand’ ( … ) It won’t take much for the teacher to motivate and build us up with positive
words, instead of, for example, ‘this isn’t working, you do not pay attention in lessons’, as a teacher said.’

Some students describe teachers as being biased and critical towards students’ efforts and skills in math-
ematics. This is interpreted as negative attitudes towards students and it affects the relationship
between the students and the teacher. The students are also explicit when saying that if the relationship
and trust between the teacher and students is affected negatively, all the feedback will be interpreted
negatively, regardless of the content of the feedback. According to the students, the teacher’s attitude
and communication skills, therefore, play a vital role in whether the students will benefit from the
feedback.
Students who succeed in mathematics find mastery experiences motivating, and they refer to them-
selves as intrinsically motivated. Students struggling with mathematics learning express a need for fre-
quent support and instant feedback from teachers and become motivated by positive feedback and
praise. They express that positive feedback may affect motivation for mathematics, while negative feed-
back, such as a focus on shortcomings, has a negative effect on motivation. Therefore, positive or nega-
tive feedback in mathematics will have an impact on whether students make use of feedback and their
efforts in mathematics.

‘The teacher is the most important’—the teacher’s role in feedback practice

The analysis of the focus group interviews identified common experiences among the students related
to the teachers’ roles in feedback practice. According to the students, the teacher’s behaviour, manner
8 A. K. SANDAL AND A. K. SPERLE

and attitudes towards the students, their communication skills and the way in which they communicate
feedback has a major impact on the students’ motivation. The students had various descriptions of what
characterises a good teacher in terms of the provision of feedback. Summarised, the teacher should be
knowledgeable, confident in and committed to their subject, adjust their feedback to students’ needs
and build close relationships with and between the students. These characteristics and qualities of the
teacher are directly apparent in the content of the feedback and the way in which it is given. For
example, the students stress that mathematic expertise is a criterion for being able to give academically
relevant feedback, and for organising and structuring the students’ learning in classrooms. One student
says:
If the teacher is not engaged in mathematics, it is no fun to learn either; maths becomes difficult and
complicated. And you notice the difference between a skilful teacher and a teacher who seems
uncomfortable in the classroom ( … ) the teacher is most important; it is motivating and fun to know that we
have a good teacher.

The students also state that it is important for the mathematics teacher to be interested in the students’
life outside of school and to get to know them. Knowing their teacher and developing confidence
through the teacher’s interest in the students makes it easier for students to seek feedback. The stu-
dents state that good relationships with the teachers affect how they interpret the feedback and they
make it easier to relate to the teachers’ message. One student explains:
If they show that they care and signal that ‘We are going to manage this together. I will help you’, it affects
the whole class and there is more energy in the classroom. And it is also important to know the teacher, and
that they give of themselves, asking ‘How are you?’ and they show interest.

Summary of the findings

The analysis gave various and complex information about how students perceive formative feedback
practice in mathematics, and whether and to what degree the students use the feedback as a basis for
further learning. They refer to feedback as a summative action and with a summative aim, but they also
report on formative feedback in the mathematic classrooms. One of the main findings is how the various
manners in which a teacher meets their students, in terms of dialogues and communication, positive
attitudes and timing of feedback, can be a crucial factor for the students to relate to, seek and use the
feedback. Looking into the various categories in more detail, it is mainly the teacher’s behaviour and
feedback practice that decides whether the students use the feedback and relate to the feedback.
According to the students, they want specific feedback which is given by a committed teacher who has
a good relationship with the students. Subsequently, to benefit from feedback, the students must be
told very specifically the next step in a learning process. They also need to know that their effort will be
acknowledged and followed up on by the teacher within a brief time span. The analysis shows that stu-
dents to a varying degree experience such feedback practice and there are also a few examples of
assessment dialogues in the mathematic classrooms.

Discussion
The findings in the study show that the students mostly receive summative feedback in mathematics on
results and achievements, which is often expressed by grades. The summative feedback tends to be
given after a learning process is completed and as part of the teaching design in the classroom. These
experiences might have formed their perceptions of feedback as summative actions and with a summa-
tive purpose. The assessment legislation stresses that all assessment during the school year has a forma-
tive purpose (Ministry of Education and Research (2020). If grades and summative assessment intend to
function as formative assessment, the teacher must plan the timing of feedback and further learning
processes as part of the teaching structure and design in the classroom (Carless, 2019; Normann et al.,
2023; Pippitt et al., 2022).
The students also report different formative assessment activities. These feedback activities predomin-
antly concern the task, process and self-level (Hattie & Timperley, 2007). Feedback on the task level is
 COGENT EDUCATION 9

mainly directed towards correct or incorrect answers, and to some degree towards problem-solving
methods and the process level. The students report of verbal feedback as general and imprecise or
given at the end of a learning process when it is difficult for the students to use the feedback in an
ongoing learning process. Written feedback also tends to be directed towards the task level, for example
on tests, and has a summative function. Havnes et al. (2012) refer to similar findings; feedback in math-
ematics typically involves responding to correct and incorrect answers as well as correcting mistakes and
the findings of Stovner et al. which are related to procedural instructions (2021). If written and verbal
feedback from teachers aims to have an impact on further learning, the feedback must be planned for
and organised – as part of the teaching and learning in classrooms – as possibilities to use the feedback
during learning processes (Boud, 2000; Bueie, 2016; Schildkamp et al., 2020). Although these different
feedback activities take place during the students’ learning processes, it is unclear to what extent they
function formatively on students’ learning. The analysis shows a few examples of high-quality feedback
with references to definitions of quality feedback in previous research (Gamlem & Smith, 2013; Hattie &
Timperley, 2007; Sadler, 1989; Schildkamp et al., 2020; Stovner et al., 2021).
The findings also indicate a feedback practice as a unilateral process with the teachers as the pro-
viders of feedback and the students as the receivers. However, we have also identified examples of stu-
dents’ engagement in assessment and thus enhance feedback literacy. Feedback literacy is connected to
student agency and facilitating agency in all phases of a feedback process and transform the notion of
the teacher as the provider of feedback and the students as passive receivers (Esterhazy & Damşa, 2019;
Nieminen et al., 2021). To make sense of feedback and use it in further learning, students’ understanding
and judgement of the feedback and possibilities to engage in assessment dialogues and act on the
feedback is also a prerequisite for student agency (Carless, 2019; Carless & Boud, 2018; Fiskerstrand &
Gamlem, 2023; Pitt et al., 2020). Boud and Molloy (2013, p. 10) elaborate these arguments:
As soon as the active role of learners is acknowledged, then conceptions of feedback need to move from the
mechanistic to the responsive. That is, the role of learners as constructors of their own understanding need to
be accepted. Feedback then becomes not a control mechanism designed by others to corral the learner,
albeit in desirable ways, but a process used by learners to facilitate their own learning.

Boud and Molloy’s arguments (2013) describe some of our findings related to agency and possibilities
for the students to use feedback in further learning. Simultaneously, the findings indicate that it is the
students’ responsibility to seek feedback during a learning process. The students refer to ‘active stu-
dents’ who often seek feedback from teachers also receive more feedback than ‘passive students’. They
also relate their academic level to their effort and mastery experiences, and thereby how much feedback
they receive. Engelsen and Smith (2010) show that teachers gave less and more imprecise feedback to
low-achieving students, while the teachers tend to be more involved in dialogues promoting learning
with high-achieving students (Engelsen & Smith, 2010). The findings in our study are similar in terms of
differences in student engagement in feedback in the classroom. These differences challenge the regula-
tions related to adapted teaching in the curricula (Ministry of Education and Research (2020) and teach-
ers’ responsibility for accomplishing formative feedback at an individual and class level (Engelsen &
Smith, 2010; Shute, 2008). The findings also challenge the discourses of learning and assessment dia-
logues in the classrooms which are supposed to provide students and teachers with information about
students’ learning (Ruiz-Primo, 2011; Schildkamp et al., 2020). The teacher is responsible for ensuring
that each student can make decisions on their own learning and are given tasks and challenges adapted
to their level of performance (Hopfenbeck, 2011; Rønsen, 2013), including promoting student agency
(Fiskerstrand & Gamlem, 2023; Pitt et al., 2020).
One reason students find it difficult to use feedback may also be related to the lack of strategies for
using feedback or that teachers have not prioritised the development of learning strategies in their
teaching (Eriksen, 2017; Gibbs & Simpson, 2004). When the students report receiving feedback at the
self-level (Hattie & Timperley, 2007), as praise and positive and appreciative comments, this tends to be
directed mainly at their efforts and to some extent their academic work. The students in this study value
general praise and interpret general praise as a means for building the relationships between students
and teachers. Feedback at the self-level can have a limited effect on the students’ learning due to the
lack of information about the quality of the student’s work or the next step in their learning process to
10 A. K. SANDAL AND A. K. SPERLE

a small degree (Boud, 2000; Hattie & Timperley, 2007). However, praise in combination with specific
feedback on the student’s progress may have an impact on learning and on student’s outcome expect-
ation (Bandura, 1997; Hattie & Timperley, 2007).
The students state that when the teacher follows up on and promotes learning dialogues, the forma-
tive feedback influences their motivation in mathematics and affects their effort in mathematics learning.
Furthermore, the students emphasised the teacher’s engagement and competency in mathematics
which affects their outcome expectations (Bandura, 1997). This is related to the teacher as a role model:
Through the teacher’s engagement in mathematics, the teacher sets a standard that can motivate the
students and increase their effort. The students also stated that positive and negative feedback can
affect motivation, but with different signs. Feedback is defined as positive when students are provided
with specific feedback on mathematics achievement, in addition to appreciating comments on effort.
Negative feedback relates to the teacher’s choice of words and what the students interpret as a negative
attitude towards students who do not exert themselves. When students sense a negative attitude
behind the written and oral feedback, it affects their motivation (Havnes et al., 2012; Straub, 1997).
These findings can be related to the emotional aspect of assessment and the emphasis on emotional
support, positive climate, teachers’ sensitivity and regard for adolescent perspectives (Pianta et al., 2012).
The distinct characteristics of students’ experiences with feedback in mathematics accentuate the
teacher as a mediator for how students relate to feedback in mathematics (Andersson & Palm, 2017).
The content of feedback, communication, context and types of feedback influence on students’ response
to the feedback and how they benefit from feedback (Gamlem, 2019; Gamlem & Smith, 2013; Rakoczy
et al., 2019). The students want comprehensive and relevant feedback to which they can relate.
Subsequently, they need to perceive teachers’ positive intentions, which forms a basis for trust. These
findings are in line with Hattie’s (2009) argument of teachers as the most crucial factors for learning,
and William (2011), arguing that a knowledgeable teacher is vital for students to derive benefit from
feedback.
The interaction between the teacher and student may also affect the impact feedback has on a stu-
dent’s learning (Carless & Boud, 2018; Spooner & Pawlikowska, 2023). Gamlem and Munthe (2014) argue
that the interaction quality in classrooms is important as a basis for feedback activities promoting stu-
dents’ learning, which also emerged in our study. The teacher’s attitudes towards students have an
impact on how the students relate to the teacher’s feedback. This shows that the dialogue between the
teacher and student is crucial for how the student relates to the feedback (Carless & Boud, 2018;
Gamlem & Smith, 2013; Rønsen, 2013). Our findings indicate that students have developed a sensitivity
to their teacher’s communication style and that students interpret what the teacher says as an expres-
sion of underlying attitudes that the teacher may have towards the students, which was also found in
Gamlem (2019) and Henderson et al. (2019).

Conclusion and limitations

The analysis shows that students define assessment as summative, but the students also report diverse
types of formative assessment. However, they struggle to make use of the formative assessment. The
students want feedback that helps them to improve their performance, but they experience that the
methods and opportunities of using feedback are not systematic or part of the teaching design in the
classroom. The study shows that the students’ experiences with feedback in mathematics and the use of
feedback as a basis for learning is mediated through the teacher’s attitudes and actions in the class-
room, and through the quality of their relationships between students and the teacher. The findings
may indicate that teacher-controlled mathematics teaching dominates in these classrooms, which might
affect the feedback, opportunities for the students to use the feedback in the context in which it was
given and students’ agency. The students’ stories of the manner in which feedback is given also may
indicate that the teacher expects a high degree of self-regulated behaviour from the students, for
example that it is the students’ individual responsibility to follow up on feedback from the teacher.
Studying a small sample of students’ experiences with feedback in mathematics gives a limited
insight into the field of assessment. However, by an in-depth analysis of the complex data, this study
brings forward important findings related to formative feedback in the mathematics classrooms in
 COGENT EDUCATION 11

Norway, and in line with other studies in this field (Bueie, 2015; Fjørtoft, 2013; Gamlem & Smith, 2013;
Havnes et al., 2012; Stovner, 2021). Based on this research, we find it important to conduct further stud-
ies which also include teachers in the sample in order to gain a broader picture of feedback in mathem-
atics classrooms in high school.

Disclosure statement
The authors report there are no competing interests to declare. The project is approved by NSD- Norwegian centre
for research data.

About the authors

Ann Karin Sandal is an associate professor/PhD in pedagogy at Western Norway University of Applied Sciences. Her
main research interest is assessment in primary and secondary school, and assessment in vocational education and
training.
Ann Kristin Sperle is a secondary school teacher with master’s degree, teaching at Sogndal Upper Secondary School.
She is working with development of assessment practices in mathematics in upper secondary school.

ORCID
Ann Karin Sandal http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8191-0409

References
Andersson, C., & Palm, T. (2017). Characteristics of improved formative assessment practice. Education Inquiry, 8(2),
104–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2016.1275185
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman and Company.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998a). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy &
Practice, 5(1), 7–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998b). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta
Kappan, 80(2), 1–16.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and
Accountability, 21(1), 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5
Bong, M., & Skaalvik, E. (2003). Academic self-concept and self-efficacy: How different are they really? Educational
Psychology Review, 15(1), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021302408382
Boud, D. (2000). Sustainable assessment: Rethinking assessment for the learning society. Studies in Continuing
Education, 22(2), 151–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/713695728
Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013). Rethinking models of feedback for learning: The challenge of design. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(6), 698–712. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2012.691462
Broadfoot, P., Daugherty, R., Gardner, J., Harlen, W., James, M., & Stobart, G. (2002). Assessment for Learning: 10
Principles. Assessment Reform Group. Nuffield Foundation and University of Cambridge. https://assessmentre-
formgroup.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/10principles_english.pdf
Bueie, A. A. (2015). Summativ vurdering i formativ drakt – elevperspektiv på tilbakemelding fra heldagsprøver i
norsk. [Summative assessment in a formative frame – student perspective of feedback on all-day test in
Norwegian languages]. Acta Didactica Norge, 9(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.5617/adno.1300
Bueie, A. A. (2016). Nyttige og mindre nyttige Lærerkommentarer-slik elevene ser det. [Useful and less useful teacher
comments: Students’ perceptions]. Nordic Journal of Literacy Research, 2, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.17585/njlr.v2.188
Butler-Kisber, L., & Poldma, T. (2010). The power of visual approaches in qualitative inquiry: The use of collage mak-
ing and concept mapping in experiential research. Journal of Research Practice, 6(2), 1–16.
Carless, D. (2019). Feedback loops and the longer-term: Towards feedback spirals. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education, 44(5), 705–714. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1531108
Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315–1325. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354
Dawson, P., Henderson, M., Mahoney, P., Phillips, M., Ryan, T., Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2019). What makes for effective
feedback: Staff and student perspectives. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(1), 25–36. https://doi.
org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1467877
Dysthe, O. (2013). Dialog, samspill og læring: flerstemmige læringsfellesskap i teori og praksis. [Dialogue, interaction
and learning: the polyphonic learning communities in theory and practice]. In R. Krumsvik & R. S€aljo € (Eds.)
Praktisk-pedagogisk utdanning. En antologi. Fagbokforlaget.
12 A. K. SANDAL AND A. K. SPERLE

Engelsen, K., & Smith, K. (2010). Is “Excellent” good enough? Education Inquiry, 1(4), 415–431. https://doi.org/10.3402/
edui.v1i4.21954
Eriksen, H. (2017). Elevers oppfatning av lærers tilbakemeldingspraksis: om sammenheng mellom graden av VfL-prak-
sis og elevenes opplevde nytte av lærers skriftlige tilbakemeldinger i skriftlig norsk. [Students’ perceptions of
feedback practice: The interrelationship between the degree of assessment for learning and students’ perceived
usefulness of written feedback from teachers in Norwegian written languages]. Nordic Journal of Literacy Research,
3(2), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.23865/njlr.v3.683
Esterhazy, R., & Damşa, C. (2019). Unpacking the feedback process: An analysis of undergraduate students’ inter-
actional meaning-making of feedback comments. Studies in Higher Education, 44(2), 260–274. https://doi.org/10.
1080/03075079.2017.1359249
Fiskerstrand, P., & Gamlem, S. M. (2023). Instructional feedback to support self-regulated writing in primary school.
Frontiers in Education, 8, 1232529. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1232529
Fjørtoft, H. (2013). Vurderingspraksiser i norskfaget. [Assessment practices in Norwegian languages]. In L.V. Sandvik,
& T. Buland (Eds.). Vurdering i skolen. Operasjonaliseringer og praksiser. [Assessment in school. Interpretation and
practices]. Report 2 from the project Forskning på individuell vurdering i skolen (FIVIS),. 99–118. NTNU Skole- og
læringsforskning og SINTEF.
Gamlem, S. M. (2019). Mapping teaching through interactions and pupils’ learning in mathematics. SAGE Open, 9(3),
215824401986148. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019861485
Gamlem, S. M., & Munthe, E. (2014). Mapping the quality of feedback to support students’ learning in lower second-
ary classrooms. Cambridge Journal of Education, 44(1), 75–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2013.855171
Gamlem, S. M., & Smith, K. (2013). Student perceptions of classroom feedback. Assessment in Education: Principles,
Policy & Practice, 20(2), 150–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2012.749212
Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2004). Does your assessment support your students’ learning. Journal of Teaching and
Learning in Higher Education, 1(1), 3–31.
Gill, P., Stewart, K., Treasure, E., & Chadwick, B. (2008). Methods of data collection in qualitative research: Interviews
and focus groups. British Dental Journal, 204(6), 291–295. https://doi.org/10.1038/bdj.2008.192
Grevholm, B. (2021). Recent Nordic research in mathematics education illustrated by examples from NORMA17.
Mathematics, 9(8), 803. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9080803
Grønkjær, M., Curtis, T., de Crespigny, C., & Delmar, C. (1970). Analysing group interaction in focus group research:
Impact on content and the role of the moderator. Qualitative Studies, 2(1), 16–30. https://doi.org/10.7146/qs.v2i1.
4273
Halkier, B. (2010). Fokusgrupper. [Focus groups]. Gyldendal forlag.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.
Hattie, J., & Gan, M. (2011). Instruction based on feedback. In R.E. Myer, & P.A. Alexander (Eds.) Handbook of research
on learning and instruction (2nd ed., pp. 234–290). Routledge.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.
org/10.3102/003465430298487
Hattie, J., Crivelli, J., Van Gompel, K., West-Smith, P., & Wike, K. (2021). Feedback that leads to improvement in stu-
dent essays: Testing the hypothesis that “Where to Next” feedback is most powerful. Frontiers in Education, 6,
645758. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.645758
Havnes, A., Smith, K., Dysthe, O., & Ludvigsen, K. (2012). Formative assessment and feedback: Making learning visible.
Studies in Educational Evaluation, 38(1), 21–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2012.04.001
Henderson, M., Ajjawi, R., Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (Eds.). (2019). Identifying feedback that has impact. The impact of
feedback in higher education (pp. 15–34).
Hopfenbeck, T. H. (2011). Fra teoretiske modeller til klasseromspraksis: Hvordan fremme selvregulert læring? [From
theoretical models to classroom practices: How to promote self-regulated learning?] Norsk Pedagogisk Tidsskrift,
95(5), 360–373. https://doi.org/10.18261/ISSN1504-2987-2011-05-04
Hopfenbeck, T., Throndsen, I., Lie, S., & Dale, E. L. (2012). Assessment with distinctly defined criteria: A research study
of a national project. Policy Futures in Education, 10(4), 421–433. https://doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2012.10.4.421
Hopfenbeck, T., Tolo, A., Florez, T., & El Masri, Y. (2013). Balancing trust and accountability? The assessment for learn-
ing programme in Norway. A governing complex educational systems case study. OECD Education Working Papers
No. 97. Report for OECD Paris part of the Governing Complex Education Systems. EDU/WKP (2013)12.

nsson, I. R., Smith, K., & Geirsdo
Jo
ttir, G. (2018). Shared language of feedback and assessment. Perception of teachers
and students in three Icelandic secondary schools. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 56, 52–58. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.stueduc.2017.11.003
Jungert, T., & Andersson, U. (2013). Self-efficacy beliefs in mathematics, native language literacy and foreign lan-
guage amongst boys and girls with and without mathematic difficulties. Scandinavian Journal of Educational
Research, 57(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2011.621140
Kitzinger, J. (1995). Qualitative research. Introducing focus groups. BMJ (Clinical Research ed.), 311(7000), 299–302.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.311.7000.299
Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2015). Det kvalitative forskningsintervju. [Qualitative interviews] (3rd ed.). Gyldendal forlag.
 COGENT EDUCATION 13

Ministry of Education and Research. (2020). Regulations to the Education Act, Chapter 3: Individual assessment in pri-
mary school and in upper secondary education.
National Committee for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities (NESH). (2022). Guidelines for
research ethics in the social sciences and the humanities (5th ed.).
Nieminen, J. H., & Atjonen, P. (2023). The assessment culture of mathematics in Finland: A student perspective.
Research in Mathematics Education, 25(2), 243–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794802.2022.2045626
Nieminen, J. H., Tai, J., Boud, D., & Henderson, M. (2021). Student agency in feedback: Beyond the individual.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(1), 95–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1887080
Normann, D.-A., Sandvik, L. V., & Fjørtoft, H. (2023). Reduced grading in assessment: A scoping review. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 135, 104336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104336
Nortvedt, G. A., & Pettersen, A. (2015). Matematikk. [Mathematics]. In M. Kjærnsli & F. Jensen (Eds.) Stø Kurs. Norske
elevers kompetanse i naturfag, matematikk og lesing i PISA. [Steady course. Norwegian students’ competency in
nature study, mathematics and reading in PISA]. Scandinavian University Press.
Nortvedt, G. A., Santos, L., & Pinto, J. (2016). Assessment for learning in Norway and Portugal: The case of primary
school mathematics teaching. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 23(3), 377–395. https://doi.org/
10.1080/0969594X.2015.1108900
Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. (2017). Vurdering for læring - om satsingen. [Assessment for learn-
ing – a strategy]. https://www.udir.no/laring-og-trivsel/vurdering/nasjonal-satsing/om-satsingen/
Panadero, E., Andrade, H., & Brookhart, S. (2018). Fusing self-regulated learning and formative assessment: A road-
map of where we are, how we got here, and where we are going. The Australian Educational Researcher, 45(1),
13–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-018-0258-y
Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., & Allen, J. P. (2012). Teacher-student relationships and engagement: Conceptualizing,
measuring, and improving the capacity of classroom interactions. In S.L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly & C. Wylie
(Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 365–386). Springer.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P.R. Pintrich & M.
Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 452–502). Academic Press.
Pippitt, K. A., Moore, K. B., Lindsley, J. E., Cariello, P. F., Smith, A. G., Formosa, T., Moser, K., Morton, D. A., Colbert-
Getz, J. M., & Chow, C. J. (2022). Assessment for learning with ungraded and graded assessment. Medical Science
Educator, 32(5), 1045–1054. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-022-01612-y
Pitt, E., Bearman, M., & Esterhazy, R. (2020). The conundrum of low achievement and feedback for learning.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(2), 239–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1630363
Rakoczy, K., Pinger, P., Hochweber, J., Klieme, E., Schu €tze, B., & Besser, M. (2019). Formative assessment in mathemat-
ics: Mediated by feedback’s perceived usefulness and students’ self-efficacy. Learning and Instruction, 60, 154–165.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.01.004
Ramaprasad, A. (1983). On the definition of feedback. Behavioral Science, 28(1), 4–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/bs.
3830280103
Rambøll Management Consulting. (2020). Vurdering i skolen [Assessment in school]. Report.
Rønsen, A. K. (2013). What teachers say and what students perceive: Interpretations of feedback in teacher-student
assessment dialogues. Education Inquiry, 4(3), 22625. https://doi.org/10.3402/edui.v4i3.22625
Rosas, S. R., & Kane, M. (2012). Quality and rigor of the concept mapping methodology: A pooled study analysis.
Evaluation and Program Planning, 35(2), 236–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2011.10.003
Ruiz-Primo, M. A. (2011). Informal formative assessment: The role of instructional dialogues in assessing students’
learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(1), 15–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2011.04.003
Sadler, R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119–144.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00117714
Schildkamp, K., van der Kleij, F. M., Heitink, M. C., Kippers, W. B., & Veldkamp, B. P. (2020). Formative assessment: A
systematic review of critical teacher prerequisites for classroom practice. International Journal of Educational
Research, 103, 101602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101602
Shute, V. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189. https://doi.org/10.
3102/0034654307313795
Silverman, D. (2011). Interpreting qualitative data. a guide to the principles of qualitative research (4th ed.). Sage.
Smith, K., Gamlem, S. M., Sandal, A. K., & Engelsen, S. (2016). Education for the future: A conceptual framework of
responsive pedagogy. Cogent Education, 3(1), 1227021. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1227021
Spooner, M., & Pawlikowska, T. (2023). Feedback literacy as a model to explore how learners respond to feedback.
British Journal of Hospital Medicine (London, England: 2005), 84(7), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.12968/hmed.2022.0446
Stovner, R. B., Klette, K., & Nortvedt, G. A. (2021). The instructional situations in which mathematics teachers provide
substantive feedback. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 108(3), 533–551. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-021-
10065-w
Stovner. (2021). The Feedback Teachers Provide in Mathematics Lessons and How They Provide It Feedback Practices in
Norwegian Lower Secondary Mathematics Classrooms [Thesis Philosophiae Doctor] [Department of Teacher
Education and School Research Faculty of Educational Sciences]. University of Oslo. RB
14 A. K. SANDAL AND A. K. SPERLE

Straub, R. (1997). Students’ reactions to teacher comments: An exploratory study. Research in the Teaching of English,
31(1), 91–119. https://doi.org/10.58680/rte19973873
Tveit, S. (2014). Educational assessment in Norway. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 21(2), 221–
237. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2013.830079
United Nations Human Rights. (2002). Convention on the Rights of the Child. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/
ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CRC.aspx
Utdanning.no. (2024). Choice of mathematics at upper secondary school. https://utdanning.no/tema/utdanning_hjelp_
og_veiledning/valg_av_matematikk_pa_videregaende
Vattøy, K.-D., & Gamlem, S. M. (2023). Students’ experiences of peer feedback practices as related to awareness rais-
ing of learning goals, self-monitoring, self-efficacy, anxiety, and enjoyment in teaching EFL and mathematics.
Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2023.2192772
Wendelborg, C., & Hygen, B. W. (2022). Elevundersøkelsen 2022. Analyse av Elevundersøkelsen skoleåret 2022/23. [The
Annual Pupil Survey 2022.]. NTNU Samfunnsforskning.
Wiliam, D. (2011). What is assessment for learning? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.stueduc.2011.03.001
Wiliam, D., & Thompson, M. (2008). Integrating assessment with learning: What will it take to make it work? In C.A.
Dwyer (Ed.) The future of assessment: Shaping teaching and learning (pp. 53–82). Routledge.
Winstone, N. E., & Boud, B. (2020). The need to disentangle assessment and feedback in higher education. Studies in
Higher Education, 47(3), 656–667. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1779687
Wisniewski, B., Zierer, K., & Hattie, J. (2019). The power of feedback revisited: A meta-analysis of educational feed-
back research. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 3087. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03087
Wylie, E. C., & Lyon, C. L. (2015). The fidelity of formative assessment implementation: Issues of breadth and quality.
Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 22(1), 140–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2014.
990416
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-regulatory cycles of learning. In G.A. Straka (Ed.), Conceptions of self-directed learning:
Theoretical and conceptual considerations (pp. 221–234). Waxmann.