Studies in Educational Evaluation 63 (2019) 48–58

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Studies in Educational Evaluation

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/stueduc

Teacher feedback and students’ self-regulated learning in mathematics: A T

comparison between a high-achieving and a low-achieving secondary
schools
Guo Wenjuana, , Lau Kit Lingb, Wei Junc
⁎

a
Faculty of Education, East China Normal University, Room 405, Liberal Arts Building, No. 3663, Zhongshan North Road, Putuo District, Shanghai, China
b
Faculty of Education, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong, 999077, Hong Kong, China
c
Institute of Education, Tsinghua University, Huang Song Yi Building 4th floor, Haidian District, Beijing, China

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: This study compared teacher’s feedback and students’ self-regulated learning (SRL) in mathematics and the
Student evaluation relationship between them in a high- and a low-achieving secondary school. A total of 1282 secondary students
Teacher feedback participated in this study, 652 and 630 from the high- and the low-achieving school, respectively. The results of
Self-regulated learning t-tests indicated that teachers at the high-achieving school compared to teachers at the low-achieving school
Mathematics learning
provided more praise and more verification, directive, and scaffolding feedback but less criticism. Students at the
High achievers
Low achievers
high-achieving school reported using more SRL strategies and having greater motivation in mathematics than
those at the low-achieving school. Two-group structural equation modelling indicated that merely verification
feedback and teacher’s praise had positive relationships with high-achieving school students’ SRL, whereas
scaffolding feedback, teacher’s praise, and criticism had positive relationships with low-achieving school stu-
dents’ SRL. Particularly, directive feedback had more negative correlations with students’ SRL at the low-
achieving school than at the high-achieving school.

1. Introduction students’ SRL in high- and low-achieving schools in the context of

The critical importance of self-regulated learning (SRL) for students’
academic success and life-long learning is well documented in educa-
tional research (Broadbent & Poon, 2015; Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2013;
Zimmerman, 2000). As a cyclical and dynamic process in which lear-
ners take control of their thoughts, behaviours, and feelings to achieve
learning goals (Schunk & Zimmerman, 2010), SRL mainly involves
cognitive strategies, metacognitive strategies, and motivation for
learning. Given the critical role that SRL skills may play in students’
learning, helping students become self-regulated learners has been one
of the major educational objectives for schools in many countries (e.g.,
Sontag & Stoeger, 2015). According to social cognitive theory (Bandura,
2011), teacher feedback, defined as information provided by the tea-
cher regarding aspects of students’ performance and understanding
(Hattie & Timperley, 2007), has substantialinfluence on student
learning and self-regulation (e.g., Havnes, Smith, Dysthe, & Ludvigsen,
2012; Pereira, Flores, Simão, & Barros, 2016)..
Notwithstanding the large body of research on teacher feedback and
students’ SRL, very few studies have compared teacher feedback and
mathematics teaching and learning. In addition, little is known about
whether teacher feedback has different relationships with students’ SRL
in mathematics at high- and low-achieving schools. High-achieving
schools refer to schools that their students usually achieve higher scores
in the standardized tests. In contrast, low-achieving schools refer to
schools that their students usually achieve lower scores in the stan-
dardized tests. Research has indicated that the effects of teacher feed-
back on student learning depend on the specific context such as school
climate and culture and how students perceive it (Corpus, Ogle, & Love-
Geiger, 2006; Havnes et al., 2012). School climate was defined as a set
of norms and expectations which is presented to students (West, 1985).
School culture refers to the norms, beliefs, traditions and customs that
develop in a school over time (Hinde, 2004). Both concepts are closely
related and reflect the atmosphere of a school (Barnes, Brynard, & De
Wet, 2012). Due to the difference in school climate and culture between
high- and low-achieving schools (Makewa, Role, Role, & Yegoh, 2011),
students in the two types of schools tend to have different learning
backgrounds, experiences, achievement levels, beliefs about learning,
and teacher feedback, which may cause teacher feedback to have

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: juan.wenguo@163.com (W. Guo), dinkylau@cuhk.edu.hk (K.L. Lau), weijun8781@126.com (J. Wei).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2019.07.001
Received 8 June 2018; Received in revised form 25 May 2019; Accepted 1 July 2019
Available online 31 July 2019
0191-491X/ © 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
W. Guo, et al.
different effects on student learning. Previous research has found sig-
nificant relationships between various types of teacher feedback and
students’ SRL (e.g. Guo, 2017; Guo & Wei, 2019). Some types of feed-
back such as scaffolding feedback and praise were found to have po-
sitive influence on student learning (Finn & Metcalfe, 2010; Guo, 2017;
McMillan, 2014), whereas verification and directive feedback may
exert negative influence on student learning (Atlas, Taggart, & Goodell,
2004; Guo, 2017; Lipnevich & Smith, 2008). In sum, the effect of tea-
chers’ feedback on students’ SRL depends on the specific context such as
school climate or culture or the type of feedback. Therefore, we expect
that the relative importance of different types of teacher feedback for
improving students’ SRL in mathematics would differ across high-and
low-achieving schools where the school climate and culture are dif-
ferent.
This study aims to bridge this research gap and compare teacher
feedback, students’ SRL, and the relationship between these two factors
between high- and low-achieving schools. This study contributes to the
literature on teacher feedback and students’ SRL and has practical im-
plications for mathematics teachers in high- and low-achieving schools
to effectively improve their students’ SRL through feedback.
1.1. Teacher feedback
Teacher feedback as a primary component of formative assessment
is essential in improving student learning (Havnes et al., 2012; Pereira
et al., 2016; Shute, 2008). According to Hattie and Timperley (2007),
the purpose of teacher feedback is to reduce the discrepancies between
students’ current and desired understanding and performance. Effective
teacher feedback should lead both teachers and students to answer
three major questions: 1) Where am I going? (What are the goals?); 2)
How am I going? (What progress is being made towards the goals?); and
3) Where to go next? (What activities need to be undertaken to make
better progress?).
Previous research has generally identified four main functions of
teacher feedback in student learning, which are verification, directive,
scaffolding, and motivational functions (Bangert-Drowns, Bangert-
Drowns, Kulik, Kulik, & Morgan, 1991; Black & Wiliam, 1998; Finn &
Metcalfe, 2010). Accordingly, based on the conceptual framework, Guo
(2017) distinguished five types of teacher feedback in the classroom.
They are: 1) verification feedback: a dichotomous judgment of a stu-
dent’s response by affirming it as correct or incorrect, such as grades or
marks (Black & Wiliam, 1998); 2) directive feedback: telling students
the direct answer or full solution to their questions or problems; 3)
scaffolding feedback: successive cues, hints, models, and prompts pro-
vided to students or partial solutions that consist of breaking tasks
down into smaller or easier parts to facilitate students’ generation of
correct answers by themselves (McMillan, 2014); 4) praise: com-
mending the worth of students’ learning performance, attitudes, or
products; and 5) criticism: negative responses to students’ performance,
attitudes, or behaviours via expressions of disgust, disapproval, or re-
jection (Brophy, 1981). Though some researchers have also suggested
several other kinds of feedback, this study adopted Guo (2017)’s fra-
mework because it aimed to explore the functions of teacher feedback
on students’ SRL, and her framework, which is constructed based on the
functions of teacher feedback, is more appropriate.
Teacher feedback is provided in relation to students’ current per-
formance and teachers’ expectations of their future performance (Hattie
& Timperley, 2007). Teachers tend to expect better performance from
high achievers and provide them with more positive than negative
feedback than is the case with low achievers (Thompson, Warren, &
Carter, 2004). Considering these findings, we may assume that teachers
generally provide different types of feedback to their students in high-
and low-achieving schools. However, there has been little research over
the past several decades that has examined the differences between
mathematics teachers’ feedback in high- and in low-achieving schools.
Understanding differences between teachers’ feedback in high- and low-
49
Studies in Educational Evaluation 63 (2019) 48–58
achieving schools will help teachers, especially in low achieving
schools, to reflect on and improve their feedback practices. Therefore,
guided by Guo’s teacher feedback classification (2017), the present
study compared how mathematics teachers at high- and low-achieving
schools provide different types of feedback to students.
1.2. Self-regulated learning
In recent years, SRL has garnered attention in the educational sector
for its significant role in student learning in school and beyond
(Broadbent & Poon, 2015; Daniel, Wang, & Berthelsen, 2016). SRL is
mainly composed of cognitive and metacognitive strategies and moti-
vation (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1991). Self-regulated
learners should be able to skilfully choose and apply effective cognitive
strategies to address problems or challenges in learning (Schunk &
Zimmerman, 2010). Such cognitive strategies include either basic
learning strategies such as rehearsal and elaboration or deep learning
strategies such as organization and critical thinking (Pintrich et al.,
1991). Self-regulated learners are also aware of and know how to
control their cognition to improve their performance (Garcia & Pintrich,
2012). In addition, they tend to be highly motivated and confident
about their ability to accomplish tasks and address challenges in
learning (Pintrich et al., 1991).
Research has indicated that high achievers tend to have higher le-
vels of SRL and are more likely to use a variety of cognitive strategies
and metacognitive strategies in learning than low achievers (Abu-
Hamour & Al-Hmouz, 2013; DiFrancesca, Nietfeld, & Cao, 2016).
Moreover, high achievers are more apt to have high intrinsic motivation
and self-efficacy in learning than low achievers (Abu-Hamour & Al-
Hmouz, 2013; DiFrancesca et al., 2016). Given that high- and low-
achieving schools may differ in school culture and climate (Makewa
et al., 2011), students’ SRL between the two types of schools may also
differ. However, most previous studies compare high and low achievers
in the same school, and few have compared students’ SRL between
high- and low-achieving schools, which differ in culture and climate.
1.3. Relationship between teacher feedback and students’ SRL
According to social cognitive theory, SRL can be affected by the
social environment (Bandura, 2011). Teachers’ feedback has been
viewed as one of the most critical environmental factors that influence
students’ SRL (Pereira et al., 2016). Numerous empirical studies have
indicated that scaffolding feedback is the most effective type of teacher
feedback to facilitate student learning (Finn & Metcalfe, 2010; Guo,
2017; McMillan, 2014). For instance, Azevedo and Hadwin (2005)
found that teachers’ scaffolding feedback, which provides regular hints
but requires students to generate the answer themselves, could effec-
tively increase students’ use of cognitive strategies and improve their
intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy in learning. Moreover, teachers’
praise was also found to exert a positive influence on students’ SRL.
Research has suggested that teacher’s sincere praise for students’ effort
and progress in learning can significantly increase student’s motivation
and self-efficacy (Burnett & Mandel, 2010; Haimovitz & Corpus, 2011;
Skipper & Douglas, 2012).
However, the effect of teachers’ feedback on students’ SRL is not
invariant across different educational contexts. Many empirical studies
indicated that some types of teacher feedback may be ineffective or
even detrimental in promoting student learning. For instance, ver-
ification feedback, such as test marks or grades, was found to have
detrimental effects on students’ self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation in
learning by distracting their attention from tasks to competition with
others (Lipnevich & Smith, 2008). In addition, when teachers directly
tell students the correct answers to problems rather than leave some
time for them to reconsider and try to address their challenges, such
feedback may also decrease students’ motivation and use of various
strategies in learning (Shute, 2008). Directive feedback may thus
W. Guo, et al. Studies in Educational Evaluation 63 (2019) 48–58

encourage students to rely on teachers rather than solve problems by
themselves. Teachers’ criticism also had negative relationships with
students’ intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy in learning and reduced
their use of learning strategies (Atlas et al., 2004; Guo, 2017).
In summary, the effect of teachers’ feedback on students’ SRL de-
pends on the type of feedback. However, we know little at present
about the relative importance of different types of teacher feedback for
cultivating high- and low-achieving school students’ SRL. High- and
low-achieving schools may differ in school climate and culture, which
could affect teachers’ feedback practice and its relationships with stu-
dent learning (Agba, Ikoh, & Ashibi, 2010; Dweck, 2014; Guo, 2017).
For instance, a friendlier and warmer school climate was found to sti-
mulate student learning when compared to one that is unconcerned and
autocratic (Agba et al., 2010). Research has found that high-achieving
schools are more likely to provide favourable and positive ecology,
milieu, and culture than low-achieving schools (Makewa et al., 2011).
Specifically, high-achieving schools usually have a warm, welcoming,
supportive, and nurturing environment that focuses on students’
learning, and the students feel comfortable, wanted, valued, accepted,
and secure in such environment where they can interact with caring
and trusting people. By contrast, low-achieving schools tend to have a
cold, unwelcome, and authoritarian environment that mainly focuses
on the interests of the school rather than the students, and students may
feel uncomfortable, unwanted, undervalued, unaccepted, and insecure
in such environment where they cannot trust others. In light of this, it is
necessary to compare the relationship between different types of tea-
cher feedback and students’ SRL in high- and low-achieving schools
with different school culture and climate.
1.4. Research questions and hypotheses
As summarised in the literature review, few empirical studies have
compared teacher feedback, students’ SRL, and the relative importance
of different types of teacher feedback for students’ SRL in high- and low-
achieving schools in the context of mathematics teaching. The current
study aimed to address the following research questions to bridge this
gap so as to deepen the understanding of teachers’ feedback and stu-
dents’ SRL in mathematics at high- and low-achieving schools:
1 Are there any differences in mathematics teachers’ feedback be-
tween high- and low-achieving schools? Based on the very limited
relevant literature (Thompson et al., 2004), it was expected that, in
general, teachers at the high-achieving school would offer more
challenging and positive feedback, such as scaffolding feedback and
praise, and less simple and negative feedback, such as directive
feedback and criticism, to their students than teachers at the low-
achieving school.
2 Are there any differences in students’ SRL in mathematics between
high- and low-achieving schools with different school climate and
culture? Research has indicated that high-achieving schools tend to
have a warm, welcoming, supportive, and nurturing environment,
while low-achieving schools tend to have a cold, unwelcome, and
authoritarian environment, which could have an impact on student
learning (Makewa et al., 2011). Therefore, it was predicted that
students in the high-achieving school would report higher levels of
SRL than those in the low-achieving school.
3 What are the relationships between different types of teacher feed-
back and students’ SRL in mathematics at high- and low-achieving
schools? Researchers have suggested that high-achieving schools
tend to provide a supportive school climate and culture, while low-
achieving schools tend to have a relatively negative school climate
and culture, which may affect teachers’ feedback and students’ re-
sponse to teacher feedback (Agba et al., 2010; Dweck, 2014; Guo,
2017; Makewa et al., 2011). Thus, we expected that the relation-
ships between teacher feedback and students’ SRL were likely to
differ between high- and low-achieving schools. Specifically, we
expected that verification feedback may have positive relationships
with high-achieving school students’ SRL, but may have negative
relationships with low-achieving school students’ SRL (Guo, 2017;
Makewa et al., 2011). In addition, we also expected that directive
feedback may have more negative relationships (Shute, 2008), and
scaffolding feedback may have more positive relationships with low-
achieving school students’ SRL than with high-achieving school
students’ SRL (McMillan, 2014). In terms of teachers’ praise and
criticism, we expected that praise may have more positive re-
lationships and criticism may have more negative relationships with
low-achieving school students’ SRL, than with high-achieving school
students’ SRL (Atlas et al., 2004).
2. Methods
2.1. Participants
The participants in this study were 1396 students from two sec-
ondary schools in Shanghai, China. All of them voluntarily completed
the questionnaires of this study, and 1282 (92%) were valid. The par-
ticipants comprised 652 (50.9%) students from the high-achieving
school and 630 (49.1%) students from the low-achieving school. There
were more female students (710, 55.4%) than male students (572,
44.6%) in the sample. The sample students were aged from 15 to 19
years, with an overall mean age of 16.5 years (SD = 1.01). The two
schools differ in location, educational resources, and achievement level,
as well as school climate and culture (see Table 1). Specifically, school
A is located in urban area and has adequate advanced learning

Table 1
The demographic information, students’ achievement, and culture and climate of the high- and low-achieving schools in this study.
High-achieving school Low-achieving school

School demographic Students on campus 1700 1280

Senior teacher population
Senior teacher /student ratio
School location
Educational resources
Students’ general High school entrance examination
achievement scores (standardized test scores)
School culture and climate Teachers’ expectations on students
Teachers’ attitudes towards students
Students’ feeling
Students’ learning performance
67 26
1:25 1:50
Urban area Suburban area
Has adequate advanced learning resources: high-quality online Has very limited advanced learning
tutorial courses, chances for international exchanges, and high- resources
tech learning devices
Ranks 12th among all 243 secondary schools in Shanghai Ranks 182th among all 243 secondary
schools in Shanghai
Understand and master basic knowledge and learning skills Proficient in knowledge and advanced
learning skills
Warm, welcoming, and nurturing Relatively cold, unwelcome, and
authoritarian
Comfortable, wanted, valued, accepted, and secure Uncomfortable, unwanted,
undervalued, unaccepted, and insecure
Energetically, proactively Passively, perfunctorily

50
W. Guo, et al. Studies in Educational Evaluation 63 (2019) 48–58

resources, including high-quality online tutorial courses, chances for separately, with higher numbers reflecting more strategy use or greater
international exchanges, and high-tech learning devices, whereas motivation for learning.
school B is located in suburban area and has apparently less learning
resources compared to school A. Students in the high-achieving school 2.3. Procedures
generally achieve much higher scores on standardised tests (School A
ranks 12th and School B ranks 182nd among all 243 secondary schools 2.3.1. Data collection
in Shanghai). In addition, families of students in school A generally All participants volunteered to complete the two questionnaires.
have higher SES than those of students in school B. Despite such dif- Permission was obtained from the two schools’ principals and teachers,
ferences between the two schools, the participating students were and informed consent was obtained from all the participants. Before the
randomly selected in each school and the whole sample was educa- questionnaires were administered to the students, research staff read
tionally and socioeconomically diverse. However, the two schools have aloud a brief set of directions concerning how to fill in the ques-
similar curricula, and mathematics is a compulsory subject. tionnaire and provided some practice questions. All participants were
informed that the collected data would be kept confidential and used
2.2. Measures for research purposes only. The two questionnaires took approximately
15 min to complete, and all questionnaires were collected immediately
2.2.1. Teacher Feedback Questionnaire (TFQ) after all the participants completed them. Moreover, we collected the
The Teacher Feedback Questionnaire developed by Guo (2017) background information of the participating students and their schools
were used to assess mathematics teachers’ use of different types of from the interviews with their teachers and principals.
feedback. The factor structure of teacher feedback has been confirmed
by prior research in which the five types of teacher feedback were 2.3.2. Data analyses
distinct but correlated latent constructs (Guo & Wei, 2019). The ques- First, to ensure that the measures were equivalent between high-
tionnaire comprises five subscales: verification feedback, directive and low-achieving school students, we conducted a series of two-group
feedback, scaffolding feedback, teacher praise, and teacher criticism. A confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) using Mplus 7 to examine the con-
sample item for verification feedback is ‘My teacher provides marks or figural, metric, scalar, and residual invariance, factor variance, and
grades for our performance on daily tests’. A sample item for directive factor covariance of the measures for the two schools’ students sepa-
feedback is ‘The teacher points out and corrects my mistakes directly in rately. An unconstrained model was compared with a constrained
class’. A sample item for scaffolding feedback is ‘My teacher gives us model for each measure. Second, we calculated descriptives (i.e.,
some hints or clues to help us to solve difficult problems’. A sample item means, standard deviations, and internal consistencies) for all the
for teacher praise is ‘When my answer to a difficult problem is right, my measures using SPSS 23. Third, two separate MANOVAs were con-
teacher praises me’. Finally, a sample item for teacher criticism is ‘My ducted using SPSS 23 to investigate the differences in teacher feedback
teacher criticises me when my answers to simple questions are wrong’. and students’ SRL in mathematics between high- and low-achieving
Students rated the frequency in which teachers gave each feedback on a schools, with school, age, and gender serving as fixed factors. Fourth,
6-point Likert scale (1 = never, 6 = always). The mean of items was due to the acknowledged strength of analysing complex relations
taken for each type of feedback, with higher numbers indicating greater among multiple latent variables in one model simultaneously
frequency of using the feedback. (Tomarken & Waller, 2005), two-group SEM using Mplus 7 was con-
ducted to examine the relationship patterns between teacher feedback
2.2.2. Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) and students’ SRL in mathematics between high- and low-achieving
To measure students’ self-regulated learning in mathematics, the schools. In addition, missing values were estimated using full-in-
Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) developed by formation maximum likelihood (FIML) estimation, assuming that the
Pintrich et al. (1991). The questionnaire was translated into Chinese by missing values could be estimated from the available data.
the first author based on the Chinese classroom context, and then back-
translated by a professor fluent in both Chinese and English. Four
3. Results
professors in this research field, two teachers in mathematics and
Chinese language, as well as several PhD students were invited to re-
3.1. Reliability
view and examine the items. These items were firstly reviewed by each
professor and PhD student to examine the content structure. After re-
The internal consistency coefficients and descriptive statistics for
visions, the revised items were then reviewed by one mathematics
each subscale of teacher feedback and students’ SRL are shown in
teacher and one language teacher separately in order to make sure that
Table 2. The reliability of all scales ranged from .75 to .88, suggesting
these items can be easily understood by their students. All the finalized
that the items of each teacher feedback scale had good internal
items were jointly determined by the researchers and independent ad-
visors. The questionnaire comprises six scales: basic learning strategy,
Table 2
deep learning strategy, metacognitive strategy, intrinsic motivation,
Descriptive statistics for the variables of teacher feedback and students’ SRL.
extrinsic motivation, and self-efficacy. A sample item for the basic
learning strategy is ‘When studying for this class, I read my class notes No. of items in the scale M SD Cronbach’s α
and the course readings over and over again’. A sample item for the
Teacher feedback
deep learning strategy is ‘I treat the course material as a starting point Verification feedback 4 5.36 .73 .75
and try to develop my ideas about it’. A sample item for the metacog- Directive feedback 4 4.86 .95 .80
nitive strategy is ‘I try to change the way I study in order to fit the Scaffolding feedback 5 5.24 .82 .81
Teacher praise 5 4.71 1.14 .88
course requirements and instructor’s teaching style’. A sample item for
Teacher criticism 4 3.86 1.27 .86
intrinsic motivation is ‘In a class like this, I prefer course material that Students’ SRL
arouses my curiosity, even if it is difficult to learn’. A sample item for Basic learning strategy 8 4.86 1.07 .87
extrinsic motivation is ‘If I can, I want to get better grades in this class Deep learning strategy 8 4.17 1.16 .85
than most of the other students’. Finally, a sample item for self-efficacy Metacognitive strategy 10 4.99 1.05 .89
Intrinsic motivation 5 5.01 1.27 .88
is ‘I believe I will receive an excellent grade in this class’. All the items
Extrinsic motivation 5 5.24 1.27 .85
are measured on a seven-point Likert scale, where 1 = strongly disagree, Self-efficacy 5 4.85 1.27 .91
and 7 = strongly agree. The mean of items was taken for each scale

51
W. Guo, et al. Studies in Educational Evaluation 63 (2019) 48–58

Table 3
Measurement and structural invariance tests for the teacher feedback and SRL measures.
Model and invariance level Over Fit Indexes Model comparison Comparative Fit Indexes

2
χ df RMSEA CFI TLI SRMR Δχ2 Δ df Δ CFI Δ TLI

Teacher feedback measures

1.Configural 932* 468 .039 .930 .917 .064
2.Metric 981* 497 .040 .925 .915 .070 2 vs. 1 49 29 .005 .002
3.Scalar 1029* 526 .041 .916 .909 .072 3 vs. 2 48 29 .009 .006
4.Residual 1088* 566 .042 .908 .904 .075 4 vs. 3 59 40 .008 .005
5.Factor variance 1112* 584 .044 .905 .902 .077 5 vs. 4 24 18 .003 .002
6.Factor covariance 1134* 599 .045 .903 .901 .078 6 vs. 5 22 15 .002 .001
SRL measures
1.Configural 2317* 1409 .031 .916 .911 .069
2.Metric 2322* 1411 .030 .915 .908 .067 2 vs. 1 5 2 .001 .002
3.Scalar 2376* 1432 .029 .915 .906 .071 3 vs. 2 55 21 .000 .002
4.Residual 2402* 1455 .025 .912 .905 .075 4 vs. 3 26 23 .003 .001
5.Factor variance 2404* 1458 .020 .910 .904 .077 5 vs. 4 2 3 .002 .001
6.Factor covariance 2406* 1462 .019 .903 .902 .078 6 vs. 5 2 4 .007 .002

Note. At each step numbered in each section in the sequence of invariance tests, all earlier constraints remain in place. χ2 = Chi-square statistic; RMSEA = robust
root-mean-square error of approximation; CFI = robust comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker Lewis index; SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Square Residual; Δ=
difference between the comparison and nested model.
* p < .0001.

Fig. 1. Differences in mathematics teachers’ feedback between

high and low achieving schools.
Note: a, The significance levels of the mean differences be-
tween males and females in language and mathematics for
each SRL component were marked by asterisks. The same for
Fig. 2.
b, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
c, VF = Verification feedback, DF = Directive feedback,
SF = Scaffolding feedback, TP = Teacher praise, TC = Tea-
cher criticism.

consistency. In addition, the reliability of the SRL scales ranged from
.85 to .91, suggesting that the items of each SRL scale also had adequate
internal consistency.
3.2. Confirmatory factor analyses
CFA was conducted to examine the factor structure separately for
the scales measuring teacher feedback and students’ SRL in mathe-
matics. The measurement model fit the data adequately for teacher
feedback measures (χ2 = 888.94; df = 26; p < .001; RMSEA = .04;
CFI =.92; TLI =.91; SRMR =.06). All the factor loadings and corre-
lations reached significance (βs = .56–.83; rs = .29–.66; ps < .001).
The measurement model also fit the data adequately for SRL measures
(χ2 =1557.94; df = 72; p < .001; RMSEA = .03; CFI = .92; TLI = .91;
SRMR = .06). All the factor loadings and correlations reached sig-
nificance (βs = .40–.86; rs = .18–.77; ps < .001).
3.3. Measurement invariance
As shown in Table 3, results indicated that for teacher feedback
measure, each of the six invariance models fit the data adequately,
RMSEAs < .04, CFIs > .90, TLIs > .90, and SRMRs < .08. The decrease
in the CFI and TLI values were less than .01 for each invariance com-
parison. There was good evidence for the invariance of loadings, in-
tercepts, residuals, and factor variance and covariances across the
schools.
For the SRL measure, each of the six invariance models fit the data
adequately, with RMSEAs < .03, CFIs > .90, TLIs > .90, and
SRMR < .08. The decrease in the CFI and TLI values were less than .01
for each invariance comparison. There was good evidence for the in-
variance of loadings, intercepts, residuals, and factor variance and
covariances across the schools.
3.4. Differences in mathematics teachers’ feedback between high- and low-
achieving schools
As shown in Table 5, the results of MANOVA indicate that teachers
at the high-achieving school provided more verification feedback (F(1,
1281) = 8.66; p < .01) directive feedback (F(1, 1281) = 6.10; p <
.05), scaffolding feedback (F (1, 1281) = 10.27; p < .01), and praise
(F(1, 1281) = 5.93; p < .05), but less criticism (F(1, 1281) = 23.78;
p < .001), than teachers at the low-achieving school. No interactive
effects were found between school and age or gender, F(1,
1281) < 2.85, ps > .05 (Fig. 1).

52
W. Guo, et al. Studies in Educational Evaluation 63 (2019) 48–58

Fig. 2. Differences in students’ self-regulated learning in mathematics between high and low achieving schools.
Note: a, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
b, BS = Basic learning strategy, DS = Deep learning strategy, Meta = Metacognitive strategy, IM = Intrinsic motivation, EM = Extrinsic motivation, SE = Self-
efficacy.

3.5. Differences in students’ self-regulated learning in mathematics between
high- and low-achieving schools
As displayed in Table 5, the results of MANOVA showed that, except
for extrinsic motivation (F(1, 1281) = .41; p > .05), students at the
high-achieving school reported higher levels of SRL in mathematics:
basic learning strategy use (F(1, 1281) = 36.82; p < .001); deep
learning strategy use (F(1, 1281) = 35.64; p < .001); metacognitive
strategy use (F(1, 1281) = 89.80; p < .001); intrinsic motivation (F(1,
1281) = 38.61; p < .001); and self-efficacy (F(1, 1281) = 47.44; p <
.001). No interactive effects were found between school and age or
gender, F(1, 1281) < 3.06, ps > .05 (Fig. 2).
3.6. Relationships between teacher feedback and students’ SRL in
mathematics in high- and low-achieving schools
Zero-order correlations were initially computed to explore the re-
lationships between different types of teacher feedback and students’
self-regulated learning in mathematics separately for the high- and low-
achieving schools. As shown in Table 4, for students at the high-
achieving school, verification feedback, scaffolding feedback, and tea-
cher praise had significant, positive correlations with all aspects of
students’ SRL, ps < .05. However, directive feedback was correlated
only with extrinsic motivation, p < .001. In addition, teacher criticism
had no significant correlation with students’ intrinsic motivation,
p > .05. On the other hand, scaffolding feedback, teacher praise, and
criticism were all significantly and positively correlated with all com-
ponents of SRL, ps < .01, for students at the low achieving school.
However, verification feedback had no significant relationship with
students’ deep learning strategy use, but had significantly positive re-
lationships with the other variables of SRL, ps < .001. In addition, di-
rective feedback had a significant positive correlation with extrinsic
motivation.
A two-group SEM model was performed to compare the relationship
patterns between teacher feedback and students’ SRL in mathematics
among high- and low-achieving schools. The two-group SEM model fit
the data adequately (χ2 = 4949.16; df = 3886; p < .001;
RMSEA = .02; CFI = .91; TLI = .90; SRMR = .06).
As shown in Fig. 3, the results indicated that for students at the
high-achieving school, only verification feedback and teacher praise
had positive relationships with their SRL. Specifically, verification
feedback was positively correlated with students’ basic learning
strategy use (r = .16; p < .05), metacognitive strategy use (r = .19;
p < .01), and intrinsic motivation (r = .21; p < .05). Teacher praise
was positively correlated with students’ deep learning strategy use (r =
.31; p < .01), and self-efficacy (r = .37; p < .001). In contrast, directive

Table 4
Zero-order correlation between variables of teacher feedback and students’ SRL for high and low achieving schools.
VF DF SF TP TC BS DS Meta IM EM SE

VF ____ .29*** .53*** .50*** .26*** .20*** .09* .18*** .15*** .16*** .14***
DF .42*** ____ .35*** .28*** .25*** .05 .04 .07 −.02 .15*** .07
SF .61*** .39*** ____ .67*** .26*** .17*** .12** .16*** .10** .19*** .15***
TP .41*** .32*** .58*** ____ .40*** .21*** .21*** .19*** .16*** .22*** .23***
TC .26*** .28*** .26*** .48*** ____ .08* .12** .08* .07 .12** .08*
BS .16*** .05 .24*** .30*** .18*** ____ .62*** .67*** .47*** .36*** .46***
DS .01 −.06 .07 .22*** .24*** .55*** ____ .61*** .58*** .30*** .53***
Meta .17*** .02 .20*** .29*** .20*** .62*** .57*** ____ .60*** .37*** .57***
IM .14*** .00 .18*** .23*** .10** .40*** .46*** .48*** ____ .41*** .67***
EM .23*** .12** .27*** .28*** .14** .33*** .20*** .32*** .35*** ____ .49***
SE .14*** −.03 .24*** .25*** .12** .38*** .45*** .49*** .59*** .39*** ____

Note: a, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

b, The lower half of the triangle are the correlations among variables of teacher feedback and SRL for students in the low achieving school; and the upper half of the
triangle are the correlations for students in the high achieving school.
c, VF = Verification feedback, DF = Directive feedback, SF = Scaffolding feedback, TP = Teacher praise, TC = Teacher criticism, BS = Basic learning strategy,
DS = Deep learning strategy, Meta = Metacognitive strategy, IM = Intrinsic motivation, EM = Extrinsic motivation, SE = Self-efficacy.

53
W. Guo, et al. Studies in Educational Evaluation 63 (2019) 48–58

Table 5
Differences in teacher feedback and students’ SRL between the high-achieving and low-achieving schools.
High achieving school Low achieving school Partial η2
(n = 652) (n = 630)

M SD M SD F

Teacher feedback
Verification feedback 5.42 .72 5.30 .74 8.66** .01
Directive feedback 4.93 .93 4.80 .96 6.10* .01
Scaffolding feedback 5.32 .78 5.17 .86 10.27** .01
Teacher praise 4.78 1.15 4.63 1.13 5.93* .01
Teacher criticism 3.70 1.30 4.04 1.20 23.78*** .02
Students’ SRL
Basic learning strategy 5.04 1.11 4.69 1.00 36.82*** .03
Deep learning strategy 4.38 1.21 4.00 1.08 35.64*** .03
Metacognitive strategy 5.25 1.07 4.72 .95 89.80*** .07
Intrinsic motivation 5.22 1.34 4.79 1.16 38.61*** .03
Extrinsic motivation 5.26 1.36 5.22 1.18 .41 .00
Self-efficacy 5.09 1.29 4.61 1.20 47.44*** .04

Note. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

feedback had negative correlations with students’ intrinsic motivation
(r = −.12; p < .05). Scaffolding feedback and teacher criticism had no
significant relationship with students’ SRL, ps > .05.
As displayed in Fig. 4, the findings suggest that, at the low-achieving
school, except for verification feedback, the four other kinds of feed-
back had a significant relationship with students’ SRL. Scaffolding
feedback and teacher praise had a positive relationship with students’
SRL, while directive feedback and teacher criticism had a negative re-
lationship. To be specific, scaffolding feedback had a positive correla-
tion with students’ basic learning strategy use (r = .25; p < .05), ex-
trinsic motivation (r = .24; p < .05), and self-efficacy (r = .24;
p < .05). Teacher praise was positively correlated with students’ use of
basic learning strategy (r = .25; p < .001) and metacognitive strategy
(r = .31; p < .001), intrinsic motivation (r = .27; p < .001), and self-
efficacy (r = .18; p < .05). In contrast, directive feedback was
negatively correlated with students’ use of basic learning strategy (r =
−.11; p < .05), deep learning strategy (r = −.22; p < .001), and me-
tacognitive strategy (r = −.17; p < .001), intrinsic motivation (r =
−.17; p < .01), and self-efficacy (r = −.26; p < .001). In addition,
teacher criticism was positively correlated with students’ use of deep
learning strategy (r = .26; p < .001).
Moreover, because a standardized test score of students’ perfor-
mance cannot be obtained in this study, we controlled in the two-group
SEM model students’ self-efficacy to see whether and how students’
performances relate to the obtained results, given that self-efficacy has
been indicated as a strong indicator of students’ academic performance
(e.g., Caprara, Vecchione, Alessandri, Gerbino, & Barbaranelli, 2011;
Kitsantas, Cheema, & Ware, 2011; Parker, Marsh, Ciarrochi, Marshall, &
Abduljabbar, 2014). Results of the new model controlling students’ self-
efficacy showed almost a consistent pattern with the results of the

Fig. 3. Relationship between teacher feedback

and students’ SRL at high achieving school.
Note. VF = Verification feedback, DF = Directive
feedback, SF = Scaffolding feedback, TP
= Teacher praise, TC = Teacher criticism,
BS = Basic learning strategy, DS = Deep learning
strategy, Meta = Metacognitive strategy, IM
= Intrinsic motivation, EM = Extrinsic motiva-
tion, SE = Self-efficacy. *p < .05. **p < .01.
***p < .001.

54
W. Guo, et al.
initial model, suggesting that students’ performances, to some extent,
may not affect the differences between the high- and low-achieving
schools in the relationship between teacher feedback and students’ SRL.
Furthermore, we also controlled in the two-group SEM model stu-
dents’ age and gender to see whether and how they may relate to the
obtained results. Results of the new model controlling students’ age and
gender showed almost a consistent pattern with the results of the initial
model, suggesting that students’ age and gender may not affect the
differences between the high- and low-achieving schools in the re-
lationship between teacher feedback and students’ SRL.
4. Discussion
This study explored the relationships between teacher feedback and
students’ SRL in mathematics in a high- and a low-achieving secondary
school in China. The major findings of the current research are three-
fold. First, significant differences existed between mathematics tea-
chers’ feedback in the high- and low-achieving schools. Second, sig-
nificant differences also existed between high- and low-achieving
school students’ SRL in mathematics. Third, the relationship patterns
between different types of teacher feedback and students’ SRL differed
between the high- and low-achieving schools. Consistent with the
aforementioned hypotheses, these findings suggest that teacher feed-
back and students’ SRL in mathematics are not general traits that work
in the same manner across high- and low-achieving secondary schools.
The findings also suggest that different types of teacher feedback should
be emphasised at high- and low-achieving schools so as to develop
students’ SRL in mathematics.
Because high-achieving schools tend to be characterized by a more
favourable, positive environment which, in turn, promotes students’
performance, a supportive and positive school climate seems an es-
sential element in successful teachers and students, and vice versa
(Makewa et al., 2011). The different school climate and culture may
account for the significant differences in teachers’ feedback, students’
SRL, and their relationships between the high- and low-achieving
55
Studies in Educational Evaluation 63 (2019) 48–58
Fig. 4. Relationship between teacher feedback
and students’ SRL at low achieving school.
Note. VF = Verification feedback, DF = Directive
feedback, SF = Scaffolding feedback, TP
= Teacher praise, TC = Teacher criticism,
BS = Basic learning strategy, DS = Deep learning
strategy, Meta = Metacognitive strategy, IM
= Intrinsic motivation, EM = Extrinsic motiva-
tion, SE = Self-efficacy.
schools found in this study.
Specifically, in terms of teacher feedback, mathematics teachers in
the high-achieving school offered praise, directive feedback, and scaf-
folding feedback more frequently and provided criticism less frequently
than teachers at the low-achieving school. These findings indicate that
mathematics teachers at the high-achieving school tended to have a
greater range of feedback interactions with students in the classroom.
The primary function of feedback is to reduce the discrepancies be-
tween students’ current understanding or performance and learning
goals (Hattie & Timperley, 2007). Therefore, a greater range of feed-
back may partially account for students’ better academic performance
than students at the low-achieving school, who received more limited
feedback (Cianci, Schaubroeck, & McGill, 2010; Núñez et al., 2015). In
addition, teachers at the high-achieving school criticised students less
often than teachers in the low-achieving school. This is likely due to the
fact that high-performing schools tend to have a more supportive and
favorable climate, and teachers are more likely to be kind, warm-
hearted, and have more friendly interactions with students via feedback
(Makewa et al., 2011).
Students at the high-achieving school reported a generally higher
level of SRL than those at the low-achieving school, which are con-
sistent with previous research indicating that students in the high-
achieving schools tend to use more strategies and have stronger moti-
vation for learning than those in the low-achieving schools (Abu-
Hamour & Al-Hmouz, 2013; Cleary & Kitsantas, 2017; Daniel et al.,
2016; DiFrancesca et al., 2016). The different school climate and cul-
ture may also explain this result between the two types of schools.
High-achieving schools tend to provide warm, safe, positive, and nur-
turing learning environments that focus on student learning, and stu-
dents are more likely to feel accepted, valued and secure in such an
environment. In addition, high-achieving schools are usually located in
a community with a higher SES and can provide adequate learning
resources to students. This favourable school climate, culture, and
ecology are vital for students’ development of SRL skills (Makewa et al.,
2011; Schunk & Zimmerman, 2010). Nevertheless, no significant
W. Guo, et al.
difference was found between the two schools in terms of students’
extrinsic motivation in mathematics. This may be because students,
regardless of the school they attend and their academic level, may be
equally motivated in a extrinsic way to learn mathematics for the ex-
pectations of teachers and parents, or out of the desire to get admitted
into their preferred universities (Hong & Peng, 2008; Li, 2002).
Furthermore, the results of this study confirm our third research
hypothesis that the relationship between different types of teacher
feedback and students’ SRL differs between high- and low-achieving
schools. The results concerning the third hypothesis included five major
findings. First, there was a significant and positive relationship between
verification feedback and students’ use of basic learning and metacog-
nitive strategies as well as intrinsic motivation at the high-achieving
school. Students could be intrinsically motivated by verification feed-
back, and thus use more SRL strategies in mathematics. This may be due
to high-achieving school’s safe, positive and welcoming learning en-
vironment that makes students feel accepted and valued, and thus they
tend to respond to verification feedback positively. These findings were
inconsistent with previous studies which found that verification feed-
back decreased students’ use of strategies and their motivation (Davis,
2015; Lipnevich & Smith, 2008; Maclellan, 2005). In these prior stu-
dies, the student sample included the whole spectrum of achievement
(high to low), whereas students at the high-achieving school in this
study were more likely to receive verification feedback than their
counterparts in the low achieving school, which may further increase
their curiosity or enhance their sense of achievement (Guo, 2017). In
contrast, the findings indicate that for students at the low-achieving
school, verification feedback had no significant relationship with any
aspect of their SRL, which is inconsistent with our hypothesis. This may
be because students at the low-achieving school tend to have lower
expectations about themselves because of a less supportive or relatively
negative school climate and culture (Guo, 2017; Makewa et al., 2011),
and thus may ignore or negatively respond to teachers’ verification
feedback.
Second, teachers’ praise had positive relationships only with high-
achieving school students’ deep learning strategy use and self-efficacy;
in contrast, teachers’ praise had positive relationships with low-
achieving school students’ use of basic learning and metacognitive
strategies, intrinsic motivation, and self-efficacy. These findings suggest
that teachers’ praise may be more important and useful for developing
low-achieving students’ SRL. This may also be related to schools’ dif-
ferent culture and climate. Teachers in high-achieving schools tend to
provide more praise, so students become accustomed to receiving tea-
chers’ praise and, to some extent, they might take it for granted (Harks,
Rakoczy, Hattie, Besser, & Klieme, 2014). Low-achieving school stu-
dents tend to be praised less often. Therefore, they could be more
motivated and encouraged by teachers’ praise to use SRL strategies.
Third, the results demonstrate that scaffolding feedback had sig-
nificant relationships with low-achieving school students’ basic strategy
use, extrinsic motivation, and self-efficacy. Unexpectedly, scaffolding
feedback had no significant relationship with high-achieving school
students’ SRL, which is inconsistent with our hypothesis. This suggests
that scaffolding feedback may be more effective in developing the SRL
of low- rather than high-achieving school students. These differences
may be explained by Schunk and Zimmerman (2010) social cognitive
model of the development of SRL. Students at the low-achieving school
may be at the initial observation or emulation stage of SRL. At these
two stages, students acquire SRL skills most rapidly from social mod-
elling. Teachers’ scaffolding feedback offers them opportunities to ob-
serve and emulate teachers’ behaviour or skills. In this process, students
discover how to use learning strategies and become more confident and
motivated in learning. Students at the high-achieving school may be at
the advanced self-control or self-regulation stage, during which the
source of SRL skill shifts from social influence to self-influence and
students can use various SRL skills independently in their learning.
Fourth, directive feedback had negative correlations with both high-
56
Studies in Educational Evaluation 63 (2019) 48–58
and low-achieving school students’ SRL but more negative correlations
with the latter group of students. The more teachers offer directive
feedback to students, the less the students may become independent in
learning mathematics, echoing the findings of previous studies
(McMillan, 2014; Shute, 2008). This suggests that, if teachers directly
tell students the correct answers but leave them little room for in-
dependent thinking, this may significantly decrease their SRL, espe-
cially for low-achieving school students. This may be because low-
achieving schools provide less support or feeling of safety to their stu-
dents, and thus they are more susceptible to directive feedback than
students at the high-performing school who feel safer and being more
valued (Makewa et al., 2011).
Finally, teacher criticism, unexpectedly, had a positive relationship
only with low-achieving school students’ deep learning strategy use but
no negative relationships with any other aspect of their SRL. This
finding is inconsistent with our hypothesis and previous research (Atlas
et al., 2004), suggesting that students at the low-achieving school could
also be encouraged, through teacher’s criticism, to use more basic
learning strategies in mathematics, such as rehearsal and elaboration.
This may be because students at the low-performing school are more
afraid of teachers (Makewa et al., 2011) and thus may be extrinsically
motivated by criticism to use some SRL strategies. However, incon-
sistent with our hypothesis, teacher criticism had no significant re-
lationship with high-achieving school students’ SRL. This may have
something to do with the features of criticism. Contemporary teachers
tend to criticise students gently and mildly to protect their ego (Guo,
2017).
Several limitations of this study should be noted. First, our findings
are based solely on students’ self-reports. Although self-report measures
are proper methodologies for measuring teachers’ feedback practices
and students’ SRL effectively (Virtanen & Nevgi, 2010), they are sus-
ceptible to response bias and this might affect the results to some ex-
tent. Future research might employ observational or interview ap-
proaches to provide stronger support for the findings. Second, the
representativeness of the research sample was limited because we ob-
tained participants from only two secondary schools in Shanghai,
China, though the two schools were randomly selected and a large
sample of students in each school participated in this study. Such dif-
ferences between the two participating schools might result in clus-
tering effects among the samples that might affect the research findings
to some extent. Thus, future research focusing on a similar topic should
recruit larger and more representative samples and take into account
clustering effects in analyses. Third, the findings may not be simply
generalised to high- and low-achieving students because school climate
and culture can vary between different schools even for schools with
similar achievement levels. Fourth, we can only control students’ self-
efficacy to see whether their academic performances may affect the
differences between the high- and low-achieving schools in the re-
lationship between teacher feedback and students’ SRL in this study.
Students’ self-efficacy may not fully represent their real academic per-
formances. Future research should compare students with similar aca-
demic competence among different schools or control their standar-
dized test scores to see whether and how the differences in students'
performances relate to the obtained results. Finally, we did not collect
the quantitative data regarding school climate and culture, therefore,
we could not actually define the two participating schools from the
perspective of school climate and culture. Future research should col-
lect such data to define the participating schools.
5. Conclusion
The findings of this study demonstrate that mathematics teachers’
feedback, students’ SRL in mathematics, and their relationships differed
between high- and low-achieving schools. First, students reported that
mathematics teachers at the high-achieving school provided more
verification feedback, directive feedback, scaffolding feedback, and
W. Guo, et al. Studies in Educational Evaluation 63 (2019) 48–58

praise but less criticism than teachers at the low-achieving school.
Second, students at the high-achieving school reported more use of
basic learning, deep learning, and metacognitive strategies, as well as
greater intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy in mathematics than stu-
dents at the low-achieving school. However, students at the two schools
reported similar levels of extrinsic motivation. Finally, for students at
the high-achieving school, only verification feedback and teacher praise
had positive relationships with their SRL in mathematics. In contrast,
scaffolding feedback, teacher praise, and criticism all had positive re-
lationships with the SRL of students at the low-achieving school.
Directive feedback had more negative correlations with the low-
achieving school students’ SRL.
The findings of this study contribute to the literature of teacher
feedback and SRL and provide insights for mathematics teachers re-
garding how to develop students’ SRL through feedback. Theoretically,
this study revealed some intricate relationships between teacher feed-
back and students’ SRL and provided useful insights into the differences
between different types of schools in the context of mathematics.
Researchers usually assume that the relationship between teacher
feedback and students' SRL follows a general pattern that works in the
same manner in different learning contexts. The findings of this re-
search support the perspective of school differences in these patterns.
Therefore, researchers may need to consider teacher feedback and
students’ SRL carefully in the specific school context, as opposed to
considering them as general traits that can be applied universally.
Future investigations can focus on the impact of school climate and
culture on teacher feedback and students’ SRL.
The present study’s findings offer practical insights for mathematics
teachers at high- and low-achieving schools to improve their feedback
practices for the purpose of facilitating students’ SRL development. To
be specific, teachers at high-achieving schools should offer more ver-
ification feedback to help students learn more about their weaknesses
and strengths and provide more praise to enhance their sense of
achievement in learning. On the other hand, teachers at low-achieving
schools may need to offer more scaffolding feedback, such as clues or
hints, to facilitate students’ independent thinking and more praise to
recognise their hard work and the progress they have achieved in
learning (Burnett & Mandel, 2010; Finn & Metcalfe, 2010; Haimovitz &
Corpus, 2011; McMillan, 2014). In addition, teachers at low-achieving
schools should take full advantage of the potentially positive effects of
criticism. Teachers may provide criticism ‘properly’ (for example, in
private or in a kind and considerate manner) to make it easier for
students to accept. This might promote students’ use of deep learning
strategies in mathematics (Maclellan, 2005). Finally, for teachers at
either high- or low-achieving schools, directive feedback should be
offered less often to prevent students from relying too much on teachers
in their mathematics learning (McMillan, 2014; Shute, 2008).
Funding
This study was sponsored by Peak Discipline Construction Project of
Education at East China Normal University.

Appendix A

Table A1

Table A1
Unstandardized estimates of regression coefficients and standard error for the relationships between teacher feedback and students’ SRL in mathematics in two-group
SEM.
Predictors Basic learning strategy Deep learning strategy Metacognitive strategy Intrinsic motivation Extrinsic motivation Self-efficacy

Verification feedback School H 1.16(.35) .03(.52) .99(.26) 2.07(.60) .11(.91) .45(.86)

School L −1.06(2.19) −.33(1.33) .93(1.61) 2.41(3.71) 2.51(3.71) .88(2.23)
Directive feedback School H −.078(.09) −.03(.08) −.06(.08) −.28(.13) .19(.13) .06(.13)
School L −.07(.03) −.15(.06) −.28(.13) −.63(.28) −.44(.64) −.49(.18)
Scaffolding feedback School H −.04(.18) −.08(.16) −.02(.16) −.29(.27) .10(.27) −.23(.26)
School L .70(.23) .13(.64) −.37(.77) −.94(1.77) .79(.30) .30(.13)
Teacher School H .11(.10) .21(.09) .07(.09) .22(.14) .28(.14) .45(.10)
praise School L .42(.14) .13(.08) .25(.09) .42(.18) .32(.20) .32(.15)
Teacher criticism School H −.02(.03) −.00(.03) .00(.03) −.01(.05) −.04(.05) −.05(.04)
School L .06(.09) .12(.05) −.01(.06) −.11(.14) −.16(.14) −.03(.09)

Note. Numbers outside and inside parentheses are regression coefficients and standard error, respectively. School H and L are short for the high- and low-achieving
schools, respectively.

References
Abu-Hamour, B., & Al-Hmouz, H. (2013). A study of gifted high, moderate, and low
achievers in their personal characteristics and attitudes toward school and teachers.
International Journal of Special Education, 28(3), 5–15.
Agba, A. M. O., Ikoh, I. M., & Ashibi, N. I. (2010). Teachers’ leadership style, classroom
variables and students’ academic performance in Calabar metropolis, Nigeria.
Educational Research, 1(6), 178–185. Retrieved March 22, 2011 from: http://www.
interesjournals.org/ER.
Atlas, G. D., Taggart, T., & Goodell, D. J. (2004). The effects of sensitivity to criticism on
motivation and performance in music students. British Journal of Music Education,
21(1), 81–87. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051703005540.
Azevedo, R., & Hadwin, A. F. (2005). Scaffolding self-regulated learning and
metacognition–Implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds. Instructional
Science, 33(5), 367–379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-005-1272-9.
Bandura, A. (2011). Social cognitive theory. Handbook of social psychological the-
ories349–373 2012.
Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Bangert-Drowns, C.-C., Kulik, J. A., Kulik, M., & Morgan (1991).
The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research,
61, 213–238.
Barnes, K., Brynard, S., & De Wet, C. (2012). The influence of school culture and school
climate on violence in schools of the Eastern Cape Province. South African Journal of
Education, 32(1), 69–82. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v32n1a495.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in
Education, 5, 7–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102.
Broadbent, J., & Poon, W. L. (2015). Self-regulated learning strategies & academic
achievement in online higher education learning environments: A systematic review.
The Internet and Higher Education, 27, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.
04.007.
Brophy, J. (1981). Teacher praise: A functional analysis. Review of Educational Research,
51(1), 5–32.
Burnett, P. C., & Mandel, V. (2010). Praise and feedback in the primary classroom:
Teachers’ and students’ perspectives. Australian Journal of Educational &
Developmental Psychology, 10, 145–154.
Caprara, G. V., Vecchione, M., Alessandri, G., Gerbino, M., & Barbaranelli, C. (2011). The
contribution of personality traits and self‐efficacy beliefs to academic achievement: A
longitudinal study. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(1), 78–96. https://
doi.org/10.1348/2044-8279.002004.
Cianci, A. M., Schaubroeck, J. M., & McGill, G. A. (2010). Achievement goals, feedback,
and task performance. Human Performance, 23(2), 131–154. https://doi.org/10.
1080/08959281003621687.
Cleary, T. J., & Kitsantas, A. (2017). Motivation and self-regulated learning influences on
middle school mathematics achievement. School Psychology Review, 46(1), 88–107.

57
W. Guo, et al.
https://doi.org/10.17105/SPR46-1.88-107.
Corpus, J. H., Ogle, C. M., & Love-Geiger, K. E. (2006). The effects of social-comparison
versus mastery praise on children’s intrinsic motivation. Motivation and Emotion,
30(4), 333–343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-006-9039-4.
Daniel, G. R., Wang, C., & Berthelsen, D. (2016). Early school-based parent involvement,
children’s self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An Australian long-
itudinal study. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 36, 168–177. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ecresq.2015.12.016.
Davis, J. (2015). Two awesome hours: Science-based strategies to harness your best time and
get your most important work done. HarperCollins Publishers.
DiFrancesca, D., Nietfeld, J. L., & Cao, L. (2016). A comparison of high and low achieving
students on self-regulated learning variables. Learning and Individual Differences, 45,
228–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.11.010.
Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2013). Teaching and researching: Motivation. Routledge.
Dweck, C. (2014). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random House.
Finn, B., & Metcalfe, J. (2010). Scaffolding feedback to maximize long-term error cor-
rection. Memory & Cognition, 38, 951–961. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.38.7.951.
Garcia, T., & Pintrich, P. R. (2012). Self-regulated learning in college students: Knowledge,
strategies, and motivation. Student motivation, cognition, and learning.
Routledge129–150.
Guo, W. J. (2017). The relationships between Chinese secondary teachers’ feedback and stu-
dents’ self-regulated learning. Doctoral dissertationChina: The Chinese University of
Hong Kong.
Guo, W., & Wei, J. (2019). Teacher feedback and students’ self-regulated learning in
mathematics: A study of Chinese secondary students. The Asia-Pacific Education
Researcher. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-019-00436-6 Advance online
publication.
Haimovitz, K., & Corpus, J. H. (2011). Effects of person versus process praise on moti-
vation in emerging adulthood. Educational Psychology, 42, 350–365. https://doi.org/
10.1080/01443410.2011.585950.
Harks, B., Rakoczy, K., Hattie, J., Besser, M., & Klieme, E. (2014). The effects of feedback
on achievement, interest and self-evaluation: The role of feedback’s perceived use-
fulness. Educational Psychology, 34(3), 269–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.
2013.785384.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research,
77, 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487.
Havnes, A., Smith, K., Dysthe, O., & Ludvigsen, K. (2012). Formative assessment and
feedback: Making learning visible. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 38(1), 21–27.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2012.04.001.
Hong, E., & Peng, Y. (2008). Do Chinese students’ perceptions of test value affect test
performance? Mediating role of motivational and metacognitive regulation in test
preparation. Learning and Instruction, 18(6), 499–512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
learninstruc.2007.10.002.
Kitsantas, A., Cheema, J., & Ware, H. W. (2011). Mathematics achievement: The role of
homework and self-efficacy beliefs. Journal of Advanced Academics, 22(2), 310–339.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202x1102200206.
Li, J. (2002). A cultural model of learning Chinese “Heart and mind for wanting to learn”.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(3), 248–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0022022102033003003.
Lipnevich, A. A., & Smith, J. K. (2008). Response to assessment feedback: The effects of
grades, praise, and source of informationETS Research Report Series, 20081–57.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2333-8504.2008.tb02116.x.
58
Studies in Educational Evaluation 63 (2019) 48–58
Maclellan, E. (2005). Academic achievement: The role of praise in motivating students.
Active Learning in Higher Education, 6(3), 194–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1469787405057750.
Makewa, L. N., Role, E., Role, J., & Yegoh, E. (2011). School climate and academic
performance in high and low achieving schools: Nandi Central District, Kenya.
International Journal of Scientific Research in Education, 4(2), 93–104. Retrieved
[DATE] from http://www.ijsre.com.
McMillan, J. H. (2014). Classroom assessment: Principles and practice for effective standards-
based instruction. Pearson: Virginia Commonwealth University.
Hinde, E. R. (2004). School culture and change: An examination of the effects of school
culture on the process of change. Essays in Education, 12(3), 1–12.
West, C. A. (1985). Effects of school climate and school social structure on student aca-
demic achievement in selected urban elementary schools. The Journal of Negro
Education, 54(3), 451–461. https://doi.org/10.2307/2295077.
Núñez, J. C., Suárez, N., Rosário, P., Vallejo, G., Cerezo, R., & Valle, A. (2015). Teachers’
feedback on homework, homework-related behaviors, and academic achievement.
The Journal of Educational research, 108(3), 204–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00220671.2013.878298.
Parker, P. D., Marsh, H. W., Ciarrochi, J., Marshall, S., & Abduljabbar, A. S. (2014).
Juxtaposing math self-efficacy and self-concept as predictors of long-term achieve-
ment outcomes. Educational Psychology, 34(1), 29–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01443410.2013.797339.
Pereira, D., Flores, M. A., Simão, A. M. V., & Barros, A. (2016). Effectiveness and re-
levance of feedback in Higher Education: A study of undergraduate students. Studies
in Educational Evaluation, 49, 7–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2016.03.004.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual for the use
of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Washington, DC: Office of
Educational Research and Improvement (ED).
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2010). Social origins of self-regulatory competence.
Educational Psychologist, 32, 195–208. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3204_1.
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of educational research, 78(1),
153–189. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313795.\.
Skipper, Y., & Douglas, K. (2012). Is no praise good praise? Effects of positive feedback on
children’s and university students’ responses to subsequent failures. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 82(2), 327–339. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.
02028.x.
Sontag, C., & Stoeger, H. (2015). Can highly intelligent and high-achieving students
benefit from training in self-regulated learning in a regular classroom context?
Learning and Individual Differences, 41, 43–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.
07.008.
Thompson, G. L., Warren, S., & Carter, L. (2004). It’s not my fault: Predicting high school
teachers who blame parents and students for students’ low achievement. The High
School Journal, 87(3), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1353/hsj.2004.0005.
Tomarken, A. J., & Waller, N. G. (2005). Structural equation modeling: Strengths, lim-
itations, and misconceptions. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 1, 31–65.
Virtanen, P., & Nevgi, A. (2010). Disciplinary and gender differences among higher
education students in self‐ regulated learning strategies. Educational Psychology, 30,
323–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443411003606391.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M.
Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.). Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–35).
San Diego, CA: Academic Press.