A key assumption of established models of school effectiveness and improvement is that factors of process quality at the classroom level (e.g. the quality of teaching) significantly affect the development of students’ competencies (Ditton, 2000; Kyriakides & Creemers, 2008; Scheerens, 1990; Scheerens & Bosker, 1997). Recent research has identified a number of different key factors of effective teaching which focus on the process quality of classroom interaction (Clausen, 2002; Klieme & Rakoczy, 2008; Kyriakides & Creemers, 2008; Scheerens, 1990). Particularly, research indicates that formative performance assessment in terms of feedback during classroom interaction is one of the most influential classroom level factors for successful learning – and teaching (e.g. Black & William, 2009; Hattie, 2009; Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Kyriakides, 2002). From a teaching effectiveness point of view (Brophy & Good, 1986; Kyriakides & Creemers, 2008; Scheerens & Bosker, 1997), the quality of feedback affects learning outcomes on both cognitive (e.g. achievement) and motivational levels (e.g. interest, intrinsic motivation, self-efficacy, achievement attribution) (Harks et al., 2014). Consequently, most studies investigate the impact of different ‘types of feedback’ on student outcomes, showing that the most effective forms of feedback e.g. provide the learner with explicit metacognitive and strategic cues on how to proceed and improve the learning process (Harks et al., 2014; Vollmeyer & Rheinberg, 2005). However, considering that individual student characteristics play a vital role in the effectiveness of learning processes, it can be assumed that students’ individual learning characteristics also influence how learners perceive and appraise their learning environment (e.g. the feedback they receive) (Seidel, 2006). In particular, students’ existing motivational profiles can have a powerful effect on the perception – and effectiveness - of different kinds of teacher feedback. According to Self-Determination-Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000), which serves as theoretical framework in this study, motivation is conceptualized as a continuum of different forms of behavioral regulation. While intrinsic motivation – on the one end of the continuum – occurs when an individual engages in an activity for the satisfaction inherent in the activity itself, extrinsic motivation – generally speaking – ensues when behavior is predominantly driven by external reasons. SDT distinguishes further between multiple forms of extrinsic motivation which are arranged on a continuum of behavioral regulation (external, introjected, identified and integrated regulation) which reflect the degree of self-determination underlying the activity individuals engage in. In line with SDT, it is assumed that elements of a supportive learning climate, such as feedback providing information about the learning process, fulfil students need for competence and thus enhance intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000). However, it remains unclear how the students’ perception of teacher feedback itself is influenced by learners’ prior motivation. Thus, the current study focusses on the interplay between students’ motivational profiles on the one hand and their perception of teacher feedback in classroom interaction on the other. The aim of our study is twofold: (1) First, an instrument for measuring different dimensions of feedback from the students’ perspective is developed. (2) Second, we investigate in how far students’ motivation influences their perception of the quality of feedback in classroom interaction. From a methodological point of view, we model the different styles of behavioral regulations by applying Latent-Profile-Analyses as a powerful person-centered approach (Boiché et al., 2008). In that approach, subgroups of students with similar profiles for the multiple dimensions of the behavioral regulations are identified. Subsequently, we examine the relationship between these motivational profiles and students’ perception of different dimensions of feedback (evaluative, process-related, autonomy-supporting, and peer-mediated).

In our study, a total of n=846 students in 49 German language classes participated. The students' age ranged between 14 and 20 years (M = 16.69, SD = .83), 52.6% were female. 60.4% of the respondents were in 11th grade, while 39.6% attended the 12th grade. To assess the students' perception of teacher feedback, new items were developed and tested based on the theoretical framework of Hattie & Timperley (2007). In line with their model, we differentiated three dimensions: evaluative feedback indicating the performance level achieved (four items, e.g. "The teacher lets me know whether an answer was correct or incorrect."), process-related feedback providing information on the progress students have made toward meeting goals (six items, e.g. "The teacher feedback helps me to improve.") and autonomy-supporting feedback encouraging students to regulate and evaluate their own learning process (five items, e.g. "The teacher asks questions that help me to reflect on the quality of my answer."). In addition to these three established dimensions, we propose that in the oral classroom interaction it is also effective to involve peers as source of feedback in evaluating students' performances (e.g. the quality of their answers or their task-performances). This type of elaborated feedback we labeled peer-mediated feedback (four items, e.g. "The teacher asks my classmates to give me hints on how to improve my answer."). Confirmatory Factor Analysis revealed a relatively good fit for the four-factor structure of the different feedback dimensions (CFI = .96, RMSEA = .04). Even though all four feedback dimensions correlated as expected, they still form empirically separable constructs. The internal consistencies of the scales are good (.70 ≤ α ≤ .80). The different forms of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation were assessed by multiple likert-type items each. Participants were asked to indicate their reasons to study for their German language class, with items reflecting intrinsic motivation toward experience stimulation (α = .88), intrinsic motivation toward knowledge or accomplishment (α = .84), identified regulation (α = .70), introjected regulation (α = .75) and external regulation (α = .59).

The Latent-Profile-Analyses revealed three distinct student motivational profiles: Students in Profile 1 (P1, n=235, 27.8%) are characterized by high levels of autonomous forms of motivation (i.e., intrinsic motivation and identified regulation) and at the same time moderate levels of introjected and external regulation; students in Profile 2 (P2, n=382, 45.2%) are characterized by average scores for each type of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation; finally, students in Profile 3 (P3, n=228, 27.0%) have low levels of autonomous forms of motivation, a moderate level of introjected regulation and a high level of external regulation. In subsequent analysis, ANOVA illustrated that the perception of feedback significantly differs across the individual motivational profiles: Students with high levels of autonomous forms of motivation and low levels of introjected and external regulation (P1) perceive a higher amount of evaluative feedback (M[P1]= 3.50; M[P2]= 3.39, M[P3]= 3.30), process-related feedback (M[P1]= 3.15; M[P2]= 3.02; M[P3]= 2.88), autonomy-supported feedback (M[P1]= 3.14; M[P2]= 3.02; M[P3]= 2.82], and peer-mediated feedback (M[P1]= 3.08; M[P2]= 2.96; M[P3]= 2.81) and students with low levels of autonomous forms of motivation and relatively high levels of external regulation (P3) perceive comparatively low levels of all types of feedback. Our results are thus in line with previous findings which point out the importance of motivational variables in order to explain the effectiveness of feedback. However, by identifying characteristic motivational profiles of students, the results also expand our knowledge on the interaction of different behavioral regulation within individuals. By further investigating relevant predictors of feedback perceptions, teachers can derive explanations on how effective feedback is perceived from a learner's point of view and in how far learners' perceptions of feedback depend on their (motivational) preconditions.

Boiché, J. C. S., Sarrazin, P. G., Grouzet, F. M. E., & Chanal, J. P. (2008). Students' motivational profiles and achievement outcomes in physical education: a self-determination perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3), 668-701. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21, 5-31. Brophy, J., & Good, T.L. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 328-375). New York: Macmillan. Clausen, M. (2002). Qualität von Unterricht - Eine Frage der Perspektive? Münster: Waxmann. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behaviour. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268. Ditton, H. (2000). Qualitätskontrolle und Qualitätssicherung in Schule und Unterricht. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 41, 73-92. 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 usefulness, Educational Psychology, 34(3), 269-290. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning. A synthesis of over 800 meta-analysis relating to achievement. London: Routledge. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112. Klieme, E., & Rakoczy, K. (2008). Empirische Unterrichtsforschung und Fachdidaktik. Outcome-orientierte. Messung und Prozessqualität des Unterrichts. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 54(2), 222-237. Kyriakides, L. (2002). A research-based model for the development of policy on baseline assessment. British Educational Research Journal, 28(6), 805-826. Kyriakides, L., & Creemers, B.P.M. (2008). Using a multidimensional approach to measure the impact of classroom level factors upon student achievement: A study testing the validity of the dynamic model. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 19(2), 183-205. Seidel, T. (2006). The role of student characteristics in studying micro teaching-learning environments. Learning Environmental Research, 9, 253-271. Scheerens, J. (1990). School Effectiveness and the Development of Process Indicators of School Functioning. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 1, 61-80. Scheerens, J., & Bosker, R. (1997). The foundations of educational effectiveness. Oxford: Pergamon. Vollmeyer, R., & Rheinberg, F. (2005). A surprising effect of feedback on learning. Learning and Instruction, 15, 589-602.