A key assumption of established models of school effectiveness and improvement is, that factors describing the quality of teaching significantly affect the development of students’ competencies and attitudes (Kyriakides & Creemers, 2008). According to recent empirical findings, one of the most influential factors for successful learning is teacher feedback (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Hattie & Wollenschläger, 2014). While existing studies show that the quality of feedback indeed has the power to affect learning outcomes on both cognitive (e.g. achievement) and motivational levels (e.g. intrinsic motivation) (Harks et al., 2014), this impact of feedback, however, differs considerably between individual students – depending on how the students perceive, interpret and use the feedback they receive (Hattie & Wollenschläger, 2014).

In line with empirical findings illustrating the general impact of individual student characteristics on the students’ perception of the learning environment and its effectiveness (Seidel, 2006; Willems & Dreiling, 2018), it can be assumed that both students’ individual achievement-related and motivational characteristics directly influence their perception of feedback. Based on these considerations, the major goal of our study is to investigate how students perceive different dimensions of feedback and how these individual perceptions are influenced by students’ individual achievement-related and motivational characteristics.

From a conceptual point of view, we consider that motivational and achievement-related characteristics interact within individuals and should therefore be modeled as multifaceted profiles by applying person-centered approaches. Accordingly, the purpose of our study is (i) to identify individual student profiles based on different motivational and achievement-related characteristics and (ii) to investigate the effects of these profiles on the students’ perception of teacher feedback. We therefore combine different motivational approaches in order to determine the students learning characteristic profiles: The different student characteristics we take into account are subject-specific intrinsic motivation, individual interest, achievement goal orientation, and academic self-concept. So far, studies using person-centered approaches analyzed student profiles e.g. with respect to the learners’ achievement goal orientations (e.g. Tuominen-Soini et al., 2008) or their intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (e.g. Willems & Dreiling, 2018), whereas research investigating complex student profiles on the basis of both achievement-related variables and motivational-affective variables is limited (e.g. Conley, 2012). In line with previous findings, we expect specific student profiles – which differ in quality and quantity – to emerge and that students perceive the quality of feedback differently according to their individual learning characteristic profiles (Willems & Dreiling, 2018).

The presented results are based on data of the German study FeeHe (‘Feedback in the context of heterogeneity’). To the best of our knowledge, FeeHe is the first study in which different theoretically and empirically derived dimensions of feedback are systematically measured from the perspective of high school students in German language classes. A repeated-measures design with two measurement points was used in order to investigate students’ perception of teacher feedback and the interplay between the perceived feedback and the students’ learning characteristics (subject-specific intrinsic motivation, individual interest, achievement goal orientation, academic self-concept). At the beginning of a school semester (t1) a total of n=810 students (Meanage= 16.69 [SD=.84]; female = 53.8%) attending the 11th and 12th grade in 49 German language courses participated in the questionnaire study. After one school semester (t2) n=696 of the students (Meanage= 17.17 [SD=.90]; female = 55.2%) were surveyed again. To assess the students’ perception of teacher feedback, we developed a new instrument which distinguishes four dimensions of perceived feedback: (i) outcome-related feedback indicating the performance level achieved (6 four-point likert-scale items), (ii) process-related feedback providing information on the progress students have made toward meeting goals (5 items), (iii) self-regulation-related feedback encouraging students to regulate and evaluate their own learning process (6 Items) and (iv) peer-related feedback involving peers as source of feedback in evaluating students’ performances (4 items). Confirmatory Factor Analysis revealed a relatively good fit for the four-factor structure of the different feedback dimensions (CFI=.97, RMSEA=.05, p(RMSEA)=n.s., χ2[df]=235.76[98], p(χ2)<.001). The internal consistencies of the scales are satisfactory to good (.68≤α≤.80). The individual learning characteristics were assessed by different multiple item scales measuring subject-specific intrinsic motivation and interest, academic self-concept and mastery and performance goal orientation. Both, the overall model fit indices for each construct (CFI≥.95, RMSEA<.05) and the internal consistencies of the scales (.75≤α≤.95) were (very) good. To identify the number of student profiles, Latent-Profile-Analyses (Mplus 7.1) were conducted using scale scores of the motivational an achievement-related variables measured at the beginning of the school semester (t1). Subsequently, ANOVA was used to examine the impact of the students’ initial learning characteristic profiles on their perception of feedback measured at t2.

The Latent-Profile-Analyses revealed five distinct student profiles with different combinations of achievement-related and motivational characteristics: Students in Profile 1 are characterized by high levels of both achievement-related and motivational characteristics, whereas students in Profile 2 scored low on all variables. Students in the other three profiles are either characterized by rather higher levels of rather motivational variables or higher levels of rather achievement-related variables. In depth analyses showed that student profiles assessed at the beginning of the school semester influenced the perception of different dimensions of feedback measured 6 months later. Our results are thus in line with previous findings which point out the importance of motivational-affective and cognitive variables in order to explain the effectiveness and effects of feedback. However, by identifying characteristic profiles of students, the results also expand our knowledge on the interaction of different motivational and achievement-related variables within individuals.

Conley, A.M. (2012). Patterns of Motivation Beliefs: Combining Achievement Goal and Expectancy-Value Perspectives, Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(1), 32-47. Harks, B., Rakoczy, K., Hattie, J., Besser, M., & Klieme, E. (2014). The effects of feedback on achievement, interest and self-evaluation. Educational Psychology, 34(3), 269-290. Hattie, J. A. C. & Wollenschläger, M. (2014). A conceptualization of feedback. In H. Ditton & A. Müller (Hrsg.), Feedback und Rückmeldungen. (S. 135-150). Münster: Waxmann. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. Kyriakides, L., & Creemers, B.P.M. (2008). Using a multidimensional approach to measure the impact of classroom level factors upon student achievement. 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. Tuominen-Soini, H., Salmela-Aro, K., & Niemivirta, M. (2008). Achievement goal orientations and subjective well-being: a person-centered analysis. Learning and Instruction, 18, 251–266. Willems & Dreiling (2018, September 04). How do students’ motivational profiles influence their perception of teacher feedback? A person-centered approach on instructional effectiveness. Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research (ECER), Bozen, Italy.