Cited by 76Student Assessment and FeedbackEvaluation of Teaching PracticesEducation, Achievement, and Giftedness

The Interplay Between Student Evaluation and Instruction: Grading and Feedback in Mathematics Classrooms

Rakoczy, Katrin, Klieme, Eckhard, Bürgermeister, Anika, Harks, Birgit·2008·Zeitschrift für Psychologie / Journal of Psychology

Abstract

Teachers’ practices of student evaluation can be considered crucial to the implementation of embedded assessment systems. This article reports on two studies investigating these practices in detail. The first study examines teacher judgments about student achievement in terms of the grades awarded. It examines whether the grades awarded reflect two dimensions of students’ achievement as well as learning behavior. It also explores whether teachers’ grading is aligned with their instruction. In the second study, we analyze how teacher evaluation affects students’ subsequent learning processes. This study utilizes feedback given to students by the teacher within classroom interaction as an indicator for student evaluation, and investigates the impact of two types of feedback, evaluative and informational, on student learning and motivation. The results of Study 1 show that both the dimensions of student achievement as well as involvement were found to contribute substantially to students’ grades. Moreover, these contributions depended on teacher beliefs and instructional quality. The findings of Study 2 show that positive evaluative feedback in the classroom was associated with increased intrinsic motivation, whereas negative evaluative feedback was not related to motivation. Informational feedback was shown to foster motivation via emotional experience and cognitive processing. None of the feedback types examined had a significant impact on students’ achievement development. Finally, implications of the two studies for the implementation of embedded classroom assessment and the investigation of its effects are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1027/0044-3409.216.2.111

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rakoczy, K., Klieme, E., Bürgermeister, A., & Harks, B.
Affiliations
DIPF | Leibniz Institute for Research and Information in Education (DE)
Venue
Zeitschrift für Psychologie / Journal of Psychology
Published
2008-01
Volume
216
Issue
2
Pages
111-124
ISSN
0044-3409 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1898976137
Cited by
76
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 3
FWCI
18.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Zeitschrift für Psychologie (publishedVersion)
Funders
Universität Zürich
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
Keywords
student assessment, embedded assessment, grading practices, teacher judgment, academic performance, learning behavior, teacher beliefs, teaching quality, classroom feedback, evaluative feedback, information feedback, intrinsic motivation, emotional experience, cognitive processes

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review