New Trends and Issues
Proceedings on Humanities
and Social Sciences
Volume 6, Issue 1 (2019) 386-395
www.prosoc.eu
How does using feedback empower student
metacognition and learning?
Do Thi Thu Thuy, Hai Phong University, 171 Phan Dan Luu, Kien An, Hai Phong, Vietnam
Tang Thi Thuy*, VNU-University of Education, 144 Xuan Thuy, Cau Giay, Hanoi, Vietnam
Suggested Citation:
Thuy, T. T. & Thuy, D. T. T. (2019). How does using feedback empower student metacognition and learning? New
Trends and Issues Proceedings on Humanities and Social Sciences. [Online]. 6(1), pp 386–395. Available
from: www.prosoc.eu
Selection and peer review under responsibility of Prof. Dr. Jesus Garcia Laborda, University of Alcala, Spain.
©
2019. All rights reserved.
Abstract
Encouraging students to foster the learning styles and supporting them to strive with the challenges in education are
responsibilities of teachers, especially in higher education where students are expected to master their current and lifelong
learning. The study, therefore, investigates the impact of teacher feedback on student meta-cognition and explores the link
between student achievements and their cognitive skills through a research done on 440 Vietnamese students from 40
universities and colleges in Vietnam. The findings show that only monitoring strongly affect the students’ academic
achievement, meanwhile teacher feedback has no direct impact on the students’ results.
Keywords: Self-regulated learning (SRL), meta-cognition, teacher feedback, life-long learning, Vietnamese students.
*ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE: Tang Thi Thuy, VNU-University of Education, 144 Xuan Thuy, Cau Giay, Hanoi, Vietnam.
E-mail address: thuytang@vnu.edu.vn
Thuy, T. T. & Thuy, D. T. T. (2019). How does using feedback empower student metacognition and learning? New Trends and Issues
Proceedings on Humanities and Social Sciences. [Online]. 6(1), pp 386-395. Available from: www.prosoc.eu
1. Introduction
Education has been shifted from traditional teaching (transmitting knowledge from teachers to
students) to problem-based learning and project-based learning in which students have to actively
participate in accessing to various kinds of information and internalising it into their own knowledge
(Esteve, 2000; Kennedy, 1998). In this case, teachers no longer are providers of knowledge to students
but become learning activity organisers and facilitators (Van Driel, Douwe Beijaard & Verloop, 2001)
guiding and giving feedback to students so that students could notice ways to eliminate the gap
between the actual learning and the desired goal (Esteve, 2000; Van Driel et al., 2001). To respond to
the rapid change in science and technology like what we witness in the second decade of 21st century,
self-regulated learning (SRL), ‘a powerful new learning theory’ (Boekaerts, 1996, p. 100) shows a vital
capacity that each learner needs to construct for himself/herself to study independently or to position
in the world with various challenges while as teachers,
‘The challenge we face is how to make the learning in schools more authentic, more useful, and
more contextualised for students so that they are equipped to solve problems that they confront
in and beyond school’ (Winograd, 2003, p. 1).
Moreover, the challenges that both teachers and students have to face, exist in the way that how
teachers could use their feedback to help students empower their SRL capacity and how students
could benefit the teacher feedback to move forwards in the process of mastering cognitive skills. On
the other hand, Pintrich and Zusho (2002) define SRL as a process in which learners set goals for their
learning, regulate their learning activities and assess the effectiveness of their work. The writers here
just discuss how students’ SRL in terms of meta-cognition, including three elements, namely, planning,
monitoring and reflecting the learning activities, empowers students ability to master their present
study as well as help them surpass obstacles in life-long learning.
The present study aims to address the two following questions:
1. How do the students employ SRL to enhance their academic achievements?
2. How does teacher feedback influence on students’ academic achievements?
2. Literature review
2.1. Self-regulated learning and metacognition
Many studies had been implemented to uncover the nature of student learning and what could be
done to help students become active learners; however, more investigations about student control
and their self-mastery needed to be done. SRL initially appearing in 1980s (Butler & Winne, 1995;
Winne, 1996; Winne & Hadwin, 1998), focused on learners’ autonomy and responsibilities for their
own goal-directed learning (Paris & Paris, 2001; Winograd, 2003) which refers to the cognitive,
metacognitive, behavioural, motivational and emotional/affective aspects of learning (Panadero,
2017; Sperling, Howard, Miller & Murphy, 2002). SRL is seen to affect learners comprehensively not
only in terms of cognition, regulation of cognition but also of behaviour and emotions; hence, it has
become one of the most leading research in the area of educational psychology (Panadero, 2017).
In the light of the model raised by Winne and Hadwin (1998), Greene and Azevedo’s (2007) in their
review of more recent SRL studies have indicated the tasks of students in SRL.
1
2
3
4
Table 1. Tasks of students in SRL [adapted in Greene and Azevedo’s (2007)]
Identifying the task
A Conditions (of learner and context)
Planning a response
B Operations to transform input and own data
Enacting a strategy
C Standards: criteria for self-appraisal
Adapting: reviewing perhaps re-cycling
D Evaluation
387
Thuy, T. T. & Thuy, D. T. T. (2019). How does using feedback empower student metacognition and learning? New Trends and Issues
Proceedings on Humanities and Social Sciences. [Online]. 6(1), pp 386-395. Available from: www.prosoc.eu
The Figure 1 shows different tasks that a self-regulated leaner exercise when they try to study on
their own. SRL, therefore, brings in powerful skills (Butler & Winne, 1995) which affects learners the
most comprehensively in cognitive, behavioural and emotional aspects, in which metacognition (MC)
refers to cognition and regulation of cognitive strategies (Pintrich, Wolters & Baxter, 2000; Schraw &
Moshman, 1995), meanwhile Veenman, Van Hout-Wolters and Afflerbach (2006, p. 4) defined MC in
terms of many factors, such as ‘metacognitive beliefs, metacognitive awareness, metacognitive
experiences, metacognitive knowledge, feeling of knowing, judgment of learning, theory of mind,
metamemory, metacognitive skills, executive skills, higher order skills, metacomponents,
comprehension monitoring, learning strategies, heuristic strategies and self-regulation’. In their
research, Veenman et al. (2006) has specifically conceptualised the metacognitive process which
involves all possible steps occuring in mental process that initiate and direct learning. In this case,
students act as the central agent of the learning process, which means they actively activate their
schemata, employ learning strategies to internalise new knowledge and construct new skills in various
learning situations; hence, SRL encompasses three factors ‘their use of SRL strategies, their
responsiveness to self-oriented feedback about learning effectiveness, and their interdependent
motivational processes’ (Zimmerman & Zimmerman, 2016, p. 6).
Specifically, SRL strategies have been classified as ‘self-evaluation, organisation and transformation,
goal setting and planning, information seeking, record keeping, self-monitoring, environmental
structuring, giving self-consequences, rehearsing and memorising, seeking social assistance (peers,
teacher or other adults) and reviewing (notes, books or tests)’ (Zimmerman & Zimmerman, 2016,
p. 7). On the other hand, SRL, a process of self-observation, self-judgement and self-reactions
(Zimmerman, 2014) is compared as a goal-directed activity like other human behaviours. The
strategies are the guidelines that learners need to adopt to control and adjust their learning process in
a variety of learning contexts in order to obtain the desired learning goals. In short, SRL has become a
vital requirement for any learner in generating capacity for their future occupation and lifelong
learning (Selfregulated learning in higher education: identifying key component processes, 2011).
2.2. The theory of formative assessment with feedback in the centre and its relationship with SRL
The theory of formative assessment (TFA) appeared around the time of post structuralism as its
philosophical basis (Clark, 2011), in which formative assessment is conceptualised as a multi-layer
trunk with feedback in the central position illustrating the key function of feedback in supporting
students to boost their learning in terms of MC and self-efficacy (SE).
Figure 1. The TFA (Clark, 2011)
388
Thuy, T. T. & Thuy, D. T. T. (2019). How does using feedback empower student metacognition and learning? New Trends and Issues
Proceedings on Humanities and Social Sciences. [Online]. 6(1), pp 386-395. Available from: www.prosoc.eu
The Figure 2 (Clark, 2011) shows the TFA as the big outer ring serving two purposes of assessment,
which is assessment for learning (AfL) and assessment as learning (AaL). Interestingly, the outer ring as
the TFA embraces SRL inside which encompasses SE and MC, namely, monitoring (M), planning (P) and
reflection (R) on the left, while appearance of SE indicates ambition (A), persistence (P) and efforts (E)
on the right. The Figure 2 implies that formative assessment with the focus of feedback affects SRL
cognitively and emotionally.
Assessment feedback has not been defined systematically; however (Evans, 2013, p. 71),
considers it as ‘an umbrella concept’ that covers various kinds of definitions consisting all
‘feedback exchanges’ that learners got, taken or received from many sources, such as peers,
parents, teachers or any person around them. To support students learn better, formative
assessment need to be given through the feedback after students perform a task. Formative
assessment with the most notable focus on feedback which means ‘the provision of information
about performance’ (Yorke, 2014) given to students has been regarded to advance their learning
as Eraut (2006) points out:
When students enter higher education... the type of feedback they then receive, intentionally or
unintentionally, will play an important part in shaping their learning futures. Hence we need to
know much more about how their learning, indeed their very sense of professional identity, is
shaped by the nature of the feedback they receive. We need more feedback on feedback (p. 118).
Eraut (2006) has emphasised profound impact of feedback on students’ future progress; however,
certain impact of teacher feedback on student MC has been underexplored.
According to Winne and Butler (1994, p. 5740), feedback is delineated as, ‘informative with which a
learner can confirm, add to, and overwrite, tune, or restructure information in memory, whether that
information is domain knowledge, meta-cognitive knowledge, beliefs about self and tasks or cognitive
tactics and strategies’. Due to the feedback, learners know what they need to adjust in their study.
More importantly, Butler and Winne (1995) have confirmed the link between feedback and SRL when
stating that feedback brings in the essence of performance outcomes. Boekearts and Corno,
furthermore, in their discussion of top–down SR draw on the model of Winne and Hadwin (1998)
stating that it:
…specified the recursively applied forms of metacognitive monitoring and feedback that change
information over time (thus influencing goals) as self-regulated learners engage in an assignment (p.
203).
On the other hand, Nicol and MacFarlane-Dick (2006) argue that teacher feedback is a potential
source to strengthen the power of SRL in the way that drive students to become self-regulated
learners who are active in problem solving processes (Clark, 2014). Moreover, formative feedback is
confirmed as ‘an iterative and dialogic process that promote reflective thinking and self-regulatory
strategies among the students’ (Gikandi et al., 2011, p. 15).
MC has been classified into categories, including knowledge of cognition and regulation of
cognition (Veenman et al., 2006). In the same direction, Butler and Winne (1995) have confirmed
the link between feedback and SRL when stating that feedback brings in the essence of
performance outcomes and feedback greatly affect students’ all aspects of learning when
emphasising ‘for all self-regulated activities, feedback is an inherent catalyst’ (Butler & Winne,
1995, p. 246).
389
Thuy, T. T. & Thuy, D. T. T. (2019). How does using feedback empower student metacognition and learning? New Trends and Issues
Proceedings on Humanities and Social Sciences. [Online]. 6(1), pp 386-395. Available from: www.prosoc.eu
When considering multilateral impacts between teachers and learners and between learners
themselves, William and Thompson (2007) analyses the five strategies of formative assessment
based on the interrelationship of three dimensions, namely, teachers, students and learners shown
in Figure 2.
Where the learner is going
Where the learner is right
How to get there
now
2. Engineering effective
3. Providing feedback
classroom discussions
that move learners
and other learning tasks
forward
that elicit evidence of
student understanding
4. Activating students as instructional resources for
one another
Teacher
1. Clarifying learning intentions
and criteria for success.
Peer
Understanding and sharing
learning intentions and criteria
for success.
Understanding learning
5. Activating students as the owners of their own
learning
intentions and criteria for
success.
Figure 2. Aspects of formative assessment (William & Thompson, 2007)
Learner
Figure 3 shows the interrelationship or the tri-dimensional direction between the three
subjects in education process, including teachers, learners and peers; moreover, it reveals five
strategies of formative assessment reflecting different types of learning, such as collaborative
learning (Slavin et al., 2003) and SRL (Pintrich, 1990) which shows the active role of learners as
people taking responsibilities for their learning. The formative assessment from the three sources
of feedback helps learners not only notice learning intentions and success criteria but also spot
discrepancy between their actual learning state and their desired goal so that they know what
they need to adjust and what they need to do to get the desired learning goals. To strengthen the
view, Nicol and MacFarlane-Dick (2006) argue that teacher feedback is a potential source to
strengthen the power of SRL in the way that drive students to become self-regulated learners who
are active in problem solving processes (Clark, 2014). Moreover, formative feedback is confirmed
as ‘an iterative and dialogic process that promote reflective thinking and self-regulatory strategies
among the students’ (Gikandi et al., 2011, p. 15).
3. Research method
A sample of 440 Vietnamese university students (96 males and 344 females) in 40 universities
voluntarily participated in the study, which would be demographically described in Table 2 as follows.
The survey participants majored in many disciplines of social science and natural science covering five
studying levels from freshman to super senior, in which freshmen participated in the survey the
majority, followed by juniors, sophomores, seniors, while the smallest number of respondents (3.2%)
belongs to super seniors.
390
Thuy, T. T. & Thuy, D. T. T. (2019). How does using feedback empower student metacognition and learning? New Trends and Issues
Proceedings on Humanities and Social Sciences. [Online]. 6(1), pp 386-395. Available from: www.prosoc.eu
Table 2. Demographical features of the survey respondents
Category
Group
N
Percentage (%)
Gender
Male
96
21.8
Female
344
78.2
Classification
Freshman
160
36.4
Sophomore
87
19.8
Junior
124
28.2
Senior
55
12.5
Super Senior
14
3.2
Major
Social Science
141
32.0
Natural Science
177
40.2
Foreign language
122
27.7
Self-study hours
Under 3 hours
160
36.4
From 3 hours to under 6 hours
88
20.0
From 6 hours to under 9 hours
90
20.5
More than 9 hours
102
23.3
Student achievement
Poor
14
3.2
Average
124
28.2
Good
223
50.7
Very good
69
15.7
Excellent
10
2.3
The students had different ways to spend time studying on their own outside classroom. The
majority of them (36.4%) spent the least self-study hours (less than 3 hours), meanwhile the rest of
respondents had approximately equal self-study time. Interestingly, the number of students with the
longest self-study time (more than 9 hours a week) nearly accounts for one fourths of the total four
time groups ranking the second biggest group who focused extensively on their learning outside
classroom. The Table 2 also reveals the students’ academic achievements, of which good students
making the majority took half of the total, whereas the minorities belonged to the poor and excellent
categories and the students of average education level ranked the second group. The students were
invited to voluntarily answer a questionnaire, including 23 items on students’ planning, monitoring
and reflection activities.
4. Research findings
4.1. Student metacognition and teacher feedback
The mean of the three MC items (planning, monitoring and reflecting) and the three aspects of
feedback fluctuate quite stably from 2.40 to 3.00, which show that most survey respondents agree
with the asking items. Among the three metacognitive elements, reflecting or evaluation is the most
preferred step of the students in their cognitive process with the biggest mean (M = 2.97, SD = 0.42),
while monitoring is the least gratifying step among the respondents and amazingly, all the student
agreed with the frequency of the positive teacher feedback they had received.
391
Thuy, T. T. & Thuy, D. T. T. (2019). How does using feedback empower student metacognition and learning? New Trends and Issues
Proceedings on Humanities and Social Sciences. [Online]. 6(1), pp 386-395. Available from: www.prosoc.eu
Table 3. Mean of dimension of MC and feedback
N
Mean
Standard deviation
MC
Planning
Monitoring
Reflecting
Feedback
Feedback Quality
Negative Feedback Frequency
Positive feedback Frequency
440
440
440
2.74
2.40
2.97
0.45
0.49
0.42
440
440
440
2.83
2.46
3.00
0.44
0.67
0.59
4.2. The model of teacher feedback impact on student metacognition and achievement
The model clearly reveals the impact of MC on study achievement and the impact of teacher
feedback on student MC.
Figure 3. The model of teacher feedback on student MC and achievement
The model has the model fit summary as being shown in Table 4 below. The model with CMIN/DF =
2.255 (<3) and goodness of fit (GFI) = 0.903 (>0.9) indicates that the model is of good quality.
For the purpose of measurement validation, CFA was firstly adopted. In Table 4, we showcase the
results of our multiple fit indices, including chi-square, degree of freedom, GFI, adjusted goodness of
fit (AGFI), normed fit index, root mean square error of approximation and Comparative fit index (CFI).
As indicated in Table 4, all multiple fit indices obtained from our estimation are satisfied.
392
Thuy, T. T. & Thuy, D. T. T. (2019). How does using feedback empower student metacognition and learning? New Trends and Issues
Proceedings on Humanities and Social Sciences. [Online]. 6(1), pp 386-395. Available from: www.prosoc.eu
Table 4. Results of multiple fit indices
Index
Result
Acceptable level
Chi-square
395.281
Degree of freedom
235
Chi-square/Degree of freedom
1.682
<5
GFI
0.932
>0.9
AGFI
0.913
>0.8
TLI
0.946
>0.9
RMSEA
0.039
<0.08
CFI
0.954
>0.9
The model shows negative correlations between frequency of positive feedback (1) and frequency
of negative feedback (5) as well as the negative correlation between frequency of negative feedback
and positive feedback (2). Positive feedback and frequency of positive and negative feedback do not in
turns affect all three steps of metacognitive skills, conversely, each type affects planning, monitoring
and reflecting in its own way with approximately equal force (0.22–0.33) except for the influence of
frequency of negative feedback on planning which is the weakest. The model also reveals student MC
in which planning (3), monitoring (6) and reflection/evaluation (9) are negatively interrelated, which
indicates that the students flexibly adopted the three cognitive skills instead of rigidly following them
in order. It also mean that the students did not evaluate the three skills planning, monitoring and
reflection equally important, however they might randomly take any of the cognitive skills whenever
they might think it was essential to them. Furthermore, only monitoring has positive impact on
student academic achievement, meanwhile the other two cognitive skills have no influence on this
achievement though the three skills are correlated. This implies that the students did not pay much
attention to thoughtful planning and reflection or evaluation on their performance; in other words,
their planning and evaluation/reflection on performance were not strong enough to boost any change
in study results. It can be understood that the students need to enhance their ways of planning and
reflection on performance so that adopting the two steps could result in positive changes in academic
results.
The negative feedback and positive feedback have such negative correlation since they are
contrastive by nature. On the other hand, the model shows the interrelation between the three
metacognitive skills; however, they do not affect one another in the positive way from the first
planning skill to the other skills in the cognitive process namely monitoring and reflection. The
direction of impact here is negatively converted from the back step (reflection) to the initial
monitoring and planning steps in the cognitive stage, which means that the students in the survey did
not follow the steps in the cognitive process, they might randomly use any cognitive step which has
been in the same line in the research done by Winne and Hadwin (1998, p. 281–282). Specifically,
positive feedback from teacher help the students determine their clear learning objectives while their
clear goals affect student self and peer assessment. Moreover, the more negative feedback the
teachers give the students, the more difficulties the students have to deal with since they have little
understanding about the teachers’ requirements.
It has been found in some surveys that students find feedback the least satisfying factor compared
to other elements in their courses (Nicol, Thomson & Breslin, 2014), so the attention in changing the
quality of feedback and the form of feedback should be the focus of our next research.
5. Discussion and conclusion
SRL acts as a source of powerful skills to empower students the capacity to achieve desired
academic goals (Paris & Paris, 2001; Winograd, 2003) and Butler and Winne (1995) evaluates SRL as a
pivot upon student achievement; however in this research, we do not see strong influence of planning
and reflection on the students’ academic achievement. The students in the research, hence need to
393
Thuy, T. T. & Thuy, D. T. T. (2019). How does using feedback empower student metacognition and learning? New Trends and Issues
Proceedings on Humanities and Social Sciences. [Online]. 6(1), pp 386-395. Available from: www.prosoc.eu
focus more on their ways of planning and reflection and the teachers also have to spend more time
discussing with their students the learning intentions and criteria of success so that they would
become better at planning, monitoring and reflecting their learning practice.
Moreover, teacher feedback investigated in the study does not directly affect the students’
achievement and feedback has been found to be the least gratifying element (Nicol et al., 2014), while
feedback is an essential requirement for students despite their minimum influence on student
performance (Kluger & Adler, 1993; Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). The teachers are expected to enhance the
quality of feedback and the frequency of positive feedback in order that the learners could benefit
from teacher feedback to eliminate the discrepancy between their target learning goal and their
actual state of study.
In our study, the students’ monitoring has been proved to be a good indicator that makes a strong
positive impact (0.38) on student learning, which needs to be maintained and praised among the
students. The findings in the research have urged us to investigate the reasons to explain the very
weak or zero link between the students’ planning, reflecting and students’ academic results as well as
study thoroughly kinds of proper feedback that the students expect to get from their teachers.
References
Boekaerts, M. (1996). Self-regulated learning at the junction of cognition and motivation. European Psychologist,
1(2), 100–112. doi:10.1027/1016-9040.1.2.100
Butler, D. L. & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: a theoretical synthesis. Review of
Educational Research, 65(3), 245. doi:10.2307/1170684
Esteve, J. M. (2000). The transformation of the teachers’ role at the end of the twentieth century: new
challenges for the future. Educational Review, 52(2), 197–207. doi:10.1080/713664040
Evans, C. (2013). Making sense of assessment feedback in higher education. Review of Educational Research,
83(1), 70–120. doi:10.3102/0034654312474350
Kennedy, M. M. (1998). Education reform and subject matter knowledge. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 35(3), 249–263. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199803)35:3<249::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-R
Kluger, A. N. & Adler, S. (1993). Person- versus computer-mediated feedback. Computers in Human Behavior,
9(1), 1–16. doi:10.1016/0747-5632(93)90017-M
Kluger, A. N. & DeNisi, A. (1996). Effects of feedback intervention on performance: a historical review, a metaanalysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284.
doi:10.1037//0033-2909.119.2.254
Nicol, D., Thomson, A. & Breslin, C. (2014). Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: a peer review
perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(1), 102–122. doi:10.1080/02602938.
2013.795518
Panadero, E. (2017). A review of self-regulated learning: six models and four directions for research. Frontiers in
Psychology, 8(APR), 1–28. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00422
Paris, S. G. & Paris, A. H. (2001). Classroom applications of research on self-regulated learning. Educational
Psychologist, 36(2), 89–101. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3602_4
Pintrich, P. R., Wolters, C. A. & Baxter, G. P. (2000). 2. Assessing metacognition and self-regulated learning.
Issues in the Measurement of Metacognition, 43–97. doi:10.1177/109019818601300108
Schraw, G. & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology
Review, 7(4), 351–371. doi:10.1007/BF02212307
Self regulated learning in higher education : identifying key component processes. (2011).
Sperling, R. A., Howard, B. C., Miller, L. A. & Murphy, C. (2002). Measures of children’s knowledge and regulation
of cognition. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27(1), 51–79. doi:10.1006/ceps.2001.1091
Van Driel, J. H., Douwe Beijaard, D. & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development and reform in science
education: the role of teachers’ practical knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2),
137–158.
394
Thuy, T. T. & Thuy, D. T. T. (2019). How does using feedback empower student metacognition and learning? New Trends and Issues
Proceedings on Humanities and Social Sciences. [Online]. 6(1), pp 386-395. Available from: www.prosoc.eu
Veenman, M. V. J., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M. & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning:
conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1(1), 3–14. doi:10.1007/
s11409-006-6893-0
Winne, P. H. (1996). A metacognitive view of individual differences in self-regulated learning. Learning and
Individual Differences, 8(4), 327–353. doi:10.1016/S1041-6080(96)90022-9
Winne, P. H. & Hadwin, A. F. (1998, January). Studying as self-regulated learning. Metacognition in Educational
Theory and Practice, 277–304. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2007.09.009
Winograd, P. (2003). The role of self-regulated learning in contextual teaching: principals and practices for
teacher preparation.
Yorke, M. (2014). Formative assessment in higher education: moves towards theory and the enhancement of
pedagogic practice formative assessment in higher education : moves towards theory and the
enhancement of pedagogic practice. Higher Education, 45(4), 477–501.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2014). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning a social cognitive view of
self-regulated academic learning, Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 329–339. doi:10.1037/00220663.81.3.329
Zimmerman, B. J. & Zimmerman, B. J. (2016). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: an overview
(p. 1520). doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2501
395