British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 22, No.

4, 1996 389

Teacher Feedback to Young Children in

Formative Assessment: a typology

PAT TUNSTALL & CAROLINE GIPPS, Institute of Education, University of

London

Introduction
Feedback from teachers to children, in the process of formative assessment, is a prime
requirement for progress in learning. Formative assessment is that process of appraising,
judging or evaluating students' work or performance and using this to shape and improve
their competence. In everyday classroom terms this means teachers using their judge-
ments of children's knowledge or understanding to feed back into the teaching process
and to determine for individual children whether to re-explain the task/concept, to give
further practice on it, or move on the next stage (Gipps, 1994). Such judgements by
teachers during the teaching process may be incomplete, fuzzy, qualitative and based on
a limited range of criteria (Harlen & Quaker, 1991). Describing and analysing teachers'
informal formative assessment is a complex task; there are few expositions which
provide a conceptual framework for feedback itself; and we lack clarity about the way
feedback is associated with particular models of learning and the processes involved.
Where research has been conducted into feedback, it has probed certain aspects of
cause and effect in learning. It has been demonstrated, for example, that feedback of
global grades or simply confirming correct answers has little effect on subsequent
performance (Crooks, 1988) and that frequent use of evaluative feedback for conduct and
neatness of work may impair its meaning as an evaluation of intellectual quality of the
child's work (Dweck et al., 1978). There are also a number of studies of discrete aspects
of feedback such as the function of praise (Brophy, 1981) and examinations of written
feedback (Zellermayer, 1989). There have been, however, few systematic analyses of the
role of feedback in learning and assessment which are based on empirical research in
classrooms.
Sadler's detailed discussion (1989) of the nature of qualitative assessment gives
feedback a crucial role in learning; he identifies the way in which feedback should be
used by teachers to unpack the notion of excellence, which is part of their 'guild
knowledge', so that students are able to acquire the standards for themselves.
Feedback has been incorporated into models of classroom learning. In an extensive
study into the quality of pupil learning experiences, Bennett et al. (1984) utilised a model
incorporating teacher feedback as an important element in the process of ascribing tasks
in classrooms. In a later study examining the appropriateness of tasks experienced by

0141-1926/96/040389-16 ©1996 British Educational Research Association

390 P. Tunstall & C. Gipps

4-year-old pupils in infant classes, Bennett & Kell (1989) observed that although
teachers framed their task intentions in cognitive terms, their assessments of pupil
performance were often made in affective terms. Teachers, Bennett argues, are adept at
the judgemental aspect of assessment but are less good at diagnosis through careful
questioning. In Pollard's (1990) social-constructivist model of the teaching/learning
process, he stresses the importance of the teacher as a 'reflective agent'. In this role, the
teacher provides 'meaningful and appropriate guidance and extension to the cognitive
structuring and skill development arising from the child's initial experiences. This ...
supports the child's attempts to "make sense" and enables them to cross the zone of
proximal development'. Pollard argues that this role is dependent on the sensitive and
accurate assessment of a child's needs and places a premium on formative teacher
assessment.
This paper describes our study (Ref. ESRC No. R000233780) which investigated the
types of feedback given to children of 6 and 7 years of age (year 1 and year 2 in the
English system) and how the children understood this feedback. The study was a
small-scale, illuminative one with the major aim of developing a grounded typology of
teacher feedback. This paper describes the typology that was developed.

The Study
The study was carried out in six schools in five local education authorities (LEAs) in
London. The selection of the five LEAs and the schools was made so as to provide a
range of positions in the Department for Education league table of national assessment
results at Key Stage 1, and a range of types of school.
Eight teachers of year 1 and year 2 children participated in the research across these
six schools. We were fortunate in gaining a teacher sample which included one teacher
with over 30 years' experience, two with between 15 and 20 years' experience and the
others with experience ranging from 2 to 6 years. One teacher was male. One of the
women teachers was of Asian origin.
A total of 49 children was selected from the eight classes for detailed study on the
basis of teacher ratings. Broadly speaking, in each class we selected two high attaining,
two low attaining and two 'average' pupils. The sample of children was chosen for
interview and observation, while the nature of feedback to them was the subject of later
detailed discussion with the teachers. This is reported elsewhere (Tunstall & Gipps,
1996).
Fieldwork in schools was carried out throughout the school year 1993/94. The prime
focus of fieldwork varied in each term but major areas of interest were maintained
throughout the period. Classroom recording and observation was carried out in each
teacher's classroom on a regular basis throughout the whole year in order to collect the
evidence of feedback in all aspects: at whole class and individual level, and across the
curriculum. Interviews with teachers were undertaken in October 1993 and May 1994 in
order to probe teachers' understanding of feedback and its role in formative assessment.
In February-March 1994 and again, in June-July 1994, the main focus of the research
was individual children's perceptions of feedback. Interviews with children were
undertaken during these periods. Examination of children's work for written feedback
was carried out throughout the year and photocopies of examples were taken. School
policy documentation was collected.
Tape-recording of classroom dialogue was a very important part of the research
method. Given the amount of one-to-one interaction in infant classrooms coupled with
 Teacher Feedback in Formative Assessment 391

the level of background conversational noise the amount of feedback which could be
heard by the research officer, without adopting an obtrusive role, was very limited and
often largely confined to that given to the whole class. It was also apparent that a reliance
on note-taking, if it had been possible, would have failed to collect the amount of
descriptive feedback which was provided by teachers. Note-taking of overheard feedback
was therefore used as a subsidiary activity to support tape-recording of classroom
dialogue. Recording was carried out on a regular basis in each classroom through each
teacher wearing a tape-recorder and microphone. A programme of visits to each teacher
was arranged, which ensured that classroom recording and observation sampled a range
of classroom events at different times of the day and week and across the curriculum.
All recordings were transcribed in full.
The observational notes made to accompany the recordings were conducted on a
pre-structured, but open-ended, basis by the research officer. These notes were collected
with the aim of providing context details, which could be put together with the
transcripts of dialogue and focused, for example, on the nature of the task, grouping
arrangements, timing, audience for feedback and non-verbal feedback.
A total of 15 visits was made to each school throughout the year in order to undertake
the interviews with teachers and children, as well as to carry out recording and
observation. In all, between 24 and 36 hours were spent in recording and observing each
teacher's classroom interaction. All data were managed and analysed with the assistance
of the NUDIST 3.0 program.

Developing the Typology

The Process of Categorisation
To create the typology, a range of different types of feedback was identified, coded and
indexed. This included, for example, feedback which was: verbal and non-verbal;
distinctly positive or negative; process or product related; feedback which was based on
the use or non-use of explicit criteria; feedback to individual children; feedback as part
of classroom management. These types essentially emerged from the data.
In establishing the basis of the typology, however, it was necessary to identify broad,
organising principles enabling the smaller categories of feedback to be grouped together.
These principles emerged through drawing on previous development work in assessment
and records of achievement (Suggett, 1985; London Record of Achievement Team,
1989) and the theoretical literature (e.g. Crooks, 1988; Sadler, 1989). This review
indicated a broad framework for our typology: feedback may be evaluative (that is,
judgemental) or descriptive (that is, task-related). In order to probe the evaluative-
descriptive dimensions in the teachers' feedback, therefore, we interrogated the data
using the following questions:

• Was the feedback mainly evaluative or judgemental in form with implicit or explicit
usage of norms?
• Was the feedback mainly descriptive in form, making specific reference to the child's
actual achievement or competence?

These questions brought about an initial classification on an evaluative-descriptive

continuum. Further questions which emerged in the process of constant comparison
(Glaser & Strauss, 1967) resulted in the development of the full typology.
392 P. Tunstall & C. Gipps

Teacher feedback Teacher feedback

School socialisation:
values, attitudes and procedures
feedback S

Assessment
feedback
A,B,C, and D

School socialisation:
values, attitudes and procedures
feedback S

Teacher feedback Teacher feedback

FIG. 1. Feedback in infant classrooms: a typology.

A Summary of the Full Typology

Fig. 1 and Table I summarise the full typology. There are two major strands: the first
relates to socialisation; the second relates to assessment.

Feedback and Socialisation

Feedback as an instrument of socialisation has been termed Feedback S. This type of
feedback relates to the values, attitudes and classroom procedures which form the basis
of infant teachers' practice.

TABLE I. Teacher feedback typology: a summary

Type S Al Bl Cl Dl

Category Socialisation Rewarding Approving Specifying Constructing

attainment achievement
Type A2 B2 C2 D2
Category Punishing Disapproving Specifying Constructing
improvement the way
forward

Role Socialisation/ Classroom/ Performance Mastery Learning

management individual orientation orientation orientation
management
 Teacher Feedback in Formative Assessment 393

Feedback and Assessment

The four types of assessment feedback have been termed A, B, C and D. These types
have been placed across a continuum representing evaluative-descriptive approaches to
assessment; each type has been subdivided creating a dualistic structure. Thus, for
assessment feedback, evaluative types are: Al: Rewarding; A2: Punishing; Bl: Approv-
ing; and B2: Disapproving. Descriptive types are: Cl: Specifying attainment; C2:
Specifying improvement; Dl: Constructing achievement; and D2: Constructing the way
forward.
Table I sets out these types of feedback. Using this classification, we suggest that
feedback changes in style, purpose, meaning and processes as it moves from evaluation
to description. At the evaluative end of the continuum, feedback is clearly either positive
or negative. At the descriptive end, feedback can no longer be defined in these terms and
is achievement or improvement focused. The analysis demonstrates that within evalua-
tive types of feedback, judgements are made according to explicit or implicit norms;
within descriptive types, feedback more clearly relates to actual competence. It is also
apparent that the evaluative types of feedback relate very much more to affective and
conative aspects of learning than do descriptive types, where the cognitive emphasis
predominates. Both C and D types of descriptive feedback are clearly associated with
formative assessment.
Type C shows a mastery-oriented approach to formative assessment. It illustrates:
teachers' acknowledgement of specific attainment; the use of models by teachers for
work and behaviour; diagnosis using specific criteria; correcting and checking proce-
dures. Type D shows a constructivist approach to formative assessment. It illustrates:
teachers' use of both sharp and contextualised 'fuzzy' criteria; use of teacher and child
work exemplars; teacher-child assessment of work; the use of strategies for self-
regulation. The relationship of these types of feedback with learning is taken up in the
discussion.

Details and Examples of the Typology

Fig. 2 sets out the typology in more detail.

Feedback and Socialisation: Type S

Definition. Feedback S was used by teachers to provide the all-encompassing messages
about what children come to school for; it appeared to be the feedback of socialisation.
S therefore reinforced how children were expected to work and behave in the classroom
community. Feedback S strongly related to teacher and child role in the classroom: S
was used by teachers to spell out their central expectations of the child.
Feedback S seemed to have much in common across all the teachers. It reflected
common values: the need for kindness, sharing and fairness in the classroom community;
the importance of independence; the requirement of effort in relation to work. As would
be expected, however, there were some personal aspects to S, which reflected the
idiosyncrasies of the individual teacher as an adult; teachers' use of humour or
expression of their own fallibility and needs fell into this category.
It was apparent that assessment feedback types A, B, C and D contained their own
detailed social codes; it seemed clear, however, that the values and attitudes conveyed
by Feedback S underpinned other types of feedback. For example:
 Tunsta
Type A Type B TypeC Type D

Rewarding 53
Approving Specifying attainment Constructing
achievement

Z. Gipp
Rewards Positive personal Specific Mutual articulation of
expression acknowledgement of achievement
attainment
Warm expression of Use of criteria in relation Additional use of
1 feeling to work/behaviour; emerging criteria; child 1
Positive teacher models role in presentation Achievement
Feedback General praise More specific praise Praise integral to Feedback
description
Positive non-verbal
feedback
Punishing Disapproving Specifying improvement Constructing the way
forward
Punishments Negative personal Correction of errors Mutual critical appraisal
2 expression 2
Negative Reprimands; negative More practice given; Provision of strategies Improvement
=eedback generalisations training in self-checking Feedback
Negative non-verbal
feedback

Evaluative Des rxint ve

FIG. 2. Typology of teacher feedback

 Teacher Feedback in Formative Assessment 395

• 'I'm only helping people who are sitting down with their hands up.'
• 'Remember what I said, as long as you have a try then I'll be very very pleased with
you. Good boy.'

Feedback in Relation to Assessment

The assessment feedback categories are set out below. Each type is sub-divided as shown
in Fig. 2. It should be remembered that we see the types as being on a continuum rather
than as completely separate categories. Thus, there may be some overlap or use of two
types together.

Al: Rewarding
Definition. Al is evaluative feedback at its most positive. Al was used by teachers to
express their desire to reward children for their efforts in work or in behaviour. Teachers
tended to give Al mainly to children whom they judged to have spent most effort in their
work or to have shown particular social skills and attitudes. This type of feedback was
used to reinforce certain types of behaviour and to encourage.
Al is the feedback of extrinsic motivation. It was used by teachers to bring fun into
feedback through the use of stickers, stamps and smiley faces. Teachers clearly tried to
use the promise of Al to motivate children; once Al was used, however, teachers
identified the difficulties it created in being fair to individuals, the way it was seen to
create competition, and to promote manipulation, both by them of children and by
children of themselves. The use of Al feedback therefore raised a number of questions
about learning, motivation and interpersonal relations amongst teachers. Teachers used
a wider audience for this type of feedback to maximise its effect, but its public
recognition aspect also caused a number of mixed emotional responses amongst children.
Teachers also used a variety of symbols for Al; some of these were for simple
pleasure or fun for the individual (e.g. smiley faces) but others were meant to convey
a special status in the class or the school as a whole (an entry in the school's Gold
Book). For example:
• Symbols: smiley faces, stickers, stars, commendations, badges; 'You'll get a little
frog'; 'beautiful work'.
• Treats: being allowed to sit in the big chair; going out to lunch first.
• Recognition of child's performance by a wider audience: being given a clap; work
seen by the headteacher.
Rewards were sometimes used as bribes in order to motivate children.

A2: Punishing
Definition. A2 is evaluative feedback at its most negative. A2 is feedback which teachers
provided to signify complete disapproval. When A2 was used the norms of what was
judged to be acceptable had been transgressed. Whatever form A2 took, the purpose
seemed to be to stamp out whatever was considered unsatisfactory. This feedback was
often related to physical action of some sort, either on the part of the teacher or of the
child: the teacher was most likely to move towards the child to take action; the child was
commonly moved to another place or sent out of the classroom. A2 was feedback which
generally conveyed a sense of the child being cast out of the classroom community;
396 P. Tunstall & C. Gipps

support from the teacher, peers and potentially from parents were all made to appear at
risk.
As with Al, teachers used A2 feedback in relation to the whole class audience for
maximum effect. A2 was far more commonly associated with the conative aspects of
children's learning and classroom behaviour in general than with cognitive aspects.
Teachers used symbols of disapproval in a minor way in this sort of feedback; 'sad
faces' were sometimes used but this was rare. A2 was accompanied by the most
emphatic aspects of non-verbal feedback identified in B2. For example:
• Removal from social contact: 'Go and sit downstairs on your own.'
• Being deprived of something child enjoys: 'You're not going to go out to play until
you've done more work than that.'
• Destruction of work: 'There are occasions when I have been to known to lampoon a
child for a piece of work and then ... publicly rip it up and bin it.'
• Removal of other children as friends: 'David, you're stopping your group from going
out because you're talking.'
• Removal of teacher as friend: 'I'm not listening to children who don't listen ...'

Type Bl: Approving

Definition. B1 was feedback which was of an overall evaluative kind and was positive.
Bl linked with the normative in relation to educational and social values; when teachers
judged that children were achieving in work or behaviour beyond that which they might
have expected, B1 seemed to be the expression of that judgement. This feedback is the
warm expression of teacher approval of the child's work or engagement. Bl quite often
led on to rewards (Al) but was often a reward in itself.
Bl is general in type; praise is not specific but teachers gave it as overall expression
of approbation. Bl was praise given to work which was well done in the teacher's
estimation; it was also applied to effort and concentration. Bl was often used to express
exhortation to children to 'try' and to 'keep on trying'. Bl therefore expressed the
teacher's warm evaluation of attitudes and behaviours that were considered necessary for
learning to take place. Bl tended to be more directly personal than feedback of a
descriptive type, and was often used to give expression to the teacher's personal pleasure
or pride or engaging with the child in a personal way. It also seemed to be associated
with positive feelings on the part of both the teacher and the child.
Like Al, Bl was used by teachers to encourage, and the use of non-verbal positive
feedback is a strong supporting aspect of B1. The use of positive comparison is also a
feature of Bl; some teachers used positive evaluation of the child in relation to the class
norm in order to present their approval. Bl seemed to have a wider role in infant
classrooms than the support of individual children's work; it played a significant part in
class management as the infant teachers' tool in welding the class together as a happy
community.
Examples are:
(a) Non-verbal
• Touch: when Curtis was congratulated on his maths work, Miss X held his arm and
touched his face.
• Facial expression: 'If you want to give them positive feedback and praise them you
smile a lot ... it's sort of non-verbal, positive strokes, whatever you like to call it.'
• Use of ticks.
 Teacher Feedback in Formative Assessment 397

(b) Verbal
• Personal feelings: 'I'm very pleased with you.'
• Use of endearment: 'Doesn't matter, sweetheart, that's fine.'
• Use of labels: 'Brilliant ideas, the ideas person.'
• Use of comparisons: 'I think in fact this is probably the best one I've seen so far,
that's wonderful.'
• Importance of effort: 'You're growing up, aren't you and you're trying very hard.'
• General praise: 'Very good. Well done, well tried. Good girl.'

Type B2: Disapproving

Definition. Teacher feedback B2 is of an overall evaluative kind and is negative. It links
with the normative in relation to educational and social values; where the norms are
judged to be contravened, B2 is the expression of that judgement. B2 sometimes led on
to punishment (A2) for the child but the feedback often stood as a punishment in itself.
This is feedback which teachers give when they consider the child to be at fault; it is
provided for behaviour and work, particularly where lack of effort or concentration is
considered to be the cause of poor performance. B2 is rarely used about a child's work
when the teachers believe that a child has tried.
This type of feedback was often strongly related to the general expression of personal
feelings of disapproval by the teachers. B2 feedback appeared to aim to be corrective
mainly of children's social skills and attitudes and the more conative aspects of their
learning. The corrective approaches took the form of explicit sentiments of disappointment
and annoyance on the part of the teachers; these were sometimes linked with disapproving
statements, which might have embarrassed, humiliated or frightened the child.
Non-verbal types of feedback played a considerable part in B2 as an expression of
teacher disapproval. B2 also had a part in infant teachers' class management strategies;
B2 was used with an individual child in front of a whole class audience in order to
reinforce socially acceptable behaviour. B2 was often pointed out by teachers to children
as the type of feedback which they did not want to give; they indicated their willingness
to switch back to Bl whenever possible. The door to reinstatement was usually shown
to be open when B2 was used.
Examples are:
(a) Non verbal negative feedback:
• Facial expression: 'They know my look. Eyebrows will be raised or lowered, or I will
look aghast at something.'
• Tone of voice: 'I would use a firm tone and my voice would change.'
• Voice volume: 'RIGHT, THAT IS ENOUGH.'
• Voice modulation: 'Children, I've got to use my big voice again.'
• Physical gestures and action: pointing without speaking.
• Use of height: 'I'm towering over them.'
• Crossing through: a line through work.
(b) Verbal negative feedback:
(i) Expression of teacher negative personal feeling:
• Expression of anger or disappointment: 'I'm very disappointed in you today.'
• Expressions of annoyance: 'Oh for goodness' sake, put something sensible.'
• Use of threats: 'If I say your name again you can work in the corridor.'
398 P. Tunstall & C. Gipps

(ii) Expression of disapproval directed at the child personally:

• Personal humiliation strategies: 'I remind them they are six not three any more.'
• Negative expression directed at child in personal way: 'Have you left your brain at
home?'
• Accusations: 'You weren't listening then when I told everyone!'
• Use of labels: 'Michelle who always interrupts'. 'You're a silly boy.'
(iii) Expression of negative evaluation of work:
• Teacher judgement that work has no value: 'Put that in the bin and you can
choose, and we'll sort this out later.'
• Teacher judgement based on social values: 'I don't think we want any violence in
our game. So I think we'll turn over and forget the bombs.'

Type Cl: Specifying Attainment

Definition. This is teacher feedback which is descriptive and identifies in a specific
way aspects of successful attainment. Cl was feedback which the project teachers
used to provide information about what they considered to be the basis of com-
petence. They used this feedback in identifying and labelling the successful compo-
nents of attainment. Cl seemed to be strongly linked with the mastery of small steps
in learning. Cl also seemed to be a part of teachers' clear expectations for work or
behaviour since this type of feedback was often given in relation to a 'model' of
some kind that the teacher provided and discussed.
Cl feedback appeared to support children's work or behaviour through specific
praise and through affirming what children were engaged in or had carried out
successfully. Cl was often linked with the provision of extension work to reinforce
attainment. This type of feedback therefore gave clear messages about teacher expec-
tations and the basis for success. In describing success or competence, it was clearly
the teachers who were identifying standards. Cl feedback appeared to be character-
ised by factual disclosure by teachers about the criteria for success rather than
feeling about the success. In that way, it was much more work-focused and less
personal than Bl. Cl was often, of course, followed by Bl or Al.
As with the evaluative types of feedback, in Cl the interaction appeared to be
mainly unidirectional: from teachers to children. For example:
• Identification of a range of specific criteria for success: "This is extremely well
explained. If Christopher tells this to somebody else who hasn't seen the exper-
iment, then I'm sure they'll know exactly what happened'; 'You used some words
that you didn't know about, and some description words, you're doing really well';
'... you've got four different types of fruit, one in each of the glasses and you've
tried to write a word underneath'.
• Providing models as a basis: 'We will ... try to write a sentence together with
everybody helping with spelling.'
• Giving practice: 'Good girl, "a" "t", "at". If you put that sound there, you can
make lots of small words—if you put a sound in front of the "at".'

Type C2: Specifying improvements

Definition. C2 is descriptive feedback which teachers use to specify how something
which is being learned can be corrected. This kind of feedback is specific to a
 Teacher Feedback in Formative Assessment 399

particular task or aspect of behaviour and is focused on where mistakes lie. C2 feedback
is different from B2 because its use in correcting is focused much more on work, or
behaviour, as something to be learned; C2 did not appear to bring with it the
disciplinarian sense of 'being corrected' which is present in B2. As a consequence, this
feedback appeared to be far more dispassionate or neutral in tone than B2.
C2 feedback was related by teachers much more to cognitive tasks than to personal
attributes. It took the form of teachers pointing out to children what needed improving
in their work. C2 also seemed to involve teachers directing children to engage in
correcting activities themselves. Like Cl, C2 feedback used models as a basis for
correcting work. Targets for improvement were sometimes set by teachers as part of C2
feedback but these usually consisted of practice in getting something right. The use of
self-checking procedures appeared to be an important aspect of C2 feedback.
Like Cl, C2 feedback seemed to be unidirectional: from the teacher to the child. For
example:
• Specifying what is wrong: 'Doesn't look like an 8, that's why I read it as 6, you see.'
• Correction: 'Is that "went"? Just try that one again. You've got the right letters, but
they're the wrong way round aren't they? "Went". "W" "e" "n".
• Use of dots or crosses to indicate that something is wrong.
• Specifying criteria for success: 'Matthew, I want you to go over all of them and write
your equals sign in each one. That's your equals sign there. You've got to write the
equals sign there for each one ... That means you are pointing to the answer.'
• Expression of teacher expectation: 'Is that yours?—it's a beautiful drawing of the
tank. OK? Got the stick, the froglets and the nets, it's labelled very nicely but you
could have started to do some writing about the froglets, couldn't you,-—if you hadn't
been sitting having a chat for so long.'
• Provision of teacher models: 'Natalie you're trying very hard. Watch. Around and
around. Good girl. You can when you practise. I want you to practise little a ... a ...
a ... a. I'll draw you some.'
• Importance of self-checking: 'Those words that I've underlined I want you to go and
find out how to spell them'; '... check them for "ing" 'cos you've done a few wrong
there.'
• Importance of independent learning: 'I'm glad to see that you've started this, I didn't
even have to ask you to, well done.'

Type Dl: Constructing achievement

Definition. 'Constructing achievement' is teacher feedback which is qualitatively differ-
ent from 'specifying attainment' through the role that language plays in articulating
extensively the nature of the child's competence and achievement; at the same time, the
description is undertaken much more in conversation or discussion with the child. The
articulation of what the child has been or is engaged in often appears to give language
for the first time to particular processes or aspects of competence which were emerging
in the child's work. Teachers using Dl feedback conveyed a sense of work in progress,
heightening awareness of what was being undertaken and reflecting on it. Dl seemed to
have the effect of bestowing importance on the child's work. Teachers' use of this
feedback appeared to shift the emphasis more to the child's own role in learning, using
approaches which seemed to pass control to the child. There was much more of a feel
of teacher as 'facilitator' rather than 'provider' or 'judge' with this type of feedback; it
seemed to be less of 'teacher to the child' and more of 'teacher with the child'. A wider
400 P. Tunstall & C. Gipps

audience was also an important factor in Dl, whether it was a group or all the other
children in the class.
Teachers sometimes deliberately adopted the role of equal learners in the classroom.
With this type of feedback they drew the child into explaining or demonstrating
achievement using the child's own work more extensively than in Cl. 'Construct-
ing achievement' feedback also seemed to draw on and develop children's own
self-assessment to a greater extent. With Dl, as with D2, children's 'voice' could be
heard more than in any other type of feedback. Children seemed to move (a little) from
recipients to active participators and to be seen, through teacher articulation, to be
thinking, doing, expressing and making choices. For example:

• Feedback which articulates the processes in which the child was or is engaged:
'Sticky, hard and smooth; lovely Polly. Polly thought, when she felt the apple, that it
was sticky, hard and smooth. So then she wrote sticky, hard and smooth inside the
apple. Wonderful.'
• Feedback which articulates aspects of work the child has produced: "There's Polly's
lovely picture of an apple. Great, she's not only used one type of green, she's used
two different types, a light one and a dark one. Very good, well done.'
• Feedback which enables the child to draw comparisons between present achievements
and previous work: The teacher said 'A lovely story' and then asked Hannah 'Are
there any improvements in this story from the one you wrote before ?' Hannah said,
'More interesting words' and together they identified 'beautiful' and 'luckily'. The
teacher then said, 'What else have you done that's very good?' They both agreed a
good setting, question marks and (teacher pointed) punctuation.
• Praise linked with future development: 'Well done, they're throwing it up, they're not
throwing it very high but they're catching with two hands, once you mastered catching
with two hands can you try and do it with one hand, throw up and catch with one
hand—good, well done, perhaps if you practise that Samuel, you'll get a little bit better.'
• Teacher joining in as a 'learner' in an activity.
• Feedback which extends thinking about achievements: 'Now she's drawn a picture of
the door, if you were looking down, from above like a bird flying around, you
wouldn't actually see the picture of the door; perhaps you can think of another way
of showing where the door is?'

Type D2: Constructing the way forward

Definition. Like Dl, this was feedback in which language, that of both the child and the
teacher, played a very large part. 'Constructing the way forward' was used by teachers
to articulate future possibilities in learning in a way that looked like a partnership with
the child. Describing the way forward was carried out in a way that seemed to give
children greater responsibility. A key approach seemed to be to suggest; instead of
telling children what to do to improve, the development tended to be identified mutually
in such a way that children seemed to have more space to make choices for themselves.
The word 'correction' with its negative connotations is therefore inappropriate in trying
to define this type of feedback, although it was related to the way improvement might
be carried out; this kind of feedback seemed to have more of the characteristics of
mutual appraisal of development.
One approach teachers used was to ask children to present their own work to the class;
the teacher verbalised where development might be undertaken in the future at the same
 Teacher Feedback in Formative Assessment 401

time as aspects of achievement were recognised. There is a different feel about this
approach from presenting teacher models: the child's voice could be heard much more
in D2 as demonstrator and presenter. As with Dl, the wider audience seemed to play an
important part in this type of feedback; the whole class was given a role in contributing
to developments. In acting as the audience, however, the whole class did not seem to act
as judge but as participators.
As with Dl, there was a greater feel of teachers participating as learners in the
classroom. The feedback was again of a type where the teachers acted as facilitators,
making suggestions and questioning as part of discussion, rather than directing. This type
of feedback provided children with strategies that they could adopt to develop their own
work and encouraged children to assess their own work. For example:

• Articulating relevance of future development: whole class participation in discussion

of improvements on the basis of recognition of achievement by individuals; working
with the whole class and individuals to create the basis for understanding, e.g. in
shared writing.
• Diagnosing with the child: ' "When my other sisters came back we were still in my
big sister's room," OK. Now are we going to put a full stop here? What do you think?
Yes, OK we'll put a full stop there, so what are you going to put here? [Capital]
Capital letter, good girl.'
• Specifying criteria and articulating standards as they emerged in children's work: '...
put your hands up if you were drawing the bicycle this morning. Now, I've noticed
the wheel like that, that doesn't join and the spokes go in like that. You were actually
very carefully looking to see that there was a tyre round the outside and there was
something in the middle to hold the spokes together, and you'd look to see how the
spokes actually go ... You see how the spokes connect to the centre piece, I think
some of you have done, just guessing what it looks like, without actually looking
carefully, so when you go back downstairs before you put pen to paper just have a
really close look at the bicycle.'
• Involving children in evaluating standards: 'Are you happy with your story?' The
teacher then asked Sarah to write down what improvements she might make.
• Prompting and supporting children in examining their work.
• Comparison with previous performance: 'Oh, do you know what, the first week you
were with me you said you would not write at all, didn't you, you said "I would not"
and "I could not write Miss", and here you are, look at this ... [C: Can I do a second
page?] A second page, you want to do more, now, as well ? Heavens above, I won't
be able to keep up with you.'
• Role reversal: 'let's pretend' game with child as helper to teacher: 'Now, do we need
some help in writing the rules? Yes? What do you think, will you help me write
them? I'll write them if you help me. Deal? Deal. Get me a piece of paper from out
of there.'
• Discussion of strategies that help in developing work: 'What we've got to do is look
at that very first sound to give you a clue as to what the word is haven't you? So when
you've learnt all your sounds, you'll be able to have a better guess at these words
won't you?' 'Daniel what's the next step? [C: If it's like something like you want to
make with cardboard, draw it first.] Good, that's a good idea. So ... if you're going
to make something ... the next step is to draw a design ... if you get a better idea,
you can rub it out.'
402 P. Tunstall & C. Gipps

Discussion
We believe that we have identified, from teacher-child interaction in infant classrooms,
a grounded typology of teacher feedback which gives us a language to use in discussing
feedback with teachers, and gives teachers a framework to use in reflecting on their
practice. As we explained in the introduction, this was a small-scale illuminative study,
designed to develop a typology of feedback. It was not within the scope of the study to
analyse each teacher's feedback in depth, nor to evaluate the impact of the feedback on
children's learning. That remains for future work. What we can say, however, is that
every teacher observed used each type of feedback at some point, although individuals
had particular styles, e.g. some teachers used type D more than others. Furthermore, we
observed all types of feedback across all curriculum subject areas. The examples given,
and the emphasis on verbal feedback, are clearly specific to this age group of children;
however, we also believe that the overall frame of the typology (see Table I) can be
extended to teacher feedback with other age groups. The typology has been validated by
the project infant teachers and other teachers as a useful tool 'that works' in describing
and analysing practice.
We see part of the importance of our work on teacher feedback as contributing to the
translation of achievement goal theory and its vocabulary into the practical terms of
classroom life. There is a growing US literature on achievement goals, much of which
shares many similarities with discussion of the purpose and role of Records of
Achievement in the UK in the 1980s and 1990s (Johnson et al., 1992). Reviews by Ames
(1992), Blumenfeld (1992) and Pintrich et al. (1993) summarise much of the thinking to
date: two contrasting achievement goal constructs have been the subject of most
research. These two types of goals are linked to contrasting patterns of motivational
processes. The two types have been labelled differently in the research literature: type
one as learning, task involvement or mastery goals; type two as performance or
ego-involved goals. These types can be distinguished by reason of their different
conceptions of success and reasons for approaching and engaging in achievement
activity. Each type of goal has also been demonstrated to involve different ways of
student thinking about self, the task and task outcomes. In this paper, we refer to type
one goals as learning or mastery goals and type two goals as performance goals.
Learning or mastery goals are associated with notions of self-efficacy based on the
belief that personal effort leads to success. Integral to this goal construct is 'a motivation
to learn' (Brophy, 1983), whereby individuals are focused on mastering and understand-
ing content and demonstrate a willingness to engage in the process of learning.
Performance goals, on the other hand, link a sense of self-worth with notions of one's
ability. With this goal, evidence of ability consists of doing better than others, by
surpassing standards based on norms or by achieving success with little effort. As a
consequence, the expenditure of effort can threaten the self-concept of ability when
trying hard does not lead to success: performance goals can foster a failure-avoiding
pattern of motivation (Dweck, 1986; Nicholls et al., 1989). Research has demonstrated
that the two types of goal described above are elicited by different pedagogical styles and
approaches; these trigger in turn qualitatively different motivational patterns.
Ames & Ames (1984) described how learning environments can be differentiated in
terms of specific cues which influence the ways in which children process information
and understanding of their performance. The link between evaluative feedback and a
performance goal orientation on the one hand, and between descriptive or task-related
feedback and a learning or mastery goal orientation on the other, has not been made
 Teacher Feedback in Formative Assessment 403

explicit for individual pupils. Yet Ames's argument is that certain classroom structures
can influence goal orientation in children; these include assessment (or evaluation)
strategies which: focus on individual improvement, progress and mastery; make evalu-
ation private, not public; recognise students' effort; provide opportunities for improve-
ment; and encourage a view of mistakes as part of learning (Ames, 1992, p. 267). Ames
argues that classrooms in which these form part of the teachers' strategies tend to have
motivational patterns which: focus on effort and learning; produce attributions for effort
and effort-based strategies; and promote failure-tolerance; leading to a mastery-oriented
approach, encompassing type one, learning or mastery goals.
Using Ames's description of classroom structures that can lead to different orienta-
tions, we believe that our feedback Types A and B (rewarding and approving, punishing
and disapproving) can lead to a performance-goal orientation, while feedback Type C
(specifying attainment and improvement) can lead to a mastery goal orientation.
Feedback Type D (constructing achievement and the way forward) we describe as
learning-oriented in that it includes many of the strategies described in constructivist
approaches to learning, as well as self-regulating strategies. (Self-regulation here refers
to the learner monitoring and regulating his/her cognitive activity.) In this sense we
separate out Ames's learning or mastery goals into two separate (but linked) types, since
our feedback Type D is one which articulates a particular approach to learning. However,
we stress that both types C and D are crucial to pupils' learning.
We believe that looking at types of feedback in classrooms in terms of our typology
will help to articulate approaches that encourage a positive learning environment, but the
range of issues coming in to play is complex. The norms which underlie evaluative
feedback are highly significant, while the links between Feedback S and Feedback A and
B are fundamental. The culture of infant teachers in the UK, for example, emphasises
the importance of effort rather than ability, and in our study evaluative feedback was
more commonly provided for effort than ability. There were few examples of explicit
comparison between children and competition was generally played down. The data did,
however, suggest that static ability grouping as seen in one classroom, with its associated
curriculum differentiation, was a powerful mediator in feedback so that children were
provided with acute perceptions of their own and others' ability. It could, therefore, be
argued that the judicious combination of both evaluative and descriptive types of
feedback by the teacher creates the most powerful support for learning. We had
substantial evidence, too, to suggest, as Ames contends, that there were dangers in
making feedback to individual children public; at the same time, we also found that
public feedback involving the whole class in discussion, in ways which shifted the locus
of responsibility to the children, provided some of the most extensive learning opportu-
nities.
We believe that this typology gives us an insight into the role of teacher feedback in
the classroom, its role in teaching, learning and formative assessment, as well as
contributing to the discussion of achievement goals. We hope that the typology will be
used and validated further by other researchers, particularly with other age groups, and
that it will contribute to the further exploration of the links between assessment and
learning.

Acknowledgement
This paper was presented at the International Association for Educational Assessment
Conference, Montreal, June 1995.
404 P. Tunstall & C. Gipps

Correspondence: Professor Caroline Gipps, Institute of Education, University of

London, 20 Bedford Way, London WC1H OAL, UK. Email:c.gipps@ioe.ac.uk. Pat
Tunstall, NCVQ, 222 Euston Road, London NW1 2BZ, UK.

REFERENCES
AMES, C. (1992) Classrooms: goals, structures and student motivation, Journal of Educational Psychol-
ogy, 84, pp. 261-271.
AMES, C. & AMES, R. (1984) Systems of student and teacher motivation: toward a qualitative definition,
Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, pp. 535-556.
BENNETT, N. & KELL, J. (1989) A Good Start? Four Year Olds in Infant Schools (Oxford, Blackwell).
BENNETT, S.N., DESFORGES, C , COCKBURN, A. & WILKINSON, B. (1984) The Quality of Pupil Learning
Experiences (London, Lawrence Erlbaum).
BLUMENFELD, P. (1992) Classroom learning and motivation: clarifying and expanding goal theory,
Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, pp. 272-281.
BROPHY, J. (1981) Teacher Praise: a functional analysis, Review of Educational Research, 51, pp. 5-32.
BROPHY, J.E. (1983) Fostering student learning and motivation in the elementary school classroom, in:
S. PARIS, G. OLSON & H. STEVENSON (Eds) Learning and Motivation in the Classroom (Hillsdale, NJ,
Erlbaum).
CROOKS, T.J. (1988) The impact of classroom evaluation on students, Review of Educational Research,
5, pp. 438-481.
DWECK, C.S. (1986) Motivational processes affecting learning, American Psychologist, 41, pp. 1040-
1048.
DWECK, C.S., DAVIDSON, W., NELSON, S. & ENNA, B. (1978) Sex differences in learned helplessness:
II. The contingencies of evaluative feedback in the classroom; III. An experimental analysis, Develop-
mental Psychology, 14, pp. 268-276.
GIPPS, C. (1994) Beyond Testing: towards a theory of educational assessment (London, Falmer Press).
GLASER, B.G. & STRAUSS, A.L. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory (London, Weidenfeld &
Nicolson).
HARLEN, W. & QUALTER, A. (1991) Issues in SAT development and the practice of teacher assessment,
Cambridge Journal of Education, 21, pp. 141-151.
JOHNSON, G., HILL, B. & TUNSTALL, P. (1992) Primary Records of Achievement: a teacher's guide to
reviewing, recording and reporting (London, Hodder & Stoughton).
LONDON RECORD OF ACHIEVEMENT TEAM (1989) Putting Students First (London, Inner London Education
Authority).
NICHOLLS, J.G., CHEUNG, P.C., LAUER, J. & PATASHNICK, M. (1989) Individual differences in academic
motivation: perceived ability, goals, beliefs, and values, Learning and Individual Differences, 1, pp.
63-84.
PINTRICH, P.R., MARX, R.W. & BOYLE, R.A. (1993) Beyond cold conceptual change: the role of
motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change, Review of
Educational Research, 63, pp. 167-199.
POLLARD, A. (1990) Towards a sociology of learning in primary school, British Journal of Sociology of
Education, 11, pp. 241-256.
SADLER, R. (1989) Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems, Instructional Science,
18, pp. 119-144.
SUGGETT, D. (1985) Guidelines for Descriptive Assessment (Australia, VISE).
TUNSTALL, P. & GIPPS, C. (1996) 'How does your teacher help you to make your work better?' Children's
understanding of formative assessment, The Curriculum Journal, 7(2).
ZELLERMAYER, M. (1989) The study of teachers' written feedback to students' writing: changes in
theoretical considerations and the expansion of research contexts, Instructional Science, 18, pp.
145-165.