Abstract
This study explores how newly qualified physical education (PE) teachers experience the meaning of feedback through reflections on their assessment practices. We focus on the use, purpose, and content of feedback in PE practice. Assessment practices in PE have generally been used for grading purposes, often with little connection to the preceding teaching and learning. The educational quality of feedback depends on teachers’ knowledge of what is supposed to be learned and how learners understand what they are supposed to know. Hence, it is important to investigate whether and how PE teacher education (PETE) prepares pre-service teachers for their professional work with feedback in PE. Individual stimulated recall interviews, a focus group interview and individual interviews with eight newly qualified teachers were conducted, and the data was analysed through a phenomenographic approach. The findings reveal that feedback is experienced in various ways, some comprising content that helps students learn what is supposed to be learned. Other ways of experiencing feedback generate content that does not relate to any intended learning goal other than being physically active in the here and now. The findings are discussed in relation to Hattie and Timperley's (2007) model of feedback as well as in relation to PETE and the significance of providing possibilities for future teachers to learn about the ways in which feedback can be educationally worthwhile.
Introduction
This study explores how newly qualified physical education (PE) teachers experience the meaning of feedback through reflections on their assessment practices. We focus on the use, purpose and content of feedback in PE practice. Assessment practices in PE have generally been used for grading purposes with poor relation to the preceding teaching and learning practices (Penney et al., 2009). This has a negative influence on students’ experiences of PE and, as Moura et al. (2021: 393) conclude in their review, these practices ‘are disruptive to a meaningful, relevant and worthwhile physical education experience and can result in students believing that there is nothing worthwhile to learn in physical education’.
It is further acknowledged that alternative assessment practices such as assessment for learning (AfL) contribute to more positive educational environments, and research suggests that such assessment practices are beneficial for students’ experiences of their learning in PE (Moura et al., 2021; Tolgfors, 2019). The concept of AfL, developed by Black et al. (2002), involves five key strategies, one of which is concerned with teacher feedback being essential for student learning (Hattie and Timperley, 2007; Mulliner and Tucker, 2017).
The present study is part of a larger longitudinal project, which aims to investigate the importance of PE teacher education (PETE) in relation to school PE. The focus is on how the meaning of AfL, experienced by pre-service teachers, transforms during the transition from PETE to their professional practice as newly qualified teachers (NQTs) in PE (see Backman et al., 2023). When reading the extensive amount of data generated from video observations, individual stimulated recall (SR) interviews and group interviews in the project, we noted that feedback was handled in quite varying ways. Consequently, we decided to explore these differences in more depth.
Similarly, research has shown that the meaning of feedback differs among teachers and students, and consequently, so does how feedback is used and to what extent it provides opportunities for learning and positive experiences (Hattie and Timperley, 2007; Mulliner and Tucker, 2017). The educational quality of feedback also depends on teachers’ knowledge of what is supposed to be learned and how learners understand what they are supposed to know (Carlgren et al., 2015; Hattie and Timperley, 2007). Hence, it is crucial to develop more knowledge regarding whether and how PETE prepares pre-service teachers for their professional work with feedback in PE to enhance students’ learning.
The purpose of this study is to contribute knowledge regarding in what different ways NQTs experience the meaning of feedback in PE. An additional aim is to investigate how these different ways of experiencing the meaning of feedback affect what the feedback contains. During the study, we explored this by analysing NQTs’ actions in, and reflections on, their professional practice in school. We also discuss consequences for PETE in terms of how pre-service teachers are prepared for the use of feedback in their future work. This preparation is crucial for their assessment practices, extending beyond collectively directed exclamations like ‘good job’.
Meanings of feedback in education
Since feedback, broadly conceptualised, is the investigated phenomenon in this study, we will first briefly present some views on the meaning of feedback as elaborated in the general education literature, not necessarily related to the concept of AfL. The reason for doing this is partly to demonstrate that this concept can be conceived differently by researchers in general education regardless of any connection to AfL. We also consider it relevant to relate to research on feedback outside the context of PETE and PE since recent studies reveal that theoretical underpinnings and feedback models are lacking in research on feedback in the PE context (Treschman et al., 2024).
In general terms, in the context of education, feedback is described as information provided to a person who is supposed to learn something. Hattie and Timperley (2007: 81) express their conceptualisation of feedback in this way: […] information provided by an agent (e.g., teacher, peer, book, parent, self, experience) regarding aspects of one's performance or understanding. A teacher or parent can provide corrective information, a peer can provide an alternative strategy, a book can provide information to clarify ideas, a parent can provide encouragement, and a learner can look up the answer to evaluate the correctness of a response. Feedback, thus, is a ‘consequence’ of performance.
Feedback is often related to an educational context, from which follows that feedback, if it is supposed to be beneficial to someone's learning, must relate to the content to be learned. Hence, feedback is an integral part of teaching (Hattie and Timperley, 2007). According to Newton (2007), for a teacher to provide effective feedback, an assessment of the learner's progression should precede the feedback.
In their review of research on the effectiveness of feedback, Hattie and Timperley (2007) refer to Winne and Butler's (1994) description of the meaning of feedback, which in short is described as information with which a learner can confirm or restructure previous information. This kind of definition, together with the one of Hattie and Timperley (2007), is quite general and thus possible to interpret in different ways. However, Hattie and Timperley (2007: 102) also suggest a model for feedback use (elaborated on further in the theory section), providing a more detailed description of feedback through three questions: ‘Where am I going? How am I going? and Where to next?’ These questions are also used by Wiliam (2010) when he elaborates on feedback as a core strategy in AfL. The model suggested by Hattie and Timperley (2007) delivers tools to address what content and knowledge feedback is concerned with, rather than focusing on the how question, such as feedback as classroom talk (Heron et al., 2023), or feedback as ‘comments through interaction over time, with each other, the teacher, and relevant resources’ (Esterhazy and Damsa, 2017: 260).
In this study, we focus on how different ways of experiencing the meaning of feedback affect the content, in terms of knowledge, that the teachers’ feedback contains. Thus, we concur with scholars who emphasise that the educational quality of feedback depends on teachers’ knowledge of designing feedback processes, what is supposed to be learned and known (the object of learning), and the knowledge of the learners (Hattie and Timperley, 2007).
Research on feedback in education
Research on feedback in a PE context is sparse. Therefore, in this section, we present research on feedback in general educational contexts as well as in a PE context. Feedback is, as mentioned earlier, a key element of the concept of AfL. Since our focus in this study is feedback, we have chosen to present research explicitly addressing feedback, not only as part of AfL.
Research on feedback in general education
Mulliner and Tucker (2017) investigated how students and their teachers in higher education perceived feedback practices. Regarding perceptions of what was essential about effective feedback, it was strongly agreed that detailed direction for future improvement was important, as well as constructive and encouraging feedback. Both parties also agreed on the importance of having the opportunity to discuss the feedback face-to-face. The most significant finding in this study was that students did read and acknowledge feedback to a much larger extent than expected by the teachers. However, as Carless and Boud (2018) state, students in higher education have difficulties identifying and appreciating feedback when it is not in written form. In their study on student feedback literacy, feedback goes beyond a common sense understanding of feedback as information from a teacher telling students what to do. Their definition highlights the active role of the learner: Feedback is defined as a process through which learners make sense of information from various sources and use it to enhance their work or learning strategies. (Carless and Boud, 2018: 1315)
Carless and Boud (2018: 1316) assert that the ability to make sense of and use feedback should be included in what they define as student feedback literacy in terms of an: […] understanding of what feedback is and how it can be managed effectively; capacities and dispositions to make productive use of feedback; and appreciation of the roles of teachers and themselves in these processes.
In parallel with a definition of student feedback literacy, Carless and Winstone (2023: 4) suggest that ‘knowledge, expertise and dispositions to design feedback processes in ways which enable student uptake of feedback’ constitutes teacher feedback literacy in higher education. In an investigation of what constitutes feedback talk during teaching, Heron et al. (2023) identified rhetorical moves, such as elaboration, probing and consolidation. The authors emphasised the importance of feedback talk in building relations through affirmation, praise, and consolidation, which means that they extended the meaning of feedback to also include relational aspects.
The importance of feedback should further include a nuanced understanding of how it is delivered and how the students experience it (Murtagh, 2014). In an English school context with teachers and students (11–12 years old), Murtagh (2014) investigated how students experienced the motivational aspect of learning. The study found that extended written feedback, provided too often, was decreasing the students’ intrinsic motivation to expand their autonomous learning, despite the teachers’ expectations. The importance of accounting for students’ understanding of feedback is also underscored by Dann (2014: 149), who suggests teachers should ‘consider less about focused and directive feedback, but more about how learners interpret and understand feedback […]’. Focusing on how learners understand feedback will enhance a collaborative assessment practice.
Research on feedback in PE
Research on feedback in PE shows that it is not easy for PE teachers to provide feedback to enhance student learning. For example, research on AfL in PE demonstrates that feedback is not often foregrounded in PE teachers’ understanding of AfL (Leirhaug and MacPhail, 2015). The teachers’ commitment to sharing learning outcomes related to assessment criteria overshadows the learning process, including feedback (Leirhaug and MacPhail, 2015). Additionally, research shows that communicating and clarifying learning outcomes and criteria together with PE students does not provide opportunities for students to use teachers’ feedback beneficially (Sandal et al., 2022). Also, teachers’ feedback seldom focuses on learning goals, but rather on ‘where the learner is’, despite students’ expressed wish to receive information on how to improve (Treschman et al., 2024: 11). An interpretation of these problems might be that it is difficult for teachers to clarify what students should learn in more concrete ways than is formulated through learning goals and assessment criteria.
PE teachers’ and pre-service teachers’ difficulties in providing feedback beneficial for students’ learning are also strongly related to a reluctance to criticise students’ bodily performances in terms of correcting errors (Larsson and Nyberg, 2017; Tolgfors et al., 2021). From the perspective of PE teachers and pre-service teachers, correcting errors seems to be the only meaning of feedback available in their understanding of feedback concerning movement learning. It should be mentioned here that an alternative way of providing feedback to develop students’ movement capability was found in a study investigating AfL in a non-linear pedagogy context (Tolgfors et al., 2023). Here, feedback was described as an interaction between teachers and students in joint exploration. This included introducing learning strategies, encouraging students to clarify and verbalise the object of learning, helping students identify critical aspects of the movement activity, and inviting students to consider alternative learning trajectories. The content of this feedback did not involve critiquing students’ errors. Instead, the focus was on exploring together with students to learn more complex ways of moving.
The problem of teachers’ uneven distribution of feedback in PE lessons is highlighted by Lyngstad et al. (2022), whose study focused on students’ experiences of feedback as a resource in their learning process. In this study, students in a Norwegian context were interviewed regarding their perception of receiving feedback. The authors also considered students’ fitness levels, which they assumed affected their possibilities to achieve several learning goals in PE. They argued that low fitness levels negatively affect students’ learning processes due to teachers’ uneven distribution of feedback among their students. The findings reveal that the students with low fitness levels were provided less attention and feedback compared to their peers with high fitness levels (Lyngstad et al., 2022).
In the above-mentioned scoping review of how feedback has been researched, Treschman et al. (2024) argue that PE provides a unique context for variety in feedback due to the subject's practical characteristics. The authors emphasise that ‘given the variable and unique feedback opportunities in PE, specific attention should be given to how feedback is enacted and researched in this subject’ (Treschman et al., 2024: 3). Additionally, and relevant to our paper, the authors of this scoping review conclude that research on feedback in PE largely lacks the use of theory or models.
In conclusion, the previous research on feedback reveals that it is difficult to share learning outcomes and assessment criteria in a way that enhances students’ learning and that it is essential to know how to design feedback processes. The research also uncovers that PE teachers must communicate feedback to take students forward in their learning process. How feedback is enacted and what content the feedback refers to is thus a topic for further research. Research on feedback may provide ideas about how PETE can help pre-service teachers develop their feedback literacy. Additionally, as research on feedback in PE rarely relates to any theories or models, this paper aims to reduce this gap by discussing the results in relation to a theoretical model for feedback.
A theoretical model for feedback
Based on extensive research
1
on factors influencing learning in positive ways, Hattie and Timperley (2007) show that feedback is a powerful tool for enhancing learning. However, the power of feedback depends on how it is delivered, what it contains, how it is used by the learners and under what circumstances it is communicated. As a general result, Hattie and Timperley (2007) highlight the most and least potent features of feedback. When feedback is related to a task and the learner understands both the task and the teacher's feedback, it is meaningful for the learner to strive to learn what is intended. In contrast, feedback communicated as praise, rewards, and punishment is ineffective in promoting learning (Hattie and Timperley, 2007). Indeed, Hattie and Timperley (2007: 84) even dare to claim that ‘it is doubtful whether rewards should be thought of as feedback at all’. As an overall conclusion from their review of research on feedback, Hattie and Timperley (2007: 86) suggest: Effective feedback must answer three major questions asked by a teacher and/or by a student: Where am I going? (What are the goals?), How am I going? (What progress is being made toward the goal?), and Where to next? (What activities need to be undertaken to make better progress?) These questions correspond to notions of feed up, feedback, and feed forward.
Besides answering these questions, the feedback must also be communicated at an appropriate level to enhance learning. Hattie and Timperley (2007) suggest that it is important to distinguish between the level of task performance, the level of process in understanding how to do the task, the regulatory/metacognitive process level and/or the self- or personal level. The answers to the three questions above, and their relations to the four levels of feedback, constitute the content of feedback in our study.
Before we present Hattie and Timperley's (2007) model in more detail, we need to consider that their use of concepts clearly signals a notion of knowledge and learning as primarily a cognitive phenomenon. To be relevant for practical knowledge and significant for PE and PETE content, we must interpret concepts corresponding to cognitive understanding as including the ‘tacit knowledge involved in the doing’ (Carlgren, 2020: 5) when studying feedback related to movement learning.
Learning in PE is essentially a matter of embodied learning, meaning teachers’ feedback may also be based on non-verbal communication and not always delivered verbally to the learners (see e.g. Quennerstedt, 2013). Similarly, learners’ responses to and understanding of feedback likely involve non-verbal communication, embodied actions, and reactions to the feedback. Considering this notion of knowledge, we can conceive Hattie and Timperley's (2007) model of effective feedback as involving ways of knowing in moving and acting.
Feed up, feedback, and feed forward
The three questions to be answered by both teachers and students, Where am I going? How am I going? and Where to next?, are, as mentioned earlier, related to the concepts of feed up, feedback and feed forward (Hattie and Timperley, 2007). The meaning of feed up, that is, the first question, concerns clarifying the learning goals. A learning goal can be specific, such as mastering a particular way of moving, for example, dancing the foxtrot. Alternatively, it can be broader, such as grasping different ways of running in relation to various contexts and purposes. A learning goal could also be described in how it is formulated in curricula. In Sweden, where the authors are based, one learning goal is formulated as ‘develop all-round movement capacities’ (SNAE, 2022). However, such a learning goal is rather general, which may be challenging to clarify since ‘goals without clarity as to when and how a student (and teacher) would know they were successful are often too vague to serve the purpose of enhancing learning’ (Hattie and Timperley, 2007: 88).
Answering the second question, How am I going?, typically involves a teacher, a peer and/or the self. This is the feedback dimension, and too often this is regarded as the results of tests, which is insufficient in providing information to help learners and teachers with an answer to the how-question (Hattie and Timperley, 2007). This dimension of feedback is beneficial for learning if it relates to a specific task or a learning goal.
The third question, Where to next?, involves information about the next step in the learning process, that is, feed forward. Too often, the consequence is more information, more tasks, and more expectations. Hence, students learn that the answer to where to next is simply more of something. The power of feedback, however, can be used to specifically address this question by providing information that leads to better possibilities for learning. These may include increased challenges, greater opportunities for self-regulation over the learning process, greater fluency and automaticity, more strategies to work on the tasks, deeper understanding, and more information about what is and what is not understood. According to Hattie and Timperley (2007), feed forward can have some of the most powerful impacts on learning.
Four levels of feedback
Answers to each of the three questions described above are related to each other but also dealt with on different levels (Hattie and Timperley, 2007). The first level involves feedback related to a task (FT), such as creating a dance or a new game. The second level is about the process of learning (FP). It may include advising a learner on making progress, such as suggesting different ways of initiating a rotation in the air. Enhancing self-regulation is the third level of feedback (FR). Hattie and Timperley (2007) suggest that this can entail encouraging learners to use their skills. This could include grasping different ways to initiate a high jump for self-evaluation or deeper engagement on a task, such as considering what kind of initiation will create the most powerful momentum. Lastly, the fourth level involves the self (FS) and could include comments such as ‘Good girl, that is a great job’. The least adequate level, the authors argue, is feedback regarding the self, while feedback related to the task is most beneficial for learning. This model of feedback, developed by Hattie and Timperley (2007), will be useful in our study when discussing the outcome of our phenomenographic analysis, showing different ways of experiencing the meaning of feedback in PE.
Method
This paper reports a sub-study within a larger longitudinal project (see Backman et al., 2023) where we explore how PETE matters. The focus is on how the meaning of AfL, experienced by pre-service teachers, transforms during the transition from their last year in PETE to their professional practice as NQTs. In the larger project, pre-service teachers from two PETE institutions participated in the study for two years, and 21 of the 45 invited students accepted the invitation and signed informed consent in line with ethical requirements. At the project's end, eight participants had participated in all phases: university studies, school placement studies and professional practice. Data for the larger project were generated through: focus group interviews and seminars; PETE curriculum documents; group conversations on social media (Facebook); individual face-to-face interviews with PETE students during school practicum and at the initial phase as NQTs; field notes from observations of PETE students during school practicum; SR interviews with PETE students during school practicum and later as NQTs; and individual interviews with PE teacher educators.
Participants and data generation
For the purpose of this study, we analysed data from (a) individual SR interviews, (b) a focus group interview, and (c) individual semi-structured interviews with eight NQTs during the initial phase of their professional practice. All interviews were audio recorded and later transcribed by a third party.
The SR interviews (40–70 min) were conducted shortly after a lesson, which was video recorded by a visiting researcher. The filmed material was used only during the interview to stimulate discussions concerning occasions where AfL strategies were used (see Backman et al., 2023). The SR interviews were face-to-face and audio recorded while the visiting researcher and the interviewee watched sequences of the filmed lesson. The interviews followed SR interview procedures (Vesterinen et al., 2010), the aim being to stimulate the interviewee's reflection on teaching practice (Endacott, 2016). While watching the filmed sequences, the interviewer prompted the interviewee with questions related to different AfL strategies to stimulate discussions about, for example, how the teacher shared learning objectives, provided feedback, or activated students as learning resources for each other (see Backman et al., 2023).
The focus group interview (90 min) was conducted at a restaurant, situated at a convenient distance from where the NQTs lived. Two researchers from the research team took the role of moderators to stimulate interactive discussions (Smith and Sparkes, 2019) concerning the NQTs’ use of AfL, including feedback. The individual interviews (60–90 min) took place at the NQTs’ workplace (Kvale, 1996). The questions concerned, for example, the participants’ use of AfL, including their experiences of providing feedback to students, how they experienced possibilities and barriers for using AfL, and the overall assessment culture at their workplace.
All interviews were structured around AfL and its five key strategies. In this article, however, we focus only on the parts of the material that relate to feedback.
Analysis
Since we aimed to investigate the different ways the teachers experienced the meaning of feedback, we chose phenomenography as our analytical approach. Phenomenography is helpful when studying people's various ways of conceptualising, experiencing, or understanding something (Marton and Booth, 2000). Phenomenography has been used mainly in the context of education when investigating, for example, students’ experiencing of the meaning of learning (Marton, 1994), university teachers’ experiencing of the meaning of student learning (Booth and Anderberg, 2005) and PE teachers’ experiencing of the meaning of using a game-based approach (Jarrett and Light, 2018). Identifying different ways of experiencing a phenomenon, such as feedback, can contribute to a more complex understanding of the investigated phenomenon. The result of a phenomenographic analysis is called outcome space and is constructed by categories of description, which illustrate the different ways of experiencing a phenomenon within a group of people (Marton, 1994).
The first step of the phenomenographic analysis in this study was to note all expressions in the transcribed interviews, reflecting or relating to different theoretical descriptions of feedback. These expressions could be from either the teacher or the interviewer, discussing something recalled from earlier teaching or from the observed lesson during the SR interview. The descriptions were, however, not considered to provide categories in a deductive way. Expressions of feedback where content related to learning seemed to be lacking were also noted. In the second step, our interpretation of possible meanings the teachers seemed to ascribe to feedback were coded (Miles et al., 2013), and differences between possible meanings of feedback were explored, in line with the phenomenographic approach (Marton, 1994). For example, expressions such as ‘Yes, but more social needs … than learning something’ (Teacher M, focus group interview) were coded as social relationships and expressions such as ‘some of them (the students) were performing at a low level … as simple as forward rolls … then they needed to see … so you showed them how it should look like’ (Teacher A, focus group interview) were coded as showing the specific learning goal. At the same time, these expressions were interpreted as reflecting different meanings of feedback.
It is important to note that expressions from one teacher can reflect various ways of experiencing feedback. This means that the different categories of description represent different ways of experiencing feedback within the group of teachers, and what might be the content of feedback for the group as a whole (Marton and Booth, 2000). Additionally, even a single expression reflecting a particular meaning can form its own category. In step three, the categories were labelled as feedback ‘as something’, which illustrates an interpreted meaning of feedback. To increase confirmability as well as reliability, the initial coding and the categories were discussed in the research group, and based on those discussions, revised until settled, as presented in the result section.
Findings
The findings are presented as the qualitatively different ways the meaning of feedback was experienced in the group of NQTs. The naming of the categories reflects our interpreted meanings in terms of what content these kinds of feedback comprise. The identified categories are: (i) feedback as building relationships, (ii) feedback as peptalk, (iii) feedback as showing the right way to a specific target, (iv) feedback as encouraging bravery, curiosity, and bodily awareness, and (v) feedback as pointless.
Feedback as building relationships
In this category, feedback involves encouraging comments to build relationships between teachers and students. It is regarded as essential to build positive relationships in terms of meeting students’ need for attention. Teacher M recognises that some students need extra attention, thus asking for feedback to fill a social need. Giving these students the required feedback is important: So, she likes attention, and she’ll gladly take it if she gets the chance […] yes, but more social needs than learning as well. […] But she needs attention. Yes, for other needs, yes. (Teacher M, SR interview)
It seems that the specific content of the comments is less important than showing students that the teacher is paying attention to them, regardless of the subject matter being taught. Building positive relations is also initiated by the teacher by giving feedback to provide possibilities for students to be seen and confirmed rather than to learn anything specific: And then, again, this relational thing. It is in those times that I have the chance to interact with the students and build some kind of trust or relationship, whatever it is like […] You don’t want any student who has gone through a whole lesson, this kind of lesson, and has never been seen or spoken to or even sort of confirmed, whatever it is. Just to say ‘well done’ or ‘think about this’ so this student feels seen. (Teacher B, individual interview)
Experiencing feedback as building relationships, as described in the quote above, may or may not include detailed explanations regarding the students’ performance or learning process. However, whatever the feedback includes is regarded as secondary compared to building positive relations between teacher and students. The content of feedback is thus the building of relations.
Feedback as peptalk
In this category, feedback is used to encourage students not to give up or to continue practising a specific task, such as endurance training. The comments are sometimes general and public, directed at an entire group, such as ‘good work’ when playing a game. These comments are sometimes explained as a result of not knowing what specific feedback to provide: Of course, I want to do better, but I don’t know, I don’t really have the tools to be more specific either, but that's it … me. I think that's probably why I often resort to what you termed as peptalk. (Teacher BK, individual interview)
As the quote indicates, these comments might derive from insufficient content knowledge. According to some teachers, general encouraging comments directed at a group of students can serve to provide at least some feedback when you, as a new teacher, do not yet know the students’ names. The feedback is sometimes meant to cheer up students and keep up a good mood: ‘But if you push a little bit […] then it could work, on some occasions, yes’ (Teacher BM, SR interview).
An important aim of feedback in this category is to keep students on task and in a good mood. Feedback comments involve messages that signal the teacher's expectations and a desire to keep the students active and disciplined. The content of feedback in this category is thus the encouragement to continue working, regardless of what this work aims at.
Feedback as showing the right way to a specific target
In this category, feedback is experienced as showing or telling students how to perform specific movements. As a teacher, you seem to feel responsible for showing what a movement should look like when the students demonstrate what the teacher regards as a low level of performance: Some students need to be shown. […] some were at forward roll level, and needed a demonstration of what it should look like. (Teacher A, focus group interview)
A teacher could also sense a need to provide detailed instructions, verbally as well as bodily, to help students experience and grasp, for example, how to throw a ball correctly. This means taking a specific starting position and then moving their limbs in specific ways: […] there, I can work a little with them when they are facing each other and just throwing the ball. There you can see quite clearly some who do not have a pendulum movement in the arm, which does not activate the wrist. (Teacher B, SR interview)
Showing how to move in a correct way can also involve instructions to watch video clips displaying ways of performing movements. This could be done by asking students to film each other and then observe how you move and if, for example, the joints are extended or flexed when performing a specific movement: […] in a handstand for example […] when you film each other looking at this, regarding movement skills ‘can I stretch there and can I stand here’, like that. (Teacher D, SR interview)
In this category, showing the right way to perform a specific movement, an aim seems to be providing students with a repertoire of movements to ‘give them examples of what it could look like’ (Teacher F, SR interview). A repertoire of movements is regarded as a collection from which you can choose relevant movements when needed. To create this collection, students should be instructed through demonstrations, watching videos, and receiving verbal information about learning and mastering a range of specific movements. In this category, the content of feedback is the movements to be learned and the errors to avoid in reaching the performance target.
Feedback as encouraging bravery, curiosity, and bodily awareness
In this category, feedback is experienced as encouraging students’ curiosity and willingness to try out and learn new or more complex ways of moving. To achieve this, the teacher must often persuade reluctant students that they will manage to perform movement tasks they initially thought they were incapable of, such as swimming in deep water: Last time she did this was also not in deep water, so I said ‘no, this is too easy for you’ […]. ‘I think you should try it in deep water, because I know you will manage.’ (Teacher D, SR interview)
Besides encouraging students to be brave, promoting their bodily awareness is essential in this category. This feedback content could be addressed by asking the students how it feels to move, encouraging their bodily awareness and curiosity through comments and questions, such as ‘now you did it like this, why?’ (Teacher B, individual interview) or, as in the example below, inviting a peer to mediate how it feels to be towed in the water to help a peer to swim (tow) in a more purposeful way: And then, the peer who gets towed … feels like ‘this feels safe’ and says that ‘no, maybe you have to help me come up more (closer to surface)’. (Teacher D, SR interview)
Encouraging students to be aware of, in terms of sensing and feeling, their own and others’ ways of moving could also be regarded as providing a more challenging task. Such a task could entail exploring different ways to develop and perform movements in a more complex way: Yes, we have had both parkour and gymnastics, and you are trying to … ok, can you work with this roll so you can use more muscle strength and find a way to make it look more like gymnastics? (Teacher M, SR interview)
Experiencing feedback as encouraging students’ bravery, curiosity, and bodily awareness could also comprise different ways to develop more complex and purposeful ways of moving. Hence, the content of feedback in this category foregrounds different ways to help students develop and perform movements.
Feedback as pointless
Feedback in this category is experienced as pointless, regardless of the learning content it involves. Experiencing feedback as pointless includes a sense of resignation due to students’ disinterest in developing their capabilities in PE. ‘They don’t care, they have tried it once and then they are satisfied’ (Teacher M, focus group interview).
The sense of pointlessness is grounded in an experience of students’ lack of ability, or lack of interest, to reflect on and to use the feedback to develop their movement capabilities. Included in the experience of feedback as pointless is also an insight into the difficulties of providing meaningful and comprehensible feedback: But I think it's difficult, feedback, formative assessment […] to get the students to reflect on it and bring it with them to the next task. I think it's challenging to do this in a good way […]. (Teacher A, focus group interview)
Additionally, feedback is considered pointless due to students’ lack of persistence when practising. The students seem pleased with having tried out something once. The challenge of providing feedback that inspires and encourages students to develop further seems to make teachers feel that their feedback is pointless. The content of feedback is the development of movement capabilities, but when students are unwilling to act on this feedback, it is perceived as pointless.
Discussion
The aim of this paper was to explore different ways in which NQTs experienced the meaning of feedback. The phenomenographic analysis of the ways feedback was experienced resulted in five identified categories (see Table 1), which we discuss in relation to the questions and different levels of feedback (Hattie and Timperley, 2007).
Hattie and Timperley's (2007) model of feedback with three questions and four levels of feedback, related to the findings.
In all categories, the context in which the feedback was provided was related mainly to movement activities such as games, swimming, gymnastics, throwing and parkour. These activities also seemed to be regarded as something the students were supposed to learn and what the teachers referred to when talking about their teaching and use of AfL in general.
Where am I going? How am I going? Where to next?
Our findings reveal that these questions were insufficiently answered in categories one, two and five. When feedback was experienced as building relationships, the content was random and could occasionally answer the questions, although this did not seem planned. Feedback experienced as peptalk did not answer any of the questions since the teachers’ comments focused on encouraging students not to give up or continue practising a task. Often, the comments were directed at an entire group, such as in ‘good job’. These comments were sometimes explained (by the teachers) as a result of insufficient knowledge of what students should learn and, consequently, what to give feedback on (Nuthall, 2004). There is also the possibility that this kind of feedback is related to teachers’ reluctance to criticise students’ ways of moving (Larsson and Nyberg, 2017; Tolgfors et al., 2021). Further, feedback experienced as pointless could include intentions to answer the questions but with limited consequence due to no shared meaning.
However, when learners show no interest in developing their movement capabilities, they neither engage in a shared understanding of the meaning of the questions nor their possible answers. This disinterest can be interpreted as a lack of feedback literacy on the part of the students, the teachers (Carless and Boud, 2018), or both. There is also the possibility that students feel that ‘anything goes’, meaning that developing movement capabilities is not required in PE. It could be assumed that students’ insufficient understanding of what they are supposed to know, combined with teachers’ lack of knowledge of the educational content, may contribute to students’ apparent disinterest in further practice (Carlgren et al., 2015; Hattie and Timperley, 2007; Nuthall, 2004).
Categories three and four potentially answered all three questions, although in different ways. Experiencing feedback as showing the right way to a specific target suggests that the teacher comments on students’ ways of moving when they were not performing them as desired, i.e. in a specific way that aligns with a gold standard (Larsson and Nyberg, 2017). Thereby the learning goal was self-evident, answering the question, Where am I going? The second question, How am I going?, was in this category answered by the teacher in terms of the need to correct errors. The answer to the third question, Where to next?, was clear if the learner needed to be corrected, and when the learner performed a movement correctly (according to the teacher), the learning process seemed to be regarded as ended. Experiencing feedback as encouraging bravery, curiosity, and bodily awareness was the most complex way of experiencing feedback. Answers to the question How am I going? could be, for example, that the learner could develop their ways of moving. Here, the answer to the question Where am I going? also seemed to mean quite specific ways of moving, even though the learning process did not adhere to just one correct way. Similar to the educational content in feedback in the study by Tolgfors et al. (2023), the learner was encouraged to explore different ways of solving a movement task and to be aware of how it feels when moving. Feedback in this category answered the question Where to next? by encouraging learners to be aware of their way of moving and to be more distinct when moving.
In sum, category three – feedback as showing the right way to a specific target – and category four – feedback as encouraging bravery, curiosity, and bodily awareness – represent feedback content which may enhance students’ possibilities to develop their movement capabilities since the feedback relates to what is supposed to be learned (Hattie and Timperley, 2007). To further unpack the content of feedback, we will discuss the categories in relation to the four levels of feedback in the next section.
The task, the process, self-regulation, and the self
The identified categories can be further discussed in relation to various levels of feedback related to a task (FT), the process of learning (FP), enhancing self-regulation (FR), and the self (FS) (see Table 1) (Hattie and Timperley, 2007).
The first category, feedback experienced as building relationships, could occasionally involve all levels. However, the level related to the self is close to the purpose of building positive relations. Feedback as peptalk seems to express examples of the level of self-regulation since the purpose could be interpreted as encouraging students to stay on task. However, it was often not clear what the task was about. Instead, what was foregrounded is better described as ‘keep being active’. The fifth category, feedback as pointless, contained feedback that could potentially relate to all levels, although pointless, due to the students’ disinterest or lack of feedback literacy (Carless and Boud, 2018).
Categories three – feedback as showing the right way to a specific target – and four – feedback as encouraging bravery, curiosity, and bodily awareness – contained feedback related to a task that seemed quite explicit and clear. Category four also provided examples of feedback to encourage students to find alternative ways of solving a task in line with feedback in the study of AfL in non-linear pedagogy (Tolgfors et al., 2023). According to Hattie and Timperley (2007), feedback related to a task is the most beneficial for learning, while feedback related to students as people is the least effective.
It could be argued, however, that building positive relationships and peptalk might benefit learning in the long run, which is emphasised by Heron et al. (2023). Hattie and Timperley's (2007) model of feedback was based on research with a strong focus on learning in a quite narrow sense, specifically targeting cognitive goals over relatively short periods of time. On the other hand, task-related feedback, as well as answering the three questions – Where am I going? How am I going? and Where to next? – can be provided in ways that build positive relationships and encourage students to be curious, explore, be aware of their learning process, and enhance self-esteem and courage. Our findings suggest that experiencing feedback as encouraging bravery, curiosity, and bodily awareness exemplifies feedback content that can provide beneficial learning experiences and foster positive self-perception.
A central aspect we identified in our analysis is the issue of the teachers’ subject knowledge in movement. The content of feedback in categories three and four was, as discussed above, related to a relatively straightforward and explicit task. The feedback comments indicated that the teachers had developed subject knowledge in movement, which was not as prominent in the other categories. In line with Nuthall (2004) and Hattie and Timperley (2007), teachers’ knowledge of the subject content, as well as their knowledge of what students are supposed to learn, are significant for feedback to enhance learning. Hence, we argue that substantial knowledge of feedback is insufficient if teachers do not have substantial subject knowledge.
How can PETE engage in enabling teachers’ feedback knowledge?
The findings of this study reveal that feedback was experienced in various ways. Some types of feedback contained content that may help students learn what is intended. Other ways of experiencing feedback generated content that does not relate to any intended learning goal other than being physically active in the here and now.
If PETE is to provide opportunities for future teachers to learn more deeply about how feedback can be educationally worthwhile, this study offers some advice for development. A significant aspect is related to the educational content in PE, which in this study concerns knowledge in movement. As Nuthall (2004) and other researchers emphasise, teachers’ subject knowledge, as well as their knowledge of how students understand what they are supposed to learn, is crucial for the quality of feedback. Therefore, these aspects should be highlighted more in PETE. It is well known that the concept of knowledge in movement, in PE as well as in PETE, is conceived in very different ways and is rarely addressed as an explicit educational aim (Hay and MacDonald, 2010; Larsson and Nyberg, 2017). Consequently, PE teacher educators need to help their students develop subject knowledge in movement. Furthermore, PETE should provide opportunities for students to practice giving educationally worthwhile feedback, such as with peers or during school placements. Additionally, PE teacher educators could reflect on the feedback they offer their students to create rich opportunities for discussing how feedback can be helpful in learning processes. In this way, PE teachers’ feedback can potentially be content-rich and purposeful and ‘increase opportunities for students to better understand conceptions of success in where they are going’ (Treschman et al., 2024: 15), and thus also be experienced by the students as meaningful. As we have seen in this study, students need to be ‘hungry’ for feedback to work; otherwise, there is a risk that they will be fed up. Thus, PETE could also provide pre-service teachers with feedback tools to encourage curiosity (Dann, 2014) and a continual ‘hunger’ for knowledge. Students in PE need to know what they are supposed to learn.
Footnotes
Data availability
All data from the project are safely stored at Dalarna University.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The research project was funded by the Swedish Research Council (2018-03626).
Ethical approval
Ethical approval was obtained for the research projectThe Swedish ethical review authority: Dnr 2019-05727.
