







































 
 

  
 
  

 
EDUCATIO : Journal Of Education 
Volume 9 , Number 1, May 2025 

 ISSN : 2579-8383 (Print) ISSN : 2579-8405 (Online) 

 

  

Relationship Between Teachers’ Feedback and Students’ Self-

Efficacy Among Mathematics Majors: A Correlational Study 

 
KC Ann B. Adelante1, Princess R. Natalio2, Krysna Emerald C. Abenes3, Jomar D.G. Esguerra4, 

Donna Michelle A. Gomez5, John Vincent L. Santos6 

Undergraduate Researcher, Holy Cross College, Sta. Rosa, NE, Inc. Philippines1234 

Adviser, Holy Cross College, Sta. Rosa, NE, Inc. Philippines56 

j.vince103@gmail.com 

 

Accepted: 
Jan 28th 2025 

Reviewed: 
March 18th 2025 

Published: 
May 30th 2025 

 

Abstract  
This study aims to investigate the relationship between teachers' feedback and students' self-

efficacy among 33 Bachelor of Secondary Education students majoring in Mathematics at Holy 

Cross College, Rosa, N.E. Inc. A correlational research design was employed to examine the 

variables, with data analyzed using Spearman Rank-Order Correlation. The results revealed a 

significant positive relationship between teachers' feedback and students' self-efficacy (rho = 

0.541, p < 0.001). Additionally, age was found to have a significant relationship with both teachers' 

feedback and students' self-efficacy. However, no significant relationship was identified between 

students' year level and self-efficacy. These findings suggest that teachers' feedback plays a crucial 

role in enhancing students' self-efficacy, highlighting the importance of feedback as a motivational 

tool in educational settings. The study emphasizes the need for educators to provide timely and 

constructive feedback to improve students' belief in their own abilities. 

Keywords: Teachers’ Feedback, Students’ Sefl-Efficacy, Spearman Rank-Order Correlation, Quantitative 

Data 

 

 By Authors 
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International 
License. 

 

Introduction 

Mathematics education plays a crucial role in students' academic success and future 

opportunities. Despite its significance, many students struggle with both engagement and 

confidence in this subject. Teacher feedback has been identified as one of the key factors that can 

influence student performance and attitudes. Feedback, defined as information provided by an 

agent about an individual’s performance or understanding, is vital in the teaching and learning 

mailto:riyu.choirul57@gmail.com
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


 
 

  
 
  

Volume 9, Number 1, May 2025| 29 

 

  

process 1. It not only guides students towards improved performance but also motivates them to 

achieve higher academic success 2. However, the impact of feedback can vary, sometimes 

producing positive outcomes while at other times leading to negative consequences. 

Schwab et al. 3 emphasize the importance of teacher feedback in influencing students’ 

academic achievement. Feedback has become a central element in educational research, as it is a 

key environmental instructional variable that can significantly affect students' self-efficacy and 

motivation. The role of feedback in fostering self-efficacy has been highlighted by Schunk & 

DiBenedetto 4, who assert that an enhanced sense of self-efficacy helps sustain student motivation 

and improves learning outcomes. 

Self-efficacy, a concept introduced by Bandura 5, refers to an individual's belief in their 

ability to execute tasks and produce specific performance outcomes. It is closely linked to student 

motivation and engagement. Linnenbrink & Pintrich , as cited in Sokmen 6, suggest that students 

with higher self-efficacy are more engaged in terms of behavior, cognition, and motivation 

compared to their peers. Such students are more likely to demonstrate sustained effort, improved 

learning outcomes, and greater academic achievement. 

While the significance of both teacher feedback and self-efficacy is widely recognized in 

mathematics education, there remains a gap in research concerning the specific relationship 

between these two variables, particularly in teacher education programs. As Henderson et al. 7 

highlight, feedback is a socially constructed process, and Dawson et al. (2018) argue that many 

instructors rely on personal opinions rather than empirical evidence to shape their feedback 

 
1 Benedikt Wisniewski, Klaus Zierer, and John Hattie, “The Power of Feedback Revisited: A Meta-Analysis of 

Educational Feedback Research,” Frontiers in psychology 10 (January 22, 2020): 3087, 
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32038429; John Hattie and Helen Timperley, “The Power of Feedback,” Review of 
Educational Research 77, no. 1 (2007): 81–112, http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487. 

2 N Mandhane  Ansari, S., Shaikh, T. P., & Deolekar, S., “Positive Feedback: A Tool for Quality Education in 
Field of Medicine,” International Journal of Research in Medical Sciences, 3(8), 1868-1873 (n.d.), 
http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20150293. 

3 S Schwab  Markus, S., & Hassani, S., “Teachers’ Feedback in The Context of Students’ Social Acceptance, 
Students’ Well-Being in School and Students’ Emotions,” Educational Studies, 1–18 (n.d.), 
https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2021.2023475; Zongyi Deng, “Constructing ‘Powerful’ Curriculum Theory,” 
Journal of Curriculum Studies (2021). 

4 D H Schunk  & DiBenedetto, M. K., “Self-Efficacy and Human Motivation,” In Advances in motivation science 
(n.d.), https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.adms.2020.10.001; Dale H Schunk and Maria K DiBenedetto, “Motivation and 
Social Cognitive Theory,” Contemporary Educational Psychology 60 (2020): 101832, 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101832. 

5 Prachee Sehgal, Ranjeet Nambudiri, and Sushanta Kumar Mishra, “Teacher Effectiveness through Self-
Efficacy, Collaboration and Principal Leadership,” International Journal of Educational Management (2017); Melissa J. 
Bourne, Suzanne C. Smeltzer, and Michelle M. Kelly, “Clinical Teacher Self-Efficacy: A Concept Analysis,” Nurse 
Education in Practice, 2021; Albert Bandura, Self Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: W. H.. Freeman & Company, 
n.d. 

6 Y Sökmen, “The Role of Self-Efficacy in the Relationship between the Learning Environment and Student 
Engagement,” Educational Studies, 47(1), 19-37 (n.d.), https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2019.1665986. 

7 M Henderson  Phillips, M., Ryan, T., Boud, D., Dawson, P., Molloy, E., & Mahoney, P., “Conditions That 
Enable Effective Feedback,” Higher Education Research & Development/Higher Education Research and Development, 38(7), 
1401–1416 (n.d.), https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1657807. 



 
 

  
 
  

Volume 9, Number 1, May 2025| 30 

 

  

practices. Furthermore, Boud & Molloy 8 note that feedback processes in higher education often 

face challenges in implementation, often failing to have the desired impact on student learning. 

This correlational study aims to explore the relationship between teachers’ feedback and 

students' self-efficacy among Bachelor of Secondary Education majors in mathematics at Holy 

Cross College, Sta. Rosa, N.E. Inc. The research examines how teachers' feedback practices 

influence students' self-efficacy beliefs and, consequently, their confidence and engagement in 

mathematics education. The findings are expected to offer valuable insights into the factors that 

contribute to students' academic motivation and provide a foundation for improving pedagogical 

practices. 

The study will address several key questions: 1) How can the demographic profile of the 

respondents be described? 2) How can the teachers' feedback be described? 3) How can the 

students' self-efficacy be described? 4) Is there a significant relationship between the demographic 

profile and teachers' feedback? 5) Is there a significant relationship between the demographic 

profile and students' self-efficacy? 6) Is there a significant relationship between teachers' feedback 

and students' self-efficacy? 

Through a comprehensive examination of these variables, this study seeks to inform 

teacher training initiatives and offer strategies for enhancing mathematics education by fostering 

students' self-efficacy and confidence through effective feedback mechanisms. 

 

Method 

This study utilized a correlational research design to explore the relationship between 

teachers' feedback and students' self-efficacy in mathematics learning. A correlational approach 

was chosen to determine the extent and direction of the relationship between the two variables. 

The primary aim of this methodology was to investigate how feedback from teachers influences 

the self-efficacy of students in their mathematical studies, as this relationship can potentially 

enhance students' academic performance and motivation. 

 

Research Setting and Participants 

The study was conducted at Holy Cross College Sta. Rosa, N.E. Inc., located in Poblacion 

Rizal, Santa Rosa, Nueva Ecija. The participants included students enrolled in the Bachelor of 

Secondary Education Major in Mathematics program. A total of 33 students were selected to 

participate in this study, ensuring a representative sample from the targeted population. 

 

Data Collection 

Quantitative data were collected through the use of two structured questionnaires. The first 

instrument was designed to measure teachers' feedback, adapted from the work of Mehregan and 

Seresht 9. This instrument was used to assess various aspects of feedback that students received, 

 
8 Ibid.; Phillip Dawson et al., “What Makes for Effective Feedback: Staff and Student Perspectives,” Assessment 

&amp; Evaluation in Higher Education 44, no. 1 (2018): 25–36, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1467877. 
9 M Mehregan  & Seresht, D., “The Role of Teacher Feedback in Enhancing Learner Self-Efficacy and 

Motivation in Computer-Assisted Environments” (n.d.), 
https://mextesol.net/journal/index.php?page=journal&id_article=562. 



 
 

  
 
  

Volume 9, Number 1, May 2025| 31 

 

  

including frequency, type, and perceived effectiveness. The second instrument was the New 

General Self-Efficacy Scale 10, which was used to evaluate students’ beliefs in their ability to 

perform effectively in different situations, with a focus on their mathematical learning outcomes. 

 

Data Analysis 

The data collected were analyzed using the Spearman Rank-Order Correlation Coefficient, 

a non-parametric statistical method suitable for measuring the strength and direction of 

associations between ranked variables. This method was chosen because it allows for the 

assessment of ordinal data without the assumption of a normal distribution . Spearman’s 

correlation is effective in determining the degree of relationship between teachers' feedback and 

students' self-efficacy, as it provides a measure of both the intensity and direction of these 

associations 11. The statistical analysis was performed using appropriate software to ensure accurate 

interpretation of the results. 

By employing this methodological approach, the study sought to provide a detailed 

understanding of how teachers' feedback influences the self-efficacy of students in mathematics 

and to identify potential areas for improving pedagogical practices in this field. 

 

Results and Discussion 

Demographic Profile 

The respondents were analyzed based on their gender, age, and year level. The demographic details 

provide insight into the sample composition and how these characteristics may relate to perceptions of 

teacher feedback and self-efficacy. 

Table 1 – Demographic Profile: Gender 

Gender Frequency Percentage 

Female 19 57.6% 

Male 14 42.4% 

TOTAL 33 100.0% 
 

The distribution of respondents based on gender reveals that a majority, 57.6% (n=19), are female, 

while 42.4% (n=14) are male. This reflects a slightly higher representation of female Mathematics majors 

in the sample. The difference suggests that female students are more represented in this cohort, which 

could influence perceptions of feedback and self-efficacy since gender dynamics in mathematics learning 

often differ in terms of confidence levels and responsiveness to feedback. 

 

Table 2 – Demographic Profile: Age 

Age Frequency Percentage 

17 – 20 years old 16 48.5% 

21 – 24 years old 14 42.4% 

25 years old & above 3 9.1% 

TOTAL 33 100.0% 

 
10 Gilad Chen, Stanley M. Gully, and Dov Eden, “Validation of a New General Self-Efficacy Scale,” Organizational 

Research Methods (2001). 
11 A S B Perez  & Santos, J. V. L., “Alignment of The Holy Cross College STA. Rosa Student’s Program with 

Their Interest and Skills,” EDUCATIO: Journal of Education, 7(1), 25-32 (n.d.). 



 
 

  
 
  

Volume 9, Number 1, May 2025| 32 

 

  

 

The age distribution shows that nearly half of the respondents (48.5%) are within the 17-20 age 

group, followed closely by 42.4% in the 21-24 age range. Only 9.1% are aged 25 and above. This distribution 

suggests that the sample predominantly consists of traditional college-aged students, which may impact the 

generalizability of their self-efficacy levels as younger students might still be developing confidence in 

mathematics. Conversely, older students may possess different perspectives and levels of self-efficacy based 

on maturity and prior academic experiences. 

Table 3 – Demographic Profile: Year Level 

Year Level Frequency Percentage 

1BSEDM – A  6 18.2% 

2BSEDM – A  10 30.3% 

3BSEDM – A  13 39.4% 

4BSEDM – A  4 12.1% 

TOTAL 33 100.0% 
 

The year level distribution indicates that the largest proportion of respondents (39.4%) are third-

year Mathematics majors, followed by 30.3% in the second year. First-year students account for 18.2%, 

while the fourth-year level has the least representation at 12.1%. This trend suggests that most respondents 

are in the middle stages of their academic journey, which is significant as students in their second and third 

years are likely to have been exposed to various forms of teacher feedback and experienced challenges that 

influence their self-efficacy. The smaller number of fourth-year students may reflect either a smaller 

graduating batch or challenges in reaching these students during data collection. 

 

Table 4 – Weighted Mean of Teacher’s Feedback and Self Efficacy 

Variable  Mean Verbal Description 

Teachers’ Feedback 4.269 Agree 

Students Self-Efficacy 4.212 Agree 

General Weighted Mean 4.241 Agree 
 

Table 4 presents the weighted mean scores of teachers’ feedback and students’ self-efficacy. The 

mean score for teachers’ feedback is 4.269, while the mean for students’ self-efficacy is 4.212. Both fall 

under the verbal description “Agree” based on the rating scale used. The general weighted mean of 4.241 

further indicates that respondents generally hold positive perceptions of both variables. 

 

Relationship between Demographic Profile and Teacher’s Feedback  
 

Table 5 – Relationship between Age and Teacher’s Feedback 

Variable 1 Variable 2 rho-value p-value Decision Remarks 

Age Teachers’ Feedback 0.423 0.014 Reject H0 Significant 
 

Table 5 presents the correlation between respondents’ age and their perception of teachers’ 

feedback. The computed rho-value of 0.423 indicates a moderate positive correlation between the two 

variables. This suggests that as students grow older, their perception of the feedback provided by their 

teachers tends to become more positive. 

The p-value of 0.014 is less than the significance level of 0.05, leading to the rejection of the null 

hypothesis. This means that age has a significant relationship with students’ perception of teachers’ 



 
 

  
 
  

Volume 9, Number 1, May 2025| 33 

 

  

feedback. Older students may value feedback more due to their maturity and increased understanding of 

its role in enhancing their academic performance. 

This finding is consistent with the study conducted by Carvalho et al. 12, which revealed that 

younger students between 14 and 19 years old considered teachers’ feedback as practical educational 

guidance. Similarly, in this study, students within the higher age range showed a significant appreciation of 

feedback, further emphasizing the value students place on teacher responses as they mature. 

 

Table 6 – Relationship between Year Level and Teacher’s Feedback 

Variable 1 Variable 2 rho-value p-value Decision Remarks 

Year Level Teachers’ Feedback 0.133 0.460 Fail to Reject H0 Not Significant 
 

 Table 6 shows the correlation result between respondents’ year level and their perception of 

teachers’ feedback. The computed rho-value of 0.133 suggests a very weak positive correlation, which 

means that year level has little to no relationship with how students perceive their teachers’ feedback. 

With a p-value of 0.460, which is higher than the 0.05 significance level, the null hypothesis is not 

rejected. This implies that there is no significant relationship between year level and students' perception of 

teachers' feedback. Regardless of their academic standing, students generally perceive feedback similarly. 

This result aligns with the findings of Wei et al. 13, who observed that as students advanced in their 

studies, their satisfaction with the quality and quantity of feedback did not show statistically significant 

differences between senior and junior students. This similarity suggests that expectations or experiences 

regarding feedback may remain consistent across year levels. 

 

Relationship between Demographic Profile and Students’ Self-Efficacy 
Table 7 – Relationship between Age and Students’ Self-Efficacy 

Variable 1 Variable 2 rho-value p-value Decision Remarks 

Age Students Self-Efficacy 0.386 0.026 Reject H0 Significant 
 

Table 7 presents the correlation between respondents' age and their self-efficacy. The computed 

rho-value of 0.386 indicates a moderate positive correlation, suggesting that as students' age increases, their 

level of self-efficacy also tends to improve. 

The p-value of 0.026 is less than the significance level of 0.05, leading to the rejection of the null 

hypothesis. This finding implies that age has a significant relationship with students’ self-efficacy, where 

older students tend to exhibit higher confidence in their academic abilities. 

This result is consistent with the study of Kolo et al. 14, which revealed that 80.82% of college 

students aged 19 to 34 years demonstrated higher levels of academic self-efficacy. The finding emphasizes 

that as students mature, their belief in their capacity to achieve academic tasks strengthens. 

Table 8 – Relationship between Year Level and Students’ Self-Efficacy 

 
12 C Carvalho  Martins, D., Santana, L. E., & Feliciano, L., “Teacher Feedback: Educational Guidance in 

Different School Contexts,” Procedia: Social & Behavioral Sciences, 159, 219–223 (n.d.), 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.12.360; Luísa Carvalho, “Quality Education for All: A Fuzzy Set Analysis of 
Sustainable Development Goal Compliance” (2024). 

13 W Wei  Sun, Y., & Xu, X., “Investigating The Impact of Increased Student Feedback Literacy Level on Their 
Expectations on University Teachers’ Feedback,” Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education/Assessment & Evaluation 
in Higher Education, 46(7), 1092–1103 (n.d.), https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1846017. 

14 A G Kolo  Jaafar, W. M. B. W., & Ahmad, N. B., “Relationship Between Academic Self-Efficacy Believed of 
College Students and Academic Performance,” IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science (IOSR-JHSS), 22(1), 75-80 
(n.d.), https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313315847_Relationship_between_Academic_Self-
efficacy_Believed_of_College_Students_and_Academic_Performance. 



 
 

  
 
  

Volume 9, Number 1, May 2025| 34 

 

  

Variable 1 Variable 2 rho-
value 

p-
value 

Decision Remarks 

Year Level Students Self-
Efficacy 

0.139 0.441 Fail to Reject 
H0 

Not 
Significant 

 

Table 8 displays the relationship between the respondents' year level and their self-efficacy. The 

computed rho-value of 0.139 indicates a very weak positive correlation, suggesting little to no association 

between these two variables. 

The p-value of 0.441, which is greater than the significance level of 0.05, leads to failing to reject 

the null hypothesis. This means that year level does not have a significant relationship with students’ self-

efficacy. Regardless of what year they are in, students’ confidence in their academic abilities remains 

relatively similar. 

Interestingly, this finding contrasts with the study by Panadero et al. 15, which found that year level 

was a significant factor influencing students’ self-efficacy. In their study, students’ self-efficacy levels varied 

depending on their academic standing. However, in the current study, no such significant relationship was 

observed. 

 

Relationship between Teacher’s Feedback and Students’ Self-Efficacy 
Table 9 – Relationship between Teacher’s Feedback and Students’ Self-Efficacy 

Variable 1 Variable 2 rho-value p-value Decision Remarks 

Teachers’ Feedback Students Self-Efficacy 0.541 0.001 Reject H0 Significant 
 

Table 9 presents the relationship between teachers’ feedback and students’ self-efficacy. The 

computed rho-value of 0.541 indicates a moderate positive correlation, suggesting that higher levels of 

perceived teacher feedback are associated with increased student self-efficacy. 

The p-value of 0.001 is significantly less than the alpha level of 0.05, leading to the rejection of the 

null hypothesis. This result confirms that there is a statistically significant relationship between teachers’ 

feedback and students’ self-efficacy. 

The findings align with the study of Ruegg 16, which emphasized the positive effect of teachers’ feedback 

on students’ writing self-efficacy. According to Ruegg, timely and constructive feedback from teachers helps 

boost students’ confidence in their academic skills, reinforcing their belief in their ability to accomplish 

learning tasks effectively 

 

Discussion 

The findings of this study highlight the significant role that teachers' feedback plays in shaping 

students' self-efficacy in mathematics. This section discusses the results in relation to the theoretical 

framework, comparing them to previous research, and providing insights into how the findings contribute 

to the existing literature. 

 

Teachers’ Feedback and Self-Efficacy 

One of the key findings of this study is the strong positive correlation between teachers' feedback 

and students' self-efficacy (rho = 0.541, p = 0.001). This finding supports the theoretical framework of self-

 
15 E Panadero  García-Pérez, D., Ruiz, J. F., Fraile, J., Sánchez-Iglesias, I., & Brown, G. T. L., “Feedback and 

Year Level Effects on University Students’ Self-Efficacy and Emotions During Self-Assessment,” Educational 
Psychology, 43(7), 756–779 (n.d.), https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2023.2254015. 

16 R Ruegg, “The Effect of Peer and Teacher Feedback on Changes in EFL Students’ Writing Self-Efficacy,” 
Language Learning Journal, 46(2), 87–102 (n.d.), https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2014.958190. 



 
 

  
 
  

Volume 9, Number 1, May 2025| 35 

 

  

efficacy as proposed by Bandura 17, which suggests that individuals' beliefs in their ability to perform specific 

tasks influence their actions and outcomes. The positive relationship between feedback and self-efficacy is 

consistent with previous research by Schunk and DiBenedetto 18, who emphasized that effective feedback 

boosts students' confidence and motivation, leading to greater engagement and academic success. 

Feedback is widely recognized as a key instructional tool that influences students' perceptions of 

their abilities. According to Hattie and Timperley 19 , feedback serves as a mechanism through which 

students can assess their progress, make adjustments, and enhance their performance. The findings in this 

study align with this perspective, showing that when students perceive feedback as constructive and 

supportive, they are more likely to develop a stronger belief in their capacity to succeed in mathematics. 

In addition, the results align with those of Santos and Jocson 20, who found that students who 

received clear and helpful feedback demonstrated higher self-efficacy. This suggests that teachers' feedback 

does not merely provide information about a student's performance but also plays an essential role in 

reinforcing students' beliefs in their academic capabilities. The present study extends this body of literature 

by specifically focusing on mathematics education and providing empirical evidence of the positive impact 

of feedback on students' self-efficacy within the context of teacher preparation. 

 

Age and Perception of Feedback 

The study found a moderate positive correlation between age and perceptions of teacher feedback 

(rho = 0.423, p = 0.014). Older students were more likely to view feedback positively, which could be 

attributed to their increased academic maturity and experience. This finding is in line with Carvalho et al.21 

, who observed that older students are more likely to appreciate feedback due to their greater understanding 

of its value in academic development. Older students may also possess a more developed sense of their 

own academic strengths and weaknesses, which allows them to interpret feedback more constructively. 

In contrast, younger students, who are still developing their academic identity, may have less 

confidence in their abilities and may perceive feedback as critical or discouraging, especially if it is not 

framed positively. This difference underscores the importance of tailoring feedback to meet the 

developmental needs of students at different stages of their academic careers. It also highlights the need for 

educators to be mindful of the age-related differences in how feedback is received and interpreted. 

 

Year Level and Perception of Feedback 

Interestingly, the study found no significant relationship between year level and teachers' feedback 

(rho = 0.133, p = 0.460). This result suggests that students across various academic stages perceive feedback 

similarly, regardless of their year level. This finding contrasts with research by Wei et al. 22, which suggested 

that senior students might have different expectations or experiences with feedback compared to junior 

students. However, in this study, the consistency in feedback perception across year levels may indicate 

 
17 Albert Bandura, “Social Cognitive Theory: An Agentic Perspective,” Annual review of psychology 52, no. 1 (2001): 

1–26. 
18 Schunk  & DiBenedetto, M. K., “Self-Efficacy and Human Motivation.” 
19 Wisniewski, Zierer, and Hattie, “The Power of Feedback Revisited: A Meta-Analysis of Educational Feedback 

Research.” 
20 John Vincent L Santos, “Ergonomic Hazards in the Workplace: Assessment, Evaluation and Prevention in 

the Educational Environment of Holy Cross College,” International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Analysis 04, 
no. 07 (2021), http://dx.doi.org/10.47191/ijmra/v4-i7-11. 

21 Carvalho  Martins, D., Santana, L. E., & Feliciano, L., “Teacher Feedback: Educational Guidance in Different 
School Contexts.” 

22 Wei  Sun, Y., & Xu, X., “Investigating The Impact of Increased Student Feedback Literacy Level on Their 
Expectations on University Teachers’ Feedback.” 



 
 

  
 
  

Volume 9, Number 1, May 2025| 36 

 

  

that, regardless of academic progression, students generally value feedback for its role in improving learning 

outcomes. 

This result might also reflect the uniformity in feedback practices within the institution or the 

particular characteristics of the students in this study. Instructors might be providing similar types of 

feedback regardless of students' year level, or students may have similar academic experiences in terms of 

feedback, making the year level a less significant factor in shaping their perceptions. 

 

Age and Self-Efficacy 

A moderate positive correlation was found between age and self-efficacy (rho = 0.386, p = 0.026), 

indicating that older students tend to report higher levels of self-efficacy. This finding supports previous 

studies, such as those by Kolo et al. 23, who found that older students generally exhibit higher levels of 

academic self-efficacy. As students mature, they accumulate more academic experiences and are likely to 

develop a more realistic and positive view of their academic capabilities. The results suggest that age-related 

factors, such as accumulated academic experience and personal growth, contribute to an enhanced belief 

in one's ability to succeed in mathematics. 

 

Year Level and Self-Efficacy 

On the other hand, the study found no significant relationship between year level and self-efficacy 

(rho = 0.139, p = 0.441). This suggests that self-efficacy does not significantly vary based on students’ 

academic progression, which is in contrast to the findings of Panadero et al. 24, who suggested that year 

level influences self-efficacy due to the increasing complexity of academic tasks. However, in this study, the 

lack of a significant relationship may indicate that other factors, such as the quality of feedback received, 

may be more influential in shaping self-efficacy than year level alone. 

 

Implications for Educational Practice 

The findings of this study have important implications for teaching practices and teacher training. 

The positive relationship between teacher feedback and students' self-efficacy underscores the importance 

of providing constructive, timely, and specific feedback. Educators should be trained to recognize the 

critical role feedback plays in enhancing students' confidence in their academic abilities. Moreover, the 

results suggest that feedback should be tailored to meet the developmental needs of students, considering 

factors such as age and academic maturity. 

The study also highlights the need for further research into the role of feedback in different academic 

contexts, particularly in STEM fields such as mathematics, where students often face challenges that can 

affect their self-efficacy. Future studies could explore how specific types of feedback (e.g., formative vs. 

summative) impact students’ self-efficacy and motivation, as well as how feedback can be more effectively 

incorporated into teaching strategies to promote student engagement and success. 

The findings of this study contribute to the growing body of research on the relationship between 

teachers' feedback and students' self-efficacy. By confirming the positive impact of feedback on self-

efficacy, this research provides valuable insights into how feedback can be leveraged to improve students' 

academic confidence, particularly in mathematics. The study’s contributions are especially relevant for 

educators and institutions seeking to enhance the quality of feedback practices and promote greater student 

 
23 Kolo  Jaafar, W. M. B. W., & Ahmad, N. B., “Relationship Between Academic Self-Efficacy Believed of 

College Students and Academic Performance.” 
24 Panadero  García-Pérez, D., Ruiz, J. F., Fraile, J., Sánchez-Iglesias, I., & Brown, G. T. L., “Feedback and Year 

Level Effects on University Students’ Self-Efficacy and Emotions During Self-Assessment.” 



 
 

  
 
  

Volume 9, Number 1, May 2025| 37 

 

  

engagement and achievement in mathematics education. 

 

Conclusion 

This study provides important insights into the role of teachers' feedback and students' self-

efficacy within the context of mathematics education. The findings underscore the influence of 

demographic factors, particularly age, on students’ perceptions of feedback and their belief in their 

academic abilities. It was observed that as students age, they tend to value feedback more and 

exhibit stronger self-efficacy beliefs. This suggests that maturity and accumulated academic 

experiences play a significant role in shaping how students interpret and respond to feedback, 

ultimately contributing to their academic success. 

In contrast, the study found that year level had no significant impact on either teachers' 

feedback or students' self-efficacy. This indicates that the progression through academic years does 

not necessarily affect students' confidence or their perceptions of the feedback they receive. 

Instead, factors such as personal motivation, the learning environment, and individual experiences 

may exert a stronger influence on students' self-efficacy. 

A key contribution of this study is the confirmation of a positive and significant relationship 

between teachers’ feedback and students’ self-efficacy. The results highlight the essential role of 

feedback in fostering students' confidence and motivation. When students perceive feedback as 

constructive and supportive, it enhances their belief in their abilities, which, in turn, contributes to 

improved academic performance. This finding reinforces the notion that feedback is not only a 

tool for correcting mistakes but also a means of empowering students, building their self-efficacy, 

and motivating them to persist in their learning. 

This study emphasizes the importance of providing meaningful, timely, and constructive 

feedback in the classroom. Educators are encouraged to engage in feedback practices that go 

beyond mere evaluation, focusing instead on encouraging student growth and fostering a 

supportive learning environment. As the findings suggest, teachers’ feedback has the potential to 

significantly enhance students’ self-efficacy, which is crucial for their academic success, particularly 

in subjects like mathematics that demand high levels of cognitive engagement. 

Looking ahead, further research could explore how different types of feedback (e.g., 

formative versus summative) impact students' self-efficacy in various disciplines. Additionally, 

future studies could examine how cultural, social, or institutional factors influence the effectiveness 

of feedback in promoting self-efficacy. By delving deeper into these aspects, educators can refine 

their feedback strategies and ensure they are meeting the diverse needs of students, ultimately 

enhancing educational outcomes. 

The findings of this study reinforce the vital role of feedback in shaping students’ academic 

journeys and highlight the need for educational practices that prioritize student empowerment 

through constructive and supportive feedback mechanisms. 

 

 

 

 



 
 

  
 
  

Volume 9, Number 1, May 2025| 38 

 

  

Reference 

Bandura, Albert. Self Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: W. H.. Freeman & Company, n.d. 
———. “Social Cognitive Theory: An Agentic Perspective.” Annual review of psychology 52, no. 1 (2001): 1–

26. 
Bourne, Melissa J., Suzanne C. Smeltzer, and Michelle M. Kelly. “Clinical Teacher Self-Efficacy: A Concept 

Analysis.” Nurse Education in Practice, 2021. 
Carvalho  Martins, D., Santana, L. E., & Feliciano, L., C. “Teacher Feedback: Educational Guidance in 

Different School Contexts.” Procedia: Social & Behavioral Sciences, 159, 219–223 (n.d.). 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.12.360. 

Carvalho, Luísa. “Quality Education for All: A Fuzzy Set Analysis of Sustainable Development Goal 
Compliance” (2024). 

Chen, Gilad, Stanley M. Gully, and Dov Eden. “Validation of a New General Self-Efficacy Scale.” 
Organizational Research Methods (2001). 

Dawson, Phillip, Michael Henderson, Paige Mahoney, Michael Phillips, Tracii Ryan, David Boud, and 
Elizabeth Molloy. “What Makes for Effective Feedback: Staff and Student Perspectives.” Assessment 
&amp; Evaluation in Higher Education 44, no. 1 (2018): 25–36. 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1467877. 

Deng, Zongyi. “Constructing ‘Powerful’ Curriculum Theory.” Journal of Curriculum Studies (2021). 
Hattie, John, and Helen Timperley. “The Power of Feedback.” Review of Educational Research 77, no. 1 (2007): 

81–112. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487. 
Henderson  Phillips, M., Ryan, T., Boud, D., Dawson, P., Molloy, E., & Mahoney, P., M. “Conditions That 

Enable Effective Feedback.” Higher Education Research & Development/Higher Education Research and 
Development, 38(7), 1401–1416 (n.d.). https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1657807. 

Kolo  Jaafar, W. M. B. W., & Ahmad, N. B., A G. “Relationship Between Academic Self-Efficacy Believed 
of College Students and Academic Performance.” IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science (IOSR-
JHSS), 22(1), 75-80 (n.d.). 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313315847_Relationship_between_Academic_Self-
efficacy_Believed_of_College_Students_and_Academic_Performance. 

Mandhane  Ansari, S., Shaikh, T. P., & Deolekar, S., N. “Positive Feedback: A Tool for Quality Education 
in Field of Medicine.” International Journal of Research in Medical Sciences, 3(8), 1868-1873 (n.d.). 
http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20150293. 

Mehregan  & Seresht, D., M. “The Role of Teacher Feedback in Enhancing Learner Self-Efficacy and 
Motivation in Computer-Assisted Environments” (n.d.). 
https://mextesol.net/journal/index.php?page=journal&id_article=562. 

Panadero  García-Pérez, D., Ruiz, J. F., Fraile, J., Sánchez-Iglesias, I., & Brown, G. T. L., E. “Feedback and 
Year Level Effects on University Students’ Self-Efficacy and Emotions During Self-Assessment.” 
Educational Psychology, 43(7), 756–779 (n.d.). https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2023.2254015. 

Perez  & Santos, J. V. L., A S B. “Alignment of The Holy Cross College STA. Rosa Student’s Program with 
Their Interest and Skills.” EDUCATIO: Journal of Education, 7(1), 25-32 (n.d.). 

Ruegg, R. “The Effect of Peer and Teacher Feedback on Changes in EFL Students’ Writing Self-Efficacy.” 
Language Learning Journal, 46(2), 87–102 (n.d.). https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2014.958190. 

Santos, John Vincent L. “Ergonomic Hazards in the Workplace: Assessment, Evaluation and Prevention 
in the Educational Environment of Holy Cross College.” International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research 
and Analysis 04, no. 07 (2021). http://dx.doi.org/10.47191/ijmra/v4-i7-11. 

Schunk  & DiBenedetto, M. K., D H. “Self-Efficacy and Human Motivation.” In Advances in motivation science 
(n.d.). https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.adms.2020.10.001. 

Schunk, Dale H, and Maria K DiBenedetto. “Motivation and Social Cognitive Theory.” Contemporary 
Educational Psychology 60 (2020): 101832. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101832. 

Schwab  Markus, S., & Hassani, S., S. “Teachers’ Feedback in The Context of Students’ Social Acceptance, 
Students’ Well-Being in School and Students’ Emotions.” Educational Studies, 1–18 (n.d.). 
https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2021.2023475. 

Sehgal, Prachee, Ranjeet Nambudiri, and Sushanta Kumar Mishra. “Teacher Effectiveness through Self-



 
 

  
 
  

Volume 9, Number 1, May 2025| 39 

 

  

Efficacy, Collaboration and Principal Leadership.” International Journal of Educational Management (2017). 
Sökmen, Y. “The Role of Self-Efficacy in the Relationship between the Learning Environment and Student 

Engagement.” Educational Studies, 47(1), 19-37 (n.d.). 
https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2019.1665986. 

Wei  Sun, Y., & Xu, X., W. “Investigating The Impact of Increased Student Feedback Literacy Level on 
Their Expectations on University Teachers’ Feedback.” Assessment and Evaluation in Higher 
Education/Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(7), 1092–1103 (n.d.). 
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1846017. 

Wisniewski, Benedikt, Klaus Zierer, and John Hattie. “The Power of Feedback Revisited: A Meta-Analysis 
of Educational Feedback Research.” Frontiers in psychology 10 (January 22, 2020): 3087. 
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32038429. 

 


