The Role of Feedback Frequency on Teachers' Professional Development and Self-Efficacy

Background/purpose. This study explores how often teachers receive feedback and how it impacts their teaching methods, confidence, and professional growth. Specifically, it looks at whether frequent feedback is seen as more useful for improving teaching practices, perceived as positive, and how it encourages teachers to reflect on their work and build their self-belief. The research also digs into whether more feedback leads to greater confidence and effectiveness in the classroom.

Materials/methods. Using a quantitative correlational design, 377 elementary and lower secondary school teachers from Kosovo were randomly selected to participate. A survey was used to gather data on how often teachers received feedback, how they felt it influenced their teaching strategies, and whether it affected their sense of self-efficacy.

Results. The findings reveal a strong link between how often teachers get feedback and how much they value it. Teachers who received feedback more frequently tended to see it as more helpful, adapt their teaching strategies more effectively, and feel more confident in their abilities. In short, regular feedback seems to help teachers recognize its value and feel more assured in their teaching.

Conclusion. They suggest that consistent, constructive feedback systems can play a key role in boosting teachers’ professional development, teaching effectiveness, and self-confidence, ultimately creating a more supportive and professional teaching environment. That said, more research is needed to understand the long-term effects of feedback frequency on teacher growth and teaching quality across different educational settings.

Keywords: Teacher self-efficacy, instructional strategies, instructional feedback

References

Alanoglu, M. (2022). The role of instructional leadership in increasing teacher self-efficacy: A meta-analytic review. Asia Pacific Education Review, 23(2), 233-244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-021-09726-5

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1986 (23-28), 2.

Bandura, A., & Wessels, S. (1997). Self-efficacy (pp. 4-6). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, G. T., Peterson, E. R., & Yao, E. S. (2016). Student conceptions of feedback: Impact on self‐regulation, self‐efficacy, and academic achievement. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(4), 606-629. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12126

Chong, W. H., & Kong, C. A. (2012). Teacher collaborative learning and teacher self-efficacy: The case of lesson study. The journal of experimental education, 80(3), 263-283. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2011.596854

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2002). Research methods in education. Routledge.

Crano, W. D., Brewer, M. B., & Lac, A. (2014). Principles and Methods of Social Research Routledge.

Dicke, T., Parker, P. D., Holzberger, D., Kunina-Habenicht, O., Kunter, M., & Leutner, D. (2015). Beginning teachers’ efficacy and emotional exhaustion: Latent changes, reciprocity, and the influence of professional knowledge. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 41(2), 62–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.11.003

Flodén, J. (2017). The impact of student feedback on teaching in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(7), 1054–1068. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2016.1224997

Granziera, H., & Perera, H. N. (2019). Relations among teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs, engagement, and work satisfaction: A social cognitive view. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 58, 75-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.02.003

Holzberger, D., Philipp, A., & Kunter, M. (2013). How teachers’ self-efficacy is related to instructional quality: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of educational psychology, 105(3), 774. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032198

Jr Voelkel , R. H., & Chrispeels, J. H. (2017). Understanding the link between professional learning communities and teacher collective efficacy. School effectiveness and school improvement, 28(4), 505-526. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2017.1299015

Klassen, R. M., & Tze, V. M. (2014). Teachers’ self-efficacy, personality, and teaching effectiveness: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 12(2), 59–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2014.06.001

Krasniqi, D., & Ismajli, H. (2022). Teacher evaluation feedback and their self-efficacy in classroom management skills. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 15(1), 23–31. https://doi.org/10.26822/iejee.2022.275

Lencioni, P. (2024). How to maximize the impact of your evaluation and feedback system. Journal of Educational Leadership, 58(2), 135-145. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2391577

MASHT (2022). Shënime statistikore 2021/2022 – Të dhëna mbi arsimin parauniversitar. Prishtinë [Statistical data 2021/2022 – Data on preuniversity education]. https://masht.rks-gov.net/uploads/2022/01/shenime-statistikore-2021-22-arsimi-parauniversitar_1.pdf

Mireles-Rios, R., & Becchio, J. A. (2018). The Evaluation Process, Administrator Feedback, and Teacher Self-Efficacy. Journal of School Leadership, 28(4), 462–487. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268461802800402

Morris, D. B., Usher, E. L., & Chen, J. A. (2017). Reconceptualizing the sources of teaching self-efficacy: A critical review of emerging literature. Educational psychology review, 29, 795-833. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9378-y

National Council on Teacher Quality. (2019). How are districts observing and providing feedback to teachers? Retrieved from https://www.nctq.org/blog/How-are-districts-observing-and-providing-feedback-to-teachers

Poulou, M. S., Reddy, L. A., & Dudek, C. M. (2019). Relation of teacher self-efficacy and classroom practices: A preliminary investigation. School Psychology International, 40(1), 25-48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034318798045

Schunk, D. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and achievement behaviors. Educational psychology review, 1, 173-208. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01320134

Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26, 207-231. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2603&4_2

Song, M., Wayne, A. J., Garet, M. S., Brown, S., & Rickles, J. (2021). Impact of providing teachers and principals with performance feedback on their practice and student achievement: Evidence from a large-scale randomized experiment. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 14(2), 353–378. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2020.1868037

Stecher, B. M., Garet, M. S., Hamilton, L. S., Steiner, E. D., & Robyn, A. (2018). Feedback for teachers: Adding value to observations. RAND Corporation. Retrieved from https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2558.html

Tschannen-Moran, M. (2009). Fostering teacher professionalism in schools: The role of leadership orientation and trust. Educational administration quarterly, 45(2), 217-247. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X08330501

Tschannen-Moran, M., & P. McMaster. (2009). Sources of Self-Efficacy: Four Professional Development Formats and Their Relationship to Self-Efficacy and Implementation of a new Teaching Strategy. The Elementary School Journal 110: 228–245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/605771

van Ginkel, G., Oolbekkink-Marchand, H., & Meijer, P. (2021). Connecting feedback to self-efficacy: Receiving and providing peer feedback in teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 44(5), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2021.1941496

Wang, S. L., & Wu, P. Y. (2008). The role of feedback and self-efficacy on web-based learning: The social cognitive perspective. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1589-1598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.03.004

Yoo, J. H. (2016). The effect of professional development on teacher efficacy and teachers’ self-analysis of their efficacy change. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 18(1), 84-94. https://doi.org/10.1515/jtes-2016-0007

Announcement

EDUPIJ Citation Metrics

EDUPIJ News!

ANNOUNCEMENT

Message from the Editor-in-Chief,

We would like to inform our authors, reviewers, and stakeholders that EDUPIJ has entered Scopus’s re-evaluation process, as officially communicated (dated 2025-12-09). This assessment is a standard quality assurance practice applied to indexed journals and aims to ensure sustained editorial quality, ethical integrity, and alignment with Scopus’s evolving evaluation framework.

EDUPIJ welcomes this process and views it as an opportunity to further consolidate its editorial governance, strengthen publication ethics, and enhance peer-review rigor.

Strengthening Editorial and Ethical Standards

To ensure full compliance with international best practices and to proactively address Scopus evaluation criteria, the following measures have been formally implemented:

1. Selective Acceptance Policy for 2026 and Beyond

In response to increased submission volume in 2025 (see Journal Metrics: https://edupij.com/index/sayfa/18/journal-metrics), EDUPIJ will adopt a more selective acceptance policy starting in 2026 and continuing in the years ahead. In doing so, the geographic distribution of authors will also be taken into account to ensure that editorial decisions are informed by transparent, year-to-year submission and authorship patterns. Acceptance rates will be carefully aligned with editorial capacity to ensure a rigorous double-blind peer review process supported by active reviewer engagement and uncompromised editorial oversight. This policy reflects our commitment to quality-driven growth rather than volume-based expansion, and it directly addresses observations that the geographic spread of authors has changed significantly during the same period by ensuring that any such shifts are systematically monitored and considered within our quality assurance framework.

In line with this approach, we have adopted a Publication Volume Policy, enacted on 2025-12-07, which establishes clear upper limits on annual publication volume and defines a framework for maintaining EDUPIJ’s output at sustainable, long-term levels, comparable to pre-2025 volumes under normal conditions. This policy is also publicly available at https://edupij.com/index/sayfa/41/publication-volume-journal-metrics-policy.

From 2026 onwards, our objective is to maintain a moderate and stable annual volume, prioritising quality and selectivity rather than growth.

2. Enhanced Author and Manuscript Integrity Screening

All submissions now undergo mandatory integrity checks, including automated screening for retraction history and potential ethical risks prior to peer review. These procedures are designed to safeguard originality, research integrity, and transparency at every stage of the editorial process.

3. Establishment of a Publication Ethics Review Committee

A dedicated Publication Ethics Review Committee has been constituted to evaluate high-risk submissions, oversee ethical investigations when necessary, and ensure consistent adherence to COPE guidelines and internationally recognized publishing standards. All ethical decisions are documented and managed through a structured, transparent process.

Ongoing Commitment:

EDUPIJ remains firmly committed to rigorous double-blind peer review, transparent editorial policies, responsible scholarly communication, and the advancement of high-quality educational research at an international level.

Our journal continues to demonstrate steady progress in terms of international visibility, indexing coverage, and citation performance. We are confident that the Scopus re-evaluation process will further support the journal’s long-term sustainability and academic impact.

We sincerely thank our authors, reviewers, and the broader scholarly community for their continued trust and contribution to EDUPIJ.

Sincerely,
Prof. Turgut Karaköse, Editor-in-Chief

Posted: 2025-12-09