Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Understanding the influence of teachers’ cognitive and affective responses upon school inspection feedback acceptance

  • Published:
Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Despite the developmental perspective of school inspections, teachers in inspected schools are not always willing to accept the school inspection’s feedback for their further improvement of teaching and learning processes. Literature distinguishes several aspects of feedback that stimulate or hinder the acceptance of feedback, such as recipient’s cognitive and affective responses to feedback. This study investigates teachers’ cognitive and affective responses to school inspection feedback in relation to feedback acceptance. It draws on data from 21 in-depth interviews with teachers in eight primary schools. We found that positive perceptions of the inspectors’ credibility enhance teachers’ feedback acceptance. This is also the case for positive, clear feedback. Under these circumstances, emotions of joy, happiness and relief are expressed. Conversely, respondents tend to reject feedback when inspectors are perceived to be inadequately informed, arrogant or disrespectful. When negative feedback is rated as unfair, negative emotions, such as anger and sadness, interfere with feedback acceptance. In essence, we conclude that both feedback content and feedback source characteristics are decisive in the acceptance of process. From a practical perspective, the findings suggest there is a need to build on supportive relationships between teachers and school inspectors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anseel, F., Van Yperen, N. W., Janssen, O., & Duyck, W. (2011). Feedback type as a moderator of the relationship between achievement goals and feedback reactions. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84(4), 703–722. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317910X516372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashford, S. J., Blatt, R., & Walle, D. V. (2003). Reflections on the looking glass: a review of research on feedback-seeking behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 29(6), 773–799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audia, P. G., & Locke, E. A. (2004). Benefiting from negative feedback. Human Resource Management Review, 13(4), 631–646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. A. (1993). Criticism (informal negative feedback) as a source of perceived unfairness in organizations: effects, mechanisms, and countermeasures. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace (pp. 155–170). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, L. F. (1997). The relationship among momentary emotional experiences, personality descriptions, and retrospective ratings of emotion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(10), 1100–1110. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672972310010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braster, J. F. (2000). De kern van Casestudy’s. Assen: Van Gorcum & Comp. B.V.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brett, J. F., & Atwater, L. E. (2001). 360° feedback: accuracy, reactions, and perceptions of usefulness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 930–942.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brimblecombe, N., & Ormston, M. (1995). Teachers’ perceptions of school inspection: a stressful experience. Cambridge Journal of Education, 25, 53–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brimblecombe, N., Ormston, M., & Shaw, M. (1995). Teachers’ perceptions of school inspection: a stressful experience. Cambridge Journal of Education, 25(1), 53–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brinko, K. T. (1993). The practice of giving feedback to improve teaching: what is effective? The Journal of Higher Education, 64, 574–593.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunsden, V., Shevlin, M., & Davies, M. (2006). Anxiety and stress in education professionals in relation to OFSTED. Education Today, 56(1), 24–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Case, P., Case, S., & Catling, S. (2000). Please show you’re working; a critical assessment of the impact of Ofsted inspection on primary teachers. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 21(4), 605–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, C. (2002). Ofsted and school improvement: teachers’ perceptions of the inspection process in schools facing challenging circumstances. School leadership & management, 22(3), 257–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheetham, G., & Chivers, G. E. (2005). Professions, competence and informal learning. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, J. (2016). Understanding teacher emotions: the development of a teacher emotion inventory. Teaching and Teacher Education, 55, 68–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, X., Liao, J., Wu, W., & Zhang, W. (2017). Perceived insider status and feedback reactions: a dual path of feedback motivation attribution. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(668), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coe, R. (2002). Evidence on the role and impact of performance feedback in schools. In A. J. Visscher & R. Coe (Eds.), School improvement through performance feedback (pp. 3–26). Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education (Seventh edition ed.). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: a meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(2), 278–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colvin, G., Flannery, K. B., Sugai, G., & Monegan, J. (2009). Using observational data to provide performance feedback to teachers: a high school case study. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 53(2), 95–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cropanzano, R., & Greenberg, J. (1997). Progress in organizational justice: tunneling through the maze. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 12, 317–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dean, J. (1995). What teachers and headteachers think about inspection. Cambridge Journal of Education, 25(1), 45–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobbelaer, M.J., Godfrey, D., & Franssen, H.M.B (2017). Feedback by Dutch inspectors to schools. Baxter, J. (Ed.), School inspectors: policy implementers, policy shapers in national policy contexts (pp. 97–119). (Accountability and educational improvement). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52536-5_5.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Duijnhouwer, H., Prins, F. J., & Stokking, K. M. (2012). Feedback providing improvement strategies and reflection on feedback use: effects on students’ writing motivation, process, and performance. Learning and Instruction, 22(3), 171–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunning, D., Johnson, K., Ehrlinger, J., & Kruger, J. (2003). Why people fail to recognize their own incompetence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(3), 83–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.01235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehren, M. C. M. (2016). Introducing school inspections. In M. C. M. Ehren (Ed.), Methods and modalities of effective school inspections. Accountability and educational improvement (pp. 1–16). London: Springer International Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ehren, M. C. M., & Visscher, A. J. (2008). The relationships between school inspections, school characteristics and school improvement. British Journal of Educational Studies, 56(2), 205–227. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8527.2008.00400.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehren, M. C. M., Altrichter, H., McNamara, G., & O'Hara, J. (2013). Impact of school inspections on improvement of schools—describing assumptions on causal mechanisms in six European countries. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 25(1), 3–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-012-9156-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erdem, A. R., & Yaprak, M. (2013). The problems that the classroom teachers working in villages and county towns confront in educational inspection and their opinions concerning the effect of these problems on their performance. Educational Research and Reviews, 8, 455–461.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, N., Earley, P., Ouston, J., & Fidler, P. (1999). New heads, OFSTED inspections and the prospects for school improvement. Educational Research, 41, 241–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Francis, B. (2011). (Un)satisfactory? Enhancing life chances by improving ‘satisfactory’ schools. London: RSA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frijda, N. H. (1993). The place of appraisal in emotion. Cognition & Emotion, 7(3–4), 357–387. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699939308409193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frijda, N. H., Kuipers, P., & Ter Schure, E. (1989). Relations among emotion, appraisal, and emotional action readiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(2), 212–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garza, R. (2009). Improving mentoring for beginning teachers: is functional feedback a viable means? Journal of the National Association for Alternative Certification, 4(2), 40–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geddes, D., & Linnehan, F. (1996). Exploring the dimensionality of positive and negative performance feedback. Communication Quarterly, 44(3), 326–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463379609370021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gendron, M., & Feldman Barrett, L. (2009). Reconstructing the past: a century of ideas about emotion in psychology. Emotion Review, 1(4), 316–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, J., & Gardner, J. (1999). The impact of school inspections. Oxford Review of Education, 25, 455–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, J., Hopkins, D., Reynolds, D., Wilcox, B., Farrell, S., & Jesson, D. (1999). Improving schools: performance and potential. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greller, M. M., & Herold, D. M. (1975). Sources of feedback: a preliminary investigation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13(2), 244–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(75)90048-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gu, Q., & Day, C. (2007). Teachers resilience: a necessary condition for effectiveness. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(8), 1302–1316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.06.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gustafsson, J. E., Ehren, M. C. M., Conyngham, G., McNamara, G., Altrichter, H., & O’Hara, J. (2015). From inspection to quality: Ways in which school inspection influences change in schools. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 47, 47–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2015.07.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hargreaves, A. (1998). The emotional practice of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(8), 835–854.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Abingdon: Routeledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hopkins, E., Hendry, H., Garrod, F., McClare, S., Pettit, D., Smith, L., Burrell, H., & Temple, J. (2016). Teachers’ views of the impact of school evaluation and external inspection processes. Improving Schools, 19(1), 52–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ilgen, D. R., & Hamstra, B. W. (1972). Performance satisfaction as a function of the difference between expected and reported performance at five levels of reported performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 7(3), 359–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., & Taylor, M. S. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(4), 349–371. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.64.4.349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeffrey, B., & Woods, P. (1996). Feeling deprofessionalised: the social construction of emotions during an OFSTED inspection. Cambridge Journal of Education, 26(3), 325–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jermier, J. M., Knights, D. E., & Nord, W. R. (1994). Resistance and power in organizations. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jussim, L., Yen, H., & Aiello, J. R. (1995). Self-consistency, self-enhancement, and accuracy in reactions to feedback. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31(4), 322–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelchtermans, G. (2007). Macropolitics caught up in micropolitics: the case of the policy on quality control in Flanders (Belgium). Journal of Education Policy, 22(4), 471–491. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930701390669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelchtermans, G., & Deketelaere, A. (2016). The emotional dimension in becoming a teacher. In J. Loughran & M. Hamilton (Eds.), International handbook of teacher education (pp. 429–461). Singapore: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kelchtermans, G., & Vandenberghe, R. (1998). Internal use of external control and support for quality improvement. The response to a national policy by primary schools. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.

  • Keltner, D., & Ekman, P. (2003). Introduction: expression of emotion. In R. J. Davidson, K. R. Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences (pp. 411–414). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kernis, M. H., & Johnson, E. K. (1990). Current and typical self-appraisals: differential responsiveness to evaluative feedback and implications for emotions. Journal of Research in Personality, 24(2), 241–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(90)90019-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, T., & Holzer, M. (2014). Public employees and performance appraisal: a study of antecedents to employees’ perception of the process. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 36(1), 31–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinicki, A. J., Prussia, G. E., Wu, B. J., & McKee-Ryan, F. M. (2004). A covariance structure analysis of employees’ response to performance feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 1057–1069.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: a historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogan, M., & Maden, M. (1999). An evaluation of evaluators: the Ofsted system of school inspection. In C. Cullingford (Ed.), An inspector calls: Ofsted and its effect on school standards (pp. 9–32). London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Progress on a cognitive-motivational-relational theory of emotion. American Psychologist, 46(8), 819–834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee-Corbin, H. (2005). Under the microscope: a study of schools in special measures and a comparison with general characteristics of primary school improvement. Education 3–13, 33(2), 51–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004270585200231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leeuw, F. L. (2002). Reciprocity and educational evaluations by European inspectorates: assumptions and reality checks. Quality in Higher Education, 8(2), 137–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/1353832022000004331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leung, K., Su, S., & Morris, M. W. (2001). When is criticism not constructive? The roles of fairness perceptions and dispositional attributions in employee acceptance of critical supervisory feedback. Human Relations, 54(9), 1155–1187. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726701549002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., & Pekrun, R. (2011). Students’ emotions and academic engagement: introduction to the special issue. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(1), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.11.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macbeath, J. (2008). In ) (Ed.), The impact study on the effectiveness of external school review in enhancing school improvement through school self-evaluation in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Education Bureau.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, P., & Sammons, P. (2004). Improvement through inspection. London Review of Education, 3(2), 159–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCrone, T., Rudd, P., Blenkinsop, S., Wade, P., Rudd, S., & Yeshanew, T. (2007). Evaluation of the impact of section 5 inspections. Slough: National Foundation for Educational Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, G., & O’Hara, J. (2006). Workable compromise or pointless exercise? School-based evaluation in the Irish context. Educational Management, Administration and Leadership, 34, 564–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, D. K., & Turner, J. C. (2006). Re-conceptualizing emotion and motivation to learn in classroom contexts. Educational Psychology Review, 18(4), 377–390. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9032-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mortelmans, D. (2007). Handboek kwalitatieve onderzoeksmethoden. Leuven: Acco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nadiri, H., & Tanova, C. (2010). An investigation of the role of justice in turnover intentions, job satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behavior in hospitality industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29(1), 33–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2009.05.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. & Ehren, M. (2014). Review and synthesis of evidence on the (mechanisms of) impact of school inspections. Retrieved from http://schoolinspections.eu/impact /review-on-the-impact-and-mechanisms-of-impact-of-school-inspections/.

  • Nicolaidou, M., & Ainscow, M. (2005). Understanding failing schools: perspectives from the inside. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 16(3), 229–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noell, G. H., Witt, J. C., Slider, N. J., Connell, J. E., Gatti, S. L., Williams, K. L., et al. (2005). Treatment implementation following behavioral consultation in schools: a comparison of three follow-up strategies. School Psychology Review, 34, 87–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nojani, M. I., Arjmandnia, A. A., Afrooz, G. A., & Rajabi, M. (2012). The study on relationship between organizational justice and job satisfaction in teachers working in general, special and gifted education systems. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 2900–2905.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2013). Synergies for better learning. An international perspective on evaluation and assessment. In OECD Reviews of Evaluation and Assessment in Education. Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ofsted. (2007). The foundation stage: a survey of 144 settings. London: Ofsted.

    Google Scholar 

  • Otley, D. (1999). Performance management: a framework for management control systems research. Management Accounting Research, 10(4), 363–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ouston, J., Fidler, B., & Earley, P. (1997). What do schools do after OFSTED school inspections-or before? School Leadership & Management, 17(1), 95–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632439770195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parrott, W. G. (2001). Emotions in social psychology: essential readings. Philadelphia (Pa.): Psychology press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penninckx, M., & Vanhoof, J. (2015). Insights gained by schools and emotional consequences of school inspections. A review of evidence. School Leadership & Management, 35(5), 477–501. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2015.1107036.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penninckx, M., Vanhoof, J., De Maeyer, S., & Van Petegem, P. (2014). Exploring and explaining the effects of being inspected. Educational Studies, 40(4), 456–472. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2014.930343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perryman, J. (2006). Panoptic performativity and school inspection regimes: disciplinary mechanisms and life under special measures. Journal of Education Policy, 21(2), 147–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930500500138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perryman, J. (2007). Inspection and emotion. Cambridge Journal of Education, 37(2), 173–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640701372418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perryman, J. (2009). Inspection and the fabrication of professional and performative processes. Journal of Education Policy, 24, 611–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plowright, D. (2007). Self-evaluation and Ofsted inspection: developing an integrative model of school improvement. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 35(3), 373–393. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143207078180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quintelier, A., Vanhoof, J., Heyninck, N., & Penninckx, M. (2016). De impact van de schooldoorlichting op emoties en het professioneel zelfverstaan van leerkrachten. Pedagogiek, 36(2), 107–134. https://doi.org/10.5117/PED2016.2.QUIN.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, M. D., & Clore, G. L. (2002). Belief and feeling: evidence for an accessibility model of emotional self-report. Psychological Bulletin, 128(6), 934–960.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Röcke, C., Hoppmann, C., & Klumb, P. L. (2011). Correspondence between retrospective and momentary ratings of positive and negative affect in old age: findings from a one-year measurement-burst design. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 66(4), 411–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roseman, I. J., & Smith, C. A. (2001). Appraisal theory. Overview, assumptions, varieties, controversies. In K. R. Scherer, A. Schorr, & T. Johnstone (Eds.), Appraisal process in emotion: theory, methods, research (pp. 3–19). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sander, D. (2013). Models of emotion: the affective neuroscience approach. In J. Armony & P. Vuilleumier (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of human affective neuroscience (pp. 5–53). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Santiago, P., & Benavides, F. (2009). Teacher evaluation: a conceptual framework and examples of country practices. OECD: Paris. www.oecd.org/dataoecd/16/24/44568106.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sargeant, J., Mann, K., Sinclair, D., Van der Vleuten, C., & Metsemakers, J. (2008). Understanding the influence of emotions and reflection upon multi-source feedback acceptance and use. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 13(3), 275–288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-006-9039-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scanlon, M. (1999). The impact of Ofsted inspections. Slough: National Foundation for Educational Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheerens, J. (2006). Effective schooling: research, theory and practice. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 4(3), 230–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/0924345930040304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, K. R. (2005). What are emotions? And how can they be measured? Social Science Information, 44(4), 695–729. https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018405058216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schutz, P. A., & Pekrun, R. (Eds.). (2007). Educational psychology series. Emotion in education. San Diego, CA, US: Elsevier Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheppard, M., Katz, D., & Grosland, T. (2015). Conceptualizing emotions in social studies education. Theory & Research in Social Education, 43(2), 147–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2015.1034391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shewbridge, C., Hulshof, M., Nusche, D., & Stoll, L. (2011). OECD Reviews of Evaluation and Assessment in Education: School Evaluation in the Flemish Community of Belgium 2011, OECD Reviews of Evaluation and Assessment in Education. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264116726-en.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, C. A., & Lazarus, R. S. (1990). Emotion and adaptation. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality: theory and research (pp. 609–637). New York, NY: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steelman, L. A., & Rutkowski, K. A. (2004). Moderators of employee reactions to negative feedback. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19(1), 6–18. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940410520637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutton, R. E., & Wheatley, K. F. (2003). Teachers’ emotions and teaching: a review of the literature and directions for future research. Educational Psychology Review, 15(4), 327–358. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026131715856.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, G. (1996). The new schools’ inspection system: some problems and possible solutions. Educational Management & Administration, 24(4), 355–369. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263211X9602400402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, G., Yee, W. C., & Lee, J. (2000). ‘Failing’ special schools - action planning and recovery from special measures assessments. Research Papers in Education, 15(1), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/026715200362925.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, J. E., & Schallert, D. L. (2001). Expectancy–value relationships of shame reactions and shame resiliency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 320–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., & Bies, R. J. (1990). Beyond formal procedures: the interpersonal context of procedural justice. In J. Carroll (Ed.), Applied social psychology and organizational settings (pp. 77–98). Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van-Dijk, D., & Kluger, A. N. (2004). Feedback sign effect on motivation: Is it moderated by regulatory focus? Applied Psychology, 53(1), 113–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varnava, M., & Koutsoulis, M. (2006). Teacher inspection and in-service training as means for teacher and school improvement. CCEAM conference: recreating linkages between theory and praxis in educational leadership.

  • Visscher, A. J., & Coe, R. (2003). School performance feedback systems: conceptualisation, analysis, and reflection. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 14(3), 321–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilcox, B., & Gray, J. (1995). Reactions to inspection: a study of three variants. In J. Gray & B. Wilcox (Eds.), Good school, bad school: evaluating performance and encouraging improvement (pp. 149–166). Buckingham/Philadelphia: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilcox, B., & Gray, J. (1996). Inspecting schools: holding schools to account and helping schools to improve. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Training and Education Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Antwerp, Gratiekapelstraat 10, Room 3.04, 2000, Antwerp, Belgium

    Amy Quintelier

  2. Department of Training and Education Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Antwerp, Sint - Jacobstraat 2-4, Room S.M.231, 2000, Antwerp, Belgium

    Jan Vanhoof

  3. Department of Training and Education Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Antwerp, Sint - Jacobstraat 2-4, Room S.M.239, 2000, Antwerp, Belgium

    Sven De Maeyer

Authors
  1. Amy Quintelier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jan Vanhoof
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sven De Maeyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amy Quintelier.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 5 Example of code scheme
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Quintelier, A., Vanhoof, J. & De Maeyer, S. Understanding the influence of teachers’ cognitive and affective responses upon school inspection feedback acceptance. Educ Asse Eval Acc 30, 399–431 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-018-9286-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-018-9286-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation