Learners’ Perceptions of Marking Practices in Informal Mathematics Assessment: Evidence from Secondary Schools

Eric Machisi(1*), Mpho Gift Manamela(2),

(1) Fujairah Boys' School Cycle 3, United Arab Emirates
(2) Morwasethula Primary School, South Africa
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract


This study examined learners’ perceptions of marking practices for informal mathematics tasks in 12 public secondary schools in the Pietersburg Circuit of the Capricorn South District, Limpopo Province, South Africa. Although previous research has extensively examined formative assessment and teacher feedback practices, limited studies have explored how learners perceive the effectiveness and usefulness of marking practices for informal mathematics tasks, particularly in under-resourced secondary school contexts. A mixed-methods survey design was employed to collect data from 125 secondary school learners across Grades 8–12. Data were gathered through an online questionnaire comprising Likert-scale and open-ended items. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, analysis of variance, independent-samples t-tests, and Spearman correlation, while qualitative responses were analyzed thematically. The findings revealed that although self-marking was the most frequently used marking strategy in mathematics classrooms, most learners preferred teacher marking. Learners’ satisfaction with the marking system was positively associated with the frequency of teacher marking. No significant differences in perceptions of marking practices were found across grade levels, although perceptions differed significantly according to mathematics achievement level. Qualitative findings indicated that learners value consistent teacher marking, detailed explanatory feedback, supportive correction processes, and meaningful teacher involvement during feedback activities. The study concludes that while self- and peer-marking may support learner participation and self-regulation, regular teacher feedback remains central to learners’ confidence, understanding, and engagement in mathematics learning. The findings highlight the importance of balanced marking approaches and clear school-level feedback practices that support meaningful formative assessment in mathematics classrooms.

Keywords


formative assessment; marking practices; mathematics feedback; learner perceptions; informal assessment

Full Text:

PDF

References


Andrade, H. L., & Brookhart, S. M. (2020). Classroom assessment as the co-regulation of learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 27(4), 350–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2019.1571992

Biton, Y. (2025). Student reflections on peer assessments: Benefits and challenges in a mathematics class. European Journal of Educational Research, 14(3), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.22521/edupij.2025.14.3

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5

Brandmo, C., & Gamlem, S. M. (2025). Students' perceptions and outcome of teacher feedback: A systematic review. Frontiers in Education, 10, 1572950. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1572950

Brookhart, S. M. (2017). How to give effective feedback to your students. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Brown, B., King, S., & Chatterton, S. (2021). Cambian Policy and Procedure on Marking: Brook View School Policy No. 87.03. Lancashire: Cambian Group. https://www.cambiangroup.com/media/2414148/8703-Marking-Policy-dec-2021.pdf

Carless, D., & Winstone, N. (2023). Teacher feedback literacy and its interplay with student feedback literacy. Teaching in Higher Education, 28(1), 150–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1782372

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Fleckney, P., Thompson, J., & Vaz-Serra, P. (2025). Designing effective peer assessment processes in higher education: a systematic review. Higher Education Research & Development, 44(2), 386–401. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2024.2407083

Graham, M. A. (2023). Overcrowded classrooms and their association with South African learners’ mathematics achievement. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 27(2), 169–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/18117295.2023.2244217

Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. Routledge.

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

Haynes, S. N., Richard, D. C., & Kubany, E. S. (1995). Content validity in psychological assessment: A functional approach to concepts and methods. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 238–247. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.238

Heritage, M., & Wylie, E. C. (2020). Formative assessment in the disciplines: Framing a continuum of professional learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Jansen, B. R., Hofman, A. D., Savi, A., Visser, I., & van der Maas, H. L. (2016). Self-adapting the success rate when practicing math. Learning and Individual Differences, 51, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.08.027

Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a Definition of Mixed Methods Research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806298224

Kanjee, A., Roberts, N., Sadeck, O., & Ramollo, J. (2022). Entrenching performativity or enhancing pedagogy: Addressing the challenge of assessment policy and practice. Journal of Education(87), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.17159/2520-9868/i87a01

Köhler, T. (2022). Class size and learner outcomes in South African schools: The role of school socioeconomic status. Development Southern Africa, 39(2), 126–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/0376835X.2020.1845614

Lei, W., & Lei, Z. (2026). Formative assessment literacy: a systematic review. Language Testing in Asia, 16(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-025-00418-0

León, S. P., Vallejo, A. P., & Nelson, J. B. (2021). Variability in the Accuracy of Self-Assessments Among Low, Moderate, and High-Performing Students in University Education. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 26(1), 16. https://doi.org/10.7275/6q91-az58

Liebenow, L. W., Schmidt, F. T., Meyer, J., & Fleckenstein, J. (2025). Self-assessment accuracy in the age of artificial Intelligence: Differential effects of LLM-generated feedback. Computers & Education, 237, 105385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2025.105385

Mhlanga, M., Matsepe, D., & Maluleke, M. (2026). Understanding Quality Assessment In School-Based Assessment In The History FET Phase: Towards Theory Of Pedagogic Devices. Journal of Sustainable Development Law and Policy, 17(2), 125–141. https://doi.org/10.4314/jsdlp.v17i2.6

Monteiro, V., & Passarinho, B. B. (2026). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning in lower secondary mathematics: Students’ and teachers’ perceptions. Education Sciences, 16(3), Article 452. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci16030452

National Centre for Excellence in the Teaching of Mathematics. (2016). Guidance on Marking and Feedback for Secondary Mathematics Teaching. Sheffield: NCETM. https://www.ncetm.org.uk/media/gkaldkso/secondary-marking-guidance-october-2016-v2.pdf

Niyibizi, O., & Mutarutinya, V. (2024). Enhancing learning outcomes in mathematics education through innovative assessment methods and timely feedback. Journal of Mathematics and Science Teacher, 4(3), em064. https://doi.org/10.29333/mathsciteacher/14584

OECD. (2020). TALIS 2018 results (Volume II): Teachers and school leaders as valued professionals. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/19cf08df-en

OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 Results (Volume II): Learning During – and From – Disruption, PISA. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/a97db61c-en

OECD. (2024). PISA 2022 results (Volume V): Learning strategies and attitudes for life. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/c2e44201-en

Ortega-Ruipérez, B., & Correa-Gorospe, J. M. (2024). Peer assessment to promote self-regulated learning with technology in higher education: Systematic review for improving course design. Frontiers in Education, 9, 1376505. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1376505

Panadero, E., Broadbent, J., Boud, D., & Lodge, J. M. (2019). Using formative assessment to influence self-and co-regulated learning: the role of evaluative judgment. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 34(3), 535–557. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-018-0407-8

Power, J. R., & Tanner, D. (2023). Peer assessment, self-assessment, and resultant feedback: an examination of feasibility and reliability. European Journal of Engineering Education, 48(4), 615-628. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2023.2185769

Seifert, T., & Feliks, O. (2019). Online self-assessment and peer-assessment as a tool to enhance student-teachers’ assessment skills. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(2), 169–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1487023

Taber, K. S. (2018). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in science education, 48(6), 1273–1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2

Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53–55. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd

Terada, Y., & Merrill, S. (2024, November 8). Why teachers should grade less frequently. Retrieved from Edutopia: https://www.edutopia.org/article/why-teachers-should-grade-less-frequently/

Tshangana, T., Nomtshongwana, P., & Buka, S. (2023). Teaching experiences with overcrowded classrooms in primary schools in the OR Tambo Coastal District of South Africa. E-Journal of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, 4(8), 1067–1078. https://doi.org/10.38159/ehass.2023483

Wanner, T., & Palmer, E. (2018). Formative self-and peer assessment for improved student learning: the crucial factors of design, teacher participation and feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(7), 1032–1047. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1427698

Wiliam, D. (2018). Assessment for learning: meeting the challenge of implementation. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 25(6), 682–685. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2017.1401526

Winstone, N., & Carless, D. (2019). Designing Effective Feedback Processes in Higher Education: A Learning-Focused Approach. London, UK: Routledge.

Wisniewski, B., Zierer, K., & Hattie, J. (2020). The Power of Feedback Revisited: A Meta-Analysis of Educational Feedback Research. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 487662. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03087

Yan, Z., Lao, H., Panadero, E., Fernández-Castilla, B., Yang, L., & Yang, M. (2022). Effects of self-assessment and peer-assessment interventions on academic performance: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 37, 100484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100484

Yang, C., Hou, S., & Chen, J. (2025). Enhancing interpreting performance, engagement, and self-regulated learning through peer assessment: An attachment theory perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, 1604825. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1604825

Yongtao, G. (2025). Impact of Workload on the Performance of Junior High School Teachers Under China’s “Double Reduction” Policy. SAGE Open, 15(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440251345577

Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into practice, 41(2), 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.30738/indomath.v0i0.197

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2026 Eric Machisi, Mpho Gift Manamela

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

View My Stats