Te veel, te weinig of precies goed?
Leerlingen geven feedback op de sociaal-emotionele vaardigheden van hun leerkracht.
Jana De Smedt
17 augustus 2025 • 6 minuten lezen
Een leerkracht is meer dan een kennisoverdrager
Wie zich vandaag in een klas waagt, weet dat vaardigheden zoals empathie, zelfbeheersing en assertiviteit minstens even cruciaal zijn als vakinhoud. Sociaal-emotionele vaardigheden (SEMS, van het Engelse Social and Emotional Skills) vormen het fundament van een veilige klasomgeving, wederzijds respect en effectieve communicatie. Maar hoe breng je die vaardigheden in kaart?
Tot nu toe gebeurde dat meestal via zelfevaluaties. Leerkrachten vullen vragenlijsten in over hun gedrag: hoe vaak ze luisteren, grenzen stellen, conflicten aanpakken. Maar wie zijn eigen gedrag beoordeelt, kijkt door een subjectieve bril. En laat het nu net de leerlingen zijn die dagelijks ervaren hoe een leerkracht zich gedraagt!
Een nieuwe Vlaamse studie experimenteerde daarom met een alternatief: de Too Little/Too Much-schaal (TLTM). In plaats van aan te geven in welke mate een uitspraak klopt, duidden zowel secundaire schoolleerkrachten als de leerlingen uit één van hun klassen aan of een bepaald gedrag – bijvoorbeeld ingrijpen als regels worden overtreden – te weinig, precies voldoende of te veel werd getoond. De schaal liep van -2 (veel te weinig) tot +2 (veel te veel), met 0 als ideaal.
Het onderzoek, dat zich richtte op zestig leerkrachten en meer dan achthonderd leerlingen, bracht drie vragen in kaart:
- Is de TLTM-schaal geschikt voor gebruik in het secundair onderwijs?
- In welke mate komen het zelfbeeld van leerkrachten en het oordeel van hun klas overeen?
- Wat doet het met leerkrachten als blijkt dat leerlingen hen anders zien dan ze zichzelf zien?
Om die vragen te beantwoorden, werd op twee momenten in het schooljaar feedback verzameld via de TLTM-schaal. Zowel leerkrachten als leerlingen vulden de vragenlijst in. Na elk meetmoment ontvingen de leerkrachten een gepersonaliseerd feedbackrapport, waarin hun eigen inschatting werd afgezet tegen het klasgemiddelde. In de besproken studie ligt de focus op de resultaten van het eerste meetmoment en de daaropvolgende feedbackervaring.
Verschillende perspectieven, geen absolute waarheid
De resultaten tonen een genuanceerd beeld. Bij zichtbare gedragingen zoals humor of het delen van persoonlijke anekdotes, was er een degelijke overeenstemming tussen leerkrachten en hun klas. Maar bij relationele of meer interne gedragingen, zoals empathie of het geloof in het leervermogen van leerlingen, liepen de meningen vaker uiteen.
Zo kan een leerkracht zichzelf als sterk growth-minded (gelovend dat elke leerling kan leren en goede cijfers kan halen) zien, terwijl de klas op dat punt een lagere score geeft. Mogelijk komt de positieve verwachting van de leerkracht bij hen niet over, of ervaren ze de feedback als bevooroordeeld en ongelijk verdeeld. Omgekeerd kan het voorkomen dat een leerkracht zichzelf afstandelijk vindt, terwijl leerlingen dat gedrag als “net goed” inschatten. Misschien zien zij de kalme stijl net als een vorm van nabijheid. Kleine verschillen – bijvoorbeeld “net goed” (0) tegenover “iets te weinig” (-1) – vertaalden zich soms al in een ander gevoel bij de feedback.
Ook binnen eenzelfde klasgroep liepen de belevingen uiteen. Niet elke leerling ervaart een leerkracht op dezelfde manier. Leerlingen beoordelen gedrag immers niet vanuit een theoretisch kader, maar vanuit hun persoonlijke beleving. Dat maakt leerlingfeedback genuanceerd, maar ook meerduidig.
Feedback: een spiegel, geen verdict
Het feedbackrapport leverde soms verrassingen op. Uit een korte vragenlijst over hun feedbackervaring bleek dat vooral leerkrachten die zichzelf positiever inschatten dan hun klas dat deed, iets minder enthousiast waren over de feedback.
Toch bleef het algemene beeld positief. De meeste leerkrachten vonden de feedback correct, bruikbaar en constructief. Scores op het item “De feedback hielp me begrijpen hoe ik mijn functioneren kan verbeteren” suggereren bovendien dat veel leerkrachten de feedback zagen als een uitnodiging tot groei.
Leerlingen als feedbackgevers: waardevol maar complex
Het systematisch gebruik van leerlingfeedback over SEMS is in Vlaanderen nog geen standaardpraktijk – zeker niet meermaals per jaar. Toch toont deze studie aan dat het haalbaar, zinvol en zelfs motiverend kan zijn. De TLTM-schaal biedt daarbij een belangrijk voordeel ten opzichte van klassieke evaluaties: ze laat ruimte voor nuance. Gedrag is zelden louter positief of negatief. Wat voor de ene leerling “te veel” is, voelt voor de andere net als betrokkenheid.
Tegelijkertijd blijkt uit eerdere literatuur dat de meerwaarde van leerlingfeedback sterk afhangt van de manier waarop ze wordt ingebed. Factoren zoals anonimiteit, duidelijke communicatie, begeleiding bij interpretatie en ruimte voor dialoog worden daarbij genoemd als cruciale randvoorwaarden. Zonder die omkadering dreigt feedback eerder weerstand op te roepen dan leerwinst te creëren.
Een pleidooi voor meerstemmigheid
De centrale les uit het onderzoek? Leerkrachten zijn geen eindproducten. Net als leerlingen hebben ze recht op feedback, begeleiding en groeikansen. Door naast zelfevaluaties en -reflecties ook de stem van leerlingen in rekening te nemen, ontstaat een rijker beeld van het klasgebeuren. Geen evaluatiecultuur, maar een leerklimaat waarin ook de leraar blijft leren.
De resultaten pleiten dan ook voor het verder verfijnen van de TLTM-schaal, het integreren van leerlingfeedback in ontwikkeltrajecten, en het stimuleren van een veilige, reflectieve feedbackcultuur op school. Want soms zit de wijsheid van de klas niet in de luidste stem, maar in de nuance tussen "te veel", "te weinig" en "precies goed".
Bibliografie
References
Aesaert, K., Voogt, J., Kuiper, E., & van Braak, J. (2017). Accuracy and bias of ICT self-efficacy: An empirical study into students’ over- and underestimation of their ICT competences. Computers in Human Behavior, 75(1), 92–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.05.010
Aguinis, H., Gottfredson, R. K., & Joo, H. (2012). Delivering effective performance feedback: The strengths-based approach. Business Horizons, 55(2), 105–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2011.10.004
Akram, M., & Zepeda, S. J. (2015). Development and validation of a teacher self-assessment instrument. Journal of Research and Reflections in Education, 9(2), 134-148.
Alkan, Ö. K., Aksoy, N. C., Kulaksız, T., Kaplan, H. A., Durmaz, B. N., Özcan, M., & Kalkavan, B. (2024). A multi-feedback system integrated simulation-based teacher training to scaffold pre-service teachers’ teaching skills: A phenomenological approach. Education and Information Technologies, 29(15), 20691–20713. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12657-4
Allen, K., Kern, M. L., Vella-Brodrick, D., Hattie, J., & Waters, L. (2018). What schools need to know about fostering school belonging: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 30(1), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9389-8
Anseel, F., Van Yperen, N. W., Janssen, O., & Duyck, W. (2010). 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
Armstrong, R. A. (2014). When to use the Bonferroni correction. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 34(5), 502–508. https://doi.org/10.1111/opo.12131
Arthur, E. K., Menon, U., Browning, K., Overcash, J., & Wills, C. E. (2021). Challenges of cognitive interviewing in sensitive health topic research. Nursing Research, 70(5), 376–382. https://doi.org/10.1097/nnr.0000000000000530
Ashton, M. C., Paunonen, S. V., & Lee, K. (2014). On the validity of narrow and broad personality traits: A response to Salgado, Moscoso, and Berges (2013). Personality and Individual Differences, 56, 24–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.08.019
Atkins, P. W. B., & Wood, R. E. (2002). Self- versus others' ratings as predictors of assessment center ratings: Validation evidence for 360-degree feedback programs. Personnel Psychology, 55(4), 871–904. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2002.tb00133.x
Atwater, L. E., & Brett, J. F. (2006). 360-degree feedback to leaders: Does it relate to changes in employee attitudes? Group and Organization Management, 31(5), 578–600. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601106286887
Atwater, L. E., & Yammarino, F. J. (1992). Does self-other agreement on leadership perceptions moderate the validity of leadership and performance predictions? Personnel Psychology, 45(1), 141–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1992.tb00848.x
Atwater, L. E., Ostroff, C., Yammarino, F. J., & Fleenor, J. W. (1997). Self-other agreement: Does it really matter? Personnel Psychology, 51(3), 577–598. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1998.tb00252.x
Babad, E. Y., Inbar, J., & Rosenthal, R. (1982). Teachers’ judgment of students’ potential as a function of teachers’ susceptibility to biasing information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(3), 541–547. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.42.3.541
Babyak, M. A. (2004). What you see may not be what you get: A brief, nontechnical introduction to overfitting in regression-type models. Psychosomatic Medicine, 66(3), 411–421.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bergner, S., Davda, A., Culpin, V., & Rybnicek, R. (2016). Who overrates, who underrates? Personality and its link to self-other agreement of leadership effectiveness. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 23(3), 335–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051815621256
Berson, Y., & Sosik, J. J. (2007). The relationship between self-other rating agreement and influence tactics and organizational processes. Group & Organization Management, 32(6), 675–698. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601106288068
Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1995). Multiple significance tests: The Bonferroni method. BMJ, 310(6973), 170. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.310.6973.170
Borg, S., & Edmett, A. (2019). Developing a self-assessment tool for English language teachers. Language Teaching Research, 23, 655–679. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168817752543
Bramley, G., Campbell-Pilling, K., & Simmons, C. (2020). ‘Don’t feedback in anger’: Enhancing student experience of feedback. 6th International Conference on Higher Education Advances (HEAd’20), Universitat Politècnica de València, 1147-1154. https://doi.org/10.4995/head20.2020.11216
Brooks, C., Burton, R., van der Kleij, F., Ablaza, C., Carroll, A., Hattie, J., & Neill, S. (2021). Teachers activating learners: The effects of a student-centred feedback approach on writing achievement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103387
Brown, A., Inceoglu, I., & Lin, Y. (2017). Preventing rater biases in 360-degree feedback by forcing choice. Organizational Research Methods, 20 (1), 121–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428116668036
Busse, C., Mahlendorf, M. D., & Bode, C. (2016). The ABC for studying the too-much-of-a-good-thing effect: A competitive mediation framework linking antecedents, benefits, and costs. Organizational Research Methods, 19(1), 131–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428115579699
Caulfield, J. (2007). What motivates students to provide feedback to teachers about teaching and learning? An expectancy theory perspective. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching & Learning, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2007.010107
Chakrabarti, A., & Ghosh, J. K. (2011). AIC, BIC and recent advances in model selection. In P. S. Bandyopadhyay & M. R. Forster (Eds.), Handbook of the Philosophy of Science (pp. 583–605). https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-444-51862-0.50018-6
Cieciuch, J., & Strus, W. (2021). Toward a model of personality competencies underlying social and emotional skills: Insight from the circumplex of personality metatraits. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.711323
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
Cornes, S., Torre, D., Fulton, T. B., Oza, S., Teherani, A., & Chen, H. C. (2023). When students’ words hurt: 12 tips for helping faculty receive and respond constructively to student evaluations of teaching. Medical Education Online, 28(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2022.2154768
Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98
Criss, C. J., Konrad, M., Alber-Morgan, S. R., Brock, M. E., & Harris, A. B. (2023). Using performance feedback with and without goal setting on teachers’ classroom management skills. Behavioral Disorders, 49(2), 91–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/01987429231201096
Cronbach, L. J. (1990). Essentials of psychological testing (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Cronbach, L. J., & Gleser, C. G. (1957). Psychological tests and personnel decisions. University of Illinois Press.
Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective Teacher Professional Development. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute. https://doi.org/10.54300/122.311
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Self-determination theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 416–436). Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249215.n21
Devos, G., Hulpia, H., Tuytens, M., & Sinnaeve, I. (2013). Self-other agreement as an alternative perspective of school leadership analysis: An exploratory study. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 24(3), 296–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2012.693103
Diaries, J. D. (2024, November 15). Choosing the best model: A friendly guide to AIC and BIC. Medium. https://medium.com/@jshaik2452/choosing-the-best-model-a-friendly-guide-to-aic-and-bic-af220b33255f
Dunn, T. J., Baguley, T., & Brunsden, V. (2014). From alpha to omega: A practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. British Journal of Psychology, 105(3), 399–412. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12046
Ernst, H. M., Wittwer, J., & Voss, T. (2023). Do they know what they know? Accuracy in teacher candidates’ self‐assessments and its influencing factors. British Educational Research Journal, 49, 649-673. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3860
European Commission (2022). Country reports - Belgium. Education and Training Monitor 2022. https://op.europa.eu/webpub/eac/education-and-training-monitor-2022/en/country-reports/belgium.html
Eva, K. W., & Regehr, G. (2005). Self-assessment in the health professions: A reformulation and research agenda. Academic Medicine, 80(Suppl.), S46–S54. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200510001-00015
Ferguson, D. L., Hanreddy, A., & Draxton, S. (2011). Giving students voice as a strategy for improving teacher practice. London Review of Education, 9(1), 55-70. https://doi.org/10.1080/14748460.2011.550435
Fleenor, J. W., Smither, J. W., Atwater, L. E., Braddy, P. W., & Sturm, R. E. (2010). Self-other rating agreement in leadership: A review. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(6), 1005–1034. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.10.006
Gan, Z. (2020). How learning motivation influences feedback experience and preference in Chinese university EFL students. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00496
García, E. C. (2024). Peer feedback for teaching professional development: Conditions for it to take effect. Cogent Education, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2024.2391577
Gibbons, J. D., & Chakraborti, S. (2011). Nonparametric statistical inference (5th ed.). CRC Press.
Guo, Y., Zhang, Y., Liao, J., Guo, X., Liu, J., Xue, X., Li, C., Zhang, M., & Zhang, Y. (2017). Negative feedback and employee job performance: Moderating role of the big five. Social Behavior and Personality, 45(10), 1735–1744. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.6478
Ham, S.-H., Duyar, I., & Gumus, S. (2015). Agreement of self-other perceptions matters: Analyzing the effectiveness of principal leadership through multi-source assessment. Australian Journal of Education, 59(3), 225–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004944115603373
Hammer, R., Peer, E., & Babad, E. (2018). Faculty attitudes about student evaluations and their relations to self-image as teacher. Social Psychology of Education, 21(3), 517–537. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-018-9426-1
Harris, R. J. (1985). A primer of multivariate statistics (2nd ed.). Academic Press.
Hattie, J. A. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203887332
Hox, J. J. (2010). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203852279
Hox, J. J., Moerbeek, M., & van de Schoot, R. (2018). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Hsu, H., Bautista, G., & Yang, X. (2025). Reassessing the faculty encouragement scale through a cognitive interview approach with first-year engineering students. European Journal of Engineering Education, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2025.2475340
Husain, M., & Khan, S. (2016). Students’ feedback: An effective tool in teachers’ evaluation system. International Journal of Applied and Basic Medical Research, 6(3), 178-181. https://doi.org/10.4103/2229-516x.186969
Kaiser, R. B., & Overfield, D. V. (2011). Strengths, strengths overused, and lopsided leadership. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 63(2), 89–109. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024470
Karm, M., Sarv, A., & Groccia, J. (2022). The relationship between students’ evaluations of teaching and academics professional development. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 46(8), 1161–1174. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2022.2057214
Keeping, L. M., & Levy, P. E. (2000). Performance appraisal reactions: Measurement, modeling, and method bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 708–723. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.5.708
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1057
Korsgaard, M. A. (1996). The impact of self-appraisals on reactions to feedback from others: The role of self-enhancement and self-consistency concerns. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17(4), 301–311. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199607)17:4<301::AID-JOB749>3.0.CO;2-N
Kreft, I. G. G., & De Leeuw, J. (1998). Introducing multilevel modeling. SAGE Publications.
Lee, A., & Carpenter, N. C. (2018). Seeing eye to eye: A meta-analysis of self-other agreement of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(2), 253–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.06.002
Li, A., Aidossova, Z., Tazhina, G., & Tatyyeva, Z. (2021). Emotional intelligence and self-assessment of school teachers. Education in a changing world: global challenges and national priorities, 114, 86-93. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2021.07.02.11
Linderbaum, B. A., & Levy, P. E. (2010). The development and validation of the feedback orientation scale (FOS). Journal of Management, 36(6), 1372–1405. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310373145
Loignon, A. C., Fleenor, J. W., Jeong, S., & Woehr, D. J. (2024). Does what others can(not) see really matter? The relationship between leadership Arena-Reputation-Identity (LARI) model and leader effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 110(3), 404-431. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001238
London, M., & Smither, J. W. (2002). Feedback orientation, feedback culture, and the longitudinal performance management process. Human Resource Management Review, 12(1), 81–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1053-4822(01)00043-2
Machine Learning Quick Reads (2024, April 7). Model Selection with AIC & BIC. Medium. https://machinelearningabc.medium.com/model-selection-with-aic-bic-10ac9dac4c5a
MacKie, D. (2015). Who sees change after leadership coaching? An analysis of impact by rater level and self-other alignment on multi-source feedback. International Coaching Psychology Review, 10(2), 118-130. https://doi.org/10.53841/bpsicpr.2015.10.2.118
McColl, E. (2006). Cognitive Interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design. Quality of Life Research, 15(3), 571–573. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-005-5263-8
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.81
McNaughton, S., Rosedale, N., Zhu, T., Siryj, J., Oldehaver, J., Teng, S. L., Williamson, R., & Jesson, R. (2022). Relationships between self-regulation, social skills and writing achievement in digital schools. Reading and Writing, 35, 1201-1219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10232-8
Menard, S. (1995). Applied logistic regression analysis (Vol. 106). SAGE Publications.
Minea-Pic, A., Nusche, D., Sinnema, C., & Stoll, L. (2021). Teachers’ professional learning study: Diagnostic report for the Flemish community of Belgium (OECD Education Policy Perspectives, No. 31). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/7a6d6736-en
Miyamoto, K., Huerta, M. C., & Kubacka, K. (2015). Fostering social and emotional skills for well-being and social progress. European Journal of Education, 50(2), 147–159. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12118
Montgomery, J. L., & Baker, W. (2007). Teacher-written feedback: Student perceptions, teacher self-assessment, and actual teacher performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(2), 82–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.04.002
Moralejo, L., Andersen, E., Hilsmann, N., & Kennedy, L. (2019). Measuring student responses in and instructors’ perceptions of student evaluation teaching (SETs), pre and post intervention. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(3). https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2019.3.8052
Morales, M. P. E. (2016). Participatory Action Research (PAR) cum Action Research (AR) in teacher professional development: A literature review. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 2(1), 156-165.
Murray, H. G. (1997). Does evaluation of teaching lead to improvement of teaching? International Journal for Academic Development, 2(1), 8–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144970020102
Napolitano, C. M., Sewell, M. N., Yoon, H. J., Soto, C. J., & Roberts, B. W. (2021). Social, emotional, and behavioral skills: An integrative model of the skills associated with success during adolescence and across the life span. Frontiers in Education, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.679561
Nielsen, K., Tafvelin, S., von Thiele Schwarz, U., & Hasson, H. (2021). In the eye of the beholder: How self-other agreements influence leadership training outcomes as perceived by leaders and their followers. Journal of Business and Psychology, 37, 73-90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-020-09730-3
OECD (2015). Skills for social progress: The power of social and emotional skills. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264226159-en
Omer, K., Jacobs, S., Cottenie, K., Bettger, B., Dawson, J., Graether, S., Murrant, C., Zettel, J., & Newton, G. (2023). Evaluating and improving the formative use of student evaluations of teaching. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotlrcacea.2023.1.10960
Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (1996). Bandwidth-fidelity dilemma in personality measurement for personnel selection. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17(6), 609–626.
Palk, K. (2018). Middle school teachers attitudes towards the need for student feedback and attitudes towards the impact of feedback on teachers professional development (Master’s thesis). University of Tartu, 3385-3394. Retrieved from https://dspace.ut.ee/handle/10062/63303
Pichurin, V., Umerenko, V., & Dutko, T. (2023). The formation of emotional stability of students in physical education. Physical Education and Sports International Conference, 705-712. https://doi.org/10.51582/interconf.19-20.04.2023.075
Pierce, J. R., & Aguinis, H. (2013). The too-much-of-a-good-thing effect in management. Journal of Management, 39(2), 313-338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311410060
Primi, R., Santos, D., John, O. P., & De Fruyt, F. (2021). SENNA: Inventory for the assessment of social and emotional skills: Technical manual. Instituto Ayrton Senna. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/byvpr
Ross, J. A., & Bruce, C. D. (2007). Teacher self-assessment: A mechanism for facilitating professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(2), 146–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.04.035
Salgado, J. F. (2017). Bandwidth-fidelity dilemma. In V. Zeigler‑Hill & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences (pp. 1–4). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_1280-1
Scheirlinckx, J., Van Raemdonck, L., Abrahams, L., Teixeira, K. C., Alves, G., Primi, R., John, O. P., & De Fruyt, F. (2023). Social-emotional skills of teachers: Mapping the content space and defining taxonomy requirements. Frontiers in Education, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1094888
Schneider, M., & Preckel, F. (2017). Variables associated with achievement in higher education: A systematic review of meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 143, 565–600. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000098
Sosik, J. J., & Godshalk, V. M. (2004). Self-other rating agreement in mentoring: Meeting protégé expectations for development and career advancement. Group and Organization Management, 29(4), 442–469. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601103257421
Soto, C. J., Napolitano, C. M., Sewell, M. N., Yoon, H. J., & Roberts, B. W. (2022). An integrative framework for conceptualizing and assessing social, emotional, and behavioral skills: The BESSI. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 123(1), 192–222. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000401
Stalmeijer, R. E., Dolmans, D. H. J. M., Wolfhagen, I. H. A. P., Peters, W. G., van Coppenolle, L., & Scherpbier, A. J. J. A. (2009). Combined student ratings and self-assessment provide useful feedback for clinical teachers. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 15(3), 315–328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-009-9199-6
Stevens, J. P. (1992). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Streiner, D. L. (1994). Figuring out factors: The use and misuse of factor analysis. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 39(3), 135–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/070674379403900303
Stronge, J. H. (2018). Qualities of effective teachers (3rd ed.). Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
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
Tonidandel, S., Quiñones, M. A., & Adams, A. A. (2002). Computer-adaptive testing: The impact of test characteristics on perceived performance and test takers' reactions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 320–332. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.320
Trenor, J. M., Miller, M. K., & Gipson, K. G. (2011, June). Utilization of a think-aloud protocol to cognitively validate a survey instrument identifying social capital resources of engineering undergraduates. Paper presented at the 2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Tsui, A. S., & Ashford, S. J. (1994). Adaptive self-regulation: A process view of managerial effectiveness. Journal of Management, 20(1), 93–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639402000105
Tuytens, M., Moolenaar, N., Daly, A., & Devos, G. (2019). Teachers’ informal feedback seeking towards the school leadership team: A social network analysis in secondary schools. Research Papers in Education, 34(4), 405–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2018.1452961
van der Lans, R., van de Grift, W., & van Veen, K. (2018). Developing an instrument for teacher feedback: Using the Rasch model to explore teachers' development of effective teaching strategies and behaviors. Journal of experimental education, 86(2), 247-264. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2016.1268086
VanVoorhis, C. R. W., & Morgan, B. L. (2007). Understanding power and rules of thumb for determining sample sizes. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 3(2), 43–50. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.03.2.p043
Vergauwe, J., Wille, B., Hofmans, J., Kaiser, R. B., & De Fruyt, F. (2017). The too little/too much scale: A new rating format for detecting curvilinear effects. Organizational Research Methods, 20(3), 518-544. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428117706534
Wang, H., Burić, I., Chang, M., & Gross, J. J. (2023). Teachers’ emotion regulation and related environmental, personal, instructional, and well-being factors: A meta-analysis. Social Psychology of Education, 26(6), 1651–1696. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-023-09810-1
Whitehead, O. (2024, September 1). Belgium's teacher shortage: How bad is it? The Brussels Times. https://www.brusselstimes.com/1200898/belgiums-teacher-shortage-how-bad-is-it
Yammarino, F. J., & Atwater, L. E. (1997). Do managers see themselves as other see them? Implications of self-other rating agreement for human resources management. Organizational Dynamics, 25(4), 35–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0090-2616(97)90035-8
Yang, L., Wu, Y., Liang, Y., & Yang, M. (2023). Unpacking the complexities of emotional responses to external feedback, internal feedback orientation and emotion regulation in higher education: A qualitative exploration. Systems, 11(6), 315-334. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems11060315
Yu, S. O. (2016). Using students’ feedback to evaluate teachers’ effectiveness. Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers, 2(1), 156–165. Retrieved from https://jett.labosfor.com/index.php/jett/article/view/222
Zong, Z., Schunn, C., & Wang, Y. (2021). What makes students contribute more peer feedback? The role of within-course experience with peer feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1968792
