Feedback that Facilitates Learning: Perceptions of Mathematics Student Teachers in a Higher Learning Institution in Central Zambia

Feedback that Facilitates Learning: Perceptions of Mathematics Student Teachers in a Higher Learning Institution in Central Zambia

*Maureen Kanchebele Sinyangwe¹, Harrison Daka², Lydia Mukuka Mulenga – Hagane³, Kalisto Kalimaposo⁴, Jive Lubbungu⁵, Allan Cephas Kunda⁶

^1,5,6Kwame Nkrumah University, Kabwe, Zambia

 ^2,3,4University of Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia

*Corresponding Author

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.908000306

Received: 29 July 2025; Accepted: 06 August 2025; Published: 09 September 2025

ABSTRACT

Lecturer’s feedback on students’ written tasks is generally considered as one of the primary means of learning in higher learning institutions. While this is the case there is little known research on student teachers’ perspectives of the content of the feedback on written assessment tasks that can facilitate students’ learning. This qualitative study first establishes the nature of the feedback that is given to Mathematics student teachers. It then, through the student teachers’ shared perceptions, finds out the effectiveness of lecturers’ feedback on students’ written tasks in improving students’ learning and preparing them for giving feedback. Data were collected through document review and interviews from 20 purposively selected fourth year student teachers majoring in Mathematics at a University in Central Zambia. The study was guided by Hattie (2009) framework on effective feedback. The findings show that the student teachers acknowledged that lecturers’ written feedback is an important learning strategy, but it had not been effective enough in improving their learning and preparation for giving feedback. They indicated that there were problems with the feedback they had been receiving. The problems identified as being associated with the feedback received included: (a) no clear understanding of the meaning of the given feedback (b) no clear understanding of what may need to be done to improve (c) feedback mode of delivery and timeliness. The results of this study suggest some key qualities of effective feedback and provide insights into possible changes in the nature of, and approach toward feedback on written assessment tasks for Mathematics student teachers who themselves are also being prepared for the role of giving feedback.

Keywords: Feedback, Effective, Mathematics student teachers, Perceptions, Learning

INTRODUCTION

Teacher Education (TE) is designed to prepare student teachers (STs) to teach effectively and enhance learners’ learning (Sandholtz, 2011). TE programmes in Zambia commonly offer student teachers (ST) compulsory education courses, including educational psychology, sociology of education and special education, which relate to educational theory and practice. According to Banja & Mulenga (2019) such courses are designed to provide general and foundational knowledge and skills for teaching. ST also have to take courses in their two chosen teaching subjects of specialization through which they would further develop skills and knowledge relating to the content area of the teaching subject(s) they have chosen to specialise in. When in third year, the students are supposed to add on what is generally considered as methodology courses which are pedagogical in nature’ (Nalube, 2014, p.17). These are the courses which contribute to the development of pedagogical content knowledge which include techniques, strategies and procedures for teaching and assessing understanding of the content of the chosen subject of specialization.

Feedback on written assessment tasks in TE

Assessment is an integral part of Higher Education level teaching and learning (Brown, 2020; Masaiti, Kakupa and Mupeta 2023; Bwembya and Daka, 2024) including TE. Assessments can be in the form of written assignments, tests and examination. They can be given to individual or group of students depending on the: setting(s), objectives of the assessment and learning and the nature of course/course content. In whichever case and especially in the formative assessment context, feedback is supposed to be given to the students.

Feedback can be defined as information about the gap between actual level and the desired level of performance, which in turn leads to corrective action to minimize the gap (Ramaprasad, 1983; Buhagiar, 2013; Daka, Namafe and Katowa – Mukwato, 2019). It is information given to the students about their performance in relation to learning outcomes (Aligula, 2024). Evans (2013) comments that Feedback can have different functions depending on the needs of the learner, the purpose of the task, the learning environment and the adopted feedback paradigm. However, its core aims include: producing improvement in students’ learning; redirecting or refocusing the students’ actions to achieve a goal, by aligning effort and activity with an outcome and; improving confidence, self-awareness and enthusiasm for learning is being taught (Evans, 2013; Agricola, Prins and Sluijsmans, 2020; Kanchebele-Sinyangwe and Daka, 2022; Gálvez-López, 2025). It is also one way of preparing student teachers to assess and give feedback later on when they become teachers (Ahmad, Noorani and Sewani, 2025: Rahman, Irfan, Yusuf, Ali and Abadi, 2025).

Thus feedback on students’ assessment tasks, verbal or written, plays an important role in the teaching/learning process (Black and William, 1989; Hattie, 2009; Wiliam, 2011; Kanchebele-Sinyangwe and Lubbungu, 2020; Daka, Mulenga-Hagane, Mukalula-Kalumbi and Lisulo, 2021). Studies such as by: Mulenga – Hagane, Daka, Msango, Mwelwa, and Kakupa, 2019; Daka, Chipindi and Mwale, 2020 and; Daka, et al, 2021 have been done in the Zambian context to show how feedback contributes to students’ learning. While feedback is one of the primary means of learning in higher education institutions there is little known research on the content of the feedback that can contribute to mathematics student teachers’ learning and preparation for giving feedback to learners at the time they will be serving teachers. Hence this study. The following research questions were used to collect data on how feedback can facilitates learning. (1) What is the nature of lecturers’ feedback on students’ written tasks? (2) How do students’ perceive lecturers’ feedback, on their written tasks, with respect to its effectiveness in contributing to their learning?

METHODOLOGY

This study adopted a qualitative descriptive research design. A total of 65 fourth year mathematics major student teachers made the population. They were in their final year of their TE programme and were considered to have been more widely exposed to receiving feedback based on the assessment tasks they had engaged in for their minor, major subjects of specialization and education courses than the third, second or first year mathematics students and hence capable of providing the in-depth data required for the study. Out of the 65, 20 not only completed the open ended questionnaire, but also availed some marked (lecturer-checked) assessment scripts, from the different courses they were undertaking, and indicated willingness to be interviewed. These 20 are the ones that made the sample of the study. The data presented in this paper is drawn from the reviewed documents (lecturer-checked/marked student assessment scripts) and interviews conducted. Thematic analysis for qualitative data was used which led to the identification of themes relevant to the study. The study was guided by Hattie (2009) framework on effective feedback.

Framework for understanding effective feedback

What may qualify to be effective feedback may differ across disciplines, but Hattie (2009) provides a framework for understanding effective feedback. There are three major areas of effective feedback from the framework. The first looks at ‘where am I going?’ This question is answered through a clear set of goals given to students. It is vital that lecturers communicate purpose for an assessment with the students. This may entail demonstrating to students what an A+ paper looks like and provide a contrast of what a C- paper looks like. This is more applicable to higher learning institutions.

The second area of the framework is ‘how am I going?’ This looks at the delivery of effective and timely feedback. Daka, et al (2021) emphasised that feedback must be timely. When student feedback is given immediately after showing proof of learning, the student responds and remembers the experience about what is being learned more positively. When feedback is delayed the student might not connect it (the feedback) with the learning moment.

The third and last area in the framework focuses on, ‘where to next?’ This is a very vital question in feedback. In this area, students need to know what they have to do for them to reach the goal. In order to guide where to next, the feedback should be focused, clear, and considers motivation and learning, not justifying a grade or on copyediting. There is need to provide an explanation in the feedback of what they are doing correctly and incorrectly. It becomes most productive to a student’s learning when it is provided with an explanation as to what is accurate and inaccurate about their work. In order to achieve this, lecturers need to use comments to teach rather than to justify the grade, focusing on what you would most like students to address in future work (Mwamba, Musonda and Daka, 2021). Lecturers are to avoid over-commenting or “picking apart” students’ work. The lecturer should in their final comments, ask questions that will guide further inquiry by students.

Presentation and Discussion of Findings

The findings of the study are presented in line with the research objectives and under the subthemes: the nature of lecturers’ feedback on students’ written tasks and students’ perceptions on the effectiveness of lecturers’ feedback and its contribution to their learning and preparation for feedback giving.

Nature of lecturers’ feedback on students’ written tasks

The themes reflecting the nature of feedback received are: written feedback verbal feedback and a combination of written and verbal feedback.

Written feedback

Examples of written feedback that stirred the discussion included the following: Written mark(score)/letter grade, written comments, Tick(s)√, Cross(s) X, Question mark(s)? and Underlining. There was also a combination of these which included: written comments and written mark, Tick(s) √ and written mark, Question mark(s)? and mark(score), Cross(s) X, Tick(s) √ and written mark. The examples of written feedback are shown in the pictures labelled Figure1,2,3 and 4.

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Fig 3

Fig 4

Verbal feedback

Examples of verbal feedback included the following: ‘Well done’, ‘Very good piece of academic work’; ‘Critical analysis here’; ‘Well done’; ‘Excellent piece of writing’; ‘You have done very well’; ‘Passed’; ‘You did not do well’; ‘You did not answer the question’; ‘You missed the point’; ‘Work hard(er)’; ‘Failed’; and ‘Checked’. The student teachers generally indicated that the verbal feedback was given when the assessment script(s) was being given back to them. ‘…Sometimes the lecturer would not even give us the scripts and just tell us “you did not do well” ’explained ST 8.

A combination of written and verbal feedback

Some student teachers indicated that they had received a combination of the written and verbal feedback before, but it was rare. This would include verbal remark (positive/negative/neutral) and written mark or verbal remark (positive/negative/neutral) and written letter grade.

Analysis of what was considered as the nature of feedback revealed that written feedback was more common than the verbal and combination of written and verbal feedback. This aligns with findings by Gul, Tharani, Lakhani, Rizvi and Ali, 2016; Agricola et al., 2020; Daka, et al., 2021 that written feedback is the main form of feedback in higher education. Some of the written feedback was detail-oriented and which to some extent ‘…delayed the processing and understanding of the same feedback’ reported ST20. Such kind can induce anxiety. Brandmo & Gamlem (2025) extend the argument when they state that when feedback is overly corrective it can induce anxiety. This could be the reason that some of the feedback given was in the form of a cross X or tick √ which on the other hand was also considered to be inadequate. ‘We are not orientated about feedback, like what the symbols mean…we generally make assumptions and I guess that is what the learners we will be teaching are going to do’ ST17 commented.

Verbal feedback was not as common, but was to some extent appreciated for its immediacy. Another benefit being that it could be used to clarify written feedback thus prevent misunderstanding (of written feedback) (Agricola et al., 2020). What is considered as downsides are that it generally remains a one-sided with directive statements and not dialogical in addition to not being as common. In addition, the challenges that accompanied it such as easily forgetting the feedback by the time it is to be written down (Mwamba, Musonda and Daka, 2021). Where and whenever possible a combination of meaningful written and verbal feedback would be encouraged. As already stated above, this has potential to prevent misunderstanding of the written feedback.

Effectiveness of lecturers’ feedback

Analysis of the interviews with the student teachers revealed three dominant themes regarding the effectiveness of feedback. The first one being actionability gap. This is illustrated by representative extracts including: ‘Feedback is important. You can learn from it, but there is nothing much to learn from a cross (X)…’ST2 and ‘…if it is for learning…there is no knowing what to learn or improve on exactly from a tick (√)?’ST3. Another student teacher (ST5) also asked ‘What is there to learn from a question mark? …’ thereby also indicating how vague the feedback was especially that it was not clarifying the errors to be corrected or the improvement pathway to be taken.

The other theme that emerged from the analysis of the data collected was feedback possessing affective dimensions or consequences. This is illustrated by representative extracts including: ‘I can probably learn from it, but I don’t read the comments anymore…what is the point? When all that is written is negative…’ST1. ST14 also indicated that: ‘it is overwhelming –in the negative sense…there is too much writing from the lecturer… and you don’t even know where to start from to make sense of what could be there…’. ST7 equally stated that: ‘I fail to make sense of the comments so I just check the mark if it is there and …sometimes just tear the papers into pieces…’. While these were generally in the negative and indication of triggering demotivation and self-doubt, there were also some who spoke the opposite. These include ST11 who stated that ‘comments written on my paper shows that my lecturer took time to read my work and that he values my input… s/he wants me to learn something and get better’. Despite this ST11 critiqued delays when he stated that ‘…I only wish it could be given to me in good time to allow me chance to apply apply…’.

The findings confirm Hattie’s (2009) suggestion of what constitutes effective feedback where feedback must answer the questions: ‘Where am I going?’, ‘How am I going?’ and ‘Where to next?’ The symbols, including the cross✗ and or the tick ✓ commonly used especially in mathematics assessment tasks generally fail at these levels. As Higgins, Hartley, Skelton (2002); Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick (2006); Geyskens, Donche and Van Petegem (2012) as well as Daka et al, (2019) argue, feedback is only useful if it reduces the gap between current and desired performance. Student teachers’ frustration with what is generally considered vague feedback reflects this disconnect. This aligns with a point that Price, Handley, Millar & O’Donovan (2010) who present that vague feedback can result in students’ frustration and dissatisfaction. In addition, little or no guidance could lead to feedback avoidance behaviour (Lipnevich, Berg and Smith, 2016).

Student teachers’ requests for clearer and more specific feedback show they struggle to understand how to improve. As comments/notes, feedback can help make learning to happen (Brown, Race, & Sambell, 2025) and must equip students to be own accessors (Sadler, 2013). Non-explanatory symbols such (✗/✓) can deny them entry into evaluative discourse and experiencing self-regulated learning as explained by Zimmerman (1990) and Schunk (2005). This can easily be passed on to school going learners they would be teaching in the teaching service.

The reference to late feedback highlights its expired utility. As Boud and Molloy (2013) argue, delayed feedback only explains past mistakes and can’t guide improvement it. This applies to assessment feedback in any field that student may specialize in. From the shared views and experiences, it can be deduced that Student teachers can learn a lot about receiving, giving feedback and the constructive role of feedback when it is modelled by their lectures. This implies that lecturers would have to not only teach about, but also lead by example including in the context of feedback on assessment tasks (Buhagiar, 2013). This includes in the context of now competence based curriculum in which Zambia which may bring about changes in the assessment and assessment feedback giving landscape.

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

Among the limitations of this study is its reliance on mathematics student teachers’ perceptions. The STs’ perceptions may be inaccurate or biased. It must also be noted that STs were asked to consider the feedback they had received in the current Mathematics Education course and all other courses they were taking during the final term of their final year of their programme. They may have had too much to process with respect to similarities and or differences if any between feedback on written tasks in Mathematics, Mathematics Education and all the other course they were taking. In addition, their perceptions may have been influenced by the complex interaction between their personalities and their different lecturers, among other factors, and may be inaccurate or biased. Despite the stated limitations, the student teachers’ shared perceptions provided an opportunity for them to interrogate and express their views on feedback received, and thus further extend understanding of what it means or meant to receive feedback in their context and lessons to be learnt and applied when they will be giving feedback to the school going children they will be expected to teach upon successful completion of their teacher education programme. It also provides ideas for further research that can be done on the subject. For example, there may be need to research on: feedback received for the Mathematics content courses only and or mathematics content and mathematics methodology courses only: mathematics teacher educators’ views as well on feedback given on student teachers’ assessment tasks as a way of providing a balanced view of the feedback process and highlighting possible gaps between giver and receiver intentions: role of digital feedback tools in providing feedback among other possible areas.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This study provided While acknowledging the limitations, the study concludes that students acknowledged that lecturers’ written feedback is an important learning strategy, but it has not been effective enough in improving their learning and preparing them for giving feedback to school-going learners when they complete their TE programme. The student teachers indicated that there were problems with the currently given feedback which included:

1. no clear meaning of the given feedback, that is, what it means to (not) do well,
2. no clear understanding of what may need to be done to improve
3. the mode of delivery and timeliness.

What the STs shared also reflected gaps in their preparedness for giving school-going learners’ feedback on their written tasks.

The findings of this study provide insights into possible changes in the nature and or form of, and approach toward feedback on students’ written tasks in universities. The researchers recommend consideration for adopting or adapting Hattie (2009) form of questioning i.e. ‘Where am I going?’; ‘How am I going?’; and ‘Where to next?’ as it relates to tasks given to student teachers when giving timely feedback which may contribute to making feedback an effective learning strategy.

Secondly, it is recommended that taking consideration of the mode of delivery and alternative forms of feedback in making feedback an effective learning strategy for the students especially in the context of large classes and time constraints. The mode of delivery may take the form of accommodating both written and verbal feedback when possible to provoke student teachers to further inquiry. Integrating visual examples of feedback directly into the discussion for clarity to be considered too. An alternative form of feedback form could be use of peer feedback systems where student teachers with similar working/answers share and or discuss feedback/comments. Greater emphasis on feedback training or workshops for student teachers could be considered/ studied as an intervention, measuring pre- and post-training changes in feedback literacy.

Additionally, it is recommended that lecturers refine their feedback giving practices on written to better prepare prospective teachers for their role of giving feedback. This includes lecturers modeling feedback interpretation and usage is another. This may contribute to improving feedback literacy and making student teachers effective users of lecturer-given feedback and equip them to model it to the school going learners they will be teaching upon completion of their training programme.

One of the limitations of the study is the reliance on perceptions without statistical or measurable learning outcomes. It is recommended a mixed-methods approach be done to help provide for further empirical validation and evaluation of the actual impact of feedback on student teacher learning outcomes.

REFERENCES

1. Agbayahoun, J. P. (2016). Teacher Written Feedback on Student Writing: Teachers’ and Learners’ Perspectives. Theory & Practice in Language Studies, 6(10).
2. Agricola, B. T., Prins, F. J., & Sluijsmans, D. M. (2020). Impact of feedback request forms and verbal feedback on higher education students’ feedback perception, self-efficacy, and motivation. Assessment in education: principles, policy & practice, 27(1), 6-25.
3. Ahmad, N., Noorani, Z., & Sewani, R. (2025). Exploring feedback and assessment practices: perspectives from prospective teachers. The Critical Review of Social Sciences Studies, 3(1), 953-966.
4. Aligula, E. (2024). Rethinking Higher Education in Africa: Benefits of Formative Feedback in Enhancing Student Learning. Journal of Education, 4(5), 23-34.
5. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, (1), 7 – 74.
6. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139 – 148.
7. Banja, M. K., & Mulenga, I. M. (2019). Teacher Education at the University of Zambia and Teacher Quality with Specific Reference to English Language. Makerere Journal of Higher Education, 10(2), 171-190.
8. Buhagiar, M. A. (2013). Mathematics student teachers’ views on tutor feedback during teaching practice. European Journal of Teacher Education, 36(1), 55-67.
9. Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013). Feedback in higher and professional education. Understanding it and doing it well, 2013.
10. Brandmo, C., & Gamlem, S. M. (2025, May). Students’ perceptions and outcome of teacher feedback: A systematic review. In Frontiers in Education (Vol. 10, p. 1572950). Frontiers Media SA.
11. Brown, S. (2020). Learning, teaching and assessment in higher education.
12. Brown, S., Race, P., & Sambell, K. (2025). Feedback dialogues. In The Lecturer’s Toolkit (pp. 105-124). Routledge.
13. Bwembya, I., & Daka Harrison, C. J. (2024). Achieving accountability and quality education through assessments: a comprehensive exploration of assessment practices in Zambia.
14. Daka, H., Chupindi, And Mwale The Relationship between Assessment Practices and Students’ Academic Performances. A Case of Undergraduate Students at the Medical School of the Background and Context: (PDF) The Relationship between Assessment Practices and Students’ Academic Performances. A Case of Undergraduate Students at the Medical School of the Background and Context
15. Daka, H., Mulenga-Hagane, M. L., Mukalula-Kalumbi, M., & Lisulo, S. (2021). Making summative assessment effective. European Modern Studies Journal, 2021, 5(4), pp224-237.
16. Daka, H., Namafe, C. M. & Katowa-Mukwato, P. (2019). Perspectives on Teaching Approaches and the Grade Point Average Attainment of Undergraduate Medical Students at University of Zambia. International Journal of Humanities Social Sciences and Education, 6(12), 75-82.
17. Evans, C. (2013). Making sense of assessment feedback in higher education. Review of educational research, 83(1), 70-120.
18. Geyskens, J., Donche, V., & Van Petegem, P. (2012). Towards effective feedback in higher education: bridging theory and practice. Reflecting education, 8(1), 132-147.
19. Gálvez-López, E. (2025). Formative feedback in a multicultural classroom: a review. Teaching in Higher Education, 30(2), 463-482.
20. Gul, R. B., Tharani, A., Lakhani, A., Rizvi, N. F., & Ali, S. K. (2016). Teachers’ perceptions and practices of written feedback in higher education. World Journal of Education, 6(3), 10.
21. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York, NY: Routledge.
22. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81 – 122.
23. Higgins, R., Hartley, P., & Skelton, A. (2002). The conscientious consumer: Reconsidering the role of assessment feedback in student learning. Studies in higher education, 27(1), 53-64.
24. Kanchebele-Sinyangwe, M., & Daka, H. (2022). Can university mathematics be taught differently? Possibilities and challenges.
25. Kanchebele-Sinyangwe M. K. & Lubbungu, J. (2020). Teacher Feedback: empowering or not? Zambia Journal of Teacher Professional Growth(ZJTPG), 6(1), 1-9.
26. Kuh, G. D. (2007). What Student Engagement Data Tell Us about College Readiness. Peer Review, 9(1).
27. Lipnevich, A. A., Berg, D. A., & Smith, J. K. (2016). Toward a model of student response to feedback. In Handbook of human and social conditions in assessment (pp. 169-185). Routledge.
28. Masaiti, G., Kakupa, P., & Mupeta, S. (2023). Re-imagining assessment in higher education: Creating alternative pathways for inclusive and democratic assessments in Zambian higher education institutions. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in the South (SOTL) in the South, 7(3), 46-77.
29. Mulenga-Hagane, M., Daka, H., Msango, H. J., Mwelwa, K., & Kakupa, P. (2019). Formative assessment as a means of improving learner achievement: lessons from selected primary schools of Lusaka, Zambia. Journal of Lexicography and Terminology, 3(1), 3354.
30. Mwamba, L. K., Musonda, A. and Daka, H. (2021). Bridging the Gap in Teacher Education Curriculum in Promoting Entrepreneurship: A Case Study of Undergraduate Students of Kwame Nkrumah University, Kabwe-Zambia. International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation, 8 (8), 160 –168.
31. Nalube, P. P. (2014). Student-teachers learning mathematics for teaching: learner thinking and sense making in algebra (Doctoral dissertation, University of the Witwatersrand, Faculty of Humanities, School of Education).
32. Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane‐Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in higher education, 31(2), 199-218.
33. Nichol, D. (2010). From monologue to dialogue. Improving written feedback processes in mass higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35, 501-517.
34. Price, M., Handley, K., Millar, J., & O’Donovan, B. (2010). Feedback: All that effort, but what is the effect? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(3), 277–289.
35. Ramaprasad, A. (1983). On the definition of feedback. Behavioural Sciences, 28, 4 – 13.
36. Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment. Bloomington, In Solution Tree Press.
37. Rahman, H., Irfan, M., Yusuf, F., Ali, A. M., & Abadi, A. U. (2025). Analysis of Pre-service Teachers’ Skills in Providing Feedback to Students During Field Experience Practice in School. IJORER: International Journal of Recent Educational Research, 6(2), 544-564.
38. Sadler, D. R. (2013). Opening up feedback: Teaching learners to see. In Reconceptualising feedback in higher education (pp. 54-63). Routledge
39. Sandholtz, J. H. (2011). Preservice teachers’ conceptions of effective and ineffective teaching practices. Teacher Education Quarterly, 38(3), 27-47.
40. Schunk, D. H. (2005). Self-regulated learning: The educational legacy of Paul R.
41. Vardi, I. (2008). The Relationship between Feedback and Change in Tertiary Student Writing in the Disciplines. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(3), 350-361.
42. Wibowo, W. A., Suryatama, H., & Siswanto, D. H. (2025). Exploring the impact of the Merdeka Curriculum on mathematics education in Elementary Schools. International Journal of Learning Reformation in Elementary Education, 4(01), 27-38.
43. Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational psychologist, 25(1), 3-17.