Next Article in Journal
The Impact of Sustainable Financial Development and Green Energy Transition on Climate Change in the World’s Highest Carbon-Emitting Countries
Previous Article in Journal
The Role of the Digital Economy in Promoting Sustainable Agricultural Development: Implications for Sustainable Food Security
Previous Article in Special Issue
Digital Communication in Higher Education Settings: A Pilot Study on Students’ Behavioural Trends
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 9
10.3390/su17093778
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Roles of Indirect Feedback and Attitude for Sustainability in Learning

by
Adhi Kusumastuti
1,
Panuwat Rodchom
2,
Wirawan Intolo
2 and
Kongkiti Phusavat
2,*
1
Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Negeri Semarang, Semarang City 50229, Indonesia
2
Department of Industrial Engineering, Kasetsart University, Bangkok 10903, Thailand
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(9), 3778; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17093778
Submission received: 13 February 2025 / Revised: 1 April 2025 / Accepted: 20 April 2025 / Published: 22 April 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Higher Education: Innovative Teaching and Learning, and Leadership for Creating Impacts on Local Society and Globally)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This research focused on the narrative relating to the learning process of secondary students, especially those who are less affluent. The scope of this narrative deals with the possible roles and benefits of indirect feedback to enhance secondary students’ learning. Thus, the research aimed to examine the impacts of their past experiences with indirect feedback (in interactions with people outside school), attitude, and social expectation on secondary students’ paradigm and mindset. The survey was based on the Double-loop Learning concept and Theory of Planned Behavior. A total of 1473 students from eight secondary schools located in the central Java region (Indonesia) participated in the survey. Based on the findings, two factors (i.e., attitude and indirect feedback) significantly influenced students’ paradigm and mindset on learning. Key implications to help sustain learning for secondary students include the continuous importance of an effective student–teacher relationship and the potential integration of indirect feedback from people outside school. In other words, the research suggests more classroom openness for indirect feedback when enhancing secondary students’ learning process. Finally, the limitations and future studies are discussed.

1. Introduction

There are many implications when examining the issues relating to sustainability in learning. These issues generally include learning interests, motivation to learn, learning experiences, and learning environment [1]. Moreover, from classroom to workplace, sustainability in learning indicates prevalent learning skill among the learners, whether they are students or workers. Learning skill, which is regarded as the foundation for employability in the current business environment and landscape, depends on whether learning interests and behavior can be sustained [2,3]. Note that this learning skill highlights the willingness to learn, based on conversations, demonstrations, discussion, engagement, observation, and mistakes [4,5,6].
Thus, understanding how to sustain learning interests and behavior is a critical issue today, whether the focus is on the classroom (classroom learning relates to students as learners) or the workplace (workplace learning is closely associated with workers as learners) [1,4]. As a result, learning has become a common skill for all [7]. In this research, the focus is on classroom learning. Traditionally, an effective student–teacher relationship (e.g., engagement and communication) has been the foundation for learning within a formal setting—curriculum, lesson plan development, assessment and evaluation, activities during and after a session [8,9,10]. Trust and a feeling of psychological safety reflect the relationships’ outcomes.
In addition, effective student engagement should increase learning interests and the level of learning intention and motivation [1,11,12]. Motivated students can further strengthen their wiliness to learn from mistakes, to adapt to various academic activities, to think critically, and to solve a problem systematically, which are essential for their learning skill today. Failing to establish and maintain effective student–teacher relationships can lead to several adverse effects such as academic disengagement, increased anxiety and stress, behavioral issues and lower academic achievement [9,13,14]. As a result, the success of learning in the primary level (e.g., feeling confident to think critically and work collaboratively with others) usually relies on these relationships [6,15,16].
Despite the prevalent positive impacts of the student–teacher relationship, concern has emerged for secondary students regarding its effective influence on their behavior and mindsets [9,13,17]. In other words, it appears that as a student becomes older, his or her relationship with a teacher becomes less impactful [8,9,17,18]. One of the reasons is that secondary students need to decide (at Year 9) whether to continue their education at the upper secondary level or to pursue vocational education. In addition, students who are in the upper secondary level (from Years 10 to 12) will likely attend higher education institutes. Note that the lower secondary level indicates Years 7–9, while the upper secondary level indicates Years 10–12. They are required to submit a portfolio which consists of both academic and non-academic performance [7,19]. Thus, these secondary students need to embrace many activities outside of their schools, such as training and voluntary work. Thus, social expectation may not greatly influence any decision or action undertaken by secondary students. In other words, the influence from others on a student in this circumstance may not be expected.
Past practices for in-service teacher training at the secondary level traditionally focused on balancing professional responsibilities and expectations while building and sustaining positive relationships with students [20,21,22]. Recent development shows that secondary teachers need to have more in-depth understanding of subject matters, to command better communication skills, and to become more innovative in developing activities that enhance students’ knowledge [18,23,24,25]. This recent development affects the effectiveness of the teacher–student relationship.
To enhance learning interests among secondary students, a classroom should not be viewed as a closed system [1,6]. A closed system indicates a lack of active and continuous participation from outside. For secondary students facing poverty, skills and knowledge learned in the classroom may not match their needs and expectation after completing a diploma [12]. Apparently, this issue cannot be addressed entirely by student–teacher relationships [8,9,18]. Instead of focusing on academic performance, these students should receive more practical feedback for their development, such as behavior, emotion, maturity, skills, and capability [18,26]. This feedback can involve people from outside school without focusing on academic performance.
Feedback is information provided to a student directly and indirectly about his or her behavior (e.g., efforts, decision and action, etc.) with respect to the specific expectations, goals, and/or outcomes [27,28,29]. Feedback helps a student refocus his or her behavior to achieve these expectations, goals, and outcomes [28,30]. On the contrary, learning relies on vigorous assessment and evaluation, which results in academic information focusing on a student’s performance relative to a curriculum [15,31]. Thus, evaluation illustrates academic performance while feedback points to an area where a student can or needs to improve. Moreover, feedback can be direct (e.g., verbal conversations and joint activities) and indirect (e.g., listening and other gestures), while evaluation often results in a value demonstrating excellent or poor performance [32,33,34]. Finally, feedback has long been considered as a stimulus for students’ learning by adding to classroom dynamics and potentially resulting in more positive learning outcomes [4,27,29,35,36].

2. Literature Review

2.1. Double-Loop Learning and Feedback

Feedback reflects not only how well students perform with respect to a set of expectations, but should also point to an area which they can improve [29,31]. Feedback, unlike evaluation, can come from teachers, peers, and people from outside [29,31]. Feedback should generally be constructive to help entice learning interest and strengthen learning skill of students [37]. In addition, constructive feedback, which is often indirect in nature (to help students avoid any confusion with formal information from evaluation), should challenge students to reflect and learn from their mistakes [28]. Feedback symbolizes continuous attention and active engagement with students from school.
In general, two feedback loops are an integral part of students’ learning process [27,38,39,40]. For the first loop, feedback should focus on improving how actions can contribute to the expected results or requirements. Feedback should lead to a change or an improvement in the decision or action taken by a student. For the second loop, the relationship is more complex, since there is a need to understand the prevailing assumptions and mindset of a student that contribute to his or her actions. Despite the accepted impacts of the student–teacher relationship, its effects in this second loop can be limited, especially when overcoming a sense of not being engaged and connected among secondary students [10,22,41], for instance, when a student feels that no matter how hard he or she works, nobody pays attention to what is achieved. The reason is that they are poor and enroll in a school without a good reputation. The indirect feedback (as feedback is not about formal assessment and examination) can involve a visit by people from outside the school. This visit represents a recognition of hard work by students, which can help reaffirm that their actions are the right thing to do. Outside people can include business operators, entrepreneurs, scholars, community leaders, etc.
The two feedback loops focus on continuous learning. Within the scope of Double-loop Learning, feedback from peers (i.e., part of informal feedback within the context of social learning) can be viewed as part of the second loop. For instance, for disadvantaged students, allowing peer-to-peer learning could symbolize trust and opportunity which they assume are not given. Social learning is a process by which students can acquire knowledge and skills through social interactions with role models and mentors.

2.2. Theory of Planned Behavior and Learning Process

The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) is an important psychological framework that helps describe how an individual behaves and what factors affects this behavior [35,42]. This behavior can include learning, performing a task, interacting with colleagues, communicating with customers, etc. [10,43,44]. For TPB, an intention leads to an individual’s decision and action [1]. This intention is influenced by a learner’s paradigm or mindset (e.g., I believe I can succeed in this surrounding environment) [35]. Based on the TPB, there are three factors that affect an individual’s paradigm or mindset. They are attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control [35].
For students, the term attitude refers to positive or negative evaluations when a student is faced with a situation such as a need to perform and/or complete a specific task [17,45]. If a student believes that the behavior will lead to favorable outcomes (e.g., assignment completion), then he or she is more likely to have a positive attitude. Subjective norms reflect the influences that peers, outsiders, and others have on a person’s mindset and paradigm, intention, decision, and action [46]. In other words, subjective norms represent social expectation when a student decides on an action [46,47].
Perceived behavior control describes whether a student feels that he or she can control, handle, and complete a given task, resulting in its completion. This term implies that a student needs both capability and opportunity. In this study, the perceived behavior control factor is excluded. The reason is that, in a classroom environment, the roles of a teacher is to remain in control of content delivery and classroom management, which minimizes the effect or influence from this factor of perceived behavior control [15,31,32]. In summary, the Double-loop Learning concept and the TPB illustrate that, in general, learning paradigm depends on feedback, attitude, awareness of expectation from others, and capability [15,35,36,37]. As a result, more insights into students’ paradigm or mindset are needed, especially for secondary students faced with poverty and less influence from a student–teacher relationship. The reason is that the mindset of these students relates to learning intention, interests and behavior, which are the foundation for sustainability in learning [11,44,48].

3. Objective

Given the importance of learning for secondary students, the study aimed to examine and understand their past experiences with indirect feedback as well as their attitude and social expectation on their paradigm and mindset. Understanding these experiences was important for sustainability in learning, which includes critical issues such as classroom openness to the outside and the roles of the student–teacher relationship. Classroom openness indicates continuous interactions with people outside. Their roles are not to assess and evaluate academic performance of secondary students. The level of interactions can vary from school to school due to the familiarity of teachers with surrounding communities, and the availability and willingness to engage with students (from people outside the classroom). The schools that were part of the research had regularly engaged with businesses and surrounding communities, especially local business owners and entrepreneurs. The roles of local business owners and entrepreneurs were to observe students’ work and assignments through a series of visits as well as school activities such as contests and national/regional-related events (e.g., environmental awareness). This engagement with students and schools was part of their social responsibility.
Given the circumstances mentioned above, the research focuses on the following three research questions which relate to learning (of students). Does indirect feedback from an external source influence paradigm and mindset of secondary students? For the second question, does social expectation (or subjective norms) influence secondary students’ paradigm and mindset? For the third question, does attitude affect secondary students’ paradigm and mindset?

4. Materials and Methods

The research data were collected from current secondary students in Indonesian schools (from the central Java region). The data were collected in early 2024 with both Google Forms and direct online distribution methods. For data analysis, it focused on evaluating the possible influence from the following three factors on students’ paradigm and mindset: (1) indirect feedback from people outside, (2) subjective norms reflecting the level of influence of social expectations from peers and teachers, and (3) attitude from a student–teacher relationship. The development of this survey was based on the Double-loop Learning concept for indirect feedback and TPB for attitude and subjective norms. See Figure 1. See Appendix A for more details about the survey. Also, there are three hypotheses, as follows:
H1. 
Indirect feedback (IF) influences paradigm/mindset.
H2. 
Subjective norms (S) influence paradigm/mindset.
H3. 
Attitude (A) influences paradigm/mindset.
The survey adapted the 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree and 5 = Strongly agree) to gain the opinions of participants on the factors in the research model. See Appendix A. Data analyses included SPSS, Version 28 and Smart PLS 4.1.1.2 (SmartPLS GmbH, Bönningstedt, Germany). Firstly, the reliability of the results was evaluated. Then, the Factor loading analysis was used for this analysis. Additionally, indexes such as p-values were applied to help assess the results [49]. Using these index values improves the research model. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was applied as part of data analyses.

5. Results

A total of 1473 students from eight secondary schools participated in the survey, representing about 50% of registered secondary students. The reason for the 50% return was that students were asked to volunteer to provide for their past experiences with a period of two weeks for survey availability. These eight schools consistently involved people from outside for students’ engagement, especially local business operators and entrepreneurs. The students were generally regarded as less affluent. An analysis was conducted to examine the significance of individual questions within each of the four factors (i.e., Indirect Feedback or IF, Subjective Norms or S, and Attitude or A, and Paradigm/mindset or M). This examination used the Linear Structural Relationships (LISREL) method, which was appropriate for this type of study [49,50,51,52]. Based on the Factor Loading Analysis, all questions within each factor had significant influence due to the correlation between the item and a factor of more than 0.60 [21,52]. Then, the next step involved the use of Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Initially, the overall result showed that the model was not acceptable, since its p-value was 0, while it needed to be greater than 0.05 [34,51]. In addition, the initial model showed a lack of significant influence from S to M, as its beta value was negative (Beta = −0.08). This initial model only showed positive influences from IF and A on M. As a result, the S factor was removed. See Figure 2. Also, see Appendix A for a detailed description.
The second model (after S removal) passed all criteria, including the Chi square/DF or CMIN, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation or RMSEA, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual or SRMR, Goodness of Fit Index or GFI, Comparative Fit Index or CFI, and Normal Fit Index or NFI. The improved model clearly illustrated that IF and A positively contributed to M. See Figure 3, and Table 1 and Table 2.
To help gain more insights into the specific impacts from individual items of IF and A on M, the Factor Loading analysis was applied. The results illustrated that all individual questions from IF and A had a significant influence due to a correlation value of more than 0.60 with a p-value < 0.01. See Table 3. Also, based on the statistical analyses, the following conclusions were drawn regarding the three hypotheses. H1 (Indirect feedback influences paradigm/mindset.) and H3 (Attitude influences paradigm/mindset.) were accepted, while H2 (Subjective norms influence paradigm/mindset.) was rejected. This result highlighted the continued importance of teachers in shaping students’ attitude for secondary students with the need to consider indirect feedback from an external source as another important element for sustainability in learning.
Based on the results from Table 3, A2 (I believe that the mistake that I have made during school is part of learning and development.) played the most significant impact on a student’s mindset. This attitude stemmed from an effective student–teacher relationship, which had resulted in trust, care, attention, and continuity. Also, IF1 (An opportunity to interact with people outside school can motivate me to learn and work harder.) and IF 2 (An opportunity to share my ideas with people outside school helps improve my weaknesses and increase my knowledge and skills to succeed.) contributed positively to students’ paradigm and mindset. This result indicated the importance of viewing a classroom as an open system. Thus, in summary, indirect feedback and attitude had a positive influence on secondary students’ paradigm and mindset. See Figure 4.

6. Discussion

The findings provide useful insights for sustaining students’ learning, especially at the secondary level. Specifically, Item A1 (I feel that I can always learn more while I am at school.) shows positive impacts from this reflection on paradigm and mindset about learning. In addition, teachers need to ensure the feeling of psychological safety among students (based on item A3 (I feel that I can openly discuss work and problems with anyone at school.)). This issue becomes critical because sustainability in learning needs to consider informal learning [30,33]. Informal learning represents an unstructured way of learning- without formal learning objectives, lesson plans, and assessment. Informal learning encourages a culture of active learning by mistake, from observation, and based on conversations with peers and people from outside, which can be facilitated by teachers [38].
The findings also point to the importance of having indirect feedback from outside school as part of learning [11,29]. All three IF items show the significant impact on students’ paradigm and mindset. In addition to both IF1 (about an increase in the level of learning motivation) and IF2 (about an increase in the level of employability), IF3 (An opportunity for people outside school to engage with work and to interact with me is helpful for my belief and confidence.) underlines students’ positive experiences with people from outside (e.g., business operators, entrepreneurs, community leaders, etc.). In other words, integrating indirect and constructive feedback from people outside school for learning and development appears to be beneficial [28,30,31,45].
Dealing with secondary students who come from a challenging family background (especially poverty or a broken family) has been a major concern at school [12,26]. Thus, building and maintaining a positive attitude remain essential for the paradigm and mindset of disadvantaged students in learning [8,11,42]. Based on the results, an open-system approach for classroom management (i.e., bringing and collaborating more with people from outside) should be strongly considered [8,15,40,41]. Secondary students, who probably look at their future after completing school, show strong learning interests with an opportunity to interact with people outside school. This approach can also address previously mentioned assumptions embedded among less-affluent students [4,12,27]. Having people outside school shows that, regardless of family background and school reputation, students still receive continuous attention and useful feedback for their school’s activities. Thus, this circumstance (of an open system for classroom management in the secondary level) apparently entices strong learning interests [16,19,41].
It is also important to discuss the impacts of subjective norms. Although this term is removed from the first model, the insignificance from social expectations should be examined. Past studies have shown social expectations (e.g., peer pressure, influence from friends, etc.) to be more impactful with younger students [8,11,32]. On the other hand, the impacts of subjective norms on students’ paradigm and mindset can be expected to be smaller for less-affluent secondary students [11,31,32,33]. In other words, the survey results show that, for disadvantaged secondary students who plan to work or to attend vocational education, the impact of social expectations appears to be insignificant.

7. Implications

The research implies the continuous importance of teachers among secondary students [15,34]. For these secondary students, there is a need for teachers to balance between academic excellence (through a standardized assessment and examination) and building an effective student–teacher relationship (with trust, empathy, and consistency) [6,14]. In other words, the feeling of psychological safety is critical for social–emotional development, interpersonal interactions, and learning from observations and conversations, collaboration, mistake sharing, and challenging ideas [2,28].
The research also highlights the significance of indirect feedback to a sense of recognition, belief, and confidence among secondary students [22,41]. Involving people (including business owners or community leaders) who are willing to provide constructive feedback can have psychological benefits to secondary students in terms of confidence and attitude towards learning. There is a need to examine a preliminary process of creating a partnership between schools and private enterprises even though engaging with people outside school cannot be completely mapped out and formalized. The lack of a structured process is due to teachers’ readiness, working culture at school, willingness to engage with school, etc. For instance, an opportunity to engage and interact with people from outside helps reassure students about their learning activities (e.g., knowing that their ideas and work are valuable to people from outside). The recognition (e.g., attention and time) that students have received represents impactful feedback in an implicit (i.e., non-interference with classroom management) way [18,33,43].
This recognition is meaningful because it challenges students’ prevailing assumptions, given their family and school circumstances [1,4]. More importantly, in the research, indirect feedback is simple and should be easily organized without any drastic change in classroom management. From the conceptual viewpoint, these implications help reaffirm the importance of both the Double-loop Learning and TPB when examining a learning process [7,30,34]. Finally, sustainability in learning involves many critical issues that need to entice learning interests as the foundation for life-long learning. Developing students’ learning skills should begin not only with teachers but also with an understanding of the roles of people from outside school, especially for secondary students.

8. Limitations and Future Research

The intended outcome of this research is to provide background on students’ learning, which shows the promising results from indirect feedback, based on interactions with people outside school. Given this intention, it is important to recognize three important limitations in the research. Firstly, school selection was based on schools’ consistent efforts to engage with people from outside and their proximity to and previous activities with the university. These promising results need to be examined more profoundly before they can be generalized. Secondly, this research attempts to capture the perspectives and perceptions of students, based on their past experiences at school. Each of the eight schools used different practices when involving people outside school for students’ engagement. These practices include study visits and participation in school events such as contests, donations, invited speaking engagement with students, sponsorship of school activities, etc. Thirdly, the data were based entirely on secondary students from Indonesia, which is unique and likely differs from other countries and regions. For instance, the prevailing assumptions among secondary students from a less-affluent family may not be applicable in other cultures or regions.
To overcome these limitations, an individual examination into the same eight schools is suggested. This individual examination should provide more insights into the level of influence from indirect feedback. Since the normalization of the involvement of local business owners and entrepreneurs was not explicitly considered in the research model, future research needs to examine how surrounding local and business communities are engaged and allowed to interact with secondary students as a feedback provider in a constructive manner. Specific issues such as regulatory requirements for local business communities to engage and types of engagement (e.g., donor, job trainer, sponsor, etc.) should be carefully scrutinized. Then, how different patterns of school engagement impact the level of students’ learning interests and behavior can be part of future research. More details about how these schools have engaged with people outside can be identified, which will allow a better understanding of specific practices relating to indirect feedback in one school and its impacts. An extensive comparison with other countries and regions is also recommended. This comparison can provide more confidence on the roles of indirect feedback and how it can be integrated into classroom management and pedagogical practices. Future research on learning should also focus on how poverty or being part of a less-affluent family relate to social expectation at school. In addition, the minimum effect from subjective norms should be investigated so that preparation for learning can be strengthened (e.g., whether a decision from secondary students to attend higher education affects social expectations when compared with those who decide to work immediately after graduation).

9. Conclusions

The research focused on the learning process for secondary students, especially those who were less affluent financially. Thus, the research aimed to examine the impacts of the past experiences of secondary students with indirect feedback (based on people from outside), attitude and subjective norms on their paradigm or mindset on learning. The survey was based on the Double-loop Learning concept and TPB. Two factors (i.e., attitude and indirect feedback) significantly influenced students’ paradigm and mindset. However, the impacts from subjective norms were not significant. Key implications from the research include the continuous importance of an effective student–teacher relationship (for creating and sustaining students’ positive attitude) and the potential roles of people outside school (for engaging with students without interfering with classroom management). The research points to the potential benefits of indirect feedback on students’ learning.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.P. and A.K.; methodology, K.P. and P.R.; software, P.R. and W.I.; validation, K.P. and A.K.; formal analysis, K.P.; investigation, K.P. and A.K.; resources, A.K. and W.I.; data curation, K.P. and P.R.; writing—original draft preparation, K.P.; writing—review and editing, K.P.; visualization, A.K. and P.R.; supervision, K.P.; project administration, K.P.; funding acquisition, K.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This project is funded by National Research Council of Thailand (NRCT) through Kasetsart University (N42A660996).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study since the survey was anonymous and gathered no sensitive data.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was provided and/or explained to all subjects involved in the survey study.

Data Availability Statement

Data available upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
IF Indirect Feedback
AAttitude
MParadigm/mindset
SSubjective Norms

Appendix A

The survey questions were reviewed with Psychological Empowerment Instrument (Spreitzer, 1996 [53]). Comparisons of the contents with the previous studies (i.e., Ajzen, 1991 [35]; and Omer and Abdularhim, 2017 [31]) were performed to ensure that each question was easy to communicate.
Table A1. Illustration of survey questions.
Table A1. Illustration of survey questions.
ItemDescriptionLevel of Agreement
(Based on Past Experiences)
NeverSeldomSometimesOftenAlways
Subjective Norms (S)
S1Expectations and attention within school have significantly influenced how I approach my work.
S2I feel that my work should be aligned with friends and colleagues in class.
S3I have continuously tried to become aware of the classroom’s expectation.
Attitude (A)
A1I feel that I can always learn more while I am at school.
A2I believe that the mistake that I have made during school is part of learning and development.
A3I feel that I can openly discuss work and problems with anyone at school
Indirect Feedback (IF)
IF1An opportunity to interact with people outside school can motivate me to learn and work harder.
IF2An opportunity to share my ideas with people outside school helps improve my weaknesses and increase my knowledge and skills to succeed.
IF3An opportunity for people outside school to engage with work and to interact with me is helpful for my belief and confidence.
Paradigm/Mindset (M)
M1I believe that if I continue to learn and work hard, I will succeed.
M2My family background should not determine my success at school and in the future.
M3Success should come from continuous learning and improvement.

References

  1. Angus, M.; McDonald, T.; Ormond, C.; Rybarcyk, R.; Taylor, A.; Winterton, A. Trajectories of Classroom Behaviour and Academic Progress: A Study of Student Engagement with Learning; Edith Cowan University, Western Australia: Joondalup, Australia, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  2. Kucharska, W. Wisdom from Experience Paradox: Organizational Learning, Mistakes, Hierarchy, and Maturity Issues. Electron. J. Knowl. Manag. 2021, 19, 105–117. Available online: www.ejkm.com (accessed on 31 January 2025). [CrossRef]
  3. Wu, X.; Li, H.; Gao, C.; Shen, L.; Tinmaz, H. Chinese university students’ attention level during COVID-19 pandemic. Int. J. Innov. Learn. 2024, 35, 366–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Schnitzler, K.; Holzberger, D.; Seidel, T. All better than being disengaged: Student engagement patterns and their relations to academic self-concept and achievement. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 2021, 36, 627–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Shatri, Z.; Kadrija, R. The impact of feedback methods on student achievement. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 2024, 18, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Walshe, N.; Sund, L. Developing (Transformative) Environmental and Sustainability Education in Classroom Practice. Sustainability 2022, 14, 110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Tran, H.; Mai, T.; Luu, T. The Influence of Work Environment on Employees’ Innovative Work Behaviours in Vietnam Construction Companies. Int. J. Innov. Learn. 2025, 37, 195–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Chodkiewicz, A.; Widen, J.; Yasukawa, K. Making Connections to Re-Engage Young People in Learning: Dimensions of Practice. Lit. Numer. Stud. 2010, 18, 35–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Choi, J.; Han, H. Understanding the Influence of Teacher-Student Relationship on Mathematics Achievement: Evidence from Korean Students. SAGE Open 2023, 13, 21582440231208548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Wilkins, J. Good Teacher-Student Relationships: Perspectives of Teachers in Urban High Schools. Am. Second Educ. 2023, 4391, 52–68. [Google Scholar]
  11. Biisova, G.; Amirov, A.; Duisenbayev, A.; Baltymova, M. Modelling the Process of Moral Socialisation for High School Students. Int. J. Innov. Learn. 2023, 34, 331–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ferguson, H.; Bovaird, S.; Mueller, M. The Impact of Poverty on Educational Outcomes for Children. Pediatr. Child Health 2007, 12, 701–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Cui, T.; Liu, Q.; Liu, J.; Wang, C. The Relationship Between Teacher-Student Relationship, Self-Confidence, and Academic Achievement in the Chinese Context. Sustainability 2020, 12, 24–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Zhou, X. Toward the Positive Consequences of Teacher-Student Rapport for Students’ Academic Engagement in the Practical Instruction Classrooms. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 759785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Halberstadt, J.; de Bronstein, A.A.; Greyling, J.; Bissett, S. Transforming Entrepreneurship Education: Interdisciplinary Insights on Innovative Methods and Formats. In Transforming Entrepreneurship Education: Interdisciplinary Insights on Innovative Methods and Formats; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Usmar, U.; Sismiati, S.; Sulaiman, S. Implementation Student Learning Achievement for Student: Literature Review. Dinasti Int. J. Digit. Bus. Manag. 2024, 5, 215–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Xaxer, K.; Schenell, J.; Mori, J.; Hascher, T. The role of teacher-student relationships and student-student relationship for secondary school students’ well-being in Switzerland. Int. J. Educ. Res. Open. 2024, 6, 100318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Jennings, P.A.; Greenberg, M.T. The Prosocial Classroom: Teacher Social and Emotional Competence in Relation to Student and Classroom Outcomes. Rev. Educ. Res. 2009, 79, 491–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ngah, A.; Kamalrulzaman, N.; Abdullah, N.; Ariffin, N.; Din, R. Undergraduate Student Performance During the Pandemic: A Sequential Mediation Effect of Grit and Student Motivation. Int. J. Innov. Learn. 2024, 36, 467–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ayvaz-Tuncel, Z.; Çobanoğlu, F. In-Service Teacher Training: Problems of the Teachers as Learners. Int. J. Instr. 2018, 11, 159–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hair, J.F.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 2nd ed.; Sage: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  22. Mutter, E.R.; Liu, Z.; Gollwitzer, P.M.; Oettingen, G. More Direction but Less Freedom? How Task Rules Affect Intrinsic Motivation. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 2023, 152, 1484–1501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Fernández-Batanero, J.M.; Román-Graván, P.; Reyes-Rebollo, M.M.; Montenegro-Rueda, M. Impact of Educational Technology on Teacher Stress and Anxiety: A Literature Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Huhtala, A.; Vesalainen, M. Challenges in Developing In-Service Teacher Training: Lessons Learnt from Two Projects for Teachers of Swedish in Finland. J. Appl. Lang. Stud. 2017, 11, 55–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Osamwonyi, E. In-Service Education of Teachers: Overview, Problems, and Way Forward. J. Educ. Pract. 2016, 7, 83–87. [Google Scholar]
  26. Latorre-Cosculluela, L.; Sin-Torres, E.; Anzano-Oto, S. Links between Innovation and Inclusive Education: A Qualitative Analysis of Teachers’ and Leaders’ Perceptions. Int. J. Innov. Learn. 2024, 36, 246–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Argyris, C. Teaching Smart People How to Learn. Harv. Bus. Rev. 1991, 69, 99–109. [Google Scholar]
  28. Ghoorchaei, B.; Mamashloo, F.; Ayatollahi, M.A.; Mohammadzadeh, A. Effect of Direct and Indirect Corrective Feedback on Iranian EFL Writers’ Short- and Long-Term Retention of Subject-Verb Agreement. Cogent Educ. 2022, 9, 2014022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Vollmeyer, R.; Rheinberg, F. A Surprising Effect of Feedback on Learning. Learn. Instr. 2005, 15, 589–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Wong, B.; Li, K.; Chan, T. A Survey of Smart Learning Practices: Contexts, Benefits, and Challenges. Int. J. Innov. Learn. 2023, 34, 122–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Omer, A.; Abdularhim, M. The Criteria of Constructive Feedback: The Feedback That Counts. J. Health Spec. 2017, 5, 45–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Prasetyarini, A.; Anif, S.; Harsono; Narimo, S.; Nugroho, M.S. Peer Collaboration in P5: Students’ Perspective of Project-Based Learning in Multicultural School Setting. Int. J. Innov. Learn. 2025, 37, 104–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Serra, L.; Alves, J.; Soares, D. Mapping Innovation in Educational Contexts: Drivers and Barriers. Int. J. Innov. Learn. 2024, 35, 74–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Sofroniou, A.; Premnath, B.; Poutos, K. Capturing Student Satisfaction: A Case Study on the National Student Survey Results to Identify the Needs of Students in STEM-Related Courses for a Better Learning Experience. Educ. Sci. 2020, 10, 378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ajzen, I. Theory of Planned Behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Nandini, W.; Gustomo, A.; Sushandoyo, D. The Mechanism of an Individual’s Internal Process of Work Engagement, Active Learning and Adaptive Performance. Economies 2022, 10, 165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Chong, S.W. The Role of Feedback Literacy in Written Corrective Feedback Research: From Feedback Information to Feedback Ecology. Cogent Educ. 2022, 9, 2082120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Akınoğlu, O.; Tandoğan, R.Ö. The Effects of Problem-Based Active Learning in Science Education on Students’ Academic Achievement, Attitude, and Concept Learning. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2007, 3, 71–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Blaak, M. Pushing the Limits of Adaptiveness Through Double Loop Learning: Organizational Dilemmas in Delivering Sexual Reproductive Health Rights Education in Uganda. Educ. Action Res. 2023, 31, 384–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Clark, K. Double-Loop Learning and Productive Reasoning: Chris Argyris’s Contributions to a Framework for Lifelong Learning and Inquiry. Midwest Soc. Sci. J. 2021, 24, 33–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Pineda, M.A.; Mendoza, G.; Velarde, C.M.; Tus, J. The Relationship Between Social Support and Depression Among Senior High School Students in the Midst of Online Learning Modality. Zenodo 2022, 5, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Rhodes, R.; Courneya, K. Modelling the Theory of Planned Behavior and Past Behavior. Psychol. Health Med. 2003, 8, 57–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Sussman, R.; Gifford, R. Causality in the Theory of Planned Behavior. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2019, 45, 920–933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Zanabazar, A.; Jambal, T. The Relationship Between Entrepreneurial Mindset and Entrepreneurial Intention: An Extended Model of Theory of Planned Behavior. Ad Alta J. Interdiscip. Res. 2023, 13, 120–125. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/372983721 (accessed on 31 January 2025).
  45. Murugesan, R.; Jayavelu, R. Testing the Impact of Entrepreneurship Education on Business, Engineering and Arts and Science Students Using the Theory of Planned Behaviour: A Comparative Study. J. Entrep. Emerg. Econ. 2015, 7, 256–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Norisnita, M.; Indriati, F. Application of Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) in Cryptocurrency Investment Prediction: A Literature Review. J. Econ. Bus. 2022, 5, 524–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Hapsari, S.A. The Theory of Planned Behavior and Financial Literacy to Analyze Intention in Mutual Fund Product Investment. Adv. Econ. Bus. Manag. Res. 2021, 187, 136–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Shanbhag, P.R.; Pai, Y.P.; Kidiyoor, G.; Prabhu, N. Development and Initial Validation of a Theory of Planned Behavior Questionnaire: Assessment of Purchase Intentions Towards Products Associated with CRM Campaigns. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2023, 10, 2229528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Hu, L.T.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria Versus New Alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. 1999, 6, 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Lomax, R.G. A Guide to LISREL-Type Structural Equation Modeling. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. 1982, 14, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Prudon, P. Confirmatory Factor Analysis as a Tool in Research Using Questionnaires: A Critique. Compr. Psychol. 2015, 4, 03.CP.4.10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Malhotra, N.K.; Lopes, E.; Veiga, R.T. Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL: An Initial Vision. Braz. J. Mark. 2014, 13, 1–20. [Google Scholar]
  53. Spreitzer, G. Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment. Acad. Manag. J. 1996, 39, 483–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 17 03778 g001
Figure 1. Research model.
Figure 1. Research model.
Sustainability 17 03778 g001
Sustainability 17 03778 g002
Figure 2. Initial results with an illustration of the IF, S, A, and M factors.
Figure 2. Initial results with an illustration of the IF, S, A, and M factors.
Sustainability 17 03778 g002
Sustainability 17 03778 g003
Figure 3. Improved model after S removal.
Figure 3. Improved model after S removal.
Sustainability 17 03778 g003
Sustainability 17 03778 g004
Figure 4. Results from the research model.
Figure 4. Results from the research model.
Sustainability 17 03778 g004
Table 1. Results after harmonizing the model’s indexes.
Table 1. Results after harmonizing the model’s indexes.
IndexCriteria ValueModel ValueResults
p-value>0.050.063PASS
χ2/df<2.001.760PASS
RMSEA<0.050.023PASS
SRMR<0.080.009PASS
GFI≥0.901.000PASS
CFI≥0.951.000PASS
NFI≥0.951.000PASS
Table 2. Results of path coefficients of IF and A.
Table 2. Results of path coefficients of IF and A.
Independent Variables/DependentM1M2M3
IFTotal Effect0.08 *0.08 *
(0.08)(0.07)
1.081.08
Indirect Effect--
--
Direct Effect0.08 *0.08 *
(0.08)(0.07)
1.081.08
ATotal Effect0.54 **0.50 **
(0.08)(0.07)
7.166.64
Indirect Effect--
--
Direct Effect0.54 **0.50 **
(0.08)(0.08)
7.166.64
* Indicating p-value < 0.05; ** indicating p-value < 0.01.
Table 3. Factor loading value of observed variables from the research model.
Table 3. Factor loading value of observed variables from the research model.
VariablesFactor LoadingStandardT (t-Test)
IF or Indirect Feedback
IF10.920.0423.30 **
IF20.920.0331.26 **
IF30.810.0325.60 **
A or Attitude
A10.710.0416.72 **
A20.750.0420.81 **
A30.620.0318.49 **
M or Paradigm/mindset
M10.71
M20.660.0514.13 **
M30.720.0325.92 **
** indicating p-value < 0.01.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kusumastuti, A.; Rodchom, P.; Intolo, W.; Phusavat, K. Roles of Indirect Feedback and Attitude for Sustainability in Learning. Sustainability 2025, 17, 3778. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17093778

AMA Style

Kusumastuti A, Rodchom P, Intolo W, Phusavat K. Roles of Indirect Feedback and Attitude for Sustainability in Learning. Sustainability. 2025; 17(9):3778. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17093778

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kusumastuti, Adhi, Panuwat Rodchom, Wirawan Intolo, and Kongkiti Phusavat. 2025. "Roles of Indirect Feedback and Attitude for Sustainability in Learning" Sustainability 17, no. 9: 3778. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17093778

APA Style

Kusumastuti, A., Rodchom, P., Intolo, W., & Phusavat, K. (2025). Roles of Indirect Feedback and Attitude for Sustainability in Learning. Sustainability, 17(9), 3778. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17093778

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop