{"id":168,"date":"2020-04-05T15:08:51","date_gmt":"2020-04-05T14:08:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/research.kent.ac.uk\/upgrade-rocs\/?p=168"},"modified":"2020-08-21T14:11:00","modified_gmt":"2020-08-21T13:11:00","slug":"https-research-kent-ac-uk-test-rocs-wp-admin-post-new-phppost_typepage","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/research.kent.ac.uk\/rocs\/https-research-kent-ac-uk-test-rocs-wp-admin-post-new-phppost_typepage\/","title":{"rendered":"Examining teachers\u2019 ratings of feedback following success and failure: a study of Chinese English teachers"},"content":{"rendered":"

Find more information about the Kent author here<\/strong><\/a>
\nFind the full paper here\u00a0<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

About:<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/h2>\n

Feedback influences learning, affects performance, emotion regulation and student satisfaction.<\/span> In this research, types of feedback and teachers’ views of intelligence were examined.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

There are two ways how feedback can be delivered. <\/span>Person<\/span><\/i> forms of feedback attribute the outcome to stable factors such as ability levels (e.g., \u201cyou\u2019re really good at maths\u201d). In contrast, <\/span>process<\/span><\/i> form of feedback attributes the outcome to student\u2019s effort, and other unstable factors (e.g., \u201cyou tried really hard at this\u201d). <\/span>Research shows that children <\/span>display more positive affect, persistence, and improved performance in future<\/span> in they receive process feedback after failure.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Praise is common and used to maintain<\/span> children\u2019s<\/span> behaviour and academic motivation while criticism <\/span>signals when the required standard has not been achieved. Research strongly suggests that teachers prefer to deliver praise over criticism<\/span>. <\/span>However, there is very little research examining how much teachers use person and process forms of praise<\/span>.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Teacher\u2019s view of intelligence is strongly linked to person feedback and process feedback. Person forms of feedback can promote view of intelligence as a fixed trait (entity theory). Process forms of <\/span>feedback<\/span> however, <\/span>promote the belief that intelligence can grow and change (incremental theory of intelligence).\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

This research was interested in <\/span>how teachers choose to deliver feedback and specifically whether they deliver person<\/span> (ability) or process (effort) feedback.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Research Objectives<\/b><\/h2>\n

\u2022\u00a0<\/span>To examine the type of feedback (process vs. person) that teachers would say they would deliver following scenarios presenting successes and failures.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Programme & Methodology:<\/span><\/b>\u202f<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/h2>\n

Study 1<\/strong>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2022\u00a0<\/span>169 Chinese Primary school English teachers <\/span>(<\/span>N=169).\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2022 Teachers read vignettes depicting children\u2019s educational successes and failures<\/span>
\n<\/span>\u2022 After each scenario, teachers were asked to rate how difficult the task was and how likely <\/span><\/span>they would be to give feedback.<\/span><\/span><\/span>
\n\u2022 They were then given an example of person feedback and an e<\/span><\/span>xample of process feedback.
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>\u2022 They were asked to rate how likely they would be to deliver each to the student.<\/span><\/span><\/span>
\n\u2022 Teachers also completed measures of their theory of intelligence.<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Findings:<\/span><\/b><\/h2>\n

\u2022 Teachers were more likely to give praise than criticism and more likely to give feedback for tasks perceived to be more challenging.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2022 Following success, teachers endorsed the use of person and process feedback interchangeably, while following failure they endorsed more process feedback.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2022 If teachers <\/span>view<\/span>ed<\/span> intelligence<\/span> more <\/span>as a fixed trait<\/span> (<\/span>entity theory<\/span>) they did not give <\/span>more praise following success. However, <\/span>their view was<\/span> associated<\/span> with giving more person and process praise and less process criticism following failure<\/span>.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Impact:<\/span><\/b><\/h2>\n

\u202f<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span>Important <\/span>implications<\/span><\/b> for <\/span>policy makers and educators<\/span><\/b>. <\/span><\/p>\n

\u2022 \u00a0Suggest need to develop\u00a0extra training for teachers on the importance of and ways to effectively deliver feedback<\/span><\/span>.<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>
\n \u2022 \u00a0Important that <\/span><\/span>teachers consider the longer term impact of their praise<\/span><\/span>. Even small amounts of person praise may be damaging<\/span><\/span>.<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/span>
\n \u2022 \u00a0<\/span>T<\/span>eachers may <\/span>use more encouraging statements to ensure students focus on their future performance<\/span><\/b>, rather than criticism which directs attention to current performance<\/span>.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

New and important contributions to research<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Find more information about the Kent author here Find the full paper here\u00a0 About:\u00a0 Feedback influences learning, affects performance, emotion regulation and student satisfaction. In this research, types of feedback and teachers’ views of intelligence were examined.\u00a0 There are two ways how feedback can be delivered. Person forms of feedback attribute the outcome to stable […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":610,"featured_media":170,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[18,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-168","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gender","category-uncategorised"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/research.kent.ac.uk\/rocs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/168","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/research.kent.ac.uk\/rocs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/research.kent.ac.uk\/rocs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/research.kent.ac.uk\/rocs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/610"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/research.kent.ac.uk\/rocs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=168"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/research.kent.ac.uk\/rocs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/168\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2835,"href":"https:\/\/research.kent.ac.uk\/rocs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/168\/revisions\/2835"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/research.kent.ac.uk\/rocs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/170"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/research.kent.ac.uk\/rocs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=168"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/research.kent.ac.uk\/rocs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=168"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/research.kent.ac.uk\/rocs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=168"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}