EDUC 5204 - CONTEMPORARY PRACTICE IN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

Assignment 1. Literature Review

The effects of giving feedback on student engagement and motivation.

Throughout the literature review, feedback is unanimously agreed upon as being intrinsically
important in the learning process (Hattie & Timperley 2007, Vollmeyer & Rheinberg 2005).
For this reason, it is a core concept in the theory and practice of teaching (Vollmeyer &
Reinberg 2005). It is important to acknowledge (as a result of the hundreds of research
studies conducted over the last 50 years) that the effects of feedback are complex. Evidently,
‘there are many conflicting findings and no consistent pattern of results’ (Shute 2008 p.153).

The following literature review will endeavour to understand the effects of feedback on
student engagement and motivation. Hattie and Timperley (2007 p.81) conceptually defined
feedback ‘as a “consequence” of performance’. That is, feedback (answers, clarification,
encouragement, or directions) is given by an agent (teacher, peer, book, parent, self, or
experience) concerning a facet of one’s performance or understanding [the consequence]
(Hattie & Timperley 2007).
In short, the result will then depend on: a) the quality of feedback b) the learner’s goals and
motives and c) the learning context and consequences of a good or poor performance
(Vollmeyer & Rheinberg 2005).

A student’s motivation-towards and engagement-in a task can be the determining factors in

a student’s level of achievement. Finn & Zimmer (2012 p36) state that teachers can fuel
students’ academic motivation through ‘informed feedback in a non-judgemental way’.
Hence, students will be more motivated and engaged in schooling when they form a
reciprocal relationship with teachers who display the three features of motivational support
as outlined by Finn & Zimmer (2012 p36). They are: 1) when teachers are involved,
committed and care, 2) when teachers have high expectations and explain the relevance and
importance of challenging learning activities and 3) when teachers solicit and respect the
opinion of their students and provide clear and concise feedback.

Feedback:

HELEN PHILIPPOU 09903745R 1

 EDUC 5204 - CONTEMPORARY PRACTICE IN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Assignment 1. Literature Review
The literature compiled by cognitive scientists, learning theorists and educational
psychologists deem feedback as an invaluable learning tool (Kluger & DeNisi 1996).
However, it was also apparent that judgements pertaining to: a) who should provide
feedback, b) how the feedback should be delivered, c) what content the feedback should
contain and d) what timing was optimal for the delivery of the feedback all vary (Hattie &
Timperley 2007, Kluger & DeNisi 1996, Shute 2008, Brown, Harris & Harnett 2012).

Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick (2006 cited in Bergh, Ros & Beijaard 2013) explain that feedback
should confirm good works but also contain constructive criticism. It is important to note
that criticism is not destructive feedback. Destructive feedback is that which assigns poor
performance to the personal attributes of the student. In turn, this process contributes to
lower self-esteem and poor self-efficacy (Bergh, Ros & Beijaard 2013). This is supported by
the research of Fyfe and Rittle-Johnson (2016 p.2) who explain that feedback has a negative
affect ‘when it reduces mindfulness (Butler & Winne 1995) draws attention to self (Kluger &
DeNisi 1996) or produces cognitive interference (Kulhavey 1977).’

Teachers have traditionally provided feedback within the education system, yet with the rise
in popularity of the constructivist classroom, students are now deemed a legitimate source
of feedback (Brown, Harris & Harnett 2012). In line with providing student-centred activities
and learning opportunities to increase self-regulation, it is postulated that peer and self-
assessment practices encourage students to understand assessment criteria, identify
learning objectives and increase meta-cognition (Bergh, Ros & Beijaard 2013 Brown, Harris
& Harnett 2012).

Feedback provided in the form of grading, scoring, writing, or verbally have all been shown
to influence the students learning (Brown, Harris & Harnett 2012). Spontaneous verbal
feedback is favoured in the learning process between the student and the teacher. The
process and benefits of this will be discussed in the next section. However, both Kluger and
DeNisi (1996) and Shute (2008) explain that written comments are advantageous as students
can retain and refer to them again.
The literature reveals that feedback is best giving during the learning process especially for
simple error correction (Hattie & Timperley 2007, Shute 2008). However, other theorists did

HELEN PHILIPPOU 09903745R 2

 EDUC 5204 - CONTEMPORARY PRACTICE IN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Assignment 1. Literature Review
distinguish that high achievers may benefit from delayed feedback provision as they can
attempt to complete their exercise without interruption (Shute 2008, Fyfe & Rittle-Johnson
2016).

Through Hattie & Timperley’s (2007) meta-analysis they characterised four levels of
feedback:1) Feedback about the task – whether it was completed satisfactorily or not. 2)
Feedback about the processing of the task – feedback regarding strategies used to complete
the task. 3) Feedback about self-regulation – reminding the students of what they already
know in order to complete the task. And 4) feedback about the self – nonspecific praise.
This is the least effective according to research but the most commonly used in the
classroom (Hattie & Timperley’s 2007).

Motivation and Engagement:

Dr Martin (developer of the Student Motivation and Engagement Wheel 2001) explains
motivation as a students’ attitude towards acquiring and understanding knowledge
concerning school, schoolwork, and themselves (cited in Groundwater-Smith, Ewing, and Le
Cornu 2015 p.87). A students’ desire to work hard, learn effectively and reach their potential,
is what comprises motivation (Woolfolk and Margetts 2013). Research has demonstrated
that when a student is highly motivated they are likely to achieve academic success.
Contrary to this, students with a lack of motivation have been associated with low academic
achievement and a rising “dropout” rate (Kushman, Sieber & Heariold–Kinney 2000 cited in
Woolfolk & Margetts 2013 p. 351). Albeit, student motivation, and engagement are
fundamentally connected. Student engagement relates to students participating and
involving themselves completely, with regard to their learning.

Whilst engagement can be spoken of as a broad matter; Russell, Finley and Frydenberg (2005
cited in Woolfolk & Margetts 2013 p. 352) propose that the subject can be divided into three
different categories; behavioural, emotional, and cognitive engagement. Behavioural
engagement refers to students’ perceptible actions. For example, participating and getting
involved in class discussions or activities. Emotional engagement refers to a student’s
emotional reaction to teachers, classmates, school, and learning activities. Cognitive
engagement refers to the mental effort put into the student’s learning activities (Fredricks,

HELEN PHILIPPOU 09903745R 3

 EDUC 5204 - CONTEMPORARY PRACTICE IN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Assignment 1. Literature Review
Blumfeld & Paris 2004 cited in Woolfolk & Margetts 2013 p. 352). Motivation and
engagement are both critical elements of a student’s schooling career and utilising informed
feedback, teachers can help students with both elements.

The best practice strategies for improving motivation and engagement through
feedback are going to start with the theories of two developmental psychologists, Piaget
[cognitive constructivist] and Vygotsky, [social constructivist] (Groundwater-Smith, Ewing
and Le Cornu 2015). Firstly, Piaget (1964) explained that linguistic and educational
transmission can be received only if a student possesses the scheme (basic thinking and
mental representation of actions and thoughts) to enable him/her to assimilate the
information. Accommodation is the alteration of the existing scheme to create a new
scheme in response to new information. Simply put, feedback needs to be provided in a way
that the students understand and then for it to be effective the student needs utilise the
information. Kulhavy 1977 (p.220 cited in Hattie & Timperley 2007 p. 82) reiterates this
theory by stating ‘if the material studied is unfamiliar or abstruse, providing feedback should
have little effect on criterion performance, since there is no way to relate the new information
to what is already known’.
Vygotsky (1987) explained, instruction/feedback can be valuable only if it is aimed just above
the actual level of development known as the Zone of Proximal Development. When this
occurs, it stimulates a series of functions awaiting development. Vygotsky theorised that
students should be guided in their knowledge acquisition by More Knowledgeable Others -
usually teachers, parents or other adults, but can also be peers (McLeod 2007). This takes
place in the form of feedback.

The zone of proximal development is imperative to understand as research has revealed that
feedback given to students with prior knowledge can inhibit the learning process (Fyfe &
Rittle-Johnson 2016). Kluger and DeNisi (1996) suggest that students can become fixated
on being right or wrong rather than concentrating on ways to improve their task. Fyfe &
Rittle-Johnson (2016) research findings suggest that higher knowledge students would rely
on their own knowledge to complete a task; therefor the feedback may be redundant
information that competes for working memory resources - which can impair knowledge
acquisitions. Hence, if the student has prior knowledge pertaining to the task or exercise

HELEN PHILIPPOU 09903745R 4

 EDUC 5204 - CONTEMPORARY PRACTICE IN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Assignment 1. Literature Review
feedback must be specific and concise (Fyfe & Rittle-Johnson 2016).

To engage and motivate a student feedback must answer three questions 1) Where am I
going? (What are the goals) 2) How am I going? (what progress is being made toward the
goal) and 3) Where to next? (Hattie & Timperley 2007 p. 86).

The type of feedback should be facilitative. This fits with the constructivist classroom in
where a teacher is process-orientated. That is where the learning process is guided and
facilitated by the teacher otherwise known as student-centred and autonomy-supportive
teaching. The type of language used is important for the teacher to monitor as “you must”
does not encourage student’s critical thinking like “you can” or “you may” (Bergh, Ros and
Beijaard 2013).

With reference to the levels of feedback developed by Hattie & Timperley (2007) praise is not
effective alone as it lacks the information required for the student to better their learning.
Personal feedback (praise) can offer contingent self-worth which may reduce the students’
resilience to “setbacks” (Fyfe & Rittle-Johnson 2016). The literature review reveals that self-
regulation feedback leads to greater student motivation, engagement and self-efficacy
making it the most powerful form of feedback (Hattie & Timperley 2007 and Brown, Harris &
Harnett 2012).

Conclusion:
When examining the effects of feedback on student motivation and engagement several
variables come into play a) who should provide feedback, b) how should the feedback be
delivered, c) what content the feedback should contain and d) in what timing for the delivery
of the feedback.

In light of the literature review there were convincing arguments for both teacher and peer
feedback. I found there was a gap in peer-feedback related research. I would like to study
peer-feedback further in my active research. Teaching a skill is an excellent way to learn. I
would like to conduct a research where firstly I would instruct students in how to assess work
against a rubric and then teach them the most optimal ways of providing feedback. My

HELEN PHILIPPOU 09903745R 5

 EDUC 5204 - CONTEMPORARY PRACTICE IN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Assignment 1. Literature Review
hypothesis would be that in this way, they may learn to engage with and be more motivated
to utilise feedback in future learning. It would be in line with constructivism and collaborative
learning through a reciprocal caring relationship with the teacher and peers.

In closing, process and task related feedback increase student autonomy and critical
thinking. It is important to know your student and assess prior knowledge. Feedback should
facilitate motivation and engagement if delivered thoughtfully and deliberately.

References:

Boon, SI 2014, 'Increasing the uptake of peer feedback in primary school writing: findings from an
action research enquiry', Education 3-13, vol.44, no. 2 pp. 1-14.

HELEN PHILIPPOU 09903745R 6

 EDUC 5204 - CONTEMPORARY PRACTICE IN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Assignment 1. Literature Review
Brown, GT, Harris, LR & Harnett, J 2012, 'Teacher beliefs about feedback within an assessment for
learning environment: Endorsement of improved learning over student well-being', Teaching and
Teacher Education, vol. 28, no. 7, pp. 968-978.

Finn J.D. and Zimmer K.S. 2012, Handbook of Research on Student Engagement, Springer, Boston,
MA

Fyfe, Emily R.; Rittle-Johnson, Bethany Feedback Both Helps and Hinders Learning: The Causal
Role of Prior Knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology. 108(1):82-97, January 2016.

Groundwater – Smith, Ewing, and Le Cornu (2015) Fifth Edition. Teaching: Challenges and
Dilemmas. Melbourne: University Press. Cengage

Hattie, J & Timperley, H 2007, 'The power of feedback', Review of educational research, vol. 77, no.
1pp. 81 - 112

Kamins, Melissa L. 1; Dweck, Carol S. 1,2 Person Versus Process Praise and Criticism: Implications
for Contingent Self-Worth and Coping. Developmental Psychology. 35(3):835-847, May 1999.

Kluger, AN, Denisi, A & Steinberg, RJ 1996, 'The Effects of Feedback Interventions on Performance:
A Historical Review, a Meta-Analysis, and a Preliminary Feedback Intervention
Theory', Psychological Bulletin, vol. 119, no. 2, pp. 254-284.

Piaget, J. (1964). Development and learning. In M. Gauvain & M. Cole (Eds.), Readings on the
development of children (pp. 19-28). New York: W.H. Freeman and Company. Retrieved from
http://www.psy.cmu.edu/~siegler/35piaget64.pdf

Rattan, A, Good, C & Dweck, CS 2012, '"It's ok — Not everyone can be good at math": Instructors
with an entity theory comfort (and demotivate) students', Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 731-737.

Shute, VJ 2008, 'Focus on Formative Feedback', Review of Educational Research, vol. 78, no. 1, pp.
153-189

Skipper, Y & Douglas, K 2012, 'Is No Praise Good Praise? Effects of Positive Feedback on Children's
and University Students' Responses to Subsequent Failures', British Journal of Educational
Psychology, vol. 82, no. 2, pp. 327-339.

Van, BL, Ros, A & Beijaard, D 2013, 'Teacher feedback during active learning: Current practices in
primary schools', British Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 83, no. 2, pp. 341.
Vollmeyer, R & Rheinberg, F 2005, 'A surprising effect of feedback on learning', Learning and
Instruction, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 589-602.

Vygotsky, L. S (1978) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes

Cambridge,Massachusetts: Harvard University Press,

Vygotsky, L. S (1987) Problems of General Psychology, vol. 1 of The Collected Works of L.S.
Vygotsky, ed.Robert W. Reiber and Aaron S. Carton, trans. Norris Minick New York: Plenum Press

Woolfolk, A. and Margetts, K. (2013) Educational Psychology, 3rd Edition, Pearson Australia NSW.

HELEN PHILIPPOU 09903745R 7

 EDUC 5204 - CONTEMPORARY PRACTICE IN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Assignment 1. Literature Review

HELEN PHILIPPOU 09903745R 8