Hi,
I resonate with Val's comments on the effect of only getting negative (even
if it is constructive) feedback in the absence of positive (also
constructive) feedback. If I only get negative feedback from a person, and
especially if it is delivered in an aversive tone (sarcasm, condescending,
generally showing a lack of respect) that is punishing. And we know the
effects punishment has on behavior, as well as a tendency to avoid the
punisher.
I agree the point being made here:
"routine feedback practices have been criticized for emphasizing social
comparison rather than some measure of mastery and for failing to praise
student effort as opposed to normative performance" (p. 21).
is not failure to provide positive as well as negative feedback, but the
tendency of instructors, generally, to neglect student effort, which has a
negative effect on future expenditure of effort (extinction procedure). I
teach Ed. Psych. and I emphasize to my pre-service teaching students that if
they want to develop persistence in students who tend to give up easily when
given difficult academic tasks it is best to use shaping. So the first step
might be to praise effort--if the student put forth effort even without
tangible results, why would he/she put forth any more effort on future
assignments if the consequence was a bad grade AND no recognition of effort.
NOTE, I am not suggesting that D work be raised to a C or B b/c of effort
expended. D work should receive a D--but I would look for anything at all to
praise in D work if I thought that student worked hard on that academic task;
and I would praise the effort and any good study skill used.
I focussed on the authors' criticism of instructors not using "some measure
of mastery" when grading but a tendency to use normative standards.
Normative standards are "shifting" and thus unpredictable, also they tend to
focus attention on what others are doing (social comparison does that!), and
not on one's own learning in relation to a set of learning goals. When
students know the standard to be attained is mastery--that is at least known
upfront and there is a clear goal. ("Mastery," of course, should be
operationally defined.) Mastery learning goals therefore encourage
self-comparison, and praising effort makes sense.
Research shows that students in classes that emphasize mastery learning goals
as compared to social comparison learning goals (normative) tend to engage in
behaviors that actually help them learn and they tend to realize that
learning is a process of trying hard and persesvering in the face of
temporary setbacks (e.g., Dweck & Elliott, 1983 as well as other Dweck
research; Brophy, 1986, 1987).
Take care,
Marty Brown
Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, VA
In a message dated 7/18/99 2:34:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< > >"Although the importance of feedback is generally acknowledged by
teachers, their
> >routine feedback practices have been criticized for emphasizing social
> >comparison rather than some measure of mastery and for failing to praise
student
> >effort as opposed to normative performance" (p. 21). In other words, the
> >authors felt that it is important to the students' development of good
study
> >skills that the teachers' feedback praise effort even when that effort
fails to bring
> >learning in the discipline.
>
> It seems to me as if the authors are (inadvertently?)
> promoting the popularized version of increasing self-esteem: Praise,
praise, praise,
> regardless of outcome. Can praise for effort, even when such effort fails
> to bring desired results, have a positive effect on development of good
study
> skills? This approach doesn't sound right to me. I wonder what you and
> others think.
Yeah, I anticipated that there'd be some questions about that. I don't
think that the authors were saying that (the "popularized version"), but
you'd have to read the whole thing in context to see the distinctions they
were making. They're worried about practices that promote learning to study,
which is not the same thing as learning the disciplinary content, and there
may be some minor conflicts between the two. Did you notice that they also
said that (my words):
--------
Group work, grading "on a curve" when the entire class does poorly, and
grading exclusively on completion (rather than performance) were other
practices held to undercut learning of autonomous learning.
--------
So there's a distinction between grading for effort (which they
support)
and grading for completion of work (which they do not). I think that the key
is that the "effort" they propose we reward is effort directed at proper
study practices. In other words, a student might study correctly, yet still
not perform on the assessments. Thomas and Rohwer suggest that teachers
learn to reward proper study practices, even when those practices are not
yet paying off in terms of learning of discipline content. That means a lot
of work for the teachers, in coming to recognize those study practices, and
learning to write feedback aimed that that separately from the feedback
aimed at the course content, and perhaps most importantly, making that
distinction clear to the student (so that the student recognizes that she is
being praised for correct study practices and not for incorrect content
responses.
No-one ever said teaching was easy...
Paul Smith
Alverno College
>>
