Mary L. Rucker
Wright State University
Xavier University of Louisiana
The goal of the present study was to examine
the relationship among the various measures of feedback on male and female
students’ perception of the feedback process. The findings indicated that male
students perceived their professors as giving more critical feedback than
female students.
The past thirty years of feedback
research has identified a number of constructs related to instructional
development in service and academic organizations (Bourhis & Allen, 1998).
Constructs such as source of feedback (Greller, 1980), recipient of feedback
(Brinko, 1993; Clark & Bergstrom, 1983), content of feedback (Murray,
1987), mode of feedback (Ilgen, Fisher, & Taylor, 1979), and occasion of
feedback (Brinko, 1993) have contributed to the process of feedback as an
evaluative practice. Even though majority of literature has focused on student
evaluative feedback of teachers’ instructional performances (Cohen & Herr,
1980), extant literature revealed that relatively few studies have focused on
teacher feedback of students’ performances (Griffee, 1996).
Organizational behavior, education,
sociology, and cognitive psychology scholars contended that effective feedback
is beneficial to individuals’ professional development (Nelson & Quick,
2000). The practice of effective feedback on performance evaluations was critical
to the academic success of college students (Griffee, 1996). With this in mind,
college professors shared feedback to help students improve their performances
and study habits. Additionally, professor-student social interactions tended to
influence the enactment of the kind of feedback (e.g., positive, negative,
neutral, accurate, concrete, descriptive, focused, etc.) students received from
their professors.
In defining feedback, the authors draw
on two definitions. First, feedback is “the pathway that completes two-way
communication” (Nelson & Quick, 2000, p. 250) from professor to student.
Feedback occurs when the professor (source) provides the student (receiver)
with a response to an assignment (message). Given this definition, the authors
examined the relationship among the various measures of feedback.
Feedback
Research
Source of Feedback (Who):
Source of feedback may be faculty members who make evaluative judgments of
student performances. An examination of the literature in education and
psychology on effects of feedback generally focused on feedback from one
source. More recently, education researchers have focused their attention on
several sources of feedback (Brinko, 1993). For example, scholars and
practitioners suggest that feedback is effective when the source is a
criterion-referenced measurement that provides students with behavioral
objectives that incorporate technology (e.g., e-mail, Website lectures) into
various assignments (Bourhis & Allen, 1998).
Recipient of Feedback (Who):
The recipient of feedback is most effective when it is viewed as two-way
communication. Communication and organizational behavior instructors believe
that feedback is more effective when students proactively seek feedback from
their professors to improve their performances (Crant, 2000).
Mode of Feedback (How):
Mode of feedback can be effective when conveyed in a variety of modes. It can
be structured or unstructured (Brinko, 1993). It can be conveyed through the
use of technology (e.g., e-mail, Website lectures) where students are required
to engage the learning process.
Content
of Feedback (What): Content is the most critical component of the feedback
process. Feedback is more effective when it is concrete, specific, focused, and
descriptive. For example, in small group settings, faculty can help students
with specific issues when their oral performances are videotaped.
Occasion of Feedback (When):
Feedback is more effective when it is given soon after a performance. For example,
if a student presents an oral assignment and the professor provides critical
feedback soon after that performance, the feedback will be more effective,
timely, and necessary to help students change their self-perception and
behavior resulting from the performance.
The following research question and
hypothesis are posed:
RQ: What is the relationship between feedback as a
learning process and the types of feedback
students receive?
One
hundred four volunteers drawn from communication and education courses (41 men,
63 women) at a university located in the South participated in this research.
The
items were adapted from research by Brinko (1993), and Menges & Brinko
(1986) studies on classroom assessment techniques on feedback practices.
Reliabilities
All scales were measured on a 5-point
scale 1= strongly agree, 5 = strongly disagree. Reliability estimates, as
determined by Cronbach’s alpha, for the feedback measures were source of feedback
= .83; recipient of feedback = .71; mode of Feedback = .78; content of feedback
= .80; and occasion of feedback = .82.
Reliability estimates for the total scale was .89. A high reliability
coefficient (.70 or higher) indicates that the individual items on the
instrument produced similar patterns and were homogeneous and reliable.
Correlational Analysis
The
research question focused on the relationship between feedback as learning
process and the types of feedback students receive. A procedure outlined by
Bruning and Kintz (1997), where significant correlations were observed between
the two groups, was used to test for significance of the difference between the
correlations, thus yielding a z
statistic. This was done by converting each of the Pearson r values into a variable called Fisher’s zr transformation and then applying the Z
test. According to Bruning and Kintz (1997), “a z larger than 1.96 is significant at the .05 alpha level using a
two tailed test. A significant z
tells us that the two correlation values are very likely different” (p. 82).
As
indicated in the Table, the relationship between source of feedback and
feedback as a learning process was positive and significant for both samples,
although the correlation was significantly greater for males, z = 3.01, p < .05. There were positive and significant relationships
between mode of feedback and feedback as a learning process for both males and
females, although the correlation was significantly greater for males, z = 2.88, p < .05. There were positive and significant correlations
between content of feedback and feedback as a learning process in both samples,
z = 2.53, p < .05. Finally, there were positive and significant
correlations for both samples between occasion of feedback and feedback as a
process, although the correlation was slightly greater for males than for
females, z = 2.70, p < .05. The correlations between
recipient of feedback and feedback as a learning process were not observed as
significant for males or females.
TABLE
*p < .05, **p < .01
The research question examines the relationship between feedback as a
learning process and the types of feedback students receive. Male students
perceived that their professors gave more effective critical feedback than
female students. The results also indicated that the relationship between the
types of feedback and students’ perception of feedback as a learning process
differed significantly between males and females. For both samples, increased
feedback was associated with the increased status or credibility of the source
of feedback (e.g., professors, peer teams); the mode of feedback—the manner in
which it is given (e.g., written); and the content of feedback—the kinds of
assignments evaluated (e.g., research projects, exams). The results also
indicated that both males and females were more concerned about the credibility
of the evaluator (source), in what manner the feedback was given (mode), and
under what circumstances the feedback was given (occasion), although the correlations
were greater for males than for females. As the results suggest, when
professors provide students with critical feedback, it should be given soon
after a task performance, made clear to the recipient, and presented in a
manner sensitive to the students’ learning styles. In this way, students benefit from feedback when preparing for
future task performances.
Finally, this results suggested that feedback as a learning process has
a salutary effect on student performance (e.g., research participation). When
professors give an assignment or a task, they are agreeing to be held
accountable for providing critical feedback to their students. This
accountability puts pressure on professors to provide students with the
necessary feedback to help them improve their task performances.
IMPLICATIONS FOR INSTRUCTIONAL IMPROVEMENT
Feedback is a necessary condition for student goal setting-performance
(Erez, 1977). Extant literature in the
fields of psychology and education indicates that more effective feedback
programs for instructional improvement are needed. Faculty members will need to contact the center for instructional
development at their respective universities.
In doing so, the center for instructional development can explore the
faculty member’s teaching history, teaching style, and locus of control. The
center for instructional development can also assist the faculty member in
identifying areas in his/her teaching that are rewarding and/or troublesome by
selecting the sources and modes of feedback that are particularly useful. The center for instructional development can
also survey the teaching strategies of faculty members and provide them with a
copy of the report. Another alternative
procedure for instructors would be to fill out a student rating form indicating
expected student response rather than self-perceptions.
REFERENCES
Bourhis, J. & Allen, M. (1998). The role of
videotaped feedback in the instruction of public speaking: A quantitative
synthesis of published empirical research.
Communication Research Reports, 15,
(3): 256-261.
Brinko, K. T. (1993). The practice of giving
feedback to improve teaching: What is effective? The Journal of Higher
Education, 64, (5): 575-593.
Bruning, J. L. & Kintz, B. L. (1997). Computational handbook of statistics. 4th
Edition. New York: Longman Publishers.
Clark, D. C. & Bergstrom, S. J. (1983). Type
and perception of feedback and teacherchange. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of he American Educational Research Association, Montreal.
Cohen, P. A. & Herr, G. (1980). A procedure for
diagnostic instructional feedback: The formative assessment of teaching (FACT)
model. Educational Technology, 19,
18-23.
Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in
organizations. Journal of Management, 26,
(3):435-462.
Erez, M. (1977). Feedback: A necessary condition
for the goal setting-performance relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 624-627.
Griffee, D. T.
(1996). Student generated goals and objectives in a learner-centered classroom.
The language teacher, 19 (12), 14-17.
Holmstrom, E.I., & Holmstrom, R.W. (1974). The
plight of the woman doctoral student. American
Educational Research Journal, 11 (Winter): 1-17.
Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., & Taylor, M. S.
(1979). Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64,
349-371.
Lundgren, D. C. & Rudawsky, D. J. (1998). Female and
male college students’ responses to negative feedback from parents and peers. Sex Roles, 39 (5/6), 409-427.
Menges, R. J. & Brinko, K. T. (1986). Effects
of student evaluation feedback: A meta-analysis of higher education research.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Educational Research
Association, San Francisco, April.
Murray, H. G. (1987). Acquiring student feedback
that improves instruction. In M. G. Weiner (Ed.), New directions for teaching and learning, No. 32: Teaching Large
Classes Well. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Nelson, D. L. & Quick, J. C. (2000). Organizational behavior: Foundations,
realities, & challenges. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western Publishing:
Thomson Learning.
O’Connell, A.N., et al. (1978). Gender-specific
barriers to research in psychology. JSAS:
Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 8, (November): MS 1753.
Schroeder, D.S., & Mynatt, C.R. (1993). Female
graduate students’ perceptions of their interactions with male and female major
professors. Journal of Higher Education,
64, 5(September/October): 555-573.