The Relationship between Feedback and Students‘ Sense of Self

Feedback has been categorised into two specific types which span ‗a continu- um representing evaluative-descriptive approaches‘ (Tunstall and Gipps, 1996, p.393). Evaluative feedback, which is clearly positive or negative in nature, re- lates to convergent assessment, focusing upon behaviourist approaches to learning, as it can be rewarding or punishing, approving or disapproving. Alt- hough Van den Bergh et al. (2013) have observed that feedback can be critical in a supportive and constructive sense, they acknowledged that evaluative feedback, which is overtly judgmental, can be destructive, and is likely to have a negative effect upon students‘ emotions, lower their efficacy beliefs, and prove de-motivating. In contrast, descriptive feedback, which is achievement

or improvement focused, is affiliated with divergent assessment as it specifies levels of attainment, focuses upon specific areas for improvement, and rec- ommends actions to enable the accomplishment of those improvements. As descriptive feedback focuses primarily on students‘ attainments, and draws at- tention to ‗their progress in mastering the required task‘ (Gipps, 1994, p.39) rather than merely highlighting shortfalls, a range of authors acknowledged it to be particularly valuable in assisting the development and enhancement of efficacy beliefs, levels of motivation, and effort (Boud, 1995; Bandura, 1997; Black and Wiliam, 1998a; Watkins et al., 2000; Bourdillon and Storey, 2002; The Assessment Reform Group, 2002b; and Cauley and McMillan, 2010). This evaluative-descriptive distinction is important to acknowledge, not only in terms of the messages about the self that it conveys to students, and its po- tential impact upon their self-efficacy, but also in terms of their motivation, and the nature of the learning of students who display an orientation to these different types of feedback. It has been observed that ‗individuals act in ways that promote a positive self-identity in order to gain the approval of others‘ (Covington, 1984, p.78), a view previously acknowledged by Rosenberg (1979), thus developing a level of self-respect and self-worth. In circumstances where students take personal responsibility for their successes, and associate failures to external causes, this ‗dual tendency‘ has been referred to as a ‗self- serving bias‘ (Miller and Ross, 1975, cited in Covington, 1984, p.78). Such at- tributions relate to a basic motive for self-acceptance. Although students‘ judgements concerning their levels of competence to perform tasks effectively are subjective in nature, self-perceptions of ability or competence are consid- ered to be primary attributes of the self-worth motive (Maehr, 1984), and as

levels of competence are professed to be the main elements of success within academic contexts, students will do their utmost to protect their perceived lev- els of ability (Covington, 1984).

Students who aim to demonstrate superiority (Nicholls, 1984) and ‗gain fa- vourable judgments‘ about their competence (Dweck, 1986, p.1040), which within pianoforte studies may be when students engage in ‗performance goals‘, such as taking part in competitions, while students who actively ‗seek to increase their competence‘ or to understand and ‗master something new‘, are considered to be engaged in ‗learning goals‘ (Dweck, 1986, p.1040). Stu- dents who adopt a learning goal orientation, and work towards the mastery of specific skills rather than adopting a performance goal orientation, have been found to demonstrate positive attitudes, high levels of motivation and interest in the subject, engage in learning naturally, and employ a range of effective learning strategies (Harlen and Deakin Crick, 2003; Black and Wiliam, 1998a; Nicholls, 1984).

With regard to protecting students‘ levels of ‗self-worth‘ and perceived levels of ability, although Nicholls (1978, cited in Butler, 1988, p.3) observed that ‗normative evaluation may be less ego-involving in the early grades‘, it has been noted that assessment using norm-referenced frameworks, can have seri- ous negative and damaging effects upon students‘ self-esteem (Ames and Ames, 1984; Crooks, 1988; Bourdillon and Storey, 2002). Within a teaching and learning environment which is not actively norm-referenced, when teach- ers explicitly communicate information relating to students‘ academic perfor- mances, both in terms of successes and failures, they are implicitly communi- cating students‘ perceived status in relation to others (Bandura, 1997). In cir-

cumstances where feedback is norm-referenced and evaluative in nature, while posing little risk for students perceived to be high achievers, particularly if they meet or surpass the performance of competitors or models, it can effec- tively lower the efficacy beliefs and ‗undermine the learning and motivation of students who regularly score near the bottom of a class‘ (Crooks, 1988, p.450), especially if they consider themselves to be in competition with their peers (Harlen and Deakin Crick, 2003). In such situations, there can be ‗many losers and few winners‘ (Ames, 1984, p.184).

In consequence, teachers need to be robust diagnosticians in terms of evaluat- ing a student‘s strengths and weaknesses, and be able to structure learning ac- tivities that meet individual needs. Accordingly, rather than measuring attain- ment by making comparisons with other students, it should be measured in terms of self-development, ‗student-referenced‘ attainment (Harlen, 2006a p.111) or ipsative comparison, a process where the ‗differential achievement of the same individual on the same criteria over time‘ is assessed (McCormick and James, 1983, p.246). Indeed, ipsative comparison can prove highly moti- vating for students when they observe the advancements they have made (McCormick and James, 1983; Sutton, 1992; Schunk, 2000; Adams, 2001; Clarke, 2005; Harlen, 2006a). Self-referenced feedback has proved to be more beneficial for students‘ ‗self-efficacy than norm-referenced feedback‘ (Chan and Lam, 2010, p.37), although it is accepted that self-referenced feedback ‗can have an impact on learning only if it leads to changes in students‘ effort, engagement, or feelings of efficacy in relation to the learning or to the strate- gies they use when attempting to understand tasks‘ (Hattie and Timperley, 2007, p.96). It has also been observed that ‗self-modeling‘ (Bandura, 1997,

p.87), reflecting upon successful performances and the progress made, is a di- agnostic process informing the individual about their capabilities, which can promote and reinforce efficacy beliefs.

Effective feedback provides students with two types of information: ‗verifica- tion and elaboration‘ (Kulhavy and Stock, 1989, cited in Shute, 2008, p.158). While verification indicates whether a student‘s response to a task is correct, this response could be elaborated in terms of providing information or cues, which guide the student towards the attainment or mastery of similar tasks in the future. If feedback is provided through elaborations at the right level, it can support students in their comprehension of specific concepts, foster their en- gagement in tasks, and assist in developing ‗effective strategies to process the information intended to be learned‘ (Hattie and Timperley, 2007, p.104). With- in the context of online teaching and learning, Espasa and Meneses (2010, p.289) found that feedback providing ‗information on how to improve work and how to take learning further‘, proved to be utilised more frequently than verification.

Praise in feedback is often employed to ‗soften the demotivating effect of grades‘ with older students, and although it can have a positive effect on their emotive states (Lipnevich and Smith, 2009, p.364), this may only be transitory in nature (Skipper and Douglas, 2012). In circumstances where students demonstrate relatively low levels of attainment, the use of praise may have the opposite effect, as it could be interpreted as a verification of low levels of at- tainment, and specifically if used excessively when focusing on students‘ mo- tivation, there have been situations when praise has actively inhibited learning (Black and Wiliam, 1998a). In situations where teachers provide positive feed-

back which is undeserved, ‗outcome uncertainty‘ could be raised thus leading to ‗increases in self-handicapping strategies‘ and learned hopelessness (Hattie and Timperley, 2007, p.95). As praise can be interpreted by students in differ- ent ways, and it may not be ‗uniformly positive‘ (Ryan and Deci, 1989, p.266), teachers need to be honest in their appraisals, and if the use of praise in feed- back is to be meaningful and effective, it needs to be ‗genuine and credible‘ (Bennett, 1982, cited in Gipps, 1994, p.131) focusing specifically on the con- tent of the task or the process of the learning.

In relation to the use of praise in pianoforte studies, young children respond to social evaluative feedback more positively than objective task-involving feed- back, which Stipek (1984, p.155) observed, in a generic context, relates to an innate concern for ‗pleasing adults‘. This view is supported by research into piano class instruction within nursery and kindergarten teacher training pro- grammes in Japan (Iwaguchi, 2012, p.183) which found that ‗positive feed- back that incorporates praise is related to motivation for practice at the begin- ning of piano learning‘. Also, in instances when older music students have been motivated to seek ‗social approval‘, if it is achieved, the resulting praise can be internalised, and levels of confidence can be enhanced (Hallam, 2006, p.143).

In educational contexts, active involvement in learning tasks is perceived to be most conducive to learning, as ego-involvement encourages students, particu- larly where ability levels are perceived to be low, to select tasks that may not actually facilitate learning (Nicholls, 1984). Before engaging in learning ac- tivities, students need clear models of the tasks and the standards they are ex- pected to achieve (Bandura, 1997; Schunk, 2000), and when they become in-

trinsically absorbed in task-oriented activities, irrespective of their perceived levels of ability, there is a tendency to engage actively in the development of their skills and levels of competence (Maehr, 1984). In circumstances where students actively employ strategies designed to advance their learning, and the feedback received is employed as evidence that they have utilised these strate- gies effectively, their ‗subsequent intellectual attainments‘ and ‗efficacy be- liefs‘ could be ‗substantially enhanced‘ (Bandura, 1997, p. 81). When students are motivated in this way, they may also be willing to ‗risk displays of igno- rance‘ as a means of gaining further support, which could effectively supple- ment the development of their ‗skills and knowledge‘ (Dweck, 1986, p.1042). The response they receive from such displays could also encourage them to ac- tively ‗explore, initiate, and pursue tasks that promote intellectual growth‘ (Dweck, 1986, p.1043).

To ensure that students remain motivated in their pursuits of specific learning goals, it is important to provide feedback or feed-forward which encompasses an expectation ‗that these goals can be met‘ (Shute, 2008, p.161). Goal- oriented feedback assists students in seeing how ‗(a) ability and skill can be developed through practice, (b) effort is critical to increasing this skill, and (c), mistakes are part of the skill-acquisition process‘ (Hoska, 1993, cited in Shute, 2008, p.162). In relation to this, in work with students studying piano profi- ciency skills in America, Hamel (2001, p.11) observed the need for students to be provided with ‗a clearly stated list of practice strategies and goals for scales, arpeggios, and repertoire to master each week‘, utilising suitable language (Hallam, 1998a). This information could be presented orally or in a written format (Fautley, 2010), or through a process of exemplification (Hale and

Green, 2009; Lehmann et al., 2007) which effectively demonstrates the ‗steps by which the goal must be reached‘ (Sutton, 1992, p.89).

The provision of feedback relating to students‘ mastery of specific tasks, rather than ego-involving feedback, is regarded as most effective when it focuses students‘ attention on specific errors, which may be considered a natural part of the learning process by engaging them in thinking about the error, the range of possible solutions, and the processes involved (James, 1998; Biggs, 2003; Hattie and Timperley, 2007; Fluckiger et al., 2010). Errors have been classi- fied as slips, or a lack of understanding relating to the ‗difference between a desired response and what a student provides‘ (Bennett, 2011, p.17). A slip may be a ‗careless procedural mistake‘, which within a musical context, may relate to playing an incorrect note inadvertently, while a lack of understanding or a misconception, may result in performing something incorrectly, such as specific notes, rhythms, or failing to implement expression or tempo indica- tions appropriately. The provision of feedback relating to slips or a lack of un- derstanding is particularly important when considering the development of students‘ skills in self-assessment and self-regulation, specifically in contexts where much of the progress made is reliant upon independent private practice. A secure understanding of both the assessment criteria by which their work will be judged and related assessment standards has been found to be im- portant for students learning to play musical instruments. For instance, one study in America suggested that it sometimes proved difficult for beginners to know ‗…whether they are accomplishing what is expected of them‘ (Goolsby, 1999a, p.32), and a study in Russia involving elementary and secondary school piano students concluded that the lack of clarity in learning objectives proved

‗detrimental to the normal development of the student‘ (Robert, 1964, p.201). At the University of Ulster, Hunter and Russ (1996) documented an increase in levels of dissatisfaction amongst music students in higher education with re- gard to their assessed performances, and it transpired that one of the difficul- ties was the students‘ lack of understanding of the assessment criteria and standards employed by their teachers. So, in order to promote efficient learn- ing, specifically in musical instrument studies, students need to know ‗exactly what is to be learned‘ as this ‗is the first stage of mastery‘ (Seashore, 1967, p.150; Fisher, 2010; Johansson, 2013), and they also need to have a ‗clear un- derstanding about what is to be performed‘ (Robert, 1964, p.201). This may be achieved by sharing the learning ‗goals, objectives, and expectations‘ (Gools- by, 1999a, p.35), together with success/assessment criteria with students on a regular basis. When students confirm their understanding of set tasks in con- versation with their teachers, however, the tone of their comments, their facial expressions, or gestures are also indicative of their true levels of ‗understand- ing and engagement‘ (McMillan, 2010, p.52).

The way musicians ‗feel about their own ability and level of performance has a powerful effect on how they project themselves to their audience‘ (McPherson and Schubert, 2004, p.67). In relation to this point, Hewitt (2004, p.42) ob- served that feedback plays ‗an important role in developing the recipient‘s sense of identity as a learner and, in the context of music, as a performer‘. Feedback relating to performance, whether interpersonal or intrapersonal, is likely to influence students‘ attitudes and approaches to future performances. In situations, where negative post-performance feedback has been received, this could induce ‗negative self-beliefs, intensification of maladaptive perfor-

mance anxiety and lowering of motivation‘, possibly leading to withdrawal from performing (Papageorgi, et al., 2007, p.100). In an experimental study conducted in America where students were provided with negative feedback statements or specific directives in their studies, while the findings indicated that there was no difference in the final performances, it was observed that within the negative feedback condition, feedback was delivered dispassionate- ly rather than incorporating expressions of impatience, annoyance, or anger, the students had frequent opportunities to respond to the negative feedback, and the teachers naturally provided positive feedback statements as the stu- dents progressed (Duke and Henninger, 1998). Consequently, the way feed- back and feed-forward is provided to students, and the environment in which they are presented, will have an effect upon their efficacy beliefs, motivation to practise, and engagement in their studies.

In the following section, the provision of feedback and feed-forward, and is- sues relating to the possible effects are discussed, starting with a focus upon self-efficacy.