Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Praise
differs
from
feedback
as
it
refers
to
expressing
approval
or
admiration
as
to
how
one
has
done
something
(Al-‐Ghamdi
2017,
p.
40).
For
the
sake
of
this
research
inquiry
both
praise
and
feedback
will
be
monitored.
Students
generally
feel
good
about
themselves
when
they
are
praised
and
are
often
motivated
by
the
prospect
of
receiving
more
praise
(Burnett
&
Mandel
2010,
p.
148).
Al-‐Ghamdi
(2017)
suggests
a
specific
criteria
for
praise
stating
it
must
be
specific
to
the
task
at
hand,
provided
immediately
following
the
task
or
behaviour
that
has
been
performed,
must
be
teacher
initiated,
free
from
exaggeration,
delivered
using
a
positive
voice,
should
be
provided
whilst
students
are
acquiring
skills
and
then
decreased
after
it
has
been
acquired
(p.
40).
Limitations
to
how
much
praise
should
be
given
to
students
does
exist
though
as
students
who
receive
significant
praise
may
become
satisfied
with
their
accomplishments
and
not
willing
to
put
forward
extra
efforts
(Al-‐Ghamdi’s
2017,
p.
40).
In
conducting
research
about
the
forms
of
feedback
provided
to
students
I
have
been
able
to
narrow
it
down
into
categories.
This
consists
of
non-‐targeted
more
general
feedback
with
comments
such
as
good
work,
well
done
and
excellent,
negative
feedback
comments
such
as
that
is
not
very
good
and
that
work
is
messy,
effort
feedback
stating
things
indicating
you
can
see
how
much
determination
a
student
is
showing
in
completing
their
work
and
lastly
ability
feedback
stating
how
capable
you
think
a
student
may
be
at
something
(Burnett
&
Mandel
2010,
p.
145).
‘You
are
not
trying
as
hard
as
I
know
you
can’
is
effort
feedback
and
‘You
are
really
good
at
spelling’
is
comment
providing
a
student
with
ability
feedback
(Burnett
&
Mandel
2010,
p.
145).
Burnett
&
Mandel’s
(2010)
research
indicates
that
the
most
common
praise
amongst
teachers
is
general
and
non-‐targeted
despite
much
research
indicating
the
ineffectiveness
of
its
use
(p.
151).
General
feedback
is
not
targeted
towards
completion
of
a
specific
task
or
behaviour,
hence
not
affecting
student
progression
(Burnett
&
Mandel
2010,
p.
145).
It
rarely
translates
into
commitment
to
learning,
increased
engagement,
enhanced
perceptions
of
ones
self
and
a
greater
understanding
of
a
task
(Burnett
&
Mandel
2010,
p.
147).
They
also
state
that
younger
students
respond
best
to
ability
praise
and
older
students
to
effort
feedback
(Burnett
&
Mandel’s
2010,
p.
151).
Despite
this,
ability
feedback
is
a
slippery
slope
as
it
is
argued
students
need
this
to
develop
a
positive
concept
of
themselves
and
their
competence
in
a
learning
area
and
cognitive
appraisal
by
educators
helps
to
do
this,
although
students
who
receive
low
levels
of
ability
feedback
also
report
that
they
think
they
are
particularly
bad
in
specific
subject
areas
(Burnett
&
Mandel
2010,
p.
146).
As
well
as
this
it
is
reported
students
who
receive
ability
feedback
and
proceed
to
fail
have
a
likelihood
of
not
performing
well
in
future,
whereas
those
who
receive
effort
feedback
still
perform
well
following
failure
(Burnett
&
Mandel
2010,
p.
146).
This
is
because
those
who
exclusively
receive
ability
feedback
attribute
their
failures
to
their
intelligence
and
how
smart
they
are,
as
opposed
to
the
effort
they
put
in
(Burnett
&
Mandel
2010,
p.
146).
One
teacher
in
Burnett
&
Mandel
(2010)
study
stated
that
students
with
high
academic
ability
require
more
effort
feedback
to
motivate
them
to
further
develop
(p.
149).
Interestingly
despite
research
showing
that
ability
feedback
is
beneficial
to
students,
Australian
children
have
shown
to
prefer
effort
feedback
(Burnett
2003,
p.
16).
Burnett
(2003)
states
that
providing
positive
ability
feedback
leads
students
to
persist
longer
and
that
it
shapes
their
thoughts/self
talk
(p.
11).
For
primary
school
students
positive
self-‐talk
arises
from
positive
teacher
statements,
though
the
absence
of
these
leads
to
negative
self-‐talk
(Burnet
2003,
p.
12).
Ability
feedback
can
have
both
positive
and
negative
impact
on
students
self-‐talk.
Burnett’s
(2003)
study
shows
that
students
whose
teachers
frequently
engaged
in
providing
ability
feedback
had
high
levels
of
positive
self-‐talk
and
low
levels
of
negative
self-‐talk
(p.
15).
In
Burnett
&
Mandel’s
(2010)
research
students
reported
positive
relationships
with
teachers
who
gave
little
negative
feedback
and
negative
perceptions
of
those
who
gave
consistently
undesirable
feedback
(p.
146).
In
other
research
though
it
is
found
that
negative
feedback
emphasises
failure
which
in
turn
leads
to
greater
student
achievement
due
to
fear
of
failure
(Shin
et
al.
2017,
p.
28).
One
thing
that
has
become
apparent
from
my
research
into
feedback
is
that
there
are
negative
consequences
in
only
giving
one
form
of
it
and
that
to
be
successful
I
need
to
be
balanced
and
strategic
in
how
I
praise
and
respond
to
students
(Burnett
2003,
p.
16).
Although
the
impact
on
feedback
will
differ
with
every
group
of
students,
like
everything
in
education,
it
is
clear
that
the
research
around
praise
and
feedback
is
conflicting,
hence
why
I
wish
to
discover
how
this
group
of
students
responds
to
it.
In
doing
this
I
intend
on
taking
on
Burnett
&
Mandel’s
(2010)
four
categories
of
feedback
and
Al-‐Ghamdi’s
(2017)
criteria
for
praise
and
implementing
them
into
my
data
collection
proformas.
Action
(approx.
100
words)
This
research
inquiry
will
result
in
me
consciously
providing
my
students
with
an
array
of
different
forms
of
verbal
feedback.
This
means
that
I
will
be
sure
to
distribute
a
balance
of
praise
and
general
feedback,
ability
feedback,
effort
feedback
and
where
necessary
negative
feedback.
The
data
will
be
collected
during
the
literacy
block
time
period,
usually
occurring
in
the
early
morning,
following
the
morning
introduction
routine.
In
this
time
I
will
be
doing
both
instructional
teaching
and
overseeing
students
completing
work
I
have
allocated
to
them.
I
will
provide
feedback
to
students
both
as
a
group
and
as
individuals.
Observation
(approx.
400
words)
1.
Feedback
from
teacher
in
the
form
of
checklists
and
frequency
charts.
2.
Surveying/conferencing
the
child.
3.
Field
notes
obtained
by
observing
child
responses
by
both
me
and
my
supervising
teacher.
Reflecting
on
their
initial
responses.
All
data
will
be
collected
throughout
the
time
of
the
literacy
block
or
immediately
following
it.
This
will
be
done
in
three
methods
including
both
qualitative
and
quantitative
forms
of
data
collection
(Davis
et
al.
2018,
p.
61).
The
first
being
feedback
from
the
supervising/mentor
teacher
in
the
form
of
checklist
and
frequency
chart
(See
appendix
1).
This
checklist
will
allow
the
observer
to
categorise
which
form
of
feedback
I
am
giving
students,
whether
that
be
general
or
praise,
ability,
effort
or
negative.
From
this
they
will
be
able
to
note
the
child’s
immediate
response
to
the
task
and
whether
it
has
impacted
on
their
level
of
engagement.
The
supervising
teacher
will
act
as
the
critical
friend
in
this
form
of
data
collection
as
they
will
be
closely
observing
the
situation
and
then
sharing
their
notes.
The
second
method
will
be
via
verbally
surveying
or
conferencing
students
(See
appendix
2).
This
will
allow
me
to
gain
information
about
student’s
attitudes,
feelings
and
opinions
about
the
task
and
monitor
their
response
following
forms
of
feedback
given
to
them.
Survey
question
will
focus
on
what
forms
of
feedback
students
most
prefer.
This
is
a
way
of
exploring
children’s
perceptions
in
relation
to
the
topic.
I
will
give
examples
of
praise,
ability,
effort
and
negative
and
note
their
opinions
on
each.
I
want
to
monitor
which
forms
of
feedback
students
prefer
as
well
as
which
forms
I
believe
keep
them
most
engaged
as
the
research
shows
conflicting
evidence
in
this
area.
The
final
method
will
be
by
writing
field
notes
obtained
by
monitoring
immediate
child
responses
to
feedback
(See
appendix
3).
This
can
be
done
by
both
me
and
the
supervising/mentor
teacher
to
ensure
sufficient
data
can
be
gained
throughout
the
lesson
time.
This
final
form
of
data
collection
will
allow
me
to
gain
a
deeper
insight
as
to
how
that
feedback
is
impacting
on
student’s
engagement
and
learning,
as
opposed
to
collecting
data
of
the
type
and
frequency
of
feedback,
and
the
preferred
feedback
for
students.
Reaction
and
perception
do
not
give
us
a
good
platform
for
judgement,
hence
why
evidence
must
be
collected
to
have
a
rational
basis
for
what
truly
occurred
(Grundy
1995,
p.
15).
By
using
this
triangulation
technique
and
the
three
forms
of
data
collection
outlined
above
I
will
be
able
to
first
monitor
the
frequency
and
form
of
feedback
I
give
students,
then
by
conferencing
them
I
will
gain
an
insight
into
their
preferred
feedback
and
lastly
by
taking
observatory
notes
of
child
responses
I
will
be
able
to
monitor
which
forms
of
feedback
most
heavily
impact
student
engagement.
Reflection
(approx.
400
words)
The
next
phase
of
the
action
research
involves
analysis
of
the
data
collected.
When
analysing
my
data
I
will
be
looking
for
patterns
in
the
feedback
I
provide
to
students
and
the
level
of
engagement
following
this.
What
should
become
clear
from
the
data
collection
and
observation
processes
are
the
frequency
of
feedback
given,
the
different
forms
of
feedback
or
praise,
student’s
responses
to
this
feedback
and
their
preferred
forms
of
feedback.
I
intend
on
collecting
evidence
and
reflecting
on
it
on
the
day
of
each
literacy
block.
At
the
end
of
each
week
I
will
then
have
sufficient
data
for
a
more
thorough
evaluation
of
it.
I
will
interpret
the
different
forms
data
by
creating
graphs
to
determine
the
frequency
of
feedback
in
the
different
forms.
This
should
make
it
clear
which
feedback
I
have
been
favouring,
which
upon
reflection
I
will
be
able
to
balance
to
ensure
I
distribute
the
different
forms
more
evenly.
I
will
then
do
the
same
with
the
survey
data
where
I
will
consider
the
most
preferred
forms
of
feedback
student’s
state
and
then
monitor
their
reactions
when
I
give
this.
I
will
then
cross-‐reference
the
feedback
to
see
whether
students
preferred
form
of
feedback
is
indeed
the
most
beneficial
to
them.
Finally,
I
will
monitor
engagement
through
field
notes
and
observation
which
should
indicate
which
forms
of
feedback
are
most
beneficial
to
student
learning
and
development.
My
supervising
teacher,
Rebekah
Bleby,
will
be
significantly
involved
in
the
data
collection
process
and
will
support
me
throughout
my
research.
As
well
as
her
my
critical
friend,
Kate
Docking,
will
be
available
to
help
to
reflect
on
and
analyse
the
data
collected.
Having
a
critical
friend
involved
in
the
process
will
be
useful
as
she
will
be
able
to
provide
a
new
perspective
on
what
has
shown
in
the
research
and
how
this
could
be
best
presented
(Smith
&
Rebolledo
2018,
p.
46).
Luttenberg
et
al.
(2017)
state
that
within
the
process
of
action
research,
reflection
is
considered
as
something
with
consequences
for
practice
and
the
place
where
theory
and
practice
merge
(2017,
p.
70).
I
will
initially
attempt
to
distribute
a
balance
of
all
the
four
different
types
of
feedback.
After
analysing
data
collected
from
this
it
will
be
made
more
evident
what
forms
of
feedback
students
are
best
responding
to.
In
order
to
ensure
the
accuracy
of
this
though
these
forms
will
be
further
implemented
and
monitored.
This
research
inquiry
is
ongoing
although
I
am
confident
it
will
allow
me
to
develop
the
ability
to
provide
more
useful
verbal
feedback
to
my
students
in
literacy.
References
Al-‐Ghamdi,
A
2017,
‘Building
a
positive
environment
in
classrooms
through
feedback
and
praise’,
English
Language
Teaching,
vol.
10,
no.
6,
pp.
37-‐43.
Brookhart,
SM
2008,
‘How
to
give
effective
feedback
to
your
students
’,
Association
for
Supervision
and
Curriculum
Development,
Virginia,
USA.
Burnett,
PC
2003.,
‘The
impact
of
teacher
feedback
on
student
self-‐talk
and
self-‐concept
in
reading
and
mathematics’,
The
Journal
of
Classroom
Interaction,
vol.
38,
no.
1,
pp.
11-‐16.
Burnett,
PC
&
Mandel,
V
2010,
‘Praise
and
feedback
in
the
primary
classroom:
Teachers’
and
students’
perspectives,
Australian
Journal
of
Educational
&
Developmental
Psychology,
vol.
10,
no.
1,
pp.
145-‐154.
Davis,
J,
Clayton
,
C
&
Broome,
J
2018,
‘Thinking
like
researchers:
action
research
and
its
impact
on
novice
teachers’
thinking’,
Educational
Action
Research,
vol.
26,
no.
1,
pp.
59-‐74.
Grundy,
S
1995,
Action
research
as
professional
development,
Innovative
Links
Project,
Murdoch,
Western
Australia.
Luttenberg,
J,
Meijer,
P
&
Oolbekkink-‐Marchand,
H
2017,
‘Understanding
the
complexity
of
teacher
reflection
in
action
research’,
Educational
Action
Research,
vol.
25,
no.
1,
pp.
88-‐102.
Shin
J,
Lee,
K
&
Seo,
E
2017,
‘The
effects
of
feedback
on
students'
achievement
goals:
Interaction
between
reference
of
comparison
and
regulatory
focus’,
Learning
and
Instruction,
vol.
49,
no.
1,
pp.
23-‐31.
Smith,
R
&
Rebolledo,
P
2018,
A
handbook
for
exploratory
action
research,
British
Council
Publications,
United
Kingdom.
Appendix
1
Frequency
of
feedback
Whole
group
Individual
Students
At
student
desk
Teacher
desk/conference
Type
of
feedback
(Frequency)
Comment
given:
General
Negative
Effort
Ability
Impact
on
engagement
Comment
High
Low
Unknown
Praise
–
Does
it
meet
the
criteria?
Frequency:
✓
or
✗
Specific
to
the
task
Provided
immediately
following
the
task/behaviour
Teacher
initiated
Free
from
exaggeration
Delivered
using
a
positive
voice
Provided
whilst
students
are
acquiring
skills
and
then
decreased
after
it
has
been
acquired
Key
for
type
of
feedback:
General
=
Not
specific
to
student
e.g.
good
work,
well
done
and
excellent
etc.
Negative
=
Feedback
stating
the
student
has
produced
undesirable
outcomes/actions
e.g.
Not
what
I
wanted,
messy
writing,
not
very
good
Effort
=
Stating
how
much
determination
has
gone
into
the
task
e.g.
you
are
trying
really
hard,
I
can
see
how
much
effort
has
gone
into
this
Ability
=
Stating
the
students
capability
to
do
something
e.g.
you
are
very
clever,
you
are
a
good
reader
Appendix
2
*Consider
possibility
of
positive
and
negative
self-‐talk
Student
being
observed:
Reaction
to
feedback
Most
preferred
feedback
Student
1
Student
2
Student
3
Student
4
Student
5
Student
6
Student
7
Student
8
Student
9
Student
10
Student
11
Student
12
Student
13
Student
14
Student
15
Student
16
Student
17
Student
18
Student
19
Student
20
Student
21
Student
22
Student
23
Appendix
3
Observed
by:
Pre-‐service
teacher/Mentor
Teacher
(Circle
relevant)
*Ensure
you
reflect
on
child
response
Student
being
observed:
Immediate
reaction
to
feedback
Impact
on
student
work
Student
1
Student
2
Student
3
Student
4
Student
5
Student
6
Student
7
Student
8
Student
9
Student
10
Student
11
Student
12
Student
13
Student
14
Student
15
Student
16
Student
17
Student
18
Student
19
Student
20
Student
21
Student
22
Student
23