A High-Pitched Cavitation: Feedback

Learning By Doing

Let's play a game called, Concept Identification. No wait. That sounds really boring. How about Counter Spies, Like Us? That sounds more like a game people would actually play! Here's the backstory: 

You are a counter-intelligence officer, and you just intercepted a code from an enemy spy. Your goal is to classify their coding patterns into two types. The first is called "DAX" codes and the other is "MED" codes [1]. Based on your previous training, you were given the following examples. 

DAX Codes: 

 

MED Codes:

 

Now it's your turn to classify two new codes as either DAX or MED. There is one of each. The answer can be found at the end of this post [2].

(A)

(B)

How did you do? If you got them both right, then you lead your team to victory and earn a promotion! If you got one right and one wrong, then you get out of the war zone in time, but leave your mission incomplete. If you got them both wrong, then you might want to rethink your career in counter-intelligence.

"Thanks for the Feedback." –Nobody, ever.

In some situations, you want feedback. In fact, you can't survive without it. For example, it's difficult to improve your job-related skills if your manager doesn't give you explicit feedback. In other circumstances, however, feedback—especially negative feedback—is neither wanted nor appreciated. Tell a coworker they look "tired" and don't be surprised if they throw you some shade.

So what's the deal with feedback? When should we give it? When should we withhold it? When is it effective, and when does it backfire spectacularly? The obvious answer is, "It depends." Let's dig in and talk about what it depends on. 

"Right up to your face and diss'd you." –The Sounds of Science, Beastie Boys

Kluger and DeNisi conducted a meta-analysis of empirical studies on feedback [3], and they concluded there is a moderate effect size of feedback on performance (d = 0.41). However, the authors go on to explain that in a third of the studies, feedback actually decreased performance. The obvious question is why?

According to their theory, the effects of feedback can be categorized into three hierarchical categories: task learning, task motivation, and meta-tasks (which includes feedback about your self). Their theory states that feedback is effective when it is directly targeted to the task. But if you move up the chain, then feedback begins to lose its effectiveness. It can even backfire (i.e., make people worse) when the person feels it is targeted at them personally.

Figure 1: A hierarchical arrangement of control processes.

Let's look at some examples. Suppose we played an interactive version of Counter-Spies, Like Us, and I give you a 3-by-3 grid. I then ask you to give me a MED code. My job as the trainer is to tell you if you're right or wrong. That feedback is targeted toward the task learning and should move your attention to applying more effort to finding which features of the grid correspond to its label. Negative feedback often results in the person increasing their effort, so long as the feedback is clear, non-arbitrary, and the learner feels like there is hope in detecting the pattern. 

Suppose the feedback wasn't about the task. Instead, the feedback caused you to move your attention up the hierarchy where you focus attention on your self. You might have doubts about your ability to detect patterns, and that you lack the intelligence to do anything difficult. 

What might that feedback look like? If the feedback was something like, "No, that's not right. Most people get this eventually." Which causes you to think, "Oh great. So if I'm not getting this, then what does that say about me??" The goal, of course, is to keep the learner's attention on the task and on the specifics of what can be done to improve.

The S.T.E.M. Connection

There are many other factors that contribute to one's ability to learn from feedback, including personality factors, learning goals, prior knowledge, and task complexity. Each of these factors can interact in complex ways. 

Fortunately, Dr. Valerie Shute has compiled an extremely clear set recommendations for maximizing the positive effects of feedback and minimizing the negative effects. Starting on page 177 her paper, Focus on formative feedback, Dr. Shute outlines 31 perscriptive guidelines for offering formative feedback. The guidelines include what you should do when giving feedback, what to avoid, and when to give feedback. I highly recommend taking a look at this valuable resource. Here's just one example:

#	Prescription	Description and references
2	Provide elaborated feedback to enhance learning.	Feedback should describe the what, how, and/or why of a given problem. This type of cognitive feedback is typically more effective than verification of results (e.g., Bangert-Drowns et al., 1991; Gilman, 1969; Mason & Bruning, 2001; Narciss & Huth, 2004; Shute, 2006).

Both giving and receiving feedback is a difficult process. But, as we have seen, there are ways that we can maximize our benefit from formative feedback. Just keep it task-focused...and stop dissing people! 😉

Share and Enjoy!

Dr. Bob

Going Beyond the Information Given

[1] Tweney, R. D., Doherty, M. E., Worner, W. J., Pliske, D. B., Mynatt, C. R., Gross, K. A., & Arkkelin, D. L. (1980). Strategies of rule discovery in an inference task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32(1), 109-123. 

[2] Code (A) is MED, and Code (B) is DAX. The rule that generates MED codes is there must be a yellow square in the bottom row. DAX codes are the opposite. They must not have any yellow squares in the bottom row.

[3] Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on perfor-
mance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback interven-
tion theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284.

[4] Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153-189.