Machine Translated by Google

Review of Educational Research

March 2007, vol. 77, no. 1, pp. 81–112
DOI: 10.3102/003465430298487

The power of feedback

John Hattie and Helen Timerley

University of Auckland

Feedback is one of the most powerful influences on learning and performance.

but this impact can be positive or negative. Its power is often
mentioned in articles about teaching and learning, but surprisingly
few recent studies have systematically investigated its meaning. This article
provides a conceptual analysis of feedback and analyzes the evidence related to it
its impact on learning and performance. This evidence shows that, although
the feedback is among the main influences, the type of feedback and the way
as data can be differentially effective. A feedback model is then
proposed that identifies the specific properties and circumstances that make it
effective, and some typically thorny issues are discussed, including the
moment of feedback and the effects of positive and negative feedback. Finally,
this analysis is used to suggest ways in which feedback can be used
to increase its effectiveness in the classrooms.

PALAVRAS-CHAVE:feedback, avaliação, aprendizagem de alunos e professores.

Although it is often mentioned in articles about learning and teaching,

Surprisingly few recent studies have systematically investigated the meaning of feedback.
in the classroom. In this article, we begin with a conceptual analysis of the meaning of feedback and
a synthesis of the evidence related to the power of feedback to improve teaching and learning
learning. Next, we propose a feedback model that is used to identify the
circumstances in which feedback has the greatest impact.
Specifically, the research evidence related to the different types of
feedback and its effectiveness in terms of promoting student learning, the different ones are described
ways in which students deal with feedback and the relationship between evaluation and
feedback. Finally, the model, along with the evidence that supports it, is used to demonstrate
how feedback can be used to improve learning and teaching in the classroom.

The meaning of feedback

In this review, feedback is conceptualized as information provided by an agent (for example,

professor, colleague, book, father, car, experience) about aspects of performance or understanding of
someone. A teacher or parent can provide corrective information, a colleague can provide a
alternative strategy, a book can provide information to clarify ideas, a parent can provide
Encouragement and a student can seek the answer to evaluate the correctness of a response. The
feedback, therefore, is a "consequence" of performance.

81
Machine Translated by Google

Hattie & Timperley

To assist in understanding the purpose, effects, and types of feedback, it is useful to consider a
continuum of instruction and feedback. At one end of the continuum is a clear distinction
between providing instruction and providing feedback.
However, when the feedback is combined with another corrective revision, the feedback and the
instructions become interconnected until 'the process itself takes on the forms of a new
instruction, instead of just informing the student about the correction
(Kulhavy, 1977, p. 212). To fulfill this instructional purpose, feedback needs to provide
information specifically related to the task or learning process that fills
a gap between what is understood and what is intended to be understood (Sadler, 1989), and can
do this in various ways. in different ways. This can occur through processes
affective, such as greater effort, motivation or engagement. Alternatively, the gap may be
reduced through various different cognitive processes, including restructuring of
understandings, confirming to the students whether they are correct or incorrect, indicating that more
information is available or necessary, indicating the directions that students can follow
and/or indicating alternative strategies to understand specific information. Winne and Butler (1994)
they provided an excellent summary in their statement that 'feedback is information with which a'
The student can confirm, add, overwrite, adjust, or restructure information in memory, whether
this information domain knowledge, metacognitive knowledge, beliefs about oneself and
tasks, or cognitive tactics and strategies" (p. 5740).

Feedback does not have an effect in a vacuum; to be powerful in its effect, there must be a context.
of learning for which the feedback is directed. It is only part of the teaching process and is
what happens in second place - after the student answered the initial instruction - when the
information is provided regarding some aspect(s) of the student's task performance. It is
more powerful when addressing faulty interpretations, not a total lack of understanding. In this
the last circumstance may even be threatening for a student: "If the material studied is
unknown or obscure, providing feedback should have little effect on the criterion's performance, a
since there is no way to relate the new information to what is already known" (Kulhavy, 1977, p.
220).
The focus of this article is on feedback as information about the content and/or

the understanding of the constructions that the students made from the learning experience
it is not the same as a behaviorist input-output model. Contrary to the argument of
behaviorists, Kulhavy (1977) demonstrated that feedback is not necessarily a reinforcer,
because feedback can be accepted, modified, or rejected. Feedback by itself may not have the power
to initiate new actions. Furthermore, feedback is not only given by teachers, students, peers
and so on, but it can also be sought out by students, colleagues, and so on, and
detected by a student without being intentionally sought.

A eficácia do feedback

The first question to be asked is: What is the effectiveness of feedback? We answer this question.
referring to the usual effects of schooling on student performance and then,
comparing them with the evidence related to feedback. Hattie (1999) reported a synthesis of
more than 500 meta-analyses, involving 450,000 effect sizes from 180,000 studies,
representing approximately 20 to 30 million students, about various influences on
student performance. This analysis included over 100 factors that influence performance
educational and covered several aspects of those typically

82
Machine Translated by Google

TABLE 1
Summary of effect sizes from 12 meta-analyses assessing the influences of feedback

Effect number
Study Context effects size

Skiba, Casey and For education students

Center (1985-1986) special 35 1.24
Lysakowski and
Walter (1982) Tips, corrective feedback 54 1.13
Walter (1982) Suggestions, influences
motivational and reinforcement 19 0.81
Tenenbaum and Tips, participation,
Gold Ring (1989) reinforcement, feedback and corrections
15 0.74
Rummel and
Feinberg (1988) Rewards of extrinsic feedback 45 0.60
Yeany and Miller (1983) Diagnostic feedback in
science 49 0.52
Kluger and De
Nisi (1996) Opinion 470 0.38
L'Hommedieu, Menges and
Brinko (1990) The students' evaluations 28 0.34
Moin (1986) Opinion 0.29
Bangert-Drowns,
Kulik, Kulik and
Morgan (1991) Test 40 0.28
Kulik e Kulik (1988) Immediate versus delayed 53 0,28
Getsie, Langer and
Glass (1985) Rewards and punishments 89 0.14
Willkinson (1981) praise of the teacher 14 0.12

identified as attributes of schools, homes, students, teachers, and curricula.

The average or typical effect of schooling was 0.40 (SE = 0.05), and this provided a value
of reference or 'standard' from which to judge the various influences on performance, such as
the feedback.
At least 12 previous meta-analyses included specific information about the
feedback in classrooms (Table 1). These meta-analyses included 196 studies and 6,972
effect sizes. The average effect size was 0.79 (double the average effect). For
putting this average of 0.79 into perspective, it fell between the 5 to 10 largest influences
about the performance in Hattie's (1999) synthesis, along with direct instruction (0.93),
reciprocal teaching (0.86), students' prior cognitive ability (0.71), and it can also
to be contrasted with other influences, such as acceleration (0.47), socioeconomic influences
(0.44), homework (0.41), use of calculators (0.24), reduction of class size
(0.12) and retention of 1 year (-0.12). Clearly, feedback can be powerful.
The effect sizes reported in the meta-analyses of feedback, however, show
considerable variability, indicating that some types of feedback are more powerful.

83
Machine Translated by Google

TABLE 2
Summary of effect sizes related to feedback effects

Number of Number of Number of Effect

Variable meta-analyses studies effects size

Tips 89 129 1.10

Opinion 3 4.157 5.755 0.95
Reinforcement 74 1 19 19 0.94
Video or audio feedback 1 91 715 0.64
Instructional feedback
computer-assisted 4 161 129 0.52
Objectives and comments 8 640 121 0.46
Student evaluation feedback 3 100 61 0.42
Corrective feedback 25 1.149 1.040 0.37
Delayed versus immediate 5 178 83 0.34
Reward 3 223 508 0.31
Immediate versus delayed 8 398 167 0.24
Punishment 1 89 210 0.20
Louvar 11 388 4.410 0.14
programmed instruction 1 40 23 -0.04

than others. The studies that showed the highest effect sizes involved students receiving
feedback on information about a task and how to carry it out more efficiently.
Smaller effect sizes were associated with praise, rewards, and punishments.
A more detailed synthesis of 74 meta-analyses in Hattie's database (1999) that included
some information about feedback (in more than 7,000 studies and 13,370 effect sizes, including
those in Table 2) showed that the most effective forms of feedback provide clues or
reinforcement for students; they are in the form of instructional feedback assisted by video, audio, or computer;
and/or related to goals. Programmed instruction, praise, punishments, and extrinsic rewards were
os menos eficazes para melhorar a realização (Tabela 3). Na verdade, é duvidoso que as recompensas
they are considered as feedback. Deci, Koestner, and Ryan (1999) described tangible rewards
(stickers, prizes, etc.) In their meta-analysis of the effects of feedback on motivation, these
authors found a negative correlation between extrinsic rewards and task performance
(-0.34). Tangible rewards significantly harmed intrinsic motivation, particularly
for interesting tasks (-0.68) compared to uninteresting tasks (0.18). Furthermore,
when feedback was administered in a controlling manner (for example, telling students
they performed as they "should have" performed), the effects were even worse (-0.78).

Thus, Deci et al. concluded that extrinsic rewards are typically negative because they "undermine"
the responsibility of people to motivate or regulate themselves" (p. 659). Instead, they are
a control strategy that often leads to greater oversight, evaluation, and competition,
all of which undermined the enhanced involvement and regulation (Deci & Ryan, 1985).

The most systematic study addressing the effects of various types of feedback was conducted by
Kluger and DeNisi (1996). Their meta-analysis included studies from

84
Machine Translated by Google

TABLE 3
Summary of effect sizes related to types of feedback

Moderator Number of effects Effect size

Correct feedback
It is correct 114 0.43
It is incorrect 197 0.25

Feedback on the task regarding test changes

previous
Yes 50 0.55
No 380 0.28

Feedback from the task designed for

discourage the student
Yes 49 -0.14
No 388 0.33
Praise the feedback on the task
Sim 80 0.09
No 358 0.34

Feedback provided from a computer

Yes 87 0.41
No 337 0.23
Number of times feedback was given

offered
Large quantity
97 0.32
Small 171 0.39

Task complexity
Very complex 107 0.03

Not complex 114 0.55

Setting goals

difficult goals 37 0.51

Easy, make your best goals 373 0.30

Threat to self-esteem
a lot of threats 102 0.08
small threat 170 0.47

[Link] and DeNisi (1996).

feedback interventions that were not confused with other manipulations included by
minus one control group, they measured performance and included at least 10 participants.
Many of their studies were not based in a classroom. Of the 131 studies, they estimated
470 effect sizes based on 12,652 participants and 23,663 observations (reflecting
multiple observations per participant). The average effect size was 0.38 (SE = 0.09) and
32% of the effects were negative (Table 3). In all comparisons, it seems that the power of
feedback is influenced by the direction of the feedback in relation to performance on a task.
Specifically, feedback is more effective when it provides information about responses.
correct instead of incorrect and when it is based on changes from previous trails. The impact
Feedback was also influenced by the difficulty of goals and tasks. It seems to have the greatest
impact when the goals are specific

85
Machine Translated by Google

Hattie & Timperley

It's challenging, but the complexity of the task is low. Praising the performance of the task seems
being ineffective, which is not surprising because it contains so little related information
with learning. It seems to be more effective when there are low levels of threat to the self-
it is estimated, presumably because low threat conditions allow for it to be provided
attention to feedback.
Given these mixed effects of feedback, we dedicate the rest of this article to identification
of conditions that maximize the positive effects on learning. A feedback model
is used as a framework to understand why certain types of feedback
they promote learning effectively and why others do not.

A feedback model

Figure 1 presents a structure in which feedback can be considered. It is stated

that the main objective of feedback is to reduce discrepancies between understandings
current and performance and a goal. The strategies that students and teachers use to
reducing this discrepancy can be more or less effective in improving learning,
therefore it is important to understand the circumstances that result in differential outcomes. The
effective feedback must answer three main questions asked by a teacher and/or by
um aluno: Para onde estou indo? (Quais são os objetivos?), Como vou? (Que progresso está
being done towards the goal?) and Where to go next? (What activities need to be
realizadas para obter um melhor progresso?) Essas perguntas correspondem às noções de
feed up, feedback and feed forward. The effectiveness with which the responses to these questions
they serve to reduce the gap depends in part on the level at which the feedback operates. These
include the level of task performance, the level of the understanding process of how
perform a task, the level of the regulatory or metacognitive process and/or the level of the self or
people (not related to the specifics of the task).
Feedback has different effects at these levels.
A key theme that emerges from this literature review is the importance of ensuring that the
feedback should be directed to students at the appropriate level, because some feedbacks are
effective in reducing the discrepancy between current understandings and what is desired, and
some are ineffective. These issues are explored in greater depth as
that each aspect of the model is more explored.

How feedback works: reducing the discrepancy between the current and the
Desired Understanding
There are many possible ways for students to bridge the gap between the
current and desired understandings in response to feedback, and are not always effective
to improve learning. Those that are likely to be effective include the following.
Students can increase their effort, especially when effort leads to more tasks.
challenging or appreciating higher quality experiences, instead of just doing "more".
It is more likely that we will increase our effort when the intended goal "is clear, when
a strong commitment is guaranteed for him and when the belief in the final success is
"high" (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996, p. 260). Students can also develop skills
effective error detection mechanisms, which lead to their own self-feedback with the aim of
achieve a goal. This error detection can be very powerful, as long as the students
have a minimum of knowledge and understanding about the task of creating strategies
They are regular. In addition, students can seek better strategies to complete the task.
you learn, or you can get more information from which you can solve problems
or use your self-regulatory skills.

86
Machine Translated by Google

FIGURE 1. A feedback model to improve learning.

Some strategies to reduce the gap are less productive. Students may drop out.
the objectives and thus eliminate any gaps, and this generally leads to non-involvement in
search for new goals (Bandura, 1982; Mikulincer, 1988; Steinberg, 1996). They may choose
by deleting the objectives, combining them with so many others that, after being achieved, can
choose those who have reached and ignore the others.
Alternatively, students can change the pattern by setting less challenging goals.
accepting the performance far below their capabilities as satisfactory.
There are also several ways in which teachers can help reduce the gap.
between actual performance and the achievement of the desired goal. This includes the provision of goals
challenging and specific appropriate. The specific objectives are more effective than the
general or nonspecific, mainly because they concentrate the attention of the students and the feedback
it can be more targeted (Locke & Latham, 1984). The goals and the associated feedback also
are more likely to include information about the success criteria in achieving them
what more general goals.
Teachers can also help by clarifying the objectives, increasing the
commitment or increasing effort to achieve them through feedback. The goals
they can also become more manageable, narrowing the range of reasonable hypotheses (Sweller, 1990).
More generally, teachers can create a learning environment in which
students develop self-regulation and error detection skills (Hattie, Biggs, and Purdie, 1996).
The way feedback contributes to these processes depends a lot on the focus of the feedback and
to the level for which it is aimed. In the next section, we develop a framework for
to assist in identifying the circumstances that are likely to result in better outcomes
productive.

87
Machine Translated by Google

Addressing the Three Feedback Questions

Effective teaching does not only involve conveying information and understanding to students (or
provide constructive tasks, environments, and learning), but also assess and evaluate the
students' understanding of this information, so that the next teaching act can
correspond to the current understanding of the students. This 'second part' is the feedback part and
is related to the three main questions identified in Figure 1: Where am I going?
How am I doing? And where to go? These three questions address the dimensions of feed up, feed back, and
feed forward. An ideal learning environment or experience occurs when teachers and
students seek answers to each of these questions. Often, teachers limit
the opportunities for students to receive information about their performance in relation to
any of these issues, assuming this responsibility for the students and not considering
the possibilities of learning for them.

Where am I going?

A critical aspect of feedback is the information given to students and their teachers about the
achievement of learning goals related to the task or performance. These objectives can
be broad and include items like singing a song, participating in a race, observing the beauty of
a painting, sanding a piece of wood or riding a bicycle. Judging the success of the achievement
The objective can occur in many dimensions. Judgments can be direct, such as 'passing
in a test" or "completing a task"; comparatives, such as "doing better than Mary" or
doing better than last time; social, like 'not receiving a detention' or 'seeking the'
teacher's approval; related to engagement, such as 'singing a song' or 'running a race'
"running"; or automatic and triggered outside of specific consciousness, like "doing well in a
"task" or "seeking more challenging tasks". Regarding this latter type, Bargh, Gollwitzer, Lee-
Chai, Barndollar, and Trotschel (2001) demonstrated that goals can promote action directed towards
goals (for example, achievement or cooperation in tasks), producing persistence in performance
of the task in the face of obstacles, and they favor the resumption of interrupted tasks even in the
presence of more attractive alternatives. As Black and Wiliam (1998) concluded, "the provision
challenging tasks and extensive feedback lead to greater student engagement and greater
performance (p. 13)

The goals may be related to specific achievements or understandings or to different

qualities of experience, and usually involve two dimensions: challenge and commitment.
Challenging goals relate to feedback in two main ways. First, they
inform the individuals

about what type or level of performance should be achieved so that they can
direct and evaluate their actions and efforts accordingly. Feedback allows them to
set reasonable goals and monitor your performance in relation to them
goals, so that adjustments in effort, direction, and even strategy can be made
as necessary. (Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 23)

We call these levels of achievement 'success criteria', and goals without clarity about
when and how a student (and teacher) would know that they have succeeded is often
too many vacancies to serve the purpose of enhancing learning. Secondly, the feedback
allows students (and/or their teachers) to define additional appropriate challenges

88
Machine Translated by Google

The power of feedback

goals as the previous ones are achieved, thus establishing the conditions for learning
continues.
The relationship between feedback and the challenge related to the objective is complex. If the feedback
not reducing the discrepancy between current understandings and goals, it is likely that the
students fill in the gap by exaggerating their current status or claiming various assignments
that reduce effort and involvement. Feedback cannot lead to a reduction of this.
discrepancy if the goal is poorly defined, because it is unlikely that the gap between the
current learning and the intended learning is clear enough for the students
see the need to reduce it (Earley, Northcraft, Lee, & Lituchy, 1990; Erez, 1977; Frost
An additional problem arises when the feedback is not directed at
the achievement of a goal. Very often, the feedback provided is not related to
within reach of success in the critical dimensions of the goal. For example, students receive
feedback on presentation, spelling, and quantity in writing when the criteria of
success demands, let's say, "creating an atmosphere in a story". This feedback is not effective for
reduce the gap related to the intention of creating humor (Clarke, Timperley and Hattie, 2003;
Timperley and Parr, 2005). the understanding of the criteria for success will likely be
shared.

The objectives are more effective when students share the commitment to achieve them.
them, because they are more likely to seek and receive feedback (Locke & Latham, 1990).
Teachers and parents often assume that students share a
commitment to academic objectives, while the reality is that development
this shared commitment needs to be nurtured and built. The commitment
can be induced by figures of authority; peer groups; competition; role models
roles; public statements about intentions, incentives and rewards; punishment; and valence
general and instrumentality (for example, Bandura, 1986; Carroll, Houghton, Durkin, & Hattie,
2001; Hollenbeck, Klein, O'Leary, & Wright, 1989; Latham & Lee, 1986; Lee, Locke, & Latham,
1989; Locke & Latham, 1984). For example, Earley and Kanfer (1985) showed that the
modeling can be effective by having participants watch a movie of a
a high-performing student or a low-performing student completing a task of
scheduling of class. Subsequently, the students were assigned or encouraged to establish
difficult goals. Those who observed the high-performing student in the video presented
significantly higher levels of commitment than those who observed the low model

How am I going?

Answering this question involves a teacher (or colleague, task, or himself)

providing information related to a task or performance goal, usually in
relation to any expected pattern, previous performance, and/or success or failure in
a specific part of the task. This aspect of feedback can be called a dimension
give feedback. Feedback is effective when it consists of information about progress and/or
about how to proceed. Students usually look for information on 'how they are doing,'
although they do not always like the answers. Many times, paying attention to this issue leads to
evaluation or test, while this is not the fundamental conception underlying this issue.
The "tests" are just a method used by teachers and students to address this issue.
and, as discussed below, often do not convey feedback information that
they help teachers and their students know how they are doing.

89
Machine Translated by Google

Where's the next one?

The instruction is generally sequential, with teachers providing information, tasks or

learning intentions; students attempting tasks; and some subsequent consequence.
Many times, the consequence is more information, more tasks, and more expectations; the students
they learn that the answer to "Where to go next?" is more. The power of feedback, in
meanwhile, it can be used to specifically address this issue by providing information
that lead to greater learning opportunities. This may include enhanced challenges, more
self-regulation over the learning process, greater fluency and automaticity, more
strategies and processes to work on tasks, deeper understanding and more
information about what is and what is not understood. This feedforward question may have
some of the most powerful impacts on learning.

Integrating the Three Questions

Instead of the three questions above functioning independently at each of the four levels,
they usually work together. Comments related to 'How am I doing?' have the power
to lead to the completion of new tasks or 'Where to go next?' in relation to a goal 'To
where am I going? As Sadler (1989) convincingly argued, it is to close the gap between
where students are and where they intend to go that leads to the power of feedback.

The focus of feedback: the four levels

The focus of feedback is extremely important and, in this article, we assert that there are four
main levels and that the level to which feedback is directed influences its effectiveness. First,
Feedback can be about a task or product, such as whether the work is correct or incorrect.
This level of feedback may include instructions to obtain more information, different or
correct, such as "You need to include more about the Treaty of Versailles". Secondly, the
feedback can be directed to the process used to create a product or complete a task.
This type of feedback is more directly aimed at information processing, or
learning processes that require understanding or completion of the task. For example,
a teacher or colleague can tell a student: 'You need to edit this text observing the '
descriptors you used so that the reader can understand the nuances of its meaning" or "This
The page can make more sense if you use the strategies we talked about earlier.

In third place, feedback for students can focus on the level of self-regulation, including
greater skill in self-assessment or confidence to engage more in a task. By
For example: "Do you already know the main characteristics of the opening of an argument? Check it out."
if you included them in your first paragraph.” This feedback can have significant influences on
self-efficacy, in self-regulatory proficiencies and in self-beliefs about students as
apprentices, so that students are encouraged or informed on how to proceed
better and effortless in the task. Fourth, feedback can be personal in the sense that it is
directed to the "I", which we argue below, is often not related to the
performance on the task. Examples of such feedback include 'You are a great student' and 'This is
a smart answer, very well.

Thus, there is a distinction between feedback about the task (FT) and feedback about the processing of the task.
(FP), on self-regulation (FR) and on the self as a person (FS). We argue that FS is the
less effective, FR and FP are powerful in terms of

90
Machine Translated by Google

The power of feedback

deep processing and mastery of tasks, and the FT is powerful when the information from the
Subsequent tasks are useful for improving the processing of the strategy or increasing
self-regulation (which rarely happens).

Comments on the task

This level includes feedback on how well a task is being performed or executed,
how to distinguish correct answers from incorrect ones, acquire more or different information and
build more superficial knowledge. This type of feedback is more common and is usually
called corrective feedback or knowledge of results, and may be related to
correction, organization, behavior, or any other criterion related to the execution of the task.
About 90% of the teachers' questions (sometimes written, but usually verbal) in
classrooms are directed towards this level of information (Airasian, 1997). The teachers
they usually mix corrective feedback with personal-level information, which dilutes the power.
do FT (for example, “Good boy, that is correct”; see Bennett & Kell, 1989). By itself, the
corrective feedback can be powerful.
Based on various meta-analyses, Lysakowski and Walberg (1982) reported an effect size
from 1.13, Walberg (1982) reported 0.82 and Tenenbaum and Goldring (1989) reported 0.74, all
which are substantial effects. Having correct information is a pedestal on which the
processing and self-regulation are effectively constructed.
The FT is more powerful when it comes to flawed interpretations, not lack of information.
If students lack the necessary knowledge, additional instructions are more powerful.
of the feedback information. One of the problems with task-level feedback is that
it generally does not generalize to other tasks. Thompson (1998), for example, demonstrated
that the improvement was specific to the issues for which feedback was given and was not
used to answer other questions.
The feedback aimed at moving students from the task to the processing and then from
processing for regulation is more effective. Much feedback within a level can even
hinder performance. For example, FT that provides very specific information about the
accuracy of task details and is not also directed towards the necessary processing
to conclude the task, you can direct attention below the necessary level for performance
high level and thus interfere with the execution of the task (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). In the case of
rotation of a 'turtle' in a LOGO simulation, Simmons and Cope (1993) discovered
that when FT was very specific, the students were unable to build an estimate of
rotation by successive increments. When the immediate feedback specific to each
performance was reduced, strategies were promoted that involved more elements of
problems that represented higher-level responses. Therefore, a lot of feedback only on
task level can encourage students to focus on the immediate goal and not on
strategies to achieve the goal. This can lead to more trial and error strategies and less
cognitive effort to develop informal hypotheses about the relationship between the instructions, the
feedback and the intended learning.

Winne and Butler (1994) argued that the benefits of FT heavily depend on the
students to be attentive to the varying importance of feedback information during the
study of the task, (b) having accurate memories of these resources when feedback on the outcome
is provided at the conclusion of the task and (c) be sufficiently strategic to generate feedback
effective internal on predictive validity (for example, what factors drive my
performance?). It is likely that feedback at this task level is more beneficial when
helps students reject false hypotheses and provides tips on how to

91
Machine Translated by Google

Hattie & Timperley

directions for research and strategy creation. Such tips can raise awareness among students to
the competence or strategic information in a task or situation (Harackiewicz, 1979;
Harackiewicz, Mabderlink, & Sansone, 1984.
Feedback related specifically to the task can be conceived in various dimensions,
from high to low complexity, individual or group performance, and written notes
or numerical. The performance of simple tasks, more than complex ones, benefits from
FT (Balzer, Doherty, and O'Connor, 1989). Likewise, the simple FT, instead of the complex,
tends to be more effective. Kulhavy, White, Topp, Chan, and Adams (1985) provided students
reading passages and multiple-choice items with increasingly complex feedback.
First, they received the correct answer and then discussed the four answers.
incorrect. Each sentence of the passage was subsequently read and used to explain why
one of the error options was incorrect and, finally, the relevant section of the passage in
the correct answer was identified. The less complex feedback provided the answer
correct resulted in higher levels of performance on subsequent tasks than the
more complex versions of the feedback, for which the effect was small. It may be,
the authors conjectured that additional information about the incorrect answers would be provided
in fact, it increased the likelihood that the error would be remembered by the student.

Alternatively, it may be that the students have processed additional feedback information.
at a more superficial level, why did they not perceive them as being directly
related to the issue of identifying a correct answer. However, these results
were mediated by the readers' trust in their answers. Those with high trust
in the response, who had few problems understanding or interacting with the material were
more likely to make efficient use of feedback, regardless of its complexity.
Feedback, particularly at this task level, can be given and received both in
individual situations as well as in groups. When delivered in groups, the messages of
feedback can be confused by perceptions of relevance to oneself or to
other members of the group. For example, a student may interpret the feedback as
belonging to him or her or can be interpreted as related to the group as a whole or to
other individuals of the group. In these last two situations, it is likely that it will be diluted or
perceived as irrelevant to the individual student's performance (Nadler, 1979). The effectiveness
FTE in these situations depends a lot on the commitment and involvement of the students in
The task is about your notions regarding how this relates to your performance.

The effectiveness of written notes or comments has also been investigated.

There is considerable evidence that providing written feedback (specific FT) is more
more effective than providing grades (Black & Wiliam, 1998; Crooks, 1988). In one of the earliest and
Influential studies, Page (1958) found that feedback in the form of written comments
shorts, instead of just notes, significantly improved test performance of
students in 74 classrooms (see also Cardelle & Corno, 1981; Elawar & Corno, 1985;
McLaughlin, 1974). R. Butler (1987) demonstrated that notes can increase engagement,
but do not affect performance (compared to a condition without FT). It also showed
(R. Butler, 1988) that feedback only through comments leads to gains of
learning, while the grades alone or comments accompanied by grades or
no compliments. She stated that such results questioned the entire classroom culture of
notes, notes, gold stars, merit awards, competition, instead of improvement
guys. As it will become a topic later in this article, the feedback that mixes FS
with FT is less effective than FT alone.

92
Machine Translated by Google

The feedback on the task processing

is more specific to the underlying processes of tasks or related tasks and
extended. Such feedback relates to information about relationships in the environment, the
perceived relationships by a person and the relationships between the environment and perceptions of the
person (Balzer et al., 1989). A superficial understanding of learning involves the
acquisition, storage, reproduction and use of knowledge and, therefore, is more related to
with the FT. A deep understanding of learning involves the construction of meaning
(understanding) and is more related to relationships, cognitive processes and
transfer to other more difficult or untried tasks (Marton, Dall'Alba, &
Beaty, 1993; Purdie, Hattie, & Douglas, 1996; Säljö, 1979; Watkins & Regmi, 1992; Watkins,
Regmi & Astilla, 1991).
An important type of FP is related to students' strategies for detection.
errors, thus providing feedback to yourself. Such errors may indicate failure and need
redefining strategies, choosing different strategies, being more effective in their application of
strategies and/or seek help. If students engage in correction strategies
Errors after the detection of errors depend on your motivation to continue pursuing the goal.
or to bridge the gap between current knowledge and the goal. Carver and Scheier (1981, 1982,
1990) argued that when a student encounters an impediment (such as the detection of
an error) when pursuing a goal, a reassessment of the situation is triggered. When
considering their reassessments, students estimate the probability of achieving their goals
if they invest more efforts, modify their plans, or both.

The feedback information about the underlying processes of a task can also
act as a signaling mechanism and lead to a more effective information search and
to the use of task strategies. The tips are more helpful when they assist students in rejecting
erroneous hypotheses and provide direction for the search and development of strategies (Earley,
1988; Harackiewicz, 1979; Harackiewicz et al., 1984; Wood & Bandura, 1987). This type of
feedback is similar to the notion of DL Butler and Winne (1995) of validity feedback.
task, which draws the student's attention to "the relationship between a suggestion, like the presence
and the use of an advanced organizer, and the probability of success. performance
satisfactory (p. 262).
Feedback at the process level seems to be more effective than at the task level for
improve deep learning (for example, Balzer et al., 1989). Earley and others.
(1990) stated that "using process feedback with goal setting seems to be
a direct and powerful way to shape an individual's task strategy, and use
feedback on results is a much less efficient way to shape strategy” (p. 103).
It should be noted, however, that there may be a powerful interactive effect between the feedback.
intended to improve strategies and processes and feedback directed towards information
but superficial aspects of the task. The latter can help improve confidence in the task and the
self-efficacy, which in turn provides resources for more effective information and
innovative and seeking strategies (Earley et al., 1990).

Feedback on self-regulation
Self-regulation involves an interaction between commitment, control, and trust.
It addresses the way students monitor, direct, and regulate actions towards
Learning objective. It involves autonomy, self-control, self-direction, and self-discipline. Such
regulation involves 'self-generated thoughts, feelings, and actions'

93
Machine Translated by Google

Hattie & Timperley

planned and adapted cyclically for the achievement of personal goals
(Zimmerman, 2000, p. 14) and can lead to seeking, accepting, and accommodating information from
feedback.
There are at least six main aspects of FR that mediate the effectiveness of feedback,
discussed in more detail below. As an overview, these include the ability to
create internal feedback and self-assessment, the willingness to invest effort in the search and deal with
feedback information, the degree of confidence or certainty in the accuracy of the response, the
attributions about success or failure, and the level of proficiency in seeking help.

Effective students create internal feedback and cognitive routines while they are
engaged in academic tasks. DL Butler and Winne (1995) argued that, to

In all self-regulated activities, feedback is an inherent catalyst. To

as students monitor their engagement with the tasks, the internal feedback
It is generated by the monitoring process. This feedback describes the nature of
results and the qualities of the cognitive processes that led to these states.
Our hypothesis is that more effective students develop cognitive routines.
idiosyncratic to create internal feedback while engaged in academic tasks. (p. 245)

Less effective students have minimal self-regulation strategies and depend heavily.
more external factors (such as the teacher or the task) for feedback. They rarely
they seek or incorporate feedback in order to improve their future strategies of
learning or self-regulation.
Self-assessment is a self-regulating proficiency that is powerful in selection and
interpretation of information in order to provide feedback. There are two main aspects
of self-assessment: self-assessment and self-management (Paris & Winograd, 1990). Self-assessment
is related to the ease of students in reviewing and evaluating their skills, states of
knowledge and cognitive strategies through a variety of processes of
self-monitoring. Self-management is the monitoring and regulation of behavior
continuous assessment of students through planning, error correction, and the use of strategies of
correction. When the student possesses metacognitive skills of self-assessment, they can
evaluate your levels of understanding, your effort and strategies used in the tasks, your
attributions and opinions of other people about your performance and your improvement in relation to
to your goals and expectations. They can also assess your performance in relation to
to the objectives of others and to the global aspects of their performance.

performance can be evaluated (Paris & Cunningham, 1996). More importantly, the
students know how and when to seek and receive feedback from others.
The willingness of students to invest effort in the search and handling of information
feedback relates to the transaction costs incurred at the self-regulatory level.
These transaction costs include effort costs (the effort required for the search for
feedback), face costs (the evaluative effects of others on the individual to seek
feedback) and inference costs (the implications of inferential errors resulting from
imprecise interpretation of feedback; Ashford & Cummings, 1983; de Luque & Sommer,
2000). The benefit incurred to offset these costs is a reduction in the gap between the

since the pursuit of feedback is worth incurring the related costs (Trope, 1975,
1980). When the cost/benefit relationship becomes prohibitive, however, people refrain.
to seek feedback.

94
Machine Translated by Google

The power of feedback

Decisions about whether or not to seek feedback are not governed solely by this relationship.
cost/benefit. In general, feedback is psychologically comforting and people like it.
to get feedback on your performance, even if it does not impact your

feelings that feedback is desirable with the question of whether feedback is beneficial
the performance.
The level of confidence that students have in the accuracy of the answers can affect the
receptivity and the search for feedback. Kulhavy and Stock (1989) observed that if trust
If the certainty of the answer is high and the answer is correct, little attention is given to feedback.
Feedback has its greatest effect when a student expects a response to be correct and
she is wrong. As Kulhavy and Stock noted, 'high-confidence errors are the point in
that feedback should play its biggest corrective role, simply because the person
"studies the item for a longer time in an attempt to correct the mistake" (p. 225). On the other hand, if
if the certainty of the answer is low and the answer is wrong, the feedback is largely ignored.

In these circumstances, low confidence puts "a student in a position that demands
associative strategies, instead of integrating new information into structures
existing. In this condition, the feedback should have a minimal effect, regardless of whether the
answer to be or not to be the correct one" (Kulhavy, 1977, p. 226). More instructions and information are
more effective than feedback in this situation.
Feelings of self-efficacy are important mediators in feedback situations.
Based on their main review, Kluger and DeNisi (1996) concluded that feedback is effective in
to the extent that it directs information to increase self-efficacy and for a
more effective self-regulation, so that attention is redirected back to the task and makes
with which students invest more effort or commitment to the task. These authors
they claimed that such feedback will likely 'generate impressive gains in performance,
possibly exceeding 1 sd" (p. 278).
The students' attributions about success or failure can often have more
impact of what the reality of this success or failure. There may be deleterious effects on
feelings of self-efficacy and performance when students are unable to relate to
feedback due to your poor performance. The unclear evaluative feedback, which fails
to clearly specify the reasons why the students succeeded or not,
will probably exacerbate negative outcomes, generate uncertain self-images and lead to
a poor performance (Thompson, 1997, 1998, 1999; Thompson & Ricardo, 2001). On the other hand
On the other hand, undeserved success feedback increases the uncertainty of the outcome and can lead to
increases in self-limiting strategies (Smith, Snyder, and Handelsman, 1982). How
Berglas and Jones (1978) stated that self-deficiency arises from a whimsical history.
caotic feedback reinforcement, suggesting that "it's not that your stories are bagged
with repeated failures; they were widely rewarded, but in ways and in
occasions that left them deeply uncertain about the reason for the reward (p. 407).

There is considerable evidence that feedback attributing performance to effort or

skill increases engagement and performance in tasks (Craven, Marsh, and Debus,
1991; Dohrn and Bryan, 1994). The impact of feedback on effort or skill, however,
it can depend on the circumstances. Schunk and Rice (1991), for example, highlighted the
the need to explore this feedback for prolonged periods, because students may
Respond differently to feedback depending on the stage of task completion.
The feedback from the effort seems to be reliable in the early stages.

95
Machine Translated by Google

Hattie & Timperley

of learning, when students need to expend effort to succeed. As skills
they develop and success should require less effort, feedback from the skill may become more reliable.
However, skill feedback can hinder the focus of learning objectives.
Mueller and Dweck (1998), for example, conducted a series of six studies with students from
elementary education and they discovered that students who received feedback on skills were
more focused on performance than on learning and reported worse performance
and less pleasure in tasks after a failure.
Seeking help is a skill of the learner, and many types of help-seeking behavior
help can be considered aspects of self-regulation. An important distinction is made
between seeking instrumental help (asking for tips instead of answers) and seeking executive help
(to ask for answers or direct help that saves time or work; Nelson-Le Gall, 1981, 1985; Ryan
Higher levels of seeking instrumental help lead to feedback at the levels
of self-regulation, while the search for executive help is more likely to be related
with the level of the task and, sometimes, with the level of processing. When considering how to develop
the instrumental behavior of seeking help is important to keep in mind that it is mediated
due to emotional factors. Many students do not seek help due to perceived threats to their self-
esteem or social constraint (Karabenick & Knapp, 1991; Newman & Schwager, 1993).

Feedback about me as a person

We included a final level of feedback not because it is effective, but because it is often.
present in class situations and is often used instead of FT, FP or FR (Bond, Smith,
Baker and Hattie, 2000). Personal feedback, such as 'Good girl' or 'Great effort,' usually
expresses positive (and sometimes negative) evaluations and affects the student (Brophy, 1981). He
usually contains little information related to the task and is rarely converted into more
engagement, commitment to learning objectives, greater self-efficacy or
understanding of the task. EF can impact learning only if it leads to
changes in effort, engagement, or feelings of efficacy of students with regard to
learning or the strategies they use when trying to understand the tasks. The effects at the level
Self-reports are often very diluted, often providing little information about the task being performed and very
influenced by students' self-concept to be effective. The information has very little
value to result in learning gains.
Praises directed at students are unlikely to be effective, because they carry little
information that provides answers to any of the three questions and often deviates
the attention of the task. Several meta-analyses have demonstrated its ineffectiveness. Wilkinson (1981)
completed a meta-analysis on teacher praise and concluded that it has little or
no relationship with student performance (overall effect = 0.12). Kluger and DeNisi (1998)
they also reported an equally low effect size for praise (0.09) and found that
no praise has a greater impact on performance (0.34).

even (because this praise has low informational value for performance and learning) and praise
focused on effort, self-regulation, engagement or task-related processes and
your performance (for example, "You are really great because you completed this task
diligently applying this concept”). This last type of praise can help to increase the
self-efficacy and, therefore, can be converted by students back to the impact on the task and,
therefore, the effects are

96
Machine Translated by Google

The power of feedback

much larger. It seems likely, based on the reading of these meta-analyses, however, that the
reviewers do not always distinguish between praise as a reinforcer or reward (for the
which has an effect ranging from zero to limited on performance) and praise accompanied by information
about the processes or performance (which has more effect, but is still limited).

These concerns about praise are not the same as stating that students do not like it.
to be praised; they do. Sharp (1985) reported that 26% of adolescent students in his
they preferred to be praised loudly and publicly when they completed a task
academics, 64% preferred to be praised quietly and in private and only 10% preferred
that the teachers said nothing. in no way. Burnett (2002) and Elwell and Tiberio
(1994) reported a similar percentage among elementary school students and
They discovered that students preferred praise for their efforts instead of being graded highly.
skill (especially when the praise was public) and for achievements instead of behavior.
On the other hand, public praise from a teacher can be perceived as
punishment for some students if done in the presence of a group of peers who do not value it
school performance (Brophy, 1981; Carroll et al., 2001; Carroll, Durkin, Hattie and Houghton,
1997; White and Jones, 2000.
Praise can be counterproductive and have negative consequences on self-evaluations.
students about their skills. Meyer, Bachman, Hempelmann, Ploger, and Spiller (1979) and Meyer
(1982) conducted a series of studies related to this issue.
These authors demonstrated that older students perceived praise after success or
the neutral feedback after failure as an indication that the teacher perceived his
skill as low. Upon receiving criticism after failure and neutral feedback after
success, they realized that the teacher had estimated their ability as high and their
low effort. The same effects were not evident for younger students, however,
that they perceived praise after success as an indication of high ability and criticism
after failure as a sign of low skill.
Part of the reason for the unpredictability of praise is that students often adopt
reputation lenses to seek or evaluate feedback information aimed at the level
people (for example, "I want to be seen as a good student", "I don't want to be seen as a
good student). Students make many comparisons 'in their heads' (Goethals, Messick, and Allison,
1991), and it is likely that such comparisons are selected, interpreted and/or biased.
Strengths and positive performances are seen as unique and self-created, while
weaknesses and negative performances are seen as common in others and possibly
caused by others (Campbell, 1986; Goethals, 1986; Klein, 2001; Suls & Wan, 1987). Such
lenses and reputational prejudices, unless they lead to greater investment in the task or
in using better strategies to carry out the task, are of low effectiveness (Carroll et al., 2001).

One of the difficulties with these mental comparisons occurs because they are rarely
linked to specific tasks, but tend to be more generalized at the personal level and therefore,
they can be difficult for teachers to change (Craven, 1997; Hattie, 1992), although they help
to explain why feedback directed at the self level is generally dissipated and ineffective
to increase engagement or understanding of the tasks.
Typically, these strategies have a negative effect on learning (Hattie & Marsh, 1995)
because they include or lead to self-imposed demands, learned hopelessness, or social comparison. The
related feedback is generally ignored or discarded, and low-challenge goals
are adopted.

97
Machine Translated by Google

Using the four levels and three questions to untangle

Some thorny feedback issues

The model presented in Figure 1 is used to address four commonly encountered issues.
discussions on feedback: the moment of feedback, the effects of positive feedback and
negative, the ideal use of feedback in the classroom and the role of assessment in feedback.

The moment of feedback

There has been a lot of research on the timing of feedback, particularly
contrasting immediate and delayed feedback. Most of this research was conducted
without recognizing the various levels of feedback. For example, immediate correction
errors during the acquisition of tasks (FT) can result in faster rates of
acquisition, while the immediate correction of errors during the development of fluency can
hinder the learning of automaticity and the associated learning strategies
(FP). In the same way, in their meta-analysis of 53 studies, Kulik and Kulik (1988)
It was reported that at the task level (i.e., testing situations), some delay is beneficial.
(0.36), but at the process level (i.e., getting involved in the processing of the room of
class activities), immediate feedback is beneficial (0.28) (see also Bangert-Drowns,
Kulik, Kulik, & Morgan, 1991; Brackbill, Blobitt, Davlin, & Wagner, 1963; Schroth & Lund,
1993; Sturges, 1972, 1978; Swindell & Paredes, 1993).
Another example demonstrating that the effects of immediate feedback are likely
the most powerful for FT and the most powerful delayed feedback for FP was provided by
Clariana, Wagner, and Roher Murphy (2000). They discovered that the effectiveness of feedback
delayed compared to immediate feedback varied depending on the difficulty
two items in your test of information taught in a series of lessons.
The effect sizes of the delayed feedback were -0.06 for easy items, 0.35 for
intermediate items and 1.17 for difficult items. These authors suggested that the items
difficult ones are more likely to involve higher degrees of processing about the task,
and the delayed feedback provides the opportunity to do so, while the easy items
they do not require this processing and therefore the delay is unnecessary and undesirable.

The effects of positive and negative feedback

Kluger and DeNisi (1996) observed that both positive and negative feedback
they can have beneficial effects on learning, and the argument presented in this article
It's that the uncovering of these effects depends more on the level at which the feedback is.
directed and processed based on what is positive or negative. Specifically, the
negative feedback is more powerful at the self level, and both types can be
effective as FT, but there are differential effects related to the impairment,
domain or orientation for performance and self-efficacy at level FR.
No nível do self (FS), já foi observado que nenhum elogio é mais eficaz do que o
praise is accompanied by FT. Furthermore, there is a lot of evidence suggesting that the
negative feedback or disconfirmation can be more powerful than feedback
positive or the confirmation at this level of the self (Brockner, 1979; Brunit, Huguet and Monteil,
2000; Campbell and Fairey, 1985; Hattie, 1992; Janoff-Bulman & Brickman, 1982; Kinch,
1963, 1968; Okun & Sasfy, 1977; Shrauger & Sorman, 1977). Swann (1985) and Swann and
Hill (1982) discovered that individuals will make great efforts to confirm their
self-perceptions paying closer attention to feedback information that

98
Machine Translated by Google

The power of feedback

adjusts to your self-image and tries to organize your environment to acquire more evidence of
self-confirmation. Individuals also tend to reject or ignore negative reports of their
behavior that differs from yours (Greenwald, 1980; Markus, 1977; Tesser & Campbell, 1983) or
invoke an external frame of reference (Marsh, 1987, 1990).

At the level of self-regulation, commitment to the goals is a major mediator of effectiveness.

positive and negative feedback. Van-Dijk and Kluger (2000, 2001) demonstrated that positive feedback
increases motivation regarding negative feedback for a task that people 'want to do'
and decreases motivation regarding negative feedback for a task that people 'have to
do it". Thus, when we are committed to a goal, we are more likely to learn in
function of positive feedback, but when we take on a task we are not committed to
(and therefore we have to do), it is more likely that we learn as a function of negative feedback
We need to be led, in the old terminology of motivation. However, it is likely that this
the effect should be short-lived, as it may lead to future task avoidance behavior.

In circumstances where students are committed to the goals, feedback can

unleash

an internal process of comparison, which determines how individuals react to

feedback. Upon receiving negative feedback, individuals become more dissatisfied with
seu nível de desempenho anterior, estabelecem metas de desempenho mais altas
for your future performance and show performance at a higher level
than those who receive positive feedback or no feedback.
Farh, 1989, p. 62

Positive feedback, however, can increase the likelihood of students returning or

persist in an activity and report greater interest in the activity (Deci et al., 1999).

There is also an interaction effect at this level of FR between positive and negative feedback and the
self-efficacy of students. Swann, Pelham, and Chidester (1988) found that, for highly
self-efficacious, feedback on initial success can signify a potential talent or skill, the
that leads to a better confrontation in the face of disconfirmation feedback. They related the
feedback with positive self-checks as learners. As a consequence of the feedback
of disconfirmation, highly self-efficacious people make more optimistic predictions about their
performance after initial failure than after initial success, and they seek feedback specifically
unfavorable to stand out in tasks.

For students with low self-efficacy, positive feedback on initial success can confirm
that they have deficiencies that need to be corrected, which can lead to various reactions. A reaction
there can be more engagement to remedy these 'deficiencies' to reach an acceptable level of
performance, which would provide protection against failures. Alternatively, these students may avoid
tasks and feedback after the initial success, because such success means that they have already reached a level
performance adequate, and subsequent tests only run the risk of invalidating the favorable outcome
(sometimes obtained with difficulty).

The disconfirming feedback can also have a negative impact on motivation and performance.
subsequent students with low self-efficacy (Brockner, Derr, and Laing, 1987; Moreland and Sweeney,
1984). Kernis, Brockner, and Frankel (1989) argued that people with low self-efficacy are more
prone to reacting to negative feedback by

99
Machine Translated by Google

Hattie & Timperley

experiencing negative affection, showing less motivation in a subsequent task and attributing
the feedback focuses more on skill than on effort.
At the task level (FT), it has already been observed how powerful corrective feedback is for improvement.
learning, especially when acquiring new skills or tasks.
Disconfirmation with corrective information can be effective, but disconfirmation without it
information is of little use because it does not provide any information on what to do or
how to respond next time (Breakwell, 1983; Weiner, 1974a, 1974b, 1977). It is recognized that
The FT can be ignored by students if it is poorly presented or if the students' knowledge is
insufficient to accommodate additional feedback information. Howie, Sy, Ford and Vicente (2000)
they discovered that it was the poor presentation (or the lack of value of the information in the feedback) and not the

Students' inadequate knowledge that more frequently explained the low ability of some
feedback information.

Feedback and Classrooms

This feedback model highlights the demands of teachers so that they can teach with
effectiveness. First, they need to conduct effective instruction. To reiterate, feedback is what
it happens in second place and, to make feedback effective, teachers need to do
appropriate judgments about when, how, and at what level to provide appropriate feedback and the
which of the three questions should he be directed to.
It is difficult to document the frequency of feedback in classrooms, except to observe that it is
Bond and others (2000) extensively documented the daily life of 65 teachers (half
that passed the certification of the national council and half that did not.
Although feedback was one of the variables that most discriminated between those who passed and
Those who did not pass the certification as 'accomplished' teachers had low attendance in the FT.
in the classrooms of both groups (the most common form of feedback was praise).

When feedback is given, it is likely to be self-related (FS) or, at best,

hypotheses, related to the corrective task (CT) and influenced by the perceptions of needs
of students. Teachers praise the 'poor' students more (EF), and the little FR provided is
typically negative (Blote, 1995). The teacher's feedback for the boys is more related
In the absence of effort or bad behavior, the feedback for the girls is more about assignments.
of skills (Dweck, Davidson, Nelson and Enna, 1978).
Feedback is not just given differentially, but also received differentially (Diehl
& Sterman, 1995; Paich & Sterman, 1993; Sterman, 1989). De Luque and Sommer (2000) discovered

Pacific South) preferred indirect and implicit feedback, feedback that was more group-focused and none.
feedback from self-leveling. Students from individualistic cultures (for example, the United States)
they preferred more direct feedback, particularly related to effort, they were more likely to
use direct questions to seek feedback and preferred self-related feedback more focused on
individual.
The classroom climate is critical, especially if the disconfirmation and corrective feedback
at any level are welcome and used by students (and teachers). The mistakes and the
Disconfirmations are more powerful in climates where they are seen as conducive to
future learning, particularly regarding processing and regulation. It is likely
that the student's involvement in learning is limited by the evaluative dimensions of the classes
in the classroom, because there is a personal risk involved in responding publicly and being failed.
Often, the level of risk is determined by

100
Machine Translated by Google

The power of feedback

probability of a student providing an answer and by the climate of responsibility established

by the teacher and other students (Alton-Lee & Nuthall, 1990, 1998; Doyle, 1983). Normally, the
students only respond when they are sure they can answer correctly, which
generally indicates that they have already learned the answer to the question being asked. Errors
and learning from them is rarely welcomed.
Simply providing more feedback is not the answer, because it is necessary to consider the
nature of feedback, the moment, and how the student 'receives' this feedback (or rather, seeks it
actively the feedback). As already noted, students can influence and select information
of feedback. The ways and manners in which individuals interpret information
feedback is the key to developing positive and valuable concepts of self-efficacy about
learning, which in turn leads to later learning.
Teachers need to see feedback from the perspective of the individuals involved in learning.
and become proactive in providing information addressing the three feedback questions and
developing ways for students to ask themselves these questions. The students,
many times, they see feedback as someone else's responsibility, usually teachers,
whose job is to provide feedback information, deciding for the students how well they are doing
In, what are the objectives and what to do next.

Feedback and evaluation

There are significant implications of this feedback review for classroom assessment. The assessment
can be considered as activities that provide teachers and/or students with information about
feedback related to one or more of the three feedback questions (at the FT, FP, or FR level).
Such a definition emphasizes the development of assessment tasks that provide information and
interpretations about the discrepancy between the current state and the learning objectives in
any of the three levels: about the tasks, about the processes or strategies to understand
the tasks and about the regulations, engagement and trust to become more committed to
to learn.
This contrasts with the more usual definition of assessment, an activity used to evaluate the levels
on student proficiency. This usual definition places more emphasis on the adequacy of the scores (and
less in the interpretation of these scores). Crooks (1988) and Black and Wiliam (1998) demonstrated
that there is little evidence that such classroom tests have helped in the process of
learning. Black and Wiliam, for example, reviewed 578 publications related to the role of
assessment in learning and concluded that assessment in the classroom

typically encourages superficial and mechanical learning, focusing on recall

isolated details, usually items of knowledge that students soon forget...
teachers generally do not review the assessment questions they use and do not them
critically discuss with colleagues, therefore, there is little reflection on what is being
evaluated. (p. 17)

Many times, the power of feedback from the assessment aims to 'guide' students towards
objectives (often unspecified) either to "do more" or "do better". The students
receive little feedback information in these cases, mainly because the feedback from
the evaluation does not address the three main issues and rarely does this feedback improve the
processes (FP) and the metacognitive attributes (FR) of the task.
Furthermore, teachers often see feedback from assessment as making statements
about the students, not about their teaching (Timperley & Wiseman, 2002). Thus, the benefits of
feedback in the classroom from such tests is often diluted.

101
Machine Translated by Google

Hattie & Timperley

There are many ways in which teachers can provide feedback to students and
for students to receive feedback from teachers, peers, and other sources. The implication
it's not that we should automatically use more tests (Bangert-Drowns, Kulik, & Kulik, 1991).
Instead, for students, it means getting information about how and what they understand.
and do not understand, finding directions and strategies they should follow to improve and
seek help to understand the learning objectives. For teachers, it means
develop activities and questions that provide feedback on the effectiveness of your teaching,
especially so they know what to do next. Assessments can play a role
all these feedback functions, but often they are devoid of effective feedback
for students or teachers.

Conclusions

Feedback is the information provided by an agent (for example, teacher, colleague, book,
father, experience) about aspects of someone's performance or understanding. It occurs
typically after the instruction aimed at providing knowledge and skills or developing
specific attitudes. The model proposed in this article identifies three major questions of
feedback: Para onde estou indo? Como vou? e para onde ir? As respostas a essas questões
they enhance learning when there is a discrepancy between what is understood and what is
intends to understand. It can increase effort, motivation or engagement to
reduce this discrepancy and/or can increase the search for clues and task processes
that lead to understanding (thus reducing this discrepancy).
Feedback is among the most critical influences on student learning. One of
the main objectives of the educational process is to assist in identifying these gaps ("How
"Am I going?" in relation to "Where am I going?"?

The model distinguishes between four levels of feedback: the task, the processing,
regulator and the levels of self. Effective feedback at the levels of task, process, and self-regulation
is interrelated. The FT is more powerful when it results from misunderstandings, not
of lack of understanding. It is more effective when it assists in the construction of clues and information
about hypotheses and misconceptions and then leads to the development of strategies
more effective and efficient to process and understand the material. Feedback at the level of
the process is more beneficial when it helps students reject erroneous hypotheses and provides
tips for research directions and strategy creation. Such cues sensitize students
for competence or strategic information in a task or situation. Ideally, it
it moves the task to the processes or understandings necessary to learn the task
to regulate about continuing beyond the task for more challenging tasks and objectives. This
the process results in greater trust and greater investment of effort. This flow usually
occurs as students gain greater fluency and mastery. The feedback that meets the
self-regulation is powerful insofar as it leads to greater involvement or investment
more effort in the task, to the increase in self-efficacy and to the attributions that feedback is
earned and achieved. When feedback draws attention to regulatory processes
necessary to engage in a task, students' beliefs about the importance of
effort and its conceptions of learning can be important moderators in
learning process.

On the other hand, personal or individual feedback (usually compliments) is rarely

effective. Praise is rarely directed at addressing the three feedback questions and,
therefore, it is ineffective in improving learning. When feedback draws attention to the

102
Machine Translated by Google

The power of feedback

In general, students try to avoid the risks involved in undertaking challenging tasks, to
minimize effort and have a great fear of failure (Black & Wiliam, 1998) to minimize
the risk to yourself.

The three feedback questions are certainly not interpreted or implemented.

linearly, and the boundaries between them are confusing. Although it is important to know the objectives,
learning experiences do not necessarily start with the question 'What are'
the objectives?" because they can be discovered (usually in more specific ways)
as we carry out specific tasks. The goals can be many and sometimes
competitors, and much of the learning that accumulates can lead to the creation of options for
achieving the objectives, weighing the pros and cons of the options, considering the probability of
that a certain course of action will lead to the objectives and learning about and evaluating the
consequences of achieving the goals. Thus, the goals can be constantly in
Questions, and the feedback on 'How am I doing?' can help with these considerations.
related to evolving objectives. Similarly, the answer to 'Where to go to
"to follow?" may not be anywhere, if the goal is unchanging, the "result" is a greater one.
involvement with the same tasks or similar tasks, or the student believes that the answer is 'where they want
Such reactions usually indicate low self-regulation or classroom management.
excessively dominant. The answer to 'Where to go next?' needs to be more
directed towards refinement and the pursuit of more challenging goals, as these have greater
probability of leading to greater achievement.
It must be clear that giving and receiving feedback requires a lot of skill on the part of the
students and teachers. The model presented in this article does not invoke just a routine of
stimulus and response, but requires high proficiency in developing a classroom climate of
classroom, the ability to deal with the complexities of multiple and profound judgments
understanding of the subject to be ready to provide feedback on the tasks or the
relationships between ideas, the desire to encourage self-regulation and to have perfect timing for
provide feedback before frustration takes over. Being able to dedicate time and thoughts
Feedback is aided when teachers automate many other tasks in the classroom.
classroom and provide rich learning opportunities for all students and therefore have time
and resources to respond to feedback (Hattie & Jaeger, 1998).

The model firmly identifies that feedback involves both giving and receiving (for
teachers and/or students), and there can be chasms between them. Students build their worlds
of learning and classrooms, and the main argument of this article is that it is crucial that the
Teachers understand and appreciate that providing feedback is only part of the equation.
same way, some tasks more than others may lead to more effective feedback by
part of teachers, students, or both. Learning can be enhanced as
students share challenging learning goals, adopt strategies for
self-assessment and evaluation and develop procedures for error detection and improvement
self-efficacy to face more challenging tasks, leading to mastery and understanding of
lessons. Students' self-strategies and the search for help can mediate whether these effects
happen. Students who wish to confirm positive self-confidence instead of focusing
learning objectives are more likely to adopt or seek feedback that maximizes
positive self-assessments and/or minimize negative self-assessments were identified.
a series of self-strategies that inhibit the effects of feedback on learning, and it is only
when students are grounded and committed to the learning objectives and
when feedback is related to learning achievements, feedback is effective
(Crocker & Wolf, 2001). An important task for teachers and

103
Machine Translated by Google

Hattie & Timperley

the goal is to make academic objectives clear to all students, because students who
are prepared to question or reflect on what they know and understand are more
prone to seek confirming and/or non-confirming feedback that allows the best
learning opportunities.
Feedback, however, is not 'the answer'; on the contrary, it is just a powerful response.
With inefficient students, it is better for a teacher to provide elaborations during instruction.
than providing feedback on poorly understood concepts. If the feedback is targeted
at the right level, it can help students understand, engage, or develop strategies
effective in processing the information that one intends to learn. To be effective, feedback
It needs to be clear, objective, meaningful, and compatible with the prior knowledge of the students.
and provide logical connections. It also needs to stimulate active processing of
information from the students, have low task complexity, relate to
specific and clear objectives and pose little threat to the person at the self level. The main
discriminator is whether it is clearly directed towards the task, processes and/or regulation and not
for the level of the self. These conditions highlight the importance of classroom climates that
they promote self-assessment and allow learning from mistakes.

There are significant implications for the design of assessments. Often, assessments are
used to provide snapshots of learning, instead of providing information that
can be used by students or their teachers to address the three questions of
feedback. Certainly, a critical conclusion is that teachers need to seek out and learn.
with the feedback (such as the students' responses to the tests) as much as the students, and only
when the evaluation provides such learning is when it has value for both. Most of the
current evaluations provide minimal feedback, often because they rely on memory and
are used as external thermometers of responsibility, instead of devices for
feedback that is an integral part of the teaching and learning process. They are the information
It is the feedback and interpretations of the evaluations, not the numbers or grades, that matter.
In many cases, the test is used as a measure to judge whether the change has occurred, and not
as a mechanism to further enhance and consolidate teachers' learning
Oh students. The costs of these responsibility tests related to the thermometer are high.
and the feedback returns are minimal (Shepard et al., 1996).
On the other hand, when feedback is combined with effective instruction in the classroom,
can be very powerful to improve learning. As Kluger and DeNisi (1996)
they observed, a feedback intervention provided for a familiar task, containing tips
that support learning, drawing attention to standard feedback discrepancies in
task level and without hints that direct attention to the self will likely produce
impressive gains in student performance. It is important to note, however, that in
particular circumstances, instruction is more effective than feedback. Feedback can only
to rely on something; it is of little use when there is no initial learning or information
superficial. Feedback is what happens second, it is one of the most influential.
powerful in learning, occurs very rarely and needs to be researched more thoroughly.
complete, investigating qualitatively and quantitatively how feedback works in the classroom
classroom and in the learning process.

References
Airasian, PW (1997).Avaliação em sala de aula(3ª ed.). Nova York: McGraw-Hill.
Alton-Lee, A. & Nuthall, G. (1990). Research on teaching and learning: thirty years
of change. Elementary School Journal, 90(5), 547–570.

104
Machine Translated by Google

The power of feedback

Alton-Lee, A. & Nuthall, G. (1998). Inclusive instructional design: Emerging theoretical principles from
Project Understanding Learning and Teaching (Report to the Ministry of Education, Project
Understanding Learning and Teaching 3).
Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education, Research Division.
Ashford, SJ, & Cummings, LL (1983). Feedback as an individual resource: personal strategies of
Creation of information. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 32,370–398.

Balzer, WK, Doherty, ME, & O'Connor, R., Jr. (1989). Effects of cognitive feeding
Back to performance. Psychological Bulletin, 106(3), 410–433.
Bandura, A. (1982). Mechanism of self-efficacy in human agency. American psychologist,
37,122–147.
Bandura, A. (1986).Fundamentos sociais do pensamento e da ação: uma teoria cognitiva social.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bangert-Drowns, RL, Kulik, JA and Kulik, CC (1991). Effects of frequent testing in the classroom.
Journal of Educational Research, 85(2), 89–99.
Bangert-Drowns, RL, Kulik, CL, Kulik, JA, and Morgan, MT (1991). The instructional effect of feedback in
similar events to tests. Review of Educational Research, 61, 213–237.

Bargh, JA, Gollwitzer, PM, Lee-Chai, A., Barndollar, K., & Trotschel, R. (2001).
The automated will: unconscious activation and the pursuit of behavioral goals.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 1014–1027.
Bennett, N., & Kell, J. (1989). A good start? Four-year-old children in nursery schools. Oxford,
United Kingdom: Blackwell.

Berglas, S. & Jones, E. (1978). Drug choice as a self-limiting strategy in response

to non-contingent success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 405–417.
Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and learning in the classroom. Assessment in
Education, 5(1), 7–75.
Blote, AW (1995). Students' self-concept in relation to the perceived differential of the teacher
Treatment. Learning and Instruction, 5(3), 221–236.
Bond, L., Smith, R., Baker, WK, & Hattie, JA (2000) National Council certification system
Professional Teaching Standards: A study of construction and consequential validity. Washington,
DC: National Council of Professional Teaching Standards.

Brackbill, Y., Blobitt, WE, Davlin, D., & Wagner, JE (1963). Response amplitude and the effect of
Retention of delay. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66(1), 57–64.

Breakwell, GM (1983). Formulations and seekers. In GM Breakwell (ed.),

Threatened Identities (pp. 3–26). Chichester, United Kingdom: Wiley.
Brockner, J. (1979). The effects of self-esteem, success-failure, and self-awareness on performance
of the task. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1732–1741.
Brockner, J., Derr, WR, & Laing, WN (1987). Self-esteem and reactions to negative feedback: Towards
A greater generalization. Journal of Research in Personality, 21, 318–334.

Brophy, J. (1981). Praise to the teacher: a functional analysis. Review of Educational Research, 51,
5–32.
Brunit, S., Huguet, P., & Monteil, JM (2000). Performance feedback and self-focused attention in the classroom
of class: when the past and present interact. Social Psychology of Education, 3, 277-293.

Burnett, PC (2002). Elogios e feedback do professor e percepções dos alunos sobre o ambiente da
classroom. Educational Psychology, 22(1), 1–16.

105
Machine Translated by Google

Hattie & Timperley

Butler, DL, & Winne, PH (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: a theory
theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245–274.
Butler, R. (1987). Evaluation properties that involve the task and that involve the ego: Effects of
different feedback conditions on motivational perceptions, interest, and performance. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 79,474-482.
Butler, R. (1988). Increasing and undermining intrinsic motivation: the effects of task-involving evaluation
and involving the ego in interest and performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 58, 1–14.

Campbell, JD (1986). Similarity and uniqueness: the effects of attribute type, relevance, and differences
individuals in self-esteem and depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 281–294.

Campbell, JD and Fairey, PJ (1985). Effects of self-esteem, hypothetical explanations and verbalization of
expectations about future performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1097–1111.

Cardelle, M., & Corno, L. (1981). Effects on second language learning of variations in feedback
written about homework. TESOL Quarterly, 15(3), 251–261.
Carroll, A., Durkin, K., Hattie, J., & Houghton, S. (1997). Goal setting among adolescents: a
Comparison between delinquent youth, at risk and not at risk. Journal of Educational Psychology,
89,441–450.
Carroll, A., Houghton, S., Durkin, K., & Hattie, J. (2001). Objectives for improving reputation: Integrating the
enhancement of reputation and goal-setting theory as an explanation of
delinquent involvement. In F. Columbus (Ed.), Advances in research in psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 101–
129). New York: Nova Science.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and self-regulation: a control theory
on human behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Carver, CS, & Scheier, MF (1982). Control theory: a useful conceptual framework for psychology
social, clinical and personality health. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 111–135.

Carver, CS, & Scheier, MF (1990). Origins and function of positive and negative
affect: A view of the control process. Psychological Review, 97, 19–35.
Clariana, RB, Wagner, D., & Roher Murphy, LC (2000). Applying a connectionist description of time
Feedback. Research and Development of Educational Technology, 48(3), 5–21.

Clarke, S., Timperley, H., & Hattie, JA (2003). Evaluation of formative assessment.
Auckland, New Zealand: Hodder Moa Beckett.
Craven, RG (1997). Improving academic self-concept: a large-scale longitudinal study in
an educational environment. Dissertation Abstracts International, A (Humanities and Social Sciences),
58(5–A), 1577.
Craven, RG, Marsh, HW, & Debus, RL (1991). Effects of internal focus feedback and feedback of
attribution in the enhancement of academic self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 17–27.

Crocker, J. & Wolfe, CT (2001). Contingências de [Link] Review,108(3), 593–623.

Crooks, TJ (1988). The impact of classroom assessment on students. Review of

Educational Research, 5, 438–481.
So, EL, Koestner, R., & Ryan, MR (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments that examine
the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 627-668.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Beings
[Link] York: Plenary.

106
Machine Translated by Google

Hattie & Timperley

of learning, when students need to expend effort to succeed. As skills
they develop and success should require less effort, feedback from the skill may become more reliable.
However, skill feedback can hinder the focus of learning objectives.
Mueller and Dweck (1998), for example, conducted a series of six studies with students from
elementary education and they discovered that students who received feedback on skills were
more focused on performance than on learning and reported worse performance
and less pleasure in tasks after a failure.
Seeking help is a skill of the learner, and many types of help-seeking behavior
help can be considered aspects of self-regulation. An important distinction is made
between seeking instrumental help (asking for tips instead of answers) and seeking executive help
(to ask for answers or direct help that saves time or work; Nelson-Le Gall, 1981, 1985; Ryan
Higher levels of seeking instrumental help lead to feedback at the levels
of self-regulation, while the search for executive help is more likely to be related
with the level of the task and, sometimes, with the level of processing. When considering how to develop
the instrumental behavior of seeking help is important to keep in mind that it is mediated
due to emotional factors. Many students do not seek help due to perceived threats to their self-
esteem or social constraint (Karabenick & Knapp, 1991; Newman & Schwager, 1993).

Feedback about me as a person

We included a final level of feedback not because it is effective, but because it is often.
present in class situations and is often used instead of FT, FP or FR (Bond, Smith,
Baker and Hattie, 2000). Personal feedback, such as 'Good girl' or 'Great effort,' usually
expresses positive (and sometimes negative) evaluations and affects the student (Brophy, 1981). He
usually contains little information related to the task and is rarely converted into more
engagement, commitment to learning objectives, greater self-efficacy or
understanding of the task. EF can impact learning only if it leads to
changes in effort, engagement, or feelings of efficacy of students with regard to
learning or the strategies they use when trying to understand the tasks. The effects at the level
Self-reports are often very diluted, often providing little information about the task being performed and very
influenced by students' self-concept to be effective. The information has very little
value to result in learning gains.
Praises directed at students are unlikely to be effective, because they carry little
information that provides answers to any of the three questions and often deviates
the attention of the task. Several meta-analyses have demonstrated its ineffectiveness. Wilkinson (1981)
completed a meta-analysis on teacher praise and concluded that it has little or
no relationship with student performance (overall effect = 0.12). Kluger and DeNisi (1998)
they also reported an equally low effect size for praise (0.09) and found that
no praise has a greater impact on performance (0.34).

even (because this praise has low informational value for performance and learning) and praise
focused on effort, self-regulation, engagement or task-related processes and
your performance (for example, "You are really great because you completed this task
diligently applying this concept”). This last type of praise can help to increase the
self-efficacy and, therefore, can be converted by students back to the impact on the task and,
therefore, the effects are

96
Machine Translated by Google

Hattie & Timperley

Hattie, J. & Jaeger, R. (1998). Assessment and Learning in the Classroom: A Deductive Approach
Approach. Evaluation in Education, 5(1), 111–122.
Hattie, JA (1992).[Link], NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hattie, JA (1999, June). Influences on student learning (inaugural speech of the professor,
University of Auckland, New Zealand). Retrieved from [Link]
[Link]?P=8650 Hattie, JA, Biggs, J., &
Purdie, N. (1996). Effects of learning skills intervention on learning
student: a meta-analysis. Review of Research in Education, 66, 99–136.
Hattie, JA, & Marsh, HW (1995). Future research on self-concept. In B. Bracken (Ed.), Handbook
on self-concept (pp. 421–463). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hollenbeck, JR, Klein, HJ, O'Leary, AM, & Wright, PM (1989). Investigation of construct validity
of a self-report measure of commitment to goals. Journal of Applied Psychology,
74,951–956.
Howie, E., Sy, S., Ford, L., & Vicente, KJ (2000). The design of the human-computer interface can
reduce erroneous perceptions of feedback. System Dynamics Review, 16(3), 151–171.
Janoff-Bulman, R., & Brickman, P. (1982). Expectations and what people learn from
failure. In NT Feather (Ed.), Expectations and actions (pp. 207–237). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Karabenick, SA, & Knapp, JR (1991). Relationship of seeking academic help with the use of strategies
of learning and other instrumental achievement behaviors in university students.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 221–230.
Kernis, MH, Brockner, J., & Frankel, BS (1989). Self-esteem and reactions to failure: The mediating role
from supergeneralization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 707–714.

Kinch, JW (1963). A formalized theory of self-image. American Journal of Sociology, 68,

481-486.
Kinch, JW (1968). Experiments on factors related to changes in self-concept. Journal of
Social Psychology, 74,251-258.
Klein, WM (2001). Post hoc construction of self-performance and other performance in comparison
self-service social. Society for Personality and Social Psychology, 27(6), 744–754.

Kluger, AN, & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance:
a historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory.
Boletim Psicológico,119(2), 254–284.
Kluger, AN, & DeNisi, A. (1998). Feedback interventions: Towards an understanding of a knife of
Two Edges. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 7, 67–72.
Kulhavy, RW (1977). Feedback on written instruction. Review of Educational Research, 47(1), 211–
232.
Kulhavy, RW, & Stock, WA (1989). Feedback on written instruction: The location of
certainty of response. Educational Psychology Review, 1(4), 279–308.
Kulhavy, RW, White, MT, Topp, BW, Chan, AL and Adams, J. (1985). Complexity of feedback and
corrective efficiency. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10, 285–291.

Kulik, JA, & Kulik, CC (1988). Feedback time and verbal learning. Review of Educational
Research, 58(1), 79–97.
L'Hommedieu, R., Menges, RJ, & Brinko, KT (1990), methodological explanations for the effects
modest feedback from student evaluations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(2), 232–
241.

108
Machine Translated by Google

The power of feedback

Latham, GP, & Lee, TW (1986). Goal setting. In EA Locke (Ed.), Generalizing from the laboratory
for the field configurations (pp. 101–117). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Lee, TW, Locke, EA & Latham, GP (1989). Goal-setting theory and performance in
work. In LA Pervin (Ed.), Concepts of Goals in Personality and Social Psychology (pp. 291-321).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Locke, EA & Latham, GP (1984). Goal setting: a motivational technique that
Works. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Locke, EA & Latham, GP (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Lysakowski, RS, & Walberg, HJ (1982). Instructional effects of prompts, participation, and corrective feedback:
a quantitative synthesis. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 559-578.

Markus, H. (1977). Auto-esquemas e processamento de informações sobre si [Link]ário

of Personality and Social Psychology, 35,63-78.
Marsh, HW (1987). The effect of the big fish and the small lake on academic self-concept. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 79, 280-295.
Marsh, HW (1990). The influence of internal and external reference frames on the formation of
self-concepts of mathematics and English. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 107–116.

Marton, F., Dall'Alba, G., & Beaty, E. (1993). Conceptions of Learning. International
Journal of Educational Research, 19(3), 277–300.
McLaughlin, TF (1974). Effects of written feedback on reading in students with behavioral disorders.
Journal of Educational Research, 85(5), 312–316.
Meyer, W. (1982). Indirect communication about perceived capacity estimates. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 74,888-897.
Meyer, W., Bachmann, U., Hempelmann, M., Ploger, F., & Spiller, H. (1979). The informational value of
evaluation behavior: Influences of praise and criticism on skill perceptions. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 71, 259-268.
Mikulincer, M. (1988). Reactance and helplessness after exposure to unsolvable problems: the effects of
attribution style. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 679–686.

Good morning, AK (1986). Relative effectiveness of various calculation instruction techniques: a meta-analysis. Dissertation
of unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Mathematics, University of Syracuse, Syracuse, New
York.
Moreland, RL, & Sweeney, PD (1984). Self-expectations and reactions to evaluation
Personal performance actions. Journal of Personality, 52, 156–176.
Mueller, CM, & Dweck, CS (1998). Praising intelligence can undermine motivation and performance of
children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 33–52.

Nadler, D. (1979). The effects of feedback on task group behavior: a review of the research
experimental. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23, 309–338.
Nelson-Le Gall, S. (1981). Seeking help: A little-studied problem-solving skill in
[Link] Review,1, 224–226.
Nelson-Le Gall, S. (1985). Help-seeking behavior in learning. American Educational
Research Association, 12.55–90.
Newman, RS, & Schwager, MT (1993). Students' perception of the teacher and peers in relation
the search for help reported in the math class. Elementary School Journal, 94, 3–17.

109
Machine Translated by Google

Hattie & Timperley

Okun, MA, & Sasfy, JH (1977). Adolescence, self-concept and formal opera
Adolescence, 12,373–379.
Page, EB (1958). Teacher comments and student performance: an experiment of seventy and
four classrooms on school motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 49, 173–181.

Paich, M., & Sterman, JD (1993). Boom, bust, and failures to learn in experimental
Markets. Science of Administration, 39, 1439–1458.
Paris, S.G, & Cunningham, AE (1996). Children becoming students. In DC
Berliner & RC Calfee (Eds.), Manual of Educational Psychology (pp. 117–147).
New York: Macmillan.
Paris, SG, & Winograd, P. (1990). Promoting metacognition and motivation in exceptional children.
Rase: Remedial & Special Education, 11(6), 7–15.
Podsakoff, PM, & Farh, JL (1989). Effects of feedback signal and credibility on goal setting and
task performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 44,45–
67.
Purdie, N., Hattie, JA, & Douglas, G. (1996). Students' conceptions of learning and their use of
self-regulated learning strategies: an intercultural comparison. Journal of Psychology
Educational, 88.87-100.
Rummel, A. & Feinberg, R. (1988). Theory of cognitive evaluation: A meta-analytic review of
[Link] Behavior and Personality, 16(2), 147–164.
Ryan, AM and Pintrich, PR (1977). "Should I ask for help?" The role of motivation and attitudes in seeking help.
of help from adolescents in math classes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 329–
341.
Sadler, R. (1989). Formative assessment and instructional system design.
Instructional Science, 18,119–144.
Säljö, R. (1979). Learning from the student's perspective—I. Some common sense conceptions
(Report No. 76). Gothenburg, Sweden: University of Gothenburg, Department of Education.

Schroth, ML, & Lund, E. (1993). The role of feedback delay in subsequent transfer tasks
pattern recognition. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 15–22.
Schunk, DH, & Rice, JM (1991). Learning objectives and progress feedback during
reading comprehension instruction. Journal of Reading Behavior, 23, 351–364.
Sharp, P. (1985). Behavior modification in secondary school: a research on the
Students' attitudes towards rewards and praise. Behavioral Approaches with
Children, 9, 109–112.
Shepard, LA, Flexer, RJ, Hiebert, EJ, Marion, SF, Mayfield, V., & Weston, TJ
(1996). Effects of the introduction of performance assessments in the classroom on learning
of students. Questions and practices of educational measurement, 15.7–18.
Shrauger, JS, & Sorman, P. (1977). Self-assessments, initial success and failure, and improvement as
determinants of persistence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45, 784–795.

Simmons, M. & Cope, P. (1993). Angle and rotation: Effects of feedback on quality
learning age. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 21, 375–382.
Skiba, R., Casey, A., & Center, BA (1985–1986). Non-aversive procedures in treatment of
behavior problems in the classroom. Journal of Special Education, 19, 459–481.
Smith, T., Snyder, C., & Handelsman, M. (1982). On the self-service function of a leg
academic break: test anxiety as a self-sabotage strategy. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 42, 314–321.
Steinberg, L. (1996). Beyond the classroom: why school reform has failed and what
the parents need to do. New York: Touchstone.

110
Machine Translated by Google

The power of feedback

Sterman, JD (1989). Erroneous perceptions of feedback in dynamic decision making.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43,301–335.
Sturges, PT (1972). Delay and retention of information: effect of information on feed
costs and tests. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63(1), 32–43.
Sturges, PT (1978). Delay of informative feedback in computer-assisted testing.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 70 (3), 378-387.
Suls, J. & Wan, CK (1987). In search of the false uniqueness phenomenon: Fear and estimates of
social consensus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 229–241.

Swann, WB (1985). The self as the architect of social reality. In B. Schlenker (Ed.), The self and
social life (pp. 100–125). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Swann, WB, & Hill, CA (1982). When our identities are mistaken: reaffirming
self-conceptions through social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43,
59-66.
Swann, WB, Pelham, BW, & Chidester, T. (1988). Change through paradox: using the
self-verification to change beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 268–273.

Sweller, J. (1990). Cognitive processes and instruction procedures. Australian Journal

of Education, 34(2), 125–130.
Swindell, LK, & Walls, WF (1993). Response confidence and delay retention effect. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 18,363–375.
Tenenbaum, G., & Goldring, E. (1989). A meta-analysis of the effect of enhanced instruction: tips,
participation, reinforcement, and feedback and corrections in the learning of motor skills. Journal of
Research and Development in Education, 22,53–64.
Tesser, A. & Campbell, J. (1983). Maintenance of self-definition and self-evaluation. In J. Suls & A.
Greenwald (Eds.), Social psychological perspectives on the self (Vol. 2, pp. 1–31). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Do we need to train teachers to manage praise? The theory of self-
estimation says yes. Learning and Instruction, 28, 49–64.
Thompson, T. (1998). Precision of metamemory: Effects of feedback and the stability of differences
[Link] Journal of Psychology,111(1), 33–42.
Thompson, T. (1999). Dissatisfaction to protect self-esteem: theoretical research and interventions.
Avebury, United Kingdom: Aldershot.
Thompson, T., & Richardson, A. (2001). Status of self-disadvantage, claimed self-disadvantages
The reduced practice effort after feedback on success and failure. British Journal of Psychology
educational, 71,151–170.
Timperley, H., & Parr, J. (2005). Professional development project for literacy. Wellington:
Ministry of Education of New Zealand.
Timperley, HS, & Wiseman, J. (2002). The sustainability of professional development
Mentoring in literacy. Wellington: Ministry of Education of New Zealand.
Trope, Y. (1975). Search for information about one's own ability as a determinant of choice between
the tasks. Journal of Personality and Psychology, 32, 1004–1013.
Trope, Y. (1980). Self-assessment, self-improvement, and task performance. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 16,116-129.
Van-Dijk, D., & Kluger, AN (2000, April). Positive (Negative) Feedback: Encouragement or
discouragement?Retrieved in September 2001 from [Link]
Van-Dijk, D., & Kluger, AN
(2001). Goal orientation versus self-regulation: different labels or different constructs?
Work presented at the 16th annual convention of the Society for Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, San Diego, CA.

111
Machine Translated by Google

Hattie & Timperley

Walberg, HJ (1982). What makes schooling effective? contemporary education

Review, 1, 1–34.
Watkins, D., & Regmi, M. (1992). How universal are students' conceptions of learning?
A Nepalese investigation. Psychology, 35,101-110.
Watkins, D., Regmi, M., & Astilla, E. (1991). The Asian learner as a mechanical learner
stereotype: myth or reality? Educational psychology, 11,21–34.
Weiner, B. (ed.). (1974a). Motivation for Achievement and Attribution Theory. Morristown,
NJ: General learning press.
Weiner, B. (1974b). An attributional interpretation of expectation value theory. In B. Weiner
(Ed.), Cognitive Perspectives on Human Motivation (pp. 51–70). New York: Academic Press.

Weiner, B. (1977). An attribution model for educational psychology. In L. Shulman (Ed.),

Research Review in Education (Vol 4, pp. 179–209). Itasca, IL: Peacock.
Branco, KJ, & Jones, K. (2000). Effects of teacher feedback on reputations and perceptions
two colleagues of children with behavioral problems. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 76,302–326.
Wilkinson, SS (1981). The relationship between teacher praise and student performance: a meta-
analysis of selected research. Dissertation Abstracts International, 41(9–A), 3998.

Winne, PH, & Butler, DL (1994). Student cognition in learning from instruction. In T. Husen & T.
Postlewaite (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education (2nd ed., pp. 5738–5745). Oxford,
United Kingdom: Pergamon.
Wood, RE, & Bandura, A. (1987). Impact of skill conceptions on self-mechanisms
regulation and complex decision making (Working Paper Series, 87-019).
Sydney: University of New South Wales, Australian Graduate School of Management.

Yeany, RH, & Miller, PA (1983). Effects of diagnostic/corrective instruction on learning

sciences: a meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 19–26.
Zimmerman, BJ (2000). Achieving self-regulation: a social cognitive perspective. In M.
Boekaerts & PR Pintrich, (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.

Authors
JOHN HATTIE is a Professor of Education at the University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Faculty
of Education, Auckland, New Zealand 1142; email: [Link]@[Link]. His interests
are assessment, teaching and learning models, and statistics. He and Helen Timperley wrote
in collaboration with Shirley Clarke, Unlocking Formative Assessment (Hodder Moa, Auckland, NZ,
2003).

HELEN TIMPERLEY is a Professor of Education at the University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019,
Faculty of Education, Auckland, New Zealand 1142; email:[Link]@[Link]. Your
research investigates how to promote learning at all levels of the educational system.
She and John Hattie co-authored with Shirley Clarke, Unlocking Formative Assessment.
(Hodder-Moa, Auckland, New Zealand, 2003).

112