1979
DOI: 10.1080/00461527909529206
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effects of failure: Alternative explanations and possible implications

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

1981
1981
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Other writers (e.g. Page 1958, Clark 1975, Clifford 1979 have noted further that pointing cut errors need not be considered as punishment but rather as information feedback to motivate the learner. The signal aspect of the reinforcement rather than the reward is critical (see also Gardner and Lambert 1972).This view rests on the assumption that the more information students have about their responses the better they will understand why they make mistakes.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Other writers (e.g. Page 1958, Clark 1975, Clifford 1979 have noted further that pointing cut errors need not be considered as punishment but rather as information feedback to motivate the learner. The signal aspect of the reinforcement rather than the reward is critical (see also Gardner and Lambert 1972).This view rests on the assumption that the more information students have about their responses the better they will understand why they make mistakes.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Clifford (1979Clifford ( , 1984 argues that only by encouraging students to analyse the circumstances and ingredients of failure will it be possible to prize students away from a view of failure as indicating low ability. She argues that we cannot protect individuals from failure or error-making without greatly reducing or virtually eliminating elements of risk and challenge, and that building tolerance for failure is likely to encourage students to focus on maximum performance and learning rather than minimum competency levels (p. 116).…”
Section: The Potentially Educative Effects Of Failurementioning
confidence: 98%
“…The critical factor is not objective noncontingency but perceived noncontingency. As Clifford (1978Clifford ( , 1979Clifford ( , 1984 observes, the extent of perceived noncontingency associated with the performance outcome depends largely on the extent to which clarity and detail are a feature of the assessment process. It is also an outcome of the extent to which the individual is able to make certain constructive attributions for failure by, for example, not following the correct procedures, missing an important step, misinterpreting the requirements of the task and so forth.…”
Section: Differing Effects Of Noncontingent Success and Noncontingentmentioning
confidence: 99%