The interpretation of classroom performance feedback: An attributional approach

Booth‐Butterfield, Melanie

doi:10.1080/03634528909378745

Cited by 26 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In fact, communication scholars agree that although feedback is central to basic communication textbooks, the concept has not undergone enough theoretical development (Booth-Butterfield, 1989;King & Behnke, 1999;King, Young, Behnke, 2000;King & Young, 2002). The few keystone studies that have tackled the issue support the basic assumptions of FIT in that more feedback is not always desirable and other variables (e.g., the timing of the feedback, the focus of the feedback, the facework involved in the feedback intervention, and the processing strategies of students) influence learning.…”

Section: Feedback Intervention Theorymentioning

confidence: 97%

Students' Talk about the Climate of Feedback Interventions in the Critique

Dannels¹,

Gaffney²,

Kelly³

2011

Communication Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Similar to many courses in communication, oral communication is central to the learning goals in the discipline of design. Design critiques, the primary communication activity in design classrooms, occur in every studio course multiple times. One key feature of the critique, as an oral genre, is the amount of time and emphasis placed on feedback. The feedback intervention process within the critique plays a large role in determining the overall communicative climate of the teaching and learning event. The purpose of this study was to explore how students talk about the communication climate of the critique and the feedback within it. Drawing on feedback intervention theory and using an ethnographic interviewing framework, we conducted in-depth interviews of students in design studios. Results of this study identified four ways students characterized the critique climate and six kinds of feedback students suggested contribute to a climate for learning. Discussion suggests that feedback intervention spaces (specifically those focused on oral genres) are dialectical and relational spaces*necessitating attention not only to the cognitive processes of feedback (as feedback intervention theory suggests), but also to the emergent relational tensions that demand communicative energy within the feedback intervention process.

show abstract

Section: Feedback Intervention Theorymentioning

confidence: 97%

Students' Talk about the Climate of Feedback Interventions in the Critique

Dannels¹,

Gaffney²,

Kelly³

2011

Communication Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In contrast, however, feedback has typically been defined in communication research as deliberate descriptive and/or evaluative comments given to a speaker following a presentation (Book, 1985;Booth-Butterfield, 1989;Clement & Frandsen, 1976). As a result, feedback research has focused on those post-performance comments typically associated with speech criticism.…”

mentioning

confidence: 91%

“…Moreover, intervening variables appear to play a crucial role in the learner's interpretation of feedback. For example, in an attributional study of feedback efficacy,, Booth-Butterfield (1989) established that communication apprehension level influences the manner in which students are likely to interpret post-performance feedback. In similar studies distinctions are made between positive, reinforcing feedback and negative, corrective feedback (Book, 1985).…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Public speaking performance improvement as a function of information processing in immediate and delayed feedback interventions

King

Young

Behnke

2000

Communication Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Treatments of performance feedback in the communication literature have generally focused on the pragmatic advantages of such systems while remaining uncritical of the information processing context in which such instructional interventions are employed. Communication theorists have distinguished between tasks that require conscious deliberation and tasks that are executed automatically. In the present study, the efficacy of using immediate and delayed feedback in generating improvement on a subsequent performance, for tasks which vary in information processing requirements, was examined. Analyses indicate that immediate feedback intervention is more effective when automatic processing occurs while delayedfeedback produces greater change with tasks involving deliberative and effortful processing. Interpretation of the findings, in light of extant theory and research, is provided.

show abstract

“…Not surprisingly, this phenomenon has been examined in the instructional context, indicating that students attribute negative feedback to external causes in order to free themselves from the blame of their own poor work (Booth-Butterfield, 1989). This may also be true of students' reactions to perceived instructor misbehavior.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%