Research suggests that feedback plays an important role in improving performance during skill and knowledge acquisition. However, little extant research has compared the relative effectiveness of different types of feedback. Ninety participants from a large southeastern university took part in an experiment in order to test the hypothesis that trainees who received process feedback would outperform those who received velocity feedback or no feedback. Results revealed an interaction between feedback condition and gender. Females performed better when provided with process feedback, while males did better when given velocity feedback. We conclude with implications and suggestions for future research in this area.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AstwoodR.Van BuskirkW.CornejoJ.DaltonJ. (2008). The impact of different feedback types on decision-making in simulation based training environments. Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, New York, NY.
2.
AzevedoR.BernardR.M. (1995). A meta-analysis of the effects of feedback in computer-based instruction. Journal of Education Computing Research, 13(2), 111–127.
3.
BuffW.L.CampbellG.E. (2002). What to do or what not to do?: Identifying the content of effective feedback. Proceedings of the 46th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica, CA: HFES, 2074–2078.
4.
CarverC.S.ScheierM.F. (1990). Principles of self-regulation: Action and emotion. In HigginsE. TorySorrentinoR.M. (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behaviorVol. 2 (pp.3–52). New York, NY, US: Gilford Press, 1990.
5.
EarleyP.C.NorthcraftG.B.LeeC.LituchyT.R. (1990). Impact of process and outcome feedback on the relation of goal setting to task performance. Academy of Management Journal, 33 (1), 87–105.
6.
GearyD.C.DeSotoM.C. (2001). Sex differences in spatial abilities among adults from the United States and China: Implications from evolutionary theory. Evolution and Cognition, 7(2), 172–177.
7.
IlgenD.R.FisherC.D.TaylorM.T. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 349–371.
8.
KlugerA.N.DeNisiA. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254–284.
9.
KozlowskiS.W.J.ToneyR.J.MullinsM.E.WeissbeinD.A.BrownK.G.BellB.S. (2001). Developing adaptability: A theory for the design of integrated-embedded training systems. In SalasE. (Ed.), Advances in human performance and cognitive engineering research (pp. 59–123). Amsterdam: JAI/Elsevier Science.
10.
KulhavyR.W. (1977). Feedback in written instruction. Review of Educational Research, 47, 211–232.
11.
LockeE.A.LathamJ.P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
12.
MayerR.E.MassaL.J. (2003). Three facets of visual and verbal learners: Cognitive ability, cognitive style, and learning preference. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 833–841.
13.
RichardsonA. (1977). Verbalizer-visualizer: A cognitive style dimension. Journal of Mental Imagery, 1, 109–126.
14.
SchmidtR. A.BjorkR. A. (1992). New conceptualizations of practice: Common principles in three paradigms suggest new concepts for training. Psychological Science, 3(4), 207–217.
SmitherJ.W.WohlersA.J.LondonM. (1995). A field study of reactions to normative versus individualized upward feedback. Group Organization Management, 20, 61–89.
