Receiving feedback can be an unpleasant experience, since it may conflict with self-perceptions (Harmon-Jones & Harmon-Jones, 2008). However, feedback is also important to development within a domain: it ideally forms part of a cyclic process in which information about performance is used to correct errors and to develop strategies towards further improvement (Zimmerman, 2002). Such a self-regulated approach is a characteristic of individuals who actively pursue their own learning or skill acquisition, and is recognised as central to the achievement of expertise in a domain (Ericsson et al., 1993). In music, active engagement with evaluating results and developing strategies aimed at improving skills and knowledge is part of deliberate practice, which is associated with autonomous, highly effective learning (Ericsson, 1997; Ericsson, 2006).
Individuals differ in their readiness to expose themselves to feedback. A study of the feedback- seeking behaviour of 357 mid-level managers highlights the importance of actively gathering feedback in general, and negative feedback in particular (Ashford & Tsui, 1991). Ashford & Tsui observed that in light of the affective nature of receiving feedback, individuals may not seek it even when they are aware of its usefulness. They set out to investigate which types of feedback participants sought, and how their actions affected their performance and standing within the company. The research used a self-regulatory framework which acknowledged that individuals attempt to improve their effectiveness through standard setting, detecting discrepancy, and reducing discrepancy. Ashford & Tsui found that when participants sought negative feedback,
28
they developed a more accurate understanding of how others saw their work. They emphasised that actively seeking feedback is important to development, but that people needed to cultivate awareness of their willingness to receive negative feedback, as opposed to avoiding it in favour of positive feedback.
Motivation to avoid negative feedback is related to avoidance of confirming negative or feared identities (Markus & Nurius, 1987). In a meta-analytic review of 16 research studies, D’Alessio & Allen (2002) found support for the idea that individuals may avoid or selectively allow feedback in order to reduce the likelihood of dissonance associated with confirming a feared self. In light of links between identity processes, possible selves, and learning behaviours (see 2.2.1), it seems likely that individuals wish to avoid confirming a feared self for reasons in addition to cognitive dissonance, such as avoiding loss of self-efficacy and motivation. This conclusion is supported by studies which show that, when receiving negative feedback, some people will begin to lose self- efficacy in relation to a task, and may generalise this to other tasks (Ilgen & Davis, 2000; Ilies, Judge, & Wagner, 2010).
2.2.2.2.1 Effective feedback: supporting self-efficacy and motivation
Feedback is most effective when received from multiple authoritative sources, including the self (Brinko, 1993). Brinko (1993) conducted a review of literature on processes and methods of feedback delivery with the goal of improving tertiary teaching practices. She examined literature from the fields of education, psychology, and organisational behaviour (there was no report of the number of studies) and analysed them with a view to extracting findings relevant to teaching in higher education. Brinko found that performance feedback which was specific, concrete, based on evidence, and descriptive rather than evaluative was most successful. It was also best when it was sensitive to the developmental stage and learning style of the recipient. In order to effect
29
change, feedback needed to cause moderate dissonance, reduce uncertainty, be positively and negatively balanced, and be presented as part of a process rather than a single event.
The effects of dissonance associated with feedback have connotations for learning and teaching. In a pair of recent studies, Hiemstra & Van Yperen (2015) addressed the question of which self- regulation strategies best supported tertiary students in putting effort into professional development activities. Specifically, Hiemstra & Yperen looked at focusing on improving strengths as opposed to improving weaknesses, and how this affected perceived competence (self-efficacy), intrinsic motivation, and intention to apply effort. These two studies were conducted with different cohorts drawn from a range of study areas (Healthcare, Management, Technology, and Education). All participants were tested to determine their strongest and weakest qualities. In the first study, with 174 undergraduate students, participants were randomly instructed to choose either their strongest or weakest quality, and to imagine that they were enrolled in a professional development course aimed at improving this quality. The second study, with 267 first-year undergraduate students, replicated the first study in a real-world setting: it was set in a classroom situation in which the chosen professional development activity was actually carried out. In both studies, a subsequently completed questionnaire measured perceived competence, intrinsic motivation, and effort intentions in relation to the hypothetical or real activity.
The results of both studies supported the conclusion that focusing on improving weaknesses was detrimental to self-efficacy, intrinsic motivation, and effort intentions (Hiemstra & Van Yperen, 2015). In contrast, focusing on improving strengths was associated with higher results on these three variables. Hiemstra & Van Yperen’s studies have implications for domains such as music, in which feedback is routinely provided as a means of improving performance, and generally focuses on weaknesses (see 2.3.4 for further discussion). Feedback which is provided with the
30
intention of improving performance and guiding development can be described as feedback intervention. Characteristics of effective feedback interventions aimed at improving performance were identified in a meta-analytical study of 131 papers (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). Kluger & DeNisi found support for the idea that praise may not be the most effective promoter of improved performance. They also found that feedback from a person was slightly less effective than feedback from a computer, and that feedback which threatened self-esteem had reduced effectiveness.
Kluger & DeNisi (1996) noted that feedback interventions produced highly varied results which depended on individual factors, and that generalisations are therefore difficult. In spite of this reservation, it is clear from the studies described here that effective feedback is focused on the task rather than the person, keeps evaluation to a minimum in favour of reflection, and indicates actual ability and standard rather than taking the form of praise. In addition, feedback should ideally direct focus towards improvement of both strengths and weaknesses. Feedback with these characteristics will theoretically support the development of accurate self-perceptions of skills, and reduce the impact of identity-related dissonance on self-efficacy and motivation.