Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T13:32:02.638Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Providing thoughtful performance feedback in the classroom

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2021

Ann-Marie R. Castille Open the ORCID record for Ann-Marie R. Castille [Opens in a new window]
Ann-Marie R. Castille*
Affiliation:
Nicholls State University
*
All correspondence should be sent to the lead author ([email protected]).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 13 , Issue 4 , December 2020 , pp. 467 - 470
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Bouffard-Bouchard, T. (1990). Influence of self-efficacy on performance in a cognitive task. Journal of Social Psychology, 130(3), 353–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and self-regulation: A control-theory approach to human behavior. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henley, A. J., & Reed, F. D. (2015). Should you order the feedback sandwich? Efficacy of feedback sequence and timing. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 35(1), 321–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ilies, R., & Judge, T. A. (2005). Goal regulation across time: The effects of feedback and affect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 453–467.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jacobs, M., Jacobs, A., Feldman, G., & Cavior, N. (1973). Feedback II-The “credibility gap”: Delivery of positive and negative and emotional and behavioral feedback in groups. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 41(2), 215–223.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jeffrey, S. A., Schulz, A., & Webb, A. (2012). The performance effects of an ability-based approach to goal assignment. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 32(3), 221–241, DOI: 10.1080/01608061.2012.698116 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kath, L., Salter, N., Bachiochi, P., Brown, K., & Hebl, M. (2021). Teaching I-O psychology to undergraduate students: Do we practice what we preach? Industrial Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 13(4), 443–460.Google Scholar
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting & task performance. Prentice-Hall, Inc.Google Scholar
Moon, S. H., Scullen, S. E., & Latham, G. P. (2015). Precarious curve ahead: The effects of forced distribution rating systems on job performance. Human Resource Management Review, 26(2), 166–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Podsakoff, P. M., & Farh, J. (1989). Effects on feedback sign and credibility on goal setting and task performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 44(1), 45–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stockton, R. A., & Morran, D. K. (1981). Feedback exchange in personal growth groups: Receiver acceptance as a function of valence, session, and order of delivery. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28(6), 490–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, S. L., & Wu, P. Y. (2008). The role of feedback and self-efficacy on web-based learning: The social cognitive perspective. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1589–1598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar