Four levels of feedback: Who gets it and who benefits? Teacher-student-interaction with boys and girls in elementary school mathematics.

Author(s):

Ann-Katrin Denn(presenting / submitting)Miriam Lotz Caroline Theurer Frank Lipowsky

Conference:

ECER 2014

Network:

01. Continuing Professional Development: Learning for Individuals, Leaders, and Organisations

Format:

Paper

Session Information

01 SES 01 C, Feedback and Partnership

Paper Session

Time:

2014-09-02

13:15-14:45

Room:

B035 Anfiteatro

Chair:

Ene-Silvia Sarv

Contribution

Teacher-student-interaction and feedback

Communication between students and teachers makes up a high amount of the time in the classroom and is one factor contributing to student learning (Frederick, Blumfeld & Paris, 2004). Therefore, teacher-student-interactions have long been focused within educational research and have been studied in qualitative and quantitative fields.

In order to structure teacher-student-interactions during classroom discourse, Mehan (1979) found that typical exchanges consisted of a teacher-initiation (I), a student response (R) and a teacher evaluation or feedback (E/F). The so-called IRF- or IRE-sequence has since been accounted for in studies concerned with classroom communication (e.g. Cazden, 1988). Even if many studies confirm that this pattern exists, the quality and the differential impact of these interaction sequences on student learning need more attention.

Quality of feedback and effects on student achievement and self-concept

Teacher feedback as one factor in this triadic system was shown to possess strong predictive power for student success in school (Hattie, 2009). Through feedback, the teacher can give precise information on the task performance and support the learner in understanding conceptions or remodeling misconceptions. This is an important factor for enhancing student achievement but might also affect student self-concept. This is due to the fact that teacher feedback includes messages concerning students’ competences which belong to the most important signals for the development of the domain-specific self-concept (Schöne&Stiensmeier-Pelster, 2011).

However, not all forms of feedback are directly related to student success. In order to establish a model for effective feedback, Hattie and Timperley (2007) conducted a meta-analysis with over 379 studies related to feedback and its effects. They developed a feedback model with four focus levels in which feedback can be directed at the task-, the process-, the self-regulatory or the self-level. Feedback is least effective for student learning when it is aimed at the self-level and most powerful when it is aimed at the self-regulatory or the process-level. However, teacher feedback cannot only be seen as a determinant for student learning but also as a reaction to students.

The effect of student variables in receiving feedback

From research on teacher-student-interaction it is known that teachers grant high-achieving students and students with higher self-concepts more chances to participate in classroom talk (Jurik, Gröschner&Seidel, 2013). The question if teachers aim their feedback at certain groups of students hasn’t been evaluated yet and will therefore be one focus of this presentation. One field that has been analyzed concerning teacher feedback is gender differences. Irvine (1985) evaluated teacher feedback from kindergarden to grade seven and found that males receive more feedback in general. In elementary school, Sadker and Sadker (1990) showed that boys receive more feedback for their learning process and the product of their ideas whereas feedback for girls is rather focused on their learning and working behavior like the accuracy of their work. In combination with stable results within educational research that girls develop a lower self-concept in STEM-subjects than boys even when actual achievement is controlled (Dickhäuser&Stiensmeier-Pelster, 2003), the relative importance of feedback in teacher-student-interaction for self-concept development should be further analyzed.

This presentation aims at the evaluation of teacher feedback in second grade elementary school mathematics and its connection to student variables, namely achievement and self-concept. With a special focus, gender differences shall be examined.

(1) Is the feedback for girls more often centered on their learning and social behavior whereas feedback for boys includes process-oriented aspects more frequently?

(2) Does prior mathematical achievement and self-concept affect the type of feedback the teacher uses?

(3) Are there different effects of feedback types on the development of student mathematical achievement and self-concept?

Method

Data for the research questions derives from the PERLE-project which analyzes the personality and learning development of elementary school children from school entry to the end of fourth grade (Lipowsky, Faust & Kastens, 2013). The project is designed as a longitudinal quasi-experimental study. It portrays a multi-perspective approach with several student-, teacher- and parent-investigations as well as video studies to gain information about the classroom instruction. The mathematics videostudy was conducted in the middle of second grade and was specified as an introduction to multiplication (90-minutes-lesson). Basic information was gained by coding the videotaped lessons according to the lesson time and the instructional phases (Lotz, Lipowsky & Faust, 2013). In order to measure the amount and the quality of feedback which were given by the teacher, a coder’s manual was developed (Lotz, in prep.) and adapted to mathematics instruction. It consists of 24 categories including amongst others qualitative aspects of the feedback such as task-, process- and self-orientation as well as the working and learning behavior. Task orientation includes feedbacks in which the teacher commented on the result of the task. Process-orientation is coded when feedback is aimed at the process and the work procedure. Self-level aims at feedbacks which don’t focus on the task or its process but on general aspects of the student. Feedbacks concerned with the working and learning behavior of students include teacher comments on student behavior such as cooperative learning, participation or discipline. To ensure observer reliability, the concordance between the trained observers was checked after 6%, 40%, 75% and 100% of the data. At all measurement times, the reliability of the categories surpassed the criteria of α ≥ .70 and can therefore be used in further analysis (Lotz et al., 2013). Data for student self-concept and mathematical achievement were generated through standardized tests and statistically processed with reliable constructs over all measurement points (Karst, Mösko, Lipowsky & Faust, 2011). The sample used for this analysis consists of N=357 students nested 19 classes. This hierarchical data structure was taken into account when analyzing the data with the option “type is complex”. To answer research question 1, descriptive analysis and a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted in the program SPSS 21. For the analysis of research question 2 and 3, path analyses were run in the program Mplus. The specified model fitted the data well (x²/df=0.488; p=.6906; CFI=1.000; TLI=1.039; RMSEA≤.05; SMR≤.05).

Expected Outcomes

Firstly, it can be seen that product-oriented feedback (M=81.6%) is generally used more often than feedback focused on the process (M=6.5%), the self (M=1.3%) or social and working behavior (M=7.5%) . The MANOVA procedure testing for differences between boys and girls was not significant (F(4,377)=1.177, p≥.05), indicating that teachers do not give differential feedback to boys and girls. Concerning student variables that influence certain kinds of feedback, it could only be shown that low-achieving boys receive more product-oriented feedback (ß=-.22**). Evaluating the effects that certain kinds of feedback have on students’ achievement and self-concept, results show that girls’ self-concept is negatively affected by process-oriented feedback (ß=-.16**), whereas it is positively affected by feedback on their social and working behavior (ß=.11*). However, this kind of feedback shows negative effects on boys’ performance (ß=-.11*) whereas boys’ performance profits from process-oriented feedback (ß=.16**). Product-oriented feedback has negative effects on girls’ achievement (ß=-.11***). It can be concluded that feedback focused on the product of the task is the most frequently used feedback in this analysis. This result is in line with results by Hattie and Timperley (2007) who show that feedback focused on the solution of the task is most common. Contrary to findings by Sadker and Sadker (1990) the evaluation demonstrates that teachers don’t make differences between boys and girls concerning the product-level, process-level, self-level or social/working behavior in their feedback. Considering the effect of these feedback-categories on student variables it is observable that girls’ self-concept suffers from feedback on process-level. A reason could be the clarification of difficulties which are directly shown to the student and which are attributed negatively on the self-concept (Dweck, Davidson, Nelson & Enna, 1978). For boys’ achievement however, process-feedback is more effective than feedback at the task-level because it enhances deeper learning (Hattie & Timperley, 2007).

References

Cazden, C.B. (1988). Classroom discourse. Portsmouth: Heinemann. Dickhäuser, O. & Stiensmeier-Pelster, J. (2003). Wahrgenommene Lehrereinschätzungen und das Fähigkeitsselbstkonzept von Jungen und Mädchen in der Grundschule [Perceived teacher beliefs and the self-concept of boys and girls in elementary school]. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht[Psychology in Education and Instruction], 50, 182-190. Dweck, C.S., Davidson, W., Nelson, S. & Enna, B. (1978). Sex differences in learned helplessness. Developmental Psychology, 14, 268-276. Fredricks, J.A., Blumenfeld, P.A. & Paris, A.H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. London: Routledge. Hattie, J. & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112. Irvine, J. (1985). Teacher communication patterns as related to the race and sex of the student. Journal of Educational Research, 78(6), 338-345. Jurik, V., Gröschner, A. & Seidel, T. (2013). How student characteristics affect girls’ and boys’ verbal engagement in physics instruction. Learning and Instruction, 23, 33-42. Karst, K., Mösko, E., Lipowsky, F. & Faust, G. (2011) (Eds.). Dokumentation der Erhebungsinstrumente des Projekts Persönlichkeits- und Lernentwicklung von Grundschülern [Documentation of instruments of the project „personality and learning development of elementary school children“]. Frankfurt am Main: GFPF. Lipowsky, F., Faust, G. & Kastens, C. (2013) (Eds.). Persönlichkeits- und Lernentwicklung an staatlichen und privaten Grundschulen. Ergebnisse der PERLE-Studie zu den ersten beiden Schuljahren [Personality and Learning development in state and private schools. Results from the PERLE-study in the first and second school year]. Münster: Waxmann. Lotz, M., Lipowsky, F. & Faust, G. (Eds.), Technischer Bericht zu den PERLE Videostudien [Report on the instruments used in the PERLE-videostudy]. Frankfurt am Main: GFPF. Lotz, M. (in prep.). Kognitive Aktivierung im Leseunterricht des ersten Schuljahres [Cognitive activation during reading instruction in first grade]. Dissertation. Universität Kassel. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Social organization in the classroom. Cambrige, MA: Harvard University Press. Sadker, M. & Sadker, D. (1990). Confronting sexism in the college classroom. In S.L. Gabriel & I. Smithson (Eds.), Gender in the classroom. Power and Pedagogy (pp.176-187). Illinois: University Press. Schöne, C. & Stiensmeier-Pelster, J. (2011). Fähigkeitsselbstkonzept in der Grundschule: Struktur, Erfassung und Determinanten [Self-concepts in elementary school: structure, acquisition and determinants]. In F. Hellmich (Hrsg.), Selbstkonzepte im Grundschulalter [Self-concepts in primary school age] (pp. 47-64). Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

Author Information

Ann-Katrin Denn (presenting / submitting)

University of Kassel

Kassel

Miriam Lotz

University of Kassel, Germany

Caroline Theurer

University of Kassel

Empirical Educational Research

Kassel

Frank Lipowsky