By Craig Valency, MA, CSCS

In part 1, “The Missing Link in Movement Education: The Feedback Cycle,” I talked about a powerful, research-based, three-part feedback process, which was developed to maximize performance in academic learning. This same feedback cycle can be successfully adapted and applied to improve a child’s ability to perfect new movement skills in physical education.

Instead of the auto-pilot, “Great job!”or “Good girl!” feedback we have all been guilty of using, the feedback cycle details a 3-part progression. It begins with the FEED UP, or setting up the context and expectations before the lesson; then the actual FEED BACK, where constructive, specific feedback is given, and finally the FEED FORWARD, where the next steps in the development of the skill are discussed.

Effective use of the feedback cycle leads to a fuller understanding of how a particular skill fits into the larger context of physical literacy. Additionally, this cycle creates a safe environment for learning, which ultimately leads to more buy-in, and an intrinsic desire to master movement skills.

In this post I’ll talk about the optimal way to put the feedback cycle into action to get the best results.

Feedback can focus on the task, the process, self-regulation, or the individual. The effectiveness of feedback varies depending upon what level the feedback cycle focuses on.

The Feedback Flow

Feedback is most effective when there is a flow that moves a child from the task, to the process, and finally to self-regulation (Hattie & Timperely, 2007, p. 91). Feedback on the individual level, such as “Good girl!” or “Great job!” can be too general and personal and not convey enough information to be helpful.

  1. Feedback on the Task – (FT) – this is also known as corrective feedback or knowledge of results (KR). Task level feedback is most effective when it focuses on correct rather than incorrect responses, as more attention to the errors can reduce learning by actually increasing the probability that the error is remembered (Hattie & Timperely, 2007, p. 92). It is best to frame errors as positive learning opportunities (Higgins, 2011).
  1. Feedback on the Process – (FP) – the focus here is on how rather than what. While task feedback relates more to surface level learning, process feedback fosters a deeper understanding of relationships and how the parts fit together. This level of feedback leads to more cognitive processing as the student must think and strategize to solve problems, which leads to better extension and transference of skills.

With this strategy, cues are given to the student to reduce incorrect movements and guide them toward choosing correct strategies. Process level feedback allows for more self-discovery and intrinsic feedback about the movement. For instance when learning the skill of striking, instead of saying “step with the left foot,” the coach could say, “think about trying some different foot positions to hit the ball that might help you generate more power.”

  1. Feedback on Self-Regulation – (FR) – Feedback at this level involves the student taking more responsibility for his or her own learning. At this more advanced stage, children display more autonomy, self-direction, and control. Here, students more actively seek feedback, but don’t necessarily rely on external sources, as they are more inclined to accept and seek hints rather than explicit cues.

Aspects that determine the effectiveness of feedback at the level of self-regulation include: their abilities to first listen to internal cues and self-assess; the desire to seek and interpret feedback; the level of confidence they display in their interpretation of the feedback; how they handle success or failure; and how well they seek help (Hattie & Timpereley, p. 94).

Feedback is most effective when it relates to effort or ability rather than on outcomes. In the beginning stages of learning, feedback on effort is more effective, but as skills develop and less effort is needed then ability feedback would be more appropriate.

  1. Feedback on the Self – (FS) – This level of feedback is used extensively but can be one of the most ineffective, and even damaging, forms of feedback. This feedback is usually personal, (eg. “good girl!”) and carries little usable information to improve elements of the task at hand. Additionally, it usually does not improve learning or the intrinsic desire to learn. Hattie and Timpereley (2007) report that no praise was more effective than personal praise of the individual in terms of the impact on achievement (p. 96).

Praise directed at the process, effort, or self-regulation, however, is highly effective in improving skills, as well as the intrinsic desire to learn and come up with strategies to solve problems. Therefore, rather than simply praising the person (“good girl”), it is best to say, “Sally, you did great, because you showed determination and kept going for the ball even after you fell down!”

An interesting psychological paradox on the effects of praise on older students was highlighted by Hattie & Timpereley (2007). Students believed that the teacher thought they had low ability if they received praise after success, or neutral feedback after failure, whereas, when given criticism after failure and neutral feedback after success, they thought the teacher believed they had high ability, but that they simply did not give full effort.

Younger children are more straightforward and simply believe praise after success means they are thought of as high performers, while criticism after failure means they have low ability. This difference in interpretation might come from the fact that older children are suspect of too much praise as insincere and patronizing.

Feedback timing, and the effects of positive or negative feedback

While there are some disagreements in the research, it is generally accepted that with task level feedback it is best to give immediate feedback, whereas at the process level, delayed feedback has a more powerful effect (Hattie & Timperely, 2007). It was hypothesized that the delayed feedback at the process level allows for more time to work out the strategies, whereas immediate feedback for a simple task is necessary to correctly “feel” and execute the task.

At the task level, both positive and negative feedback can be effective, but at the individual, or “self” level negative feedback can have a bigger effect, as was seen when no praise was more effective than praise. At the self-regulation level, when children are committed to a task and want to engage in it they respond best to positive feedback, but when they are not as committed, and have to do it, they do better with negative feedback, as they need to be “driven” to accomplish the task. This may, however, only be a short-term fix, as this could reduce the desire to engage in these activities even more in the future. And finally, students with a lower sense of self-efficacy may see positive feedback as a confirmation that they have deficiencies.

Implementing the feedback cycle begins with setting the goal or where they are going known as “feed-up,” and then giving actual “feedback,” which is the “how” or progress being made toward that specific goal, and finally ending with the “feedforward” information or where it fits into the big picture and where they are going next.

This feedback cycle can focus on 4 different levels: the task, the process, self-regulation or the individual, depending on the task difficulty and skill level of the child. The task level deals more with surface level understanding, while the process level fosters a deeper understanding, and the self-regulation level is the most advanced form of feedback, where children take more responsibility for their own learning. The individual level of feedback is the most widely used, but most ineffective, form of feedback and should be avoided.

With this information, teachers, coaches, and trainers will be better equipped to hone and perfect movement skills. This system will help create a safe environment where children understand the process of learning and develop an internal desire to learn and improve their skills.

What are some of the feedback strategies and cues you have used that seemed to make the biggest impact? We would love your “feedback!”

References:

Graham, G., Holt/Hale, S., & Parker, M. (2013). Children Moving: A reflective approach to teaching physical education (Ninth ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Gallahue, D., & Cleland Donnelly, F. (2003). Developmental Physical education for all children (Fourth ed.). Champaign: Human Kinetics.

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The Power of Feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112.

Higgins, S. (2011). Formative assessment and feedback to learners. Better: Evidence-based Education, 8-9.

Craig Valency, MA, CSCS, president and co-founder of SPIDERfit, has been a personal trainer for the last 11 years. He is currently working at Fitness Quest 10 in San Diego, an elite personal training and athletic conditioning facility. He specializes in youth strength and conditioning programs that promote physical literacy, injury prevention and optimal performance. Along with training youths from 6 to 18 years of age for general fitness, Craig has also worked with some of the top junior tennis players in the world. He has been a physical education consultant for the Stevens Point school district in Wisconsin for the last 3 years, helping revamp the district wide programming for the K-12 PE curriculum. Craig earned his bachelor degree from UCLA, and Masters Degree in Kinesiology from San Diego State University.

We'd love your feedback!