Feedback

Feedback is now accepted as a key factor affecting learning and is a key feature of interpersonal communication. The term is absent from the older dictionaries, because it first began in electronics and then became a basic concept in the broader field of cybernetics before it filtered through into psychology to attain the wider significance it carries today. In cybernetics, feedback was first associated with self-regulatory systems. Then, systems theory raised the level of complexity to include the input of information from outside the system that was relevant to its performance. From there it filtered through into both behavioural and cognitive theories of learning from experience. Feedback from experience is not necessarily dependent on interpersonal communication. People can try things out, make mistakes, celebrate success and learn without any witnesses. Such feedback is largely determined by what is noticed, what is regarded as significant, how it is interpreted and whether it is stored in long-term memory and/or contributes to current or future actions. When other people are involved in giving feedback, the same factors apply to the recipient of the feedback, but the perspective of the giver of feedback, or of any observers, may be very different. The feedback given is not the same as the feedback received.

In education and workplace settings, the term ‘feedback’ is now mainly used in the context of formative assessment, where its main purpose is intended to be the provision of guidance on the quality of a person's understanding and/or performance. This could apply either to a specific situation, decision or event, or to an ongoing process of learning or working in a particular context. Although feedback ranges from the broad and global to the narrow and very precise, it has a strong emotional dimension, which may lead to feedback intended to be narrow being interpreted as being broad. Moreover, even when the provider of feedback stresses that it is the action or performance that is the subject of the feedback, many recipients interpret it as being a comment on their person. Thus, messages intended for guidance may be interpreted as judgemental.

Another problem arising from too close a link between feedback and formative assessment is that formative assessment is usually conceived in quasi-formal terms and provided by people with some authority. Much feedback is informal and provided by a wider range of people, including senior people not having authority over the learner. Sometimes important feedback messages can be indirect. For example, the allocation of work is often perceived as indicating a judgement of a person's capability, and personal agency in seeking such work may lead to more rapid learning, or even earlier promotion. At the other end of the scale is the undue importance attributed to second-hand reports of conversations and chance remarks by insecure learners who feel starved of feedback.

The relationship between the cognitive content of feedback and its emotional dimension was explored by Trope et al. (2001, pp. 257–258), who interpreted responses to negative feedback as posing a self-control dilemma:

Their own research (Trope et al. 2001, p. 271) indicated that the individuals’ mood and sense of priority may also influence how this conflict is resolved:

In one experiment, Trope et al. showed that people in a positive mood not only seek but also better remember and accept arguments that specify the health risks associated with caffeine consumption. This diminished their positive mood, but enhanced their willingness to give up unhealthy habits.

I have three suggestions regarding the context that might affect the mood in which health and social care practitioners and students receive negative feedback. The first occurs when there is an ongoing relationship of mutual interaction, which entails positive feedback at a global level. The second is when the feedback is followed by discussions about, and support or suggestions for, specific improvements. The third is when the recipient is known to be formally engaged in relevant learning, either through having student status or through being engaged in a recognized ‘learning project’ at work. Improving the mood by choosing or creating a setting that indicates concern for the learner may also have a positive effect.

A related area of laboratory research, which has been followed through into ethnographic research in classroom settings, concerns the relationship between achievement and motivation, and how it is affected by feedback. Two theories of particular interest are Attribution Theory and Goal Theory. Weiner (1998) argued that a key factor affecting learners’ motivation lies in how they attribute their perceived success or failure. He uses four constructs for this purpose:

(Note that in ‘Locus of responsibility’ and ‘Scope’ the terminology has been changed to clarify the text.) Where the responsibility is seen as personal, the scope is regarded as significant, and the factors are viewed as stable and controllable, success will raise motivation and failure will lower motivation. Although it is the learners’ attribution that is deemed to affect motivation, this attribution is significantly affected by teachers and significant others in the work environment.

The ‘Goal Theory’ of Dweck (2000) is based on a distinction between two kinds of achievement goal:

Dweck analysed research on children's approaches to schooling to show the main characteristics of these two orientations. Torrance & Pryor (1998, p. 85) summarize her research as indicating that children with learning goals:

These characteristics are developed through co-operative work and encouraging personal (ipsative) standards of success. In contrast, children with performance goals:

The ethnographic studies of Torrance & Pryor (1998) in several primary school classrooms revealed how both the general classroom discourse and separate conversations with individual children demonstrated teachers’ encouragement of performance goals rather than learning goals, with often unintended consequences for the long-term motivation of their pupils. Their conclusion is that ‘approaches to formative assessment where the complexity of the situation is minimized and interaction is seen in purely cognitive terms’ (p. 105) help the teaching to ‘move on’ but provide little real help to the learner as to what to do next. Any attempt to understand the learners’ needs ‘must involve a critical combination and co-ordination of insights derived from a number of psychological and sociological standpoints, none of which by themselves provide a sufficient basis for analysis’, and be ‘contextualized in the actual social setting of the classroom’ (p. 105).

If we return to consider the determinants of individual feedback listed in my opening paragraph – what is noticed, what is seen as significant and how it is interpreted and used – we can now see how dependent these factors are on the social context in which the feedback is given. The feedback perceived by learners in education settings is hugely influenced by the classroom culture, and that in turn is influenced by the wider culture of the organization and the state structure for professional formation.

When we move to workplace contexts, there are similar, if not identical, factors affecting learning. Much learning at work occurs through doing things and being pro-active in seeking learning opportunities, and this requires confidence. Moreover, confidence arises from successfully meeting challenges in one's work, while the confidence to take on such challenges depends on the extent to which learners felt supported in that endeavour. Thus, there is a triangular relationship among challenge, support and confidence (Eraut et al. 2000). The contextual significance of the word ‘confidence’ depends on which aspects of this triangular relationship are most significant at any particular time. Often, it comes close to Bandura's (1997) concept of self-efficacy, relating to their self-perceived ability to execute a particular task or successfully perform a role. But, especially in the early career stage or when the stakes are high, it can also refer to their confidence in their colleagues’ support.

Further research led our joint Sussex/Brighton research team to add further elements to each apex of this triangle (Fig. 1) to reflect other factors found to be significant for the learning of early career professionals (Eraut et al. 2005a). First, we decided to separate feedback from support, because it is not necessarily supportive and can effect motivation in some of the complex ways discussed above. Then we recognized that commitment to work and to colleagues is generated through participation in teams (much less common in education settings) and through appreciation of the social value of the work. Then, personal agency recognizes participants’ own sense of choice, meaningfulness, competence and progress (Thomas 2000), which is not necessarily aligned with their employer's priorities.

The main contextual factors that influence these learning factors are the allocation and structuring of the work, relationships in the workplace and expectations of and by learners. Learners’ expectations are critical to their views on the kind of feedback they need, and relationships are critical for the manner in which the communication of feedback is given and received.

Given the various perspectives on interpersonal feedback discussed above, it is important to include informal and indirect feedback in any definition. So, for the purposes of this editorial I define feedback as:

This excludes feedback given to groups of people, which raises many issues beyond the scope of this editorial. Group feedback is closely allied to the concepts of the ‘learning team’ and the ‘learning organization’ and deserves separate treatment.

In order to study feedback more closely, we need to distinguish four types of setting in which feedback may occur.

The first two types of setting are informal and embedded in the local learning culture. They also depend on the specific affordances for learning provided by the learning context. I will now present and discuss examples of each of these potential feedback settings, before returning to discuss the role of indirect feedback in situations where there is little direct feedback.

This is a problem area for many organizations. If some areas of work come to be perceived as more important than others, because they appear to be better routes to promotion or are better paid, this indirect evidence will trump any official policies or appraisal schemes. Similarly, if some more observable or measurable aspects of a job are weighted more highly, other possibly more important aspects will suffer and the development of less appreciated, but crucial, skills will be neglected. If the only route to promotion is through management, then professional skills may suffer.

Less obvious, perhaps, are job assessment or appraisal schemes that neglect some of the more complex aspects of a job, because the people who design them do not recognize the nature of the expertise involved. There is usually an overemphasis on actions, rather than the situational understandings that are needed to inform those actions, and on short-term outcomes rather than longer-term consequences. In some professions, the importance of the more complex communication skills is also under-rated. In general, one major tension in health and social care is that between accountability and complexity. Until we find modes of accountability which recognize complexity, the scope of both professional and managerial work will continue to be over-simplified.

People are quite good at creating new sets of competences, promotion criteria or job descriptions, but not so good at evaluating their implications. Improving feedback could be disastrous if it turned out to be the wrong feedback. What attributes do current appraisal and feedback systems reward, what attributes most influence promotion and pay, what attributes are most needed for the envisaged future of the organization, and what attributes are most important for its clients and customers? If the answers to these questions are unknown, then finding them should be a high priority. If the answers conflict, rapid action is necessary. Which members of the organization or external advisers are best equipped to judge these issues?

Communication of feedback needs to be both constructive and emotionally sensitive. The evidence base for judgements has to be specific and open to discussion, and followed by suggestions for improvement or, better still, ideas elicited from the learner that are practical and clear. The normative implications of the conversation need to be discussed with care and sensitivity, checking that the appropriate message has been understood and appreciated, and the implications properly contextualized and not exaggerated. If there is concern about misinterpretation or a strong emotional response, then a quick follow up may be important. Indirect feedback also needs to be carefully monitored and discussed, rather than denied. The givers of feedback are probably those who most need it, because their role is very important but undervalued in most organizations, yet another example of informal messages outflanking the formal messages.

When students enter higher education or qualified professionals enter the workplace, the type of feedback they then receive, intentionally or unintentionally, will play an important part in shaping their learning futures. Hence, we need to know much more about how their learning, indeed their very sense of professional identity, is shaped by the nature of the feedback they receive. We need more feedback on feedback.