[smbtoolbar]<\/p>\n
Positive feedback improves performance! As we discussed in Motoropoly – 1<\/a>, feedback has both instructional and motivational effects. However, as therapists, we quickly revert to our ever-reliable \u201cGood job!\u201d every time our patient, young or old, completes an assigned task.<\/span><\/p>\n Quick disclaimer! SeekFreaks, this article is not an attempt to jump in the fray of whether saying \u201cGood job!\u201d is good or bad. I\u2019ll leave that up to educational psychologists. Rather, I am writing this article to give other ways of providing feedback. Anyway, aren\u2019t you tired of hearing \u201cgood job!\u201d x number of times in an hour from yourself or from your colleagues? After hearing it over and over, I often wonder whether it is starting to lose its meaning and effect?<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n But before we jump into our suggested alternatives to \u201cGood Job!,\u201d it will be well worth it to first talk about a few concepts that guided me in coming up with these alternatives. <\/span><\/p>\n ~~~~~~~~~~ 0 ~~~~~~~~~~<\/em><\/p>\n Generic versus<\/b> Non-Generic Feedback<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n Chiviakowsky and Drews<\/span><\/a> (2014) tested 2 types of feedback on the motor learning of 10-year-old children.<\/span><\/p>\n They conducted 2 separate experiments using kicking tasks and throwing tasks. For phase 1 of the kicking experiment, the generic feedback group received statements such as \u201cYou are a great soccer player\u201d after every few trials. On the other hand, the non-generic feedback group received statements such as \u201cThose kicks were very good.\u201d This was followed by another block of trials where both groups received identical negative feedback to find out how such a setback will affect motor performance (phase 2). A no-feedback retention test was then conducted 10 minutes later. Results showed similar kicking accuracy during the trial blocks. However, the non-generic feedback group performed significantly better than the generic feedback group during the retention test. <\/span><\/p>\n In the throwing experiment, the authors wanted to test for longer term retention (1 day later), and remove the influence of intrinsic visual feedback to the children\u2019s performance (by wearing opaque swimming goggles). <\/span><\/p>\n The practice phase was similar to the kicking experiment\u2019s phase with a generic feedback and non-generic feedback group. In addition, all subjects also received directional feedbacks such as \u201ca little bit to the right\u201d or \u201cmuch too long\u201d after every trial. The experiment continued 1 day later, when 2 retention tests were conducted. In retention 1, both groups received identical negative feedback. Immediately after, a 2nd retention test was conducted with no feedback. Performance was similar for the practice phase and retention 1. The non-generic feedback group performed significantly better than the generic feedback group during the 2nd retention test. <\/span><\/p>\n Carol Dweck in her book MindSet explains that praising a trait (e.g., \u201cyou\u2019re smart\u201d, \u201cyou\u2019re a good drawer\u201d) does not foster self-esteem and can jeopardize success since success is dependent on an inherent inflexible trait (i.e., you\u2019re either smart or not, you\u2019re either good at kicking or not). On the other hand, praising effort can be motivating and fosters persistence (i.e., you can get good grades or get better at kicking if you practice).<\/span><\/p>\n So clearly, a non-generic feedback that shows performance is malleable is better for learning. <\/span><\/p>\n By the way, starting a praise with good job is not necessarily bad, but don\u2019t end the statement there. Good job at what? In one of her experiments, <\/span>Cimpian, et al<\/span><\/a> (2007) used the non-generic feedback \u201cYou did a good job drawing!\u201d — and it worked better than the generic feedback \u201cYou are a good drawer.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n ~~~~~~~~~~ 0 ~~~~~~~~~~<\/em><\/p>\n Self-determination<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n Self-determination has been defined as a \u201ccombination of skills, knowledge and beliefs that enable a person to engage in goal-directed, self-regulated behavior\u201d (<\/span>Field et al<\/span><\/a>, 1998). According to self-determination theory (SDT) (<\/span>Deci and Ryan<\/span><\/a>, 2008), there are 2 main types of motivation:<\/span><\/p>\n Deci and Ryan<\/span><\/a> (2008) stated that compared to controlled motivation, autonomous motivation tended to result in <\/span><\/p>\n In reality, students often receive a combination of both autonomous and controlled motivations. High autonomous and controlled motivation is associated with positive educational outcomes; however, <\/span>Guay, Ratelle & Chanal<\/span><\/a> (2008) pointed out that a pure autonomous motivation is the most highly associated with positive educational outcomes. <\/span><\/p>\n As an additional caution, a meta-analysis by <\/span>Deci, Koestner & Ryan<\/span><\/a> (1999) found that the use of extrinsic rewards (a type of controlled motivation) undermine intrinsic motivation (a type of autonomous motivation).<\/span><\/p>\n So, there is no question that autonomous motivation is the best way to encourage self-determination so that students will embrace, enjoy and value an activity for its own sake, rather than as a result of an external pressure. This is especially true, when we are helping children to participate in lifelong fitness activities as we have discussed in the article Role of PT in Lifelong Fitness<\/a>. (By the way, for further reading, <\/span>Wilson et al<\/span><\/a>, 2008 did a nice summary of various research on how SDT applies to motivation for health-enhancing physical activity.) <\/span><\/p>\n Therefore, as therapists, we should reflect on the feedback we provide to ensure that they are supportive of autonomous motivation. <\/span>Kusurkar et al<\/span><\/a> (2011) suggested the following tips, among many others: encourage active participation, encourage students to accept more responsibility in their learning, provide structured guidance, and give positive and constructive feedback. <\/span><\/p>\n ~~~~~~~~~~ 0 ~~~~~~~~~~<\/em><\/p>\n Sharing Knowledge<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n As discussed in Motoropoly – Part 1<\/a>, sharing knowledge is another way of providing verbal statements. This includes talking about the task, such as describing what the child is doing, explaining the difficulty of the task, explaining why a certain way is better than another, and asking the child questions about the difficulty, understanding, and execution of the task (<\/span>Niemeijer, et al<\/span><\/a>, 2003). We can apply such concepts when providing verbal statements to children. <\/span><\/p>\n ~~~~~~~~~~ 0 ~~~~~~~~~~<\/em><\/p>\n SeekFreaks\u2019 50 Alternatives to \u201cGood Job!\u201d<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n Now we are ready with our list. I tried to categorize them into different strategies. But do know, they often overlap. The important thing is that you use different combinations and your own version of the examples below. And do say them in your own way.<\/span><\/p>\n 1. Praise effort<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n 2. Point out the process that contributed to success or almost succeeding<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n 3. Point out the improvement <\/b><\/span><\/p>\n 4. Describe what you observed<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n 5. Talk about the next steps<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n 6. Ask how they think they did<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n 7. Ask how they did it<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n