Individual differences in response to attributional praise in an online learning environment
- 40 Downloads
This study investigated how gender and beliefs about ability moderate the effects of attributional praise feedback on college students’ task motivation and performance in an online environment. We conducted a 3 (praise type: ability vs. effort vs. none) × 2 (gender: male vs. female) × 2 (belief about ability: entity vs. incremental) between-subjects factorial experiment with 196 college students. Analysis of variance of the data detected significant interactions between praise and gender on the main outcome variables. Overall, praise feedback had significantly positive impact on male participants’ task performance, self-efficacy, and intrinsic motivation; whereas for female participants, praise feedback had no significant effects on these variables. Additionally, there is a trend (albeit non-significant) interaction between praise type and belief type on task effort, indicating that for entity-belief group, ability praise feedback tended to positively influence task effort whereas for incremental-belief group, effort praise feedback tended to positively impact task effort. Implications of these findings for theory and practice are discussed.
KeywordsAttributional feedback Praise Gender Beliefs about ability Self-efficacy Performance
This study was funded by a Quick-Turn-Around Grant awarded to the authors by the Office of the Provost at Western Kentucky University.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing course: ten years of tracking online education in the United States. BABSON Survey Research Group. Babson Park, MA: Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group, LLC.Google Scholar
- Allen, I. E., Seaman, J., Poulin, R., & Straut, T. T. (2016). Online report card: Tracking online education in the United States. Sloan Consortium, 1–4. Retrieved January 20, 2019 from http://onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/onlinereportcard.pdf.
- Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307–337). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
- Baylor, A. L., Shen, E., & Huang, X. (2003). Which pedagogical agent do learners choose? The effects of gender and ethnicity. In World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 1507–1510).Google Scholar
- Brummelman, E., Thomaes, S., Overbeek, G., Orobio de Castro, B., van den Hout, M. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2014). On feeding those hungry for praise: Person praise backfires in children with low self-esteem. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 143(1), 9–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Dabbagh, N. (2007). The online learner: Characteristics and pedagogical implications. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 7(3), 217–226.Google Scholar
- Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
- Dweck, C. S. (2008). Mindsets: How praise is harming youth and what can be done about it. School Library Media Activities Monthly, 24(5), 55–58.Google Scholar
- Hoska, D. M. (1993). Motivating learners through CBI feedback: developing a positive learner perspective. In V. Dempsey & G. C. Sales (Eds.), Interactive instruction and feedback (pp. 105–132). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
- Keller, J. M. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current status (pp. 383–434). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Mory, E. H. (2004). Feedback research revisited. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 745–784). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Narciss, S., & Huth, K. (2004). How to design informative tutoring feedback for multimedia learning. In H. M. Niegemann, D. Leutner, & R. Brunken (Eds.), Instructional design design for multimedia learning (pp. 181–195). Munster, NY: Waxmann.Google Scholar
- Qualtrics software. (2017). Qualtrics and all other Qualtrics product or service names are registered trademarks of Qualtrics, Provo, UT, USA. http://www.qualtrics.com.
- Raven, J. C. (1995). Advanced progressive matrices. Oxford: Oxford Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
- Schunk, D. H. (1983b). Self-efficacy enhancement through motivational and informational processes. In Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
- Schunk, D. H. (1984). Sequential attributional feedback: Differential effects on achievement behaviors. In Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (68th, New Orleans, LA, April 23–27, 1984) (pp. 1–30).Google Scholar
- Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2014). Teaching and learning at a distance: foundations of distance education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon/Pearson.Google Scholar
- Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2012). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.Google Scholar