Positive feedback is crucial for fostering children's motivation and perseverance. However, not all types of positive feedback are equally effective. De Meester and colleagues (2022) investigated two types of positive feedback: person-oriented feedback (e.g., "you are very talented") and process-oriented feedback (e.g., "you showed great perseverance").

In this study, 176 children received either person-oriented, process-oriented, or neutral positive feedback after completing a series of easy motor tasks in which they all succeeded. Next, children attempted more difficult motor tasks designed to induce failure, after which they received negative feedback. Children’s perseverance was measured by how long they chose to continue practicing and the difficulty level of the tasks they selected.

The study found that children who received process-oriented feedback—praise focused on effort and strategies—chose more challenging tasks than those who received neutral praise. Additionally, these children worked for longer periods of time than those who received person-oriented feedback or no feedback at all. These findings suggest that praising effort and strategies may better support children's persistence when facing challenges.

These findings have important implications for educators. By providing process-oriented positive feedback, educators may help students develop greater perseverance after experiencing setbacks. EPIC can build on De Meester and colleagues (2022) study by further investigating whether process-oriented feedback is equally effective across different types of failure, such as academic mistakes, social setbacks, or performance-based challenges.

To learn more about this study, visit the full research article linked here: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17408989.2022.2054969

This post is written by Eliza Hong.

Reference:

De Meester, A., Galle, J., Soenens, B., & Haerens, L. (2022). Perseverance in motor tasks: the impact of different types of positive feedback. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 29(2), 221–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2022.2054969