CHAPTER ONE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This
chapter opens the whole study “Effect of Positive and Negative Feedback on the
Level of Self-esteem of School Pupils”. It contains background to the study and
problem statement. It highlights the objectives (specific and broad) of the
study and the study’s significance. It also covers the scope of the study.
1.0 BACKGROUND OF STUDY
Self-esteem
reflects a person's overall subjective emotional evaluation of his or her own
worth. It is a judgment of oneself as well as an attitude toward the self.
Self-esteem encompasses beliefs about oneself, (for example, "I am
competent", "I am worthy"), as well as and emotional states,
such as triumph, despair, pride, and shame. But these definitions of
self-esteem changes from researcher to researcher. Smith and Mackie (2007)
defined it by saying "The self-concept is what we think about the self;
self-esteem, is the positive or negative evaluations of the self, as in how we
feel about it.
This
study seeks to show how positive feedback can be used by parents, teachers and
care-givers to build high self-esteem in children so that they will not grow to
be timid but develop self-confidence and become assertive and achievers in
academic and others spheres of life.
This
research was carried out at the junior High School level with school children
because pupils are at the threshold of transiting into adulthood and would need
to know about the effect of feedback people receive, and its overall impact on
self-assessment by way of one’s self-esteem.
If
pupils at Junior High School get the understanding that feedback has a strong
influence in developing a psychological construct of self-esteem that will
inform their success or otherwise in future, they will attach importance to
developing a desirable self-esteem while discounting negative feedbacks that
come their way.
Frequently,
self-esteem is viewed as a component of a more inclusive construct, typically
labelled self-concept or self-perception (Beane and Lipka, 1980). A humanistic
theorist, Rogers (1961) in propounding his theory of human needs, grouped all
needs into two categories, as positive regards and self-actualization.
Explaining these concepts, Rogers said positive regards means every human being
needs to be seen positively by others, whereas self-actualization means to
achieve or realize one’s maximum potentials or abilities.
Some
psychologists hold the view that human needs are that which enable people to
develop drive to direct behavior to towards attaining or achieving goals. They
explain that these needs vary, and each need determine the type of drive
activity to inform one’s behavior towards attainment of goals. These
psychologists did not only categories all human needs into two, but they also
categorized human drives into two, which are primary drives and secondary
drives. They explain that primary drives include physiological and general drives
which satisfy the basic needs within the human being, while secondary drives
deal with more complex social motivation.
Maslow
(1954) another humanistic psychologist who propounded humanistic theory of
motivation proposed that human beings have a number of complex needs, but not
all these needs are equally important at any time. Maslow in propounding his
theory, categorized human needs into seven (7) hierarchical levels or stages.
He grouped human needs and placed them on levels, beginning from physiological
needs which are essentials for body survival, to the top of hierarchy of human
needs he termed as self-actualization.
Maslow
explained that self-actualization point is where all needs of human beings are
satisfied. He further theorized that all human needs are classified into
physical and emotional needs. Maslow placed self-esteem needs of human beings
at the centre or at the fourth level of his seven (7) levels of hierarchy of
needs.
Rogers
(1961) saw the subject matter of self-esteem as a significant factor in
psychological health. He said that self-esteem developed through childhood as
human beings internalize social standards or condition of worth, which are
learnt through everyday social interaction.
Homans
(1974) argued that one of the most powerful social reinforcement available to
human beings is self-esteem or social approval, and that human beings are
attracted to people who can provide this for them. This means that our
attitudes and behavior to a large extent are informed or shaped by input of the
assessments or evaluations other people make about us. By the above, it can
conclusively be said that feedback is critical for building a person’s
self-esteem.
People
high in self-esteem claim to be more likable and attractive, to have better
relationships, and to make better impressions on others than people with low
self- esteem, but objective measures disconfirm most of these beliefs.
Narcissists are charming at first but tend to alienate others eventually.
Self-esteem has not been shown to predict the quality or duration of
relationships.
High
self-esteem makes people more willing to speak up in groups and to criticize
the group's approach. Leadership does not stem directly from self-esteem, but
self- esteem may have indirect effects. Relative to people with low
self-esteem, those with high self-esteem show stronger in-group favoritism,
which may increase prejudice and discrimination.
Neither
high nor low self-esteem is a direct cause of violence. Narcissism leads to
increased aggression in retaliation for wounded pride. Low self-esteem may
contribute to externalizing behavior and delinquency, although some studies
have found that there are no effects or that the effect of self-esteem vanishes
when other variables are controlled. The highest and lowest rates of cheating
and bullying are found in different subcategories of high self-esteem.
Most
people feel bad about themselves from time to time. Feelings of low self-esteem
may be triggered by being treated poorly by someone else recently or in the past,
or by a person's own judgments of him or herself. This is normal. However, low
self-esteem is a constant companion for too many people, especially those who
experience depression, anxiety, phobias, psychosis, delusional thinking, or who
have an illness or a disability. If you are one of these people, you may go
through life feeling bad about yourself needlessly. Low self-esteem keeps you
from enjoying life, doing the things you want to do, and working toward
personal goals.
High
self-esteem does not prevent children from smoking, drinking, taking drugs, or
engaging in early sex. If anything, high self-esteem fosters experimentation,
which may increase early sexual activity or drinking, but in general effects of
self-esteem are negligible. One important exception is that high self-esteem
reduces the chances of bulimia in females.
Feedback
is information provided by an agent (e.g., teacher, peer, book, parent,
experience) regarding aspects of one's performance or understanding. It occurs
typically after instruction that seeks to provide knowledge and skills or to
develop particular attitudes. Feedback is among the most critical influences on
student learning. A major aim of the educative process is to assist in
identifying these gaps ("How am I going?" relative to "Where am
I going?") and to provide remediation in the form of alter- native or
other steps ("Where to next?").
The
degree of confidence that students have in the correctness of responses can
affect receptivity to and seeking of feedback. Kulhavy and Stock (1989) noted
that if confidence or response certainty is high and the response turns out to
be a correct one, little attention is paid to the feedback. Feedback has its
greatest effect when a learner expects a response to be correct and it turns out
to be wrong. As Kulhavy and Stock noted, "High confidence errors are the
point at which feedback should play its greatest corrective role, simply
because the person studies the item longer in an attempt to correct the
misconception" (p. 225). Conversely, if response certainty is low and the
response turns out to be wrong, feedback is largely ignored. In these
circumstances, low confidence places "a student in a position requiring
associative strategies rather than the integration of new information into existing
structures. Under this condition, feedback should have minimal effect
regardless of whether or not the response is the correct one" (Kulhavy,
1977, p. 226). Further instruction and information are more effective than
feedback in this situation.
Hull
(1943) in his drive-reduction theory stated that there is a fast-acting
feedback loop that act to reduce the drive activity in organism, immediately a
goal of an organism is achieved.
Ekman,
Sorenson and Friesen (1969) in their facial feedback theory explained that
facial expressions which people use to signify emotions may in themselves be
involved in promoting those emotions by providing feedback to the brain.
Positive
feedback embraces praise, and the only problem is that in many cultures human
beings are not particularly good at accepting praise, tending to shrug it off
in a bid to demonstrate modesty. Positive feedback is most effective when we
take ownership of it, and swell with pride about it. We therefore need to help
our students become more adept at making the most of the positive feedback they
receive - whether from us, of from each other, or from anyone else. However,
'negative' is an unfortunate word, and 'critical' (or at least 'constructive')
is much more acceptable for the elements of feedback which are not just praise
and affirmation. Human beings are often not too adept at making best use of
critical feedback. We may instinctively become defensive, and close the doors
to really analysing the feedback and adapting our actions on the basis of it.
Yet learning by trial and error is a perfectly natural and valid way of
learning, and depends on making optimum use of feedback about mistakes.
Kluger
and DeNisi (1996) noted that both positive and negative feedback can have
beneficial effects on learning. These
effects depends more on the level at which the feedback is aimed and processed
than on whether it is positive or negative. Specifically, negative feedback is
more powerful at the self-level, and both types can be effective as task level,
but there are differential effects relating to commitment, mastery or
performance orientation, and self-efficacy at the self-regulation level.
1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT
Throughout
generations people develop varying character traits or qualities which earn
them different descriptions of personality. For instance some people exhibit
character of timidity. Others are daring and are describe as courageous. Some
people are more persevering, while others easily give up as they become
discouraged. Some are said to exhibit high initiative, while others lack
initiative. Usually, it is the individual’s self-assessment that informs his or
her cognition that leads to action or inaction.
The
self-esteem of the individual normally informs the person’s disposition in
life. Society serves as a mirror which reflects the individual’s self-image as
a vital input for assessment or evaluation of individual self. The outcome of
assessment of the self is what leads to building self-esteem. The mirror which
reflects the self-image for development of self-esteem for everybody is by the
parents, relatives, and significant others. Feedback from society is what the
writer is referring to as the mirror which informs the development of one’s
self-esteem.
Therefore,
the type of feedback becomes critical in the formation of the person’s
self-esteem in life. It can be concluded that developing the desired
self-esteem is vitally essential for coping with the challenges of life. Since
the input for developing self-esteem is from society but not an innate
phenomenon, then society can shape desirable self-esteem in people through
proper feedback.
1.2 OBJECTIVES OF STUDY
1.2.1 GENERAL OBJECTIVES
To
study the effects of feedback on the level of self-esteem among school pupils.
1.2.2 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES
1. To determine the role of feedback in
the development of self-esteem among Ghanaian school pupils.
2. To determine if gender is a factor
in building self-esteem among Ghanaian school pupils.
3. To determine if age difference will be
a factor in building self-esteem in pupils.
1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1. Can
age difference be an influence in building self-esteem in pupils?
2. What
role does feedback plays in the development of self-esteem among Ghanaian school
pupils?
3. Can
gender be a factor in building self-esteem among Ghanaian school pupils?
1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY
This
study will gather Knowledge on the effect of positive and negative feedback on
self-esteem of pupils, which could help inform evaluation of social psychology
related courses that will be geared toward meeting public interest. This will
encourage pupils build a sense of confidence for successful academic per suit
and life general.
Researchers
can also refer to this research for additional knowledge as a secondary data
when conducting other studies. The research will be useful to educational
institution authorities especially counselors and teachers, which they will
have strategies which are related to the self-esteem building and have to observe
students and their interactions with peers carefully to meet the needs of them.
1.5 SCOPE OF THE STUDY
The
scope of the study refers to the coverage of this research. This study’s scope
include all pupils at junior high school in Kasoa. The sample size comprised
sixty (60) of junior high school pupils.
1.6 ORGANISATION OF STUDY
The
research is organized in five chapters; Chapter one cover various areas of
introduction which include the background to the study, the statement problem,
the objectives of the study, research questions, the significance of the study
a well as the scope and the organization of the study.
Chapter
two covers the review of related studies as well as operational definitions
Chapter
three is the methodology used for the study which comprises research design,
population, sampling and sampling techniques, data collection procedure and
instruments, as well as data analysis.
Chapter
four covers the findings and analysis of data.
Finally,
chapter five covers summary, limitations, conclusions and recommendations of
the study.
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 INTRODUCTION
This
chapter gives an overview of problems under study. It highlights the literature
review; review of relevant and literature on the topic under study. It also
provides operational definitions to explain how concepts or variable are used
in the study.
2.1 DEFINITIONS OF KEY TERMS
2.1.1 Feedback
Knowledge
of result is sometimes called feedback. Although; strictly speaking feedback is
a term which refers to information coming from the internal part of a system.
Some psychologists make a distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic feedback.
Intrinsic feedback comes from proprioceptive nerves which respond to the
positions of our muscles. Extrinsic feedback comes from information we receive
from external system. However, in this study the word feedback is used as a
general term to describe knowledge of results.
Feedback
is not disapproval, criticism or a personal attack, but it is given so that you
can improve your work to ensure you aim for better marks in future. Furthermore, when feedback is constructive
and consistent and is given by someone in an informed position it is very
useful.
It
is commonly reported that students do not read teacher feedback comments
(Duncan, 2007). The literature suggests that a part of the problem is that
teachers (and students) see feedback in isolation from other aspects of the
teaching and learning process, and
consider feedback to be primarily a teacher-owned endeavour (Taras,
2003). The workload for teachers can be offset by the reduction of time needed
to give feedback on the final product and by incorporating peer feedback into
some of the stages (Nicol, 2008).
Another
strategy to encourage student reflection on feedback comments is to give a
provisional grade, but invite students to talk about their work and potentially
earn a higher grade. Some commentators suggest withholding the grade altogether
until students have read the comments and indicated this in some way (Taras,
2003).
A study by Hattie and Timperley (2007) on the
impact of feedback on student learning achievement indicate that feedback has
the potential to have a significant effect on student learning achievement. By
contrast, the impact of feedback on learning achievement is low when feedback focused
on “praise, rewards and punishment”. They also note that feedback is more
effective when it addresses achievable goals and when it does not carry “high
threats to self-esteem” (p.86).
Nicol
(2008), citing Lunsford (1997), also suggests that feedback can be helpful to
students when it is framed in terms of the impact of the writing on the reader.
This could also enhance self-regulation skills because it enables students to
gradually move away from monologue to conceptualise a reader and direct their
writing to her or him. As people who
work with student writing can attest, enabling students to make their writing
reader-centred can transform the quality of their written communication.
2.1.2 Positive feedback
Positive
feedback embraces praise, and the only problem is that in many cultures human
beings are not particularly good at accepting praise, tending to shrug it off
in a bid to demonstrate modesty. Positive feedback is most effective when we
take ownership of it, and swell with pride about it. We therefore need to help
our students become more adept at making the most of the positive feedback they
receive whether from us, of from each other, or from anyone else.
Positive
feedback increases people’s confidence that they are able to pursue their goals,
leading people to expect successful goal attainment. Negative feedback, in
contrast, undermines people’s confidence in their ability to pursue their goals
and their expectations of success. Because positive feedback is effective,
various social agents use positive feedback to encourage individuals to
internalize or integrate new goals to their self-concept, with the expectation
that these individuals will then be more committed to pursue the goal on
subsequent occasions (Ryan and Deci, 2000).
Van-Dijk
and Kluger (2000, 2001) demonstrated that positive feedback increases
motivation relative to negative feedback for a task that people "want to
do" and decreases motivation relative to negative feedback for a task that
people "have to do." Thus, when we are committed to a goal, we are
more likely to learn as a function of positive feedback.
Positive
feedback however can increase the likelihood that students will return to or
persist in an activity and self-report higher interest in the activity (Deci et
al., 1999). If you are doing a job or an assignment correctly, you will receive
positive feedback and you will know that you should continue that behavior.
Positive feedback tells you that everything is going well.
2.1.3
Negative feedback
Negative
feedback tells you that you are not doing as you are expected. It tells you
that you must in some way alter your behavior so that you will be doing things
right. However, 'negative' is an unfortunate word, and 'critical' (or at least
'constructive') is much more acceptable for the elements of feedback which are
not just praise and affirmation. Human beings are often not too adept at making
best use of critical feedback. We may instinctively become defensive, and close
the doors to really analysing the feedback and adapting our actions on the
basis of it.
Negative
feedback undermines people’s confidence in their ability to pursue their goals
and their expectations of success. When we undertake a task that we are not
committed to (and hence have to do), we are more likely to learn as a function
of negative feedback (we need to be driven, in the older motivation
terminology). It is likely, however, that this effect is short lived in that it
may lead to future task avoidance behavior.
2.1.4 Self-esteem
Nathaniel
Branden, Ph.D. (1995), a well-known psychotherapist, defined self-esteem
several years ago as “The disposition to experience oneself as being competent
to cope with the basic challenges of life and of being worthy of happiness.”
The National Association for Self-Esteem modified this to define self-esteem as
"The experience of being capable of meeting life's challenges and being
worthy of happiness." Christopher Mruk, Ph.D. (1995), a psychology
professor at Bowling Green University, reports in his book Self-Esteem:
Research, Theory, and Practice that of all the theories and definitions
proposed, this description of self-esteem has best withstood the test of time
in terms of accuracy and comprehensiveness.
Self-esteem
is usually broadly defined as a person’s overall evaluation of, or attitude
toward, her or himself (James, 1890; Leary and MacDonald, 2003; Pyszczynski,
Greenberg, Solomon, Arndt, and Schimel, 2004).
Self-esteem
to extent reflects affectively-laden self-evaluations (Leary and Baumeister,
2000), that should represent some combination of the uniquely human self and
more ancient motivational mechanisms.
According
to Sociometer Theory, self-esteem represents perceptions of one’s current
relational value in the immediate situation (Leary et al 2000). In this sense,
self-esteem only draws upon the reflexive capacity of the self; it is the
ability to recognize one’s current sense of relational value. Some theorists
have suggested that self-esteem represents an individual’s sense of her or his
rank in a dominance hierarchy (e.g., Barkow, 1980). However, more recent theory and research has
suggested that dominance alone cannot account for self-esteem (Leary, Cottrell,
and Phillips, 2001; Pyszczynski et al., 2004).
First,
social acceptance is a better predictor of self-esteem than dominance (Leary et
al., 2001). Second, across species,
dominance hierarchies tend to be more important for males’ social functioning
than for females, yet self-esteem appears to be important to both women and men
(Leary et al 2000). Third, humans often
develop systems to limit the influence of dominant individuals such that
excessive dominance can decrease rather than increase social value (Boehm,
1999). Importantly, social ties have
been shown to promote survival independent of dominance. For example, infants of highly socially
integrated female baboons have been shown to be more likely to survive to 1
year of age than infants of less socially integrated mothers, even controlling
for the mothers’ dominance rank (Silk, Alberts, and Altmann, 2003). Thus, Sociometer Theory considers self-esteem
to be responsive to overall relational value, including dominance and social
integration.
2.2 REVIEW OF RELATED STUDIES ON
FEEDBACK AND SELF-ESTEEM
According
to self-enhancement theory individuals are influenced to maintain their
self-esteem in an optimistic way (Ryckman, 2004). Rogers (1959) explained that an individual’s
self-concept may be viewed in both the experience of self and the ideal self. Self-discrepancy theory implies that
individuals become distressed when our ‘actual’ self is different from our
‘ideal’ self (Higgins, 1987). Furthermore, self-verification theory or,
self-consistency theory, refers to the tendency of individuals to seek positive
or negative information about oneself. It assumes that individuals strive to
sustain a positive attitude and inconsistent evaluations of one’s self may
produce a negative reaction (Ryckman, 2004). Aronson and Mettee (1968) claimed
that individuals would feel good about themselves if self-esteem levels were
raised and feel worthless if self-esteem was lowered. Allport (1937) suggests
individuals have an internal drive to feel good. He claims that doing badly in
a task can damage an individual’s self-esteem.
In addition, Aronson (1992) claimed that if people are unable to improve
ability they prefer positive feedback.
The
study attempts to look at the beneficial effects of positive feedback. To
illustrate, in a study by Deci (1971) in which soma puzzles were given to a
control group and an experimental group comprising of undergraduate students,
the experimental group received verbal praise whilst the control group did not.
The group who received positive feedback showed increased intrinsic motivation
in comparison to the no feedback group. Greenberg and Pyszczynski (1985) and
Heatherton and Polivy, (1991) conducted an experiment using either a positive
feedback condition or a neutral feedback condition. They found that
individual’s self-esteem alters after bogus feedback. Rikketa and Dauenheimer
(2003) criticised the feedback method in manipulating self-esteem and favoured
a non-obtrusive way with subliminally presented words.
It
is held that self-esteem has some significance in relation to our inner
beliefs. Robins and Beer (2001) conducted research to assess student’s positive
beliefs about their academic ability as they first entered college and then
this was followed up to test if there were any benefits relating to holding
positive beliefs. They found positive beliefs were closely related to
narcissism, ego involvement, self-serving attributions, and positive affect.
Additionally, the second part of their study found that reduced levels of
self-esteem and well-being were found to be linked to positive beliefs. This research shows the importance of
self-appraisal within individuals on aspects of ability.
The
present study attempts to establish whether or not perceived or actual ability
in completing the task will be consistent with levels of self-esteem.
Similarly, a study by McFarlin and Blascovich (1981) reported that individuals
with high, moderate or low self-esteem in either positive, negative or no
feedback conditions expect success or failure consistent with their levels of
self-esteem. However, Crocker and Wolfe (2001) suggest self-esteem varies with
either success or failure but this is dependent on a person’s contingency of
self-worth. They argued that self-esteem changes daily depending on how you
feel and depending on the importance of the success or failures. Additionally,
Kernis, Cornell, Sun, Berry, and Harlow, (1993) has pointed out that stability
of self-esteem should be considered as well as the actual level of self-esteem.
Recent research has claimed that the evidence for boosting self-esteem to
establish a positive effect remains inconclusive. They suggest that other
factors or variables may be entwined in the concept of self-esteem such as
personality or mood (Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger and Vohs 2003).
The
Rosenberg (1965) questionnaire has been widely recognised as the standard
method for measuring global self-esteem. (Baumeister et al, 2003). In the
present study self-esteem was measured using the 10- item Rosenberg Self-esteem
scale (1965) the items within the scale were counterbalanced, half the items
applied to high self-esteem and the other half to low self-esteem. One group
received positive feedback and the control group received no feedback at all.
Baumeister et al study will investigate using a range of hypotheses using a
‘one-tailed test’. The first hypothesis proposed that self-esteem ratings would
increase in participants who received positive feedback. The second hypothesis
suggested that participants with high self-esteem scores will be positively
correlated with a high, perceived ability rating in completing the tasks. The
third hypothesis incurred that scores on perceived ability will positively
correlate with scores on actual ability.
Walster
(1965) in study of attraction conducted personality test in female students,
and came out with interesting findings of how feedback critically informs
self-esteem. Personality tests were conducted for female students after which
they were asked to wait outside an office for their results.
While
waiting, each female student was approached by a good-looking young man, who
was a confederate of the experimenter, who chatted with the participants
(female students), and eventually asked for a date. Thereafter, when the young
women entered for the results of their personality test, they were given one of
two (2) fake feedbacks; either one which presented them in a positive light,
designed to boost their self-esteem, or one which presented their personality
in a negative light, designed to lower their self-esteem. All the female
students were then asked to assess the attractiveness of the set of people,
including the young man they had just met.
Walster
found out that those in the low self-esteem condition related the young man
more highly than those in the high self-esteem. The reason for this was that
the female students whose self-esteem has been lowered felt more attracted to
the young man because he had given a psychological boost to their confidence at
a time they felt they needed it.
Josephs
(2003) researched into self as a source of negative feedback. Eighty-seven
introductory psychology students participated in partial fulfillment of a
course requirement. Only students who scored in the bottom 25% of the
distribution on the Self-Liking and Self-Competence Scale (SLCS) were eligible
for participation. Data from six participants were discarded due to suspicion
or inability to complete the tasks within the allotted time; this left a total
of 29 men and 52 women. Two-way ANOVA with self- and experimenter-generated
feedback as the independent variables and total anagram solution times as the
dependent variable was performed.
The
participants in Josephs et al (2003) Study experienced either neutral or
negative feedback. For self-generated feedback, some participants with the same
randomly ordered anagram series that was used in the previous studies, whereas
other participants received an anagram series that grew progressively more
difficult (we reversed the order of presentation of the progressively easier
series that we used in earlier studies). Participants in this condition thus
experienced a decline in performance across time, or negative self-generated
feedback. For experimenter-generated feedback, some participants received the
same neutral feedback from the experimenter as in previous studies; the
remaining participants received a negative experimenter comment (“Looks like
you had some trouble with a couple of anagrams near the end”).Thus, we employed
a 2 (self-generated feedback: negative vs. neutral) × 2 (experimenter-generated
feedback: negative vs. neutral) design.
The
study shows that there were no main or interactive effects of the independent
variables on the speed with which participants were able to complete the
anagram series. The interaction of self- and experimenter-generated feedback
was not statistically significant, but both of the main effects were.
Specifically, low self- esteem participants who experienced negative
self-generated feedback reported less improvement than those who experienced
neutral self-generated feedback, and participants who received negative
feedback from the experimenter reported less improvement than those who
received neutral experimenter-generated feedback.
Joseph found that People with low self-esteem
who experienced either self- or experimenter-generated negative feedback
reported less improvement across an anagram series than those who experienced
neutral feedback. Why did participants in this study accept negative feedback
from themselves when they appeared reluctant to accept positive self-generated
feedback in previous studies? Perhaps, consistent with Baumeister et al’s
(1989) model, it is relatively safe for low self-esteem persons to accept
negative feedback from themselves because doing so does not put them at risk of
appearing boastful .Alternatively, low self-esteem persons may be particularly
attentive to negative feedback because it implies potential exclusion (Leary et
al., 1995) or they may consider the self a credible source of negative feedback
because they are used to receiving such feedback from themselves.
Harter
(1990), a Development Psychologist at University of Denver, U.S.A studied
children at middle childhood development on self-esteem and competence domain.
The study found that what is central to influencing a child’s level of
development of self-esteem as the domain where the child’s competent is found.
Harter identify competence in domains consider as important to individuals as
the cause of developing higher self-esteem for themselves.
Her
study came out with five (5) types of competent domain as; Scholastic
competence, Athletic competence, Likeability by peers, Physical appearance, and
Behavioural conduct. Harter pointed out that the self-esteem enhancement
programme of the (1970s and 1980s), in which self-esteem itself was a target
and individuals were encourage to simply fill good about themselves, were
ineffective.
In
conclusion, Harter believes intervention must occur in the areas of the causes
of self-esteem if the individual’s self-esteem is to improve significantly.
Finally, the study reveals that individuals develop the highest self-esteem
when they perform competently in domains that are important to them. Therefore,
people should be encourage to identify the value areas of competence so as to
perform competently in those domains to develop desirable self-esteem.
American
Association of University women (1992), conducted some study into gender and
self-esteem, and observed that gender difference in self-esteem emerge by early
adolescence. According to the study, boys and girls enter basic school with
roughly equivalent levels of self-esteem, but by the middle school years,
girls’ self-esteem becomes significantly lower than boys. The finding of this
research study has been confirmed by a similar study results from Gilligan
(1996).
Some
studies also showed that gender has impact on self-esteem, for example,
Butterfield (1999) demonstrated that there were statistically significant
differences in self-esteem by gender on the academic competence scale, peer
popularity scale, and personal security scale. Investigators discussed that
girls have higher scores in some dimensions of self-esteem than boys; in a
study Kumru (2007) revealed that adolescents with high self-esteem and girls
had higher scores in peer attachments and more pro-social friends. Kearney
(1999) emphasized that biological, cognitive, social, and environmental factors
all contribute to influence an adolescent's personal development and
self-esteem. He explains that adolescent girls tend to have lower self-esteem
and more negative assessments of their physical characteristics and
intellectual abilities than boys have.
Age
is one of the main demographic factors that have extensive effect on
self-esteem, over the past century, many of studies have examined the
development of self-esteem, but these studies did not consider the age
difference in self-concept. Marsh (1989) demonstrated that self-concept
decreases from early preadolescence to middle adolescence, then increased through
early adulthood. Sex differences in specific areas of self-concept were
generally consistent with sex stereotypes and relatively stable from
preadolescence to early adulthood. Looking at this it is showed that
self-esteem remains stable or increases by increasing of individual’s age, and
some researcher discuss that self-esteem decreases, and some of the authors
reveal that there is a U-shaped relationship between age and self-esteem.
Marcia
(1966) conducted further studies on Eric Erikson’s theory of psychosocial
stages of personality development and found Erikson’s concept of identity
crisis as being an important factor in a successful psychological resolution of
this stage. Marcia found that those who had reached this (fifth) stage of identity
achievement tended to experience less stress in challenging situations, and
also had higher and less vulnerable self-esteem than those in the identity
diffusion category.
MacDonald,
Saltzman, and Leary (2003) asked participants to evaluate themselves in each of
five domains (i.e., competence, physical attractiveness, wealth and
possessions, sociability, and morals) and to indicate the extent to which each
domain was important for social acceptance and rejection. Results showed that
the more participants thought that a domain was relevant to interpersonal
acceptance or rejection, the more strongly their self-appraisals in that domain
predicted their global self-esteem.
2.3 OTHER RELATED STUDIES ON
FEEDBACK AND ASSESSMENT
Psychologists
have developed three (3) general principles of feedback. The principles are
feedback is essential to learning, continuous feedback is better than
intermittent feedback, and more precise feedback is, the better the learning
will be.
The
first principle relates to the acquisition of complex cognitive skills as well
as physical ones. In effect, people cannot expect to get better at doing things
without being told when they are doing them well or badly.
The
second principle states that continuous feedback is better than intermittent
feedback. Bilodeau and Bilodeau (1958) in their experiment, research
participants of four (4) groups were given a task to perform. One group was
given feedback after every trial, whereas feedback was given to other groups
after varied times of attempts. The study found that research participants
improved with practice, but only after those attempts in which they were told
how well they had done. Participants showed no improvement at all, after the
attempts for which they had been no feedback. This means that the group which
received continuous feedback learned the skill much quickly than those who
received intermittent feedback.
Students
with higher self-esteem are more inclined to take an active part in their
education than a student with lower self-esteem, although other factors also
contribute to lower class participation (Phillips, Smith, Modaff, 2001).
Students who participate in class have a higher success rate than those who do
not (Turner & Patrick, 2004). Students with a positive view of themselves,
along with other factors, have greater motivation to participate more in class
than those who have a negative view of themselves (Phillips, et al., 2001).
Annett
(1989) in studying how strongly the hierarchical model of skill control depends
on the idea of feedback, found that not only feedback is important for initial
learning of skills, but is equally in complex skill learning also.
It
was the thinking on this same wavelength that some psychologists like Abraham
Maslow and Rogers came up with research findings that challenged the
drive-reduction theory of Hull as not the whole story. The finding was
fast-acting feedback loop which reduces the drive activity in organisms in
drive-reduction theory, was focused mostly on the basic primary drives, and not
on more complex social motivation.
Rose
Crowley (2015) conducted a study into the use of peer feedback to enhance
students’ reflective writing. The study sought to examine whether students gain
any additional learning from peer feedback rather than faculty feedback on
reflective writing. Rose Crowley used seventeen London Global University iBSc
students anonymously marked a peer’s reflective writing assignment using the
same mark scheme as faculty markers. Each student completed a questionnaire on
how useful they found the experience of reading another student’s work, how
valuable they found the marks and comments received from their peer and faculty
assessors and their experience of offering verbal feedback in a reflective
group. She found that students were extremely positive about the experience of
peer marking, with many commenting that reading another student’s work made
them re-evaluate their own submission. There was no significant difference
between peer and faculty marks and students highlighted benefits from each type
of feedback. In her study, Students gain both from assessing their fellow
students’ work and from receiving peer feedback. The impact of this programme
on future reflective assignments and the utility and acceptability of written and
verbal peer feedback in other disciplines merit further exploration.
Whiting
(1995), researched into teacher's experience and records, with about 7000
students over a period equivalent to 18 years, of using mastery learning with
his classes. It involved regular testing and feedback to students, with a
requirement that they either achieve a high test score--at least 90%--before
they were allowed to proceed to the next task, or, if the score were lower,
they study the topic further until they could satisfy the mastery criterion.
Whiting et al final test scores and the grade point averages of his students
were consistently high, and higher than those of students in the same course
not taught by him. `Me students' learning styles were changed as a result of the
method of teaching, so that the time taken for successive units was decreased
and the numbers having to retake tests decreased. In addition, tests of their
attitudes towards school and towards learning showed positive changes.
In
Whiting et al. (1995) study is conceded that the success could be due to the
personal excellence of the teacher, although he believes that the approach has
made him a better teacher. In particular he has come to believe that all pupils
can succeed, a belief which he regards as an important part of the approach.
`Me result shows two characteristic and related features--the first being that
the teaching change involves a completely new learning regime for the students,
not just the addition of a few tests, the second being that precisely because
of this, it is not easy to say to what extent the effectiveness depends
specifically upon the quality and communication of the assessment feedback. It
differs from the first example in arising from a particular movement aimed at a
radical change in learning provision, and in that it is based on different
assumptions about the nature of learning.
Research
studies of self- and peer-assessment can be broadly divided into two
categories--those involving experimental work yielding quantitative data on
achievement and those for which the evidence is qualitative. These will now be
discussed in turn. Two quantitative examples have already been described in
some detail in the section on Classroom experience (Fontana and Fernandes,
1994; Frederiksen and White, 1997). Both of these have in common an emphasis on
the need for students to understand the learning goals, to understand the
assessment criteria, and to have the opportunity to reflect on their work. Peer
evaluation played a part only in the Frederiksen and White study.
Two
studies have worked with children who have learning difficulties. In the first
of these (McCurdy and Shapiro, 1992), the oral reading rates of elementary
school students were improved by giving them verbal and visual performance
feedback, either by the teacher only, or through peer-monitoring, or
self-monitoring. The largest gains, measured by comparison of pre- and
post-test scores over the programme's period of nine weeks, were achieved by
the self-monitoring group, whilst all three did better than a control group who
had no formative feedback. Both on the grounds of acceptability to the teachers
involved and on the reliability of their own appraisal of their work, the peer-
and self-monitoring methods were preferred and one benefit of both was that
they reduced the amount of time that the special education teachers had to
spend on measurement in their classrooms. In the second research (Sawyer et
al., 1992) the focus was on the writing composition skills of 4th and 5th grade
students. Here, a group who were taught self-regulated strategies with explicit
attention to goals did better than a similar group without the goal emphasis
and a group without self-monitoring instruction. The first group were better
overall on generalisation of the writing skills taught, but all groups with
feedback did better, after the particular experiment was over, than other
learning disability students without any experience of such feedback.
Hattie
(1999) reported a synthesis of over 500 meta-analyses, involving 450,000 effect
sizes from 180,000 studies, representing approximately 20 to 30 million
students, on various influences on student achievement. This analysis included
more than 100 factors influencing educational achievement and covered various aspects
of those typically identified, such as attributes of schools, homes, students,
teachers, and curricula. The average or typical effect of schooling was 0.40
(SE = 0.05), and this provided a benchmark figure or "standard" from
which to judge the various influences on achievement, such as that of feedback.
At least 12 previous meta-analyses have included specific information on
feedback in classrooms. These meta-analyses included 196 studies and 6,972
effect sizes. The average effect size was 0.79 (twice the average effect). To
place this average of 0.79 into perspective, it fell in the top 5 to 10 highest
influences on achievement in Hattie's (1999) synthesis, along with direct
instruction (0.93), reciprocal teaching (0.86), students' prior cognitive
ability (0.71), and also can be contrasted with other influences such as
acceleration (0.47), socioeconomic influences (0.44), homework (0.41), the use
of calculators (0.24), reducing class size (0.12), and retention back 1 year
(-0.12). Clearly, feedback can be powerful. The effect sizes reported in the
feedback meta-analyses, however, show considerable than others. Those studies
showing the highest effect sizes involved students receiving information
feedback about a task and how to do it more effectively. Lower effect sizes
were related to praise, rewards, and punishment variability, indicating that
some types of feedback are more powerful.
Sharp
(1985) reported that 26% of the adolescent students in his sample preferred to
be praised loudly and publicly when they achieved on an academic task, 64%
preferred to be praised quietly and privately, and only 10% preferred teachers
to say nothing at all. Burnett (2002) and Elwell and Tiberio (1994) reported a
similar percentage among elementary students and found that students preferred
praise for trying hard rather than for having high ability (especially when the
praise was public) and for achievement rather than for behavior.
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
3.0 INTRODUCTION
This
chapter deals with population and sample used for the research, tool used in
collecting data, the design of the research and the procedure used for
collecting and analyzing the data.
3.1
RESEARCH DESIGN
Burns
and Grove (2003:195) define a research design as “a blueprint for conducting a
study with maximum control over factors that may interfere with the validity of
the findings”. Parahoo (1997:142) describes a research design as “a plan that
describes how, when and where data are to be collected and analyzed”. Polit (2001:167)
define a research design as “the researcher’s overall for answering the
research question or testing the research hypothesis”.
The
study design is a quantitative experiment that attempts to measure the effect
of positive and negative feedback on the level of self-esteem among school
pupils. The design was between subjects post-test design. Self-esteem was the
dependent variable. Feedback was the independent variable. The independent
variable had three levels; Positive feedback. Negative feedback, and no
feedback. There was three (3) conditions of treatment. Condition one (1)
received positive feedback, condition two (2) were given negative feedback, and
condition three (3) received no feedback. Condition one (1) and two (2) served
as experimental group. While condition three (3) was made a control group.
3.2 POPULATION
Parahoo
(1997:218) defines population as “the total number of units from which data can
be collected”, such as individuals, artefacts, events or organisations. Burns
and Grove (2003:213) describe population as all the elements that meet the
criteria for inclusion in a study. Participants in this study were pupils in
junior high school at Crystal View International School, Kasoa. The researcher
decided on using pupils in junior high school because the researcher wanted to
examine how feedback impact on pupils’ self-esteem as they will soon transient
through adolescent into adulthood. Crystal View School was chosen because of
the long term relationship the researcher has with the school and also its
proximity. There were four streams each form, JHS (1-3) with a total population
of four hundred and twenty-four (424) pupils in the school.
3.3 SAMPLE
Polit
et al (2001:234) define a sample as “a proportion of a population”. The sample
was junior high school pupils of Crystal View International School in Kasoa. A
carefully selected sample can provide data representative of the population
from which it is drawn.
3.4 SAMPLING METHOD
Burns
and Grove (2003:31), cited by Muktar (2014) refers to sampling as a process of
selecting a group of people, events or behaviour with which to conduct a study.
Systematic
Random sampling was used for selecting the sample. The entire Junior High
School population which comprised of twelve (12) classes of four classes for
each form, was divided by the proposed sample size of 60, and the answer was 5.
Hereafter, the researcher wrote five numbers (1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) on pieces of
papers. This pieces of papers with their bearing numbers were folded, and
tossed about in a bowl, and a pupil was called to come and pick one of the
folded papers. When the pupil opened the folded paper he had picked number 4.
This number 4 was added to 5 to attain 9. This means that 4, 9, 14, 19, 24,
etc. were the numbers that lead the researcher to randomly select the 60
participants from twelve (12) registers of the school for the study. After the
researcher had obtained the 60 participants, the participants were randomly
further assigned to three groups. Experimental group one (1) consisted of 11
boys and 9 girls (20). Experimental group two (2) had 8 boys and 12 girls (20).
The control group was made up of 10 boys and 10 girls (20). Group (1) was given
a positive feedback as treatment, group (2) had negative feedback and group (3)
was given no feedback. The limitation to this method is that sample is bias and
not representative of the entire population. Consequently it goes ahead to
affect generalization of results from findings.
3.5 SAMPLE SIZE
Holloway
and Wheeler (2002:128) assert that sample size does not influence the
importance or quality of the study .In total, sample of 60 participants were
used in this study. The age range of participants was from 11 years to 16 years
– Junior High School (1-3). These sample sizes was chosen because of financial
and resource constraints as well as time constraints.
3.6 DATA SOURCES AND DATA
COLLECTION INSTRUMENT
The
data for this study was gathered from both primary and secondary sources. Data was primarily gathered from the essay
writing exercises and Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (questionnaires) issued. The
researcher accessed secondary data from studies conducted in this area.
The
study data was collected through a self-administered questionnaire issued to
sixty respondents from the school chosen.
. Questionnaires were divided into two sections. The first section
centered on positive statement and negative statements about one’s self. The
second section sought information on gender, age and class of respondents.
There were 10 items on the scale with 5 response categorization, ranging from
strongly agree to strongly disagree. For positive items the corresponding marks
were in ascending order: 1 to 5. For negative items, the marks were in
descending order: -5 to 1. According to (Phellas et al, 2011) self-administered
questionnaires are cheap to administer, allow for greater geographical
coverage, and reduce bias errors caused by the characteristics of the interviewer
and offer greater anonymity to respondents.
3.6.1 Justification for selecting
data collection instrument
v The
questionnaire was designed based on the objectives of the study.
v Questionnaires
offer an objective means of collecting information about people's knowledge,
beliefs, attitudes, and behavior.
v The
questionnaire helps the researcher to able to contact large numbers of people
quickly, easily and efficiently.
v The
great popularity with questionnaires is they provide a “quick fix” for research
methodology.
v The
questions were simple, concise, and clear to avoid ambiguity and
misinterpretation of questions.
3.7 MATERIALS FOR THE STUDY
v Essay
writing exercises were administered.
v There
were four (4) class test for all participants. Answer sheets were provided to
participants for the four class tests.
v Rosenberg
self-esteem inventory scale.
v Pens,
papers, scoring sheets and pencil.
3.8 PROCEDURE
The
experiment was conducted within a time frame of five days, (Monday to Friday).
The first four days were used for conducting daily class test. With the
exception of the first day, positive and negative feedback as treatment was
administered to participants for each day before taken the class test. The
class tests were simple essay writing exercises pupils had already done as
class work in their classes. The last test and treatment to participants was on
Friday. It was the fifth and the last day of the experiment, after which
participants were given self-esteem scale form to fill to evaluate the effect
of treatment on pupils’ self-esteem.
The
school offered three teachers to assist in conducting the study. These teachers
were used as researcher assistants who superintended the administering of the
daily class tests that was used to prepare the appropriate grounds to
facilitate offering of treatment (positive and negative feedback) to
participants.
This
approach avoided participants expectations which could have likely set in the
study, teachers were assigned as research assistants. This enabled the pupils
to display their normal attitudes towards class works. The teachers were not
told about the research questions of the study in order not to confound the
results of the experiment. To prevent demand characteristics, the participants
were not told they were taking part in an experiment. This prevented the
respondent from behaving in any way that would affect the outcome of the
experiment.
To
determine the effect of feedback on self-esteem, the dependent variable;
self-esteem was measured based on scores that pupils obtained from the
self-esteem scale they filled. The independent variable, (feedback) was
manipulated by giving the experimental groups positive and negative feedback.
The control group was not given any feedback. The four day class assignments or
tests were pretext, as the results of the texts were immaterial except that it
prepared the grounds to administer treatment (feedback) to the experimental
groups. Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale was
used to collect data for measuring self-esteem.
3.9 SCORING
The
minimum scoring on the self-esteem scale was 10 marks, while the maximum
scoring was 100 marks. Participants obtained points that correspond to the
choices they make for each statement. These points or marks were add-up to
obtain total individual score. It is the individual scores that represent their
self-esteem.
3.10 DATA ANALYSIS
After
data was collected, examined, coded and analysed using the Statistical Package
for Social Science (SPSS). Data is presented in descriptive statistics using
tables to depict raw data, frequencies and percentages.
CHAPTER FOUR
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
4.0 INTRODUCTION
This
chapter analyses data from the questionnaires .The data is illustrated with
tables through the SPSS. The analysis was done in reference to study
objectives. In all, 60 questionnaires were distributed with a response rate of
100% representing 60 of respondents.
Table 1: Age of Respondents
Age
|
N
|
Percent%
|
11-13
|
31
|
51.7
|
14-16
|
29
|
48.3
|
Total
|
60
|
100
|
From
the table, N indicates number of respondents while % indicates percentage of
respondents who belong to a particular age group. The bulk of the respondents
representing 51.7% indicated that they were below the age 13 and Twenty-nine
respondents (48.3%) indicated that they were between the ages of 14 and 16.
Hence, majority of respondents were between the ages of 11 to 13.
Table 2: Gender of Respondents
Gender
|
N
|
Percent%
|
Male
|
29
|
48.3
|
Female
|
31
|
51.7
|
Total
|
60
|
100
|
Likewise,
the bulk (51.7%) of respondents indicated that they were female (n=31), and 29
respondents (48.3%) indicated that they were male. This implies that majority
of respondents were females.
Table 3: Class of Respondents
Class
|
N
|
Percent%
|
JHS 1
|
21
|
35
|
JHS 2
|
20
|
33.3
|
JHS 3
|
19
|
31.7
|
Total
|
60
|
100
|
From
the table, N indicates number of respondents while % indicates percentage of
respondents who belong to the various class. The majority of the respondents
were JHS 1 with a recorded number of 21 pupils making a percentage of 35%,
twenty (33.3%) of the respondents also said they are in JHS 2 and 31.7% (19) of
the respondents are in JHS 3.
Table 4: Means and Standard
Deviation of Self-esteem based on Feedback
Feedback
|
Mean
|
Standard
Deviation
|
Positive
|
79.70
|
5.868
|
Negative
|
73.80
|
5.690
|
Non
|
77.40
|
7.229
|
Table 5: One-way ANOVA Self-esteem
based on feedback
Sum of
Squares
|
df
|
Mean
Square
|
F
|
Sig.
|
|
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
|
21841.733
610325.200
632166.933
|
2
57
59
|
10920.867
10707.460
|
1.020
|
.367
|
From
the above table, students who received positive feedback (M=79.70, SD= 5.868),
negative feedback (M= 73.80, SD=5.690) and received no feedback (M= 77.40, SD= 7.229) reported self-esteem were not significantly different
from each other, F(2,57)=1.02,
p=.367. This result indicates that
the presentation of feedback and the type of feedback presented has not
significant effect on self-esteem of students. This finding contradicted the
view that feedback plays the role of significantly influencing self-esteem.
Table 6: Means, Standard Deviations
and Independent t Test on Age Difference in Self-esteem
Age
|
N
|
Mean
|
SD
|
df
|
T
|
Sig.
|
11-13
|
31
|
76.0323
|
7.07806
|
58
|
-1.126
|
.664
|
14-16
|
29
|
77.9655
|
6.14400
|
From the table, self-esteem was analysed based
on the ages of the participants: students between the ages of 11 to 13 who had
feedback (M= 76.03, SD=7.078) was not significantly different form students
within the ages of 14 to 16 who had feedback (M= 77.9655) (SD= 6.14400), t(58)=
-1.126, p= .664. Therefore, the first question that “Can age difference be an
influence in building self-esteem in pupils?” was not supported.
Table 7: Means, Standard Deviations
and Independent t Test on Gender Difference in Self-esteem of Negative Feedback
Group
Gender
|
N
|
Mean
|
SD
|
df
|
T
|
Sig.
|
Male
|
8
|
76.6250
|
6.25500
|
18
|
1.940
|
.186
|
Female
|
12
|
71.9167
|
4.62126
|
From
the table above an insignificant sex differences was observed in reported
self-esteem of students who were given negative feedback. Thus female students
who were given negative feedback self-esteem score (M= 71.92, SD= 4.621) was
not significantly different from their male counter parts who were given
negative feedback (M= 76.63, SD= 6.255), t(18) = 1.94, p=.186. Therefore, the
third question that “Can gender be a factor in building self-esteem among
Ghanaian school pupils?” was not supported.
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSIONS
5.0 INTRODUCTION
This
chapter is contains a summary of the whole study, conclusions made from the
findings and some recommendations of the researcher.
5.1 DISCUSSION
The
study assesses the effect of positive and negative feedback on the level of
self-esteem of school pupils. The study achieved this by sampling the views of
60 respondents, representing hundred percent (100%) of 60 respondents who were
issued with self-administered questionnaires.
Looking
at the data analyzed, it is observed that no significant effect was found in
the experimental group and the control group. The mean scores show that there
was no real differences in both groups thus the experimental group (positive
and negative feedback) and control group (No feedback). This suggest that there
was no benefit to self-esteem to those participants who received positive
feedback.
The
results of this study showed that there was not emerged statistically
significant difference between the ages of the students on self-esteem and is
not in line with the findings of Marsh (1989) who observed that self-concept
decreases from early preadolescence to middle adolescence, then increased
through early adulthood.
These
results indicate that the presentation of feedback and the type of feedback
presented has not significant effect on self-esteem of students. This finding
contradicted the study of Phillips et al (2001) which observed that students
with a positive view of themselves, along with other factors, have greater
motivation to participate more in class than those who have a negative view of
themselves.
Another
vehicle considered as essential by Harter (1990) in bringing about developing
high self-esteem in pupils is to apply treatment in areas of five (5)
competence in domains considered as important to individuals. In this study,
essay writing exercise was what was adopted as a means to introduce treatment
to pupils. Even, if it is assumed that all the children’s competence domain
fall in scholastic competence, essay writing alone will not provide competence
that can measure up to a whole domain of scholastic competence. According to
Harter, an effort at developing higher level of self-esteem in pupils will be
fruitless, if such effort is directed through a domain considered as not
importance to pupils. Extension of Harter’s conclusion to this study under
discussion is that, application of treatment to pupils after essay writing
exercise did not work, probably because the pupil’s domain of competence was
not scholastic. The finding of the study, which did not support the current
first two questions (Q1 and Q2) again corroborates the finding of Harter’s
study. This means that teachers should take the areas of interest of pupils so
as to recognize their competence domains and channel the efforts of self-esteem
building through such areas.
The
present study’s findings that gender had no significant influence on
self-esteem contradicts the findings of American Association of University
Women (1992), who observed that females at their middle school years record a
significantly lower self-esteem than their boy’s counterpart at the same
development state. It can be said that it is the physiological system that can
explain gender differences in developing self-esteem.
5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
This
study recommends that more often pupils should be given qualitative feedback,
as this has the power to register a higher improvement in performance in a
relatively short time. Helping to develop self-esteem in children is the
appropriate legacy the elderly should bequeath to the younger generation.
The
study again recommends that the tool of qualitative feedback and competence
domains, which are the two (2) proven approaches to developing higher
self-esteem should be mostly exploited by parents, guardians, teachers and
care-givers in their efforts at building desirable levels of self-esteem in
pupils under their jurisdiction.
The
study recommends that parents, teachers and care givers should not relent in
their efforts at helping pupils to develop high self-esteem. Pupils should not
be discouraged for not able to attain a certain level of performance in any
endeavor.
Since
building of self-esteem is a process and not an event, interventions aimed at
improving self-esteem level in pupils should be periodically evaluated to know
the degree of effect such interventions have registered on self-esteem levels
of a target group.
5.3 SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
The
current research could have been improved in a number of ways. The feedback
method may have affected the results as they have been found to be obtrusive
(Rikketa and Dauenheimer, 2003). In addition, the methodology in measuring
self-esteem with a questionnaire shows quantifiable results rather than
qualitative and can be considered to be too broad an indicator. It has been
found that self-esteem scores can be easily manipulated, self-reporting bias
and individuals can try to make themselves look better that they are. The
population could be extended to more than 60 and the time taken for the tasks
may have been too short to produce any real effect. The short time limit may
have made the nature of the study obvious from the outset. The reversed order
self-esteem measure was easily recognised and this may have affected the
results.
5.4 CONCLUSION
The
main conclusion in the present study assumes that there is no relationship in
the use of positive feedback in relation to self-esteem despite conflicting views
in some studies. Individuals may not have been affected by the use of feedback
and perhaps the nature of the task was not appropriate.
Self-esteem
is a desirable partner for everyone who wants to make appreciable level of
impact in life. It almost permeate though all endeavors of life as a catalyst
for action. People with high self-esteem always explain failures that come
their ways in terms of success that has been turned inside-out. They hardly
give up in most determined noble pursuits in life.
The
fact that high self-esteem is desirable cannot be overemphasized. Rather, how
self-esteem can be nurtured in children is what stake-holders should concern
about. Conducive environmental factors is also necessary for building
self-esteem. To harvest high academic dividends and also promote progressive
life in general for younger generations, all stake-holders should accept to
take building of high self-esteem in children seriously.
In
summary, this study should result in future scholarly research and analyses on
a topic as important as this. From the results of this study and the
implications of these results, it can be concluded that qualitative feedback,
and identifying children areas of competence domain are essential to register a
good measure of impact in self-esteem building exercise.
REFERENCE
Annett,
J. (1989) skill in: A.M. Colman and J.F. Beaumpont (ed.). Psychology survey 87. London; BPS/Routledge.
Baumeister,
R., Campbell, J., Krueger, J. and Vohs, K. (2003) Does Self-esteem cause
better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyle? Psychological Science in the Public
Interest, 4, 1.
Bilodeau,
I.M.D. and Bilodeau, E.A. (1958) Variable frequency of knowledge of results
and the learning of a simple skill. Journal
of Experiment psychology, 55,379-83.
Boehm,
C. (1999) Hierarchy in the forest. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Burns,
N. and Grove, S. K. (2003) Understanding
nursing research. Philadelphia, Pa.: Saunders.
Crocker,
J., and Wolfe, C. T. (2001) Contingencies of self-worth. Psychological Review, 108(3), 593-623.
Deci.
E.L. (1971) Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
18.
Duncan,
N. (2007) Feed-forward‟: improving
students‟ use of tutor comments, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher
Education. 32 (3), 271 -283.
Ekman,
P. and Frieson, W.V. (1969) The
repertoire of non-verbal behavior: Categories, origins, usage and coping.
Semiotica. I, 49-98.
Frederiksen,
J.R. and White, B.J. (1997) Reflective assessment of students' research within
an inquiry-based middle school science curriculum, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the AERA Chicago 1997.
Greenberg,
J. and Pyszczynski, T. (1985) Compensatory self-inflation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 70, 28-40.
Harter,
S. (1990) Self and Identity development. In S.S. Feldman and G.R. Elliott
(ed.) At the threshold: The developing
adolescent. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hattie,
J. and Timperley.H. (2007) The Power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81-112.
Holloway,
I. and Wheeler, S. (2002) Qualitative
Research in Nursing. 2nd edition Oxford: Blackwell
Publishing.
Homans,
G. (1974) Social Behavior: Its
Elementary forms 2nd edition, New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovitch.
Hull,
C.L. (1943) Principles of behavior.
New York; Appleton Century Crofts.
James,
W. (1890) Principles of psychology,
Vol. 1. New York: Holt.
Kearney,
C. A. (1999). Gender differences and self-esteem. The Journal of Gender- Specific Medicine, 2 (3), 46-52.
Kumru,
A., Bayraktar, F., Kindap, Y., Demir, G. O., & Sayil, M. (2007) Self-Esteem and Gender Differences in
Perceived Relational Contexts among Turkish Early Adolescents. SRCD
Biennial Meeting, Boston, Massachusetts, March 29-April 1, 2007.
Leary,
M. R. and Baumeister, R. F. (2000) The nature and function of
self-esteem: Sociometer Theory. In M.
Zanna (ed.), Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology, Vol. 32, pp. 1 – 62. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Leary,
M. R., Cottrell, C. A., and Phillips, M. (2001) Deconfounding the effects of
dominance and social acceptance on self-esteem. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 898 – 909.
Leary,
M. R. and MacDonald, G. (2003) Individual differences in trait self-esteem: A
theoretical integration. In M. Leary and J. Tangney (ed.), Handbook of self and identity, pp. 401
– 418. New York: Guildford Publications.
Marcia,
J.E. (1966) Development and Validation of ego-identity status. Journal of personality and social
psychology, 3, 551-8.
Marsh,
H. W. (1989). Age and sex effects in multiple dimensions of self-concept:
Preadolescence to adulthood. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 81, 417–430.
Maslow,
A.H. (1954) 2nd edition, (1970) Motivation
and personality. New York: Harper of Row.
Mccurdy,
B.L. and Shapiro, E.S. (1992) A
comparison of-teacher-monitoring, peer-monitoring, and Self-monitoring with
curriculum-based measurement in reading among students with learning
disabilities, Journal of Special
Education, 26, pp. 162-180.
McFarlin,
D. B., and Blascovich, J. (1981) Effects of self-esteem and performance
feedback on future affective preferences and cognitive expectations. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 40, 3.
Nicol,
D. and Draper, S. (2008) Redesigning written feedback to students when class
sizes are large. Paper presented at the
Improving University Teachers
Conference, July, Glasgow.
Parahoo,
K. (1997) Nursing research. Basingstoke:
Macmillan.
Phillips,
J., Smith, B., & Modaff, L. (2001). “please
don’t call on me:” self-esteem, communication apprehension, and classroom
participation. Informally published manuscript, Psychology, Murphy, La
crosse, Wisconsin Retrieved from http://murphylibrary.uwlax.edu/digital/jur/2001/phillips-smith-modaff.pdf
Polit,
D. F., Beck, C. T. and Hungler, B. P. (2001) Essentials of nursing research. Philadelphia: Lippincott.
Pyszczynski,
T., Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., Arndt, J., and Schimel, J. (2004) Why do people need self-esteem? A theoretical and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 435-468.
Riketta,
M. and Dauenheimer, D. (2003) Manipulating self-esteem with subliminally
presented words. European Journal of
Social Psychology. 33, 679-699.
Robins,
R.W. and Beer. J.S. (2001) Positive Illusions about the Self: Short-term
Benefits and Long-Term Costs. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 80.2.
Rogers,
C.R. (1961) On becoming a person: a therapist view of psychotherapy.
London: Constable.
Rosenberg,
M. (1965) Society and the adolescent
self-image. Princeton, N.J; Princeton University Press.
Ryan,
R. M., and Deci, E. L. (2000) Self-determination
theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and
well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.
Silk,
J. B., Alberts, S. C., and Altmann, J. (2003) Social bonds of female baboons enhance infant survival. Science, 302, 1231 – 1234.
Taras,
M. (2003) To feedback or not to feedback
in student self-assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 28 (5), 549565.
Walster,
E. (1965) The effect of self-esteem on romantic liking. Journal of experiment social psychology, 1, 184-67.
GROUP 1 (POSITIVE FEEDBACK) GROUP 2 (NEGATIVE FEEDBACK)
SEX
|
AGE
|
FORM
|
SCORE
|
|
1
|
F
|
14
|
2
|
71
|
2
|
F
|
14
|
3
|
80
|
3
|
F
|
13
|
2
|
74
|
4
|
F
|
13
|
2
|
69
|
5
|
M
|
13
|
2
|
71
|
6
|
F
|
14
|
1
|
68
|
7
|
F
|
16
|
3
|
75
|
8
|
F
|
13
|
1
|
62
|
9
|
F
|
13
|
1
|
70
|
10
|
M
|
13
|
1
|
73
|
11
|
F
|
12
|
1
|
74
|
12
|
M
|
13
|
2
|
72
|
13
|
M
|
14
|
3
|
75
|
14
|
F
|
14
|
3
|
70
|
15
|
F
|
12
|
1
|
74
|
16
|
M
|
14
|
3
|
87
|
17
|
F
|
12
|
1
|
76
|
18
|
M
|
14
|
3
|
84
|
19
|
M
|
13
|
2
|
71
|
20
|
M
|
15
|
3
|
80
|
SEX
|
AGE
|
FORM
|
SCORE
|
|
1
|
F
|
13
|
1
|
87
|
2
|
M
|
14
|
2
|
85
|
3
|
F
|
14
|
3
|
79
|
4
|
M
|
13
|
1
|
78
|
5
|
F
|
12
|
1
|
75
|
6
|
F
|
12
|
1
|
88
|
7
|
M
|
14
|
3
|
79
|
8
|
M
|
15
|
2
|
83
|
9
|
F
|
14
|
2
|
81
|
10
|
F
|
13
|
2
|
83
|
11
|
F
|
15
|
3
|
79
|
12
|
F
|
12
|
2
|
83
|
13
|
F
|
14
|
3
|
71
|
14
|
M
|
13
|
2
|
77
|
15
|
M
|
15
|
3
|
83
|
16
|
M
|
14
|
2
|
76
|
17
|
M
|
13
|
1
|
87
|
18
|
M
|
12
|
1
|
63
|
19
|
M
|
14
|
1
|
78
|
20
|
M
|
14
|
3
|
79
|
GROUP 3 (CONTROL GROUP)
SEX
|
AGE
|
FORM
|
SCORE
|
|
1
|
M
|
14
|
3
|
88
|
2
|
M
|
15
|
3
|
83
|
3
|
M
|
14
|
2
|
74
|
4
|
M
|
15
|
3
|
76
|
5
|
F
|
13
|
2
|
74
|
6
|
F
|
14
|
2
|
67
|
7
|
F
|
15
|
3
|
87
|
8
|
F
|
13
|
2
|
79
|
9
|
M
|
14
|
3
|
76
|
10
|
F
|
13
|
1
|
89
|
11
|
M
|
11
|
1
|
76
|
12
|
F
|
12
|
1
|
84
|
13
|
M
|
13
|
1
|
79
|
14
|
M
|
14
|
2
|
65
|
15
|
M
|
13
|
2
|
72
|
16
|
F
|
12
|
1
|
82
|
17
|
F
|
11
|
1
|
63
|
18
|
F
|
12
|
1
|
76
|
19
|
F
|
13
|
2
|
76
|
20
|
M
|
14
|
3
|
82
|
QUESTIONNAIRE
My
name is Kwasi Atuobi-Yiadom, a final year student of the Ghana Institute of
Journalism, studying communication studies (Public Relations option). I am conducting
a study on effect of positive and negative feedback on the level of self-esteem
of school pupils. This is part of my experiment to collect data for this study.
It should take no longer than 10 minutes of your time. Although your response
is of the utmost importance to us, your participation in this experiment is
entirely voluntary. All information will be treated with the utmost
confidentiality.
Please
for each statement, place an “X” to indicate the extent to which you agree with
the statement.
Thank
you for your cooperation.
- On the whole, I am satisfied with myself.
(1) Strongly Disagree (2) Disagree (3) Neutral (4) Agree (5) Strongly Agree
- At times I think I am no good at all.
(5) Strongly Disagree (4) Disagree (3) Neutral (2) Agree (1) Strongly Agree
- I feel that I have a number of good qualities.
(1) Strongly Disagree (2) Disagree (3) Neutral (4) Agree (5) Strongly Agree
- I am able to do things as well as most other people.
(1)
Strongly Disagree (2) Disagree (3) Neutral (4) Agree (5) Strongly Agree
- I feel I do not have much to be proud of.
(5)
Strongly Disagree (4) Disagree (3) Neutral (2) Agree (1) Strongly Agree
- I certainly feel useless at times.
(5)
Strongly Disagree (4) Disagree (3) Neutral (2) Agree (1) Strongly Agree
- I feel that I'm a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others.
(1) Strongly Disagree (2) Disagree (3) Neutral (4) Agree (5) Strongly Agree
- I wish I could have more respect for myself.
(5)
Strongly Disagree (4) Disagree (3) Neutral (2) Agree (1) Strongly Agree
- All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure.
(5)
Strongly Disagree (4) Disagree (3) Neutral (2) Agree (1) Strongly Agree
- I take a positive attitude toward myself.
(1)
Strongly Disagree (2) Disagree (3) Neutral (4) Agree (5) Strongly Agree
DEMOGRAPHICS:
Age:
![](file:///C:\Users\HP\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.png)
![](file:///C:\Users\HP\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image002.png)
Gender:
![](file:///C:\Users\HP\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image003.png)
![](file:///C:\Users\HP\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image004.png)
Class:
![](file:///C:\Users\HP\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.png)
![](file:///C:\Users\HP\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image005.png)
![](file:///C:\Users\HP\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image006.png)