ANdragogy

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 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	58	-1.126	.664

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	18	1.940	.186

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. 2^ndedition Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Homans, G. (1974) Social Behavior: Its Elementary forms 2^nd 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) 2^nd 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.