The effects of personal and competitive self-efficacy and differential outcome feedback on subsequent self-efficacy and performance

1989 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-79 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jim Taylor
Keyword(s):  
Self Efficacy ◽  
Differential Outcome ◽  
Outcome Feedback ◽  
And Performance

Errors, Feedback, Learning and Performance

2009 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 30-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dianne Gardner ◽  
Robert Wood
Keyword(s):  
Self Efficacy ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Error Signal ◽  
Error Feedback ◽  
Positive Error ◽  
Outcome Feedback ◽  
Negative Error ◽  
Computer Based ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Learning And Performance

AbstractThe value of feedback about errors when learning a novel computer-based task was explored in two studies. The first study examined the optimal level of information to be provided in feedback about errors. The second study examined whether framing errors positively as opportunities to learn (which encourages error tolerance) or negatively as hindrances to learning (which encourages error avoidance) facilitated learning and performance. Both studies used a computer-based simulation of a management decision-making task. In the first study there were three feedback conditions: outcome feedback alone, outcome feedback plus error signal feedback, and outcome feedback plus corrective feedback. Corrective feedback produced better performance than error signal and outcome feedback but learning did not differ across the three conditions. Corrective feedback also facilitated the use of systematic exploration which was positively associated with performance and learning. Learners' self-efficacy moderated the effects of error feedback: learners with high self-efficacy showed high levels of performance in all conditions but for those with low self-efficacy, detailed corrective feedback was essential for learning. The second study explored the effects of positive vs. negative error framing and corrective vs. signal error feedback in a 2 × 2 design. Positive error framing produced more unsystematic exploration and worse performance than negative error framing. Positive error framing helped those with low self-efficacy but for those with higher self-efficacy it was of more value to frame errors negatively. The implications of the interactions between error framing, error feedback and learner characteristics are discussed along with implications for the study of error management, a positive error framing technique.

Dispositional vs. situational goal: Effects on self-efficacy and performance

2002 ◽  
Author(s):  
Walter D. Davis ◽  
Neal Mero
Keyword(s):  
Self Efficacy ◽  
And Performance

Goal setting, self-efficacy and performance: New research directions

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Remus Ilies ◽  
Nikos Dimotakis ◽  
Edwin A. Locke
Keyword(s):  
Goal Setting ◽  
Self Efficacy ◽  
Research Directions ◽  
And Performance ◽  
New Research

Reciprocal Relationship Between Self-Efficacy and Performance: Two Vocational Experiments

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larae M. Jome ◽  
Richard F. Haase ◽  
Rebecca L. Schuberth
Keyword(s):  
Self Efficacy ◽  
Reciprocal Relationship ◽  
And Performance

USING A MARKETING VR STIMULATION TO ENHANCE STUDENT ENGAGEMENT, SELF-EFFICACY AND PERFORMANCE

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1427-1427
Author(s):  
Billy Sung ◽  
◽  
Min Teah
Keyword(s):  
Student Engagement ◽  
Self Efficacy ◽  
And Performance

Dispositional vs. Situational Goal Orientation: Effects on Self-Efficacy and Performance

2002 ◽  
Author(s):  
Walter D. Davis ◽  
Neal Mero
Keyword(s):  
Goal Orientation ◽  
Self Efficacy ◽  
Orientation Effects ◽  
And Performance

The Impact of Informative Tutoring Feedback and Self-Efficacy on Motivation and Achievement in Concept Learning

2004 ◽  
Vol 51 (3) ◽  
pp. 214-228 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susanne Narciss
Keyword(s):  
Self Efficacy ◽  
Task Engagement ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Task Completion ◽  
Multiple Response ◽  
Self Evaluation ◽  
Outcome Feedback ◽  
Task Motivation ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Motivation And Achievement

Abstract. Informative tutoring feedback (ITF) provides assisted multiple response tries by offering strategically useful information for task completion as opposed to simply offering the solution. Previous studies on ITF focused on its effects on achievement. The present studies examine the assumption that ITF affects not only achievement, but also motivational variables such as task engagement, effort, persistence, and satisfaction with performance. In two experiments, students differing in self efficacy (SE) for identifying concepts worked on concept identification tasks. In cases of incorrect hypothesis about the concept, they received either outcome feedback or ITF. Results reveal that motivation and achievement depend on both SE and type of feedback. Future research should examine in more detail how ITF affects the self-enhancing processes between on-task motivation, achievement, and self-evaluation.

Improving creative self-efficacy and performance through computer-aided design application

2019 ◽  
Vol 31 ◽  
pp. 103-111 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yu-shan Chang ◽  
Mavis Yi-Ching Chen ◽  
Meng-Jung Chuang ◽  
Chia-hui Chou
Keyword(s):  
Self Efficacy ◽  
Computer Aided Design ◽  
Computer Aided ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Creative Self ◽  
Aided Design
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document