How Does Output- and Content-Oriented Feedback From Students Affect University Instructors?

• In Event: Channels of Feedback: Examining Sources, Types, and Contingencies

Abstract

Objectives and Theoretical Framework
Students’ course evaluation (SCE) can be an important instrument for enhancing university teaching quality, if teachers use them as resource for reflection and improvement (cf. Roxå et al., 2022). At the same time, while the effects of teachers’ feedback on students’ performance is a well-researched topic (e.g., Panadero & Lipnevich, 2022) there is a lack of studies addressing the impact of students’ feedback on teachers’ emotions and behavior. Further, the necessity to differentiate between the SCE approaches of measuring either students’ self-assessed performance or their assessment of the instructors’ teaching skills has been discussed (e.g., Braun et al., 2008). Our study aims to investigate how university teachers deal with negative feedback from SCE on an emotional, cognitive, and behavioral level and how the type of SCE (process vs. output) influences this processing.
Method and Data Sources
The sample consisted of 107 university teachers (62% female) from different disciplines in German universities. Participants were invited via email to participate in the study in form of an online survey. First, the participants were asked to rate their personal value of students’ feedback. Next, participants were confronted with fictitious student’s feedback and were instructed to put themselves in the teacher's shoes. The participants were randomly assigned to either a condition with output-oriented (n = 54) or process-oriented (n = 53) negative SCE as a between-factor. Within each condition, three different feedback contents were varied as a within-subject factor: 1) students’ interest on the topic; 2) students’ perceived learning success; 3) feedback on group work and discussion during the course (Table 1). After each feedback comment, the participants were asked to report 1) the emotions that will be elicited after such feedback (six basic emotions; Ekmann & Friesen, 1969); 2) attributions (McAuley et al., 1992), and 3) how they would behave in the future as a consequence of the feedback (Authors, 2017). Finally, the participants rated trustworthiness and validity of feedback (Nowakowski & Hannover, 2015).
Results
A two-factor MANCOVA revealed significant multivariate main effects for the between-subject factor “type of feedback”, F(12, 93) = 2.01, p = .032, η2p = .21; as well as for the covariate “personal value of feedback”, F(12, 93) = 3.36, p = .000, η2p = .30; and a significant interaction between “type of feedback” and “content of feedback”, F(24, 81) = 5.06, p = .000, η2p = .60. Results showed, for example (cf. Figure 1), that output-oriented compared to process-oriented feedback regarding group work led to less sadness, and that output-oriented feedback regarding learning success was perceived as particularly non-trustworthy and invalid. Further correlation analyses showed that participants with higher personal value of student’s feedback experienced more surprise and sadness, reported stronger avoidance tendencies, and rated the students’ feedback in the vignettes as more valid, as well (Table 2).
Significance
Summing up, university teachers’ affective and behavioral reactions to negative students’ feedback depends significantly on how valuable students’ feedback is perceived and, on both content, and type of the feedback.

Authors

• Miriam Hansen, Goethe University
  Presenting Author

• Julia Mendzheritskaya, Goethe University
  Non-Presenting Author

• Nicola Maier, Goethe University Frankfurt
  Non-Presenting Author

• Holger Horz, Goethe-Universität Frankfurt
  Non-Presenting Author