Cited by 55Behavioral and Psychological StudiesTeacher Education and Leadership StudiesHuman Resource Development and Performance Evaluation

The Additional Effects of Process and Outcome Feedback Following Brief In‐service Teacher Training

Leach, David J., Conto, Helen·1999·Educational Psychology

Abstract

Three primary school teachers attended a half‐day, in‐service training workshop which targeted instructional and managerial behaviours identified as being functionally related to students’ academic engaged behaviours in class. Following the workshop, daily observations showed only temporary changes in the teachers’ and their students’ behaviours with trends back towards baseline measures. After this period of ‘no feedback’, three conditions of in‐class performance feedback were introduced in different sequences to each teacher: outcome feedback (based on measures of a sample of their students’ academic engaged behaviour during lessons), process feedback (based on measures of the teachers’ own instructional behaviours), and a combination of both outcome and process feedback. A time‐series, multiple baseline across subjects design was employed which allowed comparison of measures of teachers’ and students’ behaviours during the immediate post‐workshop period and during periods of the three types of feedback. The results showed that the introduction of performance feedback had the immediate (and cumulative) effect of increasing the behaviours targeted in the workshop to high rates that were maintained even when feedback was withdrawn. There were, however, no differences in the comparative efficacy of outcome, process or outcome/process combination effects. The study builds upon existing research which has shown performance feedback to be an essential component of effective professional development and staff training packages that target workplace behaviour change. It also adds to the limited research that has examined the efficacy of different types of performance feedback and suggests other variables, such as who presents the feedback, may be important.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/0144341990190405

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Leach, D. J., & Conto, H.
Affiliations
  • Murdoch University (AU)
  • Government of Western Australia (AU)
Corresponding author
Leach, David J.
Venue
Educational Psychology
Published
1999-12
Volume
19
Issue
4
Pages
441-462
ISSN
  • 0144-3410 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-5820
OpenAlex
W2049733002
Cited by
55
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 3
FWCI
2.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Educational Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • Murdoch University Research Portal (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
  • Social Sciences › Education › Teacher Education and Leadership Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Human Resource Development and Performance Evaluation
Keywords
continuing teacher education, performance feedback, outcome feedback, process feedback, teacher professional development, primary school teachers, behavior maintenance

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review