Self-Concept Research: Driving International Research Agendas

Why is it So Difficult to Enhance Self-Concept in the Classroom: The Power of Feedback in

the Self-ConceptAchievement Relationship

John Hattie
University of Auckland
New Zealand

One of major conundrums in the self literature relates to the mechanisms of how self-concept relates to
achievement, and thence to addressing the issue as to how teachers can enhance self-concept. We know
much about the relationship but so little about the causal factors that implicate the relationship between
self and achievement. We certainly know that it is notoriously difficult for teachers to enhance self-
concept in their classrooms (Clinton, 1992; Craven, 1996), but less about why this is so. This paper aims
to ask the question about this mechanism, and to propose a way forward in providing directions for
teachers to enhance self-concept in their classrooms.

The Relationship between Self and Achievement
The relationship between self and achievement is now
well known. There have been at least three meta-analysis
of the relationship. In their large meta-analysis, Hansford
and Hattie (1982) found an overall correlation of .20
between self-concept and achievement, which was further
confirmed by more recent meta-analyses by Muller,
Gullung and Bocci (1988), who reported an average of .18,
and Holden, Moncher, & Schinke (1990) who found .13.
Thus about 4% of the variance is in common.
Further, let me unpack my data base of over 500 meta-
analyses relating various aspects to achievement. The
following is based on 41 meta-analyses, 5441 effect-sizes,
about half a million students (n=440,408). The topic of
the meta-analyses cover ability grouping, goal setting,
outdoor education, social skills training, and many other
specific educational interventions and the key question
(typically within these) is the relationship between a
measure of self concept/ self-efficacy/ or self-attribution
to achievement. The achievements include all subjects
(English, Math, Reading, Science, Social Science,
spelling) and the more general outcomes (GPA,
intelligence, vocabulary, language, achievement overall).
Thus, overall from these studies we get the exact same
picture: the variance between self and achievement is
about 4%.
.Of course, self-assessments of ability, self-concept of
English, Math, etc. are higher in their relationship, as
would be expected given most of the scales are dominated
by items relating to self-assessments. And we note that
the typical effect from the two meta-analyses relating self-
assessment to achievement is .77 (Cohen, 1986, Falchikov
& Boud 1989).
When we consider the most dependable measure, the
SDQ (Marsh, 1992) as one example, it is possible to
divide the items in the Academic sub-scales (Verbal,
English, English and Problem Solving) into two groups.
The first relates to self-assessment and includes items
pertaining to difficulty, challenge and being good at the
subject; and the second relates to other attributes such as
pride, internal comparisons, and interest.
The following are the correlations between these
scales and academic achievement, as reported in the SDQ
Manual. Where there are greater number of self-
assessment items then there are higher correlations such
is as evidence in math and verbal. Where there are fewer
numbers of self-assessment then there are lower
correlations as in Academic (with 5 and an average of
,25) and in Problem Solving (with 1 and average of .10).
It is clear that self-assessment is an important part of
self-concept, and in general this is what accounts for the
variance in common between self-concept and
achievement. (Note, this is not claiming that self-
assessment should NOT be a part of self-concept it is an
important part.) It is perhaps, therefore, not surprising
that the relationship between self-efficacy and
achievement is somewhat higher as self-efficacy
explicitly involves a sense of confidence in ones abilities
to accomplish something (which necessitates self-
assessment).
Overall, the variance in common (no matter which
aspect of self-concept) is still small, especially relative to
all other effects that influence achievement. The average
effect from over 500 meta-analyses is .40, and thus self-
concept is about average across all effects which is still
quite remarkable given it is a personalogical variable.
Of course, we can not infer a causal inference from
this correlation, and it may be that greater achievement
influences self-concept. This debate still simmers along,
and there are a few, but not as many as would be
expected, structural models relating to the direction.
Given that the variance is so small (about 4%), it is
perhaps not surprising that the count is still pretty even. It
is worth repeating the conclusion from the early study by
Scheirer and Kraut (1979, p. 145): "The overwhelming
negative evidence reviewed here for a causal connection
between self-concept and academic achievement should
create caution among both educators and theorists who
have heretofore assumed that enhancing a person's
feelings about himself would lead to academic
achievement".
Thus, so far I have argued that the correlation between
self-concept and achievement is primarily through the
variance shared by self-assessment which is critical to
self-concept, self-efficacy, and achievement success.
Maybe it is these attributions we need to be enhancing if
we are to see an enhancement of self-concept.
The record of teachers having success at enhancing
self-concept, self-efficacy, however, is not bountiful. In

1
 Self-Concept Research: Driving International Research Agendas
one of the most important studies on enhancing feedback
regarding self-concept in classrooms, Craven, Marsh, and
Debus (1991) trained 9 teachers to provide internally
focused and attributional feedback to elementary students.
Also the researcher provided similar feedback to a class
of these students. The teacher interventions did not
statistically significantly affect any areas of self-concept,
whereas the researcher intervention did and the effects of
the researcher were 4 times greater than the teacher
effects. The teachers administered the feedback in the
context of ongoing classroom activities, but Craven et al.,
noted that the feedback was delivered on average once per
day, were more teacher than student initiated, and the
feedback may have been diluted as the students were
familiar with the teacher and thus the feedback effect was
less noticed. I would argue that an alternative explanation
was that the teachers were possible not specifying the
feedback directly to the work task, but rather specifying it
more to the student. The feedback included mostly
praise, which we know to ineffective because it is too
much directed to the student self and not the attributions
about the task. This suggests that teachers have
difficulties separating feedback specific to the task,
processes and regulation, from feedback about the self.
Similarly, in her meta-analysis of programs to enhance
self-concept Janet Hattie (1992) reported that compared to
other instructors teachers were least likely to enhance
self-concept.
The Feedback Study
Let me turn, briefly, to the feature that is top of the
scale in my overall meta-analyses relating to achievement
outcomes. The concept of feedback is at the top it is
these most powerful influence on student achievement.
I would like to explore the notion of feedback, as
through this exploration it can be demonstrated how self-
concept is invoked in the achievement cycle, and
particularly how powerful self-concepts about learning
are critical. If teachers could more fully appreciate this
feedback cycle then they would see the value of attending
to self-concept in ways that would enhance, or at least,
unlock the potential for achievement outcomes.
A Model for Feedback
Feedback is information provided by an agent (e.g.,
teacher, peer, book, parent, self/experience) regarding
aspects of ones performance or understanding. A teacher
or parent can provide corrective information, a peer can
provide an alternative strategy, a book can provide
information to clarify ideas, a parent can provide
encouragement and share their high expectations, and the
learner can look up the answer to evaluate the correctness
of the response. Feedback thus is a consequence of
performance.
We can consider a continuum from initially
providing instruction, providing feedback, and then
as more feedback is combined with more correctional
review the feedback can intertwined until the
2
process itself takes on the forms of new instruction,
rather than informing the student solely about
correctness (Kulhavy, 1977, p. 212).
To be effective, feedback needs to be information
about the performance that fills a gap between what
is understood and what is aimed to be understood
(Sadler, 1989), although it is noted that there are
many other instructional events that can also reduce
such gaps (e.g. lectures, explanations, scaffolds,
prompts).
Feedback can lead to increased effort, motivation or
engagement to reduce the discrepancy between
current status and the goal, it can lead to alternative
strategies to understand the material, it can confirm
to the student that they are correct or incorrect, it can
indicate that more information is available or needed,
it can point to directions that the students could
pursue, and it can lead to restructuring
understandings.
Feedback is driven by three major questions asked by the
teacher and/or by the student:
What are the goals or learning intentions? F
(or How do we know when we get there?)
How are we going? F
Where to next? F
These questions can operate at four levels: at the level
of the self, the regulatory or meta-cognitive aspects of
learning, the process level of understanding (deep
learning), and/or at the task level (surface learning). As
will be noted later, feedback has differing effects across
these levels.
Addressing the Three Feedback Questions
Where are we Going/What are the Learning Intentions?
A critical aspect of feedback relates to the goals or
intentions of the task or performance. These intentions
may be the students, and/or the teachers goals, they may
relate to specific attainments or understandings or to
differing qualities of experience or quality, and the goals
typically involve two aspects: challenge and commitment.
Challenging goals relate to feedback in two major ways.
First, goals inform individuals as to what type or
level of performance is to be attained so that they can
direct and evaluate their actions and efforts
accordingly. Feedback allows them to set reasonable
goals and to track their performance in relation to
their goals so that adjustments in effort, direction,
and even strategy can be made as needed (Locke &
Latham, 1990, p. 23).
Second, as a consequence of feedback, it is critical
for students (and/or their teachers) to set further
appropriately challenging goals. When goals have
appropriate challenge and teachers and students are
committed to these goals, then a clearer
understanding of the appropriate success criteria is
 Self-Concept Research: Driving International Research Agendas
likely to be understood and shared. (Too often,
feedback is given unrelated to success criteria of the
learning intentions, e.g., providing feedback on
presentation, spelling, quantity when the success
criteria is about say, creating mood in a story, and
in this case such feedback is not effective in
reducing the gap relating to the intention of creating
mood; Clarke, 2001).
Goals are more effective when the students share a
commitment to attaining them as then they are then more
likely to seek and receive feedback (Locke & Latham,
1990). Too often teachers and parents assume that
students share a commitment to academic goals, whereas
sharing commitment to goals needs to be nurtured and
built (Carroll, Hattie, Houghton, & Durkin, 2001). This is
akin to the claim that we need to appreciate the
importance that a student places on success in schools
or as James phrased it, the students pretensions of
success need to be considered. With the increased
amount of non-engagement in schools this is becoming a
major problem of many Western secondary schools.
The interrelationship of goals and feedback is well
illustrated by the Outward Bound programs to enhance
leadership and self-esteem goals (Clinton, 1992; Hattie,
Marsh, Neill & Richards, 1997). In these programs, a
common feature is the setting of seemingly very difficult
goals (e.g., rappelling, high ropes course), structuring the
environment so that students can attain these goals, and
providing substantial peer, self, environmental, and
teacher feedback. This feedback is directly related to the
challenging goal and there is much learned commitment
to this goal (as it very personal indeed).
How are we Going?
Answering this question involves the teacher (or peer,
task, or self) providing information relative to the task or
performance, often in relation to some expected standard,
to prior performance, and/or to success or failure on a
specific part of the task. Feedback is effective when it
consists of information about progress, and/or about how
to proceed. Students seek information about how they
are going, although they may not always welcome the
answers. Here is where self-assessment is critical.
Where to Next?
Instruction often is sequential with the teachers
providing information, a task, or an expectation, students
attempting tasks, and then there is some subsequent
consequence. Too often the consequence is more
information, more tasks, and more expectations: students
thus learn that the answer to Where to next? is more.
The power of feedback, however, can be used to
specifically address this question by providing
information such as enhanced challenges, more self-
regulation over the learning process, greater fluency and
automaticity, more strategies and processes to work on
the tasks, deeper understanding, and more information
about what is and what is not understood.
3
Students can Reduce the Gaps
There are at least seven possible ways for students to
reduce this gap.
students can increase their effort, particularly when
the effort leads to tackling more challenging tasks or
appreciating higher quality experiences rather than in
just doing more. We are more likely to increase
effort when the goal is clear, when high
commitment is secured for it, and when belief in
eventual success is high (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996,
p.260).
students can abandon the goals and thus eliminate
any gap (Bandura, 1982; Mikulincer, 1988b), and
this often leads to non-engagement in the pursuit of
further goals (Steinberg, 1996).
students can blur the goals, combining them with so
many others that after performing they can pick and
choose those goals they attained and ignore the
others. As Locke and Latham (1994) have
demonstrated, specific goals are more effective,
primarily because they focus attention so that the
feedback is more directed.
students can change the standard by setting less
challenging goals, accepting performance far below
their capabilities as satisfactory. With less
challenging goals there is a greater probability of
attaining them.
student can develop effective error detection skills,
which leads to their own self-feedback aimed at
reaching the goal. Such error detection can be very
powerful provided the student has some modicum of
knowledge and understanding about the task upon
which to strategise and regulate.
students can seek better strategies or be taught to
complete the task, and seventh, students can attain
more information from which they can then problem
solve or use their self-regulatory proficiencies.
Further, although it does not help reduce the gap,
students can reject the feedback as irrelevant or not
informative.
Teachers can Reduce the Gaps
There are also multiple ways the teacher can assist in
reducing the gap:
by providing appropriate challenging and specific
goals,
by clarifying the goals, by enhancing commitment to
the goals,
by changing the standard (i.e. choosing easier goals),
by creating a climate to encourage learning from trial
and error,
by asking for increased effort,
by helping students develop self-regulation and error
detection skills,
by narrowing the range of reasonable hypotheses
(sometimes by providing the correct answer and thus
 Self-Concept Research: Driving International Research Agendas
allowing students to concentrate on learning the
processes and strategies (Sweller, 1990),
by providing feedback in terms of more surface
information from which to build deeper
understandings, and/or
by providing feedback about the self-regulatory
aspects of learning, particularly when this
information is tied closely to the task (Hattie, Biggs,
& Purdie, 1996).
So far the claim is that there are three major feedback
questions, and self is invoked when answering all
questions: a commitment to the challenge of the goals of
learning, self-assessment about progress in learning, and
confidence and efficacy to pursue further learning.
The Focus of Feedback: The Four Levels
My claim is that there are four levels of feedback.
Feedback about the self, which is too often unrelated
to the students performance on the task (e.g., You
are a great student).
Feedback to the student can be focused at the self-
regulation level, whereby the feedback can be
translated into increased effort (usually termed
reinforcement), greater skill in self-evaluation, or
confidence to engage further on the task. Such
feedback can have major influences on self-efficacy,
self-regulatory proficiencies and self-beliefs about
the student as a learner, such that the student is
encouraged or informed how to better and more
effortlessly continue on the task.
Feedback can be aimed at the manner in which the
task is performed. This kind of feedback is more
directly aimed at the strategic levels of
understanding, the processing of information, or
learning processes required to process the
information.
Feedback can be about the task, usually in terms of
directions to acquire more, different, or correct
information.
I wish to argue that feedback is least effective at the first
level (FS), powerful at the second and third level (FR and
FP) in terms of deep processing and mastery of tasks, and
only powerful at the fourth level (FT) when the task
information subsequently is useful for improving strategy
processing, or enhancing self-regulation (which it too
rarely does). The type of feedback can also vary at the four
levels (e.g., feedback in automatic/fluent tasks can be
different in type and effectiveness than feedback at the
surface task, etc.)
Feedback about the Self (FS)
Feedback aimed at the self that is not converted into
more engagement, commitment to the learning intentions,
enhanced self-efficacy, or understanding about the task is
particularly ineffective. FS can only have an impact on
achievement if it leads to changes to the regulation that
4
students have relating to the learning (e.g., greater effort,
engagement, or efficacy), or to the strategies they use
when attempting to understand.
The effects at the self level are too diluted, too often
uninformative about performing the task, and too much
influenced by students self-concept (particularly social
self-concept). Feedback at the self level is often aimed at
informing students that they are OK people (or
otherwise) and such praise (or shame), unless tied to
investing more effort, more attention, or more confidence
into the task being undertaken is of limited value. As
Brophy (1981) noted, when teachers praise students they
tend not to focus on the degree of success achieved but
rather they express positive affect about the student. Such
information has too little value for learning gains. Further,
both praise and criticism convey attributional information
to the students about what the teacher thinks of their effort
and ability (Pintrich & Blumenfeld, 1985).
Praise addressed at the student is unlikely to be
effective and can have an negative effect as it has little
information power to provide answers to any of the three
questions. This is not claiming that students do not like to
be praised; they do. 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,
while 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.
Praise delivered publicly by a teacher can be perceived as
punishing by some students if delivered in the presence of
a peer group that does not esteem school achievement as
valuable (Brophy, 1981; Carroll, Houghton, Durkin &
Hattie, 2001; Carroll, Durkin, Hattie & Houghton, 1997;
White & Jones, 2000).
Various meta-analyses have shown that praise is not
effective. Wilkinson (1981) completed a meta-analysis on
teacher praise and concluded that it has little, if any,
relationship to student achievement (overall effect = .12).
Kluger and DeNisi (1998) also reported a similar low
effect-size for praise (.09), and found that no praise has a
greater impact on achievement (.34).
It is important, however, to distinguish between praise
that directs attention away from the task to the self (as
such praise has low information value to achievement and
learning), and praise directed to the effort, the self-
regulation, the engagement, or the processes relating to
task/performance (e.g., Youre really great because you
have diligently completed this task by applying this
concept). This latter feedback can assist in enhancing
self-efficacy and thus can be converted by the student back
into the task, and thence the effects are much greater. It
seems likely, from reading these meta-analysis, that
reviewers are not distinguishing between praise as a
reinforcer/reward (where it has limited to zero effect on
achievement), and praise accompanied by information
about the processes or performance (which has more, but
still limited effect). The closer praise gets to
encouragement the greater the effect on engagement in
 Self-Concept Research: Driving International Research Agendas
learning.
Meyer et al. (1979, 1982) conducted a series of studies
on the effects of teacher praise and criticism on students
self-evaluation of ability. They claimed that teacher praise
and criticism primarily reflected the amount of effort
students spent on the task. They demonstrated that older
students perceived praise after success or neutral feedback
after failure, as an indication that the teacher perceived
their ability to be low. When given criticism after failure
and neutral feedback after success, they perceived that the
teacher had estimated their ability to be high and their
effort low. Younger students, however, perceived praise
after success as an indication of high ability and criticism
after failure as a sign of low ability. Thus, praise may have
negative consequences on students self evaluation of
ability.
Students use reputational lenses to seek or evaluate the
feedback information, particularly when interpreting
feedback aimed at the self level (e.g., I want to be seen as
a good student, I do not want to be seen as a good
student). Students do a lot of in the head comparisons
(Allison, 1991) and it is likely that such comparisons are
selected, interpreted, and/or biased: the strengths and
positive attributes and performances are seen as unique
and self-created and the weakness and negative
performances as common in others and possibly caused by
others (Campbell, 1986; Goethals, 1986; Suls & Wan,
1987; Klein, 2001). Such reputations and biases, unless
they lead to more investment in the task, or to the use of
better strategies to accomplish the task, are of low
effectiveness (Carroll et al., 2001).
These self-strategies are rarely tied to specific tasks as
they tend to be more generalised at the self-level, and thus
they can be difficult for teachers to change (Craven, 1997;
Hattie, 1992), although they help explain why feedback
directed at the self level is dissipated and ineffective to
increase engagement or understanding. Typically, these
are strategies that can have a negative effect on learning
(Hattie & Marsh, 1995), and can include:
Self-handicapping which occurs when a student uses
a handicap (tiredness, non-interest) as an explanation
for rejecting feedback. Self-handicapping occurs
when students have high uncertainty about their
competencies, when there is high salience of an
evaluative task, when given in public rather than in
private, when there is an abnormal investment in the
question of self-worth, or when the students believe
that the handicap will be viewed by others as a
legitimate reason for potential failure.
Learned hopelessness refers to the expectation that
highly desirable outcomes will not occur or that
highly aversive outcomes will occur (a negative
outcome expectancy) and that one is helpless to
change this situation (a helplessness expectancy)
(Au, Watkins, & Hattie, in review). Students become
more passive, will pursue a task regardless of
feedback information, tend not become interested in
the task, and typically exhibit no self-regulation
control over the task. Such hopelessness usually
follows from extremely and repeated negative
feedback information (Abramson, Seligman, &
5
Teasdale, 1978; Au et al., 2001; Mikulincer, 1988a,
1988b, 1989b, 1989c, 1990). Kamins and Dweck
(1999) have shown that when feedback is focused on
the process (FP) rather than the person (FS) (whether
it is criticism or praise), then students subsequently
display much fewer hopeless/helpless responses.
Note, when negative feedback is provided, it is
typically accepted only if the student can accept
responsibility for the substandard performance and,
at the same time, knows how to use this feedback
(Ilgen & Davis, 2000).
Discounting occurs when feedback is dismissed as
not valuable, accurate, or worthwhile for the
individual. This typically occurs when the students
goal is unrelated to performance on the task to which
the feedback is directed.
Adopting less challenging goals can be a
consequence of (particularly corrective) feedback
without attending to how this information is
processed, as this leads to a lower need for feedback,
and thus a cycle of lower achievement.
Social comparison occurs when students monitor
other peers behaviour for feedback cues and
attributions to explain/enhance their conceptions of
self. They seek and interpret feedback so as to
compare themselves with others, and such social
comparison sets standards or frames of reference
often unrelated to the goals for the task. Further, if
the student believes they are reasonably safe from
experiencing another students negative fate, then
comparisons can enhance self-evaluations, whereas if
they believe themselves at high risk of experiencing a
similarly unpleasant fate, the comparison will deflate
their self-perceptions. A particularly invidious form
of social comparison is when students (usually
tacitly) confirm negative cultural stereotypes
whereby students absorb negative societal feedback
about their groups intellectual ability and
competence. Such feedback usually sets lower goals
(e.g., As an African American/ from lower socio-
economic status etc., I am not expected to perform so
well on these types of tests) (Steele, 1998; Steele &
Aronson, 2000). Such negative stereotypes can have
the further effect of pressuring these students to
protectively misidentify with achievement in school
or reduce the investment in the task (such as
spending more time answering fewer test items), and
can undermine motivation, effort, and self-efficacy.
Given these self-interpretative lenses, then a major
issue is that a teacher may be providing a remarkable
amount of feedback but the student may not be receptive
it. These lenses also illustrate why feedback at the self
level is of low effectiveness as such feedback provides no
further knowledge or understanding about the task, no
information that converts into better or different strategies
for learning, and is rarely translated into enhanced effort,
confidence or engagement in the task.
The remaining three levels are the most powerful in the
causal relation to achievement, but they do not invoke the
higher-order self-concepts as much although they very
much involve specific dimensions of self.
 Self-Concept Research: Driving International Research Agendas

Feedback about Self-Regulation (FR) monitoring of performance, self-evaluation of

performance, and self-correction of mistakes.
Self-regulation involves an interplay between Self-management refers to the monitoring and
commitment, control and confidence. It addresses the way regulating of the students ongoing behaviour
students monitor, direct, and regulate actions towards the through planning, correcting mistakes, and using fix-
learning intentions. It implies autonomy, self-control, self- up strategies.
direction and self-discipline. Such regulation involves
self-generated thoughts, feelings, and actions that are Students invoke various transaction costs when seeking
planned and cyclically adapted to the attainment of and/or interpreting feedback at the self-regulatory level:
personal goals (Zimmerman, 2000, p. 14), and can lead
to seeking, accepting, and accommodating feedback effort costs (the effort necessary for feedback
information. Feedback at the level of self-regulation also search),
includes information that enhances the commitment to face costs (the evaluative effects of others on the
attaining the task usually by attributing success to effort individual for seeking), and
and ability than to luck or easiness (Brown & Weiner,
inference costs (the implications of inferential errors
1984); that leads to further mastery or further performance
resulting from inaccurately interpreting feedback).
(Dweck, 1986; Nichols, 1975, 1976); that specifies the
goal(s) such that further feedback can be related to the
goal(s); and that untangles the multiplicity of goals that The degree of confidence that the student has in the
often relate to performance and task success (Kluger & response can affect receptivity to and seeking of feedback.
DeNisi, 1996). If confidence or response certainty is high and the
response turns out to be a correct one, then little attention
is paid to the feedback. Feedback has its greatest effect
There are at least nine major aspects at this level that
when a learner expects a response to be correct and it
mediate the effectiveness of feedback:
turns out to be wrong. An aim, therefore, could be to help
the learner keep response certainty high, and this is where
the capability to create internal feedback and self-efficacy is invoked.
cognitive routines, self-assessment, Feedback is effective to the degree it directs
the students willingness to invest effort into seeking information to enhanced self-efficacy, and to more
and dealing with the feedback information, effective self-regulation such that attention is directed
the degree of confidence or certainty that the back to the task and causes students to invest more effort
response (the work or the provided answer) can or commitment to the task. Thus, feedback directing
affect the receptivity to and seeking of feedback, attention to the self-regulation or motivational level or to
whether the feedback is earned or not, the learning process of the task is more likely to improve
the students attributions for success or failure, and performance.
the students proficiency at help-seeking.
whether the student has mastered the self-regulatory Feedback about the Task Processing (FP)
skill which is of interest or whether they are in the
process of acquiring it Feedback concerning self-regulation proficiencies of
whether the student has mastered the self-regulatory
the student is related to more generalised student
skill and is using it, or whether they have mastered
proficiencies, whereas feedback about the processing (FP)
the self-regulatory skill but are not using, is more specific to the processes underlying the tasks. It is
whether the feedback is about the student's suggested that if the students conception or engagement
performance on the task or feedback is about howin learning relates to deep learning then feedback about
well the student is self-monitoring, self-evaluating or
strategies is most likely to be sought and received,
otherwise self-regulating, whereas if the students conception or engagement in
whether the task in hand (and the metacognitive learning relates more to surface learning then detailed task
skills required for its completion) are ones which
feedback can be more advantageous.
(when completed) will generate their own feedback A major type of FP relates to the students strategies
or whether the feedback will need to be supplied by
for error detection (it also could be included in FR when it
another person. involves more generalised error detection strategies).
Information about the task processes acts as a cueing
Effective learners develop cognitive routines for mechanism, which brings to the learners attention the
creating internal feedback while they are engaged in relationship between a cue, such as the presence and use of
academic tasks. an advance organizer, and the probability of successful
performance (p. 262).
Self-assessment is a self-regulation proficiency that
is powerful in selecting and interpreting information Feedback about the Task (FT).
that provides feedback to students.
Self-appraisal relates to students facility to either This level includes feedback about distinguishing
review and evaluate their abilities, knowledge states, correct from incorrect answers, acquiring more or different
and cognitive strategies and can include self- information, and building more surface knowledge. This
6
 Self-Concept Research: Driving International Research Agendas
type of feedback is most common, is often termed
corrective feedback or knowledge of results, and can relate
to correctness, neatness, or on task behaviour. About 90%
of teacher questions (either written but typically verbal) in
classrooms are aimed at this information level (Airasian,
1997).
Winne and Butler (1995) argued that the benefits of FT
feedback depend heavily on learners
being attentive to the varying importance of the
feedback information during study,
having accurate memories of those features when
outcome feedback is provided at the tasks
conclusions, and
being sufficiently strategic to generate effective
internal feedback about predictive validities (e.g.,
"Which factors boost my performance?).
It is likely that feedback at this task level is most
beneficial when it helps the student reject erroneous
hypotheses and provides cues as to directions for
searching and strategising. Such cues can sensitise the
student to the competence or strategy information in a task
or situation (Harackiewicz, 1979; Harackiewicz,
Mabderlink, & Sansone, 1984).
Comments on the Power at Each Level from Meta-
Analyses
The most systematic study addressing the effects of
various types of feedback was published by Kluger and
DeNisi (1996). Their meta-analysis included studies of
feedback interventions that were not confounded with
other manipulations, included at least a control group,
measured performance, and included at least 10
participants (it is noted that this meta-analysis included
many non-classroom studies). From the 131 studies they
estimated 470 effect-sizes, based on 12,652 participants
and 23,663 observations (reflecting multiple observations
per participant). The average effect-size was .38 (se = .09),
and 32% of the effects were negative (Table 5).
Over all comparisons, it appears that corrective
feedback (providing the correct responses) is more
powerful than learning about the presence or otherwise of
incorrect responses; when it builds on previous trials by
the student on the task, when the task complexity is low or
when the specificity of the goals are clear, when there are
difficult rather than easy goals, when there is little threat to
the person at the self level, and in the absence of praise (at
the FS level). The frequency of feedback is not a major
discriminator, rather it is the direction of the feedback
relative to the task, processes and regulation rather than at
the self level. Praise is less powerful than no praise, which
is expected as praise is rarely addressing the three
feedback questions.
At the self level, it has already been noted that no
praise is more effective than praise. Further, there is
much evidence to suggest that negative feedback or
disconfirmation can be more potent than positive
feedback or confirmation at this self level (Brockner,
7
1979Campbell & Fairey, 1985; Janoff-Bulman &
Brickman, 1981; Kinch, 1963, 1968; Okun & Sasfy,
1977; Shrauger & Sorman, 1977). Swann (1985) and
Swann and Hill (1982) found that individuals will go to
great lengths to confirm their self-perceptions by
attending most closely to feedback information that fits
their view of the self and by trying to arrange their
environment so as to acquire further self-confirming
evidence. Individuals also tend to reject or ignore those
accounts of their behaviour that differ from their own
(see also Greenwald, 1980 Markus, 1977; Tesser &
Campbell, 1983). Marsh (1987, 1990) have also
demonstrated that individuals can also invoke an external
frame of reference effect, such that when FS information
is provided students compare themselves to their peers
and invariably this leads to a reduced sense of
competence.
At the self-regulation level, the commitment to goals is
a major mediator of the effectiveness of positive and
negative feedback. 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 the goal we are more likely to learn as
a function of positive feedback, but 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), although it is likely that this leads to future
task avoidance behaviour.
In circumstances where students are committed to the
goals, then feedback can trigger an internal comparison
process, which determines how individuals react to
feedback. Upon receiving negative feedback, individuals
become more dissatisfied with their previous performance
level, set higher performance goals for their future
performance, and perform at a higher level than those who
receive positive feedback or no feedback at all (Podsakoff
& Farh, 1989, p. 62). Positive feedback, however, can
enhance both free-choice behaviour (i.e., when students
could return to or persist in the activity) and self-reported
interest in the activity (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999).
There is also an interaction effect at this FR level
between positive and negative feedback and the self-
efficacy of the students. For high self-efficacious students,
feedback about initial success may signify a talent or
potential ability and they can cope better with
disconfirmation feedback as they can relate to positive and
negative verifications of themselves as learners. As a
consequence of disconfirmation feedback, high self-
efficacious people make more optimistic predictions about
their performance after initial failure than after initial
success, they seek specifically unfavourable feedback so
as to excel at the tasks. For the low self-efficacious
students positive feedback about initial success may
confirm that they had a deficiency that needed to be
remedied. This may lead to further engagement to remedy
this deficiency in order to reach a passable level of
performance, which would afford protection against
failure. Further, these students tend to avoid tasks and
feedback following initial success as such success signifies
 Self-Concept Research: Driving International Research Agendas
that they have already reached an adequate level of
performance, and further tests merely run the risk of
disconfirming the (sometimes hard gained) favourable
outcome. This can lead to rejection of success, not because
they prefer failure but because success is disconfirming,
may require alterations to expectations, or maybe be
threatening because they may lack confidence that they
can repeat that success (Swann, Pelham, & Chidester,
1988).
Disconfirmation has greatest negative impact on
subsequent motivation and performance particularly on
low self-efficacious students (Brockner, Derr, & Laing,
1987; Moreland & Sweeney, 1984; Shrauger &
Rosenberg, 1977). Kernis, Brockner and Frankel (1989)
argued that low self-efficacious persons are more likely to
react to negative feedback by experiencing negative affect,
exhibiting less motivation on a subsequent task, and
attributing the feedback less to effort and more to ability.
Similarly, Hau and Solili (1996) found that ability
feedback (Youre good at this) had a stronger
motivational effect on students learning than that focusing
on effort (Youve been working hard), and combining
the two had even stronger effects.
At the task level, it has already been noted how
powerful corrective feedback is for enhancing learning
particularly when learning new skills/tasks.
Disconfirmation with corrective information can be
effective but disconfirmation without information is of
little use as it directs attention away from the task back to
the self and thus provides no information regarding what
to do or how to respond next time (Breakwell, 1983;
Weiner, 1974a, 1974b, 1977). It is acknowledged that FT
can be ignored by students if it is poorly presented or if the
students knowledge is insufficient to accommodate
additional feedback information. Howie, Sy, Ford and
Vicente (2000) found it was the poor presentation (or lack
of information value in the feedback) rather than the
students faulty knowledge that was more often the
powerful explanation as to the low power of some
feedback information.
Feedback and Classrooms
A major theme in this review is that feedback is not
everything, as there are many other influences in the
classroom, such as the quality of the material to be learned,
the teacher choices of instructional methods and strategies,
the socio-cultural backgrounds of the students, the number
of learning opportunities, the quality of the instruction
being provided, and the prior achievement levels and
experiences of the students. The major influences of
feedback augment these factors, but it should be clear that
the teacher is paramount in the determination of the type,
presence and power of feedback.
There are, as noted above, many types of feedback, but
the more important consideration is the level which this
feedback is addressing (e.g., self, regulation, process, or
task). Gipps (1994) has divided feedback into descriptive
and evaluative feedback, whereas these terms can be more
profitably applied to each of levels of feedback
(McCallum, Hargreaves & Gipps, 2000; Tunstall &
Gipps, 1996). Feedback can be descriptive (related to the
8
task, processes or regulation) and evaluative (judgements
of worth about these tasks, processes or regulation). There
are four major types of feedback, one at each level.
Types of Feedback
Level Descriptive Evaluative
Task Correct/Incorrect Encouragement
Task feedback makes specific reference to the
students actual achievement, and can involve
telling students that they are right or wrong,
describing why an answer is correct, telling
students what they have or have not achieved.
Process Strategies Elaborations
Error detection
Process feedback is more concerned with helping
students acquire the processes to work towards
the desired outcome, performance, or task (and
error detection) and/or is concerned with
specifying or employing a better way of doing
something
Regulation Monitoring Confidence
Control Confirmation
Engagement Disconfirmation
Regulation/executive feedback directly leads to
self-regulation needed to acquire deeper
understanding and often involves control or
monitoring feedback which is instruction or
coercion to stay on task
Self Praise
Self feedback typically involves reward or
punishment, or expressing approval or
disapproval of the student
Reward/Punishment
(Incidental = Unrelated to task)
Incidental feedback is information not directly
related to the task, processes or regulation (such
as information about neatness, setting out work,
and presentation to the degree these are not
central to the learning intentions).
The claim is that feedback needs to be focused at one
of the three levels (task, process, regulation) to be most
effective. Too often feedback appears aimless and thus is
not effective.
The claim is that when teachers provide feedback
relevant to one or more of the three questions, at the
appropriate level(s) then the student can be taught to/
encourage to/ self motivate to invoke appropriate self-
strategies to lead to further learning. This is the role of the
self in the self-achievement nexus.
The feedback needs to be directed more specifically to
the domain of study (task, process, or regulation) relating
to one of the three feedback questions, and less to the
 Self-Concept Research: Driving International Research Agendas

students sense of self. A major purpose of self-esteem is measures of self-concept of achievement domains to
to act as a sociometer, to monitor the classroom include items relating to these issues, for example:
environment for cues indicating feedback about self and
events that lower self-esteem (such as dislike, exclusion, Dimensions of Mathematics Self-Concept
ostracision, rejection) do so because they indicate low or
declining acceptance (Leary & Baumeister, 2000, Leary, Challenge
Cottrell, & Phillips, 2001). Given that students come to I find many mathematical problems interesting
the task with these selection and interpretation biases (i.e., I find many mathematical problems challenging
their beliefs about themselves and their efficacies) then
I like the difficulty involved when I study
teachers have a major role to promote self-confidence in
mathematics
mastering the tasks and processes, and building self-
Engagement
regulation such that students can then further engage and
seek help relating to the three feedback questions. Then, I have hesitated to take courses that involve
also, there can be increases in self-concept and self- mathematics.
efficacy, as the cycle is very tied together at these levels. I have never been very excited about
If feedback is so powerful then the climate of the mathematics.
classroom is critical, particularly if disconfirmation and I would like to take further courses in
corrective feedback is to be welcomed and used by the mathematics
students. This would involve developing a climate Assessment of abilities
whereby erroneous hypotheses are sought and welcomed, I am quite good at mathematics.
where error is part of learning, and where peers are I have trouble understanding anything that is
permissive of feedback about errors. Such a climate based upon mathematics.
involves building trust, valuing confidence, and learning I have always done well in mathematics classes.
from each other. Errors and disconfirmation are most Self-efficacy
powerful in climates where they are encouraged and seen I have much confidence in my ability to study
as leading to future learning, particularly relating to mathematics
processing and regulation. Certainly, student engagement I have no troubles in deciding to enrol in
in learning is constrained by the evaluative dimensions of mathematics courses
classroom lessons because there is risk involved in Task vs. Performance
responding publicly and failing. The level of risk is I am more concerned with understanding
determined by the likelihood that a student can supply an mathematics than just completing the
answer and by the accountability climate set up by the assignments
teacher and other students (Alton-Lee & Nuthall, 1990, I enjoy it when I have finished a problem in
1998; Doyle, 1983). Too often, students only respond mathematics (R)
when they are fairly sure that they can respond correctly Goal Setting
(which often indicates they have already learned the
I set myself goals to achieve in mathematics
answer to the question being asked (hence they are rarely
I just complete the tasks I have to do in
learning opportunities for the students responding).
mathematics and then wait for the teacher to tell
what to do next (R)
Conclusions
Pride/Shame
Mathematics makes me feel inadequate.
The relationship between self-concept and
At school, my friends always came to me for
achievement overall is low and the major implication is
help in mathematics.
this is that teachers can not assume to be concerned with
the students self-concept merely by being concerned with Earned
enhancing achievement, and vice versa. The success, I believe I have earned my grades in mathematics
however, of teachers introducing self-concept programs Level of understanding
has not been noted. The claim in this paper is that I have much to gain personally/for myself from
teachers need to understand the mechanisms by which studying mathematics
students conceptions of self are invoked in the learning I think mathematics involves more than just facts
cycle. By a study of the power of feedback, it highlights about numbers
the importance (and complexity, not surprisingly) of Self-appraisal
attending to focused issues of self, particularly the self- I like to evaluate how well I am going in
strategies that students use in their learning, approach to mathematics
learning, and reaction to success or otherwise. I know I have many strategies I can use to solve
The major source of variance relating to achievement mathematics problems
from most current self-concept scales between self and I can monitor my own performance in
achievement relates to self-assessment and while this is mathematics
not sufficient to encapture self-concept in learning, it Self-management
points to the power of self-efficacy, self-regulation, and I can correct my mistakes when doing
involvement in self goal setting, self-appraisal and self- mathematics
management. It would be most valuable to expand our
9
 Self-Concept Research: Driving International Research Agendas

I can plan what to do when I begin a mathematics (Martin, 1988). From a self-worth motivation perspective,
problem these factors jointly contribute to an emphasis on ones
ability to perform which renders ones self-worth
The major reason why teachers are not as successful at vulnerable in competitive achievement scenarios in which
changing self-concept is that self is part of the mediation there exists the possibility of failure. Self-handicappers
of learning and needs to be attended to at this level, rather tend to place obstacles in their path to success are also are
than as a moderator it is not correct to provide different inclined to follow this through with low persistence, low
programs etc. depending on prior levels of self-concept, self-regulation, and diminished performance. We need
but to self-strategies of learning. As Craven et al. (1991) more such studies teasing out the causal mechanisms of
clearly distinguished we need to concentrate on how self-learning strategies lead to changes in task
programs that directly not indirectly enhance self-concept. engagement, task attributional, reaction and seeking of
We need to remove the notion that enhancing achievement feedback. We need less studies that set up structural
somehow is a mediating factor in enhancing self-concept models to ascertain the covariance between self and
(and vice versa) and instead attend directly to the ways in achievement, and need to get more into the learning
which teachers can enhance both probably separately. dimensions of achievement, the strategy dimensions of
Schools have missions to provide enhancement of learning self, and understand the very fluid and dynamic relation
both about achievement and about self attributes. between self and achievement.
Concentrating on only achievement does not necessarily
attend, either directly or indirectly, to self. The power is to References
provide feedback about the task, processes, or regulation
of the students performance as this increases the self- Abramson, L.Y., Seligman, M.E.P., & Teasdale, J. (1978).
concepts about performance and task attributes. Feedback Learned helplessness in humans: Critique and
directed more to the more generalised aspects of the self or reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87,
to aspects of the self unrelated to performance on the task 49-74.
is not powerful, indeed may be counter productive. Airasian, P.W. (1997). Classroom assessment. (3rd ed.).
Teachers have the opportunities to change self-concept New York: McGraw-Hill.
via the feedback mechanisms, and a more full Alton-Lee, A., & Nuthall, G. (1998). Inclusive
understanding of feedback will help invoke a greater instructional design: Theoretical principles emerging
attention to the self-attributes of the learning. Teachers are from the Understanding Learning and Teaching
already impacted on self in the learning cycle, and the Project. Report to the Ministry of Education.
most important consequence of this review is that we need (Understanding Learning and Teaching Project 3.)
to highlight how teachers are so impacting on self-concept Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education,
every day, in every lesson. And they have the power to Research Division.
positively enhance self-concept as a consequence of a Au, R., Watkins, D., & Hattie, J.A. (in review).
more deliberate teaching act. Reformulating the Depression Model of Learned
Most important, we need to re-orient our literature to Hopelessness for Academic Outcomes. Manuscript
seeking such causal mechanisms and start talking about submitted for review.
learning self-concept, or self-concept of learning, and ask Bandura, A. (1982). Self efficacy mechanism in human
further questions about how self-concept influences agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147.
learning (not achievement). An excellent example of such Breakwell, G.M. (1983). Formulations and searchers. In
research is the Martin and Marsh (2001) study of the G.M. Breakwell (Ed.), Threatened identities (pp. 3-
effects of modifying two self-protective strategies, self- 26). Chichester, England: Wiley.
handicapping and defensive pessimism (comprising Brockner, J. (1979). The effects of self-esteem, success-
defensive expectations and reflectivity), on achievement. failure, and self-consciousness on task performance.
This study demonstrated how uncertain personal control Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37,
positively predicts defensive expectations and reflectivity; 1732-1741.
and an external attributional orientation positively predicts Brockner, J., Derr, W.R., & Laing, W.N. (1987). Self-
self-handicapping and defensive expectations. esteem and reactions to negative feedback: Towards
The study also showed how task-oriented individuals greater generalizability. Journal of Research in
have a mastery focus and tend to see success as deriving Personality, 21, 318-334.
from effort rather than from ability. For these students Brophy, J. (1981). Teacher praise: A functional analysis.
failure tends not to be attributed to low ability and so Review of Educational Research, 51, 5-32.
from a self-worth motivation perspective, task-oriented Brown, J., & Weiner, B. (1984). Affective consequences
individuals are not particularly vulnerable to threats to of ability versus effort ascriptions: Controversies,
their self-worth and therefore not particularly inclined to resolutions, and quandaries. Journal of Educational
engage in self-protective strategies in anticipation of poor Psychology. 76(1), 146-158
performance. The results in relation to performance Burnett, P.C. (2002). Teacher praise and feedback and
orientation were quite different. Performance orientation students' perceptions of the classroom environment.
comprises factors reflecting the need to demonstrate Educational Psychology. 22(1), 1-16.
superior ability, the need to perform to avoid failure, a Campbell, J. D. (1986). Similarity and uniqueness: The
concern with how one is evaluated by others, and a self- effects of attribute type, relevance, and individual
esteem based on ones ability to demonstrate competence

10
 Self-Concept Research: Driving International Research Agendas
differences in self-esteem and depression. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 281-294.
Campbell, J.D., & Fairey, P.J. (1985). Effects of self-
esteem, hypothetical explanations, and verbalization of
expectancies on future performance. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1097-1111.
Carroll, A., Durkin, K., Hattie, J., & Houghton, S. (1997).
Goal setting among adolescents: A comparison of
delinquent, at-risk, and not at-risk youth. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 89, 441-450.
Carroll, A., Houghton, S., Durkin, K., & Hattie, J. (2001).
Reputation enhancing goals: Integrating reputation
enhancement and goal setting theory as an explanation
of delinquent involvement. In F. Columbus (Ed.),
Advances in Psychology Research, Vol. IV. (Chapter
7). New York: Nova Science Publishers Inc.
Clarke, S. (2001). Unlocking formative assessment:
Practical strategies for enhancing pupils learning in
the primary classroom. London: Hodder & Stoughton.
Clinton, J.C. (1992). Enhancing self-concept. In J.A.
Hattie, Self-concept. (pp. 156-187). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Cohen, J. (1986). An Updated and Expanded Meta-
Analysis of Multi-Section Student Rating Validity
Studies. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, San
Francisco, 1986
Craven, R. G. (1996). Enhancing Academic Self-Concept:
A Large-Scale Longitudinal Study in an Educational
Setting. Doctoral thesis submitted to the University of
Sydney. USA: UMI.
Craven, R.G. (1997). Enhancing academic self-concept: A
large-scale longitudinal study in an educational
setting. Dissertation Abstracts International, A
(Humanities and Social Sciences). 58(5-A), 1577.
Craven, R. G., Marsh, H. W., & Debus, R. L. (1991).
Effects of internally focused feedback and attributional
feedback on enhancement of academic self-concept.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 17-27.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, M. R. (1999). A meta-
analytic review of experiments examining the effects
of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation.
Psychological Bulletin, 125, 627-668.
Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of Educational
Research, 53, 159-199.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting
learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040-1048.
Elwell, W.C., Tiberio, J. (1994). Teacher praise: What
students want. Journal of Instructional Psychology,
21(4), 322-328
Falchikov, I., & Boud, J. (1989). Student self-assessment
in higher education: A meta-analysis. Review of
Educational Research, 59(4), 395-430.
Gipps, C. (1994). Beyond testing: Towards a theory of
educational assessment. London: Falmer Press.
Goethals, G. R. (1986). Fabricating and ignoring social
reality: Self-serving estimates of consensus. In J. M.
Olson, C. P. Hermann, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Relative
deprivation and social comparison: The Ontario
Symposium (Vol. 4, pp 135-157). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
11
Greenwald, A.G. (1980). The totalitarian ego: Fabrication
and revision of personal history. American
Psychologist, 35, 603-618.
Hansford, B.C. & Hattie, J.A. (1982). The relationship
between self and achievement/ performance measures.
Review of Educational Research, 52, 123-142
Harackiewicz, J.M. (1979). The effects of reward
contingency and performance feedback on intrinsic
motivation. Journal of Personality & Social
Psychology, 37(8), 1352-1363.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Mabderlink, G., & Sansone, C.
(1984). Rewarding pinball wizardry: effects of
evaluation and cue value on intrinsic interest. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 287-300.
Hattie, J.A. (1992). Self-concept. Erlbaum, USA.
Hattie, J.A. & Marsh, H.W. (1995). Future research in
self-concept. In B. Bracken (Ed.), Handbook on Self-
concept. (pp. 421-463). Erlbaum, NJ.
Hattie, J.A., Biggs, J., & Purdie, N. (1996). Effects of
learning skills intervention on student learning: A
meta-analysis. Review of Research in Education, 66,
99-136.
Hattie, J.A., Marsh, H.W., Neill, J.T., & Richards, G.E.
(1997). Adventure education and Outward Bound:
Out-of-class experiences that make a lasting
difference. Review of Research in Education, 66, 43-
87.
Hau, K.T., & Salili, F. (1996). Motivational effects of
teachers ability versus effort feedback on Chinese
students learning. Social Psychology of Education,
1(1), 69-85.
Holden, G.W., Moncher, M.S., & Schinke S.P. (1990).
Self-efficacy of children and adolescents: A meta-
analysis. Psychological Reports, 70, 1044-1046.
Howie, E., Sy, S., Ford, L., & Vicente, K. J. (2000).
Human-computer interface design can reduce
misperceptions of feedback. System Dynamics Review,
16(3), 151-171.
Ilgen, D.B. & Davis, C.A. (2000). Bearing bad news:
Reactions to negative performance feedback. Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 49(3), 550-565.
Janoff-Bulman, R., & Brickman, P. (1981). Expectations
and what people learn from failure. In N.T. Feather
(Ed.), Expectancy, incentive and action (pp. 207-240).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kamins, M.L., & Dweck, C.S. (1999). Person versus
process praise and criticism: Implications for contingent
self-worth and coping. Developmental Psychology, 35(3),
835-847
Kernis, M.H., Brockner, J., & Frankel, B.S. (1989). Self-
esteem and reactions to failure: The mediating role of
overgeneralization. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 57, 707-714.
Kinch, J.W. (1968). Experiments on factors related to
self-concept change. Journal of Social Psychology, 74,
251-258.
Klein, W. M. (2001). Post hoc construction of self-
performance and other performance in self-serving
social comparison. Society for Personality and Social
Psychology, Inc., 27(6), 744-754.
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of
feedback interventions on performance: A historical
 Self-Concept Research: Driving International Research Agendas
review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback
intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2),
254-284.
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1998). Feedback
interventions: Towards the understanding of a double-
edge sword. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 7, 67-72.
Kulhavy, R. W. (1977). Feedback in written instruction.
Review of Educational Research, 47(1), 211-232.
Leary, M.R, & Baumeister, R.F. (2000) The nature and
function of self-esteem: Sociometer theory. Zanna,
Mark P. (Ed). (2000). Advances in experimental social
psychology, Vol. 32. (pp. 1-62). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Leary, M.R., Cottrell, C.A., & Phillips, M. (2001).
Deconfounding the effects of dominance and social
acceptance on self-esteem. Journal of Personality &
Social Psychology, 81(5), 898-909
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1984). Goal setting: A
motivational technique that works. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G.P. (1990). A theory of goal
setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Markus, H. (1977). Self-schemata and processing
information about the self. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 35, 63-78.
Marsh, H. W. (1992b). Self Description Questionnaire
(SDQ) III: A theoretical and empirical basis for the
Measurement of multiple dimensions of late adolescent
self-concept: A test manual and a research
monograph. Publication Unit, Faculty of Education,
University of Western Sydney, Macarthur.
Marsh, H.W. (1987). The big-fish-little-pond effect on
academic self-concept. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 79, 280-295.
Marsh, H.W. (1990). The influence of internal and
external frames of reference on the formation of math
and English self-concepts. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 82, 107-116.
Martin, A.J., & Marsh, H.J. (2001). Self-Handicapping
and defensive pessimism: A model of self-protection
from a longitudinal perspective. Journal of
Educational Psychology.
Martin, A.J. (1998). Self-handicapping and defensive
pessimism: Predictors and consequences from a self-
worth motivation perspective. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. University of Western Sydney,
Macarthur.
McCallum, B., Hargreaves, E., & Gipps, C. (2002).
Learning: The pupil's voice. Cambridge Journal of
Education, 30(2), 275-289.
Meyer, W. (1982). Indirect communication about
perceived ability estimates. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 74, 888-897.
Meyer, W., Bachmann, U., Hempelmann, M., Ploger, F.,
& Spiller, H. (1979). The informational value of
evaluation behavior: Influences of praise and blame in
perceptions of ability. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 71, 259-268.
12
Mikulincer, M. (1988a). A case study of three theories of
learned helplessness: The role of test importance.
Motivation and Emotion, 12, 371-383.
Mikulincer, M. (1988b). Reactance and helplessness
following exposure to unsolvable problems: The
effects of attributional style. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 54, 679-686.
Mikulincer, M. (1989b). Coping and learned helplessness:
Effects of coping strategies on performance following
unsolvable problems. European Journal of
Personality, 3, 181-194.
Mikulincer, M. (1989c). Learned helplessness and
egotism: Effects of internal/external attribution on
performance following unsolvable problems. British
Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 17-29.
Mikulincer, M. (1990). Joint influence of prior beliefs and
current situational information on stable and unstable
attributions. Journal of Social Psychology, 130, 739-
753.
Moreland, R. L., & Sweeney, P. D. (1984). Self-
expectancies and reactions to evaluations of personal
performance. Journal of Personality, 52, 156-176.
Mueller, C. M., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Praise for
intelligence can undermine childrens motivation and
performance. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 75(1), 33-52.
Muller, J.C., Gullung, P., & Bocci, P. (1988). Concept de
soi et performance scolaire: Une meta-analyse [Self-
concept and academic achievement: A meta-analysis].
Orientation Scolaire et Professionnelle, 17, 53-69.
Nicholls, J. (1975). Causal attributions and other
achievement-related conditions: Effects of task
outcome, attainment value and sex. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 379-389.
Nicholls, J. (1976). Effort is virtuous, but its better to
have ability: Evaluative responses to perceptions of
effort and ability. Journal of Research in Personality,
10, 306-315.
Okun, M.A., & Sasfy, J.H. (1977). Adolescence, the self-
concept, and formal operations. Adolescence, 12, 373-
379.
Podsakoff, P.M., & Farh, J.-L. (1989). Effects of
feedback sign and credibility on goal setting and task
performance. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 44, 45-67.
Sadler, R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of
instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119-
144.
Scheirer, M. A., & Kraut, R. E. (1979). Increasing
educational achievment via self-concept change.
Review of Educational Research, 49, 131-150.
Shrauger, J.S., & Schoeneman, T.J. (1979). Symbolic
interactionist view of self-concept: Through the glass
darkly. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 549-573.
Shrauger, J.S., & Sorman, P. (1977). Self-evaluations,
initial success and failure, and Steele, C,M. (1998).
Stereotyping and its threat are real. American
Psychologist, 53(6), 680-681.
Steele, C.M., & Aronson, J. (2000). Stereotype threat and
the intellectual test performance of African
Americans. In C. Stangor, (Ed.). Stereotypes and
prejudice: Essential readings. Key readings in social
 Self-Concept Research: Driving International Research Agendas

psychology. (pp. 369-389). Philadelphia, PA, US; Monique & P.R. Pintrich, (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of
Philadelphia, PA, US: Psychology Press/Taylor & self-regulation. (pp. 13-39). San Diego, CA: Academic
Francis. Press
Steinberg, L. (1996). Beyond the classroom: Why school
reform has failed and what parents need to do. New
York: Touchstone.
Suls, J., & Wan, C. K. (1987). In search of the false-
uniqueness phenomenon: Fear and estimates of social
consensus. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 59, 229-241.
Swann, W.B. (1985). The self as architect of social
reality. In B. Schlenker (Ed.), The self and social life
(pp. 100-125). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Swann, W.B., & Hill, C.A. (1982). When our identities
are mistaken: Reaffirming self-conceptions through
social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 43, 59-66.
Swann, W.B., Pelham, B.W., & Chidester, T. (1988).
Change through paradox: Using self-verification to
alter beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 54, 268-273.
Sweller, J. (1990). Cognitive Processes and Instruction
Procedures. Australian Journal of Education. 34(2),
125-130.
Tesser, A., & Campbell, J. (1983). Self-definition and
self-evaluation maintenance. In J. Suls & A.
Greenwald (Eds.), Social psychological perspectives
on the self (Vol. 2, pp 1-31). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates
Tunstall, P., & Gipps, C. (1996). Teacher feedback to
young children in formative assessment: a typology.
British Educational Research Journal, 22(4), 389-404.
Van-Dijk, D., & Kluger, A. N. (2000, April). Positive
(negative) feedback: encouragement or
discouragement? Retrieved September 2001, from The
Hebrew University of Jerusalem Web site:
http://www/huji.ac.il/unew/main.html
Van-Dijk, D., & Kluger, A.N. (2001) Goal orientation
versus self-regulation: Different labels or different
constructs? Paper presented at the 16th annual
convention of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.
Weiner, B. (1974a). An attributional interpretation of
expectancy-value theory. In B. Weiner (Ed.),
Cognitive views of human motivation (pp. 51-70). New
York: Academic Press.
Weiner, B. (1977). An attributional model for educational
psychology. In L. Shulman (Ed.), Review of research
in education (Vol 4. pp. 179-209). Itasca, IL: Peacock.
Weiner, B. (Ed.) (1974b). Achievement motivation and
attribution theory. Morristown, NJ: General Learning
Press.
White, K. J. & Jones, K. (2000). Effects of Teacher
Feedback on the Reputations and Peer Perceptions of
Children with Behavior Problems. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 76, 302-326.
Winne, P.H., & Butler, D.L. (1994). Student cognition in
learning from teaching. In T. Husen & T. Postlewaite
(Eds.), International encyclopaedia of education (2nd
ed., pp. 5738-5745). Oxford, England: Pergamon.
Zimmerman, B.J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A
social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts,

13
 Self-Concept Research: Driving International Research Agendas

.
Table 1
Relationships between self-concept and achievement from 41 meta-analyses
No. of No. of No. of
Variable meta-analyses effects people effect-size r
Efficacy 15 15 5799 .49 .25
Concept 26 35 434,609 .38 .19
Total 41 50 440,408

Table 2
Assignation of Self-Concept of Ability Items from SDQ-III to Self-Assessment or Other Aspects

Mathematics Group
1. I find many mathematical problems interesting and challenging. Assessment
14. I have hesitated to take courses that involve mathematics. Assessment
40. Mathematics makes me feel inadequate. Assessment
53. I am quite good at mathematics. Assessment
66. I have trouble understanding anything that is based upon mathematics. Assessment
79. I have always done well in mathematics classes. Assessment
92. I never do well on tests that require mathematical reasoning. Assessment
105. At school, my friends always came to me for help in mathematics. Assessment
27. I have generally done better in mathematics courses than other courses. Other
118. I have never been very excited about mathematics. Other

Verbal Group
6. I have trouble expressing myself when trying to write something. Assessment
19. I can write effectively. Assessment
32. I have a poor vocabulary. Assessment
58. I do not do well on tests that require a lot of verbal reasoning ability. Assessment
71. Relative to most people, my verbal skills are quite good. Assessment
84. I often have to read things several times before I understand them. Assessment
97. I am good at expressing myself. Assessment
110. In school I had more trouble learning to read than most other students. Assessment
45. I am an avid reader. Other
123. I have good reading comprehension. Other

Academic Group
22. I hate studying for many academic subjects. Assessment
48. I have trouble with most academic subjects. Assessment
61. I'm good at most academic subjects. Assessment
113. I get good marks in most academic subjects. Assessment
126. I could never achieve academic honours, even if I worked harder. Assessment
9. I enjoy doing work for most academic subjects. Other
35. I like most academic subjects. Other
74. I'm not particularly interested in most academic subjects. Other
87. I learn quickly in most academic subjects. Other
100. I hate most academic subjects. Other

Problem Solving Group

62. I'm not much good at problem solving. Assessment
10. I am never able to think up answers to problems that haven't already been figured out. Other
23. I am good at combining ideas in ways that others have not tried. Other
36. I wish I had more imagination and originality. Other
49. I enjoy working out new ways of solving problems. Other
75. I have a lot of intellectual curiosity. Other
88. I am not very original in my ideas, thoughts, and actions. Other
101. I am an imaginative person. Other
114. I would have no interest in being an inventor. Other
127. I can often see better ways of doing routine tasks. Other
The following are the correlations between these scales and academic achievement, as reported in the SDQ Manual.
Where there are greater number of self-assessment items then there are higher correlations such is as evidence in math
and verbal. Where there are fewer numbers of self-assessment then there are lower correlations as in Academic (with 5
and an average of ,25) and in Problem Solving (with 1 and average of .10).

14
 Self-Concept Research: Driving International Research Agendas

Table 3
Correlations between the four self-concept of ability scales and achievement

Correlations No. of No. of

Self-concepts Math English Average Assessment Others
Math .58** .19** .39 8 2
Verbal .11 .42** .27 8 2
Academic .27** .24** .25 5 5
Problem Solving .03 .17** .10 1 9

Table 3
Correlations between the four self-concept of ability scales and achievement

Correlations No. of No. of

Self-concepts Math English Average Assessment Others
Math .58** .19** .39 8 2
Verbal .11 .42** .27 8 2
Academic .27** .24** .25 5 5
Problem Solving .03 .17** .10 1 9

15
 Self-Concept Research: Driving International Research Agendas

Table 4
MeanEffect-sSizes from over 500 Meta-Analyses of Various Influences to Achievement

Influence No. of effects Effect-Size

Feedback 139 1.13
Students prior cognitive ability 896 1.04
Instructional quality 22 1.00
Instructional quantity 80 .84
Direct instruction 253 .82
Acceleration 162 .72
Home factors 728 .67
Remediation/feedback 146 .65
Students disposition to learn 93 .61
Class environment 921 .56
Challenge of Goals 2703 .52
Bilingual programs 285 .51
Peer tutoring 125 .50
Mastery learning 104 .50
Teacher inservice education 3912 .49
Parent involvement 339 .46
Homework 110 .43
Questioning 134 .41
OVERALL EFFECTS 500,000+ .40
Peers 122 .38
Advance organizers 387 .37
Simulation & games 111 .34
Computer-assisted instruction 566 .31
Instructional media 4421 .30
Testing 1817 .30
Aims & policy of the school 542 .24
Affective attributes of students 355 .24
Calculators 231 .24
Physical attributes of students 905 .21
Learning hierarchies 24 .19
Programmed instruction 220 .18
Audio-visual aids 6060 .16
Individualisation 630 .14
Finances/money 658 .12
Behavioural objectives 111 .12
Team teaching 41 .06
Ability grouping/Streaming 3385 .05
Physical attributes of the school 1850 -.05
Mass media 274 -.12
Retention 861 -.15

16
 Self-Concept Research: Driving International Research Agendas

Table 5
Summary of Effect-Sizes Relating to Types of Feedback (from Kluger & DeNisi, 1996).

Moderator No. effects effect-size

Correct feedback Tis correct 114 .43
Tis incorrect 197 .25
FT about changes from previous trials Yes 50 .55
No 380 .28
FT designed to discourage the student Yes 49 -.14
No 388 .33
Praise FT Yes 80 .09
No 358 .34
FT provided from a computer Yes 87 .41
No 337 .23
No. of times FT was provided Lots 97 .32
Little 171 .39
Task complexity Very complex 107 .03
Not complex 114 .55
Goal setting Difficult goals 37 .51
Easy, do your best goals 373 .30
Threat to self-esteem Much threat 102 .08
Little threat 170 .47

17