INTRODUCTION
What is feedback?
Feedback is information that is provided to learners during practice, usually after a single trial or a group of trials and is considered one of the most important and studied factors which affect the learning of knowledge, skills, and behaviours (Schmidt et al, 2019). The main aim of feedback, according to Shute (2008), is to increase student knowledge, skills and understanding. Feedback can either be task-intrinsic, which refers to the sensory information that is naturally available to the learner when performing an activity or it can be augmented which refers to information about the performance of the task which supplements task-intrinsic feedback. Augmented feedback comes from an external source like a teacher or digital technology (Andersen et al, 2020). The focus of this review will be on augmented feedback.
Feedback as powerful
Decades of studying the impact of feedback suggests that it is powerful in terms of improving students’ performance and learning (Kluger and DeNisi, 1996; Hattie and Timperley, 2007; Shute, 2008; Hattie and Clarke, 2018; Wisniewski et al, 2020). It tends to be one of the few things that in education that is agreed to be important, with the EEF Toolkit (2018) describing it as having high impact for low cost, ranking it as the single most powerful teaching technique that teachers have at their disposal. Both Hattie (2009) and Wiliam (2016) suggest that what we currently know about the impact of feedback means that there is no better cost-effective way to improve student attainment and achievement at school than by helping teachers to improve the quality of their feedback. Hattie (2009) conducted a meta-synthesis relating to the effects of feedback on student achievement and found a high effect size and therefore a considerable positive impact on learning. Similar results were found by both Hattie and Timperley (2007) and Wisniewski et al (2020) leading to the conclusion that feedback on average is powerful, but some types of feedback might be more powerful.
Teachers are awash with recommendations and advice on effective feedback, which is typically summarised and prescribed as frequent, positive, specific, and immediate (Fletcher-Wood, 2018; Chiles, 2021; Coe et al, 2020). Providing feedback that is frequent, positive, specific, and immediate is proposed as a set of sound principles to guide delivery, but as Shute (2008) and Ekercrantz (2015) warn, other variables such as the characteristics of the learner, task outcome, environment and feedback provider can influence its impact and therefore feedback recommendations need to be more nuanced and adaptive. Feedback is one of the more instructionally powerful tools a teacher can use to support student learning and achievement, but it is also one of the least well understood (Cohen, 1985; Ruiz Primo and Brookhart, 2018).
Feedback as problematic
Part of the issue regarding feedback is that many of the studies that have been conducted are in experimental laboratory conditions on university students, often on irrelevant tasks, and over short periods of times (Ruiz-Primo and Lu, 2013). These individual studies, reviews and meta-analyses of feedback might provide useful insight into effective feedback, but it is hard to generalise that what might be effective for an 18-year-old in a university context is then also applicable and effective for 5-year-old in primary school PE. In Kluger and DeNisi’s review (1998, pg. 275), they found that in 38% of the studies they included, giving feedback made the participants performance worse, and that they would have done better if no feedback had been given at all, which prompted them to call feedback interventions a ‘double edged sword’. Wiliam (2011) points out that getting it wrong can lead to the student rejecting the feedback, choosing an easier task, or in the worst-case scenario completely giving up trying. There is so much research on feedback, but it is conflicting and inconsistent (Shute, 2008).
The truth is that we know much less about feedback practices that take place in the in the classroom context that have a positive impact on learning than we would like to admit. Providing effective feedback that has a powerful effect on both performance and learning is therefore a challenge that research needs better questions and methods to offer effective recommendations. Insights from feedback research can promote student performance and learning, but strategies need more evaluation within the classroom than just a copy and paste approach straight from the research lab.
Is feedback that takes place in PE powerful or problematic?
Feedback in PE is considered an essential teaching tool in the PE Teacher’s toolkit which can have a positive impact on acquisition of knowledge and skills (Silverman et al, 1992; Rink and Hall, 2008). Much of the early research on feedback has been focused on its power and influence, but little work has attempted to address its contextual nature within different subject disciplines (Ruiz-Primo and Lu, 2013). This review looks to contribute to a deeper and more nuanced understanding of the important characteristics of feedback within the PE setting and what recommendations can be made to PE teachers. Research that is carried out in naturalistic settings possess greater ecological validity and therefore can be more generalisable. For studies to possess ecological validity they must be sufficiently approximate to the real-life situation that is under investigation (Ruiz-Primo and Lu, 2013; Zhou et al 2021). These issues are not just in educational research, but also in motor learning research. Wulf and Shea (2002) are critical of motor learning research as historically investigations have taken place in laboratory settings with adult populations performing simple tasks. This raises the critical questions about the behaviours of the participants and the researchers and whether they are representative of the PE environment in which feedback must take place.
The call for naturalistic and ecologically valid studies of feedback in PE have present in the PE literature for an extended period. Lee et al (1993) in their review of the feedback literature in PE from 1981 to 1991 concluded that more is known about PE Teachers patterns of feedback then the effects of teacher feedback. Chen in his 2001 review ‘Trends in Augmented Feedback Research and Tips for the Practitioner’ raised concerns that much of what PE bases its feedback recommendations on had come from laboratory settings and called for more research to be done in the classroom. Both reviews highlight methodological issues with the studies that recommendations are based on. Examples of the issues raised are using ‘experimental teaching units’ which are short in duration and not what the students usually experience within lessons. They recommend naturalistic studies for feedback in PE but point out the issues that bring, such as the complexity of the learning environment and isolating teacher behaviours on student achievement. Over two decades later Petranek et al (2019) calls for more research in naturalistic PE settings for over longer periods of time, highlighting the need for ecological validity when studying feedback interventions. In their conclusion they ask for future research to include young children and their PE teachers in real-world learning contexts if we are to provide feedback recommendations that can have a meaningful impact.
While the importance of feedback has been emphasised within education (mainly in maths, science, and English) the only existing systematic literature review of feedback in PE has been recently been published, summarising its impact specifically on motor learning (Zhou et al, 2021). This review of the literature aims to add to Zhou et al’s (2021) review by investigating the effects of feedback on the performance and learning of knowledge, skills and attitudes that are considered important in PE to central to establishing and sustaining engagement in long term physical activity (Bailey et al, 2009). A literature review was conducted, using electronic databases, to search for research that matched specific key terms. The results of the research were screened to meet inclusion and exclusion criteria to produce a final set of studies to allow for analysis. Specifically, this allowed to search for and summarise the research and evidence to answer the following question:
What are the key findings in the PE literature that are related to feedback’s impact on performance and learning and what recommendations can be made to PE Teachers to facilitate that with regards to enhancing their feedback provision?
In addition to summarising the recommendations for feedback in the PE for improving student performance and learning the characteristics of the participants, type of feedback intervention and type of activities will be reviewed. This is to see what classroom environments have been studied, and therefore inform judgements about the efficacy and the feasibility of the feedback recommendations (Brown and Harris, 2018).
METHODS
Protocol
The review follows the updated Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines and checklist (Page et al, 2021) where possible. Where this wasn’t the case, it shall be clearly stated in the methods section. No protocol was registered for this review.
Eligibility criteria
To ensure that the key question of what the impact of feedback is on performance and learning within PE lessons could be answered, the studies needed to meet following PICO construct (as recommended by Thomas et al, 2021):
- P = Population: age 5 to 18 years old, in Physical Education class within a Primary or Secondary School.
- I = Intervention: use of one or more types of augmented feedback, such as knowledge of results, knowledge of performance, prescriptive, descriptive, verbal, visual, or auditory.
- C = Comparison: either with no feedback or comparing one or more types of feedback.
- O = Outcome: the impact on performance or learning of knowledge, skills or attitudes that contribute to high quality PE and the sustained engagement of a physically active life beyond PE.
Studies were included in the review if they fulfilled the following criteria: (i) the aim of the study was to investigate the impact of feedback within a PE lesson or series of lessons; (ii) the PE lesson/s took place either in a Primary or Secondary School PE context; (iii) the focus of the feedback was to improve either the performance or learning of knowledge, skills or attitudes; (iv) the articles should be published in peer-reviewed journals in the English language; (v) the studies could present either quantitative, qualitative, or mixed data.
Exclusion criteria were: (i) studies were carried out in youth sport, community sport, higher education or elite sport settings; (ii) if the feedback interventions were carried out on PE and Sport undergraduate students, PE and Sport postgraduate students or Pre or Inservice PE Teachers; (iii) Non-English Texts; (iv) non-peer reviewed/grey literature – particularly book chapters, narrative reviews of the literature or recommendations/guidelines for feedback for PE Teachers.
Search Strategy
Seven electronic databases were used for the search: British Education Index, Child Development and Adolescent Studies, Educational Abstracts, EBSCO, ERIC, Medline and SPORTDiscus. The search took place between April 2021 and May 2021. Titles, abstracts, subject terms were searched using the following terms: Feedback (“feedback” OR “teacher feedback” OR “verbal feedback” OR “formative feedback” OR “augmented feedback” ) AND Physical Education (“physical education” OR “PE” OR “sport” OR “physical activity” ) AND Learning ( “learning” OR “performance” OR “knowledge” OR “skill” OR “motivation” OR “attitude” ). The search was limited by date of publication and included all articles published from January 2001 to the time of search.
Data Extraction
All papers from the database search were downloaded and saved as pdfs. RefWorks (https://refworks.proquest.com), an open-source research tool for reference management, was used to organize the papers. After papers were identified from the databases and duplicates removed, they were screened by title followed by abstract. Papers were excluded if they did not meet the inclusion criteria. The papers were then scrutinised with a full text review, with reasons for exclusion recorded (Fig. 1). Data from the papers that were identified and included in the review were extracted and placed inside an excel spread sheet. The data extracted from the papers included 1) characteristics of participants within the studies (e.g. age, school type, experience of teacher); 2) characteristics of the type of activities and outcomes within the studies (e.g. activity area, task type and learning domains); 3) characteristics of type of feedback and intervention (e.g. type of feedback use, length of intervention and use of retention test) and 4); Key findings and recommendations to PE Teachers.
Data analysis
The outcomes that were measured, the study designs and the type of activity and feedback interventions used were varied across all included studies. Therefore, it was not possible to perform a meta-analysis. A narrative synthesis was completed following the Ioannidis, Patsopoulos, and Rothstein (2008) guidelines and themes were identified of key recommendations. Findings of the characteristics of the participants in the study, type of feedback intervention used, and outcomes of the feedback were described numerically and/or textually to provide summary evidence of the feedback recommendations to PE teachers.
Limitations
Due to the lack of time available for this study there were several methodological limitations. Firstly, the databases used were selected due to their accessibility and there was no examination for further papers, for example from the included papers reference list, therefore some important studies may be missing. Secondly, during the screening process there were no independent peer reviewers or instruments used to check whether the papers met the inclusion/exclusion criteria, therefore raising reliability issues caused by the risk of bias.
RESULTS
Figure 1. The selection process (Following PRISMA guidelines, Page et al. 2021).
As shown in Figure 1, the database search initially found 322 articles, of which 39 were removed due to being duplicates. After the title screening and then abstract and title screening another 235 articles were excluded, and 48 articles met the conditions to be full text read. After full-text reading, 26 articles were excluded for not meeting the inclusion/exclusion criteria, with 14 of the articles not empirical studies and 8 of the articles not in a primary or secondary PE context. As previously mentioned in methods section there was no risk of bias analysis conducted (Page et al, 2021) which means that the methodological quality of the articles accepted might be poor and therefore a key limitation of this review. 22 articles were finally included in the review to answer the key question of the impact of feedback in performance and learning within PE classes.
Characteristics of participants within the studies
The age of students within the studies ranges from 6 years old (Petranek et al, 2019) to 18 years old (Koka and Hein, 2005), with 13 years old being the mean age of the participants. Most studies have taken place within secondary school context (70%), which suggests that future studies could look to recruit both younger participants (and generally more primary school students) and older participants in secondary school to ensure that the findings of feedback interventions can either be generalised or specific to the age, maturation, and development of the child.
Most studies have used male and female participants with only one study exclusively using females (Barzouka et al, 2007), one study exclusively using males (Nation-Grainger, 2017) and one study not reporting (Paolo et al, 2013). Nicaise and Cogérino (2006) and Nicaise et al. (2007) both look at the perceived differences in PE teachers’ feedback between male and female students. Whether sex differences play a role on the impact of feedback interventions is an important empirical question. Future research should include both sexes and where possible check to see if differences exist beyond the perceptions of the students themselves.
Participants have tended to be novices in the activities being used to facilitate the study of feedback intervention, with only one study exploring the impact on competent performers (Drost, 2018) and no studies using highly proficient performers. As a recent review of the literature on using teacher feedback to improve pupil learning states (EEF, 2021) feedback most be appropriately timed for the pupil, which must consider the experience of the pupil in the task. Novice, competent and highly proficient performers may require different types and frequency of feedback to enhance their performance and learning. Therefore, further research is needed that studies the differences in capability of students and the impact of feedback.
Linked with the experience level of the participants is the experience level of the PE Teachers and how this might influence the impact of feedback. However less than 50% of the studies used the PE classes usual PE Teacher, with the majority either not clearly recording who the feedback provider was or using a combination of under and post graduate students, teacher educators or researchers. As Shute (2008) and Hattie and Timperley (2007) state, who is giving the feedback can be just as important as how it is given, especially if a relationship of trust and care has been built up by the giver and the receiver. Therefore, future research needs to recruit the PE Teacher of the class and report back on their characteristics, including experience, if recommendations are to be made more generalisable to PE Teachers.
Characteristics of the type of activities and outcomes within the studies
There have been a range of activities used within the studies with fundamental movement skills (FMS) and gymnastics being most used, probably as individual sports with closed, discrete, and self-paced skills are easier to measure and assess. Several studies which specifically studied the impact of feedback on motivation (Koka and Hein, 2005; Koka and Hein, 2006; Koka 2013) looked at general curriculum PE over a period rather than performance and learning of knowledge and skills. However, the range of activities come from a limited number of movement forms, with adventure (such as skateboarding and skiing), swimming, interpersonal/relational (such as dancing and trampolining) not investigated (Durden-Myers, Green and Whitehead, 2018). All tasks that were recorded required no decision-making element individual, simple, closed, discrete and self-paced apart from a serial task (Mouratidis et al., 2008) and a complex task (Fredenburg et al., 2001). Future research needs to investigate the impact of feedback on a variety of task and skills classifications; closed and open, simple, and complex, discrete, serial, or continuous and internally and externally paced (Schmidt et al, 2018). It also needs to investigate in a wider range of movement forms and activities and report them as feedback may influence the performance and learning of different types of tasks in different ways.
Ten studies investigated the impact of feedback on behaviour, five studied skill, five studied skill and behaviour and three studied knowledge skill and behaviour. Within the studies that looked at the impact of feedback on behaviour most focused on motivation but a range of other important behaviours such as enjoyment, situational interest, boredom, and perceived competence, that are required for improvement in PE and sustained physical activity beyond PE. The studies that investigated improvement of skill mainly focused on the accurate replication of sports techniques rather than the application of technique within a competitive and dynamic environment (Kirk, 2010). Knowledge and understanding are the least investigated area and predominantly looked at declarative knowledge of good performance of technique, with future research to look at problem solving, planning and decision making.
Characteristics of type of feedback and intervention
The types of feedback intervention used in the studies, along with their length and whether a retention and transfer tasks were used are shown in Table 3. Most studies compared at least 2 different types of feedback, with either no feedback or teacher verbal feedback being used control, apart from the studies on biofeedback (Nation-Grainger, 2017) and video feedback (O’Loughlin et al., 2013). The types of feedback instigated the most within the PE setting are a version of positive feedback (thirteen studies), video feedback (six studies) and informational feedback (four studies).
The length of feedback intervention varied from 1 lesson to 2 years, with most being relatively short in duration, lasting from 1 lesson to 4 lessons over a couple of weeks. Linked to the shortness of intervention only six studies conducted retention tests, four of which were retention tests a day later. Only Kok et al (2020) used a retention test a week later and Petranek et al (2019) used a retention and transfer tests a week later. The shortness of intervention and the lack of retention and transfer tests raises questions about the quality of studies, what impact the feedback studied has on performance but especially learning and how generalisable the findings and recommendations are for PE teachers. This is slightly better than studies in other subjects, where in 85% of studies in mathematics and 72% in science classrooms the feedback intervention was a single event that lasted a few minutes, with less than 15% of the studies including multiple feedback sessions over an extended period of teaching (Li et al, 2013). A detailed summary of the characteristics of the participants, activities and feedback interventions can be found in Supplementary Tables 1, 2 and 3.
Key Findings and Recommendations to PE Teachers
An overview of aims of the investigations and the main findings and key recommendations reported in the studies are provided in Table 1. Feedback clearly influences knowledge acquisition, skill performance and behaviours linked to high quality PE and therefore sustained engagement in physical activity. Feedback in PE settings can enhance knowledge of proper forms of movement (Palao et al., 2013; Petranek et al., 2019) and the capability to self-assess the proper form of movement (Potdevin et al., 2018). However, the amount of research on the impact of different types of feedback on the learning and development of knowledge in a PE context is seriously limited (three out of twenty-two papers). Further research is required on knowledge and understanding that is beyond knowing the correct form for a movement, such as principles of play and tactical problem solving.
Table 1. Key Findings and Recommendations to PE Teachers
| Studies that provide recommendations about using Positive Feedback in PE | |
| Outcome | Studies |
| Improved Motivation | De Meester et al, 2020; Drost, 2018; Erturan-İlker, 2014; Koka and Hein, 2005; Koka and Hein, 2006; Koka, 2013; Mouratidis et al., 2008; Nicaise et al., 2007; Viciana and Cervello, 2007 |
| Studies that provide recommendations about not using Generic Positive Feedback in PE | |
| Outcome | Studies |
| Decreases Effort | Chiviacowsky and Drews, 2014 – Study 1; Chiviacowsky and Drews, 2014 – Study 2 |
| Studies that provide recommendations about using Video Feedback in PE | |
| Outcome | Studies |
| Improved Situational Interest | Roure et al., 2019 |
| Improved Skill Performance | O’Loughlin et al., 2013; Palao et al., 2013; Potdevin et al., 2018 |
| Improved Motivation | O’Loughlin et al., 2013 |
| Studies that provide recommendations about using Digital Technology in PE | |
| Outcome | Studies |
| Improved Physical Activity Levels | Nation-Grainger, 2017 |
| Studies that provide recommendations about using Self-Paced Feedback in PE | |
| Outcome | Studies |
| Improved Skill Performance | Chiviacowsky et al, 2008 |
| Studies that provide recommendations about using High Levels of Feedback frequency in PE | |
| Outcome | Studies |
| Improved skill performance for novices | Nicaise and Cogérino, 2006; Petranek et al., 2019 |
| Studies that provide recommendations about using Instructional Feedback in PE | |
| Outcome | Studies |
| Improved skill performance for novices | Drost and Todorovich, 2017; Fredenburg et al., 2001 |
| Studies that provide no recommendations about using feedback in PE | |
| Barzouka et al., 2007; Kok et al., 2020 | |
In line with previous recommendations (Wilson, 2012; Kamins and Dweck, 1999) positive feedback seems to have a strong impact on behaviour within PE. Specifically, motivation is enhanced with positive feedback (Koka and Hein, 2005; Koka and Hein, 2006; Koka, 2013; Mouratidis et al., 2008; Nicaise et al., 2007) although De Meester et al. (2020) found that when positive feedback was coupled with corrective feedback it did reduce negative motivational outcomes such as feelings of incompetence and rejection. This is a finding that needs to be investigated more, with different sample groups and in different tasks, as instructional feedback is important for improving technique, skill, and competence (Drost and Todorovich, 2017; Drost, 2018). Associated with positive feedback is non-generic feedback. Non-generic feedback implies that performance can be developed through practice rather than due to an inherent ability, which generic feedback promotes, and therefore has greater potential to help students overcome failure (Chiviacowsky and Drews, 2014). The type of positive feedback also influenced the quality of practice (Erturan-İlker, 2014; Fredenburg et al., 2001) and effort (Nicaise et al., 2007) which are both important for learning.
Feedback can increase the impact on the performance of technique and skills, which is consistent with the wider motor learning and skill acquisition research literature (Andersen et al, 2020; Schmidt et al, 2018; Winkleman, 2020). All thirteen studies that investigated the influence of feedback on the development of skill found positive outcomes on a range of different skills including improving accuracy in receiving (Barzouka et al., 2007), throwing (Petranek et al., 2019; Chiviacowsky and Drews, 2014; Chiviacowsky et al, 2008), kicking (Chiviacowsky and Drews, 2014), tossing (Drost and Todorovich, 2017), and shooting (Drost, 2018). Informational feedback (Koka and Hein, 2006; Drost and Todorovich, 2017; Drost, 2018) and positive feedback (Viciana and Cervello, 2007; Erturan-İlker, 2014; De Meester et al, 2020) has the most influence on skill performance, but due to the lack of retention and transfer tests it is not possible to comment on their impact on motor and skill learning.
Visual augmented feedback, specifically using digital video coupled with teacher feedback can also improve the accuracy and the form of a skill (Barzouka et al., 2007; O’Loughlin et al., 2013; Potdevin et al., 2018) as well as decreasing students amotivation (Kok et al., 2020) and their situational interest (Roure et al., 2019). Digital video can also facilitate self-paced feedback, meaning the student has control over the frequency of feedback, receiving when they want it. This resulted in improvement of self-efficacy (Kok et al., 2020) and accuracy of throwing, but without video feedback (Chiviacowsky et al, 2008). The benefits of self-controlled feedback in the motor learning literature (Chiviacowsky and Wulf, 20020
Digital technology enhanced feedback was also investigated using wearable wrist-worn digital physical activity monitors to provide individual feedback to participants (Nation-Grainger, 2017). Whilst the sample size is small and therefore caution should be made about the findings, that fact that wearable technology is becoming cheaper and more accessible for PE, biofeedback is an area that should be investigated further, particularly if it can have a positive impact of participation and physical activity levels of inactive and amotivated students.
All studies found positive outcomes on the impact of feedback on knowledge, skills, and behaviours within the PE classroom, demonstrating the power of feedback. Twenty of the twenty-two papers make recommendations for PE teachers based on those results. The single most proposed recommendation is to provide positive general feedback to improve motivation (Chiviacowsky and Drews, 2014; Erturan-İlker, 2014; Koka and Hein, 2005; Koka, 2013; Mouratidis et al., 2008; Viciana and Cervello, 2007) or to couple it with corrective feedback to improve technical performance as well (Nicaise and Cogérino, 2006; De Meester et al, 2020). However, the recommendations provided to either PE Teachers and PE Teacher Educators are neither prescriptive nor definitive. A detailed summary of the outcomes and recommendations from the studies can be found in Supplementary Table 4.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this review was to provide a synthesis of the last twenty years of evidence regarding the effect of feedback on the performance and learning of knowledge, skills, and behaviours within PE lessons. As feedback is often considered powerful by the wider educational and motor learning literature, the review focused on feedback within the PE classroom and what recommendations could be made to PE teachers to enhance the quality of their feedback. The review included 22 papers, which conducted a total of 23 studies, carried out in 12 different countries.
The current state of play
The studies included in this review broadly indicate that feedback can have a positive impact on student’s knowledge, skills, and behaviours within both the primary and secondary PE context. However, the studies were not assessed with regards to methodological quality and therefore it is difficult to generalise any of the findings. A recent systematic review of the literature on the impact of feedback specifically on motor skill learning within PE over the last 30 years used the Physiotherapy Evidence Database Scale to do this (Zhou et al, 2021). Only 8 of the 23 the studies that were included in their review gained a rating of 5 out of 10 or higher, suggesting that research carried on feedback within PE contexts tends to be of a low quality.
This review focused on recommendations made on feedback that have been carried out in naturalistic environments with ecological valid experiments. There are two general recommendations that can be made to PE teachers from this review. Firstly, to enhance students’ motivation positive feedback is usually more effective than negative feedback and secondly augmented visual feedback, through video and supported by teacher verbal feedback can have a positive impact on knowledge, skills, and behaviours. Where positive feedback was investigated, it was found to reduce negative feelings such as incompetence (De Meester et al, 2020), enhance students’ intrinsic motivation (Erturan-İlker, 2014; Koka and Hein, 2005; Koka and Hein, 2006), higher levels of achievement (Nicaise and Cogérino, 2006) and facilitate a learning-orientated classroom climate and reduce boredom experienced in PE (Viciana and Cervello, 2007). However, it should be combined with either corrective, instructional, or informational feedback as feedback that only makes the individual student feel good about themselves rather than how they can improve might have very little long-term benefits, especially for students who have low levels of motor competence (De Meester et al, 2020). In the last eight years there have been five studies that have investigated the impact of augmented video feedback which have found a range of positive outcomes, when coupled with teacher verbal feedback, for example on the quantity and quality of practice (Palao et al., 2013), situational interest (Roure et al., 2019) and self-assessment ability (O’Loughlin et al., 2013; Potdevin et al., 2018). Along with biofeedback (Nation-Grainger, 2017) augmented feedback enhanced by digital technology is an area that requires further research due to the positive outcomes; however, part of that research needs to study feasibility and how to make it accessible and sustainable to meet the daily demands of the PE Teacher as this was raised as an issue in a few studies (Potdevin et al., 2018; Roure et al., 2019).
Feedback for Performance and Feedback for Learning
The review set out to find the impact of feedback on performance and on learning within PE. Soderstrom and Bjork (2015, pg. 176) distinguish between the two, with performance a “temporary fluctuations in behaviour or knowledge that can be observed and measured during or immediately after the acquisition process” and learning as “the relatively permanent changes in behaviour or knowledge that support long-term retention and transfer.” This distinction is important as the current evidence suggests that conditions that produce rapid improvements in performance are not often the conditions required that facilitate learning (Soderstrom and Bjork, 2015). PE Teachers want the changes in knowledge, skills and behaviour that occur in PE to be retained by the students so that they can positively impact their students’ sustained engagement in physical activity. If this is the case, then providing feedback that improves learning is essential. Given that 14 out of 23 studies were conducted over short periods of times of 6 weeks or less and that 17 out of 23 had no retention or transfer tests to assess learning (and 4 out of the 6 that did the test was only a day later), we can speculate that researchers have been more concerned with feedback for performance rather than for learning. Future research needs to focus more on the impact of feedback on learning, with longer interventions and retention and/or transfer tests, such as the Kok et al., (2020) study which looked at self and externally controlled feedback in 9 PE lessons over 9 weeks with a retention and transfer test a week later.
Recognition, description, and prescription of feedback in PE
Advice in PE textbooks for pre-service and in-service PE Teachers tend to either highlight the importance of feedback in facilitating student achievement (Capel and Whitehead, 2015) descriptive in nature classifying the different types of feedback that the teacher can use and explaining what they are (Rink, 2019) or prescriptive in advice recommending one type of feedback over another, such as frequent and immediate feedback over less frequent and delayed feedback (Burton, 2018). Whilst recognition and description are important, especially for the novice PE teacher, if the power of feedback is to be harnessed effectively for the performance and learning of knowledge, skills, and behaviours then advice must move beyond this.
Feedback becomes problematic when the advice for implementation becomes too prescriptive. Burton (2018, pg. 100) recommends feedback should be regular to “avoid tasks becoming too difficult, which is another cause for students becoming disinterested.” However, in Chiviacowsky et al. (2008) review they found evidence that students who were able to control when they received feedback improved the performance and learning of accurately tossing a beanbag to a target. The authors argue that self-controlled feedback provides learning advantages by tailoring it to the learner’s needs and therefore giving them the opportunity to ask for feedback may be a more effective way to facilitate learning. This result wasn’t found by Kok et al. (2020) in their study with video feedback, where the improvement in distance and technique of shotput wasn’t significantly different between the self-controlled video feedback group and the externally controlled video feedback group, although the self-controlled condition did have a positive impact on both perceived learning and self-efficacy. In the wider motor learning literature (Wulf, 2013) feedback statements that have an external focus of attention (focusing away from the body and on the movement outcome) as opposed for an internal focus of attention (focusing toward and inside the body) tend to be more effective for motor learning for novices and children. Goodway, Ozmun and Gallahue (2019) recommend using external focus of attention feedback over internal as it is more beneficial for children. Petranek et al. (2019) study investigated the impact of external attentional focused feedback, along with frequency, on the performance of primary school children’s overhand throw. They found all feedback conditions helped the children’s technique and knowledge of proper technique, but that internally focused feedback had better throw form and retained more knowledge of throwing form after the retention/transfer test. The authors hypothesise that younger learners may struggle interpreting externally focused feedback with internal easier to interpret and remember. Prescribing what good feedback is for PE teachers, such as ‘frequent feedback is important’ and ‘external focused feedback is better than internal focused feedback’ is where feedback becomes problematic to both performance and learning.
Responsive Feedback
If PE Teachers are to harness the power of feedback whilst negating its problems then advice needs to go beyond recognition, prescription, and description to responsive feedback. Responsive feedback is about professional judgement and decision making about feedback, which carefully considers the ‘why(s)’ and the ‘why not(s)’ of different feedback types and approaches. In the study by Fredenburg et al (2001) they are working with 8 and 9-year-old children, who are novices in cup stacking, trying to enhance their behaviour, specifically the quality of their practicing. The study by Drost (2018) is with 10 to 11-year-olds who are competent bean bag throwers trying to improve their competence. A ‘one size fits all’ prescribed approach to providing feedback in PE will not result in positive outcomes in both those scenarios, let alone the many other learning scenarios that are possible within teaching PE. PE teachers must adapt their feedback to the individual, group, or class they are teaching and what outcomes they are trying to achieve. Ensuring what feedback is suitable and best matches the learning context is vital if it is to be powerful (Abraham and Collins, 2011). Future research on the impact on feedback on performance and learning should consider what type of feedback is more appropriate for the learner and the learning context, rather than if one type of feedback is better than another, then informed recommendations can be made to PE clearly highlighting the advantages and disadvantages.
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
There were several limitations with the review other than meeting the PRISMA guidelines that were discussed in the methods section (Page et al, 2021). Due to the design of the literature search, some published studies may have been overlooked due to the keywords and the range of database used. As the review was conducted over a shorter period than usual, additional articles were not sought out via other means, such as the reference list of included articles. 12 out of the 23 studies had small sample sizes (under 100 participants) which makes it difficult to generalise any findings, even for performance effects on feedback within the PE context. Finally, as mentioned previously, the quality of the methodological approach of the studies included was not reviewed, although this was not part of the of answering the main research questions.
There are also implications for research that have emerged from the review. Andersen et al (2020) categorise the variables of augmented feedback into what, how and when and Stone and Heen (2014) highlight the importance of the who. Whilst a range of variables of augmented feedback that have been investigated in PE, they have been mainly focused on the what of feedback (Knowledge of Results/Knowledge of Performance) and the how of feedback (verbal, visual, auditory, multimodal etc). There has been very little on the when of feedback (terminal/concurrent, immediate/delayed, frequency etc.) other than Petranek et al, 2019 which studied the frequency of feedback. In the studies included in this literature review there has been limited recording of whether feedback was given to the whole class, group, an individual privately and an individual in front of peers and what impact this might have had on its effect.
Linked to this the EEF (2021) report on feedback recommends that to ensure feedback is powerful then we need to fully understand how students receive feedback. Several studies in the review raised this issue (Koka, 2013; Nicaise and Cogérino, 2006; Nicaise et al., 2007) but none within the last 20 years have looked to investigate it. Proactive recipience is the state of an individual engaging actively with the feedback process (Winstone et al, 2017; Stone and Heen, 2014) and helping students to develop these processes could enhance the power of feedback and should be investigated in future research on the impact of feedback in PE.
Conclusion
The main aim of the review was to investigate the evidence of feedback’s impact on performance and learning of knowledge, skills, and behaviours within PE lessons, which would contribute to students sustained engagement within physical activity. It has provided detailed description of the characteristics of the participants, the characteristics of the tasks, activities and learning domains and the types of feedback studied. This was to provide evidence-based recommendations for PE Teachers on effective feedback. This review can offer limited feedback recommendations for performance and no clear feedback recommendations for learning. The recommendations for performance are that to improve motivation and associated behaviours like effort and situational interest, then PE teachers should use positive feedback. Generic positive feedback can have some negative effects and therefore the positive feedback should be specific to what is being learned. The use of digital technology to enhance feedback, specifically video feedback, is also recommended to improve skill performance and students’ self-assessment capability, but this should be coupled with verbal feedback from the teacher. No recommendations can be made for feedback’s impact on learning from the evidence within the review. This is due to most studies being short in intervention and not implementing a retention and transfer test. The design of future feedback interventions in PE, should be extended and ensure retention and transfer tests after a period of no practice to make judgements about its impact on learning. It is important to make sure that research findings work in the classroom and promote learning. Therefore, this research must be naturalistic and ecological valid, taking place in the PE classroom, with PE students and PE teachers.
Despite decades of accumulated research and evidence on feedback, both in education and motor learning fields, it is unclear from this review what feedback is effective for learning in PE. This raises concerns about the prescription of feedback recommendations in PE textbooks, especially as feedback is a double edge sword which can have a negative impact on performance and learning. Further evidence is still required on the how, what and when of feedback, on different population cohorts within primary and secondary PE. In addition, a future research agenda on feedback in PE must move beyond looking for a prescription of good feedback to adaptive and responsive feedback. Researchers must ask better questions of feedback – specifically which feedback and feedback processes produce which performance and learning outcomes for what section of the student population and under what circumstances.
References
Abraham, A. and Collins, D. (n.d.) 15 – Effective skill development: how should athletes’ skills be developed? Performance Psychology. doi:10.1016/B978-0-443-06734-1.00015-8.
Anderson, D.I., Magill, R.A., Mayo, A.M., et al. (2020) Enhancing motor skill acquisition with augmented feedback. Skill Acquisition in Sport. 3rd ed. Williams, A.M. and Hodges, N.J. (eds.). Abingdon: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781351189750-1.
Bailey, R., Armour, K., Kirk, D., et al. (2009) The educational benefits claimed for physical education and school sport: an academic review., 24 (1): 1–27. doi:10.1080/02671520701809817.
Barzouka, K., Sotiropoulos, K. and Kioumourtzoglou, E. (2015) The effect of feedback through an expert model observation on performance and learning the pass skill in volleyball and motivation., 15 (3): 407. doi:10.7752/jpes.2015.03061.
Brown, G.T.L. and Harris, L.R. (2018) Methods in Feedback Research. The Cambridge Handbook of Instructional Feedback. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781316832134.007.
Burton, D. (2018) Teach now! – Physical education. London ; New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Capel, S. and Whitehead, M. (2015) Learning to Teach Physical Education in the Secondary School. Learning to teach subjects in the secondary school series. London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315767482.
Chen, D.D. (2001) Trends in Augmented Feedback Research and Tips for the Practitioner., 72 (1): 32–36. doi:10.1080/07303084.2001.10605817.
Chiles, M. (2021) The Feedback Pendulum. Melton, Suffolk: John Catt Educational, Limited. Available at https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/%5BSITE_ID%5D/detail.action?docID=6531437.
Chiviacowsky, S. and Drews, R. (2014) Effects of generic versus non-generic feedback on motor learning in children., 9 (2): e88989. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0088989.
Chiviacowsky, S., Wulf, G., de Medeiros, F.L., et al. (2008) Learning Benefits of Self-Controlled Knowledge of Results in 10-Year-Old Children., 79 (3): 405–410. doi:10.1080/02701367.2008.10599505.
Cohen, V.B. (1985) A Reexamination of Feedback in Computer-Based Instruction: Implications for Instructional Design., 25 (1): 33–37. Available at:https://www.jstor.org/stable/44424353.
De Meester, A., Van Duyse, F., Aelterman, N., et al. (2020) An experimental, video-based investigation into the motivating impact of choice and positive feedback among students with different motor competence levels., 25 (4): 361–378. doi:10.1080/17408989.2020.1725456.
Drost, D.K., Wirth, C.K., Leonard, L., et al. (2018) Manipulating Feedback During Physical Education Climates: Immediate Effects on Motivation and Skill Performance., 9 (2): 46–54. Available at: https://search.proquest.com/docview/2167241844.
EEF (2018) Education Endowment Foundation Toolkit<br>. Available at: https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/evidence-summaries/teaching-learning-toolkit/ (Accessed: 01.06.21).
EEF (2021) Teacher Feedback to Improve Pupil Learning. Available at: https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/tools/guidance-reports/feedback/. (Accessed: 01.06.21).
Ekecrantz, S. (2015) Feedback and student learning? A critical review of research., 9 (2): 15–34. Available at: http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:du-28776.
Erturan-Ilker, G. (2014) Effects of feedback on achievement goals and perceived motivational climate in physical education., 24 (2): 152–161. Available at: https://search.informit.org/documentSummary;res=AEIPT;dn=205699.
Fletcher-Wood, H. (2018) Responsive Teaching. 1st ed. Milton: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315099699.
Fredenburg, K.B., Lee, A.M. and Solmon, M. (2001) The Effects of Augmented Feedback on Students’ Perceptions and Performance., 72 (3): 232–242. doi:10.1080/02701367.2001.10608956.
Goodway, J.D., Ozmun, J.C. and Gallahue, D.L. (2019) Understanding motor development: Infants, children, adolescents, adults. Burlington: Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. Available at: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/%5BSITE_ID%5D/detail.action?docID=5885550.
Hattie, J. (2009) Visible learning. London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203887332.
Hattie, J. and Timperley, H. (2007) The Power of Feedback., 77 (1): 81–112. doi:10.3102/003465430298487.
Ioannidis, J., Patsopoulos, N. and Rothstein, H. (2008) Research Methodology: Reasons or Excuses for Avoiding Meta-Analysis in Forest Plots., 336 (7658): 1413–1415. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20510099.
Kamins, M.L. and Dweck, C.S. (1999) Person Versus Process Praise and Criticism., 35 (3): 835–847. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.35.3.835.
Kirk, D. (2010) Physical Education Futures. International Studies in Physical Education and Youth Sport. London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203874622.
Kluger, A.N. and DeNisi, A. (1996) The effects of feedback interventions on performance: a historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory., 119 (2): 254. Available at: https://search.proquest.com/docview/1791736872.
Kluger, A.N. and DeNisi, A. (1998) Feedback Interventions: Toward the Understanding of a Double-Edged Sword., 7 (3): 67–72. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.ep10772989.
Kok, M., Komen, A., van Capelleveen, L., et al. (2020) The effects of self-controlled video feedback on motor learning and self-efficacy in a Physical Education setting: an exploratory study on the shot-put., 25 (1): 49–66. doi:10.1080/17408989.2019.1688773.
Koka, A. (2013) The Relationships Between Perceived Teaching Behaviors and Motivation in Physical Education: A One-Year Longitudinal Study., 57 (1): 33–53. doi:10.1080/00313831.2011.621213.
Koka, A. and Hein, V. (2005) The effect of perceived teacher feedback on intrinsic motivation in physical education., 36 (2): 91–106. Available at: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2005-09284-002.
Koka, A. and Hein, V. (2006) Perceptions of Teachers’ General and Informational Feedback and Intrinsic Motivation in Physical Education: Two-Year Effects., 103 (2): 321–332. doi:10.2466/pms.103.2.321-332.
Lee, A.M., Keh, N.C. and Magill, R.A. (1993) Instructional Effects of Teacher Feedback in Physical Education., 12 (3): 228–243. doi:10.1123/jtpe.12.3.228.
Mouratidis, A., Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., et al. (2008) The motivating role of positive feedback in sport and physical education: evidence for a motivational model., 30 (2): 240–268. doi:10.1123/jsep.30.2.240.
Nation-Grainger, S. (2017) “It’s just PE” till “It felt like a computer game”: using technology to improve motivation in physical education., 32 (4): 463–480. doi:10.1080/02671522.2017.1319590.
Nicaise, V., Bois, J.E., Fairclough, S.J., et al. (2007) Girls’ and boys’ perceptions of physical education teachers’ feedback., 25 (8): 915–926. doi:10.1080/02640410600898095.
Nicaise, V., Cogérino, G., Bois, J., et al. (2006) Students’ Perceptions of Teacher Feedback and Physical Competence in Physical Education Classes: Gender Effects., 25 (1): 36–57. doi:10.1123/jtpe.25.1.36.
O’Loughlin, J., Ní Chróinín, D. and O’Grady, D. (2013) Digital video: The impact on children’s learning experiences in primary physical education<br>., 19 (2): 165–182. doi:10.1177/1356336X13486050.
Page, M.J., McKenzie, J.E., Bossuyt, P.M., et al. (2021) Updating guidance for reporting systematic reviews: development of the PRISMA 2020 statement., 134: 103–112. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.02.003.
Palao, J.M., Hastie, P.A., Cruz, P.G., et al. (2015) The impact of video technology on student performance in physical education., 24 (1): 51–63. doi:10.1080/1475939X.2013.813404.
Petranek, L.J., Bolter, N.D. and Bell, K. (2019) Attentional Focus and Feedback Frequency Among First Graders in Physical Education., pp. 1–8. doi:10.1123/jtpe.2018-0080.
Potdevin, F., Vors, O., Huchez, A., et al. (2018) How can video feedback be used in physical education to support novice learning in gymnastics? Effects on motor learning, self-assessment and motivation., 23 (6): 559–574. doi:10.1080/17408989.2018.1485138.
Rink, J. (2019) Teaching Physical Education for Learning. Columbus: McGraw-Hill US Higher Ed USE. Available at: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/[SITE_ID]/detail.action?docID=6328273.
Rink, J.E. and Hall, T.J. (2008) Research on Effective Teaching in Elementary School Physical Education., 108 (3): 207–218. doi:10.1086/529103.
Roure, C., Méard, J., Lentillon-Kaestner, V., et al. (2019) The effects of video feedback on students’ situational interest in gymnastics., 28 (5): 563–574. doi:10.1080/1475939X.2019.1682652.
Ruiz-Primo, M. and Li, M. (2013) Examining Formative Feedback in the Classroom Context. New Research Perspectives. SAGE Handbook of Research on Classroom Assessment. Available at: https://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/sageclaas/examining_formative_feedback_in_the_classroom_context_new_research_perspectives/0.
Ruiz-Primo, M.A. and Brookhart, S.M. (2018) Using Feedback to Improve Learning. Student assessment for educators series. 1st ed. London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315627502.
Schmidt, R.A., Lee, T.D., Winstein, C.J., et al. (2019) Motor control and learning. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Available at: http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=030119903&sequence=000001&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA.
Clarke, S. and Hattie, J. (2018) Visible Learning: Feedback. Taylor and Francis. doi:10.4324/9780429485480.
Shute, V.J. (2008) Focus on Formative Feedback., 78 (1): 153–189. doi:10.3102/0034654307313795.
Silverman, S., Tyson, L. and Krampitz, J. (1992) Teacher feedback and achievement in physical education: Interaction with student practice., 8 (4): 333–344. doi:10.1016/0742-051X(92)90060-G.
Soderstrom, N.C. and Bjork, R.A. (2015) Learning Versus Performance: An Integrative Review., 10 (2): 176–199. doi:10.1177/1745691615569000.
Stone, D. and Heen, S. (2014) Thanks for the Feedback: The Science and Art of Receiving Feedback Well. New York: Portfolio Penguin.
Thomas, J., Kneale, D., McKenzie, J.E., et al. (2019) Determining the scope of the review and the questions it will address. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. doi:10.1002/9781119536604.ch2.
Todorovich, D.K.D.R. (2017) Perceived Competence and Skill Development in Physical Education： The Effect of Teacher Feedback., 5 (6): 291–304. doi:10.17265/2332-7839/2017.06.001.
Viciana, J., Cervelló, E.M. and Ramírez-Lechuga, J. (2007) Effect of Manipulating Positive and Negative Feedback on Goal Orientations, Perceived Motivational Climate, Satisfaction, Task Choice, Perception of Ability, and Attitude toward Physical Education Lessons., 105 (1): 67–82. doi:10.2466/pms.105.1.67-82.
Wiliam, D. (2011) Embedded Formative Assessment. Bloomington, Indiana: Solution Tree. Available at: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/%5BSITE_ID%5D/detail.action?docID=5105912.
Wiliam, D. (2016) Leadership for Teacher Learning. La Vergne: Learning Sciences International. Available at: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/%5BSITE_ID%5D/detail.action?docID=5197170.
Wilson, A. (2012) Student engagement and the role of feedback in learning., 2 (1): 15–19. Available at: http://www.beds.ac.uk/learning/support/jpd/volume-2-issue-1.
Winkelman, N. (2020) The Language of Coaching. Champaign: Human Kinetics. Available at: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/%5BSITE_ID%5D/detail.action?docID=6178351.
Winstone, N.E., Nash, R.A., Rowntree, J., et al. (2017) “It’d be useful, but I wouldn’t use it”: barriers to university students’ feedback seeking and recipience., 42 (11): 2026–2041. doi:10.1080/03075079.2015.1130032.
Wisniewski, B., Zierer, K. and Hattie, J. (2019) The Power of Feedback Revisited: A Meta-Analysis of Educational Feedback Research., 10: 3087. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03087.
Wulf, G. and Shea, C. (2002) Principles derived from the study of simple skills do not generalize to complex skill learning., 9 (2): 185–211. doi:10.3758/BF03196276.
Zhou, Y., Shao, W.D. and Wang, L. (2021b) Effects of Feedback on Students’ Motor Skill Learning in Physical Education: A Systematic Review., 18 (12): 6281. doi:10.3390/ijerph18126281.
Supplementary Table 1. | Characteristics of participants within the studies
| References | n | Gender | Age in Years (M = Mean age, SD = Standard deviation) | Experience of students | Experience of Teachers | Location |
| Barzouka et al., 2007 | 53 | Female | 12-15 years old (M=13.1, SD=0.9) | Novice | PE Teacher | Secondary School, Greece |
| Chiviacowsky and Drews, 2014 – Study 1 | 40 | Both | 10 years old (M=10.0, SD=0.32) | Novice | Not recorded | Primary School, Brazil |
| Chiviacowsky and Drews, 2014 – Study 2 | 40 | Both | 10 years old (M=10.5, SD=0.51) | Novice | Not recorded | Primary School, Brazil |
| Chiviacowsky et al, 2008 | 26 | Both | 10 years old (M=10.5, SD=0.5) | Novice | Not recorded | Primary School, Brazil |
| De Meester et al, 2020 | 277 | Both | 12-13 years old (M = 12.78) | Not recorded | Not recorded | Secondary School, Belgium |
| Drost and Todorovich, 2017 | 113 | Both | 10-11 years old (not recorded) | Novice | PE Undergrads | Primary school, US |
| Drost, 2018 | 170 | Both | 10-11 years old (M=10.55, SD=0.75) | Competent | 2 PE Undergrads | Primary School, US |
| Erturan-İlker, 2014 | 47 | Both | 13-14 years old (not recorded) | Not recorded | Male pre-service PE teacher | Secondary School, Turkey |
| Fredenburg et al., 2001 | 103 | Both | 8-9 years old (not recorded) | Not recorded | 4 female university upper-level education majors | Primary School, US |
| Kok et al., 2020 | 56 | Both | 12-13 years old (not recorded) | Novice | Male PE Teacher, 6 Years teaching experience | Secondary School, Netherlands |
| Koka and Hein, 2005 | 638 | Both | 14-18 years old (M=16.1, SD=1.1) | Not recorded | Usual PE Teacher | Secondary School, Estonia |
| Koka and Hein, 2006 | 302 | Both | 11-15 years old (M=12.7, SD=1.0) | Not recorded | Usual PE Teacher | Secondary School, Estonia |
| Koka, 2013 | 330 | Both | (M=13.74 years, SD=0.73) | Not recorded | Usual PE Teacher | Secondary School, Estonia |
| Mouratidis et al., 2008 | 228 | Both | 12 to 15 years old (M=13.78, SD=0.93) | Not recorded | Not recorded | Secondary School, Greece |
| Nation-Grainger, 2017 | 10 | Male | 14-15 years old (not recorded) | Not recorded | Not recorded | Secondary School, England |
| Nicaise and Cogérino, 2006 | 450 | Both | (M=16, SD=0.85) | Not recorded | 12 PE Teachers (6 Males and 6 Females) | Secondary School, France |
| Nicaise et al., 2007 | 325 | Both | (M=16, SD=0.55) | Not recorded | 8 PE Teachers (4 Males and 4 Females) | Secondary School, France |
| O’Loughlin et al., 2013 | 22 | Both | 9-10 years old (not recorded) | Not recorded | Not recorded | Primary School, Ireland |
| Palao et al., 2013 | 60 | Not recorded | 14-15 years old (not recorded) | Not recorded | Usual PE Teacher with 18 years | Secondary School, Spain |
| Petranek et al., 2019 | 65 | Both | 6-7 years old (not recorded) | Novice | Usual PE Teacher and 4 Teacher Educators | Primary School, US |
| Potdevin et al., 2018 | 43 | Both | 12-13 years old (M=12.5, SD=0.4) | Novice | Not recorded | Secondary School, France |
| Roure et al., 2019 | 361 | Both | 11-17 years old (M=13, SD=1.5) | Novice | Usual PE Teachers (n=6) 8 to 25 years teaching experience | Secondary School, Switzerland and Belgium |
| Viciana and Cervello, 2007 | 95 | Both | 14-16 years old (not recorded) | Novice | Graduate PE teachers, 2 years teaching experience | Secondary School, Spain |
Supplementary Table 2. | Characteristics of the type of activities and outcomes within the studies
| References | Activity Area | Task | Domains Studied | Outcomes Studied |
| Barzouka et al., 2007 | Volleyball | Receive and return a volleyball | Skill | Acquisition and retention of performance outcome and technique |
| Chiviacowsky and Drews, 2014 – Study 1 | FMS | Kicking a soccer ball at a target | Skill | Accuracy of kick |
| Chiviacowsky and Drews, 2014 – Study 2 | FMS | Throwing beanbags at target | Skill | Accuracy of throw |
| Chiviacowsky et al, 2008 | FMS | Throwing beanbag at target with non-dominant hand. | Skill | Improvement and retention of accuracy of throw |
| De Meester et al, 2020 | Gymnastics | Handstand | Behaviour | Actual motor competence, needs satisfaction and frustration, and motivation for PE |
| Drost and Todorovich, 2017 | Lacrosse | Lacrosse Shooting at Target | Skill and Behaviour | Perceived competence, performance skills test on product and process of skill. |
| Drost, 2018 | FMS | Bean bag tossing | Skill and Behaviour | Motor skill competency, perceived competence, interest/enjoyment, pressure/tension, effort/importance |
| Erturan-İlker, 2014 | Volleyball | Not Recorded | Behaviour | Mastery, performance approach goal and performance avoidance goal behaviours |
| Fredenburg et al., 2001 | Coordination | Cup Stacking (Simple and Complex) | Skill and Behaviour | Performance score (speed) and quality of practice |
| Kok et al., 2020 | Athletics | Shot Put | Skill and Behaviour | Shot put technique, shot put distance |
| Koka and Hein, 2005 | General PE | Not Recorded | Behaviour | Motivation within PE |
| Koka and Hein, 2006 | General PE | Not Recorded | Behaviour | Motivation within PE |
| Koka, 2013 | General PE | Not Recorded | Behaviour | Motivation within PE |
| Mouratidis et al., 2008 | Health Related Fitness | Shuttle Run | Skill and Behaviour | Competence valuation, pre and post task perceived competence, performance evaluation, autonomous motivation, subjective vitality, free-choice behavioural intention and performance of task. |
| Nation-Grainger, 2017 | Not recorded | Not Recorded | Behaviour | Physical activity levels and calories burnt. |
| Nicaise and Cogérino, 2006 | Not recorded | Not Recorded | Behaviour | PE performance and self-perceptions of competence |
| Nicaise et al., 2007 | Not recorded | Not Recorded | Behaviour | Students’ perception of teachers’ invested time, perceived competence, effort-importance, and interest-enjoyment, PE performance. |
| O’Loughlin et al., 2013 | Basketball | Free throw, chest pass, dribble, bounce pass, jumps shot and lay-up. | Skill and Behaviour | Skill performance and learning and self-regulation of learning |
| Palao et al., 2013 | Athletics | Hurdles | Knowledge, Skill and Behaviour | Performance and technique of hurdles, knowledge of hurdles, quality and quantity of practice and teachers’ perception of the feedback interventions. |
| Petranek et al., 2019 | FMS | Overarm Throw | Knowledge and Skill | Performance of throw, knowledge test, transfer test. |
| Potdevin et al., 2018 | Gymnastics | Front handstand flat back exercise | Knowledge, Skill and Behaviour | Performance of front handstand, motivation, and self-assessment ability |
| Roure et al., 2019 | Gymnastics | Choice from forward roll, handstand, cartwheel or roundoff. | Behaviour | Situational Interest |
| Viciana and Cervello, 2007 | Gymnastics | Choice from Acrosport or pyramid construction. | Behaviour | Task orientation, ego orientation, learning climate, performance climate, enjoyment, boredom, easy tasks, challenging tasks, perception of ability and attitude toward PE. |
Supplementary Table 3. | Characteristics of type of feedback and intervention
| References | Types of feedback intervention studied | Length of intervention | Retention/Transfer Test |
| Barzouka et al., 2007 | (a) verbal feedback, (b) video modelling demonstration feedback and (c) simultaneous modelling demonstration and self-modelling | 12 lessons over 6 weeks. | Retention test a week later |
| Chiviacowsky and Drews, 2014 – Study 1 | (a) generic feedback and (b) non-generic feedback | 1 lesson | Retention test a day later |
| Chiviacowsky and Drews, 2014 – Study 2 | (a) generic feedback and (b) non-generic feedback | 2 lessons over 2 days | Retention test a day later |
| Chiviacowsky et al, 2008 | (a) self-controlled knowledge of results feedback or (b) yoked knowledge of results feedback | 2 lessons over 2 days | Retention test a day later |
| De Meester et al, 2020 | (a) corrective feedback and (b) positive and corrective feedback | 1 lesson | No retention/transfer test |
| Drost and Todorovich, 2017 | (a) positive general feedback, (b) informational feedback and (c) no feedback | 1 lesson | No retention/transfer test |
| Drost, 2018 | (a) positive general feedback and (b) informational feedback | 7 lessons over 7 weeks | No retention/transfer test |
| Erturan-İlker, 2014 | (a) positive feedback and (b) negative feedback | 6 lessons over 6 weeks, 90 minutes per lesson | No retention/transfer test |
| Fredenburg et al., 2001 | (a) no feedback, (b) positive, motivational feedback, (c) task knowledge feedback, and (d) positive, motivational feedback and task knowledge feedback | 4 days | No retention/transfer test |
| Kok et al., 2020 | (a) self-controlled video feedback, (b) externally controlled video feedback, and (c) teacher feedback without video | 9 lessons over 9 weeks | Retention test a week later |
| Koka and Hein, 2005 | (a) perceived positive general feedback, (b) perceived knowledge of performance feedback and (c) positive and negative nonverbal feedback | 1 questionnaire taken once | No retention/transfer test |
| Koka and Hein, 2006 | (a) perceived positive general feedback and (b) perceived informational feedback | 2 questionnaires taken twice 2 years apart. | No retention/transfer test |
| Koka, 2013 | (a) positive general feedback, (b) positive nonverbal feedback and (c) negative nonverbal feedback | 3 questionnaires taken twice 12 months apart. | No retention/transfer test |
| Mouratidis et al., 2008 | (a) strong positive feedback and (b) mild positive feedback | 1 lesson | No retention/transfer test |
| Nation-Grainger, 2017 | (a) biofeedback | 6 PE lessons over 6 weeks | No retention/transfer test |
| Nicaise and Cogérino, 2006 | (a) range of feedback to good performance and (b) range of feedback responses to poor performances/mistakes | 1 questionnaire taken once | No retention/transfer test |
| Nicaise et al., 2007 | (a) range of feedback to good performance and (b) range of feedback responses to poor performances/mistakes | 1 questionnaire take once and two PE performance collections 7 months apart. | No retention/transfer test |
| O’Loughlin et al., 2013 | (a) video feedback | 10 lessons over 10 weeks | No retention/transfer test |
| Palao et al., 2013 | (a) verbal feedback from the teacher, (b) video and teacher feedback, and (c) video and student feedback. | 5 lessons over 5 weeks, 50 minutes per lesson | No retention/transfer test |
| Petranek et al., 2019 | (a) external feedback, high frequency, (b) external feedback, low frequency, (c) internal feedback, high frequency and (d) internal feedback, low frequency | 4 lessons over 2 weeks | Retention and transfer test a week later |
| Potdevin et al., 2018 | (a) video feedback and teacher verbal feedback and (b) teacher verbal feedback | 5 lessons over 5 weeks | No retention/transfer test |
| Roure et al., 2019 | (a) teacher verbal feedback, (b) video feedback and (c) video feedback with teacher feedback | 1 lesson | No retention/transfer test |
| Viciana and Cervello, 2007 | (a) negative affective feedback, (b) positive affective feedback and (c) both negative and positive affective feedback | 14 lessons over 7 weeks | No retention/transfer test |
Supplementary Table 4. | Key Findings and Recommendations to PE Teachers
| References | Aims | Key Findings | Recommendations to PE Teachers |
| Barzouka et al., 2007 | To investigate the effects of feedback with simultaneous skilled model observation and self-modelling on volleyball skill acquisition. | All feedback interventions showed improvement in accuracy (performance outcome) and technical performance (technique). | No clear recommendations provided. |
| Chiviacowsky and Drews, 2014 – Study 1 | To investigate the influences of generic versus non-generic feedback on motor performance and learning in 10-year-old children. | Generic feedback can degrade not only intrinsic motivation in children but also their motor performance, when compared with non-generic feedback. | PE Teachers can be advised to avoid providing generic positive feedback (which has an entity view of ability) with children, especially during the motor learning process. |
| Chiviacowsky and Drews, 2014 – Study 2 | To investigate the influences of generic versus non-generic feedback on motor performance and learning in 10-year-old children. | Non-generic feedback presented more permanent effects that positively affected the children’s motor learning. | PE Teachers can be advised to avoid providing generic positive feedback (which has an entity view of ability) with children, especially during the motor learning process. |
| Chiviacowsky et al, 2008 | To investigate the learning benefits of self-controlled Knowledge of Results with children. | Self-controlled knowledge of results feedback enhanced both the accuracy of the throw and the retention of that accuracy. | PE Teachers can be advised to allow children the opportunity to ask for feedback when they want it (or after successful attempts) to facilitate enhanced learning. |
| De Meester et al, 2020 | To investigate the effects of choice provision and positive feedback on students’ motivational experiences in PE, and whether these effects were moderated by students’ actual motor competence. | Positive feedback (in addition to corrective feedback) reduced negative motivational outcomes, such as feelings of incompetence and rejection, but will not necessarily strengthen positive motivational outcomes such as feelings of effectiveness. | PE teachers can be advised to take their students’ motor competence levels into account when applying certain feedback strategies. Specifically, that providing positive feedback in addition to corrective feedback can offer additional benefits for lowly motor competent students who will feel more successful and effective. |
| Drost and Todorovich, 2017 | To investigate the effects of feedback on perceived competence and student performance in physical education. | Informational feedback resulted in a higher process performance improvement from pre-to-post-test. No differences were found between feedback interventions for product performance or perceived competence. | PE Teachers can be advised to offer informational feedback to students if they wish to help improve their skill form, as this will result in the greatest of improvement. |
| Drost, 2018 | To investigate the effects of TARGET and feedback manipulated climates in a short unit of work in PE. | Informational feedback significantly increased motor skill performance scores from pre to post task assessment. | PE Teachers can be advised to be aware that different types of feedback in different climates will have different impact on students, specifically they need to be aware whether the purpose of feedback is to enhance motivation or performance. |
| Erturan-İlker, 2014 | To investigate the effects of teacher’s positive and negative feedback on high school students perceived motivational climate and achievement goals in a physical education setting. | Positive feedback increased mastery and performance approach goal behaviour where the negative feedback increased performance avoidance goal behaviours. | PE Teachers can be advised to give positive feedback due to its positive motivational outcomes in high school PE setting and avoid giving negative feedback. |
| Fredenburg et al., 2001 | To investigate the effects of different types of augmented feedback on students’ motivational knowledge, practice behaviours, and performance outcomes. | All feedback interventions improved performance scores in the complex task but not the simple one which means feedback might not be necessary for simple tasks. Task feedback provided a more rapid increase in participant performance as improved behaviour of practising. | PE teachers can be advised to provide task feedback when teaching more complex tasks, both for improvement in the task, and sustaining students on task behaviour, especially if they are novices. |
| Kok et al., 2020 | To investigate the effects of self-controlled video feedback on students’ motor learning and self-efficacy in a PE setting when students obtain feedback relatively independent of the teacher and examine to what extent self-control and self-efficacy during practice predicted students’ motor learning. | All feedback interventions showed significant improvement in shot-put distance and technique from pre-test to post test and in retention. There was no significant different between feedback interventions, but self-controlled video feedback seemed to promote self-efficacy. | No clear recommendations provided. |
| Koka and Hein, 2005 | To investigate the influence of teacher’s verbal and nonverbal feedback on middle and high school student’s intrinsic motivation in PE settings. | Perceived positive general feedback and perceived knowledge of performance feedback improved students’ intrinsic motivation whereas perceived positive nonverbal feedback and perceived negative nonverbal feedback did not. | PE teachers can be advised to increasingly provide positive general feedback to enhance students’ intrinsic motivation to engage in PE. |
| Koka and Hein, 2006 | To investigate the relative change or stability of perceived positive general feedback, perceived instructive feedback and perceived informational feedback and the influence of them on students’ intrinsic motivation in PE over two years. | Positive general feedback had a significant positive association on students’ intrinsic motivation within PE. | PE Teachers can be advised that positively stated feedback can enhance students’ intrinsic motivation in physical education, and that they should be aware that previous positive perceived feedback may affect later intrinsic motivation. |
| References | Aims | Key Findings | Recommendations to PE Teachers |
| Koka, 2013 | To investigate the direction of relationships between specific dimensions of perceived teaching behaviours and motivation in physical education over time among 330 secondary school students. | Positive general feedback resulted in a higher level of autonomous motivation in PE. Perceived negative nonverbal feedback was negatively associated with autonomous motivation. | PE Teachers can be advised to provide positive general feedback and avoid negative non-verbal feedback to promote higher levels of autonomous behaviour in PE. |
| Mouratidis et al., 2008 | To investigate the motivating role of positive competence feedback on participants’ wellbeing, performance, and intention to participate. | Strong positive feedback manipulation resulted in increased competence satisfaction and autonomous motivation. | PE Teachers can be advised to offer strong positive feedback to enhance intrinsic motivation. |
| Nation-Grainger, 2017 | To investigate the impact of biofeedback on physical activity levels and motivation within Physical Education lessons. | Biofeedback, through wearable digital technology can have a positive impact on increasing low participation/physical activity levels in PE. | PE Teachers can be advised that digital technology can provide positive feedback to enhance student’s participation and physical activity levels in PE. |
| Nicaise and Cogérino, 2006 | to investigate whether students’ perceptions of teacher feedback are gender-differentiated in physical education, as well as to determine how perceived feedback is related to students’ perceptions of competence | Higher frequencies of praise after performance successes and less criticism after mistakes were associated with higher self-perception of competence, especially in female PE students. | PE Teachers can be advised that providing high frequencies of positive and informational feedback to all students, whether male or female, can lead to higher levels of achievement and promote more positive classroom experiences for everyone. |
| Nicaise et al., 2007 | To investigate a) whether teachers’ feedback was perceived differently by boys and girls, and how the sex of the teacher influenced these perceptions, and (b) the effects of types of feedback (praise, no response-successful, encouragement, technical information, criticism, no response-unsuccessful, and teacher’s invested time) on students’ perceived competence, effort, enjoyment, and their PE performance. | When students perceived that their PE teacher praised them after following a good performance and spent time with them then competence, effort, enjoyment, and PE final performance were higher, especially in female PE students. | PE Teachers are advised that if they wish to improve attitudes among girls towards PE, they should provide increased praise for good play or effort, provide non-verbal support, spend more time with the girls when providing feedback, and be empathetic to their needs. They are also advised to pay attention to how they phrase their encouragement and technical information feedback to avoid reducing perceived competence. |
| O’Loughlin et al., 2013 | To investigate children’s perspectives and experiences of using digital video in primary physical education and its impact on motivation, feedback, self-assessment, and learning. | The use of video feedback coupled with self-assessment tasks improved student’s skill performance and their motivation. | PE Teachers are advised that digital video for feedback facilitate student’s engagement in the process of their own learning and enhance their skill performance and their motivation. |
| Palao et al., 2013 | To investigate the effectiveness of the use of video feedback on student learning in physical education, while also examining the teacher’s responses to the innovation. | Video feedback with teacher verbal feedback improved student’s knowledge, performance, and technique outcomes, where digital video feedback with student verbal feedback improved the quality and the quantity of student practice. | PE Teachers are advised that digital video feedback, coupled with either teacher verbal feedback or peer verbal feedback can enhance knowledge and skill acquisition and enhance the quality and quantity of practice within PE lessons. |
| Petranek et al., 2019 | To investigate the effects of attentional focused feedback at high and low frequency rates among 6- to 7-year-olds children performing an overhand throwing task. | Internal focused feedback and high frequency of feedback enhanced knowledge of proper form, improved movement form and retention and transfer of movement form. | PE Teachers are advised that high frequency rate of feedback for novice students can enhance not only their physical motor performance but also their knowledge of proper form. |
| Potdevin et al., 2018 | To investigate effects of using video feedback on motor skill acquisition, self-assessment ability and motivation in a school-based learning environment (structured PE programme) with novice children learning a gymnastic skill. | Video feedback with teacher verbal feedback enhanced students’ capability to self-assess, facilitate a significant increase in their motor skill and decrease their levels of amotivation. | PE Teachers are advised that using a simplified video feedback learning aid, coupled with a self-assessment tasks and teacher verbal feedback can enhance motor learning and self-assessment ability over short time with novices. |
| Roure et al., 2019 | To investigate the effects of video feedback on student’s situational interest. | Video feedback coupled with teacher verbal feedback enhanced total interest and three situational interest dimensions; instant enjoyment, exploration intention and attention demand). | PE Teachers are advised that video feedback coupled with teacher verbal feedback can reduce the cognitive load and enhance students’ attention on relevant cues to improve situational interest. They are warned that video feedback by itself might not necessarily enhance outcomes. |
| Viciana and Cervello, 2007 | To investigate the effects of different types of feedback on goal orientation, perception of motivational climate, satisfaction, and boredom in PE classes. | Positive feedback improved learning-orientated motivational climate and enjoyment in students compared to negative feedback. Negative feedback improved performance-orientated motivational climate in students compared to positive feedback. Where both positive and negative feedback were provided it had lower scores on learning-oriented motivational climate and higher scores on enjoyment than the negative feedback, and lower scores on boredom than positive feedback. | PE Teachers are advised that positive feedback can enhance motivational variables within PE. |
drowningintheshallow 
One thought on “The impact of feedback on performance and learning within PE”