The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment April, 2014, Vol. 16

21
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment

April, 2014, Vol. 16(1)
Understanding the Power of Feedback in Education: A Validation Study of the Feedback

Orientation Scale (FOS) in Classrooms
Lan, YANG*
Centre of Special Educational Needs and Inclusive Education,
The Hong Kong Institute of Education
Kuenfung, SIN
Department of Special Education and Counseling,
The Hong Kong Institute of Education
Xueyan, LI
School of Sociology,
Central China Normal University
Jiesi, GUO
Institute for Positive Psychology in Education,
Australian Catholic University
Ming, LUI
Department of Education Studies,
The Hong Kong Baptist University
Abstract
The present study validated the Chinese version of the FeedbackOrientation Scale
(FOS) in a vocational education setting in mainland China. Confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA) supported the four-factor solution of the FOS to examine feedback-related
individual differences: feedback value, feedback accountability, feedback
social-awareness and feedback self-efficacy.Between-network validity of the FOS was
investigated through examining the relationship of feedback orientations to both
academic and social goals. The results showed that learning goal orientation was highly
associated with feedback utility, feedback accountability and feedback self-efficacy,
whereas performance goal orientation was highly associated with the social awareness
orientation. This study expands our understanding ofthe effects of teacher feedback on
changes in learning performance/ achievementbyexamining the impact of student
feedback orientationson receiving and responding to feedback.Implications for
advancing the theory and practice of feedback ineducation arediscussed.
Keywords: Feedback effectiveness, individual differences, feedback orientations, goal

orientations, learning improvement
c © 2014 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

22
April, 2014, Vol. 16(1)
Introduction
Studies and Measurement of Feedback
Giving and receiving feedback hasbeen found to play an essential role in

enhancing the receivers‟ work performance in organizational settings (see Anseel,
Beatty, Shen, Lievens, & Sackett‟s, 2013; London, 2003, forcomprehensive reviews).
The potentially powerful influences of individual differences, such as perceived
feedback utility, self-efficacy in feedback situations, and personal responsibility to
respond to feedback, have also been considered in studying the effectiveness of
feedback in organizations (e.g., Ilgen, Fisher, &Taylor, 1979; Linderbaum& Levy, 2010;
London &Smither, 2002). Surprisingly, although it has also been consistently reported
that feedback plays a pivotal role in facilitating academic performance and learning
engagement (Brophy, 1981; Carless, 2006; Hattie &Timperley, 2007; Shute, 2008), less
effort has been made in testing for the impact of these individual differences (e.g.,
feedback self-efficacy, feedback utility, etc.) on the power of feedback in educational
settings. Concerning this phenomenon, Hattie and Gan (2011) commented that: “It
seems we know much about the power of feedback, but too little about how to harness
this power and make it work more effectively in the classroom” (p. 249-250).
The Definition of Feedback: An Overview
Kluger and DeNisi (1996) defined feedback as the “information regarding some
aspect(s) of one's task performance” (p. 255) in their meta-analytic study of feedback
intervention effects on performance improvement in organization settings. Similarly, in
education, feedback was defined as the information given to the learner to inform “his
or her actual state of learning or performance” (Narciss, 2008, p. 127). Hattie (2009)
further suggested that the information conveyed by feedback can be provided by agents
like teachers, peers, parents, and other external and internal sources (e.g., book and
self). The important features of feedback presented in previous studies (Hattie, 2009;
Kluger&DeNisi, 1996; Narciss, 2008) have been considered inthe present definition of
feedback. Specifically, feedback was defined as the information provided by regular
school teachers about the quality of the students‟ performance. Feedback information
can be conveyed in a wide range of ways, such as through letter grades, percentile scores,
number of solved items, descriptive comments on not only students‟ strengths, but also
weaknesses in addition to theprovision of possible solutions to help students overcome
difficulties and reach desired goals (Careless, 2006; Hattie &Gan, 2011; Hattie
&Timperley, 2007; Linn & Miller, 2005; Shute, 2008 ).
The Power of Feedback: Enhancing Learning and Positive Self-Concept
Students‟ academic achievement can be potentially influenced by a wide range of

23
April, 2014, Vol. 16(1)
factors in real learning situations. Based on 138 well-documented factors in over 800
meta-analytic studies (including 50,000 effect sizes), Hattie (2009) found that the overall
effect size of feedback was d=0.79. This places feedback atthe top 10among over 100
influences documented in this synthesis (Hattie, 2009). Given that an average effect size
of the 138 influences wasd = 0.40, it was apparent that feedback appeared to be an
extremely powerful influence on facilitating learning (see also Hattie &Timperley, 2007).
The power of feedback has also been well documented in self-concept research.
O‟Mara, Marsh, Craven, and Debus (2006) made an important attempt to
systematically and critically review self-concept enhancement studies by incorporating
meta-analytic techniques with the advances in the construct-validity approach. This
contributed to a better and broader understanding of the experimental effects from a
wide range of educational interventions on self-concept. Specifically, with reference to
the 501 unique effect sizes generated from the 200 interventions in 145 studies, O‟Mara
et al. (2006) recorded the effects of the educational interventions by using feedback
enhancement approaches. The feedback that was delivered with positive wordings
appeared to be the most powerful approach to enhance the targeted self-concept(s) with
the highest random effect-size (d = 1.13) in contrast to other approaches with effect
sizes ranging from 0.19 to 0.86. These findings (Hattie, 2009; O‟Mara et al., 2006)
provided strong empirical support to the power of feedback interventions in promoting
academic achievement and positive self-concept among the targeted students.
To Harness the Power of Feedback: Taking Account of Individual Differences
Although the feedback interventions generally brought about performance

improvements, there was evidence in a number of studies that did not fully support the
efficacy of feedback (Ilgen et al., 1979; Kluger&DeNisi, 1996). For example, Kluger
and DeNisi (1996) meta-analyzied 607 effect sizes extracted from 12,652 participants
and 23,663 observations, and found that although there was an average feedback
intervention effect (d =0.41) on performance improvement, over 38% of the feedback
interventions effects werefound to be negative.The possible factors affecting the results
of the feedback intervention were examined andKluger and DeNisi (1996) suggestedthat
individual differences and contextual factors to be taken into consideration. It was also
argued that the relationship between feedback interventions and performance changes
might not be simply linear in nature as assumed in most studies (see also Ilgen et al.,
1979). Likewise, some educational psychologists have argued that relative tothe well
documented literature of feedback effectson promoting learning and self-concept in
education, less is known about how to increase the power of feedback in an actual
classroom setting (Hattie &Gan, 2011; Hattie &Timperley, 2007).
Theoretical Model Linking Individual Differences to Feedback Effects
Based on previous research (e.g., Ilgen et al., 1979; Kluger&DeNisi, 1996), London

24
April, 2014, Vol. 16(1)
and Smither (2002) made further theoretical improvements about the impact of
individual differences on feedback processes in organizational contexts. More
importantly, in comparison with Ilgen et al.‟s (1979) model, London and Smithermoved
forward to develop a more comprehensive and informative theoretical framework for
illustrating how feedback influenced outcomes. In this model, London and Smither
(2002) posited a core construct termed 'individual‟s feedback orientations' (see Figure 1).
Feedback orientation was conceptualized as “a construct consisting of multiple
dimensionsthat work together additively to determine an individual‟s overall receptivity
to feedback andthe extent to which the individual welcomes guidance and coaching”
(London &Smither, 2002, p. 83). As a multidimensional construct, feedback orientation
consisted of five dimensions in London and Smither‟s model: belief in the value of
feedback, propensity to seek feedback, propensity to process feedback mindfully, feeling
accountable to use feedback, and sensitivity to the views of others.
Figure 1. The role of feedback orientation, school feedback culture, and teacher
feedback in learning performance and outcomes (adapted from London &Smither,
2002, p. 82). Reproduced and reprinted with permission. © 2002 Elsevier Science Inc.
All rights reserved.
Measurement of Individual‟s Feedback Orientation
With regard to London and Smither‟s conceptual framework, Linderbaum and

Levy (2010) further developed and validated an instrument calledthe Feedback
Orientation Scale (FOS), which aimed to measure individual differences in affecting
feedback receiving and responding behavior. The FOS consisted of four dimensions

25
April, 2014, Vol. 16(1)
that tapped individual differences with different construct measures, such as feedback
utility to measure a receiver‟s perceived utility or usefulness of feedback; feedback
accountability to measure a receiver‟s personal responsibility and commitment to
respond to feedback; feedback self-efficacy to measure a receiver‟s perceived
capabilities to deal with feedback; and feedback social awareness to measure a
receiver‟s social awareness to make use of feedback to improve his or her social self
(Linderbaum& Levy, 2010). It should be noted that in a broad sense,self-efficacy refers
to "beliefs in one's capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to
manage prospective situations” (Bandura, 1997, p. 2). Although a number of
researchers argued for the domain-specific nature of self-efficacy (for a comprehensive
discussion, see Bong &Skaalvik, 2003; Pajares, 1996), fewer studies have been devoted
to understanding its possible features in feedback situations. Hence, instead of using a
global measure of self-efficacy to tap the receivers‟ capability to interpret and respond to
feedback, feedback self-efficacy was used in this study to address the issues just discussed.
To date, this scale has only been administered in organizational settings in the Western
context.The present study attempts to pilot the scale in an educational setting in
mainland China.
Goals and Feedback
As consistently reported by previous research, the most important aim of feedback

provision would be to reduce the perceived discrepancy between the receivers‟ current
performance and their desired goals (Hattie &Timperley, 2007; Kluger&DeNisi, 1996;
Locke & Latham, 1990).Based on theoretical and empirical advances in goal theories in
educational settings (Covington, 2000; Elliot, 2005; Urdan, 2012), the following sections
summarized research on the academic and social goals in education and the
relationships among these goals, feedback orientations and feedback seeking behavior.
Learning and Performance Goals Orientations
So far, two major categories of students‟ goals, in terms of the learning goal
orientation and the performance goal orientation, emerged from a number of studies
(for comprehensive reviews, see Dweck, 1999). Consistent with the achievement goal
research, the term orientation is used here “not only to refer to a broad network of
beliefs and feelings, but also to refer to a dispositional goal adoption tendency” (Elliot,
2005, p. 66). Students with a learning goal orientation aim for the development of
personal competence by acquiring new skills. Learning-oriented students have a more
intrinsic type of motivation showing an inherent interest in mastering learning
content.Performance-goal oriented students, on the other hand, prefer to demonstrate
their competence in public and seek more favorable self-evaluations (Dweck, 2006;
Dweck, 1999; Pintrich, 2000).

26
April, 2014, Vol. 16(1)
Social Goals Orientation
To broaden the scope of achievement goal theory, Urdan and Maehr (1995)
highlighted the role of social goals in understanding achievement motivation and its
related learning outcomes (see also Urdan, 2012, for an up-to-date review). Particularly,
in non-Western cultures, research evidence has been growing to support social goals as
important additions to learning and performance goals in educational settings (e.g.,
King, McInerney, & Watkins, 2010, 2012; Watkins & Hattie, 2012).
Goal Orientations and Feedback
Ashford, Blatt, and Walle‟s (2003) suggested that learning and performance goal
orientations would result in different interpretations and reactions to feedback among
individuals. Specifically, Ashford et al. (2003, p. 791) suggested that “with a learning goal
orientation, feedback is viewed as information on how to improve; with a
performance-goal orientation, feedback is viewed primarily as an evaluation of aspects
of the self, such as one‟s competence and worth”. Taking into consideration the
characteristics of feedback utility and feedback self-efficacy orientations, it is
hypothesized that a learning goal orientation (focusing more on understanding and
mastering learning contents) would be more positively and significantly associated with
feedback utility and feedback self-efficacy compared to a performance goal orientation
(focusing more on achieving high grades and demonstrating ability to others).
In order to explain the relationships among goals and feedback, VandeWalle (2003)
further developed a goal orientation model of feedback-seeking behavior. VandeWalle
argued that “because a performance goal orientation is associated with concerns about
impression management, it may also be associated with valuing feedback-seeking
behavior as a tool for impression management” (VandeWalle, 2003, p. 588). In the FOS
(Linderbaum & Levy, 2010), impression management was measured by a subscale called
social-awareness. The social awareness orientation was constructed to assess one‟s major
purpose for seeking and using feedback as an approach to enhance one‟s social self.
Given that a performance goal orientation (i.e., to seek public awareness of one‟s ability)
shares the similar social-oriented characteristics with the orientation of feedback social
awareness (i. e., to use feedback information to increase the social self), performance
goal is hypothesized to have a stronger association with the social-awareness orientation
than the other feedback orientations (e. g., feedback accountability and feedback utility).
In order to have a better understanding of students‟ feedback orientations in
advancing the goal theory, it is necessary to understand not only the students' academic
goals (learning and performance goals), but also their social goals in predicting feedback
orientations. London and Smither‟s conceptual model (2002) was further used in
education. The goal orientations were thus posited as the important individual correlates
of individual feedback orientation (see also Figure 1).

27
April, 2014, Vol. 16(1)
The Present Study
In short, feedback from significant others (e. g., supervisors, managers or teachers)
play a role in changing the receivers‟ performance (Hattie, 2009; Kluger & DeNisi, 1996).
However, in the past two decades of feedback research, the potentially significant role of
individual differences in mediating external feedback and performance changes has
largely been overlooked (Ilgen et al., 1979; London & Smither, 2002). In education,
although there were some studies concerning feedback and individual differences (e. g.,
Chan & Lam, 2010; Tolli & Schmidt, 2008), it seems that researchers have placeda
special focus on examining feedback intervention effects on self-efficacy or other
individual differences (e.g., goal revision) rather than testing the characteristics of
individuals‟ feedback orientations per se that would mediate teacher feedback effects on
performance improvements. Thus, there will be a need to understand the impact of
individual differences onmediating external feedback and performance changes.
Consequently, an appropriate tool for fulfilling this purpose is necessary.
It is also necessary to note that we also took consideration of the cultural
differences in students‟ perceptions of teachers‟ role in classes and learning in order to
generate a better understanding of the generalizability of FOS in Chinese students. In
Chinese culture, power distance and hierarchical social relationships are emphasized
(Ho, 2001; Hofstede, 1997). Power distance was defined by Hofstede (1997, p. 28) as
“the extent to which less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a
country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally.”According to extensive
research by Hofstede and his colleagues, Chinese culture was characterized by high
power distance (see Hofstede, 1997 for a review). In educational settings, Chinese
teachers are often regarded as the authority that students should respect(Ho, 1999, 2001).
In addition, “Chinese teachers exercising authority over students is seen as appropriate
since this primarily reflects care for and nurture of the students” (Ho, 2001, p. 107).
Chinese classes are also taken as very formal situations for teachers‟ direct instruction to
deliver knowledge to students (see Watkins & Biggs, 2001 for a review). Students also
prefer to act according to their teachers‟ instructions, because instructional practices
(e.g., direct instruction, feedback) delivered by teachers are often perceived as acts of
nurture and care rather than control or manipulation (Ho, 2001). Under these cultural
circumstances, it is more likely that students‟ perceived utility of teacher feedback and
personal responsibility to respond to teachers would be positively higher than their
correlations with other factors measured by the FOS.
This study attempts to expand our understanding on the appropriateness of the
FOS by examining the impact of individual differences on changes in student learning
performances/outcomes mediated through the effects of feedback given by teachers.
Specifically, the FOS, originally posited and tested in a Western culture (Linderbaum &
Levy, 2010), was here testedin theclassrooms of a vocational educational setting in
mainland China.

28
April, 2014, Vol. 16(1)
Method
The theoretical and empirical advances in construct validation were incorporated

for validating the FOS (Dimitrov, 2010; Marsh, Martin, & Hau, 2006). CFAs were
conducted to test the within-network validity. To test the between-network validity of
the FOS in an educational context, the relationship among students‟ multiple classroom
goals against feedback utility, accountability, social-awareness and self-efficacy were
examined in detail.
Participants and Procedure
146 male and 170 female secondary students (N=316) in a vocational school in
Guiyang city of Guizhou Province in mainland China were invited for this study. Their
ages ranged from 14 to 21 (Mean=16.3, SD=1.1) with only 6 missing values. All
participants were Year 1 students with 105 students studying preschool education, 160
students studying auto repair and 51 students studying nursing. There were some minor
missing values in the data collected, ranging from 0.3% to 2.5% (with an average of
1.2%).
The FOS and the short version of the multiple classroom goals scale (an external
criteria measure for the validation of the FOS) were administered to participants during
school hours with the assistance of the teachers. Participants were informed that the
data would be kept confidential and were also informed about the purposes of the study.
The participants completed the questionnaire on a voluntary basis.
Measures
The Feedback Orientation Scale (FOS). The FOS consisted of 20 items in 4

dimensions including the feedback utility, feedback accountability, social awareness to
feedback, and feedback self-efficacy with 5 items for each dimension (Linderbaum &
Levy, 2010).
Feedback Utility. Feedback utility, according to Linderbaum and Levy (2010),

refers to the receivers‟ perception of usefulness of feedback that helps them achieve
goals and valued outcomes. The receivers' perceived value of feedback has been found
to be highly associated with their intentions and reactions to use feedback (e. g., Brett &
Atwater, 2001; London & Smither, 2002). The utility dimension consisted of 5 items.
For example, “Feedback is critical for improving performance” and“I find that feedback
is critical for reaching my goals.”
Feedback Accountability. Accountability items focused on tapping “an individual‟s

sense of responsibility to respond to feedback” (Linderbaum & Levy, 2010, p. 1377). It
was assumed that receivers, who felt accountable to external feedback, were more likely

29
April, 2014, Vol. 16(1)
to take follow-up actions to respond to feedback (Linderbaum & Levy, 2010). The
sample items were “It is my responsibility to apply teachers‟ feedback to improve my
performance.” and “I feel obligated to make changes based on teachers‟ feedback.”
Social Awareness to Feedback. Social awareness refers to “an individual‟s

tendency to use feedback so as to be aware of others‟ views of oneself” (Linderbaum &
Levy, 2010, p. 1377). In line with this definition, the dimension of social awareness in
this study refers to students‟ intentions to use feedback given by school teachers to
acquire how they would be perceived by teachers. Feedback accountability focuses on
tapping one‟s internal responsibility to react to feedback. In comparison, social
awareness to feedback aims at assessing the individual perceptions of external
influences on reacting to feedback. For example, “Feedback helps me manage the
impression I make on teachers” and “Using feedback, I am more aware of what
teachers think of me.”
Feedback Self-Efficacy. Borrowing self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1997) to

understand individual perceived capabilities of dealing with feedback, Linderbaumand
Levy (2010) defined feedback self-efficacy as “an individual‟s perceived competence to
interpret and respond to feedback appropriately” (p. 1378). For example, “I believe that
I have the ability to deal with feedback effectively”.
A 5-point Likert scale with items from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree)
was used. A higher rating score of a subscale indicates stronger endorsement to
corresponding feedback orientation.
Goal orientations. Wentzel‟s (1993) multiple classroom goals scale was used to test
the between-network validity of the FOS. This scale consisted of two high order levels
to assess both the academic goals and social goals. Academic goals scaleconsisted of two
subscales to measure learning and performance goal orientations. Social goals consisted
of two subscales,a prosocial goal orientation scaleaimed at measuring “students‟ efforts
to share and to help peers with social problems” (Wentzel, 1994, p. 175), and a
responsibility goal orientation scaleaimed at measuring how often students tried to keep
commitments made to teachers and classroom rules. Four sample items, learning,
performance, prosocial and responsibility goals orientations were listed correspondingly
as follows: How often do you try to work hard to understand what you are studying?
How often do you try to get better grades than other kids in your class? How often do
you try to share what you've learned with your classmates? How often do you try to do
what teacher asks you to?
Students rated this multiple goals scale on a 5-point Likert scale (1=never;
2=seldom; 3=sometimes; 4=often; 5=always). A high score indicates a strong
endorsement ofthis goal orientation.
Preparation of Measures in Chinese Version. For validating the FOS together with

30
April, 2014, Vol. 16(1)
its external criteria measure (e.g., the multiple goals scale) in a non-Western context, a
translation and back-translation procedure was employed in the study. Three bilingual
scholars were invited for the translation and back-translation in order to
achieveaccuratelytranslated versions of the English instruments that were conceptually
equivalent in the Chinese culture. The English instruments were firstly translated into
Chinese and revised by two native Chinese speakers. The Chinese versions of the two
scales were then back-translated into English by a scholar proficient in English. The
minor discrepancies of translation and back-translation were then discussed and
revised.
Statistical Analysis
Statistical analysis was adopted by testing data normality by looking at the skewness
and kurtosis values of each item. As recommended by Finney and DiStefano (2006),
absolute values of skewness and kurtosis above 2 and 7 respectively may indicate a lack
of univariate normality. The data analysis showed that the absolute values of skewness
and kurtosis ranged from .17 to .81, and from .01 to .78, respectively. Both value
ranges did not exceed the recommended values (Finney &DiStefano, 2006), indicating
that the data was normally distributed.
Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were then conducted to examine the
appropriateness of both the FOS and the goal scale among the subjects. Subsequently, a
structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis was applied to test the structural relations
among variables in this study (i.e., goal orientations and feedback orientations). This
SEM analysis was conducted to test the between-network validity of the FOS.
At the first step, a CFA model without taking into account the correlated
uniqueness was conducted on the FOS (model 1). At the second step, correlated
uniqueness was considered because some items had certain similarities in wording. It
should be noted that only uniquenessesof a few itemswere correlated in the CFA model
2. For example, there were items designed within the same dimension of feedback
self-efficacy, and survey items described with conceptually similar sentences/phrases,
such as “I am competent at handling feedback” and “I have the ability to deal
withfeedback”.
The fit of CFA and SEM models can be evaluated by the chi-square statistics
(Barrett, 2007). However, due to its sensitivity to sample size (Marsh, Hau, & Grayson,
2005), other goodness-of-fit indices are also included. The usual and widely accepted
indices are the comparative fit index (CFI), the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), the root
mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) with its confidence interval, and the
standardized root mean square residual (SRMR).For RMSEA, a value within the range
of .08 to .10 indicates a mediocre fit, with a value below .08 as a good fit (MacCallum,
Browne, & Sugawara, 1996). For SRMR, a value of .08 indicates an acceptable fit (Hu
&Bentler, 1999), with a value below .05 as a good fit (Byrne, 1998; Diamantopoulos
&Siguaw, 2000). For the CFI and TLI, values between .90 and .95 indicate a good fit

31
April, 2014, Vol. 16(1)
(Bentler, 1990), while Hu and Bentler (1999) suggested that values larger than .95
indicate a good fit.
All CFA and SEM analyses were conducted by using the statistic software of
Mplus, Version 7.11 (Muthén&Muthén 1998-2012). In addition, the maximum
likelihood estimator with robust standard errors was adopted for its robustness against
violations of normality assumptions (Klein &Moosbrugger, 2000). There were minor
missing values in this data set, ranging from 0.3% to 2.5% (with an average of 1.2%).
The Full Information Maximum Likelihood (FIML) approach (Enders &Bandalos,
2001; Graham, 2009) was used to estimate the missing values.
Results
Descriptive Statistics
Table 3 presents means, standardized deviations, Cronbach‟s alpha coefficients of

the FOS and the multiple classroom goals scale. Cronbach‟s alpha coefficients ranged
from 0.67 to 0.80 for the FOS, and 0.64 to 0.70 for the goal scale. All internal consistency
estimates were acceptable for research purposes.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)
As Table 1 shows, the items of the FOS loaded well on the four factors which
these items were designed to measure. Specifically, factor loadings ranged from 0.64 to
0.70 for Feedback Utility (Mean=.67, SD=.02); 0.49 to 0.58 for Feedback
Accountability (Mean=.54, SD=.05); 0.54 to 0.72 for Feedback Social Awareness
(Mean=.63, SD=.06); 0.56 to 0.65 for Feedback Self-Efficacy (Mean=.60, SD=.04).
Table 1
Confirmatory factor loadings for FOS (N = 316)
Feedback orientations and items Factor
loading
Feedback Utility1(α = .80)
1. Feedback contributes to my success at schoolwork. .64
2. To develop my skills at schoolwork, I rely on feedback. .67
3. Feedback is critical for improving performance. .68
4. Feedback from teachers can help me advance in learning. .65
5. I find that feedback is critical for reaching my goals. .70
Feedback Accountability2(α = .67)

1. It is my responsibility to apply feedback to improve my performance. .58
2. I hold myself accountable to respond to feedback appropriately. .58

32
April, 2014, Vol. 16(1)
3. I don‟t feel a sense of closure until I respond to feedback. .50

4. If my teacher gives me feedback, it is my responsibility to respond to it. .57
5. I feel obligated to make changes based on feedback. .49
Feedback Social Awareness3(α = .77)

1. I try to be aware of what teachers think of me. .64
2. Using feedback, I am more aware of what teachers think of me. .72
3. Feedback helps me manage the impression I make on teachers. .63
4. Feedback lets me know how I am perceived by teachers. .64
5. I rely on feedback to help me make a good impression in teachers. .54
Feedback Self-Efficacy4(α = .74)

1. I feel self-assured when dealing with feedback. .56
2. Compared to others, I am more competent at handling feedback. .62
3. I believe that I have the ability to deal with feedback effectively. .63
4. I feel confident when responding to both positive and negative feedback. .65
5. I know that I can handle the feedback that I receive. .56
Note: Compared to items in the original FOS, very minor changes as follows were made to (1) feedback utility, in
which “schoolwork” in items 1 and 2 replaced “work”, and teachers in item 4 replaced supervisors; (2) feedback
accountability, in which “teacher” in item 4 replaced “supervisor”; (3) feedback social-awareness, in which “teachers”
in items 1, 2, 3, 4 replaced “other people/people”. No changes were made to feedback self-efficacy.These minor
changes made to prepare the FOS (student version) were also highlighted with underlines for quick reference.
CFA Results for the FOS
CFA models were used for testing a hypothesized four-factor FOS structure with
and without correlated uniquenesses. A rationale to correlate uniqueness of the FOS and
the external measure of goal orientations has been noted in the statistical analysis section.
Table 2 presents a summary of model fit indices of CFA results to test the measurement
models of both the FOS and the goal scale used an external criteria measure. The model
fit indices of the SEM analysis were also summarized in Table 2.
The results showed that model fit indices were better for the FOS model 2 with two
correlated uniquenesses than model 1 without any correlated uniqueness (CFI values
of .94 vs .90; TLI values of .92 vs .89; RMSEA values of .05 vs .06; SRMR values of .05
vs .06). Given a high estimated correlation (.76) between feedback utility and
accountability, a hypothesized three-factor structure of the FOS (model 3) without
correlated uniqueness was tested. However, this solution led to a significant decline in
model fit (Δχ²(3)=38.74, p < .001), suggesting that the four-factor solution of the FOS
was better than a three-factor solution. This also indicates that it would be inappropriate
to combine the two conceptually differentiable factors (i.e., feedback utility and feedback
33
April, 2014, Vol. 16(1)
accountability) into a single factor. Consistent with Linderbaum and Levy (2010), the
results of CFAs provided evidence to support the within-network validity of the
four-factor solution for the FOS.
CFA Results for the Multiple Goals Scale
The same analysis procedure used for the FOS was replicated to test a hypothesized
four-factor structure of the goal scale with and without correlated uniquenesses. The
results showed that Model 5,with one correlated uniqueness, fittedthe data better than
Model 4 without any correlated uniquenesses (CFI values of .92 vs .91; TLI values of .90
vs .89). The only correlated uniqueness was performed to two similarly-worded items
within the prosocial goal orientation. For detailed information of correlated uniqueness
in this study, please see Appendix A.
In the present study, the between-network was tested by examining the relations of
feedback orientations and goal orientations. The between-network validity would be
established if the FOS correlates in a conceptually meaningful way with external
measures assessing theoretically related constructs. As such, first, the relationship of the
FOS subscales with four types of goal orientations was examined. Second, the
predicative patterns of the four goal orientations to the four feedback orientations were
investigated by using a statistical technique of structural equation modeling (SEM).
Table 2
Summary of model fit indexes of CFA and SEM results (N = 316)
Model fit
Model Model description
 2
df CFI TLI RMSEA [90 % C.I.] SRMR
CFA: the FOS with a
1 320.33 164 .90 .89 .055 [.046, .064] .055
4-factor solution
CFA: the FOS with a
2 260.62 160 .94 .92 .045 [.035, .054] .051 4-factor solution
Correlated uniqueness(a)
CFA: the FOS with a
3 359.07 167 .88 .86 .060 [.052, .069] .058
3-factor solution
CFA: the Goal Scale with a
4 172.18 84 .91 .89 .055 [.042, .068] .052
4-factor solution
CFA: the Goal Scale with a
5 162.68 83 .92 .90 .045 [.039, .050] .054 4-factor solution
Correlated uniqueness(b)
SEM: Indicators of goal
6 865.01 532 .88 .87 .040[.034, .046] .053 orientations as predictors
of feedback orientations
SEM: Indicators of goal
7 794.17 527 .91 .89 .055 [.042, .068] .052
orientations as predictors

34
April, 2014, Vol. 16(1)
of feedback orientations
Correlated uniqueness(a)(b)
Note. For detailed information of estimated correlation coefficients of correlated uniqueness (a) and (b), please see
Appendix A.
Correlation Analysis
Pearson‟ product-moment correlations among the variables were presented in

Table 3. The key features of correlations among the variables involved in the study are
summarized below.
Overall, the FOS factors were found to be correlated with each other positively
and significantly. Feedback utility was positively and significantly correlated with learning
goal (r=.39, p<.001), but was not-significantly correlated with performance goal.
Feedback self-efficacy was also found to have much a stronger correlation with a
learning goal orientation (r=.39, p<.001) than with a performance goal orientation(r=.23).
An interesting finding in this study was that feedback accountability and a performance
goal orientation werenearly uncorrelated (.08), suggesting that students‟ willingness to
respond to feedback would be driven by more intrinsic learning motives than extrinsic
motives (e.g., to pursue performance goal). A statistically strong correlation between
feedback accountability and a learning goal orientation in this study ( r =.44, p<.001) lent
support to this assumption.Compared to its correlations with other dimensions of the
FOS (correlation coefficients ranged from .08 to .23), performance goal orientation was
found to have the strongest correlation with social awareness of feedback (r=.32, p<.001).
Taken together, the results showed that the four feedback orientations correlated with
goal orientations with conceptually differentiable patterns. These findings lent
preliminary support to the between-network construct validity of the FOS.
Table 3
Descriptive statistics and Pearson product-moment correlationsfor all variables (N=316)
Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Feedback utility -
2. Feedback
.56*** -
accountability
3. Feedbacksocial
.30*** .30*** -
awareness
4. Feedback
.35*** .36*** .32*** -
self-efficacy
** *** **
5. Prosocial goal .19 .27 .17 .33*** -
6. Responsibility goal .33*** .44*** .14* .33*** .49*** -
7. Learning goal .39*** .44*** .17** .39*** .44*** .59*** -
8. Performance goal .09 .08 .32*** .23*** .07 .14* .11 -
Cronbach‟sα .80 .67 .77 .74 .64 .66 .70 .67
Mean 3.60 3.60 3.33 3.32 3.83 3.58 3.58 2.48
SD .75 .66 .82 .74 .69 .83 .82 .88
* ** ***
Note: p < .05, p< .01, p< .001
35
April, 2014, Vol. 16(1)
A follow-up analysis by using a statistical technique of SEM demonstrated clearly

different predicative patterns from learning, performance, prosocial, responsibility goals
to feedback orientations. The results show that each goal orientations (with the
exception of prosocial goal) predicted feedback orientations accordingly (see Table 4 for
detailed information).
Impressively, a learning goal orientation predicted three of four feedback
orientations (i.e., feedback utility, feedback accountability and feedback self-efficacy)
positively and significantly. A performance goal orientation appeared to be a stronger
predictor of feedback social awareness than other feedback orientations. Learning goal
orientation appeared to be more powerful than performance goal orientation in
predicting feedback self-efficacy. Overall, the results showed a clear predictive pattern
from goal orientations to feedback orientations. For the SEM path diagram, please see
Figure 2 in the supplementary files.
Table 4
Summary of the results of SEM in which the four goal orientations performed as predictors of the
four feedback orientations (N = 316)
Variables Estimate S.E. Est./S.E. P
Feedback Utility on
Prosocial goal -.17 .15 -1.12 .262
Responsibility goal .09 .18 0.53 .599
Learning goal .53 .15 3.55 .000
Performance goal .05 .08 0.67 .500
Feedback Accountability on
Prosocial goal -.11 .15 -0.75 .452
Responsibility goal .35 .18 1.93 .054
Learning goal .44 .16 2.81 .005
Performance goal -.03 .08 -0.37 .711
Feedback Social-Awareness on
Prosocial goal .29 .16 1.83 .067
Responsibility goal -.29 .19 -1.54 .123
Learning goal .18 .16 1.08 .280
Feedback Self-Efficacy on
Prosocial goal .25 .16 1.64 .102
Responsibility goal -.25 .19 -1.34 .180
Learning goal .58 .16 3.69 .000
To summarize, the CFA and SEM results support both within and
36
April, 2014, Vol. 16(1)
between-network validity of the FOS. Feedback orientations are expected to correlate

with conceptually related variables (goal orientations) measured by the multiple
classroom goals scale (Wentzel, 1993). The magnitudes of these correlations
coefficients ranged from .08 to .44, suggesting that the four subscales of FOS are not
redundant with the external validity measure. The SEM results provided further
evidence to support that the relations of feedback orientations and goal orientations can
be conceptually strong or weak according to different features of these orientations.
Discussion
This study examined the cross-cultural validity of the Feedback Orientation Scale
(Linderbaum & Levy, 2010) using a sample of secondary vocational students in mainland
China. The CFA results supported the four-factor structure of the FOS based on the
vocational students‟ responses. The SEM results showed that feedback utility, feedback
accountability and feedback self-efficacy were highly associated with a learning goal
orientation, whereas feedback social awareness was highly associated with a performance
goal orientation.
Pertaining to the correlations among the four feedback orientation factors
measured by the FOS, evidence showed that students‟ perceived usefulness of teacher
feedback was correlated most significantly with accountability to respond to teacher
feedback compared to its correlation with other two factors of the FOS. This result lent
support to our hypothesis that in the Confucian culture of China, given teacher
authority and prevalent student compliance (Ho, 2001), students are likely to place high
values on teachers‟ instruction and feedback as well as take personal responsibility to
learning (e.g., take feedback accountability to respond to teacher feedback)
The statistically significant predictive effects of a learning goal orientation on both
feedback utilityand feedback accountability indicatedthat learning-oriented students
were likely to place a higher value on teacher feedback to adjust their learning process
and took strong personal responsibilityto improve academic competence and learning
performance (see also Hau & Salili, 1996; Salili, 1996; Schunk, 1990). The more
significant predictive effect of a learning goal orientation over a performance goal
orientation on feedback self-efficacy supports Eccles and Wigfield‟s (2002) argument that
“self-efficacy should be higher under learning than under performance goals” (p. 124).
Given that the three feedback orientations jointly playeda significant role in determining
one‟s overall feedback receptivity (London & Smither, 2002; Linderbaum & Levy, 2010),
the results suggested that the students‟ intentions to receive teacher feedback were likely
to be determined more by a learning goal orientation than a performance goal
orientation.
Concerning the relationship of goals and feedback orientations, another interesting
finding in the present study was that a performance goal orientation was not significantly
associated with both feedback utility and feedback accountability, in contrast tothe
statistically positive and significant correlations between the learning goal orientation and

37
April, 2014, Vol. 16(1)
the two feedback orientations. This findingsuggests that students with a learning goal
orientation are more likely to place intrinsic value on teacher feedback and feel
personally responsible to respond to teacher feedback (Shute, 2008). However, in order
to generate a good understanding of the relationships between performance goal and the
two feedback orientations, future studies may need to take account of other scales to
measure goals, such as the 2 x 2 achievement goals (Elliot, 2001). By doing so, future
studies might contribute to the extant literature by showing how approach-avoidance
goals are related to feedback orientations.
In conclusion, the students‟ performance goal orientation was found to bea
stronger predictor of the social awareness dimension than the self-efficacy dimension of
individual‟s feedback orientation. This result lent support to Anseel et al.‟s (2013, p. 5)
claim that “performance-goal-oriented individuals are aimed at achieving and
demonstrating superior competence relative to others. As such, they are highly
interested in conveying a positive image to others”. This finding may indicate that a
student who tends to use feedback information to improve other persons‟ views of him-
or herself is more likely to pursue a performance goal (see also Anseel et al., 2013;
Darnon, Dompnier, Delmas, Pulfrey, & Butera, 2009).
Implications
Feedback research in education: Although feedback has been reported to be

among the top 10 factors affecting student performance, with regard to the 196 studies
and 6972 effect-sizes (Hattie, 2009), less effort has been madeto testthe impact of
individual differences (such as those listed in Figure 1) on feedback receiving and
responding behavior.Thisraises the concern that feedback “given” to students/receivers
is not necessarily the feedback “received” and applied (Brophy, 1981; Carless, 2006;
Kluger&DeNisi, 1996). Hence, feedback researchers have focused their efforts to
develop measures with sound psychometric properties to identify the impact of
individual differences on affecting the effectiveness of feedback in performance and
learning improvement (Hattie &Gan, 2011; Ilgen et al., 1979; London &Smither, 2002;
Price, Handley, Millar, & O'Donovan, 2010). The FOS validated in an educational
setting in this study would be a useful tool to test these key individual differences (e.g.,
feedback self-efficacy and feedback accountability) in feedback situations. Together with
instruments with sound psychometric properties, cultural differences in students‟
perceptions of teachers‟ role in learning (Ho, 2001) should also be taken into
consideration in cross-cultural feedback research.
Goal-Setting Research: The present study also holds practical implications
forstudent goal setting. To increase the students‟ perceived value of teacher feedback,
accountability to respond to feedback and feedback self-efficacy, researchers and
practitioners might help students by having them set and focus learning-oriented goals in
place of performance-oriented goals. In addition, the statistically higher correlation
between responsibility and learning goalsalso suggests that the educational enhancement

38
April, 2014, Vol. 16(1)
of the students‟ personal responsibilities forwhat they are expected to learnmight further
contribute to the students‟ goal-settings oriented by learning (Salili, 1996). For the positive
association between prosocial and responsibility goal orientations, there is much to be
explored in Chinese students. Previous research (e.g., King, et al., 2010, 2012; Watkins &
Hattie, 2012) has provided some preliminary findings of the role of social goals in
motivation and academic achievement. Future studies are needed to explore the role of
social goals in the overall feedback receptivity.
Enhancing Learning Outcomes of Students from Low-Achieving Backgrounds:
Teacher feedback which is not effectively received by students isunlikely to have any
effect on learning. Students in mainstream education are likely to be academic-oriented
and with high/normal-achieving backgrounds. However, vocational students are mostly
groups of students learning for early employment (Field, Hoeckel, Kis, &Kuczera,
2009). They are usually perceived as a population of low-achievers, compared totheir
counterparts in mainstream education (Zhou, 2009). In order to enhance the learning
and skill development among vocational students for job hunting, it is of critical
importance to understand individual differences and explore effective instructional
practice for skill acquisition (Kuczera& Field, 2010; Yang & Watkins, 2010). The
validation study of the FOS instrument in this sample contributes to our understanding
ofstudent characteristics in terms of overall receptivity toward teacher feedback.
Future Directions
Overall, it is evident in the present study that the FOS can be usedas “a diagnostic
tool” in education. The outcome will contribute to a better understanding ofthe impact
of individual student feedback orientationsonreceiving and responding to feedback.
Based on the theoretical model developed from London and Smither (2002) (see Figure
1), it isimportant for future studies to consider other useful instruments with sound
psychometric properties to assess (a) individual correlates (e.g., self-esteem, expectancy
beliefs), (b) school feedback culture (e.g., quality of feedback, importance of feedback,
support of using feedback), and (c) learning outcomes (e.g., school grades, academic
self-concept). In order to measure the frequency and credibility of external feedback, the
Feedback Environment Scale (Steelman, Levy, & Snell, 2004)might also be a useful
source of measurement for consideration. Multiple sources couldcollectively provide a
broader picture to demonstrate the underlying mechanisms of feedback in education and
how to harness the power of feedback to enhance learning.
Limitations
The study provides insights into the four individual feedback orientations in
reaching a deeper understanding of individual influences on the feedback process.
However, several limitations in the study should be noted. Firstly, the cross-sectional
nature of the design meant that no causal relationship among the variables could be

39
April, 2014, Vol. 16(1)
inferred from the data gathered. Although SEM was conducted while examining the
between-network validity of the FOS, it is difficult to ascertain any causal relations
between goal orientations and feedback orientations. To test the causal relationships and
directions between multiple classroom goals and feedback orientations, future
longitudinal designs that collect survey data at multiple time points are warranted. In
addition, all survey data in this study were collected based on self-reported scales.
Taking into consideration self-serving biases that may influence the data, future studies
might address this issue by including data from external evaluative sources, such as
school teachers. To this extent, the future development of a teacher version of the FOS
would be very helpful for collecting further information on feedback practice in
instructional situations. Finally, the data from the present study cannot be taken to
represent the entire vocational education system as only one secondary school was
involved. Convenient sampling was used. In future studies, extensive and random
sampling strategies should be considered.
Conclusion
The present study providespreliminary evidence to support the four-factor solution

of the FOS (i.e., feedback utility, feedback self-efficacy, feedback accountability, and
feedback social-awareness), and affirmsthe appropriateness of the FOS for use among
Chinese vocational students. Together with the evidence supporting the
internal-structure of the FOS, this study supports the students‟ learning goal orientation as
a more significant predictor of students‟ perceived feedback utility, self-efficacy and
accountability to respond to teacher feedback than any other goal orientations. Regarding
further research on revealing underlying mechanisms of the power of feedback, Hattie
and Gans (2011, p. 265) statedthat “there is a need to move from considering feedback
as something that is „given‟ to something that is „received”. Finally, the revised version of
London and Smither‟s (2002) conceptual framework in education integrated with
recent advances in measurement of overall receptivity to feedback (e.g., the
FOS-Student Version),might jointly provide an appropriate basis for future in-depth
research on revealing how teacher feedback can be effectively received and applied by
students to improve performance and learning outcomes.
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by the General Research Funds [project no. 843612 &
844313] awarded to K. F. Sin by the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong SAR.
We thank Dr. Beth Linderbaumfor permitting us to use the Feedback Orientation Scale
in education. We also thankDr. Manuel London for permitting us to reproduce and
reprint his model (Figure 1) in the present investigation.

40
April, 2014, Vol. 16(1)
Notes on Contributors
Dr. Lan Yang is a research fellow at The Hong Kong Institute of Education. Her research
interests include self-concept, student motivation, achievement emotions, and positive
youth development. She was the recipient of the Global SELF Research Network Highly
Commended PhD Award (2013). She is also the author of a scholarly book entitled
Enhancing the Learning of Chinese Students in Secondary Vocational Education and
Trainingto be published by Springer.
Dr. Kuen-fung Sin is the Director of the Centre for Special Educational Needs and
Inclusive Education and a Professor in the Department of Special Education and
Counselling at the Hong Kong Institute of Education. He has extensive consultancy
experience in research projects in the area of inclusive education within Asian contexts, as
well as training teachers of children with learning disabilities in China.
Dr. Xueyan Li received her PhD from The University of Hong Kong and M.Ed. from
Beijing Normal University. She presently works at School of Sociology, Central China
Normal University in P. R. China. Her research interests include educational
psychology, educational and psychological statistics, measurement and assessment.
Jiesi Guo is currently pursuing a PhD in Educational Psychology in the Institute for
Positive Psychology in Education of Australian Catholic University. His research interests
include theory and measurement of self-concept and motivation constructs, career
pathways related youth‟s transition from school to work, and quantitative analysis,
particularly longitudinal and multilevel modelling.
Dr. Ming Lui is an assistant professor working in the Department of Education Studies at
the Hong Kong Baptist University. Her research interests include inclusive education and
the cognitive development of children with special educational needs.
References
Anseel, F., Beatty, A., Shen, W., Lievens, F., &Sackett, P.R. (2013). How are we doing
after 30 years? A meta-analytic review of the antecedents and outcomes of
feedback-seeking behavior. Journal of Management.
doi:10.1177/0149206313484521
Ashford, S. J., Blatt, R., &Walle, D. (2003). Reflections on the looking glass: A review of
research on feedback-seeking behavior in organizations. Journal of Management,
29(6), 773-799.
Barrett, P. (2007). Structural equation modelling: Adjudging model fit. Personality and
Individual Differences, 42(5), 815-824.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efﬁcacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.

41
April, 2014, Vol. 16(1)
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological

Bulletin, 107(2), 238-246.
Bong, M., & Skaalvik, E. M. (2003). Academic self-concept and self-efficacy: How
different are they really? Educational Psychology Review, 15(1), 1-40.
Brett, J. F., & Atwater, L. E. (2001). 360° feedback: Accuracy, reactions, and perceptions
of usefulness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 930-942.
Brophy, J. (1981). Teacher praise: A functional analysis. Review of Educational Research,
51(1), 5-32.
Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and
SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Carless, D. (2006). Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in Higher
Education, 31(2), 219-233.
Chan, J. C., & Lam, S. F. (2010). Effects of different evaluative feedback on students’
self-efficacy in learning. Instructional Science, 38(1), 37-58.
Covington, M. V. (2000). Goal theory, motivation, and school achievement: An
integrative review. Annual Review of Psychology, 51(1), 171-200.
Darnon, C., Dompnier, B., Delmas, F., Pulfrey, C., & Butera, F. (2009). Achievement
goal promotion at university: Social desirability and social utility of mastery and
performance goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(1), 119-134.
Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J. A. (2000). Introducing LISREL: A guide for the
uninitiated. London, UK: Sage Publications.
Dimitrov, D. M. (2010). Testing for factorial invariance in the context of construct
validation. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 43 (2),
121-149.
Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and
development. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Random
House.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual review
of psychology, 53(1), 109-132.
Elliot, A. J. (2001). A 2x2 Achievement Goal Framework. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 80(3), 501-519.
Elliot, A. J. (2005). A conceptual history of the achievement goal construct. In A. J. Elliot
& C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 52–72).
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Enders, C. K., & Bandalos, D. L. (2001). The relative performance of full information
maximum likelihood estimation for missing data in structural equation models.
Structural Equation Modeling, 8(3), 430-457.
Field, S., Hoeckel, K., Kis, V., & Kuczera, M. (2009). Learning for jobs: OECD policy
review of vocational education and training: Initial report. Paris, France: OECD.
Finney, S. J., &DiStefano, C. (2006). Non-normal and categorical data in structural

42
April, 2014, Vol. 16(1)
equation modeling. In G. R. Hancock, & R. O. Mueller (Eds), Structural

equation modeling: A second course (pp. 269-314). Greenwich, CT: Information
Age Publishing.
Graham, J. W. (2009). Missing data analysis: Making it work in the real world. Annual
review of psychology, 60, 549-576.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to
achievement. London, UK: Routledge.
Hattie, J., & Gan, M. (2011). Instruction based on feedback. In R. E. Mayer & P. A.
Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp.
249-271). New York, NY: Routledge.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational
Research, 77(1), 81-112.
Hau, K. T., & Salili, F. (1996). Prediction of academic performance among Chinese
students: Effort can compensate for lack of ability. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 65(2), 83-94.
Ho, I. T. (1999). Teacher Thinking about Student Problem Behaviors and Management
Strategies: A Comparative Study of Australian and Hong Kong Teachers.
Unpublished doctoral thesis, the University of Sydney.
Ho, I. T. (2001).Are Chinese teachers authoritarian? In D. A. Watkins & J.B. Biggs
(Eds.), Teaching the Chinese Learner: Psychological and pedagogical
perspectives.Hong Kong, China: CERC Melbourne, Australia: ACER, 99-114.
Hofstede, G., 1997. Cultures and organization: software of the mind. New York:
McGraw- Hill.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55.
Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., & Taylor, M. S. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback
on behavior in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(4), 349-371.
King, R. B., McInerney, D. M., & Watkins, D. (2010). Can social goals enrich our
understanding of students' motivational goals? Journal of Psychology in Chinese
Societies, 11(2), 1-16.
King, R. B., McInerney, D. M., & Watkins, D. A. (2012). Studying for the sake of others:
The role of social goals on academic engagement. Educational Psychology, 32,
749-776.
Klein, A., & Moosbrugger, H. (2000). Maximum likelihood estimation of latent
interaction effects with the LMS method. Psychometrika, 65(4), 457-474.
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on
performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback
intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254-284.
Kuczera, M., & Field, S. (2010). Learning for jobs: OECD reviews of vocational
education and training: Options for China. Paris, France: OECD.
Linderbaum, B. A., & Levy, P. E. (2010). The development and validation of the

43
April, 2014, Vol. 16(1)
Feedback Orientation Scale (FOS). Journal of Management, 36(6), 1372-1405.

Linn, R. L., & Miller, M. D. (2005).Measurement and assessment in teaching (9th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting & task performance .
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
London, M. (2003). Job feedback: Giving, seeking, and using feedback for performance
improvement. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
London, M., & Smither, J. W. (2002). Feedback orientation, feedback culture, and the
longitudinal performance management process. Human Resource Management
Review, 12(1), 81-100.
MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and
determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological
Methods, 1(2), 130-149.
Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., & Grayson, D. (2005). Goodness of fit in structural equation
models. In A. Maydeu-Olivares & J. J. McArdle (Eds.), Contemporary
psychometrics: A festschrift for Roderick P. McDonald (pp. 275-340). Mahwah,
NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Marsh, H. W., Martin, A. J., & Hau, K.-T. (2006). A multimethod perspective on
self-concept research in educational psychology: A construct validity approach. In
M. Eid & E. Diener (Eds.), Handbook of multimethod measurement in
psychology (pp. 441-456). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998 –2012). Mplus user’s guide. Los Angeles, CA.
Narciss, S. (2008). Feedback strategies for interactive learning tasks. In J. M. Spector, M.
D. Merrill, J. J. G. Van Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of
research on educational communications and technology (pp. 125-143). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
O'Mara, A. J., Marsh, H. W., Craven, R. G., & Debus, R. L. (2006). Do self-concept
interventions make a difference? A synergistic blend of construct validation and
meta-analysis. Educational Psychologist, 41(3), 181-206.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational
Research, 66(4), 543-578.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in
learning and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(3), 544-555.
Price, M., Handley, K., Millar, J., & O'Donovan, B. (2010). Feedback: All that effort, but
what is the effect? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(3), 277-289.
Salili, F. (1996). Accepting personal responsibility for learning. In D. A. Watkins & J.
Biggs (Eds.), The Chinese learner: Cultural, psychological and contextual
influences (pp. 85-106). Hong Kong. China: Australian Council for Educational
Research.
Schunk, D. H. (1990). Goal setting and self-efficacy during self-regulated learning.
Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 71-86.
44
April, 2014, Vol. 16(1)
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1),

153-189.
Steelman, L. A., Levy, P. E., & Snell, A. F. (2004). The feedback environment scale:
Construct definition, measurement, and validation. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 64(1), 165-184.
Tolli, A. P., & Schmidt, A. M. (2008). The role of feedback, causal attributions, and
self-efficacy in goal revision. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 692-701.
Urdan, T. (2012). Social Motivation and Academic Motivation. In J. Hattie & M.
Anderman (Eds.), International Guide to Student Achievement (pp. 54-56). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Urdan, T. C., & Maehr, M. L. (1995). Beyond a two-goal theory of motivation and
achievement: A case for social goals. Review of Educational Research, 65(3),
213-243.
VandeWalle, D. (2003). A goal orientation model of feedback-seeking behavior. Human
Resource Management Review, 13(4), 581-604.
Watkins, D. A., & Biggs, J. B. (Eds.). (2001). Teaching the Chinese learner:
Psychological and pedagogical perspectives. Hong Kong University Press.
Watkins, D., & Hattie, J. (2012). Multiple goals in a Hong Kong Chinese educational
context: An investigation of developmental trends and learning outcomes.
Australian Journal of Education, 56(3), 273-286.
Wentzel, K. R. (1993). Motivation and achievement in early adolescence: The role of
multiple classroom goals. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 13(1), 4-20.
Wentzel, K. R. (1994). Relations of social goal pursuit to social acceptance, classroom
behavior, and perceived social support. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(2),
173-182.
Yang, L., & Watkins, D. (2010, July). The effectiveness of two treatments to enhance
academic elf-concept of low-achieving secondary school students in Mainland
China. Paper presented at the 27th International Congress of Applied Psychology,
Melbourne, Australia.
Zhou, Z. (2009). Shuinianzhixiao: Getixuanzezhongdengzhiyejiaoyuwentiyanjiu[Who
study in vocational schools: An investigation of questions associated with
individual selection of secondary vocational education].Beijing, China:
Educational Science Publishing House.

45
April, 2014, Vol. 16(1)
Appendix A
Descriptive statistics of correlated uniquenesses(a) and (b) in model 6
Standardized
S.E. Est./S.E. P-Value
Estimates
(a) Feedback social-awareness item 1 with item 2 0.36 0.07 4.96 0.000
Feedback self-efficacy item 1 with item 2 0.21 0.06 3.69 0.000
Feedback self-efficacy item 2 with item 3 0.29 0.06 4.91 0.000
Feedback utility item 3 and 4 0.19 0.07 2.90 0.004
(b) Prosocial goal item2 with item 3 0.23 0.07 3.51 0.000
Note: (1) For detailed description of feedback self-efficacy items 1, 2, 3, and of feedback utility items 3 and 4
please see Table 1. (2) Items 2 and 3 in the prosocial goal orientation are stated as follows: How often do you try to
help your classmates solve a problem once you've figured it out?How often do you try to help other kids when they
have a problem? Both items share the same purpose to tap a frequency of students’ helping behavior to their peers,
indicating the appropriate of correlated uniqueness of the two items.

46
April, 2014, Vol. 16(1)
Figure 2 Goal and feedback orientations model

(Non-significant paths were omitted)
Contact Author:
Lan YANG, PhD. Centre for Special Educational Needs and Inclusive Education
(CSENIE). D1 - G/F - 05, The Hong Kong Institute of Education, 10 Lo Ping Road,
Tai Po, Hong Kong. Tel: (852) 2948 6387. Email: yanglan@ied.edu.hk

The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment April, 2014, Vol. 16

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment April, 2014, Vol. 16

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

21

The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment

Understanding the Power of Feedback in Education: A Validation Study of the Feedback

Keywords: Feedback effectiveness, individual differences, feedback orientations, goal

c © 2014 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

Studies and Measurement of Feedback

Giving and receiving feedback hasbeen found to play an essential role in

The Definition of Feedback: An Overview

The Power of Feedback: Enhancing Learning and Positive Self-Concept

Students‟ academic achievement can be potentially influenced by a wide range of

c © 2014 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

To Harness the Power of Feedback: Taking Account of Individual Differences

Although the feedback interventions generally brought about performance

Theoretical Model Linking Individual Differences to Feedback Effects

c © 2014 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

Measurement of Individual‟s Feedback Orientation

With regard to London and Smither‟s conceptual framework, Linderbaum and

c © 2014 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

Goals and Feedback

As consistently reported by previous research, the most important aim of feedback

Learning and Performance Goals Orientations

c © 2014 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

Social Goals Orientation

Goal Orientations and Feedback

c © 2014 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

The Present Study

c © 2014 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

The theoretical and empirical advances in construct validation were incorporated

Participants and Procedure

The Feedback Orientation Scale (FOS). The FOS consisted of 20 items in 4

Feedback Utility. Feedback utility, according to Linderbaum and Levy (2010),

Feedback Accountability. Accountability items focused on tapping “an individual‟s

c © 2014 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

Social Awareness to Feedback. Social awareness refers to “an individual‟s

Feedback Self-Efficacy. Borrowing self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1997) to

c © 2014 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

c © 2014 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

Table 3 presents means, standardized deviations, Cronbach‟s alpha coefficients of

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Feedback Accountability2(α = .67)

c © 2014 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

3. I don‟t feel a sense of closure until I respond to feedback. .50

Feedback Social Awareness3(α = .77)

Feedback Self-Efficacy4(α = .74)

CFA Results for the FOS

CFA Results for the Multiple Goals Scale

c © 2014 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

Pearson‟ product-moment correlations among the variables were presented in

A follow-up analysis by using a statistical technique of SEM demonstrated clearly

between-network validity of the FOS. Feedback orientations are expected to correlate

c © 2014 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

Feedback research in education: Although feedback has been reported to be

c © 2014 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

c © 2014 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

The present study providespreliminary evidence to support the four-factor solution

c © 2014 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

c © 2014 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological

c © 2014 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

equation modeling. In G. R. Hancock, & R. O. Mueller (Eds), Structural

c © 2014 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

Feedback Orientation Scale (FOS). Journal of Management, 36(6), 1372-1405.

Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1),