Feedback targeting reading self-efficacy had a positive effect on motivation, while error-focused feedback and rewards had mixed effects on long-term interest and engagement¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · reviewr2·q2
Currency · newest study 2024 · checked against its sources 2026-10-22 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? Feedback focusing on reading self-efficacy had a positive effect, while negative feedback and rewards had mixed effects on long-term interest and engagement. → Grønli 2024
Evidence¶
Grønli 2024¶
Grønli, K. M., Walgermo, B. R., McTigue, E. M., & Uppstad, P. H. (2024). Teachers' Feedback on Oral Reading: A Critical Review of its Effects and the use of Theory in Research. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09957-z
q2 · i? · review · r2
The review's synthesis of the four studies measuring feedback effects on motivational aspects during oral reading. It reports self-efficacy-focused feedback "had a positive effect" while error-count feedback and rewards such as stickers showed mixed long-term effects; the review states no clear conclusions can be drawn from the four studies.
"Feedback focusing on reading self-efficacy had a positive effect (Aro et al., 2018), while negative feedback (e.g., number of errors) and rewards (e.g., stickers) had mixed effects on long-term interest and engagement (Aymett, 2018; Carroll, 2008; Conte & Hintze, 2000; Henze & Williams, 2013)."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Self-determination theory holds that autonomy support raises intrinsic motivation, and a meta-analysis finds expected tangible rewards undermine it — a broader claim this one bears on
- External rewards can undermine intrinsic motivation for learners who are already motivated — related
- Expected tangible rewards reduce later free-choice engagement with a rewarded task, while verbal praise does not — related
- Praise for intelligence, rather than for effort, after success undermines children's motivation and performance after a later failure — related
- Studies of oral-reading feedback seldom engage established feedback theories, relying instead on empirical research, and none advanced theory — related
- Effects of performance feedback during oral reading are mixed across studies, precluding clear conclusions — related
- Rewards combined with feedback temporarily boosted reading performance, especially for struggling readers, with variable long-term effects — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
feedback-motivation-self-efficacy-positive-rewards-mixed |
title |
Feedback targeting reading self-efficacy had a positive effect on motivation, while error-focused feedback and rewards had mixed effects on long-term interest and engagement |
description |
Feedback targeting reading self-efficacy had a positive effect on motivation, while error-focused feedback and rewards had mixed effects on long-term interest and engagement |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2024 |
source_checked |
2026-10-22 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-22 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — grønli-2024 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.