Effects of using positive and corrective feedback on students’ performance in physical education classes

Abstract

Problem Statement: Feedback is a fundamental instructional tool in Physical Education, yet evidence remains limited on how different feedback conditions affect students’ technical–tactical outcomes in authentic school sport settings. Approach: A pre–post intervention was performed within a 10th-grade basketball instructional unit in a Portuguese secondary school. Thirteen students (n = 13) with no competitive basketball experience were randomly assigned to one of two conditions across 12 lessons: (1) corrective feedback only, provided in response to errors aligned with task objectives; or (2) a combined condition integrating positive reinforcement with corrective feedback and guided reflection on progress. Students were assessed in representative small-sided game situations using video-recorded play and observational scoring with a validated game performance assessment framework focused on decision making, technical execution, support actions, guarding behaviors, game involvement, and overall game performance. Data were analyzed using within-group and between-group comparisons, complemented by effect size estimation. Purpose: This study examined whether combining positive and corrective feedback would lead to greater improvements in technical–tactical performance than using corrective feedback alone. Results: Groups showed comparable baseline performance. Both conditions demonstrated meaningful improvements from the initial to the final assessment. The corrective-feedback condition improved decision making, support actions, game involvement, and overall game performance. The combined condition improved skill execution, support actions, and overall game performance, with a positive trend in decision making. In the final between-group comparison, a statistically significant difference emerged only for game involvement, favoring the corrective-feedback condition, while all other indicators showed no statistically significant differences. Conclusions: In this short, authentic instructional unit, adding positive reinforcement to corrective feedback did not produce consistent advantages over corrective feedback alone across technical–tactical indicators. Both approaches were associated with improvements, with the combined condition showing more consistent gains in technical execution and support actions. Findings are preliminary due to the small sample and limited duration, and future studies should use larger samples, longer interventions, and systematic recording of feedback delivery characteristics.