The Effects of Temporal Placement of Feedback on Performance With and Without Goals

Wine et al. (2019) asked a simple question: does it matter when you give feedback?

They trained adult workers with a short behavioral-skills package. Some people got feedback right after each trial. Others got it just before the next trial. The team also tested whether adding a goal changed the picture.

Everyone learned the same new task. The only difference was feedback timing and whether a goal was present.

No setup beat the others. Before-trial, after-trial, with goals, without goals — skill scores landed in the same place.

The stats showed zero meaningful gaps. Timing and goals simply did not sway how fast workers learned the task.

Bottini et al. (2021) looks like a clash at first. They saw that within-session feedback gave quicker early gains than end-session feedback. But their staff practiced three role-plays in one sitting. Wine’s workers spread practice across days. The "contradiction" is really about practice density, not timing magic.

Britwum et al. (2025) extend the story into real time. They added an ear-cone beep the moment staff gave praise. That instant sound helped teachers lock in the skill. Wine tested minutes-later feedback, not second-later feedback. The newer study shows immediacy can matter when it is truly immediate.

Johnson et al. (2023) wrap both findings into one map. Their review says: pick your feedback function first, then choose the form and timing that serve that function. Wine’s null result fits this view — timing only helps if the job calls for it.

You can stop over-planning the "perfect slot" for feedback. If staff practice across shifts or days, giving feedback right after or right before the next try works equally well. Goals do not add extra punch in this set-up. Save your planning time for clearer task analyses and quicker delivery, not for calendar gymnastics.