Enriching feedback in the primary classroom : oral and written feedback from teachers and children.

Este manual se centra en el aspecto más eficaz de la evaluación formativa: la retroalimentación, sin embargo, es el elemento más cargado de una herencia de las malas prácticas y puntos de vista equivocados. Explica cómo hacer uso de los comentarios orales y escritos para promover el aprendizaje del niño en el aula de primaria. La retroalimentación en clase puede aumentar la autoestima, motivar y promover activamente el aprendizaje, o puede desmoralizar y alienar. La forma en que los alumnos puedan participar, conocer lo que se espera de ellos, si tienen, o no, el reconocimiento de lo que hacen, y cómo se valoran sus esfuerzos, son elementos básicos de una evaluación eficaz para el aprendizaje, no del aprendizaje, en el aula.

Building academic resilience: A longitudinal study of Master of Teaching students’ perceptions of written feedback on high stakes assessment

This paper reports on a two-year study of tertiary education students’ perceptions of written feedback on assessment. Contextualised in a regional Australian university and drawing on a cohort of Master of Teaching pre-service teachers, a survey approach was used to collect data from participants in both years of their graduate-level entry program. The paper contributes to the emerging body of literature on students’ perceptions of written feedback on assessment by discussing four themes that emerged from the study. It concludes with a number of recommendations for teacher educators to enhance current feedback practices.

What do students want most from written feedback information? Distinguishing necessities from luxuries using a budgeting methodology

Feedback is a key concern for higher education practitioners, yet there is little evidence concerning the aspects of assessment feedback information that higher education students prioritise when their lecturers’ time and resources are stretched. One recent study found that in such circumstances, students actually perceive feedback information itself as a luxury rather than a necessity. We first re-examined that finding by asking undergraduates to ‘purchase’ characteristics to create the ideal lecturer, using budgets of differing sizes to distinguish necessities from luxuries. Contrary to the earlier research, students in fact considered good feedback information the single biggest necessity for lecturers to demonstrate. In a second study we used the same method to examine the characteristics of feedback information that students value most. Here, the most important perceived necessity was guidance on improvement of skills. In both studies, students’ priorities were influenced by their individual approaches to learning. These findings permit a more pragmatic approach to building student satisfaction in spite of growing expectations and demands.

Consistent Feedback for a Constructivist Pedagogy : a Study of Feedback on written Assessments in Cegep English Courses.

In order to determine how consistent feedback is within the English Cégep system, this study explores three key aspects of feedback provided to students: the amount of feedback provided, the nature of the feedback according to the defined criteria, and the relative importance of the three categories. Twenty-three teachers in four English departments participated in the study. Data was collected from a detailed questionnaire to give some context in terms of teacher training, experience, and assessment practices. Respondents were then asked to provide written feedback on a sample student essay. Their comments werw analysed in terms of the nature of the feedback, how consistent that feedback was between teachers, and how closely the feedback reflected the stated instructional objectives.

Digital oral feedback written assignments as professional learning for teacher educators : a collaborative self-study.

Allan Luke (2008) uses a “pedagogical economy where literacy education is taken as a cultural gift”. This paper reports on the digital oral feedback provided to pre-service teachers in a literacy unit and explores the pedagogical gift this feedback is to the teacher educators marking this work. Rather than mark their written work as individual lecturers, we collaboratively read the assignment and recorded the sound file of the conversation around each assignment. We then participated in another conversation with a critical friend, which enabled us to explore the impact of this form of assessment on our professional identities as teacher educators. We found these conversations provided a rich context for our professional learning about ourselves as teacher educators, as well as specific content knowledge we both brought to the teaching of this unit. We found we were working as a team to provide more in-depth feedback of the assessment criteria for each assignment than we did with written feedback. Through this dialogical feedback we were able to construct the pre-service teachers' assignments as an important textual gift in our collaborative professional learning about assessment, and in exploring our beliefs and practices as teacher educators.

Digital oral feedback on written assignments as professional learning for teacher educators: a collaborative self-study

This article reports on a self-study of teacher educators involved in a preservice teacher unit on literacy. In this study the teacher educators provided the preservice teachers with digital oral feedback about their final unit of work. Rather than marking written work as individual lecturers, we collaboratively read each assignment and recorded a sound file of our conversation. We constructed our collaborative marking of each assignment as a “cultural gift” to our own professional learning. We found that we were providing more in-depth feedback on the assessment criteria for each assignment than we would have with written feedback prepared individually. We also uncovered tensions in relation to our preferred modalities associated with the digital marking.

EXPLICIT WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND LANGUAGE APTITUDE IN SLA: IMPLICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF LINGUISTIC ACCURACY

Most second language researchers agree that there is a role for corrective feedback in second language writing classes. However, many unanswered questions remain concerning which linguistic features to target and the type and amount of feedback to offer. This study examined two new pieces of writing by 151 learners of English as a Second Language (ESL), in order to investigate the effect of direct and metalinguistic written feedback on errors with the simple past tense, the present perfect tense, dropped pronouns, and pronominal duplication. This inquiry also considered the extent to which learner differences in language-analytic ability (LAA), as measured by the LLAMA F, mediated the effects of these two types of explicit written corrective feedback. Learners in the feedback groups were provided with corrective feedback on two essays, after which learners in all three groups completed two additional writing tasks to determine whether or not the provision of corrective feedback led to greater gains in accuracy compared to no feedback. Both treatment groups, direct and metalinguistic, performed better than the comparison group on new pieces of writing immediately following the treatment sessions, yet direct feedback was more durable than metalinguistic feedback for one structure, the simple past tense. Participants with greater LAA proved more likely to achieve gains in the direct feedback group than in the metalinguistic group, whereas learners with lower LAA benefited more from metalinguistic feedback. Overall, the findings of the present study confirm the results of prior studies that have found a positive role for written corrective feedback in instructed second language acquisition.

Mentor feedback : models, viewpoints and strategies

A mentor’s feedback can present professional insights to allow a mentee to reflect and develop practice. This paper positions two models for feedback that have emanated from empirical studies. It also demonstrates the diverse viewpoints of mentors and suggests strategies for providing quality feedback. In one qualitative study, 24 mentors observed a final-year preservice teacher through a professionally video-recorded lesson and wrote their observations towards giving feedback to the potential mentee. Tables illustrated in the paper, show that mentors’ positive feedback and constructive criticisms vary considerably on the same observed events. Data from this study were synthesised to posit a theoretical model for analysing mentor feedback in an interconnected, three-way Venn diagram, namely: visual, auditory and conceptual frames. Another study (n=28), which is a collection of mentor teachers’ work samples during the Mentoring for Effective Teaching (MET) program, provides strategies within six feedback practices, that is: (1) negotiated mentor-mentee expectations for providing feedback on practices, (2) reviewing teaching plans, (3) arranging for observations of practices, (4) providing oral feedback, (5) providing written feedback, and; (6) presenting opportunities for the mentee to evaluate teaching practices with consideration of the mentor’s feedback. For example, on the last mentioned practice (6) there were strategies such as “Plan a time for evaluation of practices (guided reflection)”, “Read the mentee’s reflection on practice and discuss how it aligns with your observations of their practices”, and “Highlight verbally and/or in writing where the mentee is perceptive about the reflection and how the reflection could be enhanced for future evaluations”. Developing a range of strategies that may assist the mentee in professional growth, include enlisting a community of mentors, ensuring mentors have a repertoire of strategies for articulating feedback, and using mentor feedback tools and models. This study has implications for the development of feedback models and strategies.

Identifying mentors’ observations for providing feedback

Mentors’ feedback can assist preservice teachers’ development; yet feedback tends to be variable from one mentor to the next. What do mentors observe for providing feedback? In this study, 24 mentors observed a final-year preservice teacher through a professionally video-recorded lesson and provided written notes for feedback. They observed the lesson for a second time and focused their feedback on the preservice teacher’s questioning only. Findings showed that the mentors’ written feedback varied considerably when open-ended observations occurred. However, there were fewer items when they focused on one teaching practice (i.e., questioning), which also provided a deeper analysis of this specific practice. Research is required around the dimensions of observations (i.e., visual, auditory, and conceptual), observations of specific practices, and methodological approaches for observing and collecting data about a preservice teacher’s practice.

'Take away from the dry sixties style marking': Lecturer and student perceptions and experiences of audio feedback

Providing audio feedback to assessment is relatively uncommon in higher education. However, published research suggests that it is preferred over written feedback by students but lecturers were less convinced. The aim of this paper is to examine further these findings in the context of a third year business ethics unit. Data was collected from two sources. The first is a series of in-depth, semi-structured interviews conducted with three lecturers providing audio feeback for the first time in Semester One 2011. The second source of data was drawn from the university student evaluation system. A total of 363 responses were used providing 'before' and 'after' perspectives about the effectiveness of audio feedback versus written feedback. Between 2005 and 2009 the survey data provided information about student attitudes to written assessment feedback (n=261). From 2010 onwards the data relates to audio (mp3) feedback (n=102). The analysis of he interview data indicated that introducing audio feedback should be done with care. The perception of the participating lecturers was mixed, ranging from sceptism to outright enthusiasm, but over time the overall approach became positive. It was found that particular attention needs to be paid to small (but important) technical details, and lecturers need to be convinced of its effectieness, especially that it is not necessarily more time consuming than providing written feedback. For students, the analysis revealed a clear preference for audio feedback. It is concluded that there is cause for concern and reason for optimism. It is a cause for concern because there is a possibility that scepticism on the part of academic staff seems to be based on assumptions about what students prefer and a concern about using the technology. There is reason for optimism because the evidence points towards students preferring audio feedback and as academic staff become more familiar with the technology the scepticism tends to evaporate. While this study is limited in scope, questions are raised about tackling negative staff perceptions of audio feedback that are worthy of further research.

Marking and providing feedback face-to-face: staff and student perspectives.

The setting, marking and providing feedback on assessments forms an important part of a tutor’s role. Studies into the use of feedback and how it is interpreted by students indicate a mismatch between what students are looking for and what tutors think they are giving. Tutors comment that students are more interested in the mark than the feedback, and yet students indicate that they do not get enough feedback, or that it is not useful. This study investigates student and staff perceptions of the linking of marking and feedback in face-to-face sessions. A cohort of year one university students were given the option of receiving either written feedback or a 15 minute meeting with one of their tutors to have their essay marked with them. Forty nine students chose face-to-face marking, the remaining 35 students received written feedback. Focus groups were used to investigate the student experience. Staff members were also asked to reflect on the process. Students and staff found the experience of face-to-face marking beneficial and positive. Both felt that the time spent together allowed for a feedback dialogue about the piece of work, and that staff could explain and justify why marks were given.

The feedback we give: university student perceptions and preferences

This paper reports the results of a study on higher education student perceptions of and preferences for feedback on their performance. The issue of feedback to students is becoming increasingly important in higher education, not only because it is an important element of learning, but also as a significant component of the student experience and its evaluation. Within a mass education context, written feedback on coursework may be an important opportunity available to students for individualised attention. The current research explored perceptions of feedback by participants who were studying in undergraduate business degrees in a UK university (N=175). The survey instrument asked participants to evaluate the feedback they receive at university in terms of its impact and influence, as well as their understanding of feedback received and preferences. Analysis of the data indicates that students generally find feedback provided to them helpful and encouraging in improving their work but they also indicate that they would prefer to discuss their work directly with their tutor instead of receiving written feedback. They comment on the illegibility of some hand written feedback received. They also report that, generally, they act on the feedback received in order to improve their work and say that it helps them to reflect on their learning. Students comment that negative feedback received does not make them angry or demotivate them. The survey found considerable variability in the students' understanding of 'typical' feedback comments. The majority of students (79%) also reported that they prefer a structured feedback matrix to general comments because they consider it more specific and easier to understand. The implications of these findings for feedback and assessment practices are discussed and suggestions for improvements developed.

Effects of training peer tutors in content knowledge versus tutoring skills on giving feedback to help tutees’ complex tasks

This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of training tutors in content knowledge of a particular domain versus training them in tutoring skills of pedagogical knowledge when tutoring on a complex tutee task. Forty-seven tutor-tutee pairs of fourth year secondary school students were created and assigned to one of two treatments. Twenty-two tutors received training in content knowledge and the other twenty-five tutors in tutoring skills. Tutors formulated written feedback immediately after the training. Tutees first interpreted the tutor feedback and then used it to revise their research questions. The results showed that tutors trained in tutoring skills formulated more effective feedback than tutors trained in content knowledge. In addition, tutees helped by tutoring-skills tutors found the feedback more motivating than those helped by content- knowledge tutors. However, no differences were found in tutee performance on revision. The findings are discussed in terms of the set-up of this study and implications for improving the effectiveness of peer tutoring.

A avaliação formativa por meio do feedback escrito no processo de ensino-aprendizagem de alunos de 2.º ciclo em matemática

Relatório final apresentado para a obtenção do grau de mestre em Ensino do 1.º ciclo e do 2.º ciclo do ensino básico

A avaliação formativa por meio do feedback escrito no processo de ensino-aprendizagem de alunos de 2.º ciclo em matemática

Relatório final apresentado para a obtenção do grau de mestre em Ensino do 1.º ciclo e do 2.º ciclo do ensino básico