Annotated Bibliography
Carless, D. (2006). Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 219-233.
DOI: 10.1080/02602930903541015
Summary:
In this article, Carless (2006) explores the different perceptions of students and tutors with regard to assessment and feedback. He probes how students experience, understand and interpret the written feedback on assignment as well as instruction perception on how students use the feedback they provide. He situates his study in the Higgins’ (2000) conceptual framework that stipulates that interpretation of feedback are based on three interconnecting components: discourse, power and emotion. The author acknowledging that feedback plays a vital role in the development of effective learning in students, asserts that discourse or the language of the feedback should be taken into consideration when giving feedback as it plays an important role in the interpretation because it has the tendency of exerting power over students and compound the emotions that come with assessment. He stresses that appropriate language of feedback which he refers to as “assessment dialogues” could be the best means to reducing the mistrust and misconceptions that come along with feedback provision on assignment which most times deny the impact of feedback on students’ learning.
Evaluation/Analysis:
This article is a useful source to the current study in that shows the relevance of my study. The author shows the importance of doing research on how feedback could be used effectively to have positive impact on students’ learning which is the focus of the current study. Carless (2006) provides exemplar studies that show evidences of situations where students perceived feedback on assessments as not being useful to their learning thereby not performing the purpose or function for which it (feedback) was intended for. The findings indicating that students have the desire to use feedback to improve their learning through the responses teachers provide (feedback) to their work/assessment but the language used could support or discourage them from using is very revealing. Also, the indication that teachers and students tend to have different perception about the feedback was worth noting. The author’s advocacy for teachers creating opportunities for students to use feedback provided to improve the concept(s) assessed as well as future learning connect with Svinicki & McKeachie’s (2014), Sadler’s (2010) assertion of instructors giving students at a second chance for assignments submission in order to make feedback useful to students as well as improving their (students) learning. He explains that such feedback has the potential to the feedforward (current feedback having positive impact on future tasks and learning) that Hattie & Timperley (2007) discuss in their study that it should be one of the characteristics of a good and quality feedback. Again, the findings show that including self-evaluation in students’ assessment regarding their understanding of instructors’ language and rubrics for assignments was worth noting.
However, I would have loved the author to explain his reason(s) for asserting that instructor need to give feedback on students’ examination scripts. My wondering is how many times do instructors get the chance to teach the same students at their next level so that students can get access to their scripts and for the instructor to have discussion on the feedback provided? Also, the author should have provided avenue in his data collection to let students give examples of the intimidating language that usually exert power over them thereby limiting them to approach the instructor for personal discussion. I think getting concrete examples from students themselves would have served as a guide better than making assumptions based on what they do not like as shown in the study because sometimes our assumptions are far different from what student really want as was evidenced in Ferguson’s (2011) study.
Reflections and Connections:
Carless’s (2006) study relates well with my study in so many ways. Aside from the study focusing on higher education students, his caution of instructors minding the language for their feedback provision in order to promote its intended purpose was very helpful to this study as written, online, as well as verbal feedback use language for its implementation. This knowledge served as a guide in my provision of feedback in that my choice of words especially with written and online feedback was guided by this. It made me conscious of choosing words that will minimize the power role of language discussed in the article. It also informed the wording of the items on the questionnaire as it was a way of soliciting the best way I could provide feedback from my students to assist them learn for mastery and not just for just grades. Again, the follow-up aspect of feedback that the participants of the study complained about as lacking in helping them use feedback to improve their learning was an eye-opener for the current study. The study helped me self-evaluate my feedback to students especially on the written and online feedback before giving them to students. In short, the article guided my actions towards feedback and feedforward.
Dinkelman, T. (2003). Self-study in teacher education: A means and ends tool for promoting reflective teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(1), 6 -18.
Summary:
Dinkelman (2003) in this article discusses the importance of self-study in teacher education and shows its relevance to the teacher educator as well as the preparation of pre-service teachers (PSTs). Using his own novice period of his teaching experience and other related studies, he illustrates how self-study is a power tool to reflective practice to helping the teacher educator have more insight into his profession and at the same time serving as a modeling period for the PSTs. He as well discusses opportunities through which teacher educators could use to model reflective practice for their PSTs in order to make their (PSTs) participation in self-study realistic. He uses relevant studies to illustratively explain the assertion that feedback is a means to promote reflective teaching and a substantive end of teacher education. He discusses the congruence of the teaching, reflection, and self-study showing how thinking is a powerful method of intelligent learning.
Evaluation/Analysis:
This article talks specifically about the importance of self-study in teacher education. It shows how self-study promotes reflective thinking teachers. Dinkelman (2003), like Svinicki and Mckeachie (2014) assert that, for teacher education to realize its full potential, self-study should intentionally be an integral part of teacher educators practice so that it (self-study) serves as a useful tool for promoting reflection in PSTs by virtue of its congruence with the nature of teaching itself. The author shows the value of self-study in the life of teacher educators as it is a tool to improving his/her own practice and ensuring enhancement in student learning. This is evident in his statement, “ …self-study highlights the reflective process and yields knowledge about practice that does not arise from daily practice alone” (p. 9). This article shows how self-study helps teacher educators grow in both knowledge and practice with examples of practitioner researchers who have benefited immensely through self-study. The author, through his discussion of the rationale of self-study shows why the integration of effective self-study into teacher education programs has the potential to cause a positive change in the teaching profession. However, the author did not provide any hint to guide the practice of self-study which I think should have been relevant to readers looking at the importance of self-study to teacher education as shown in the study
Reflections and Connections:
Though the author did not provide any guide as to how to conduct self-study or information on feedback, his discussion of the relevance of self-study in teacher education, my current job environment is serves as a motivation to my study. Also, the article expanded my information sources because some of the articles cited provided information on how to conduct self-study which was not present in his article as stated earlier. His research indicating the benefits of self-study to both the teacher educator and the PSTs tells the importance of my study as teacher education instructor self-studying my feedback provision to help guide my learner towards mastery learning. Also, the information from the study like that of Loughran (2006) and Svinicki & Mckeachie (2014), show that my current study could serve as a modeling for my PSTs to have the opportunity to observe the practice of self-study, therefore, serving as an encouragement to my study.
Ferguson, P. (2011). Student perceptions of quality feedback in teacher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(1),
51-62. DOI:10.1080/02602930903197883
Summary:
In this article, the author examines what university students perceived to be effective, constructive and quality feedback and the procedure that makes it (feedback) meaningful and realistic to improving their learning. All the participants, made up of undergraduate and graduate students, were pre-service teachers (PSTs) from three programs in the college of education in the same university. Using questionnaire as the major data collection instrument, the findings showed that students preferred written feedback that is timely with balanced constructive feedback indicating strengths, weaknesses and how to make improvement in subsequent learning. That is, feedback that acknowledges their (students) successes at the same time pointing their weak areas and guiding them towards future improvement. Regarding the timely provision of feedback, participants in this study showed some sympathy regarding time and workload that confront university teachers on the issue of providing detailed and constructive feedback especially dealing with large classes, however, they indicated that a quick turn around time of feedback was more beneficial for their learning. They also showed preference of brief and concise comments throughout (if possible on each discussed point) and a general overview feedback that highlight the strengths (positives), weaknesses (negatives), and suggested improvement within the said assignment at the end.
Evaluation/Analysis:
This article is a very useful source in that the focus and the participants link so well with the current study. The author reviews extensive research that focus on student perception about the feedback they get from their instructors ranging from the importance of assessment feedback and its importance to students learning through students’ evaluation of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feedback to the importance of providing quality feedback to facilitating students’ learning to show the relevance of feedback to adult student learning. The author’s empirical examination of pre-service teachers’ perception of quality feedback is useful to my study as it is my current dilemma. His framing of questions and items on his questionnaire for data collection as well as procedure were worth emulation.
However, the selection of participants and their composition needed more explanation. The author did not give any reason why he used both undergraduate and graduates students in the study. Also, he did not indicate his selection criteria as well as the composition participants chosen from the three programs stated. I think giving brief but details of the participants used in a study add to its (study) reliability and authenticity. As participants used in a study play important role on the efficacy of the findings, therefore, letting readers know the relevant details of participants used in is worthwhile. That notwithstanding, the goal of the study, determining how ineffective feedback to higher education students might be addressed is worth research.
Reflections and Connections:
Ferguson’s (2011) article links so well with my study in that aside from both having similar focus, the reviewed literature in the study expanded my scope of information sources. That is, I had other studies that were relevant to my self-study that focus on how best I can use feedback to help my teaching. Also, the authors’ research questions and the items in his questionnaire were very helpful to my study because these information helped me modify my research questions as well as the items on my questionnaire for the data collection. Again, the findings in Fergusson’s (2011) study served as a guide in my feedback provision especially regarding the timeliness of returning marked assignments with feedback to students. That is, this information urged me to determine to mark students’ assignments on time. More so, how the author organized and structured his study could serve as a guideline to structuring my own study.
Grainger, P. (2015). How do pre-service teacher education students respond to assessment feedback?. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1-13, DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2015.1096322
Summary:
This examines how pre-service teachers (PSTs) view and respond to assessment feedback provided by their instructors. The author investigates ways in which teacher educators can promote students acquisition of knowledge of assessment practices. The motivation of this study was to identify students’ reactions to a new and innovative feedback mechanism. This purpose was based on Saddler’s (2010) assertion that the traditional telling type of feedback provision does not enhance learning. Forty postgraduate pre-service teachers in an initial teacher education program participated in the study. Survey was used as the data collection tool. The finding showed that there is inconsistency in students’ preference in the feedback types. The study showed a varying preference in that as some participant preferred annotation on scripts with the rubric of the assessment because rubric help them identify areas for improvement, some liked constructive written feedback that because of its consistency and encourage critical self-reflection while others preferred face-to-face because it gives them the opportunity to meet with the instructor to provide further clarification.
Evaluation/Analysis:
Grainger’s (2015) background and literature review sections of the article provide other articles on feedback provision especially those that indicate students’ inconsistency in feedback preference. He also justifies his study and like already reviewed studies stated above, shows inadequacy of research on feedback especially in teacher education. Like Loughran, (2006) and Svinicki & McKeachie (2014), the author shows the importance of teaching.
Guskey, T. R. (2003). How classroom assessments improve learning. Educational Leadership, 60(5), 6-11
Summary:
This article talks about how teacher’s approach to assessment can either demotivate or motivate students to learn. The author shows how useful assessment can be to benefit both the students and the teacher. He shows that appropriate approach to assessment can be a good means to improve authentic students’ learning and be a good source of information to the teacher as to what s/he taught well and where remedial teaching needs to be done. He provides innovative ways teachers can use assessment to direct students’ learning goals towards mastery. Assessment should be seen as an extension of the desired goals. Therefore, concepts or skills that are important to be assessed should be important to be taught well.
Evaluation/Analysis:
The author acknowledged that despite the importance of feedback to teaching and learning, it is not a concept that had been given much attention in research. The author shows how integral feedback is to assessment and how its effective usage can influence learning positively. This study shows how teachers really have formal training on assessment and feedback provision therefore, rendering their (assessment and feedback) usage problematic for most teacher. This implying that relevance of formally training pre-service teachers (PSTs) on these and this links so well with Loughran (2006) and Svinicki & McKeachie’s (2014) assertion that teachers needs to model what they teach their students especially PSTs. The author advises teachers to “follow their assessments with instructional alternatives that present those concepts in new ways and engage students in different and more appropriate learning experiences” (p. 8). This indicates that assessment can be a useful tool and means of directing students’ goals of learning towards mastery by using alternative approaches that accommodate differences in students' learning styles and intelligence and not just re-teaching. He also supports Svinicki & McKeachie’s (2014) assertion that students should be given a second chance in assignment submission in order for them to make use of the feedback provided to improve learning.
Reflections and Connections:
One insightful practice worth emulating is giving appropriate feedback and giving students second chance for assessment in the current study. The fact that such gestures assure students of the teacher’s support for their success and therefore minimize their anxiety is my desire for my student. This helps shift their goals for learning from grades to mastery because the second chance helps students determine the effectiveness of the corrective instruction and offers them another opportunity to experience success in learning. It also reduces the competitiveness in students and inculcates in them the spirit of collaboration because assessments then become an integral part of the instructional process. Such opportunities allow students to learn from their previous mistakes and to improve their performance therefore serving as a support and a channel that leads to lifelong learning. The author’s assertion that students learn best when their initial performance is less than successful, and that they can gain direction on how to improve from the teacher’s appropriate feedback is in line with my focus for this study. This article is vital to my study because the focus of my study is how I can best use feedback to help direct my students’ learning goals towards mastery.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112, DOI: 10.3102/003465430298487
Summary:
This article provides insightful information about the effective use of feedback to enhance learning. The authors’ focus on feedback as information about the content as well as the understanding students acquired from the learning experience. They discuss how feedback can either impact positively or negatively on students’ learning depending on its usage. They explain that for feedback to be as powerful as expected, there must be a learning context to which it (feedback) is addressed. They show the effect of the “how”, “when” and “where” of the use of feedback to students’ learning stressing on the importance of the appropriate use of these three aspects. They also illustratively provide four focus/levels of feedback. They refer to the three questions and the four levels as “Model of Feedback”. This model helps teachers identify particular properties and circumstances that make feedback effective and promote students’ learning. According to the authors, these conditions maximize the positive effects of feedback on students’ learning.
Evaluation/Analysis:
In this article, though the authors show the relevance of feedback in enhancing learning and promoting students’ achievement yet it has not been given much attention. They reviewed articles that indicate how effective use of feedback facilitates students’ learning and achievements. The article does extensive discussion of the meaning of feedback, its attributes, its effectiveness properties, and appropriate use of positive and negative comments. Their discussion of the proposed model of feedback shows strategies that could be used to make feedback provision effective and useful to promote learning because the model shows the properties and circumstances that lead to the effectiveness. They also discuss ways of addressing the three feedback questions (stated in the summary) and how they (questions) should be integrated to achieve success. The four levels of feedback; feedback as a product, process, self-regulation tool, and as edifying person (this is unrelated to performance) were also discussed comprehensively. They discuss the preparation that need to go into feedback provision and also discuss the thorny issues related to feedback including timely return of marked scripts, effective balance of positive and negative comments, feedback as assessment etc. They regard these as thorny issues in that if proper attention is not given they can mar the effectiveness or usefulness of the feedback.
Reflections and Connections:
From the knowledge gained from this article, it shows that most teachers underrate the preparation towards the use of feedback and as a result do not help to achieve the full benefits of feedback to students’ learning therefore, limiting its effectiveness. The authors make it clear that effective feedback answer three major questions: Where am I going? (What are the goals?), How am I going? (What progress is being made toward the goal?), and Where to next? (What activities need to be undertaken to make better progress?). These are what they refer to as “feed up”, “Feed back”, and “feed forward” respectively. This indicates that effective feedback need appropriate planning and proper implementation as both the teacher and the student(s) have roles to play. This information is very relevant to the current study because it will guide me in preparation toward feedback provision, the framing of the wording on students’ scripts and even the word choice of the verbal feedback. Also, the information will serve as a guide in my implementation of feedback as a means to direct my students’ learning goals towards mastery. Also, the analysis of the model of feedback suggests ways in which feedback can be used to enhance its effectiveness in classrooms. It also provides additional sources for information on the effective use of feedback.
Huxham, M. (2007). Fast and effective feedback: are model answers the answer?. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(6),
601-611. DOI: 10.1080/0260293060116946.
Summary:
In this study, Huxham (2007) empirically compares two forms/types of feedback; “Model answer feedback”and “standard/personal feedback” to explore how the effectiveness of each of the types to promoting students’ learning. That is, the author examines students’ perceptions of the model answer type of feedback with the standard or traditional form of feedback to examine their effects on performance in subsequent assessments. Three groups of first-year biological science students consisting of 2004 first-year cohort, 2005 first-year cohorts and 2005 honors participated in the study. Using questionnaire as the main data collection instrument, the findings showed that the participants used in the study generally placed value highly on feedback that is provided timely with balanced comments (both positive and negative comments with suggestions that gear towards improving subsequent learning). The findings also indicated that there was a slight preference of personal feedback over the model answer although most students preferred both.
Evaluation/Analysis:
The author’s discussion of importance of feedback and its influence on students’ actively learning supports previous reviewed articles (Carless, 2006; Fergusson, 2011, Guskey, 2003; Hattie & Timperley 2007; Sadler, 2010) and uses Cross’s (1996) simile of feedback: “learning without feedback is like archery practice in the dark” as cited in the Huxham (2007) to lay emphasis on the relevance of feedback to students’ learning. The discussion of the characteristics of quality feedback; that feedback should be devoid of ambiguity and opaqueness (avoidance of vague wording and cryptic), balanced and constructive (not be overly negative or only catalogue of errors but rather contain both positive and negative with suggestion for improvement), timely (not to be late to get back to students), and criteria and context be clear to students (criteria/rubric and contexts should be comprehensible to students) also buttress the previously read article indicating how important the presence of these elements in feedback provision to influencing students’ learning. The author’s suggestion that the blend of instructor and student feedback as students are not consistent about what they want was laudable. This article’s introduction of another method of feedback provision, the model answer type which none of the previously reviewed articles talked about was relevant to this study as the meaning and how it is used was explicitly discussed in the study. However, there were some few stated figures in the findings that were not captured in the tables provided therefore made the comprehension a bit confusing.
Reflections and Connections:
Huxham’s (2007) discussion on the characteristics of quality feedback gave me insight in my feedback provision and they also served as a measuring tool or a yardstick for assessing my written feedback. His literature also exposed me to other sources of information that could be used to beef up the background of my study. As did some of the already reviewed articles, his questions helped in the modification of my questionnaire. Again, the findings encouraged me to tryout the model answer type of feedback with one of my struggling students. The information I had gathered from this article also made me decide to continue the study in the Spring semester as I will be teaching the same cohort so that the extended time would enable me see the real impact my feedback would have on my students learning and the type that works best with my participants.
Laryea, S. (2013). Feedback provision and use in teaching and learning: a case study. Education+ Training, 55(7), 665-680,
DOI: 10.1108/ET-06-2012-0071
Summary:
This article examines and analyses the way feedback is practiced in a particular department in one of the universities in the United Kingdom. It explores how feedback is given by instructors as part of teaching as well as how students perceive and use it in their learning in higher education. With the use of interviews and questionnaire, the author collected data from both lecturers and students and also examined documents relating to feedback provision prescribed by the university. In all, 471 undergraduate students, consisting of students at all levels and 25 lecturers in the chosen departments then participated in the study. The study showed that lecturers approach to feedback provision were not different from the traditional formative and summative feedback with the usual verbal and written forms which are followed with general class discussions when students’ work were returned to them while students preference for feedback provision were one-on-one and personal feedback. The study indicated that the traditional approach only to feedback giving coupled with not returning assignment timely mar feedback and reduces its efficacy or the intended effectiveness of feedback as part of teaching to enhancing students’ learning.
Evaluation/Analysis:
This study is important to my study due to the fact that apart from the usefulness of the findings, the author reviews articles on the roles feedback play in students’ learning and forms of feedback were worthwhile. As part of his background information, the author through his literature review shows how effective feedback provision could have ripple effects in the teaching and learning process using exemplar articles. His discussion of these articles indicated that effective feedback provision could serve as motivation to encourage students to be actively involved in their own learning which leads to deeper learning. Also, although it did not form part of the finding, like Fergusson (2011), the author uses existing studies to discuss different forms of feedback including peer feedback, self-assessment, exemplar assignments, face-to-face feedback aside from the traditional verbal and written feedback that instructors could adopt in their feedback provision to make it (feedback) relevant and enhance students’ learning. More so, like Carless (2006), the author’s discussion of the element of ‘good’ feedback shows that provision of constructive feedback that contains strengths and weaknesses of the marked work with guiding suggestions as to how to improve the said assignments is potent to facilitate the current and future learning experiences of students. Laryea advocacy for integrating technology in the form of internet-based feedback like podcast, video etc connects with that of Svinicki & McKeachie (2014) that technology could be used to make students active in their own learning.
These notwithstanding, the author seemed to be bias on skewing the response towards his expectation in that among the five items of his questionnaire, 2 items (2 and 3) seemed to coax respondents to give the kind of response the author wanted. The questions (2) was: How do you rate the quality of your feedback experience in the school? and this is followed directly with (question 3): If your answer is “Poor” or “Average”, what is the main reason for this?. I believe that if the item 3 had been something open like: “Give reason for your response to (2)” it could have been open without any clue or compelling respondents to choose from the clues given in (3). However, the author’s objective for the study; exploring and advancing a better understanding of the way feedback is given and student’s perception of the feedback they receive and its influence on their learning is worth studying.
Reflections and Connections:
Although Laryea’s (2013) findings did not differ much from some of the reviewed articles (Carless, 2006; Yorke, 2003), the knowledge gained in the article was worthwhile as it exposed me to other forms/methods of feedback provision. The author’s discussion of the methods of feedback was relevant to my study as my adding on of the self-evaluation to my feedback provision for one of my struggling student was as a result of the knowledge acquired from this article. Also, the discussion of the characteristics of good feedback in the article enlightened me in the framing of my feedback especially the written form
Sadler, D. R. (2010). Beyond feedback: Developing student capability in complex appraisal. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 535-550, DOI: 10.1080/02602930903541015.
Summary:
The article addresses alternative model for instructors in higher education to making their feedback useful to students and also use it to empower learners to become self-regulated learners. It discusses the fundamental concepts: task compliance (congruence between the type of response stipulated in the task specifications and the type of response actually submitted by the student), quality (the degree to which a work/task comes together as a whole to achieve its intended purpose), criteria (contextual properties/characteristics useful for quality determination e.g. rubrics) and developing relevant tacit knowledge (creating learning environment that attends to developing students’ conceptual understanding) that are crucial to effective feedback. Saddler (2010) argues that the ‘Telling’ (the traditional statements of the strengths and weaknesses of students’ work) type of feedback and feedforward are not enough and that instructors should find an alternative means of involving students actively in the feedback process in order to make feedback useful to students. The author asserts that it is only when students are actively involved through peer-review (the alternative suggested) that feedback could perform the intention for its provision, that is, student using it (feedback) to enhance their learning. The author explains that peer assessment should be fundamental in feedback provision if instructors desire to direct their students’ learning towards mastery. He argues that the traditional telling kind of feedback is not achieving its intended goal because students are just told what to do without active involvement and therefore, does not encourage students to learn for mastery and/or improve complex learning. He explains that by so doing, both the teacher and the students are immersed in the appraisal actions thereby connecting symbolic forms (comments e.g. words, sentences etc., discourse) with their concrete referents (student’s work).
Evaluation/Analysis:
This article provides insightful information on feedback and why some of the intention of providing feedback to students are not realized. The author, like Loughran (2006) and Svinicki & McKeachie (2014), discusses why task compliance, quality, criteria, and developing relevant tacit knowledge are crucial to providing effective feedback and why the use of the alternative model (peer assessment) could make feedback useful to student and lead them to complex learning. Sadler (2010) indicate the importance of feedback in enhancing students’ learning yet has not been given the needed attention. He explains feedback and feedforward extensive and shows how they (feedback and feedforward) are mostly used as telling. Also, he discusses the importance of researching the ‘whats’ and ‘hows’ of feedback to students. The author discusses three interpretative challenges students face with feedback.
He states the four basic tasks for peer assessment but did not explain into details what they really are and how instructors could implement these tasks effectively in the use of the peer review. I wanted the author to throw more light on these since they are very crucial in the use of the alternative model suggested as they may be new to intended audience (instructors). Moreso, the author’s explanation of the three interpretative challenges students face regarding feedback was not enough as these were the very reasons why he was advocating for the peer review alternative. He also asserts that there is less problem with the quality of the telling feedback than instructors assuming that telling, even detailed telling, is the most appropriate route to improving students’ learning. I think the author, having problem with telling should have explained very well how the peer review could be implemented with concrete examples or evidence of its (peer review) efficacy when used alone without the addition of the tradition telling type of feedback. Another area the author should have thrown more light on is the issue of rubrics or criteria-standards templates inhibiting creativity in students because they (rubrics/criteria-standard) tend to prioritize specific quality. My concern is that no matter how creative we want students to be, we should not compromise it with the concepts they ought to know from the course content so rubrics highlighting those quality should be encouraged.
Reflections and Connections:
This article was very informative in the use of feedback to promoting students’ learning. The author’s explanation of crucial ingredients for providing feedback: task compliance, quality, criteria, and developing relevant tacit knowledge is worthwhile and why instructors should consider them in feedback provision is insightful. His stress on effective feedback being capable of making a positive difference in students’ learning was very encouraging as this is the focus of my study. His assertion that formative assessment and feedback should empower students to become self-regulated learners behooves instructors to create opportunities for students to make use of the feedback provided connects so well that of Svinicki & McKeachie’s (2014), that if instructors want their students to learn for mastery, then they should be given the chance to use the feedback on their draft work/task to improve the final one. This implies that instructors should take the first draft of students’ assignments as the final work and grade but rather students should be given at least a second chance to use the feedback provided on the first draft to improve their learning. Also, the alternative model of feedback (peer review) as a pedagogical approach to helping students learn for mastery discussed in this article is relevant to my study as it provides a alternative lens for looking at a feedback that can assist students learn for mastery which is the focus of this study.
Yorke, M. (2003). Formative assessment in higher education: Moves towards theory and the enhancement of pedagogic practice. Higher Education, 45(4), 477-501.
Summary:
In this article, the author talks about formative assessment in higher education and how it can foster or inhibit learning. She shows the importance of using formative assessment to help university students become lifelong learners. She discusses differences between formative and summative assessments as well as convergent and divergent assessments and shows how feedback from any of these types of assessment can be constructive or inhibitory towards students’ learning. She is of the view that higher education learning should be geared towards the inculcating into learners the habit of learning for mastery which she describes as lifelong learning. She states, “If … key purpose of higher education is to facilitate the autonomy of learners in a world of lifelong learning … then formative assessments (and summative assessments, for that matter) must contain a significant proportion of divergence (p. 480).
Evaluation/Analysis:
The author discusses the positive effect of timely constructive feedback for assessment on students learning. She explains that high success rate is in part attributable to the feedback that students receive on drafts and that many students use this opportunity to polish up their submission in the light of this feedback. This is in line with Guskey, 2003, Hattie & Timperley (2007), and Svinicki & McKeachie’s (2014) notion that to help students acquire the habit of learning for mastery, they need to be given a second chance on assessments to enable them use the feedback provided on the draft to enhance their understanding and polish up their draft. This reduces their anxiety and even gradually increases their desire to mastery. She acknowledges the pressure and demands on the university teacher, however, she advocates for the appropriateness of the feedback teachers provide as it has greater impact on learner’s mode of learning.
Reflections and Connections:
The information in this article is relevant to my study because it shows how effective use of feedback on formative assessment can be a vital tool to making students comprehend concepts. Also, knowing my students being interested in grades, effective use of feedback on their formative assessments could be used to support the shift of their focus from grades to learning for master and provide vital ideas to the achievement of my objective.
Carless, D. (2006). Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 219-233.
DOI: 10.1080/02602930903541015
Summary:
In this article, Carless (2006) explores the different perceptions of students and tutors with regard to assessment and feedback. He probes how students experience, understand and interpret the written feedback on assignment as well as instruction perception on how students use the feedback they provide. He situates his study in the Higgins’ (2000) conceptual framework that stipulates that interpretation of feedback are based on three interconnecting components: discourse, power and emotion. The author acknowledging that feedback plays a vital role in the development of effective learning in students, asserts that discourse or the language of the feedback should be taken into consideration when giving feedback as it plays an important role in the interpretation because it has the tendency of exerting power over students and compound the emotions that come with assessment. He stresses that appropriate language of feedback which he refers to as “assessment dialogues” could be the best means to reducing the mistrust and misconceptions that come along with feedback provision on assignment which most times deny the impact of feedback on students’ learning.
Evaluation/Analysis:
This article is a useful source to the current study in that shows the relevance of my study. The author shows the importance of doing research on how feedback could be used effectively to have positive impact on students’ learning which is the focus of the current study. Carless (2006) provides exemplar studies that show evidences of situations where students perceived feedback on assessments as not being useful to their learning thereby not performing the purpose or function for which it (feedback) was intended for. The findings indicating that students have the desire to use feedback to improve their learning through the responses teachers provide (feedback) to their work/assessment but the language used could support or discourage them from using is very revealing. Also, the indication that teachers and students tend to have different perception about the feedback was worth noting. The author’s advocacy for teachers creating opportunities for students to use feedback provided to improve the concept(s) assessed as well as future learning connect with Svinicki & McKeachie’s (2014), Sadler’s (2010) assertion of instructors giving students at a second chance for assignments submission in order to make feedback useful to students as well as improving their (students) learning. He explains that such feedback has the potential to the feedforward (current feedback having positive impact on future tasks and learning) that Hattie & Timperley (2007) discuss in their study that it should be one of the characteristics of a good and quality feedback. Again, the findings show that including self-evaluation in students’ assessment regarding their understanding of instructors’ language and rubrics for assignments was worth noting.
However, I would have loved the author to explain his reason(s) for asserting that instructor need to give feedback on students’ examination scripts. My wondering is how many times do instructors get the chance to teach the same students at their next level so that students can get access to their scripts and for the instructor to have discussion on the feedback provided? Also, the author should have provided avenue in his data collection to let students give examples of the intimidating language that usually exert power over them thereby limiting them to approach the instructor for personal discussion. I think getting concrete examples from students themselves would have served as a guide better than making assumptions based on what they do not like as shown in the study because sometimes our assumptions are far different from what student really want as was evidenced in Ferguson’s (2011) study.
Reflections and Connections:
Carless’s (2006) study relates well with my study in so many ways. Aside from the study focusing on higher education students, his caution of instructors minding the language for their feedback provision in order to promote its intended purpose was very helpful to this study as written, online, as well as verbal feedback use language for its implementation. This knowledge served as a guide in my provision of feedback in that my choice of words especially with written and online feedback was guided by this. It made me conscious of choosing words that will minimize the power role of language discussed in the article. It also informed the wording of the items on the questionnaire as it was a way of soliciting the best way I could provide feedback from my students to assist them learn for mastery and not just for just grades. Again, the follow-up aspect of feedback that the participants of the study complained about as lacking in helping them use feedback to improve their learning was an eye-opener for the current study. The study helped me self-evaluate my feedback to students especially on the written and online feedback before giving them to students. In short, the article guided my actions towards feedback and feedforward.
Dinkelman, T. (2003). Self-study in teacher education: A means and ends tool for promoting reflective teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(1), 6 -18.
Summary:
Dinkelman (2003) in this article discusses the importance of self-study in teacher education and shows its relevance to the teacher educator as well as the preparation of pre-service teachers (PSTs). Using his own novice period of his teaching experience and other related studies, he illustrates how self-study is a power tool to reflective practice to helping the teacher educator have more insight into his profession and at the same time serving as a modeling period for the PSTs. He as well discusses opportunities through which teacher educators could use to model reflective practice for their PSTs in order to make their (PSTs) participation in self-study realistic. He uses relevant studies to illustratively explain the assertion that feedback is a means to promote reflective teaching and a substantive end of teacher education. He discusses the congruence of the teaching, reflection, and self-study showing how thinking is a powerful method of intelligent learning.
Evaluation/Analysis:
This article talks specifically about the importance of self-study in teacher education. It shows how self-study promotes reflective thinking teachers. Dinkelman (2003), like Svinicki and Mckeachie (2014) assert that, for teacher education to realize its full potential, self-study should intentionally be an integral part of teacher educators practice so that it (self-study) serves as a useful tool for promoting reflection in PSTs by virtue of its congruence with the nature of teaching itself. The author shows the value of self-study in the life of teacher educators as it is a tool to improving his/her own practice and ensuring enhancement in student learning. This is evident in his statement, “ …self-study highlights the reflective process and yields knowledge about practice that does not arise from daily practice alone” (p. 9). This article shows how self-study helps teacher educators grow in both knowledge and practice with examples of practitioner researchers who have benefited immensely through self-study. The author, through his discussion of the rationale of self-study shows why the integration of effective self-study into teacher education programs has the potential to cause a positive change in the teaching profession. However, the author did not provide any hint to guide the practice of self-study which I think should have been relevant to readers looking at the importance of self-study to teacher education as shown in the study
Reflections and Connections:
Though the author did not provide any guide as to how to conduct self-study or information on feedback, his discussion of the relevance of self-study in teacher education, my current job environment is serves as a motivation to my study. Also, the article expanded my information sources because some of the articles cited provided information on how to conduct self-study which was not present in his article as stated earlier. His research indicating the benefits of self-study to both the teacher educator and the PSTs tells the importance of my study as teacher education instructor self-studying my feedback provision to help guide my learner towards mastery learning. Also, the information from the study like that of Loughran (2006) and Svinicki & Mckeachie (2014), show that my current study could serve as a modeling for my PSTs to have the opportunity to observe the practice of self-study, therefore, serving as an encouragement to my study.
Ferguson, P. (2011). Student perceptions of quality feedback in teacher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(1),
51-62. DOI:10.1080/02602930903197883
Summary:
In this article, the author examines what university students perceived to be effective, constructive and quality feedback and the procedure that makes it (feedback) meaningful and realistic to improving their learning. All the participants, made up of undergraduate and graduate students, were pre-service teachers (PSTs) from three programs in the college of education in the same university. Using questionnaire as the major data collection instrument, the findings showed that students preferred written feedback that is timely with balanced constructive feedback indicating strengths, weaknesses and how to make improvement in subsequent learning. That is, feedback that acknowledges their (students) successes at the same time pointing their weak areas and guiding them towards future improvement. Regarding the timely provision of feedback, participants in this study showed some sympathy regarding time and workload that confront university teachers on the issue of providing detailed and constructive feedback especially dealing with large classes, however, they indicated that a quick turn around time of feedback was more beneficial for their learning. They also showed preference of brief and concise comments throughout (if possible on each discussed point) and a general overview feedback that highlight the strengths (positives), weaknesses (negatives), and suggested improvement within the said assignment at the end.
Evaluation/Analysis:
This article is a very useful source in that the focus and the participants link so well with the current study. The author reviews extensive research that focus on student perception about the feedback they get from their instructors ranging from the importance of assessment feedback and its importance to students learning through students’ evaluation of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feedback to the importance of providing quality feedback to facilitating students’ learning to show the relevance of feedback to adult student learning. The author’s empirical examination of pre-service teachers’ perception of quality feedback is useful to my study as it is my current dilemma. His framing of questions and items on his questionnaire for data collection as well as procedure were worth emulation.
However, the selection of participants and their composition needed more explanation. The author did not give any reason why he used both undergraduate and graduates students in the study. Also, he did not indicate his selection criteria as well as the composition participants chosen from the three programs stated. I think giving brief but details of the participants used in a study add to its (study) reliability and authenticity. As participants used in a study play important role on the efficacy of the findings, therefore, letting readers know the relevant details of participants used in is worthwhile. That notwithstanding, the goal of the study, determining how ineffective feedback to higher education students might be addressed is worth research.
Reflections and Connections:
Ferguson’s (2011) article links so well with my study in that aside from both having similar focus, the reviewed literature in the study expanded my scope of information sources. That is, I had other studies that were relevant to my self-study that focus on how best I can use feedback to help my teaching. Also, the authors’ research questions and the items in his questionnaire were very helpful to my study because these information helped me modify my research questions as well as the items on my questionnaire for the data collection. Again, the findings in Fergusson’s (2011) study served as a guide in my feedback provision especially regarding the timeliness of returning marked assignments with feedback to students. That is, this information urged me to determine to mark students’ assignments on time. More so, how the author organized and structured his study could serve as a guideline to structuring my own study.
Grainger, P. (2015). How do pre-service teacher education students respond to assessment feedback?. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1-13, DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2015.1096322
Summary:
This examines how pre-service teachers (PSTs) view and respond to assessment feedback provided by their instructors. The author investigates ways in which teacher educators can promote students acquisition of knowledge of assessment practices. The motivation of this study was to identify students’ reactions to a new and innovative feedback mechanism. This purpose was based on Saddler’s (2010) assertion that the traditional telling type of feedback provision does not enhance learning. Forty postgraduate pre-service teachers in an initial teacher education program participated in the study. Survey was used as the data collection tool. The finding showed that there is inconsistency in students’ preference in the feedback types. The study showed a varying preference in that as some participant preferred annotation on scripts with the rubric of the assessment because rubric help them identify areas for improvement, some liked constructive written feedback that because of its consistency and encourage critical self-reflection while others preferred face-to-face because it gives them the opportunity to meet with the instructor to provide further clarification.
Evaluation/Analysis:
Grainger’s (2015) background and literature review sections of the article provide other articles on feedback provision especially those that indicate students’ inconsistency in feedback preference. He also justifies his study and like already reviewed studies stated above, shows inadequacy of research on feedback especially in teacher education. Like Loughran, (2006) and Svinicki & McKeachie (2014), the author shows the importance of teaching.
Guskey, T. R. (2003). How classroom assessments improve learning. Educational Leadership, 60(5), 6-11
Summary:
This article talks about how teacher’s approach to assessment can either demotivate or motivate students to learn. The author shows how useful assessment can be to benefit both the students and the teacher. He shows that appropriate approach to assessment can be a good means to improve authentic students’ learning and be a good source of information to the teacher as to what s/he taught well and where remedial teaching needs to be done. He provides innovative ways teachers can use assessment to direct students’ learning goals towards mastery. Assessment should be seen as an extension of the desired goals. Therefore, concepts or skills that are important to be assessed should be important to be taught well.
Evaluation/Analysis:
The author acknowledged that despite the importance of feedback to teaching and learning, it is not a concept that had been given much attention in research. The author shows how integral feedback is to assessment and how its effective usage can influence learning positively. This study shows how teachers really have formal training on assessment and feedback provision therefore, rendering their (assessment and feedback) usage problematic for most teacher. This implying that relevance of formally training pre-service teachers (PSTs) on these and this links so well with Loughran (2006) and Svinicki & McKeachie’s (2014) assertion that teachers needs to model what they teach their students especially PSTs. The author advises teachers to “follow their assessments with instructional alternatives that present those concepts in new ways and engage students in different and more appropriate learning experiences” (p. 8). This indicates that assessment can be a useful tool and means of directing students’ goals of learning towards mastery by using alternative approaches that accommodate differences in students' learning styles and intelligence and not just re-teaching. He also supports Svinicki & McKeachie’s (2014) assertion that students should be given a second chance in assignment submission in order for them to make use of the feedback provided to improve learning.
Reflections and Connections:
One insightful practice worth emulating is giving appropriate feedback and giving students second chance for assessment in the current study. The fact that such gestures assure students of the teacher’s support for their success and therefore minimize their anxiety is my desire for my student. This helps shift their goals for learning from grades to mastery because the second chance helps students determine the effectiveness of the corrective instruction and offers them another opportunity to experience success in learning. It also reduces the competitiveness in students and inculcates in them the spirit of collaboration because assessments then become an integral part of the instructional process. Such opportunities allow students to learn from their previous mistakes and to improve their performance therefore serving as a support and a channel that leads to lifelong learning. The author’s assertion that students learn best when their initial performance is less than successful, and that they can gain direction on how to improve from the teacher’s appropriate feedback is in line with my focus for this study. This article is vital to my study because the focus of my study is how I can best use feedback to help direct my students’ learning goals towards mastery.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112, DOI: 10.3102/003465430298487
Summary:
This article provides insightful information about the effective use of feedback to enhance learning. The authors’ focus on feedback as information about the content as well as the understanding students acquired from the learning experience. They discuss how feedback can either impact positively or negatively on students’ learning depending on its usage. They explain that for feedback to be as powerful as expected, there must be a learning context to which it (feedback) is addressed. They show the effect of the “how”, “when” and “where” of the use of feedback to students’ learning stressing on the importance of the appropriate use of these three aspects. They also illustratively provide four focus/levels of feedback. They refer to the three questions and the four levels as “Model of Feedback”. This model helps teachers identify particular properties and circumstances that make feedback effective and promote students’ learning. According to the authors, these conditions maximize the positive effects of feedback on students’ learning.
Evaluation/Analysis:
In this article, though the authors show the relevance of feedback in enhancing learning and promoting students’ achievement yet it has not been given much attention. They reviewed articles that indicate how effective use of feedback facilitates students’ learning and achievements. The article does extensive discussion of the meaning of feedback, its attributes, its effectiveness properties, and appropriate use of positive and negative comments. Their discussion of the proposed model of feedback shows strategies that could be used to make feedback provision effective and useful to promote learning because the model shows the properties and circumstances that lead to the effectiveness. They also discuss ways of addressing the three feedback questions (stated in the summary) and how they (questions) should be integrated to achieve success. The four levels of feedback; feedback as a product, process, self-regulation tool, and as edifying person (this is unrelated to performance) were also discussed comprehensively. They discuss the preparation that need to go into feedback provision and also discuss the thorny issues related to feedback including timely return of marked scripts, effective balance of positive and negative comments, feedback as assessment etc. They regard these as thorny issues in that if proper attention is not given they can mar the effectiveness or usefulness of the feedback.
Reflections and Connections:
From the knowledge gained from this article, it shows that most teachers underrate the preparation towards the use of feedback and as a result do not help to achieve the full benefits of feedback to students’ learning therefore, limiting its effectiveness. The authors make it clear that effective feedback answer three major questions: Where am I going? (What are the goals?), How am I going? (What progress is being made toward the goal?), and Where to next? (What activities need to be undertaken to make better progress?). These are what they refer to as “feed up”, “Feed back”, and “feed forward” respectively. This indicates that effective feedback need appropriate planning and proper implementation as both the teacher and the student(s) have roles to play. This information is very relevant to the current study because it will guide me in preparation toward feedback provision, the framing of the wording on students’ scripts and even the word choice of the verbal feedback. Also, the information will serve as a guide in my implementation of feedback as a means to direct my students’ learning goals towards mastery. Also, the analysis of the model of feedback suggests ways in which feedback can be used to enhance its effectiveness in classrooms. It also provides additional sources for information on the effective use of feedback.
Huxham, M. (2007). Fast and effective feedback: are model answers the answer?. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(6),
601-611. DOI: 10.1080/0260293060116946.
Summary:
In this study, Huxham (2007) empirically compares two forms/types of feedback; “Model answer feedback”and “standard/personal feedback” to explore how the effectiveness of each of the types to promoting students’ learning. That is, the author examines students’ perceptions of the model answer type of feedback with the standard or traditional form of feedback to examine their effects on performance in subsequent assessments. Three groups of first-year biological science students consisting of 2004 first-year cohort, 2005 first-year cohorts and 2005 honors participated in the study. Using questionnaire as the main data collection instrument, the findings showed that the participants used in the study generally placed value highly on feedback that is provided timely with balanced comments (both positive and negative comments with suggestions that gear towards improving subsequent learning). The findings also indicated that there was a slight preference of personal feedback over the model answer although most students preferred both.
Evaluation/Analysis:
The author’s discussion of importance of feedback and its influence on students’ actively learning supports previous reviewed articles (Carless, 2006; Fergusson, 2011, Guskey, 2003; Hattie & Timperley 2007; Sadler, 2010) and uses Cross’s (1996) simile of feedback: “learning without feedback is like archery practice in the dark” as cited in the Huxham (2007) to lay emphasis on the relevance of feedback to students’ learning. The discussion of the characteristics of quality feedback; that feedback should be devoid of ambiguity and opaqueness (avoidance of vague wording and cryptic), balanced and constructive (not be overly negative or only catalogue of errors but rather contain both positive and negative with suggestion for improvement), timely (not to be late to get back to students), and criteria and context be clear to students (criteria/rubric and contexts should be comprehensible to students) also buttress the previously read article indicating how important the presence of these elements in feedback provision to influencing students’ learning. The author’s suggestion that the blend of instructor and student feedback as students are not consistent about what they want was laudable. This article’s introduction of another method of feedback provision, the model answer type which none of the previously reviewed articles talked about was relevant to this study as the meaning and how it is used was explicitly discussed in the study. However, there were some few stated figures in the findings that were not captured in the tables provided therefore made the comprehension a bit confusing.
Reflections and Connections:
Huxham’s (2007) discussion on the characteristics of quality feedback gave me insight in my feedback provision and they also served as a measuring tool or a yardstick for assessing my written feedback. His literature also exposed me to other sources of information that could be used to beef up the background of my study. As did some of the already reviewed articles, his questions helped in the modification of my questionnaire. Again, the findings encouraged me to tryout the model answer type of feedback with one of my struggling students. The information I had gathered from this article also made me decide to continue the study in the Spring semester as I will be teaching the same cohort so that the extended time would enable me see the real impact my feedback would have on my students learning and the type that works best with my participants.
Laryea, S. (2013). Feedback provision and use in teaching and learning: a case study. Education+ Training, 55(7), 665-680,
DOI: 10.1108/ET-06-2012-0071
Summary:
This article examines and analyses the way feedback is practiced in a particular department in one of the universities in the United Kingdom. It explores how feedback is given by instructors as part of teaching as well as how students perceive and use it in their learning in higher education. With the use of interviews and questionnaire, the author collected data from both lecturers and students and also examined documents relating to feedback provision prescribed by the university. In all, 471 undergraduate students, consisting of students at all levels and 25 lecturers in the chosen departments then participated in the study. The study showed that lecturers approach to feedback provision were not different from the traditional formative and summative feedback with the usual verbal and written forms which are followed with general class discussions when students’ work were returned to them while students preference for feedback provision were one-on-one and personal feedback. The study indicated that the traditional approach only to feedback giving coupled with not returning assignment timely mar feedback and reduces its efficacy or the intended effectiveness of feedback as part of teaching to enhancing students’ learning.
Evaluation/Analysis:
This study is important to my study due to the fact that apart from the usefulness of the findings, the author reviews articles on the roles feedback play in students’ learning and forms of feedback were worthwhile. As part of his background information, the author through his literature review shows how effective feedback provision could have ripple effects in the teaching and learning process using exemplar articles. His discussion of these articles indicated that effective feedback provision could serve as motivation to encourage students to be actively involved in their own learning which leads to deeper learning. Also, although it did not form part of the finding, like Fergusson (2011), the author uses existing studies to discuss different forms of feedback including peer feedback, self-assessment, exemplar assignments, face-to-face feedback aside from the traditional verbal and written feedback that instructors could adopt in their feedback provision to make it (feedback) relevant and enhance students’ learning. More so, like Carless (2006), the author’s discussion of the element of ‘good’ feedback shows that provision of constructive feedback that contains strengths and weaknesses of the marked work with guiding suggestions as to how to improve the said assignments is potent to facilitate the current and future learning experiences of students. Laryea advocacy for integrating technology in the form of internet-based feedback like podcast, video etc connects with that of Svinicki & McKeachie (2014) that technology could be used to make students active in their own learning.
These notwithstanding, the author seemed to be bias on skewing the response towards his expectation in that among the five items of his questionnaire, 2 items (2 and 3) seemed to coax respondents to give the kind of response the author wanted. The questions (2) was: How do you rate the quality of your feedback experience in the school? and this is followed directly with (question 3): If your answer is “Poor” or “Average”, what is the main reason for this?. I believe that if the item 3 had been something open like: “Give reason for your response to (2)” it could have been open without any clue or compelling respondents to choose from the clues given in (3). However, the author’s objective for the study; exploring and advancing a better understanding of the way feedback is given and student’s perception of the feedback they receive and its influence on their learning is worth studying.
Reflections and Connections:
Although Laryea’s (2013) findings did not differ much from some of the reviewed articles (Carless, 2006; Yorke, 2003), the knowledge gained in the article was worthwhile as it exposed me to other forms/methods of feedback provision. The author’s discussion of the methods of feedback was relevant to my study as my adding on of the self-evaluation to my feedback provision for one of my struggling student was as a result of the knowledge acquired from this article. Also, the discussion of the characteristics of good feedback in the article enlightened me in the framing of my feedback especially the written form
Sadler, D. R. (2010). Beyond feedback: Developing student capability in complex appraisal. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 535-550, DOI: 10.1080/02602930903541015.
Summary:
The article addresses alternative model for instructors in higher education to making their feedback useful to students and also use it to empower learners to become self-regulated learners. It discusses the fundamental concepts: task compliance (congruence between the type of response stipulated in the task specifications and the type of response actually submitted by the student), quality (the degree to which a work/task comes together as a whole to achieve its intended purpose), criteria (contextual properties/characteristics useful for quality determination e.g. rubrics) and developing relevant tacit knowledge (creating learning environment that attends to developing students’ conceptual understanding) that are crucial to effective feedback. Saddler (2010) argues that the ‘Telling’ (the traditional statements of the strengths and weaknesses of students’ work) type of feedback and feedforward are not enough and that instructors should find an alternative means of involving students actively in the feedback process in order to make feedback useful to students. The author asserts that it is only when students are actively involved through peer-review (the alternative suggested) that feedback could perform the intention for its provision, that is, student using it (feedback) to enhance their learning. The author explains that peer assessment should be fundamental in feedback provision if instructors desire to direct their students’ learning towards mastery. He argues that the traditional telling kind of feedback is not achieving its intended goal because students are just told what to do without active involvement and therefore, does not encourage students to learn for mastery and/or improve complex learning. He explains that by so doing, both the teacher and the students are immersed in the appraisal actions thereby connecting symbolic forms (comments e.g. words, sentences etc., discourse) with their concrete referents (student’s work).
Evaluation/Analysis:
This article provides insightful information on feedback and why some of the intention of providing feedback to students are not realized. The author, like Loughran (2006) and Svinicki & McKeachie (2014), discusses why task compliance, quality, criteria, and developing relevant tacit knowledge are crucial to providing effective feedback and why the use of the alternative model (peer assessment) could make feedback useful to student and lead them to complex learning. Sadler (2010) indicate the importance of feedback in enhancing students’ learning yet has not been given the needed attention. He explains feedback and feedforward extensive and shows how they (feedback and feedforward) are mostly used as telling. Also, he discusses the importance of researching the ‘whats’ and ‘hows’ of feedback to students. The author discusses three interpretative challenges students face with feedback.
He states the four basic tasks for peer assessment but did not explain into details what they really are and how instructors could implement these tasks effectively in the use of the peer review. I wanted the author to throw more light on these since they are very crucial in the use of the alternative model suggested as they may be new to intended audience (instructors). Moreso, the author’s explanation of the three interpretative challenges students face regarding feedback was not enough as these were the very reasons why he was advocating for the peer review alternative. He also asserts that there is less problem with the quality of the telling feedback than instructors assuming that telling, even detailed telling, is the most appropriate route to improving students’ learning. I think the author, having problem with telling should have explained very well how the peer review could be implemented with concrete examples or evidence of its (peer review) efficacy when used alone without the addition of the tradition telling type of feedback. Another area the author should have thrown more light on is the issue of rubrics or criteria-standards templates inhibiting creativity in students because they (rubrics/criteria-standard) tend to prioritize specific quality. My concern is that no matter how creative we want students to be, we should not compromise it with the concepts they ought to know from the course content so rubrics highlighting those quality should be encouraged.
Reflections and Connections:
This article was very informative in the use of feedback to promoting students’ learning. The author’s explanation of crucial ingredients for providing feedback: task compliance, quality, criteria, and developing relevant tacit knowledge is worthwhile and why instructors should consider them in feedback provision is insightful. His stress on effective feedback being capable of making a positive difference in students’ learning was very encouraging as this is the focus of my study. His assertion that formative assessment and feedback should empower students to become self-regulated learners behooves instructors to create opportunities for students to make use of the feedback provided connects so well that of Svinicki & McKeachie’s (2014), that if instructors want their students to learn for mastery, then they should be given the chance to use the feedback on their draft work/task to improve the final one. This implies that instructors should take the first draft of students’ assignments as the final work and grade but rather students should be given at least a second chance to use the feedback provided on the first draft to improve their learning. Also, the alternative model of feedback (peer review) as a pedagogical approach to helping students learn for mastery discussed in this article is relevant to my study as it provides a alternative lens for looking at a feedback that can assist students learn for mastery which is the focus of this study.
Yorke, M. (2003). Formative assessment in higher education: Moves towards theory and the enhancement of pedagogic practice. Higher Education, 45(4), 477-501.
Summary:
In this article, the author talks about formative assessment in higher education and how it can foster or inhibit learning. She shows the importance of using formative assessment to help university students become lifelong learners. She discusses differences between formative and summative assessments as well as convergent and divergent assessments and shows how feedback from any of these types of assessment can be constructive or inhibitory towards students’ learning. She is of the view that higher education learning should be geared towards the inculcating into learners the habit of learning for mastery which she describes as lifelong learning. She states, “If … key purpose of higher education is to facilitate the autonomy of learners in a world of lifelong learning … then formative assessments (and summative assessments, for that matter) must contain a significant proportion of divergence (p. 480).
Evaluation/Analysis:
The author discusses the positive effect of timely constructive feedback for assessment on students learning. She explains that high success rate is in part attributable to the feedback that students receive on drafts and that many students use this opportunity to polish up their submission in the light of this feedback. This is in line with Guskey, 2003, Hattie & Timperley (2007), and Svinicki & McKeachie’s (2014) notion that to help students acquire the habit of learning for mastery, they need to be given a second chance on assessments to enable them use the feedback provided on the draft to enhance their understanding and polish up their draft. This reduces their anxiety and even gradually increases their desire to mastery. She acknowledges the pressure and demands on the university teacher, however, she advocates for the appropriateness of the feedback teachers provide as it has greater impact on learner’s mode of learning.
Reflections and Connections:
The information in this article is relevant to my study because it shows how effective use of feedback on formative assessment can be a vital tool to making students comprehend concepts. Also, knowing my students being interested in grades, effective use of feedback on their formative assessments could be used to support the shift of their focus from grades to learning for master and provide vital ideas to the achievement of my objective.