Practices and conceptions of feedback in initial teacher training

Pérez, Gloria Contreras; González, Carmen Gloria Zúñiga

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

SECTION: ARTICLES • Educ. Pesqui. 45 • 2019 • https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-4634201945192953 copy

Practices and conceptions of feedback in initial teacher training ¹ 1 - This research was funded by Comisión Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología de Chile (CONICYT), project number FONDECYT 1161514, Concepciones y prácticas de retroalimentación de profesores de Pedagogía Básica. Relaciones con su aprovechamiento pedagógico. ^* * Translation of this work was performed by Mason Taylor. Contact: davemasontaylor@gmail.com

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract

This article presents the results of a research project that aimed at characterizing the feedback given by professors to their students in relation to their academic assignments and at understanding the conceptions related to those practices. The research was conducted in an Initial Teacher Training program imparted by a private university in Chile. The research approach is qualitative-interpretative and had as participants four professors of different subjects and students enrolled in each of those subjects. For this purpose, non-participant observation was carried out, while professors were given feedback to marked assignments, document analysis was conducted to those marked assignments, each professor participated in a semi-structured interview, and a focus group was held with their students. Results showed that there were differences in the underlying conceptions of the participants, which lead to different feedback styles, such as confirmatory, corrective, achievement and learning-oriented, and focused on missing points. Therefore, it could be inferred that professors’ feedbacks were understood in some cases as a mere correction of tasks and pointing out unachieved learning goals, while in others as projective improvement and as an open space for dialogue. These last two were the most valued kind of feedback by the students. Thus, this positive assessment emphasizes the need to include feedback as part of the curriculum of Initial Teacher Training programs to provide a formal framework for giving useful and enriching feedback to students.

Feedback; Conceptions; Evaluation; Initial Teacher Training

Types of Feedback		Examples
Evaluative feedback This is a judgement about the students or their work, without description or explanation. It can be subdivided into positive and negative.	Reward	Smiley faces
	Punishment	Sad faces
	Approving	“Well done.”
	Disapproving	“You could do better, but you’re too lazy.”
	Confirmatory	Checkmarks or crossing out
	Corrective	“The answer is 4.”
Descriptive feedback Aimed at student work, meant to describe strengths and weaknesses.	Achievement oriented	“You have correctly identified the divisors.”
	Gap Oriented	“You were wrong about the sign.”
	Learning Oriented	“Why do you think you were wrong?”
	Designing Pathways to Learning	“How do you think you can improve?”

Professor	Purpose of the activity	Focus or Content	Audience	Timing and duration	Preferred feedback type
1	Understand poor results. Support learning not demonstrated by correcting mistakes.	Mathematics and mathematics education contents.	Class Group, individual and couples.	The whole block of classes. 1 hour and 20 minutes.	Gap- and learning-oriented
2	Communicate results and correct mistakes.	Content of the test.	Class Group	At the beginning of the class. 30 minutes	Corrective
3	Support learning not demonstrated and support future work.	Reading and reading education contents.	Mainly Class Groups, also pairs or individually.	After student presentations. 1 hour and 5 minutes.	Learning- and gap-oriented.
4	Correct mistakes and support learning.	Content of the test and formal aspects of structure.	At the beginning, to the class group, then individually.	At the beginning of class. 1 hour and 6 minutes.	Gap-oriented.

Characterization of written feedback practices
Subject-matter and evaluation procedure applied	Symbology used in the correction and its meaning	Comments and their meaning	Types of feedback
Professor 1 Mathematics. Written test, 5 problems.	Check marks, X marks, checks with a line through them, to indicate that something is good, bad, or moderately good. Circles around some mistakes. Underlined text, to show that something is wrong or incomplete, leading to a comment. Question marks, to indicate that something is not understood. Questions scored to indicate assessment. There is no total score or grade.	Brief and specific questions on missing aspects. For example: “Name of the graph?” Indications for the answer to be completed. For example: “expand on the amount of time needed”.	Symbols and comments well placed, legible and well written. Feedback directed specifically to the work. No judgment on student personality or comments of disapproval. According to the typology, this indicates feedback that is: Confirmatory, Corrective, and Gap-oriented.
Professor 2 Child care Written test, 14 multiple-choice questions and seven short answer.	Check marks, X marks, to indicate that something is good or bad. Circles enclosing the correct answer. Arrows whose purpose is to lead to a comment. Question marks, to indicate that something is not understood. Strikethrough or underlined text, to show that something is wrong or incomplete, leading to a comment. Questions scored, total score, and grade to indicate the evaluation.	Comments on or under the student’s response, completing it. For example, “...an increase in TSH”. Strikethrough text and comments over or under the student’s response, placing the appropriate response. For example, “Complications from mumps”.	Symbols and comments well placed, legible and well written. Feedback directed specifically to the work. No judgment on student personality or comments of disapproval. According to the typology, this indicates feedback that is: Confirmatory, and Corrective.
Professor 3 Reading Applied reporting: analysis of a practical case. The report was turned in virtually, and so revisions were made in Word.	No X marks or checkmarks present, nor scores or grades. Crossed-out text, meant to eliminate. Red Text, to indicate some typing error.	Comments or questions to complete some aspect. For example, “point to the course of inquiry” and “What are the students doing?” • Specific comments that indicate what should not be done and why. For example, “Avoid value judgments” and “This report does not require contextualization of the IEP...”. Questioning actions. For example, “just looking? Not analyzing or reflecting?” Concluding comments pointing out what is good about the report and what needs to be improved. For example, “The structure is adequate in its form, as it presents the three basic elements.”; “Improve the quality of the description”.	Feedback directed to the work; mostly specific, but sometimes general; feedback is retroactive and at times proactive. Although there are no judgments on student personality or comments of disapproval, words or phrases are eliminated. According to the typology, this indicates feedback that is: Corrective. Disapproving. Gap-oriented. Achievement-Oriented Learning-Oriented
Professor 4 Research Methodology Written test: two open questions	Check marks, X marks, checks with a line through them, to indicate that something is good, bad, or moderately good. Strikethrough text to show that something is wrong or incomplete (spelling mistakes or misused concepts). Question marks, to indicate that something is not understood. Circles with capital letters P or H, which refer to comments at the end of the answer sheet. Circles containing words or phrases to indicate that comments are being made. Arrows intended to lead to a comment. Score by question, total score, and grade to indicate the evaluation.	Comments made on the margin of the sheet or on the student’s text. They refer to erroneous or incomplete aspects, for example, “Cite the text when appropriate” and “Associate with experience”. Comments at the end of each of the two responses that indicate which aspects were achieved and which were not, including congratulations and general suggestions such as “Focusing and deepening”. Some form of the above were included after each question.	Feedback is work-directed, specific, proactive and retroactive. Contains positive comments and no disapproving comments. According to the typology, this indicates feedback that is: Confirmatory, Achievement-Oriented Gap-oriented.

Prof.	Previous Feedback training	Preferred timing for Feedback	Preferred Recipient and modality	Use of feedback as learning process	Definition of feedback	Type of feedback declared
1	Not in feedback, though did have graduate training in evaluation	End of class	Entire class Oral	Inversely proportional to the size of the course and proportional to the interest of the student.	Possibility of verifying if what has been taught has been taken advantage of by the students and if the learning obstacles have been eliminated.	Confirmatory Corrective Achievement-Oriented Gap-Oriented
2	None	Class start	Entire class Oral	Depends on student motivation	Opportunity to reaffirm concepts and correct mistakes	Confirmatory Corrective
3	Non-formal, through experience and practice	The entire process, when required	In groups In pairs Individual Oral Written	Students apply what they have learned in other situations and appreciate receiving it.	Moment in which professor and student become aware of what needs to be improved, what is right, wrong, what needs to be improved and how to improve it.	Corrective Achievement-Oriented Gap-Oriented Learning-Oriented
4	Non-formal, self-taught	At the beginning of the class	Entire class Individual Oral Written	Mainly taken advantage of by advanced students	Conversation about stated and related aspects. Importance of respect and closeness to enhance skills.	Corrective Achievement-Oriented Gap-Oriented

Student Conceptions of Feedback
Concept of Feedback	Characteristics of Good feedback	Effects on Learning	Types of Feedback
Feedback as “Dialogue”, understood as unidirectional “speech” from the professor to the student, without joint construction, and retroactive in nature. Although students point out that feedback should not feel imposing, this may occur or not merely based on the form it is transmitted, for example, by suggesting rather than ordering. E3: “...it’s dialogue, conversation, they ask you why you thought the answer was this, and not that. It’s like a constant dialogue, [professors] give you suggestions how it could be done or what to look for to find out more about this subject. Maybe [the feedback] helps…it’s not like ‘you have to do this and that’… it’s more of a dialogue”.	Feedback should be clear, specific, very detailed (if written, with symbols that help understanding, such as arrows), with suggestions for improvement, timely, consistent with assigned scores and grades. Although feedback should be directed at the content evaluated, students value comments on formal aspects. such as writing and spelling. Ideally, there should be an opportunity to improve the work.	Short-term: Used to check or verify learning; to become aware of and understand mistakes. “I see feedback as a verification of learning... as a validation”. Medium-term: to perform better on future tasks. “[Feedback is] a basis for new topics as well.” Long-term: to shape the future by acting professionally as professors. “[Giving feedback helps] us to generate it when we teach our students.	Confirmatory, Corrective, and Gap-oriented.

Faculdade de Educação da Universidade de São Paulo Av. da Universidade, 308 - Biblioteca, 1º andar 05508-040 - São Paulo SP Brasil, Tel./Fax.: (55 11) 30913520 - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: revedu@usp.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Gloria Contreras Pérez is a doctor in Educational Sciences, master in Educational Evaluation and professor of Mathematics and Physics. She specializes in evaluation of learning at different study levels, with emphasis on the formative potential of evaluation. She also focuses her research on the evaluation of teaching, both at school and university level.

Carmen Gloria Zúñiga González holds a PhD in Education from the University of Western Australia and is a Professor of History, Geography and Social Sciences. Her main lines of research are Teaching and Learning History, Social Sciences and Citizenship Training for primary and secondary education, and Pedagogical Evaluation.