机制重要吗?学生对电子反馈和手写反馈的回忆

Megan E Osterbur, E. Hammer, E. Hammer
{"title":"机制重要吗?学生对电子反馈和手写反馈的回忆","authors":"Megan E Osterbur, E. Hammer, E. Hammer","doi":"10.20429/IJSOTL.2015.090107","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Student consumption and recall of feedback are necessary preconditions of successful formative assessment. Drawing on Sadler’s (1998) definition of formative assessment as that which is intended to accelerate learning and improve performance through the providing of feedback, we examine how the mechanism of transmission may impact student retention of feedback content. We proceed from the premise that such retention is necessary for feedback to function as a component of formative assessment. Although researchers have written extensively on best practices in feedback content (e.g., Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006) and student and instructor attitudes toward electronic feedback versus handwritten feedback (e.g., Thomson, 2008), comparatively little research addresses whether the form of feedback influences student consumption and retention. Our research found that whereas students who preferred or received handwritten feedback recall more feedback (quantity), those who actually received electronic feedback recall comments more accurately (quality). We encourage instructors to working with either format to adhere to accepted standards for good feedback practice.","PeriodicalId":332019,"journal":{"name":"The International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does Mechanism Matter? Student Recall of Electronic versus Handwritten Feedback\",\"authors\":\"Megan E Osterbur, E. Hammer, E. Hammer\",\"doi\":\"10.20429/IJSOTL.2015.090107\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Student consumption and recall of feedback are necessary preconditions of successful formative assessment. Drawing on Sadler’s (1998) definition of formative assessment as that which is intended to accelerate learning and improve performance through the providing of feedback, we examine how the mechanism of transmission may impact student retention of feedback content. We proceed from the premise that such retention is necessary for feedback to function as a component of formative assessment. Although researchers have written extensively on best practices in feedback content (e.g., Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006) and student and instructor attitudes toward electronic feedback versus handwritten feedback (e.g., Thomson, 2008), comparatively little research addresses whether the form of feedback influences student consumption and retention. Our research found that whereas students who preferred or received handwritten feedback recall more feedback (quantity), those who actually received electronic feedback recall comments more accurately (quality). We encourage instructors to working with either format to adhere to accepted standards for good feedback practice.\",\"PeriodicalId\":332019,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-01-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.20429/IJSOTL.2015.090107\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20429/IJSOTL.2015.090107","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

学生对反馈的消费和回忆是形成性评价成功的必要前提。根据Sadler(1998)对形成性评估的定义,即通过提供反馈来加速学习和提高表现,我们研究了传递机制如何影响学生对反馈内容的保留。我们从这样一个前提出发,即这种保留对于反馈作为形成性评估的组成部分是必要的。尽管研究人员已经写了大量关于反馈内容的最佳实践(例如,Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006)以及学生和教师对电子反馈与手写反馈的态度(例如,Thomson, 2008),但相对较少的研究涉及反馈形式是否影响学生的消费和保留。我们的研究发现,喜欢或接受手写反馈的学生能回忆起更多的反馈(数量),而真正接受电子反馈的学生能更准确地回忆起评论(质量)。我们鼓励教师使用任何一种格式,以坚持良好反馈实践的公认标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Does Mechanism Matter? Student Recall of Electronic versus Handwritten Feedback
Student consumption and recall of feedback are necessary preconditions of successful formative assessment. Drawing on Sadler’s (1998) definition of formative assessment as that which is intended to accelerate learning and improve performance through the providing of feedback, we examine how the mechanism of transmission may impact student retention of feedback content. We proceed from the premise that such retention is necessary for feedback to function as a component of formative assessment. Although researchers have written extensively on best practices in feedback content (e.g., Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006) and student and instructor attitudes toward electronic feedback versus handwritten feedback (e.g., Thomson, 2008), comparatively little research addresses whether the form of feedback influences student consumption and retention. Our research found that whereas students who preferred or received handwritten feedback recall more feedback (quantity), those who actually received electronic feedback recall comments more accurately (quality). We encourage instructors to working with either format to adhere to accepted standards for good feedback practice.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信