د/ايمان زغلول قاسم

استاذ تكنولوجيا التعليم المساعد بكلية التربية بالزلفي

book B46

Shute (2008) distinguished various types of feedback, which can be classified as
knowledge of results (KR), knowledge of correct response (KCR), and elaborated feedback
(EF). KR indicates whether the answer is correct or incorrect but does not provide the correct
answer or any additional information. KCR is similar to KR, except the correct answer is
provided. KR and KCR merely have a corrective function. According to Shute, EF can take
many forms, such as hints, additional information, additional study material, or an explanation
of the correct answer. One type of feedback, error flagging, which shows the student the
location of the error but does not provide the correct answer or any additional information,
can be classified as KR. Since the term EF has a wide range of possible meanings, the degree
to which EF is effective for learning purposes varies widely. EF is often accompanied by
KCR or KR, either implicitly or explicitly.
Shute (2008) classified try again as a feedback type. We, however, found it more
useful to define this response as an additional feedback characteristic that could be combined
with multiple types of feedback. It could, for example, be combined with KR or with KR and
EF in the form of hints.
Hattie and Timperley (2007) used a model based on a study by Kluger and DeNisi
(1996) to distinguish four levels of feedback. Feedback can be aimed at the self, task, process,
and regulation levels. Feedback that is aimed at the self level does not relate to the task
performed but instead relates to characteristics of the learner. An obvious example of
feedback at the self level is praise; ―You are a fantastic student!‖ Feedback at the task level
serves a corrective function. Feedback at the process level addresses the process that has been
followed to complete the task. Regulation level feedback is related to students‘ selfregulation;
aspects that play a role here include self-assessment and willingness to receive
feedback.
The feedback types distinguished by Shute (2008) are all task-related feedback types,
which in this context means the feedback is item-specific, as opposed to, for example,
summary feedback covering the entire assessment. Shute calls this task level feedback, but the
task level outlined by Shute should not be confused with the task level feedback described by
Hattie and Timperley (2007). In this study, whenever the word task level is used, it refers to
Hattie and Timperley‘s definition.
Shute (2008) points out that with regard to timing, the results in the literature are
conflicting even though the topic has been widely studied. With respect to feedback timing, a
distinction can be made between immediate and delayed feedback. The definitions of
immediate and delayed feedback seem to differ widely. This difference might be one of the
reasons for the varying effects reported for immediate and delayed feedback (Mory, 2004). In
formative assessment situations, immediate feedback is usually delivered right after a student
has responded to an item. It is, however, hard to clearly define delayed feedback because of
the wide variation in the possible degrees of delay (Shute, 2008). In computer-based
environments, it is possible to provide students with feedback very quickly since the feedback
is automatically given based on the student‘s response. Therefore, when it comes to feedback
in a computer-based environment, delayed feedback can be defined unambiguously as ―all
feedback that is not delivered immediately after completing each item‖ (Van der Kleij et al.,
2011, p. 23).

الوقت من ذهب

اذكر الله


المصحف الالكتروني