د/ايمان زغلول قاسم

استاذ تكنولوجيا التعليم المشارك بكلية التربية بالزلفي

book B8

 Self-level. The feedback is not related to the task but is aimed at the characteristics of
the learner. Praise is an example of feedback at the self-level. Feedback at this level is
generally thought of as ineffective in learning, although it is the most common level of
feedback provided by teachers (Hattie & Timperley, 2007).
Feedback timing. With regard to timing, Shute (2008) distinguished immediate and
delayed feedback. Immediate feedback is usually provided immediately after the student
answers the item. The definition of ―delayed‖ is more difficult to make, since the degree of
delay varies widely among different studies. In some cases, the feedback is delayed until a
block of items has been completed. Delayed feedback could also mean that feedback is
provided after the student has completed the entire test. However, it is also possible that
feedback is provided a day after completion of the test, or even later. Although the results
with regard to feedback timing are highly inconsistent, Shute suggested that feedback timing
should be based on the intended levels of learning outcomes. Namely, when the feedback is
intended to facilitate lower-order learning outcomes, such as the recall of facts, immediate
feedback works best. However, when higher-order learning outcomes are at stake and require
transfer of what has been learned to a new situation, it is probably best to provide delayed
feedback.
An integrated feedback classification model. We connected the theories of Shute
(2008) and Hattie and Timperley (2007) in order to derive a comprehensive view of the
different methods used to provide feedback (Figure 1.1). The content of the feedback is
determined by its type and level. Knowledge of results (KR) and knowledge of correct
response (KCR) relate only to the task level, given that they merely provide information
concerning the correctness of the student‘s answer. As indicated above, the nature of
elaborated feedback (EF) can vary widely. Therefore, EF can be aimed at all possible levels.
Because EF on the self-level is not deemed an effective strategy, the relationship between EF
and the self-level is represented by a thin line in Figure 1.1. In addition to the content of the
feedback, timing (Shute, 2008) plays an important role. Feedback can be provided either
immediately or in a delayed interval after the student has responded to the item.

الوقت من ذهب

اذكر الله


المصحف الالكتروني