د/ايمان زغلول قاسم

استاذ تكنولوجيا التعليم المشارك بكلية التربية بالزلفي

book B17

Hattie and Timperley (2007) distinguish four levels at which feedback can be aimed,
which is an expansion of a previously developed model by Kluger and DeNisi (1996). The
levels distinguished are the self, task, process, and regulation levels. Feedback at the self level
is not related to the task performed but is aimed at characteristics of the learner. Praise is an
example of feedback at the self level. Feedback at the task level is mainly intended to correct
work and is focussed at a surface level of learning (e.g., knowledge or recognition); for
example, the student is told whether the answer is correct or incorrect. Feedback at the
process level relates to the process that was followed in order to finish the task. In this case,
for example, a worked-out example is given. Feedback at the regulation level is related to
processes in the mind of the learner, like self-assessment and willingness to receive feedback.
In the ideal situation, the feedback is adapted to the current level of the learner (Hattie & Gan,
2011). Hattie and Timperley favour feedback that is aimed at the process or regulation level in
order to enhance learning. Feedback at the self level is not seen as effective for learning
because it does not provide the student with information regarding how to achieve the
intended learning goals.
Figure 2.1. Types of feedback (Shute, 2008) linked to levels of feedback (Hattie &
Timperley, 2007) and timing (Shute, 2008).
In order to develop a more comprehensive view concerning the different ways of
providing feedback, we made a connection between the theory of Shute (2008) and the theory
of Hattie and Timperley (2007) (Figure 2.1). The type and level of feedback together
determine the content of the feedback. KR and KCR only relate to the task level, given that
they merely provide information concerning the correctness of the given answer. As indicated
before, the nature of EF can vary widely. Therefore, EF can be aimed at all possible levels.
Because EF on the self level is not seen as an effective strategy, the relationship between EF
and self level is represented by a thin line in Figure 2.1. Besides the content of the feedback,
timing (Shute, 2008) plays an important role. Feedback can be provided either immediately or
with delay.

الوقت من ذهب

اذكر الله


المصحف الالكتروني