Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

LİSANSÜSTÜ EĞİTİMDE ETKİLİ VE NİTELİKLİ GERİBİLDİRİM

Year 2019, Volume: 8 Issue: 1, 10 - 20, 03.03.2019

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı; lisansüstü
öğrencilerin, etkili ve nitelikli geri bildirim almalarına yönelik var olan
beklentilerinin belirlenmesidir. Bu sayede özelde öğretim
üyelerinin genelde ise bütün eğitimci ve öğretmenlerin geribildirim kavramının
eğitim öğretim süreci açısından sahip olduğu potansiyeli ortaya çıkarabilecek
uygulamalar ve geribildirim tasarlamalarına katkı sunması beklenmektedir.
Ayrıca çalışma sonucunda etkili ve nitelikli geri bildirim tasarlanması ve
verilmesine yönelik eğitimcilere yol gösterici ipuçları elde edilecektir.
Çalışmanın en önemli katkılarından bir diğeri ise eğitim açısından
kritik öneme sahip geri bildirimin hangi bileşenleri kapsaması ve nasıl
kullanılması gerektiğine  yönelik yeni bakış açıları ortaya koyabilecek
olmasıdır.  Bu amaçla 19 farklı devlet üniversitesinde 59 doktora 29
yüksek lisans öğrencisi ile 4’lü 
likert tipi “Lisansüstü eğitimde
geri bildirim ölçeği” kullanılarak veriler elde edilmiştir. Kullanılan ölçek,
geri bildirimin sahip olması gereken özellikler, öz değerlendirmenin
kolaylaştırması ve geliştirilmesine etkisinin, öğrenmeleri hakkında yüksek
kalitede bilgi sağlayıp sağlamadığı, akran ve konuşmacı diyaloglarının
teşviki, 
motivasyonel inançları ve öz saygılarını teşvik edip etmediği, mevcut ve
istenen performans arasındaki boşluğu doldurabilmesini belirlemeye yönelik 6
kısım ve 32 maddeden oluşmaktadır. Veriler betimsel analiz yöntemi kullanılarak
analiz edilmiştir.



Araştırma sonucunda iyi bir
geri bildirimde bulunması gereken özellikler ile ilgili; iyi bir geri
bildirimin öğrenciye ne yapması gerektiğini açıkça ifade etmesi, değerlendirme
kriterleri ile ilişkili olması ve işi bütün yönleriyle kapsaması gerektiği
ifade edilmiştir. Bunların dışında geri bildirimin anlaşılır olması ve işin
belirli yönlerinin kapsaması öncelikli özellikler arasında gösterilmemiştir.
Alınan geri bildirimlerin öz değerlendirmeyi kolaylaştırma ve geliştirmenin
özellikleri ile ilgili; geri bildirimin mevcut durumu iyileştirilmesi ve
gelecekteki işler için eylem planları geliştirilmesi için fırsatlar sunması
gerektiği ifade edilmiştir. Ayrıca yapıcı, kişisel gelişim için ipuçları sunan
ve kişiye özel geri bildirimler etkili ve nitelikli geri bildirim özellikleri
içerisinde ifade edilmiştir. Geribildirimlerin öğrencilere öğrenmeyle ilgili
yüksek kaliteli bilgileri tanıtması ile ilgili; genellikle okunması kolay,
doğru ve öğrenenin yanlışları ile ilgili ayrıntılı bilgi veren ve kişisel
gelişim için ipuçları sunması gerektiği yönünde bir beklenti olduğu
görülmüştür. Akran ve öğretmen diyalogu ile ilgili ise geri bildirim sonrasında
yapılabilecek tartışmalar geri bildirimin amaçlarına daha çok hizmet
edebileceği sonucu ortaya çıkmıştır. Ayrıca öğrenilecek konuya yönelik fazla
rehberlik edilmesi, değerlendirme çalışmalarının tutarlı bir şekilde
gerçekleştirilmesi ve geri bildirim sonrası eğitim ihtiyacı öğrencilerin diğer
beklentileri arasında olduğu görülmüştür. Öğrencilerin geri bildirimlerin
olumlu 
motivasyonel inançları teşvik etmesi ve benlik saygısı geliştirilmesi
noktasında yapıcı, motive edici desenler içeren geri bildirimler almayı tercih
ettikleri görülmüştür. Geri bildirimlerin öğrencilerin mevcut ve istenen
performans arasındaki boşluğu kapatmak için fırsatlar sağlaması noktasında
genel olarak geri bildirimi zamanında ve her görevden sonra alınması
gerekliliği ile karşılaşılmıştır. Bu durum bir sonraki görevler öncesi
hataların düzeltilmesine imkânı bulanabilmesi ile gerekçelendirilmiştir.

References

  • KAYNAKÇA
  • Bishop, J. L., & Verleger, M. A. (2013). The Flipped Classroom: A survey of the Research. In 120th ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition (pp. 1–18). https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2013.6684807
  • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050106
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak, E. K., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2010). Scientific research methods. Ankara: Pegem Akademi, 206-207.
  • Carless, D. (2006). Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 219–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572132
  • Carless, D., Salter, D., Yang, M., & Lam, J. (2011). Developing sustainable feedback practices. Studies in Higher Education, 36(4), 395–407. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075071003642449
  • Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2002). Research methods in education. Routledge.
  • Dempsey, J. V., Driscoll, M. P., & Swindell, L. K. (1993). Text-based feedback. Interactive instruction and feedback, 21-54.
  • Dempsey, J. V., & Wager, S. U. (1988). A taxonomy for the timing of feedback in computer-based instruction. Educational Technology, 28(10), 20-25.
  • Dökmen, Ü. (1982). Farklı Tür Geribildirimlerin (Feedback) Öğrenmeye Etkisi. AÜ EBF Dergisi.
  • Du Toit, E. (2012). Constructive feedback as a learning tool to enhance students’ self-regulation and performance in higher education. Perspectives in Education, 30(2), 32–40.
  • Ekiz, D. (2009). Scientific research methods. Ankara: Anı Publications.
  • Fleming, M. L. (1993). Instructional message design: Principles from the behavioral and cognitive sciences. Educational technology.
  • Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2004). Conditions Under Which Assessment Supports Students’ Learning. Learning in Teaching in Higher Education, 1(1), 3–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2010.512631
  • Graham, C., Cagiltay, K., Craner, J., Lim, B. R., & Duffy, T. M. (2000). Teaching in a web based distance learning environment. Center for Research on Learning and Technology Technical Report, 13-00.
  • Hattie, J., & Gan, M. (2011). Instruction based on feedback. Handbook of research on learning and instruction, 249-271
  • Hattie, J. A. (1987). Identifying the Salient Facets of a Model of Student Learning: A Synthesis of Meta Analyses. International Journal of Educational Research, 11(2), 187–212. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ374471%5Cnhttp://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/recordDetails.jsp?
  • ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ374471&searchtype=keyword&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&_pageLabel=RecordDetails&accno=EJ374471&_nfls
  • Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The Power of feedback. Review of Educational Research. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
  • Hoska, D. M. (1993). Motivating learners through CBI feedback: Developing a positive learner perspective. Interactive instruction and feedback, 105-132.
  • Hounsell, D. (2003). Student feedback, learning and development. In Higher Education and the Lifecourse (p. 209). Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=jh46BmzuKikC&pgis=1
  • Karasar, N. (2005). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi (15. baskı). Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım. International Journal of Human Sciences, 12(1), 1408-1439.
  • Kift, S., Nelson, K., & Clarke, J. (2010). Transition pedagogy: A third generation approach to FYE - A case study of policy and practice for the higher education sector. The International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education, 1(1), 1–20.
  • Knight, N. (2003). Teacher feedback to students in numeracy lessons: Are students getting good value. SET Research Information for Teachers, (3).
  • Kulhavy, R. W., White, M. T., Topp, B. W., Chan, A. L., & Adams, J. (1985). Feedback complexity and corrective efficiency. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10(3), 285–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(85)90025-6
  • Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies. Rethinking university teaching A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies (Vol. 2nd). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203304846
  • Maclellan, E. (2001). Assessment for learning: The differing perceptions of tutors and students. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(4), 307–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930120063466
  • Monette, D. R., Sullivan, T. J., & DeJong, C. R. (1990). Applied social research: Tool for the human services . Fort Worth: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
  • Nicol, D. (2010). From monologue to dialogue: Improving written feedback processes in mass higher education. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 501–517. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602931003786559
  • Özyürek, M. (2010). Olumlu sınıf yönetimi. Kök Yayıncılık.
  • Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00117714
  • Sadler, D. R. (1998). Formative Assessment: revisiting the territory. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 77–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050104
  • Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on Formative Feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313795
  • Şencan, H. (2005). Sosyal ve davranışsal ölçümlerde geçerlilik ve güvenirlik. Ankara: Seçkin Matbaası.
  • Vasilyeva, E., Puuronen, S., Pechenizkiy, M., & Rasanen, P. (2007). Feedback adaptation in web-based learning systems. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life Long Learning, 17(4-5), 337-357.
  • Yates, G. C., & Hattie, J. (2013). Visible learning and the science of how we learn. Routledge.
  • Wilde, S., Wright, S., Hayward, G., Johnson, J., & Skerrett, R. (2006). Nuffield review higher education focus groups: Preliminary report. The Nuffield Review of 14-19 Education and Training.

Effective and Qualified Feedback in Graduate Education

Year 2019, Volume: 8 Issue: 1, 10 - 20, 03.03.2019

Abstract

The aim of this research is to determine the expectations
of graduate students about effective and qualified feedback. By revealing the
actual potential of feedbacks in improvement of the educational process, we
expect to contribute to the quality of designing and applying effective
feedbacks prepared by specifically university lecturers and other
educationalist in general.  The result of this research is expected to
provide important insights and guiding principles for designing and delivering
effective and qualified feedbacks.  Another important contribution of the
study is that it can reveal new perspectives on which components of effective
feedbacks should be covered and how they should be used. For this purpose, the
relevant data is gathered by applying a survey to 59 doctoral and 29 masters
students in 19 different state universities with a 4-point Likert-type
“Feedback Scale in Graduate Education” The scale we used consists of 6 parts
and 32 items which include whether the feedback has the properties it should
have, the effect on the facilitation and development of self-assessment,
whether it provides high quality information about their learning, encourages
peer and speaker dialogues, encourages motivational beliefs and self-esteem,
and fills the gap between current and desired performance. The data were
analyzed by using descriptive analysis method.



                According
to the results of the research the features of a good feedback include;
expressing clearly to the students what they should do, being relevant to the
criteria of evaluation, covering all aspects of the questions at hand. Apart
from these, the comprehensibility of the feedback and the coverage of certain
aspects of the work are not shown among the priority characteristics. As for
facilitating and improving self-evaluation; Feedbacks should provide
opportunities for improving the current situation and developing action plans
for future tasks. In addition, constructive, personal development tips and
personal feedbacks are stated as the features of effective and qualified
feedback. As for the role of feedbacks as providers of high-quality
information, there is an expectation that feedbacks should be easy to read,
accurate, and that it should provide detailed information about the mistakes of
the learner and provide clues for personal development. In terms of peer and
teacher dialogue, it can be concluded that after the feedback the discussions
can serve to the purposes of feedback more effectively. Moreover, we observed
that students expect a high level of guidance about the subject to be learned,
they look for consistency of the evaluation processes and they express the need
for post-feedback training. It has been observed that the students prefer to
have positive motivational beliefs and to get feedback that includes
constructive, motivating patterns in the development of self-esteem. In
general, students prefer taking feedbacks on time and after each task in order
to close the gap between current and desired performance. This is justified by
the possibility of correcting the mistakes before the next tasks.

References

  • KAYNAKÇA
  • Bishop, J. L., & Verleger, M. A. (2013). The Flipped Classroom: A survey of the Research. In 120th ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition (pp. 1–18). https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2013.6684807
  • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050106
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak, E. K., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2010). Scientific research methods. Ankara: Pegem Akademi, 206-207.
  • Carless, D. (2006). Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 219–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572132
  • Carless, D., Salter, D., Yang, M., & Lam, J. (2011). Developing sustainable feedback practices. Studies in Higher Education, 36(4), 395–407. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075071003642449
  • Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2002). Research methods in education. Routledge.
  • Dempsey, J. V., Driscoll, M. P., & Swindell, L. K. (1993). Text-based feedback. Interactive instruction and feedback, 21-54.
  • Dempsey, J. V., & Wager, S. U. (1988). A taxonomy for the timing of feedback in computer-based instruction. Educational Technology, 28(10), 20-25.
  • Dökmen, Ü. (1982). Farklı Tür Geribildirimlerin (Feedback) Öğrenmeye Etkisi. AÜ EBF Dergisi.
  • Du Toit, E. (2012). Constructive feedback as a learning tool to enhance students’ self-regulation and performance in higher education. Perspectives in Education, 30(2), 32–40.
  • Ekiz, D. (2009). Scientific research methods. Ankara: Anı Publications.
  • Fleming, M. L. (1993). Instructional message design: Principles from the behavioral and cognitive sciences. Educational technology.
  • Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2004). Conditions Under Which Assessment Supports Students’ Learning. Learning in Teaching in Higher Education, 1(1), 3–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2010.512631
  • Graham, C., Cagiltay, K., Craner, J., Lim, B. R., & Duffy, T. M. (2000). Teaching in a web based distance learning environment. Center for Research on Learning and Technology Technical Report, 13-00.
  • Hattie, J., & Gan, M. (2011). Instruction based on feedback. Handbook of research on learning and instruction, 249-271
  • Hattie, J. A. (1987). Identifying the Salient Facets of a Model of Student Learning: A Synthesis of Meta Analyses. International Journal of Educational Research, 11(2), 187–212. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ374471%5Cnhttp://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/recordDetails.jsp?
  • ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ374471&searchtype=keyword&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&_pageLabel=RecordDetails&accno=EJ374471&_nfls
  • Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The Power of feedback. Review of Educational Research. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
  • Hoska, D. M. (1993). Motivating learners through CBI feedback: Developing a positive learner perspective. Interactive instruction and feedback, 105-132.
  • Hounsell, D. (2003). Student feedback, learning and development. In Higher Education and the Lifecourse (p. 209). Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=jh46BmzuKikC&pgis=1
  • Karasar, N. (2005). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi (15. baskı). Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım. International Journal of Human Sciences, 12(1), 1408-1439.
  • Kift, S., Nelson, K., & Clarke, J. (2010). Transition pedagogy: A third generation approach to FYE - A case study of policy and practice for the higher education sector. The International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education, 1(1), 1–20.
  • Knight, N. (2003). Teacher feedback to students in numeracy lessons: Are students getting good value. SET Research Information for Teachers, (3).
  • Kulhavy, R. W., White, M. T., Topp, B. W., Chan, A. L., & Adams, J. (1985). Feedback complexity and corrective efficiency. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10(3), 285–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(85)90025-6
  • Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies. Rethinking university teaching A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies (Vol. 2nd). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203304846
  • Maclellan, E. (2001). Assessment for learning: The differing perceptions of tutors and students. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(4), 307–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930120063466
  • Monette, D. R., Sullivan, T. J., & DeJong, C. R. (1990). Applied social research: Tool for the human services . Fort Worth: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
  • Nicol, D. (2010). From monologue to dialogue: Improving written feedback processes in mass higher education. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 501–517. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602931003786559
  • Özyürek, M. (2010). Olumlu sınıf yönetimi. Kök Yayıncılık.
  • Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00117714
  • Sadler, D. R. (1998). Formative Assessment: revisiting the territory. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 77–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050104
  • Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on Formative Feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313795
  • Şencan, H. (2005). Sosyal ve davranışsal ölçümlerde geçerlilik ve güvenirlik. Ankara: Seçkin Matbaası.
  • Vasilyeva, E., Puuronen, S., Pechenizkiy, M., & Rasanen, P. (2007). Feedback adaptation in web-based learning systems. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life Long Learning, 17(4-5), 337-357.
  • Yates, G. C., & Hattie, J. (2013). Visible learning and the science of how we learn. Routledge.
  • Wilde, S., Wright, S., Hayward, G., Johnson, J., & Skerrett, R. (2006). Nuffield review higher education focus groups: Preliminary report. The Nuffield Review of 14-19 Education and Training.
There are 37 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Subjects Other Fields of Education
Journal Section Nineteenth Volume
Authors

Bünyamin Kayalı

Şener Balat 0000-0002-9683-1778

Engin Kurşun

Selçuk Karaman

Publication Date March 3, 2019
Published in Issue Year 2019 Volume: 8 Issue: 1

Cite

APA Kayalı, B., Balat, Ş., Kurşun, E., Karaman, S. (2019). Effective and Qualified Feedback in Graduate Education. Journal of Instructional Technologies and Teacher Education, 8(1), 10-20.