Öğrenenlerin E-Değerlendirmeye Dayalı Kişiselleştirilmiş Geri Bildirim Yollarının İncelenmesi

Year 2022, Volume: 30 Issue: 2, 411 - 426, 29.04.2022

Sevil Orhan Özen Zühal Cubukcu

https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.825787

Abstract

Araştırmanın amacı, öğrenenlerin e-değerlendirmeye dayalı geri bildirim tercihleri ve ihtiyaçlarına göre kişiselleştirilmiş geri bildirim yollarını incelemektir. Araştırmada tasarım tabanlı araştırma yöntemi kullanılmaktadır. 36 öğrenenden oluşan çalışma grubu, ölçüt örnekleme yöntemi ile belirlenmiştir. Güdülenme ve Üstbiliş ölçekleri, öğrenme yönetim sistemi kayıtları ve yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme formu veri toplama araçlarıdır. Veri analizi için betimsel analiz teknikleri, Ki-Kare bağımsızlık testi, Çoklu Uyum analizi ve içerik analizi, ayrıca bulguların sentezlenmesi için benzeşim ve gruplama yöntemleri kullanılmıştır. Sonuçta bir dizi kişiselleştirilmiş geri bildirim stratejileri kurulmuştur.

Keywords

geri bildirim, kişiselleştirilmiş geri bildirim, kişisel özellikler, e-değerlendirme

An Investigation of the Learners' Personalized Feedback Paths Based on E-Assessment

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of the research is to investigate personalized feedback paths of learners based on e-assessment
according to the feedback preferences of learners and their needs.
Methodology: The design-based research method consisting of two stages was used in this study. The study group comprised
of 36 undergraduates in the department of Computer and Instructional Technology in the Education Faculty in one of the state
universities was determined based on criterion sampling method. The data collection process has carried out with the same
study group at both design stages by using blended learning method. Data collection tools are consisted of Motivation and
Metacognition scales, learning management system records and semi-structured interview form. The descriptive analysis
methods, Chi-Square independence test, multiple correspondence analysis, and content analysis have been used for data
analysis.
Findings: According to the findings of the research, the effect of test anxiety and extrinsic goal orientation from motivation
sources, metacognition, the judgment of learning and task level variables have determined on feedback preferences of the
learner. Classify by these characteristics, a number of personalized feedback strategies have been developed based on the
learner's preferences and needs for feedback. In addition, it was found that learners wanted to get feedback from teachers
rather than peers because they found teacher’s feedback more qualified and they did not trust their peers' feedback.
Highlights: In order to use the personalized feedback strategies developed in the research in different research groups and
training programs, it should be important that the system is similar to those in this study. These should be similar systems that
determine both the learner's preference and the needs for feedback according to the learner characteristics to support learning
performance. Otherwise, it is thought that will be out of the context of personalization.

Keywords

Feedback, . Personalized feedback, Personal characteristics, E-assessment

References

• Altındağ, M. (2008). Metacognitive Skills of students’ at Faculty of Education of Hacettepe University. (Unpublished Master’s Thesis). Hacettepe University, Ankara.
• Altındağ, M. ve Senemoğlu, N. (2013). Metacognitive skills scale. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 28(1), 15-26.
• Bahar, M. (2014). Development of E-assessment attitude scale for university students. E-International Journal of Educational Research, 5(2), 38-53. doi: 10.19160/e-ijer.13954
• Barab, S., & Squire, B. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13 (1), 1-14.
• Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7-74. doi: 10.1080/0969595980050102
• Butler, A. C., Godbole, N., & Marsh, E. J. (2013). Explanation feedback is better than correct answer feedback for promoting transfer of learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 290-298. doi: 10.1037/a0031026
• Butler, A. C., Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger III, H. L. (2008). Correcting a metacognitive error: feedback increases retention of low-confidence correct responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34(4), 918-928. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.34.4.918
• Bümen, N. T. (2006). A revision of the Bloom’s Taxonomy: A Turning point in Curriculum development. Education and Science, 31(142), 3-14.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş., Akgün, Ö. E., Özkahveci, Ö., & Demirel, F. (2004). The Validity and
Reliability Study of the Turkish Version of the Motivated Strategies for Learning
Questionnaire. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 4(2), 231-237. doi: 10.12738/estp.2014.3.1871
• Cabi, E. (2016). The Perception of Students on E-Assessment in Distance Education. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi, 6(1), 94-101. doi: 0.5961/jhes.2016.146
• Callender, A. A., Franco-Watkins, A., & Roberts, A. S. (2016). Improving metacognition in the classroom through instruction, training, and feedback. Metacognition and Learning, 11(2), 215-235. doi: 10.1007/s11409-015-9142-6.
• Dawson, P., Henderson, M., Mahoney, P., Phillips, M., Ryan, T., Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2019). What makes for effective feedback: staff and student perspectives? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(1), 25-36. doi: 10.1080-02602938.2018.1467877
• Güngör, M. & Bulut, Y. (2008). On the Chi-Square Test. Doğu Anadolu Bölgesi Araştırmaları, 7(1), 84-89. Han, S., & Bhattacharya, K. (2001). Constructionism, learning by design, and project based learning. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. http://projects.coe.uga.edu-epltt-
• Hattie, J. (2012). Know thy impact. Educational Leadership, 70(1), 18-23. https:www.uen.org-utahstandardsacademy-math-downloads-level-2-5-2-KnowThyImpactHattie.pdf adresinden erişilmiştir.
• Hu, X., Liu, Z., Li, T., & Luo, L. (2016). Influence of cue word perceptual information on metamemory accuracy in judgement of learning. Memory, 24(3), 383-398. doi: 10.1080/09658211.2015.1009470
• Husson, F., & Josse, J. (2014). Multiple correspondence analysis. J. Blasius, & M. Greenacre (Ed), Visualization and Verbalization of Data içinde (s. 165-184). Chapman & Hall: CRC/PRESS.
• JISC-Joint Information Systems Committee. (2007). Effective practice with e-assessment: An overview of technologies, policies and practice in further and higher education. Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council for England. JISC-Joint Information Systems Committee. (2010). Effective assessment in a digital age. Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council for England.
• Mason, B., & Bruning, R. (2001). Providing feedback in computer-based instruction: What the research tells us (Rapor No. 9). Lincoln, Nebraska University, Center for Instructional Innovation: Class Project Research.
• Metcalfe, J. (2009). Metacognitive judgments and control of study. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(3), 159-163. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01628.x
• Meyer, B. J. F., Wijekumar, K., Middlemiss, W., Higley, K., Lei, P., Meier, C., & Spielvogel, J. (2010). Web-based tutoring of the structure strategy with or without elaborated feedback or choice for fifth- and seventh-grade readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(1), 62-92. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.45.1.4
• MoNE - Turkish Ministry of National Education (2018a). Bilişim teknolojileri yazılım dersi (ortaokul 5. ve 6. sınıflar) öğretim programı. Devlet Kitapları Basımevi, Ankara.
• MoNE-Turkish Ministry of National Education (2018b). Turkey’s Education vision 2023. http://2023vizyonu.meb.gov.tr/doc/2023_VIZYON_ENG.pdf Accessed 02 February 2019
• Mory, E. H. (2004). Feedback research revisited. D. Jonassen (Ed), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology içinde (s. 745–783). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Narciss, S. (2008). Feedback strategies for interactive learning tasks. J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. G. van Merrienboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Ed), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology içinde (s. 125–144). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Narciss, S., Sosnovsky, S., Schnaubert, L., Andrès, E., Eichelmann, A., Goguadze, G., & Melis, E. (2014). Exploring feedback and student characteristics relevant for personalizing feedback strategies. Computers & Education, 71, 56-76. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.011
• Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.
• Pintrich, P., Smith, D. A. F., García, T., & McKeachie, W. (1991). A manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
• Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(3), 801-813.
• Sandelowski M., Voils C. I., & Barroso, J. (2006). Defining and designing mixed research synthesis studies. Research in the Schools. 13(1), 29–40.
• Schartel, S. A., (2012). Giving feedback - An integral part of education. Best Practice& Research clinical an aesthesiology, 26(1), 77-87. doi: 10.1016/j.bpa.2012.02.003.
• Shavelson, R. J., Phillips, D. C., Towne, L., & Feuer, M. J. (2003). On the science of education design studies. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 25-28.
• Shute, V. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153-189. doi: 10.3102/0034654307313795
• Smits, M. H., Boon, J., Sluijsmans, D. M., & Van-Gog, T. (2008). Content and timing of feedback in a web-based learning environment: effects on learning as a function of prior knowledge. Interactive Learning Environments, 16(2), 183–193. doi: 10.1080/10494820701365952
• Tabakçı, H. Ş. & Karakelle, S. (2010). Developmental examination of effect of learned helplessness on feeling-of-knowing judgment. Studies in Psychology, 30, 53-72. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/231028
• Voils, C. I., Sandelowski, M., Barroso, J., & Hasselblad, V. (2008). Making sense of qualitative and quantitative findings in mixed research synthesis studies. Field Methods, 20(1), 3-25. doi:10.1177/1525822X07307463
• Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational technology research and development, 53(4), 5-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504682
• Woods, M. E. (2015). Effective feedback for adult students. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Cardinal Stritch University, Milwaukee, UK.
• Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2006). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (5. Baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.