Session Information
27 SES 04, Embodiement, Power Relations and Feedbacks in Teaching and Learning Subjects
Paper Session
Contribution
Internationally, there has been a growing interest in studies of instruction and teaching, and recent reviews (OECD, 2005; Seidel & Shavelson, 2007; Timperley & Alton-Lee, 2008; Hattie, 2009; Baumert et al., 2010; Bryk et al., 2010, Konstantopoulos & Chung, 2011) indicate that instructional practice does make a difference to students’ learning – and is more important than other factors including students’ socioeconomic background, class size, classroom climate, teachers’ year of experience and formal training. Feedback is a core part of instructional practices, and research has shown the importance of enabling teachers to provide consistent and supportive feedback to their students, and teaching students how self-assess. As several researchers have pointed out; assessment is integral to effective instruction (Wiliam, 2010), and teachers across Europe are increasingly expected to use assessments to form valid judgements about student learning (DeLuca & Klinger, 2010; DeLuca, Chavez & Cao, 2013; Mausethagen & Mølstad, 2015; Stobart, 2006; Tiknaz & Sutton, 2006; Tveit, 2013). This increased emphasis on assessment also raises the question of how teachers actually provide feedback to their students in their everyday instruction. In the present study, we investigate feedback practices in language arts classrooms.
By comparing video observations from 218 recorded language arts lessons ( 45 minutes each) across 46 secondary classrooms (13-14 years old students) in Norway, this study considers the quality of feedback given orally by teachers to students, as well as from students to other students, and students’ self-assessment. The main aim of the study has been to measure the quality of the feedback provided by teachers in response to student application of language arts skills, concepts, and strategies. (For more about how this measurement is done, see methods section)
This study is based on the view that feedback practices takes place within a sociocultural environment. The sociocultural framing provides a relevant perspective on classroom use of feedback, which becomes clear in Wiliam’s (2011) description of the teachers’ and students’ active roles in formative assessment situations: An assessment functions formatively to the extent that evidence about student achievement is elicited, interpreted, and used by teachers, learners, or their peers to make decisions about the next steps in instruction that are likely to be better, or better founded, than the decisions they would have made in the absence of that evidence. (Wiliam, 2011, loc. 971)
There is little research about how feedback occurs orally in the classroom and how teachers in specific subjects provide feedback for their students. Hawe, Dixon, and Watson (2008) state that oral feedback makes huge demands on the teacher’s competence and professional development within language arts education. These aspects are of utmost importance when considering how to develop the teacher’s ability to provide high quality feedback to develop their students’ learning in the situatedness of the classroom.
Method
Expected Outcomes
References
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in education, 5(1), 7-74. Grossman, P. (2015). Protocol for Langauge Arts Teaching Observations (PLATO 5.0). Center to Support Excellence in Teaching (CSET), Stanford University, Palo Alto: Stanford Grossman, P., Loeb, S., Cohen, J., & Wyckoff, J. (2013). Measure for measure: The relationship between measures of instructional practice in middle school English language arts and teachers’ value-added scores. American Journal of Education. 119(3), 445-470. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning; a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112. Hawe, E., Dixon, H., & Watson, E. (2008). Oral feedback in the context of written language. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, The, 31(1), 43. Heath, C., Hindmarsh, J., & Luff, P. (2010). Video in qualitative research: analysing social interaction in everyday life. Los Angeles: Sage. Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological bulletin, 119(2), 254. OECD (2005). P. McKenzie, P. Santiago, P. Sliwka, & H. Hiroyuki. Teachers matter: Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers. Paris: OECD. Seidel T., & Shavelson R. J. (2007). Teaching Effectiveness Research in the Past Decade: The Role of Theory and Research Design in Disentangling Meta Analysis Results. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 454-499. Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153-189. Snell, J. (2011). Interrogating video data: systematic quantitative analysis versus microethnographic analysis. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 14(3), 253-258. Timperley, H. & Alton-Lee, A. (2008). Reframing Teacher Professional learning. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 328-369. Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree. Wiliam, D. (2013). How is testing supposed to improve schooling? Some reflections. Measurement, 11, 55–59.
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.