Feedback Interaction In Primary School Classrooms
Author(s):
Elisabeth Eriksson (presenting / submitting)
Conference:
ECER 2017
Network:
27. Didactics - Learning and Teaching
Format:
Paper

Session Information

27 SES 08 C, Didactics and Early Childhood Education

Paper Session

Time:
2017-08-24
09:00-10:30
Room:
K3.06
Chair:
Isabelle Mili

Contribution

Feedback is considered being an essential part of classroom assessment, especially stressed from a formative stance (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Shute, 2008). The effect feedback has on students’ learning is often studied by focusing measurable outcomes, while studies on student perspectives on feedback are few (Hargreaves, 2013), and mainly focusing higher education (e.g., Evans & Waring, 2011; Núñes-Peña, Bono & Suáres-Pellicioni, 2015). The younger the students are, the less studies seem to have been made, which makes studies on primary students perspectives on teacher feedback rare. Studies on how teachers provide feedback to students also often discuss feedback in terms of effectiveness, focusing on its formative functions (e.g., Gamlem & Munthe, 2014; Jonsson, Lundahl & Holmgren, 2015).

Research on feedback does not restrict itself to aspects of academic performance. White (1975) found teacher approval being the most common feedback addressing instructional behaviour and almost non-existent for addressing managerial behaviour. Later research on feedback on behaviour has often highlighted approval and disapproval (e.g., Swinson & Knight, 2007), and praise (e.g., Chalk & Bizo, 2004).

The aim with the present study is to conceptualise how teacher feedback is communicated to students in the direct interaction in primary school classrooms.

I aim to do so by putting the results of a primary classroom observation study (Eriksson, Björklund Boistrup & Thornberg, 2016), a study on the primary teachers rationales for giving feedback and a study on how primary students construct meaning from teacher feedback (Eriksson, 2015) in relation to each other, analysing their relations, possible overlaps and tensions. In the study a wide definition of feedback is used, and assessment on both academic performances and behaviour is studied.

Feedback in the classroom is a direct interaction between teacher and student. Studying feedback interaction means studying how the participants attempt to understand and meet the demands, or requests, from the other part, which makes symbolic interactionism suitable as theoretical perspective (Charon, 2009; Hewitt & Schulman, 2011).

Method

The present paper is based on a field study and additional interviews. A constructivist grounded theory approach has been used throughout the study. The main study was conducted in four primary school classrooms in two primary schools in a middle sized Swedish city. One of the schools was a smaller primary school in a rural environment, while the other was a larger, inner-city primary school. In order to study how teacher feedback was communicated to students, field studies were made, during which between eight and fourteen days of observations were made in the classrooms. Field notes, informal conversations with both teachers and students, and some classroom audio recordings during for instance gatherings, were made. To investigate primary teachers’ rationales for giving feedback, semi-structured interviews were conducted with the four teachers in the observation study, and with additional nine primary school teachers working at other schools in other municipalities. Finally to investigate student perceptions group interviews were made with the students in two of the classes. Taking a least adult role throughout the data collection (Mandell, 1991), not acting as a teacher, having lunch with students, showing sincere interest in their perspectives, not giving valuing comments, helped me gain access to student perspective. The interviews with the students and the teachers whom had been part of the observations, were partially situated, based on observed feedback situations. Data analysis was made according to grounded theory, through initial, focused and theoretical coding, constant comparisons, theoretical sampling and memo writing, and simultaneously with data collection, guiding further data collection (Charmaz, 2014; Glaser & Strauss, 1967).

Expected Outcomes

Taking the role of the other, significant within symbolic interactionism (Charon, 2009), seems to be prominent in the preliminary findings in the present study. Both teachers and students describe of the need of understanding the other part, even though they do it with slightly different aims. The teachers seems occupied with the idea of trying to individualise feedback in best possible way, which they describe requires knowing what the student knows in order to meet students individual needs, both academic and social. Both in the teacher interview data and the observation data, being responsive to how students respond to feedback, and thus being able to change feedback strategy if needed, is also interpreted as a part of teachers trying to understand students’ needs. From a student perspective, except interpreting their teachers’ feedback, the students also try to explain how they understand their teachers’ feedback strategies. The students mostly do it by legitimizing feedback strategies used by the teacher. For instance: the teacher hasting between students, giving short steering feedback, is interpreted as the teacher trying to help as many as possible. No matter what strategies the teacher uses, some more appreciated than others by the students, the students emphasized that the teacher only had their best in mind, and that the teacher only wanted them to learn. By doing so, the students legitimize teacher feedback strategies. Legitimizing is also used by teachers, when explaining an outcome or experience by stressing for instance the difficulty of a task or what a student knows or does not yet know, as an explanation to how a student experience a task. Another preliminary finding, yet less elaborated, addresses creating and maintaining order in the classroom. Which by both teachers and students describe as a joint project, emphasizing the common responsibility.

References

Chalk, K., & Bizo, L. A. (2004). Specific praise improves on-task behaviour and numeracy enjoyment: A study of year four pupils engaged in the numeracy hour. Educational Psychology in Practice, 20(4), 335-351. Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). London: Sage. Charon, J. M. (2009). Symbolic interactionism: an introduction, an interpretation, an integration. (10th ed.) Upper Saddle River, N. J.: Pearson Prentice Hall. Eriksson, E. (2015). How primary students construct meaning from teacher feedback. Paper presented at Nordic Educational Research Association 2015-10-08. Eriksson, E., Boistrup, L. B., & Thornberg, R. (2016). A categorisation of teacher feedback in the classroom: a field study on feedback based on routine classroom assessment in primary school. Research Papers in Education. doi:10.1080/02671522.2016.1225787 Evans, C., & Waring, M. (2011). Exploring students’ perceptions of feedback in relation to cognitive styles and culture. Research Papers in Education, 26(2), 171–190. Gamlem, S. M., & Munthe, E. (2014). Mapping the quality of feedback to support students’ learning in lower secondary classrooms. Cambridge Journal of Education, 44 (1), 75–92. Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. New Brunswick: Aldine Transaction. Hargreaves, E. (2013)Inquiring into children’s experiences of teaceher deedback: reconceptualising Assessment for Learning. Oxford Review of Education, 39(2), 229-246. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112. Hewitt, J. P., & Shulman, D. (2011). Self and society: A symbolic interactionist social psychology. (11th ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson. Jonsson, A., Lundahl, C., & Holmgren, A. (2015). Evaluating a large-scale implementation of Assessment for Learning in Sweden. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 22 (1), 104–121. Mandell, N. (1991). The least-adult role in studying children. I Waksler (Red.), Studying the social worlds of children: Sociological readings (38-59). London: RoutledgeFalmer. Núñez-Peña, M. I., Bono, R., & Suárez-Pellicioni, M. (2015). Feedback on students’ performance: A possible way of reducing the negative effect of math anxiety in higher education. International Journal of Educational Research, 70, 80–87. Shute, V. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153-189. Swinson, J. & Knight, R. (2007). Teacher verbal feedback directed toward secondary students with challenging behavior and its relationship to their behavior. Educational Psychology in Practice, 23(3), 241-255. White, M. A. (1975). Natural rates of teacher approval and disapproval in the classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8(4), 367–372.

Author Information

Elisabeth Eriksson (presenting / submitting)
Linköping University
Department of Behavioural Sciences and Learning
Linköping

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER. 

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, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
  • If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.