Suche

Wo soll gesucht werden?
Erweiterte Literatursuche

Ariadne Pfad:

Inhalt

Literaturnachweis - Detailanzeige

 
Autor/inn/enDirkx, Kim; Joosten-ten Brinke, Desirée; Arts, Jorik; van Diggelen, Migchiel
TitelIn-Text and Rubric-Referenced Feedback: Differences in Focus, Level, and Function
QuelleIn: Active Learning in Higher Education, 22 (2021) 3, S.189-201 (13 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift
PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit 
ZusatzinformationORCID (Dirkx, Kim)
Spracheenglisch
Dokumenttypgedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN1469-7874
DOI10.1177/1469787419855208
SchlagwörterFeedback (Response); Scoring Rubrics; Attention Control; Student Evaluation; Written Language; Graduate Students; Foreign Countries; Writing Assignments; Netherlands
AbstractRubrics are often used as tools for criteria-based assessments. Although students indicate that they appreciate comments given as feedback which make reference to the rubric and provided in addition to it, there is little information on how this type of feedback actually differs from in-text comments with respect to focus, level, and function of the feedback. The focus refers to three major questions in evaluating students' understanding of information: Where am I going? How am I going? and Where to next? That is, feedup, feedback, feedforward. The level refers to the level at which feedback is directed. That is, the level of task performance, the level of the process of understanding how to do a task, the regulatory or metacognitive process level, and/or the self or personal level. Finally, the function refers to the type of content of the feedback. For example, feedback can be a question, suggestion, or correction. More information on this issue could better inform the decisions on how to provide written feedback to students on written coursework/assignments. The study described in this article gathered data from almost 1000 feedback instances. The results revealed that about two-thirds of the feedback instances were provided in-text and about one-third were comments which made reference to the rubric and were provided in addition to it. The results show that comments in both modalities are overrepresented by feedback at the task level, but that comments which made reference to the rubric and provided in addition to it contain somewhat more feedforward and process-related comments. The largest differences were found in the function of feedback. Whereas in-text comments ask for clarifications, provide corrections, and ask questions, written comments which made reference to the rubric and are provided in addition to it include mainly affirmations, argumentations, and suggestions. Implications for practitioners are discussed. (As Provided).
AnmerkungenSAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: http://sagepub.com
Erfasst vonERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update2024/1/01
Literaturbeschaffung und Bestandsnachweise in Bibliotheken prüfen
 

Standortunabhängige Dienste
Bibliotheken, die die Zeitschrift "Active Learning in Higher Education" besitzen:
Link zur Zeitschriftendatenbank (ZDB)

Artikellieferdienst der deutschen Bibliotheken (subito):
Übernahme der Daten in das subito-Bestellformular

Tipps zum Auffinden elektronischer Volltexte im Video-Tutorial

Trefferlisten Einstellungen

Permalink als QR-Code

Permalink als QR-Code

Inhalt auf sozialen Plattformen teilen (nur vorhanden, wenn Javascript eingeschaltet ist)

Teile diese Seite: