Journals / Eurasian Journal of Educational Research / 2020 / Cilt: 20 - Sayı: 90

The Use of Standardized Feedback for Teaching Material Preparation: The Opinions of Preservice Science Teacher

Pages
83–102
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

This studywas conducted in the “Learning Technologies andMaterial Design” course with the participation of 43junior preservice teachers enrolled in the scienceeducation department of a public university.Findings: According to the results of the research, preservice science teachers are positiveabout the use of the standardized feedback process while preparing class materials.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Purpose: The present study aims to investigate theopinions of preservice science teachers about usingstandardized feedback in preparing educationmaterials, including their opinions about oral,written and e-feedback and the effectiveness ofindividual and group work.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This studywas conducted in the “Learning Technologies andMaterial Design” course with the participation of 43junior preservice teachers enrolled in the scienceeducation department of a public university.Findings: According to the results of the research, preservice science teachers are positiveabout the use of the standardized feedback process while preparing class materials.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The second most effective waswritten feedback because it contained information, while the least effective was e-feedback.The candidates thought that standardized feedback was effective and promoted permanentlearning in the studies conducted both individually and in groups.Implications for Research and Practice: Standardized feedback can also be used inundergraduate education, projects, teaching materials and laboratory classes.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Purpose: The present study aims to investigate theopinions of preservice science teachers about usingstandardized feedback in preparing educationmaterials, including their opinions about oral,written and e-feedback and the effectiveness ofindividual and group work. The preservice teacherswere also informed about the applicability ofstandardized feedback in other undergraduatecourses.Research Methods: Case study design, a qualitativeresearch method, was used in this study. This studywas conducted in the “Learning Technologies andMaterial Design” course with the participation of 43junior preservice teachers enrolled in the scienceeducation department of a public university.Findings: According to the results of the research, preservice science teachers are positiveabout the use of the standardized feedback process while preparing class materials. Amongthese views, it boosted the quality of learning, corrected erroneous information and raisedtheir grades. The most important disadvantage was that the candidates did not want to redothe class material. Since the feedback givers and receivers were in mutual interaction, theystated that the most effective feedback was oral feedback. The second most effective waswritten feedback because it contained information, while the least effective was e-feedback.The candidates thought that standardized feedback was effective and promoted permanentlearning in the studies conducted both individually and in groups.Implications for Research and Practice: Standardized feedback can also be used inundergraduate education, projects, teaching materials and laboratory classes.

🔖

Cite This Article

KORAY, O., KAHRAMAN, E. (2022). The Use of Standardized Feedback for Teaching Material Preparation: The Opinions of Preservice Science Teacher. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, Cilt: 20 - Sayı: 90, 83–102. https://ajindex.com/articles/507101

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Baghzou, S. (2011). The effects of content feedback on students’ writing. Ankara University The Journal of The Faculty of Languages and History-Geography, 51(2), 169-180.
  2. Bergil, A. S., & Atli, I. (2012). Different perspectives about feedback on teaching. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 5833-5839.
  3. Brown, S. (2004). Assessment for learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, (1), 81-89.
  4. Burnett, C. P., & Mandel, V. (2010). Praise and feedback in the primary classroom: teachers’ and students’ perspectives. Australian Journal of Educational & Developmental Psychology, 10, 145-154.
  5. Butler, R. (1987). Task-involving and ego-involving properties of evaluation: Effects of different feedback conditions on motivational perceptions, interest, and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(4), 474-482.
  6. Butler, R. (1988). Enhancing and undermining intrinsic motivation: The effects of taskinvolving and ego-involving evaluation on interest and performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 58(1), 1-14.
  7. Cooper, H. (2001). The battle over homework: Common ground for administrators, teachers and parents. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
  8. Cabakcor, B. O., Aksan, E., Ozturk, T., & Cimer, S. O. (2011). Types of feedback that were received and preferred by prospective primary mathematics teachers. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT), 2(1), 46- 68. Cakir, O. (2010). Micro-teaching in material development: teacher candidates’ views on the method and the feedback. Adiyaman University Journal of Social Sciences, 2010(5), 55-73.
  9. Eksi, G. (2012). Implementing an observation and feedback form for more effective feedback in microteaching. Education and Science, 37(164), 267-282.
  10. Eraz, G., & Oksuz, C. (2015). Effect of primary school teachers’ feedback on students’ extracurricular mathematics activities. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of Education Faculty, 36, 105-119.
  11. Erdemli, Ç., Sumer, H. C., & Bilgic, R. (2007). A comparison of written feedback and written plus verbal feedback methods in performance management. Articles of Turkish Journal of Psychology, 22(60), 71. Erisen, Y. (1997). Ogretim elemanlarinin donut ve duzeltme davranislarini yerine getirme dereceleri [The degree to which instructors fulfill their feedback and correction behaviors]. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 3(1), 45– 61. Espasa, A., & Meneses, J. (2010). Analysing feedback processes in an online teaching and learning environm