4.4 Article

What feedback literate teachers do: an empirically-derived competency framework

期刊

ASSESSMENT & EVALUATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION
卷 48, 期 2, 页码 158-171

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2021.1910928

关键词

Feedback literacy; pedagogical processes; inductive analysis; course design; academic development

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper analyzes the experiences of those who provide effective feedback, elucidating the feedback literacy of teachers. Through an analysis of conversations with 62 teachers from five Australian universities, a competency framework for teacher feedback literacy is developed. The paper discusses the different competencies required of university teachers in feedback processes and considers implications for professional development in this area.
If feedback is to be conducted effectively, then there needs to be clarity about what is involved and what is necessary for teachers to be able to undertake it well. While much attention has recently been devoted to student feedback literacy, less has been given to what is required of teaching staff in their various roles in feedback processes. This paper seeks to elucidate teacher feedback literacy through an analysis of the accounts of those who do feedback well. An inductive analysis was undertaken of conversations about feedback with 62 university teachers from five Australian universities using a dataset of transcripts of interviews and focus groups from two earlier research studies. Through an iterative process a teacher feedback literacy competency framework was developed which represents the competencies required of university teachers able to design and enact effective feedback processes. The paper discusses the different competencies required of those with different levels of responsibility, from overall course design to commenting on students' work. It concludes by considering implications for the professional development of university teachers in the area of feedback.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据