Expert teacher perceptions of two-way feedback interaction
The importance and influence of feedback is well-established in the literature (Hattie, 2009). The purpose of feedback is to improve learning (Voerman, Meijer, Korthagen, & Simons, 2012) by reducing discrepancies (Hattie, 2007), closing gaps (Sadler, 2010), and improving one's knowledge, an...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
2020
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/82436 |
| _version_ | 1848764509778345984 |
|---|---|
| author | Tan, F.D.H. Whipp, P.R. Gagné, Marylène Van Quaquebeke, N. |
| author_facet | Tan, F.D.H. Whipp, P.R. Gagné, Marylène Van Quaquebeke, N. |
| author_sort | Tan, F.D.H. |
| building | Curtin Institutional Repository |
| collection | Online Access |
| description | The importance and influence of feedback is well-established in the literature (Hattie, 2009). The purpose of feedback is to improve learning (Voerman, Meijer, Korthagen, & Simons, 2012) by reducing discrepancies (Hattie, 2007), closing gaps (Sadler, 2010), and improving one's knowledge, and skill acquisition (Moreno, 2004). However, there is disjuncture concerning the effectiveness of unilateral or one-way feedback. Unilateral feedback has been critiqued for its failure to productively engage, guide learning, and monitor performance (Price, Handley, & Millar, 2011; Sadler, 1989). Despite calls to focus feedback on student learning outcomes (Hattie, 2009; Voerman et al., 2012), a third of feedback interventions have reported a decrease in student performance (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). Research informs that feedback that focuses on self instead of task inhibits learning (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996; Shute, 2008). On the other hand, feedback that focuses on self-regulation, task, and cognitive processing enhances learning (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Shute, 2008). However, teachers are observed delivering one-way feedback, rather than facilitating learning (Blair & Ginty, 2013; Van den Berghe, Ros, & Beijaard, 2013), and appear ‘to close down opportunities for exploring student learning rather than opening them up’ (Torrance & Pryor, 1988, p. 621). That is, self-focussed unilateral feedbackthwarts the potential to promote learning (Burke, 2009). |
| first_indexed | 2025-11-14T11:20:29Z |
| format | Journal Article |
| id | curtin-20.500.11937-82436 |
| institution | Curtin University Malaysia |
| institution_category | Local University |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2025-11-14T11:20:29Z |
| publishDate | 2020 |
| publisher | PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD |
| recordtype | eprints |
| repository_type | Digital Repository |
| spelling | curtin-20.500.11937-824362023-06-13T02:58:37Z Expert teacher perceptions of two-way feedback interaction Tan, F.D.H. Whipp, P.R. Gagné, Marylène Van Quaquebeke, N. Social Sciences Education & Educational Research AUTONOMY-SUPPORTIVE TEACHERS SELF-DETERMINATION THEORY CLASSROOM INTERACTION INTRINSIC MOTIVATION EFFICACY BELIEFS STUDENTS ENGAGEMENT STRATEGIES QUALITY ACCOUNTABILITY The importance and influence of feedback is well-established in the literature (Hattie, 2009). The purpose of feedback is to improve learning (Voerman, Meijer, Korthagen, & Simons, 2012) by reducing discrepancies (Hattie, 2007), closing gaps (Sadler, 2010), and improving one's knowledge, and skill acquisition (Moreno, 2004). However, there is disjuncture concerning the effectiveness of unilateral or one-way feedback. Unilateral feedback has been critiqued for its failure to productively engage, guide learning, and monitor performance (Price, Handley, & Millar, 2011; Sadler, 1989). Despite calls to focus feedback on student learning outcomes (Hattie, 2009; Voerman et al., 2012), a third of feedback interventions have reported a decrease in student performance (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). Research informs that feedback that focuses on self instead of task inhibits learning (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996; Shute, 2008). On the other hand, feedback that focuses on self-regulation, task, and cognitive processing enhances learning (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Shute, 2008). However, teachers are observed delivering one-way feedback, rather than facilitating learning (Blair & Ginty, 2013; Van den Berghe, Ros, & Beijaard, 2013), and appear ‘to close down opportunities for exploring student learning rather than opening them up’ (Torrance & Pryor, 1988, p. 621). That is, self-focussed unilateral feedbackthwarts the potential to promote learning (Burke, 2009). 2020 Journal Article http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/82436 10.1016/j.tate.2019.102930 English PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD restricted |
| spellingShingle | Social Sciences Education & Educational Research AUTONOMY-SUPPORTIVE TEACHERS SELF-DETERMINATION THEORY CLASSROOM INTERACTION INTRINSIC MOTIVATION EFFICACY BELIEFS STUDENTS ENGAGEMENT STRATEGIES QUALITY ACCOUNTABILITY Tan, F.D.H. Whipp, P.R. Gagné, Marylène Van Quaquebeke, N. Expert teacher perceptions of two-way feedback interaction |
| title | Expert teacher perceptions of two-way feedback interaction |
| title_full | Expert teacher perceptions of two-way feedback interaction |
| title_fullStr | Expert teacher perceptions of two-way feedback interaction |
| title_full_unstemmed | Expert teacher perceptions of two-way feedback interaction |
| title_short | Expert teacher perceptions of two-way feedback interaction |
| title_sort | expert teacher perceptions of two-way feedback interaction |
| topic | Social Sciences Education & Educational Research AUTONOMY-SUPPORTIVE TEACHERS SELF-DETERMINATION THEORY CLASSROOM INTERACTION INTRINSIC MOTIVATION EFFICACY BELIEFS STUDENTS ENGAGEMENT STRATEGIES QUALITY ACCOUNTABILITY |
| url | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/82436 |