Affiliation:
1. Faculty of Education - Bitola
Abstract
Given that the teachers’ feedback is among the essential factors that affect students’ achievements, the present study examines the teachers’ feedback quality in essays in the secondary education of the RNM, regarding its corrective nature, in the teaching subject Macedonian language and literature. Thus, the aim is to obtain a general picture on the feedback quality having in mind the theoretical indications on the way the feedback should be provided to fulfill its main function, i.e. to be corrective and to guide students’ toward improvement of their learning and achievements.
The sample consists of 50 students’ essays, from first to fourth grade of the secondary education, on which teachers’ feedback is written, and the analysis rests upon coding and the inductive-interpretative method, and the comparison, as well.
The research results indicate that there is a gap between the theory and the practice, i.e. the teachers’ feedback loses its corrective character. Instead of directing the students to undertake actions for enhancement of the identified shortcomings, the analyzed feedback comes down to the phrase be careful followed by the aspect on which the students should focus on, thus limiting their further steps in learning.
Publisher
University St. Kliment Ohridski - Bitola
Reference42 articles.
1. Black, P., J., & William, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 5(1), 7–73.
2. Boud. D. (1995). Enhancing learning through self-assessment. Taylor and Francis Group.
3. Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013). What is the problem with feedback? In Boud, D. & Molloy, E. (eds.), Feedback in higher and professional education, 1–10. London: Routledge, https://tinyurl.com/mrsmt75a, 15.1.2023.
4. Brookhart, S. (2008). How to give effective feedback to your students. ASCD, https://tinyurl.com/yuna6dyb, 12.12.2022.
5. Brown, J. D. (2004). Performance assessment: Existing literature and direction for research. Second Language Studies, 22(2), 91–139.