Virtual feedback

• Authors: Anna Pałczyńska

Title variants

PL

Wirtualna informacja zwrotna

Abstracts

PL

Informacja zwrotna to zagadnienie, które można omawiać z różnych perspektyw. Taką informację może przekazywać nauczyciel uczniom, uczniowie nauczycielom, uczniowie sobie nawzajem, nauczyciele sobie nawzajem. Co więcej, obecnie dzięki technologii uczący się mogą otrzymać automatyczną informację zwrotną, która generowana jest zaraz po ukończeniu zadania. W literaturze fachowej znajdziemy liczne artykuły dotyczące informacji zwrotnej, jaką nauczyciele kierują do uczniów, jednak wydaje się, że dotychczas niewiele badań poświęcono innym rodzajom informacji zwrotnej. Niniejsza praca ma na celu zwrócenie uwagi na tę kwestię oraz wskazanie sposobów wykorzystania technologii w kontekście informacji zwrotnej.

EN

Feedback is a complex issue that can be discussed from many perspectives. It can be given by teachers to students, by students to teachers, by students to students, by teachers to teachers. Moreover, nowadays thanks to technology our students can be offered automatic feedback that will be given to them immediately upon completing a task. Even though there are several texts dealing with feedback that students receive from teachers, it seems that not much research has been done on other types of feedback. This article aims to start a discussion on the different types of feedback as well as to show ways in which technology can be useful in terms of giving and eliciting feedback.

Keywords

EN

technology; remote teaching; apps; feedback; online teaching

PL

informacja zwrotna; aplikacje; nauczanie zdalne; nauka zdalna; technologia

• Publisher: Akademia Humanistyczno-Ekonomiczna w Łodzi
• Journal: Językoznawstwo
• Year: 2023
• Volume: 18
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 77-85

Dates

published

2023

Contributors

author

Anna Pałczyńska

• Akademia Humanistyczno-Ekonomiczna w Łodzi

• https://orcid.org/0000000300964363

References

• AbuSeileek A., Abualsha’r A. (2014), Using peer computer-mediated corrective feedback to support EFl learner’s writing, “Language Learning & Technology”, 18 (1), p. 76–95; https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/7d52456d-62df-4850-8030-9d4e4f593228/content (accessed 16.08.2022).
• Badley G., Habeshaw T. (1991), The Changing Role of the Teacher in Higher Education, “Journal of In-Service Education” 17, p. 212–218; https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/0305763910170307 (accessed 16.12.2021).
• Bates A.W., Poole G. (2003), Effective teaching with technology in higher education: foundations for success, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
• Brown P.C., Roediger H.L., McDaniel M.A. (2014), Make it Stick. The science of Successful Learning, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
• Cathcart A., Greer D., Neale L. (2014), Learner-focused evaluation cycles: facilitating learning using feedforward, concurrent and feedback evaluation, “Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education”, 39:7, p. 790–802.
• Caws C. (2006), Assessing group interactions online: Students’ perspectives, “Journal of Learning Design”, 1(3), p. 19–28.
• Conaghan P., Lockey A. (2009), Feedback to feedforward, “Notfall+ Rettungsmedizin”, 12(2), p. 45–48.
• Duncan N. (2007), ‘Feed‐forward’: improving students' use of tutors' comments, “Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education”, 32:3, p. 271–283
• Ferris D. (2003), Response to student writing: Implications for second language students, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
• Ferris D. (2006), Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and longterm effects of written error correction [in:] K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (p. 81–104), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
• Guénette D. (2007), Is feedback pedagogically correct?: Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing, “Journal of Second Language Writing”, Vol. 16, Issue 1, p. 40–53.
• Hepsiba N., Subhashini A., Raju M., Rao Y. P. (2016), Changing role of teachers in the present society, “International Research Journal of Engineering, IT and Scientific Research” 2(9), p. 67–72; https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/230597064.pdf (accessed 16.12.2021).
• Koenig R. (2021), Why Professors Should Ask Students For Feedback Long Before the Semester Is Over; https://www.edsurge.com/news/2021-06-10-why-professors-should-ask-students-for-feedback-long-before-the-semester-is-over (accessed 29.11.2021).
• Lyster R., Ranta, L. (1997), Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms, “Studies in Second Language Acquisition”, 19, p. 37–66.
• Naisbitt J. (1982), Megatrends: Ten new directions transforming our lives, Warner Books, New York.
• Pałczyńska A. (2021), Aktywizacja na lekcji języka obcego w nauczaniu zdalnym, „Języki Obce w Szkole”, nr 3, p. 89–94.
• Prensky M. (2001), Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants, “On The Horizon”, nr 9, p. 3–6.
• Santos M., López-Serrano S., Manchón R. (2010), The differential effect of two types of direct written corrective feedback on noticing and uptake: Reformulation vs. error correction, “International Journal of English Studies”, 10(1), p. 131–154.
• Truscott J., Hsu A.Y.-P. (2008), Error correction, revision, and learning, “Journal of Second Language Writing”, 17, p. 292–305.
• Warschauer M. (2002), A developmental perspective on technology in language education, “TESOL Quarterly”, 36(3), p. 453–475.

Identifiers

DOI

10.25312/2391-5137.18/2023_09ap

Biblioteka Nauki

34655962