¹Ita Permatasari,²Halim Ahmad Faizin, ³Imam Mudofir

^1,2,3State Polytechnic of Madiun

Google Scholar Download Pdf
ABSTRACT

One of the essential components of the learning process is assessment. As a result, providing feedback is an important part of the evaluation process so that students can see how far the progress in learning process. Naturally, the delivery of feedback undergoes a shift when online classes, which feature a significant amount of technology use, are implemented. The main problem that this study is trying to solve is what types of oral and written corrective technology-based feedback during online lectures using technology in class. The data were derived from research that involved focus groups, interviews and content analysis. The triangulation approach was employed by the researchers to verify the accuracy of the data. The result shows that recast is the most type of oral corrective technology-based feedback that was occurred during the online class. Recast, explicit correction and repetition can be delivered directly and the students can catch what the correct version of their errors. The time allotment for giving these three types is shorter than the other three. For the clarification requests, elicitation and metalinguistic clue, the results show that these three types allowed more time allotment as the students cannot get the correct answer directly. For written corrective technologybased feedback, direct feedback was given when the students made error in the form of punctuation and typo. Moreover, for indirect feedback, it is given when the error in the form of grammar error. The indirect feedback was given with in the way of the lecturers showed the grammatical error without giving the correct version. For the last type of written corrective feedback, it is the most rarely used as the correct version was given implicitly, that will lead the students need extra time to process what is wrong and how to revise it.

KEYWORDS:

feedback, online classes, corrective feedback, oral feedback, written feedback

REFERENCES

1) Archer-Kath, J., et.al.1994. Individual Versus Group Feedback in Cooperative Groups. The Journal of Social Psychology

2) Askew, S. 2000. Feedback for Learning. New York: Routledge.

3) Greve, H.R. 2003. Organizational Learning from Performance Feedback A Behavioral Perspective on Innovation and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

4) Hennesey,C., and Forrester, G.2014. Developing a framework for effective audio feedback: a case study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 2014 Vol. 39, No. 7, 777–789, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.870530

5) Henderson, M., and Philips, M.2014. Technology Enhanced Feedback On Assessment. Australian Computers in Education Conference 2014, Adelaide, SA. http://acec2014.acce.edu.au/session/technology-enhancedfeedback-assessm

6) Henderson, M., and Philips, M.2015. Video-based feedback on student assessment: scarily personal. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2015, 31(1).

7) Huang,J., and Chen, G. 2022. Individualized feedback to raters in language assessment: Impacts on rater effects. Assessing Writing 52 (2022) 100623. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2022.100623

8) Ilgen,D.R., et.al.1979. Consequences of Individual Feedback on Behavior in Organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology 1979, Vol. 64, No. 4, 349-371

9) Irons, A. 2008. Enhancing Learning through Formative Assessment and Feedback. New York: Routledge

10) Lim, L.A., and Dawson, S. 2020. Students’ sense-making of personalised feedback based on learning analytics. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2020, 36(6).

11) Mathew, L. 2019. Should we use video technology for giving feedback?. Higher Education Pedagogies 2019, VOL. 4, NO. 1, 476–487 http://doi.org/10.1080/23752696.2019.1669480

12) Parkes, M., and Fletcher, P.R. 2016. A longitudinal, quantitative study of student attitudes towards audio feedback for assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education DOI:10.1080/02602938.2016.1224810

13) Phillips, M. Et.al. 2016. Multimodal feedback is not always clearer, more useful or satisfying. Proceedings ASCILITE 2016 Adelaide (pp. 514-522).

14) Kickmeier-Rust, M.D., et.al. 2008. The Effects of Individualized Feedback in Digital Educational Games

15) Ryan, T et.al. 2016. "Written feedback doesn't make sense": Enhancing assessment feedback using technologies. Conference: AARE 2016 Enhancing assessment feedback using technologies

16) Sheen, Y. 2011. Corrective Feedback, Individual Differences and Second Language Learning. New York: 2011.

17) Stevens, D.D., and Levi, Antonia. 2005. Introduction To Rubrics:An Assessment Tool to Save Grading Time, Convey Effective Feedback,and Promote Student Learning. Virginia: Stylus Publishing, LLC

18) Voelkel, S., and Mello, C.V. 2014. Audio Feedback – Better Feedback?. Bioscience Education, Vol 22, Issue 1 (July 2014) doi:10.11120/beej.2014.00022

19) Winstone, N., and Carless,D. 2020. Designing Effective Feedback Processes in Higher Education. New York: Rotledge.

20) Xiao, J. 2021. Decoding new normal in education for the post-COVID-19 world: Beyond the digital solution. Asian Journal of Distance Education Volume 16, Issue 1, 2021

21) Yuan, J. And Kim, C.M.2015. Effective Feedback Design Using Free Technologies. Journal of Educational Computing Research 2015, Vol. 52(3) 408–434 ! The Author(s) 2015 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0735633115571929

VOlUME 02 ISSUE 01 JANUARY 2023