L. M. Nicheporuk
Price: 50 руб.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.25807/PBH.22224378.2018.12.92.101
The article is about the value of formative feedback, which participants receive after
completing the task. The method of research is based on the technology of conferences
and involves not only speakers, but also the audience, because they give formative feedback. Feedback was provided to participants of the conference in three formats – verbal detailed comments, colour cards, and cards with points. After the conferences, participants Blled out a questionnaire and were interviewed about the effectiveness and value of the feedback received. According to the results of the study, the preferred form of feedback is detailed comments and coloured indicators.
Key words: feedback, formative feedback, comments, visualisation.
References
1. Amyaga N. V., Aymautova N. E., Lenyungo Zh. B. Onzimba. Obratnaya svyaz’ v issledovaniyakh mezhlichnostnogo vzaimodeystviya // Vestnik RUDN. Seriya “Sotsiologiya”. 2014. № 3. S. 207–215.
2. Bessonov K. A. K probleme aktivizatsii samoobrazovatel’noy deyatel’nosti studentov // Juvenis scientia. 2016. № 5. S. 26–28.
3. Bolotova A. K., Zhukov Yu. M. Psikhologiya kommunikatsiy: monograBya. M.: Izd. dom Vysshey shkoly ekonomiki, 2015. 495 s.
4. Zhukov Yu. M., Zhuravlev A. V., Pavlova E. N. Tekhnologii komandoobrazovaniya. M.: Aspekt-Press, 2008. 320 s.
5. Zemlyanskaya E. N. Formiruyushcheye otsenivanie (otsenka dlya obucheniya) obrazovatel’nykh dostizheniy obuchayushchikhsya // Sovremennaya zarubezhnaya psikhologiya. 2016. T. 5. № 3. S. 50–58.
6. Petrov A. V. Diskussiya i prinyatie resheniy v gruppe: tekhnologiya moderatsii. SPb.: Rech’, 2005. 80 s.
7. Psikhologiya obshcheniya: trening chelovechnosti: Tezisy mezhdunarodnoy nauchno-prakticheskoy konferentsii, posvyashchennoy 70-letiyu so dnya rozhdeniya L. A. Petrovskoy (Moskva, 15–17 noyabrya 2007 g.) / оtv. red. O. V. Solov’yova. M.: Smysl, 2007. 333 s.
8. Sotsial’no-psikhologicheskiy trening / Yu. M. Zhukov, O. V. Solov’yova, E. N. Pavlova, A. V. Zhuravlev // Programmy uchebnykh distsiplin po sotsial’noy psikhologii / otv. red. Yu. P. Zinchenko, T. G. Stefanenko, T. V. Folomeyeva / pod red. T. V. Folomeyeva. M.: fakul’tet psikhologii MGU imeni M. V. Lomonosova, 2011. S. 149–161.
9. Torndayk Edvard Li. Printsipy obucheniya, osnovannye na psikhologii / per. s angl. E. A. Ger’ye; vstupit. stat’ya L. S. Vygotskogo. Izd. 3-e. M.: Rabotnik prosveshcheniya, 1930. 235 s.
10. Ammons R. B. (1956). Effects of knowledge of performance: A survey and tentative theoretical formulation. Journal of General Psychology, 54. 279–299 pp.
11. Bell B., Cowie B. (2001) The Characteristics of Formative Assessment. In: Formative Assessment and Science Education. Science & Technology Education Library, vol 12. 1–145 pp.
12. Hattie J., Timperley H. The Power of Feedback // Review of Educational Research March 2007. Vol. 77. № 1. 81–112 pp.
13. Hatziapostolou T., Paraskakis I. (2010) “Enhancing the Impact of Formative Feedback on Student Learning through an Online Feedback System” Electronic Journal of e-Learning Volume 8 Issue 2 2010. 111–122 pp.
14. Kluger A. N., DeNisi A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119 (2). 254–284 pp.
15. Ramaprasad A. (1983). On the deBnition of feedback. Behavioral Science, 28. 4–13 pp.
