##issue.issue##

##issue.vol## 10 ##issue.no## 6 (2021)

Feedback Preferences of University Student-Teachers from Supervisors and their Rationale in Teaching Practicum

https://doi.org/10.56279/jhss.v10i6.119
Innocent Buberwa Rugambuka
Dar es Salaam University College of Education
Josta L. Nzilano

Corresponding Author(s) : Innocent Buberwa Rugambuka

innoruga@gmail.com

Journal of Humanities & Social Science (JHSS), ##issue.vol## 10 ##issue.no## 6 (2021)

##article.abstract##

This study examines the feedback preferences of university student-teachers (STs) from
supervisors and the rationale for the preferences during teaching practicum (TP). It
involved second-year STs (N = 109) of a government-owned university in Tanzania. The
study sought to achieve two objectives: (i) explore the type of feedback preferred by
STs from their supervisors during TP; and (ii) elicit the reasons for the feedback
preferences during TP. Interviews and focused group discussions were used for data
collection. The findings indicated that STs mostly prefer written (59%) over oral (38%)
and blended (3%) types of feedback. However, the rationale for the preference of these
types of feedback slightly differed. Written feedback was preferred because it kept
evidence for student-teachers’ reference. In contrast, oral feedback was preferred
because it attracted interaction between STs and supervisors. Similarly, blended
feedback was preferred because it reduced the limitations inherent in written and oral
feedback, and attracted the bonding of multiple sources of teaching guidance. It is
concluded that STs in TP do not universally prefer one type of feedback even though
written feedback remains the most preferred type, while other types complement it.
Based on the findings, supervisors are advised to primarily use written feedback in the
assessment of TPs, while integrating oral feedback as a compliment.
 

##journal.references##
  1. Ayd?n Ö. & A. Ok. 2020. Mentoring Practices in English Language Teaching Practicum: Student
  2. Teachers’ Perspectives on Cooperating Teachers’ Roles in the Turkish Context. The Teacher
  3. Educator, 55(3): 248–266. Doi: 10.1080/08878730.2019.1701756.
  4. Black: & D. Wiliam. 2006. Assessment and Classroom Learning. Assessment in Education: Principles,
  5. Policy & Practice, 5(1): 7–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102.
  6. Bullock, S. M. 2017. Understanding Candidates’ Learning Relationships with Their Cooperating
  7. Teachers: A Call to Reframe My Pedagogy. Studying Teacher Education, 13(2): 179–192.
  8. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2017.1342355.
  9. Carless, D. & D. Boud. 2018. The Development of Student Feedback Literacy: Enabling Uptake of
  10. Feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8): 1315–1325. https://doi.org/ 10.
  11. /02602938.2018.1463354.
  12. Chen, S. & H. Nassaji. 2018. Focus on Form and Corrective Feedback Research at the University of
  13. Victoria, Canada. Lang. Teach., 51(2): 278–283. doi:10.1017/S026 144481800006X.
  14. Cuenca, A., M. Schmeichel, B. M. Butler, T. Dinkelman & J.R. Nichols. 2011. Creating a “Third Space”
  15. in Student Teaching: Implications for the University Supervisors Status as an Outsider. Teaching
  16. and Teacher Education, 27: 1068–1077. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.05.003.
  17. Darling-Hammond, L. 2006. Powerful Teacher Education: Lessons from Exemplary Programs. San
  18. Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
  19. Ferguson: 2011. Student Perceptions of Quality Feedback in Teacher Education. Assessment &
  20. Evaluation in Higher Education, 36, 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930903197883.
  21. Given, L. M. (Ed.) 2008. The SAGE Encyclopaedia of Qualitative Research Methods. London, UK: SAGE
  22. Publications, Inc.
  23. Govaerts, M., M. Van De Wiel & C. Van Der Vleuten. 2013. Quality of Feedback Following
  24. Performance Assessments: Does Assessor Expertise Matter? European Journal of Training and
  25. Development, 37(1): 105–125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090591311293310.
  26. Grunbaum, N.N. 2007. Identification of Ambiguity in the Case Study Research Typology. What Is a
  27. Unit of Analysis? Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 10(1): 78–97. https://doi.
  28. org/1 0.1108/13522750710720413.
  29. Gürsoy, N., E. Bulunuz, S. B. Goktalay, M. Bulunuz, J. Kesner & U. Saliho?lu. 2013. Clinical
  30. Supervision Model to Improve Supervisory Skills of Cooperating Teachers and University
  31. Supervisors During Teaching Practicum. Hacettepe University Journal of the Faculty of Pharmacy, 1,
  32. –203. https://www.efderg.hacettepe.edu.tr-volume-1.
  33. Gürsoy, E. & E. Damar. 2011. Cooperating Teachers’ Awareness About Their Role During the
  34. Teaching Practicum Course: The Turkish Context. E-Journal of New World Sciences Academy, 6(1):
  35. –65.https://avesis.uludag.edu.tr/yayin/1e727682–61d3–44ae-844cddd7006c9f5c/ cooperatingvolume-6.
  36. Harris, L. R., G. T. L. Brown & J. Harnett. 2014. Understanding Classroom Feedback Practices: A Study of
  37. New Zealand Student Experiences, Perceptions & Emotional Responses. Educational Assessment,
  38. Evaluation & Accountability, 26(2): 107–133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092–013–9187–5.
  39. Hattie, J. & H. Timperley. 2007. The Power of Feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1): 91–
  40. https://www.columbia.edu-volume-77.
  41. Henderson, M. & M. Phillips. 2015. Video-Based Feedback on Student Assessment: Scarily Personal.
  42. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(1): 51–66. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1878.
  43. Holmeier, M., R. Grob, J.A. Nielsen, S. Rönnebeck & M. Ropohl 2018. Written Teacher Feedback:
  44. Aspects of Quality, Benefits and Challenges. In: Dolin J., Evans R. (Eds) Transforming Assessment.
  45. Contributions from Science Education Research, Vol 4. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978–
  46. –319-63248–3_7.
  47. Hung, S.-T. A. 2016. Enhancing Feedback Provision Through Multimodal Video Technology.
  48. Computers & Education, 98, 90-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.03.009.
  49. Jonsson, A. 2013. Facilitating Productive Use of Feedback in Higher Education. Active Learning in
  50. Higher Education, 14(1): 63–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787412467125.
  51. Kagoda, A. M. & J. Sentongo. 2015. Practicing Teachers’ Perceptions of Teacher Trainees:
  52. Implications for Teacher Education. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 3(2): 148–153. doi,
  53. 13189/ujer.2015.030211.
  54. Komba, S.C. & E.S. Kira. 2013. The Effectiveness of Teaching Practicum in Improving StudentTeachers Teaching Skills in Tanzania. Journal of Education and Practice, 4(1): 156 -163.
  55. Kyaruzi, F., J.W. Strijbos, S. Ufer & G.T. L. Brown. 2019. Students’ Formative Assessment
  56. Perceptions, Feedback Use and Mathematics Performance in Secondary Schools in Tanzania.
  57. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 26(3): 278–302. https://doi.org/ 10.
  58. /0969594x.2019.1593103.
  59. Lekule, T. A. 2017. Teaching Practicum in Tanzania: Issues Related to Student-Teacher
  60. Overcrowding in Urban Secondary Schools. Tanzania Journal of Education, 3, 61–75. https://www.
  61. researchgate.net/publication/344769671_volume_3.
  62. Lipnevich, A. & F. Van Der Kleij. 2021. Student Perceptions of Assessment Feedback: A Critical
  63. Scoping Review and Call for Research. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability.
  64. (2): 14–25. doi:10.1007/s11092–020-09331–x.
  65. Lichtman, M. 2010. Qualitative Education Research: A User’s Guide (2nd Ed.). Los Angeles: Sage
  66. Publishing, Inc.
  67. Lofthouse, R. 2018. Beyond Mentoring; Peer Coaching by and for Teachers. Can It Live Up to Its Promise?
  68. Collectived [Online]. Special Issue, June, Pp. 4–6. Accessed from:
  69. /media/files/research/bursaries-2015/ncs-collectived-special edition. pdf?la=en>.
  70. Lunenberg, M., J. Dengerink, F. Korthagen. 2014. The Professional Teacher Educator: Roles, Behaviour
  71. & Professional Development of Teacher Educators. New York: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/
  72. –94–6209-518–2.
  73. Mahende, G. A. & N. Mabula. 2014. Is Teaching Practicum for Grading or Improvement? Examining
  74. Student-Teachers’ Perception and Experience at the University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
  75. African Educational Research Journal 2(1): 1–11. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ej1216976.
  76. Mbalamula, Y. S. 2016. Professional Scaffolding of Student-Teachers During Practicum in Tanzania:
  77. Roles, Skills & Challenges. Asian Research Journal of Arts & Social Sciences, 1(6): 1–14. http://hdl.
  78. handle.net/20.500.12661/3024.
  79. Mcdonald, L. 2014. Visiting Lecturers: Perceptions of Their Role in Supervising STs on Practicum
  80. Education. Journal of Education and Training, 1(2): 210-222. https://doi.org/10.5296/jet.v1i2.5763.
  81. Merc, A. 2015. Assessing the Performance in EFL Teaching Practicum: Student-Teachers’ View.
  82. International Journal of Higher Education, 4(2): 44–56. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v4n2p44.
  83. Msangya, B. W., S. L. Mkoma & W. Yihuan. 2016. Teaching Practicum Experience for Undergraduate
  84. Student-Teachers: A Case Study of the Department of Education at Sokoine University of
  85. Agriculture, Tanzania. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(14): 113–118. https://eric.ed.gov/
  86. ?id=ej1103037.
  87. Nassaji, H. 2017. Negotiated Oral Feedback in Response to Written Errors. In H. Nassaji & E.
  88. Kartchava (Eds.). Corrective Feedback in Second Language Teaching and Learning: Research, Theory,
  89. Applications, Implications. New York: Routledge.
  90. Nicol, D. 2010. From Monologue to Dialogue: Improving Written Feedback Processes in Mass
  91. Higher Education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35, 501–517. https://doi.org/
  92. 1080/02602931003786559.
  93. O’Neila, K., J. M. Krauseb & S. Douglasb. 2017. University Supervisor Perceptions of Live Remote
  94. Supervision in Physical Education Teacher Education. International Journal of Kinesiology in Higher
  95. Education, 1(4): 113–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/24711616.2017.1328190.
  96. Rosemary, N., N. Richard & R. Ngara. 2013. Teaching Practicum Supervision and Assessment as a
  97. Quality Assurance Tool in Teacher Training: Perceptions of Prospective Teachers at Masvingo
  98. Teacher Training Colleges. European Social Sciences Research Journal, 1(1): 126–135. https://www.
  99. semanticscholar.org/paper_volume_1.
  100. Schuldt, L. C. 2019. Feedback in Action: Examining Teachers’ Oral Feedback to Elementary Writers.
  101. Teaching and Teacher Education, 83, 64–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.03.020.
  102. Shute, V. 2008. Focus on Formative Feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1): 153–189.
  103. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313795.
  104. Talvitie, U., L. Peltokallio & P. Mannisto. 2000. Student-Teachers’ Views About Their Relationships
  105. with University Supervisors, Cooperating Teachers and Peer Student-Teachers. Scandinavian
  106. Journal of Educational Research, 44(1): 79-88. https://doi.org/10.1080/713696662.
  107. Taylor, C. & Burke Da Silva, K. 2014. An Analysis of the Effectiveness of Feedback to Students on
  108. Assessed Work. Higher Education Research & Development, 33(4): 794–806. https://doi.org/ 10.
  109. /07294360.2013.863840.
  110. Thurlings, M., M. Vermeulen, T. Bastiaens & S. Stijnen. 2013. Understanding Feedback: A Learning
  111. Theory Perspective. Educational Research Review, 9: 1–15. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ej999458.
  112. University of Dar es Salaam (UDSM). 2008. University of Dar es Salaam Teaching Practice Guideline–
  113. /2009. Dar es Salaam: University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
  114. —. 2019. University of Dar es Salaam Teaching Practice Guideline–2019/2020. Dar es Salaam:
  115. University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
  116. —. 2020. Teaching Practice Report Book–2020/2021. Dar es Salaam: University of Dar es Salaam,
  117. Tanzania.
  118. Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in Society. Cambridge: MIT-Press.
  119. Winstone, N. E., R.A. Nash, M. Parker & J. Rowntree. 2017. Supporting Learners’ Agentic
  120. Engagement with Feedback: A Systematic Review and Taxonomy of Recipience Processes.
  121. Educational Psychologist, 52(1): 17–37. doi, 10.1080/00461520.2016.1207538.
  122. Young, A. & Macphail, A. 2014. Standing on the Periphery: Cooperating Teachers’ Perceptions and
  123. Responses to the Role of Supervision.European Physical Education Review, 21(2) 222–237.
  124. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X14557582.
Read More
##article.author_biographies_not_available##

##submission.howToCite##

Feedback Preferences of University Student-Teachers from Supervisors and their Rationale in Teaching Practicum. (2022). Journal of Humanities & Social Science (JHSS), 10(6). https://doi.org/10.56279/jhss.v10i6.119
##article.download##

##plugins.generic.recommendBySimilarity.heading##

##plugins.generic.recommendBySimilarity.advancedSearchIntro##