| Summary: | Philosophiae Doctor - PhD (English) === Feedback plays an important role in student learning and development in higher
education. However, for various reasons, it is often not as effective as it should be. Many studies
have attempted to ‘solve’ the feedback situation by finding new ways to give feedback, or by
exploring the various perceptions around feedback to see where the problem lies. In many of
these studies, however, the purpose of feedback within disciplines are taken for granted or not
actively made visible. This study therefore explores how (or whether) the practice of feedback
aligns with the often hidden, taken for granted purpose of feedback in a discipline.
The study focused specifically on English Studies, an undergraduate first year literature
course at the University of the Western Cape. As the nature of the discipline is often invisible,
even to those who are familiar with the course, the study drew on Legitimation Code Theory,
and specifically the dimensions of Specialisation and Semantics, to make the invisible purpose of
the discipline more visible. In so doing, it sought to enable a clearer understanding of what the
purpose of feedback should be; namely, consistent with the underlying purpose of the
discipline. English Studies was classified as a rhizomatic knower code, which means that what is
valued in the discipline is not possessing knowledge as a study-able concept, but rather
possessing the required aptitudes, attitudes, and dispositions. Feedback plays an important role
in developing these knower attributes.
The study took a qualitative case study approach to obtain a full, detailed account of
tutors’ feedback-giving practices. Data was collected from a small group of participant tutors,
via questionnaires, focus group meetings, individualised interviews, and written feedback on
sample essays provided by the tutors. 962 comments, spread over 65 essays, were analysed.
The study found that, in terms of Specialisation, there was a misalignment between the
purpose and the practice of feedback: feedback did not predominantly and/or progressively
focus more on making the knower code more visible. Instead, the feedback was largely focused
on a relativist code and a knowledge code. This indicates that students may be being misled
about what is valued in the discipline. Additionally, in terms of Semantics, it was found that the
feedback, given on single-draft submissions, would be more useful in a drafting cycle and that
learning from the feedback was made difficult by the context-dependent comments that were
either too complex to be enacted, or would be more appropriate in a drafting cycle.
Ultimately, it was found that if there is not a careful consideration of what feedback
should focus on, students may be misled about what is valued in the discipline. This could have
effects beyond merely passing or failing the course.
|
|---|
