Perceptions of stakeholders on modalities for giving quality assurance feedback to tutors in teachers’ colleges in Tanzania
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Effective dialogic feedback demands active zonal quality assurance officers and tutors. The use of oral and written modalities to provide quality assurance feedback on learning environment in teachers’ colleges could make tutors more active in teaching. This article appraises modalities used to give feedback to tutors; and analyses the modalities regarded by tutors and quality assurance officers as effective in Tanzania. The article adopts a qualitative multiple-case study involving thirty-four respondents from three teachers’ training colleges in Tanzania. Data were collected using in-depth interviews, focus group discussions and documentary reviews with tutors. It is revealed that oral and written modalities were mainly used to give quality assurance feedback to tutors in teachers’ colleges. Moreover, these feedback modalities do not have a bearing on the effectiveness of learning in the studied institutions. The paper also identifies significant differences between the quality of oral and written feedback. Tutors tend to prefer oral to written quality assurance feedback modality. Specifically, tutors perceived oral quality assurance feedback modality as the most effective way as it allows for more interaction, collaboration and dialogue between tutors and zonal school quality assurance officers. On the other hand, zonal quality assurance officers prefer written to oral quality assurance feedback modality as most effective for permanent record keeping in the majority of cases. Moreover, written feedback is the only means by which quality assurance stakeholders get to know about the state of quality of education provision in teachers’ colleges. It was also found that the new framework for giving quality assurance feedback was adopted and implemented before tutors were adequately oriented to the framework. It is, therefore, recommended that before quality assurance framework and its modalities of giving quality assurance feedback are changing feedback modalities, the government should first consider adequate training of zonal quality assurance officers for them to perceive feedback as a dialogic process.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».