Teachers’ Accounts of Their Perceptions and Practices of Providing Written Feedback to Nursing Students on Their Assignments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Written feedback can facilitates students’ learning in several ways. However, the teachers’ practice of written feedback may be affected by various factors. This study aimed to explore the nurse teachers’ accounts of their perceptions and practices of providing written feedback. A descriptive exploratory design was employed in the study. A purposive sample of 12 teachers from nursing institutions in Karachi, Pakistan, participated in the study. Using a semi-structured guide, in-depth interviews were conducted with the participants, between January-September, 2013. The interviews were tape recorded and transcribed verbatim and were manually content analyzed. The analysis of findings led to three sections: teachers’ conceptions about written feedback, teachers’ practices of providing written feedback, and factors that affect the teachers’ practices of providing written feedback to their students. The findings indicated that although the teachers realize the importance of written feedback and its impact on students’ learning, several factors, including teachers’ competence and commitment, students’ receptivity, and contextual barriers, affected their practices. To actualize the potential power of teachers’ written feedback in students’ learning, both teachers and institutional administrators need to realize the importance of written feedback. Moreover concerted efforts including teachers’ development and policies are required to overcome the factors that negatively influence the practices of written feedback.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".