MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313248612 · doi:10.21083/ajote.v11i2.7054

Perceptions of stakeholders on modalities for giving quality assurance feedback to tutors in teachers’ colleges in Tanzania

2022· article· en· W4313248612 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Isaack Augustine Choma, Boniface Raymond

Bibliographic record

VenueAfrican Journal of Teacher Education · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEducational Assessment and Improvement
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of Education, Science and TechnologyUniversity of Dar es Salaam
KeywordsQuality assuranceModalitiesTanzaniaQuality (philosophy)Modality (human–computer interaction)Medical educationPsychologyFocus groupMedicineMathematics educationComputer scienceSociologyBusinessMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.267
Threshold uncertainty score0.473

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.162
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.270 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAfrican Journal of Teacher EducationSame topicEducational Assessment and ImprovementFrench-language works237,207