PERCEPTIONS OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP STUDENTS ON CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK IN RESEARCH SHARING AMONG PEERS IN IN-CLASS ACADEMIC CONFERENCES IN PRIVATE POLYTECHNICS IN CROSS RIVER STATE
Abstract
The study focused on perceptions of entrepreneurship students on corrective feedback in research
sharing among peers in in-class academic conferences in private polytechnics in Cross River State. Two research questions and two hypotheses guided the study. Survey design was adopted. A total of 126entrepreneurship studentsfrom the four polytechnics in the study area made up the population. There was no sample since the population was manageable. A structured questionnaire was constructed, validated and used for data collection. Reliability coefficients of 0.85 and 0.88 were obtained for the two sections of the instrument using Cronbach Alpha. Mean and standard deviation were used to answer the research questions while t-test was used to test the hypotheses at.05 level of significance. The study found that the respondents did not differ in their mean ratings of their perception on the helpfulness of indirect feedback in research sharing among peers in in-class academic conferences as 10 out of 11 items on indirect feedback were rated as not helpful at all while one item was considered helpful. The respondents did not also differ in the mean ratings of their perception on the helpfulness of oral feedback in research sharing among peers in in-class academic conferences since 8 out of 10 items on verbal feedback were rated as not helpful at all while only two items were considered helpful. The test of
the null hypotheses revealed that male and female respondents did not differ significantly in the mean ratings ontheir perception on the helpfulness of indirect and oral feedback in research sharing among peers in in-class academic conferences in private polytechnics in Cross River State.It was recommended
among others that at academic conferences, feedback should be directed at assisting participants to know the strengths and weaknesses in conference papers and how to overcome them. Conference monitors should be used by organizers of academic conferences to observe the activity patterns of the
various groups and predict when intervention may be needed.
Key Words: Feedback delivery; research sharing; comprehensive conferences
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Agbor, T. (2008).Organizing academic conferences.Katung: Ted Publishers.
Ashwell, T. (2010). Patterns of teachers response to student writing in a multiple-draft
composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 222-257.
Bepsu, S.U. (2012). Pattern of interaction in teachers’ retraining workshops in South-South, .Unpublished M.Ed. Thesis, University of Calabar.
Bepsu, S.U., Udonno, U.S. and Stephen, B. U. (2015).Effect of written and verbal feedback on postgraduate students writing and presentation of seminar in tertiary institutions in South-South, . Unpublished M.Ed. Thesis, University of Calabar.
Black, P. and Williams, D (2006).Assessment for learning in the classroom. In: J. Gardner (Ed): Assessment in learning, London: Sage.
Bloxham, S. Boyd, P. (2008). Developing effective assessment in higher education: A practical guide. London: McGraw Hill.
Boud, A. G. (2000). Understanding organizational behavior. London: Harper and Row.
David, T. (2010).The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write
accurately.Journal of Modern Languages, 16, 255-272.
Falchikov, N. (2015). Improving feedback to and from students.In Knight, P.
(Ed).Assessment for learning in higher education.Staff and educational
development series. London: Kogan.
Fathman, A. and Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to student writing: Focus on form versus content. In Kroll, B. (Ed). Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom, pp. 178-190, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ferris, D. and Roberts, B. (2010). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161-184.
Ferris, D.R. (2010). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes. A response to Truscott.Journal of Second Language Writing, 2, 8-10.
Garrison, C. Epringhans, M. (2007).Formative and summative assessment in the classroom.National middle school association. Retrieved March 15, 2013 from
http://www.nmsa.org/Publication/Webexclusive/assessment/tabid/1120/default.aspx>
Loup, P. (1996). Understanding Feedback. New York: McGraw Hill Books.
Hattie, E. and Timpereley, P. (2007).Analysis of feedback and learning among undergraduate students.Journal of Advance Learning, 5(2), 10-15.
Mark, P. (Mark, 2012). Improving peer feedback, Journal of Advance Learning, 3(1), 7-10.
Rogers, L. (2006). Organizational behavior. New York: McGraw Hill Books.
Wigginns, G. (2014). Assessment as feedback.New horizons for learning.Retrieved 23/3/20-13 from www.marthalakecov.org/building/strategies/assess/wiggins.htm.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright © 2018 -2024. The Nigerian Journal of Business Education (NIGJBED) All Rights Reserved.
ISSN: 2408-4816 (PRINT) | ISSN: 2756-5912 (ONLINE)