La calidad del servicio en salud

Date & Time

Location Descriptive Notes

(Feedback type: e.g. +, -, descriptive, judgmental, product, process, verbal, written)

Reflection Notes

9/14/17 12:40pm

Rm 315 -Came in on “Giant Steps” math facts review game that requires selected kids to shout out facts w/accuracy. Students get immed. Fdbk on correct answ.

-Students w/ outburst quickly redirected.

-Students not responding are selected @ least once to participate

Elmo @ back of room, quick transition to front to keep attn. on teacher and work up front.

-winner in round gets some kind of class “bucks” -2nd round new students are selected from room. -close answers are acknowledged (effort); moves around room so all participants can see. At point of shot being taken, nearly all students sit up.

-corrected behavior: “say sorry.”

-what are class demographics? -who is IS? I get the sense that she follows teacher lead w/ regard to fdbk & class mngmt. Is that correct? Is there a school-wide procedure? Did they coordinate? -“you guys are good, that’s impressive. 12s are getting

better already.”

-“Tracking me in front in 3, 2, 1…” is apparent code for getting students attn. back on teacher.

-“Good job front group.” “Good job David’s group.” as students transition to next activity.

-How are class (behavior) points used?

-Constant reminder of opp. to resume “fun games” after more work done. “1st _{one done I’ll drop bucks off}

back here.” “Very nice job getting started, I’ll give you another 100 [pts] if you stay there.”

-Calls out names of students working hard (acknowl. effort)

-Nearly everyone (18 kids) appears on task.

Appendix J: Feedback Typology Chart

Note: This diagram is the sole creation of Nichole L. Griffin (2018). It is based on the Tunstall and Gipps (1996) typology research.

Appendix K: Permission to use SDT Instruments

Deci, Edward <[email protected]> Fri 10/28, 8:56 AM Griffin, Nichole

You have our permission to use the Self-Regulation Questionnaire-Academic and the Perceived Competence Scale for your personal research. And it is fine to use the continuum figure in your dissertation. If you publish the dissertation in a journal, you will need to check with the

publisher of that journal because they hold the copyright. Ed Deci

--

Edward L. Deci

Professor of Psychology and

Helen F. & Fred H. Gowen Professor in the Social Sciences University of Rochester

P.O. Box 270266 (for US Mail) 355 Meliora Hall (for Couriers) Rochester, NY 14627

Office Phone: 585-275-2461 Office Fax: 585-273-1100

Email: [email protected]

Web site: selfdeterminationtheory.org

FW: Permission to use instruments

Shannon Hoefen <[email protected]>

Reply all| Fri 10/28/2016, 3:45 PM Griffin, Nichole Action Items Dear Nichole,

Thank you for your interest in Self-Determination Theory.

We gladly make the SDT scales and metrics available via our website

(http://selfdeterminationtheory.org/questionnaires/) solely for academic purposes and use (e.g.,

dissertation/thesis studies or research related directly to academic work and possible journal publication, and not directly or indirectly related to any commercial application or for-profit use). These scales are proprietary and individuals have taken a lot of time and resources to develop them, which is why we do not grant commercial use (directly or indirectly) without specific written permission.

If you intend to use the scales for commercial purposes (directly or indirectly), please reply to this email and provide a brief scope of your work.

If your intended use is for academic purposes only (which it sounds like it is), then you have our permission to use the “SRQ-A & PCS” scales. We just ask that you follow these guidelines:

· When administering the scale, please include the following credit line:

Copyright © 1982-2016 by Self-Determination Theory. Reproduced [or Adapted] with permission. Please note that the use of Self- Determination Theory information and materials does not imply endorsement by Self-Determination Theory.

• When citing the scale in publication, please include one of the references to the scale which can be found on the website at: http://selfdeterminationtheory.org/self-regulation- questionnaires/ & http://selfdeterminationtheory.org/perceived-competence-scales/

• Should your work/research be published, please email us and let us know. We try to keep track of the latest SDT publications.

You also have our permission to use the motivation continuum for your doctorate studies.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to reach out to us.

Best wishes with your research, Shannon

Copyright © 1982-2016 by Self-Determination Theory. Reproduced [or Adapted] with permission. Please note that the use of Self- Determination Theory information and materials does not imply endorsement by Self-Determination Theory

Copyright © 1982-2016 by Self-Determination Theory. Reproduced [or Adapted] with permission. Please note that the use of Self- Determination Theory information and materials does not imply endorsement by Self-Determination Theory.

Appendix M: Perceived Competence Scale

Copyright © 1982-2016 by Self-Determination Theory. Reproduced [or Adapted] with permission. Please note that the use of Self- Determination Theory information and materials does not imply endorsement by Self-Determination Theory.

Appendix N: Codes and Themes

Open-code Themes

Impact of feedback (student perspective)

Impact of feedback (students) Measuring impact of feedback

Sense of (developing) competence Relatedness

Validation from feedback

Amotivation factors - lack of intent to perform Negative rapport with teacher (relatedness) No value of task or no interest

Using feedback for change or improvement What most motivates students to work

Motivation to work (students) Good grades (external)*

Learning for fun

Teacher compliment (relatedness) Ease of the work; review, familiarity Amount of time

Sources of student motivation Goals or plans (short or long term) Gauging ability

Gauging academic ability (students)

Perception of ability

Student perception of competence

Met set criteria (i.e. grades, score, points, votes etc.) * Amount of time on task

Positive response or feedback from others Possess materials or resources

Able to perform all parts of task or complete multi parts Apply the skill or concept in another context

Perception of ability *Grades – this theme was not

explicitly noted as a code because it was a consistent part of myriad other open codes and themes. Due to its prevalence across codes and themes, it warrants categorization as a theme. Where no enumeration is listed, the code was embedded in a previously listed code.

Good grades (external)*

Met set criteria (i.e. grades, score, points, votes etc.) * Grades as feedback (student thoughts)

Impact on autonomy Source of motivation

Expectation for achievement Student effort

Amount of time on task* Expectation for achievement

Emulate people they look up to or admire

Teachers Using feedback: evaluative v

descriptive Evaluative

Evaluative How teachers use feedback

Purpose of feedback to students* Target behavior

Evaluative feedback Descriptive feedback Direction of feedback

Feedback to enforce or introduce procedure Types of feedback (student perception)

Purpose of feedback to students* Value of feedback Frequency of feedback

Teachers evaluate effectiveness of feedback Evaluating effectiveness What teachers define feedback as Defining Feedback

Appendix O: Reflexive Journal Excerpts

Reflexive Journal Entry

January 17th: so yesterday (1/17) I met with Ms. Iverson and conducted an observation of her. I'm discussing the second observation in the research process, the first one was with her seventh grade class; the second one was with her sixth grade class. There was a point where I felt like the behaviors got in the way but at the same time I think that's a part of her approach to her management strategy. But more than that, I did notice or pay attention to her feedback styles and she very much does try to give them descriptive feedback regarding their task, if not

necessarily the process. So I'll continue to analyze both her interview in light of the typology of feedback from the Tunstall and Gipps article. I also analyzed the data in light of her interview and the student questionnaires.

Reflexive Journal Entry

1/25/18: Today I followed up with Ice on an interview; had a couple questions based off of the transcription of his initial interview. I tried to ask more pointed questions. And by pointed I mean questions related to the topic of feedback on formative assessments. I also asked questions to clarify some of his responses in the initial interview that were to me, unclear. What I found, even the second time around is, and I hope this doesn't sound arrogant, he just seems to have a very limited per view, which is what I thought initially, about what feedback is. Or, his way of conveying and articulating what feedback is, is not at a place where... I'm not at a place where I can understand it fully- understand him fully. Which ultimately leads me back to one of my initial points: there just seems to be no universal understanding or working definition of feedback that teachers use as a way to guide what they would consider or apply as feedback. Which leads

teacher training but also another area of further research and study; how teachers create working definitions for concepts and what does that look like when they begin to apply their working definition to a task at hand. That puts me in the mind of what we talked about in my public admin classes, regarding the difference between the intention of a policy and its actual implementation.