Thrive 17 - Rethinking the implementation of Notebook system

A notebook system tracks a student's behaviour by providing feedback after each lesson so that he is constantly reminded of good behaviour. The student will be given a 1 if the teacher strongly disagrees with the observed behaviour as good and 5 of the teacher strongly agree.  

What happens when a student gets many 1 for the day and what happens when a student gets many 5 for the day and what happens when a students get a mixed and what happens when he gets all 1 except for a particular teacher in a particular class?

How can we help to facilitate students' thinking and reflection what the feedback that he collected from the teachers and build up this students feedback literacy?

Let's take a look at the current conceptual model.

Appreciating feedback - recognising the value and their active role in the process

K will be an example to see if he sees the notebook system as feedback from the teacher for him to improve and is willing to appreciate the fact that feedback is for the purpose of improvement. One important assumption is that if he is willing to seek feedback, the chance of improvement will be very high. So K conception of the notebook system has to be elicited and his role in the process has to be defined.

Without using the conceptual model, what we are doing is to let the students see that it is a restriction of freedom as they are closely watched from a behavioral perspective. They appreciate it a stimuli-response. "Once I dare to do wrong again, I will be punished immediately at the end of the day" Or "If I behave, I will be praised and released at the end of the day.  Which is more effective?

Making Judgements - the capacity to make judgments about the feedback given and about the "quality" of the behavior and make a sound judgment of own values over time

So if the remark given in the notebook is "talking loudly" - then the student needs to understand that talking loudly in class and disruptive the lesson is a low-quality behavior and there are better ways to improve the quality of this behavior - to talk softly or to write down this "talk" so that he does not talk at all unless being called upon.  

Writing "talking loudly" is just information and this information is not constructive for the student to take action. If so, the students will likely make the judgment to reject this feedback. So every feedback has to be discussed at the end of the day. It is dialogic. That is, the student has to acknowledge that he did talk loudly and clarify why he talk loudly. It could be shouting up to another student who is making unnecessary noise. But because this student is under the notebook system, only his action will be recorded and therefore, the remark has to be clarified. Then he needs to know that the response is a low-quality response in the context and he could then suggest what will be a better response.

Without using the conceptual model, what we are doing is that the judgment is feedback at the corrective level instead of at the constructive or interactive level, which has been hypothesize to be most effective if feedback is carried out at the interactive level if the interaction is constructive when learning academically. So does the hypothesis stands in this context?

Managing Affects - the feeling, emotions, and attitude toward critical feedback and develop habits to seek feedback internally and externally over time.

Students often give emotional and defensive if they perceived that the feedback lowers their self-esteem or deems the feedback being unfair. This emotional response can be regulated if the students trust the teacher. It is about the confidence that the students are able to make the change. Over time, the brief to be an honourable person can be developed.

Without using this conceptual model, what we are doing is assuming the emotional pain could reduce the behavior. Which is more effective?

Taking Action - aware the purpose of feedback, develop strategies and act on feedback to improve performance and learning.