Formative feedback in Air Instruction:
case study in the Operational Specialization Program
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22480/revunifa.2020.33.210Keywords:
Feedback, Debriefing, Air Instruction, LearningAbstract
This scientific article aims to evaluate to what extent the characteristics of formative feedback influence the
learning of pilots of the Brazilian Air Force enrolled in the Operational Specialization Program (PESOP)
2020. It has as a theoretical basis the studies of Mory (2004), Hattie and Timperley (2007) and Shute (2008).
In the studies, it was identified which characteristics of formative feedback are most effective and efficient in
promoting learning. Subsequently, in order to identify which of the characteristics of formative feedback
influence flight learning, a five-point questionnaire on the Likert scale (1932) was sent to 77 pilots registered
at PESOP 2020. The responses were analyzed using box-plot graphics, histograms and medians, in four
different groups: what should be done, what should be avoided, the most appropriate time to proceed with the student’s feedback and student’s characteristics. The results, in the perception of the studied pilots,
indicated similarity of the characteristics of the formative feedback when applied in the debriefing of the aerial instruction, leading to a model of good practices for the flight debriefing. Thus, the
conclusions obtained by this work will serve as a scientific basis for the improvement of air instruction
not only within the scope of Ala 10 and the Brazilian Air Force, but also useful to all those who are destined
to teach the art of flying.
References
BANGERT-DROWNS, R. L., KULIK, C. C, KULIK, J. A., MORGAN, M. T. The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research, 67,213-238, 1991.
BOAVENTURA, E. M. Metodologia da Pesquisa: monografia, dissertação e tese. São Paulo: Atlas, 2004
BRASIL. Comando da Aeronáutica. DCA 11-45. Concepção Estratégica Força Aérea 100. Brasília, DF, 2016.
______. Congresso Nacional. Estratégia Nacional de Defesa: Decreto Legislativo nº 373, de 25 de setembro de 2013a. Disponível em: <http://www.defesa.gov.br/arquivos/2012/mes07/end.pdf>. Acesso em: 04 jun. 2020.
______. Senado Federal. Constituição Federal. Brasília: Senado Federal, 2013b.
COCHRAN, W. G. Técnicas de amostragem. Sampling Techniques. Tradução de Fernando A. Moreira Barbosa. Rio de Janeiro: Aliança para o Progresso, 1965. p55.
COOPER, N. J. Facilitating learning from formative feedback in level 3 assessment, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(3), pp. 279–291, 2000.
CORREA, S. M. B. B. Probabilidade e estatística. 2. ed. Belo Horizonte: PUC Minas Virtual, 2003.
GÜNTHER, H. Como elaborar um questionário (série: Planejamento de pesquisa em ciências sociais, n° 1). Brasíla, DF: UnB, Laboratório de psicologia ambiental, 2003.
HATTIE, John; TIMPERLEY, Helen. The power of feedback. Review of educational research, v. 77, n. 1, p. 81-112, 2007.
LIKERT, R. A technique for the Measurement of Attitudes, Archives of Psychology, 1932.
LUCKESI, C. C. Avaliação da Aprendizagem escolar: estudo e proposições. 14ª Ed. São Paulo: Cortez, 2002.
MORENO, R. Decreasing cognitive load for novice students: Effects of explanatory versus corrective feedback in discovery-based multimedia. Instructional Science, 32,99-113, 2004.
MORY, Edna H. Feedback research revisited. Handbook of research on educational communications and technology, v. 2, p. 745-783, 2004.
OLIVEIRA, Maria Marly. Sequência didática interativa no processo de formação de professores. Petrópolis, RJ: Vozes, 2013.
PERRENOUD, P. Avaliação: da excelência à regulação das aprendizagens: entre duas lógicas. Porto Alegre: Artmed, 1999.
PRODANOV, C. C. Metodologia do Trabalho Científico: Métodos e Técnicas da Pesquisa e do Trabalho Acadêmico. 2ª Ed. Novo Hamburgo, Feevae, 2013.
SADLER, R. Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems.
Instructional Science, 18, 119–144, 1989.
SHUTE, Valerie J. Focus on formative feedback. Review of educational research, v. 78, n. 1, p. 153-189, 2008.
WOODS, D.D.; SARTER, N.B. Learning from Automation Surprises and “Going Sour” Accidents: Progress on Human-Centered Automation. NASA Ames Research Center. Moffet Field, CA, 1998.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 Revista da UNIFARevista da UNIFA permite que o (s) autor (es) mantenha(m) seus direitos autorais sem restrições. Atribuição-NãoComercial 4.0 Internacional (CC BY-NC 4.0) - Revista da UNIFA é regida pela licença CC-BY-NC
