Ir al menú de navegación principal Ir al contenido principal Ir al pie de página del sitio
logo

Artículos de Investigación

Vol. 5 Núm. 10 (2025): Revista Simón Rodríguez

Retroalimentación formativa de los docentes

Formative feedback from teachers
Publicado
2025-10-30

En el contexto educativo contemporáneo, la retroalimentación formativa surge como un elemento fundamental para el desarrollo de competencias, que trasciende la mera corrección del desempeño. El propósito de este estudio fue identificar los niveles de retroalimentación formativa implementados por docentes en instituciones de educación básica. La metodología es cuantitativa, con diseño no experimental transeccional descriptivo. La población estuvo constituida por 142 docentes, de los cuales 115 participaron mediante muestreo no probabilístico intencional. El instrumento fue un cuestionario validado basado en el modelo de Mollo y Deroncele (2022), con alta confiabilidad (α = 0.902). Los resultados revelaron que el 18.3% presenta niveles inadecuados, el 47% niveles regulares, y el 34.8% niveles adecuados de retroalimentación formativa. El análisis dimensional evidenció mayores debilidades en retroalimentación heteroevaluativa (21.7% inadecuado) y metaevaluativa (22.6% inadecuado), mientras que la autoevaluativa mostró mejor desempeño (13.9% inadecuado). Las conclusiones confirman la necesidad de implementar programas de desarrollo profesional docente en competencias de retroalimentación formativa, particularmente en dimensiones evaluativas externas y metaevaluación.

In the contemporary educational context, formative feedback has emerged as a fundamental element for the development of competencies, transcending mere performance correction. The purpose of this study was to identify the levels of formative feedback implemented by teachers in basic education institutions. The methodology was quantitative, with a descriptive, cross-sectional, non-experimental design. The population consisted of 142 teachers, of whom 115 participated through purposive non-probability sampling. The instrument was a validated questionnaire based on the Mollo and Deroncele (2022) model, with high reliability (α = 0.902). The results revealed that 18.3% of teachers presented inadequate levels of formative feedback, 47% regular levels, and 34.8% adequate levels. Dimensional analysis showed greater weaknesses in hetero-evaluative (21.7% inadequate) and meta-evaluative (22.6% inadequate) feedback, while self-evaluative feedback showed better performance (13.9% inadequate). The findings confirm the need to implement professional development programs for teachers in formative feedback skills, particularly in external evaluation and meta-evaluation.

Número:
Vol. 5 Núm. 10 (2025): Revista Simón Rodríguez
Sección:
Artículos de Investigación

Referencias

  1. Andrade, H., y Brookhart, S. (2019). Classroom assessment as the co-regulation of learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 27(3), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2019.1571992
  2. Black, D., y Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education Principles Policy and Practice, 5, 7-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102
  3. Brown, G., Andersson, C., Winberg, M., Palmberg, B., y Palm, T. (2025). Teacher conceptions of assessment and feedback predicting formative feedback practices: helping students to not ignore improvement-oriented feedback. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2025.2468183
  4. Cano, E., Jardí, A., Lluch, L., y Martins, L. (2024). Improvement in the quality of feedback as an indication of the development of evaluative judgement. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 49(6), 824–837. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2024.2329170
  5. Evans, A. (2009). No Child Left Behind and the quest for educational equity: The role of teachers’ collective sense of efficacy. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 8, 64-91. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760802416081
  6. Hattie, J., y Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
  7. Henkel, C., Staniszewska, S., Marshall, J., & Cooper, N. (2025). The role of formative assessment in improving learning outcomes: A systematic review. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 37(1), 45-72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-025-09478-3
  8. Hernández, C., y Carpio, N. (2019). Introducción a los tipos de muestreo. Alerta, 2(1), 75-79. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/7622/762279683009.pdf
  9. Hernández, R., y Mendoza, C. (2018). Metodología de la Investigación: Las rutas cuantitativa, cualitativa y mixta. McGraw Hill. https://doi.org/10.17993/CcyLl.2018.15
  10. Ibarra-Sáiz, M., Gómez-Ruiz, M., y Balderas, A. (2025). Improving Learning Through Evaluative Judgement and Feedback Using a Technology-Enhanced Assessment Environment. Tech Know Learn, 20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-025-09858-2
  11. Kang, K., y Yu, M. (2025). Rapid cycle deliberate practice simulation with standardized prebriefing and video based formative feedback in advanced cardiac life support. Scientific Reports, 15(1), Article 97222. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-97222-w
  12. Lamberg, T., Gillette-Koyen, L., y Moss, D. (2020). Supporting teachers to use formative assessment for adaptive decision making. Mathematics Teacher Educator, 8(2), 37-58. https://doi.org/10.5951/MTE-2019-0005
  13. Loubster, N., Rauscher, W., y Blom, N. (2024). Types of formative feedback provided by technology teachers during practical assessment tasks. Modestum, 2265. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/14586
  14. Mikeska, J.., Howell, H., y Kinsey, D. (2024). Teacher Educators’ Use of Formative Feedback During Preservice Teachers’ Simulated Teaching Experiences in Mathematics and Science. Int J of Sci and Math Educ, 24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-024-10489-9
  15. Mingzhe, G., y Yasin, M. (2023). Relationship Between Teacher Formative Feedback Types, Self-Regulated Learning, And Perception of Feedback Among Chinese Public Middle School Students. International journal of academic research in business and social sciences, 13(12). http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v13-i12/20354
  16. Mngomezulu, H., Mkhize, T., y Nhlumayo, B. (2024). Learning: Grade 10 Physical Sciences Teachers’ Perspectives. Interdisciplinary Journal of Education Research, 6, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.38140/ijer-2024.vol6.10
  17. Mollo, M., y Deroncele, Á. (2022). Modelo de retroalimentación formativa integrada. Revista Universidad y Sociedad, 14(1), 391-401. https://rus.ucf.edu.cu/index.php/rus/article/view/2569/2518
  18. Rabbani, L., Tairab, H., Qablan, A., y Efstratopoulou, M. (2025). ‘Give–and–take in the practice of feedback’: Formative written feedback as perceived by the secondary science students and teachers. Cogent Education, 12(1), 2541994. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2025.2541994
  19. Romiti, S., y Mattarelli, E. (2023). Collective feedback as a formative assessment practice in an e-learning platform for teachers’ professional development. Qtimes Journal of education Technology and social studies, 23. https://doi.org/10.14668/QTimes_15176
  20. Sadler, D. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional science, 18(2), 119-144. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00117714
  21. Sánchez, F. (2019). Fundamentos epistémicos de la investigación cualitativa y cuantitativa: Consensos y disensos. Rev. Digit. Invest. Docencia Univ., 13(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.19083/ridu.2019.644
  22. Schildkamp, K., van der Kleij, F., Heitink, M., Kippers, W., y Veldkamp, B. (2020). Formative assessment: A systematic review of critical teacher prerequisites for classroom practice. International Journal of Educational Research, 103, 101602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101602
  23. Schön, D. (1992). La formación de profesionales reflexivos: Hacia un nuevo diseño de la enseñanza y el aprendizaje en las profesiones. https://josegastiel.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/schc3b6n-laformacion-de-profesionales-reflexivos-donald-schon.pdf
  24. Schut, A., Van Mechelen, M., Gielen, M., y de Vries, M. J. (2020). Towards constructive design feedback dialogues: Guiding peer and client feedback to simulate children’s creative thinking. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 32, 99-127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09612-y
  25. Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4–14. https://www.colorado.edu/education/media/318
  26. Smith, D. H., Fowler, M., Denny, P., y Zilles, C. (2025). Counting the trees in the forest: Evaluating prompt segmentation for classifying code comprehension level. Proceedings of the Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3724363.3729045
  27. Vera, E., Ríos, M., y Vargas, L. (2025). Critical reading and emergency remote education: A discursive textual analysis of research articles. Forum for Linguistic Studies, 7(6), Article 8370. https://doi.org/10.30564/fls.v7i6.8370