In a case analysis, probing instructor feedback with required revise-and-resubmit moved one teacher candidate toward citing student evidence, though his progress was not linear and another candidate did not improve¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · design r3 · q1
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q1 i? The clinical instructor's probing feedback and opportunity to resubmit guided candidates, notably Marcus, toward citing specific student evidence for their conclusions about understanding. → Janis 2025 q1 i? Progress was not linear; some candidates reverted to vague descriptions and did not improve on all criteria despite interventions. → Janis 2025 (2)

Evidence¶

Janis 2025¶

Janis, S., Schmeichel, M., Grace, C., Wegrzyn, K., & Lee, J. (2025). Making Learning Visible: Shaping Teacher Candidates' Pedagogical Judgment in Clinical Experiences. Journal of Educational Supervision 8(3). https://doi.org/10.69772/jes.8.3.1

q1 · case analysis of individual candidates' submissions · i? · design · r3

Case analysis of Marcus's weekly submissions. After probing feedback ("You need evidence from the students' responses to answer this question. Please revise and resubmit"), Marcus added cited student evidence such as students who "pulled out specific information from the text."

"By focusing Marcus' attention to the elements that were lacking in his assessment of student understandings, and offering him an opportunity to resubmit, the clinical instructor played a strategic role in guiding Marcus towards more sophisticated pedagogical judgment."

Janis 2025 (2)¶

Janis, S., Schmeichel, M., Grace, C., Wegrzyn, K., & Lee, J. (2025). Making Learning Visible: Shaping Teacher Candidates' Pedagogical Judgment in Clinical Experiences. Journal of Educational Supervision 8(3). https://doi.org/10.69772/jes.8.3.1

q1 · case analysis of individual candidates' submissions · i? · design · r3

The same case analysis notes non-linear progress: Marcus sometimes "reverted to vague descriptions of student understandings." Alice "did not improve her capacity to attend to individual students" and persisted in blaming students, so improvement was partial and criterion-specific.

"It is important to note that Marcus’ progress was not linear; some of his responses were enhanced following feedback from the clinical instructor."

Studies bearing on this claim¶

Does requiring learners to revise and resubmit after feedback improve the work, and when do repeated resubmissions stop helping? This table gathers the studies behind this claim and the 2 narrower claims that bear on it: 2 distinct studies (1 design, 1 causal), q1–q3, 1 of 2 with an effect size coded. One row per study, codes as each entry records them; no effect is averaged and no verdict is drawn. Built by scripts/synthesize_claim.py from eval/synthesis/; a row that looks wrong is fixed on the claim it comes from.

Discussion¶

Both entries are one qualitative case analysis (Janis et al. 2025) of individual teacher candidates' weekly submissions, with no comparison condition. The improvement is shown for one candidate (Marcus), and was partial and non-linear; another candidate (Alice) did not improve on attending to individual students. The page is therefore an illustration of how the feedback worked in one clinical course, not evidence that it moves candidates in general.

Related Claims¶

• Students' argumentative essay quality improves substantially from initial to revised drafts regardless of feedback source — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it

• Questioning Strategies Improve Learning — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it

• Process Writing Improves Writing Quality — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it

• Assessment for learning improves achievement — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it

• In a qualitative case study of three social-studies teacher candidates, pedagogical judgment appeared to grow over a clinical semester of structured, iterative support aligned to rubric competencies — a broader claim this one bears on
• Revised post-teaching prompts (RPTAA) advanced candidates' capacity for more sophisticated analysis compared with the original prompts (PTAA) — related
• Feedback Addressing Task Improves Learning — a broader claim this one bears on
• Research on clinical supervision's effectiveness is inconclusive, partly because practice is diluted and tied to evaluation — related
• Students perceived online lab exercises as more effective when instructors were present online and used scaffolds and probes directing attention to key procedure aspects — related
• Actionable and descriptive feedback moves student learning forward, and effective feedback differs from less-effective feedback on identifiable qualities — related
• Teacher feedback as part of formative assessment has been shown by multiple studies to move student learning forward — related
• Lasting pedagogical change is more likely when teachers try out strategies, receive feedback, and iteratively improve across multiple workshops — a broader claim this one bears on
• Claremont residents develop lesson planning skill through 5 weeks of iterative revision with instructor feedback before clinical placements — related
• Qualitative analysis confirms the agent can identify confusing lesson content and provide actionable feedback for designers — related
• Feedback probing for deeper conceptual understanding is reported to be particularly effective in classwide peer feedback, though cognitively more demanding — related
• Descriptively, monitoring interventions with teacher feedback on entries and direct revision opportunities showed higher effects — related