Scenario 2 ( Group work)

What does feedback for learning look like?

 

     Introduction

The feedback process in the learning cycle commences with the production and submission of student work, followed by teacher assessment of the work and feedback provision on it. The student then interprets the feedback in ways that may impact their learning development (Tang and Harrison 2010). One of the most valuable contributions anyone can make to another person’s learning is constructive feedback.  Ramsden (1992, 193) has argued that the most important item on student evaluation forms is the ‘teacher gave helpful feedback’. Whether as a student or as a teacher each one of us has the capacity to provide useful information to other people which will help them to learn more effectively (Boud 1991:19).

Institutional Context: QAA and University views

The QAA Code of Practice on Assessment (2006) contains the following precept on feedback: ‘Institutions provide appropriate and timely feedback to students on assessed work in a way that promotes learning and facilitates improvement but does not increase the burden of assessment’  (p.20). The accompanying commentary indicates that such feedback needs to be ‘sufficient, constructive and timely’ (ibid) and suggests some ways in which this can be achieved, bearing in mind the need for effective use of staff time. The focus is very much ‘feedback for learning’ with self, peer and group assessment put forward along with ways in which generic and anonymised feedback can assist learning. The document does however not define feedback or seem to provide a wider sense of feedback as central to all teaching,  and not only in relation to assessed work.

The University regulations also frame feedback as being in respect of assessed work.  These regulations regarding the provision of feedback are clear that the purpose of feedback is to be developmental and not to provide a benchmark between passing and failing.   Nevertheless, as a group, our point of view is that feedback should be conceptualised in a broader sense and permeate across all aspect of teaching and learning rather than solely being a response to formally assessed work.

In considering the PBL scenario we felt that the issues raised were:

• Mismatch between student and tutor understanding of the nature and purpose of feedback (c.f. Orsmond et al 2005 )

• How and when feedback is delivered

• What is the nature of good and effective feedback

We decided to focus on this third point when producing this report.

What does feedback for learning look like?

The two most widely cited sets of principles for good feedback are those provided by Gibbs and Simpson (2004) and Nicol and MacFarlane-Dick (2004).  Gibbs and Simpson discuss conditions under which feedback can better facilitate student learning: it should be

• sufficiently frequent and detailed

• timely for students

• focused on learning rather than marks or students

• linked to the purpose of assignment and criteria

• understandable to students

• received by students and attended to

• acted upon by students to improve work or learning.

Nicol and MacFarlane-Dick’s (2004:3) criteria are more helpful in that they address in greater detail the nature of feedback which aids learning and is more likely to be used by students.  They argue that good feedback should

• clarify what a good performance is

• facilitate the development of self -assessment (reflection) in learning

• deliver high quality information to learners about their learning

• encourage teacher and peer dialogue around learning

• encourage positive motivational beliefs and self-esteem

• provide opportunities to close the gap between current and desired performance

• provide information to teachers that can help shape their teaching.

One of the main problems appears to be how to assist students to understand when they are receiving feedback and how they might apply this to future learning.

Student understanding and use of feedback

What students focus on

Higgins et al (2002, p53) suggest that many universities are moving towards a customer service model of viewing students in which they are seen as “instrumental consumers of education, driven solely by the extrinsic motivation of the mark, and as such desire feedback which simply provides them with ‘correct answers’”.  Wojtas (1998) echoes this view stating that students are only interested in their grade or mark and pay little attention to feedback.  Ivanic et al (2000) suggest that students who are satisfied with the mark they receive are not inclined to take on feedback which might result in a higher mark in future submissions, but acknowledge that negative feedback might prove to be an incentive to a weaker student.

How students understand feedback

Orsmond et al (2005) point out that in order for students to make effective use of feedback it needs to be delivered at the level of the student’s understanding and tailored to their individual needs.  Brockbank and McGill (1998) suggest that students may be dissatisfied with the feedback they receive because they find the language used by tutors to be vague and unfamiliar.

A qualitative study undertaken by Lea and Street (2000) highlighted the fact that students often interpret the comments they receive differently from how they were intended.  Weaver (2006) suggested that a number of students in her study were unsure about some of the common terms used by tutors; this will clearly affect their ability to understand and make use of the feedback they receive.

Higgins et al (2002) acknowledged that the majority of the students surveyed indicated that they did recognise that feedback comments are useful for formative purposes.  Indeed they found that, rather than students being ‘instrumental and mechanistic’ and therefore simply preoccupied with receiving feedback which helps them to improve their grade, they were also interested in receiving feedback which focused on skills related to deeper learning.  However, the way in which feedback is delivered is crucial. Lillis and Turner (2001) suggest that if markers couch their criticisms in terms of suggestions this will lead to some students understanding that they need to take account of such comments in order to improve future submissions, whilst other students will consider the suggestions as optional.

Poulos and Mahony (2008: 152) highlight the fact that students do not hold a homogenous view of what effective feedback is and how it can be used.  They are particularly interested in the importance of feedback to first year students and suggest that ‘effective feedback for these students is that which provides emotional support and facilitates integration into university’.

We have therefore considered solutions to support students to understand feedback and its application for future learning. Overall, it is vital to ensure that feedback is part of a dialogue between actively engaged learners and teachers across all areas of the curriculum (Nicol 2010).  All of the points below seek to address this issue, although this is obviously not an exhaustive list.

Solutions

Peer and self assessment / personalised learning

Self assessment is considered one of the most important skills that students require for effective learning and for future professional development and life long learning (Bould 1986 , 1; Dearing 1997, 8,12;  McMillian and Hearn, 2008) .  This is also reflected in the QAA 2011 code of Practice on Assessment.

The defining characteristic of self-assessment is the involvement of students in identifying standards and criteria to apply to their work and making judgements about the extent to which they have met these criteria and standards (Bould 1991. 56 in Bould 1995. 12). Self assessment breaks down the divide between students and teachers and instead embraces the integration of learning and teaching. It gives responsibility to both students and tutors for assessment, teaching and learning, acknowledging that assessment is an integral part of the teaching and learning.

There are different levels of self assessment from self marking using model answers and criteria or student checklists, through to student assessment with integrated tutor feedback and Learning Contract Design (Boyd, Aydeymi-Bero and Blackwell 1985; Cowan 1984, 1988) whereby students self assess against their own criteria.  In Learning Contract Design the ‘Tutors role is simply to confirm that the conditions have been met’ (Cowan 2006) and is a cognitive view of learning placing learning reflection and decisions primarily in the hands of the learner.

Peer assessment can be equally effective in helping learners understand feedback and how to implement it, through the process of giving feedback to each other. Through peer assessment students need to engage in the outcomes, criteria and standards leading to a greater understanding of what is a good submission. Whilst peer assessment is defined as students grading the work or performance of their peers using relevant criteria (Falchikov 2005),  peer feedback is seen as having greater potential for learning. Peer learning via group working is another effective way of delivering immediate peer feedback whilst undergoing an activity. From our own group experience of the first two PBL tasks we acknowledge that deeper learning has occurred via discussions after reading the literature.

Separation of Feedback from Grade

In order to assist students to make sense of feedback in relation to their level of achievement, consideration could be given to providing students initially only with comments and asking them to self assess as for grade, taking into account the feedback received (Taras, 2010).  This encourages deeper learning approaches (Biggs, 2003).

Technological solutions for dialogic feedback

Hepplestone et al (2011) pointed out that appropriate use of learning technologies can encourage better engagement with feedback. An example of producing feedback electronically include the use of “ Track change” and “Comments” typed in a separate document or digital ink using a tablet PC (Plimmer and Mason 2006) providing individual feedback on student work.  Use of Class Communication Systems (CCS), audio and video feedback delivered through VLE can also be considered (Nicol and Milligan, 2006: 70). Other specific applications have been developed to aid group and peer assessment such as WebPA. This application enables tutors to know the contribution of individuals within a group task (Loddington et al, 2009).

Our reflections on areas for development

Within the School X there are plenty of opportunities for students to receive formative feedback, however more work could be done in modelling how the students submissions are assessed.  For example in programme B the focus of all summative modular assessment is via a reflective piece of writing accompanied by documentation, artefacts and research journals which is framed and put into context by the students reflective submission. There are opportunities for students to discuss and receive peer and tutor feedback relating to their creative outputs within ‘group crits’ but not their reflective statements. As a result of learning from this scenario strategies will be developed to support this.

Within School A there is little discussion regarding the provision of feedback which is developmental.  One issue arising from the External Examiners comments is the lack of developmental feedback for those students achieving the highest marks.  She was particularly concerned that one marker had noted ‘there is not really much I can say about areas for improvement’ yet had only given the student a mark of 70.   Following her concerns and comments markers are now tasked with considering how they can add to the feedback for those students who obtain good grades; clearly learning from the module will assist with this.

Within Programme C, one particular issue relates to the nature of the language used in standard feedback forms.  The guidelines for effective feedback above indicates that a stronger sense of dialogue with the student is needed.  One avenue for exploration is, therefore, development of the interactional and interpersonal elements of the language: this may be through use of oral feedback or conscious adoption of a particular style and format.  The use of standardised forms (often with tickboxes) may work against the sense of a personalised discussion with individual students.

Within school Y, one of the issues to consider is the role of the tutor in being a co-enquirer alongside the student in order to support the student to develop skills for deeper learning.  This is an area for development within the school given the close nature of tutor/student dialogue.

If we are to give effective feedback we may need to re-evaluate the relationship we have with our students in order to ensure that “at a certain point the quality of the work and its level of achievement…. are the students’ responsibility”. (University of Salford Regulations, 2011).

References:

Biggs J (2003). Teaching for Quality Learning University of Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press

Boud, D. 1991. Implementing student self-assessment. HERDSA Green Guide No 5.

Bould, D 1986. Implementing student self assessment. Sydney: Higher Ed. Research and Development Society of Australia

Bould, D 1995. Enhancing learning through self assessment. London: Kogan Page

Boyd, H.R., A. Adeyemi-Bero, and R.F. Blackhall. 1985. ‘Acquiring professional competence through learner-directed learning _ an undergraduate perspective’. Occasional Paper 7. Edinburgh: Royal Society of Arts (in Education for capability).

Brockbank A and McGill I (1998) Facilitating Reflective Learning in Higher Education. Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University

Cowan, J. (1984) ‘Acquiring professional competence through learning-directed learning’. Occasional Paper 7. London: Royal Society of Arts.

Cowan, J. (1988) ‘Struggling with self-assessment’. In Student autonomy in learning D.J. Boud (ed.) 192-210. London: Kogan Page.

Cowan, J (2006)  On becoming an innovative university teacher – reflection in action 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Dearing, S.R. 1997. Higher Education in the Learning Society. London: HMSO

Falchikov, N (2005) Improving assessment through student involvement (London, Routledge Falmer)

Gibbs, G and Simpson, C. (2004). Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education vol.1 pp.3-31.

Higgins R, Hartley P and Skelton A (2002) The conscientious consumer: Reconsidering the role of assessment feedback in student learning. Studies in Higher Education, 27 (1) pp.53-64

Hepplestone, S. et. al. (2011) Using technology to encourage student engagement with feedback: a literature review, Research in Learning Technology, vol.19, no.2 pp. 117-127 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/21567069.2011.586677

Ivanic R, Clark R and Rimmershaw R (2000) What am I supposed to make of this? The messages conveyed to students by tutors’ written comments, in: R. Lea and B. Stierer (Eds) Student writing in higher education. Buckingham: Open University Press

Lea M and Street B (2000) Student writing and staff feedback in higher education: an academic literacies approach. In M Lea and B Stierer (Eds) Student writing in higher education: new contexts. Buckingham: Open University Press

Lillis T and Turner J (2001) Student writing in higher education: contemporary confusion, traditional concerns, Teaching in Higher Education, 6 (1) pp.57-68

Loddington, S,  Pond K Wilkinson, N and Wilmot P (2009)’ A case study fo the development of WebPA: An online peer-moderated marking tool’ British Journal of Educational Research vol.40 issue 2

Mcmillian JH and Hearn J 2008 ‘student self-assessment: the key to stronger student motivation and achievment’ Educational Horizons vo. 86,1 pp.40-49

Nicol D (2010) From monologue to dialogue: improving written feedback processes in mass higher education: in Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education Volume 35, Issue 5, 501-507

Nicol, D and MacFarlane- Dick, D (2006) Formative assessment and self regulated learning; a model and seven principles of good feedback practices, Studies in Higher Education, 31 (2), 199-218

Orsmond P, Merry S, and Reiling K (2005) ‘Biology students’ utilization of tutors’ formative feedback: a qualitative interview study’. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(4)pp.369–386.

Poulos A and Mahony M J (2008) Effectiveness of feedback: the students’ perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 13 (2) pp.143-154

Plimmer, B., and P. Mason. 2006. ‘A pen-based paperless environment for annotating and marking student assignments’. In Proceedings of Seventh Australian User Interface Conference (AUIC2006)

QAA (2006) Code of Practice on Assessment http://www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/codeOfPractice/section6/COP_AOS.pdf

QAA (2011) Code of Practice on Assessment

Taras , M 2010 : Student self-assessment: processes and consequences, Teaching in Higher Education, 15:2, 199-209

Tang, J. & Harrison, C. (2011) Investigating university tutor perceptions of assessment feedback: three types of tutor beliefs, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, vol.36, no.5 pp.583-604 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02602931003632340

Weaver M R (2006) Do students value feedback? Student perceptions of tutors’ written responses. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 31 (3) pp.379-394

Wojtas O (1998) ‘Feedback? No, just give us the answers’. Times Higher Education Supplement

Feedback pass (good) This is a 1200 word assessment  not 2052. Be wary of word counts.  If the word imit was enforced  we would not have covered the end of the report which  is in fact one of the     strongest f parts of the assignment and would have dramatically changed the overall impact of the assignment. Overall, theoretically strong, there is quite a lot of descriptive comments  which could have been cut out as they are not applied. It would benefit from increased level of critical appraisal. Reflective section is strong. It would be interesting to apply to named areas, rather than anonymize . Overall it looks like a draft before the final edit. Not quite coherent enough to become a pass excellent.