Improvements to formative feedback: views of staff and students
Abstract:
This chapter provides an overview of a study conducted at The University of Western Australia (UWA) regarding staff and student views on the provision of formative feedback to students. The research was undertaken by the author for the Centre for the Advancement of Learning and Teaching (CATL) of the University.1 It was carried out in response to the 2007 Course Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) results, wherein a less favourable aspect of the learning experience for students was the provision of formative feedback to them by their lecturers, tutors or other relevant personnel. The Improving Student Satisfaction (ISS) Project entailed canvassing staff and students from most of the university’s faculties for their views on the provision of formative feedback to students. The chapter outlines the methods used to collect and analyse the data, and presents the findings from the social science disciplines. It concludes by offering suggestions for improved provision of formative feedback to students.
Introduction
It has been established that feedback is a vital part of the learning process. Without it, students are working as if blindfolded and in need of direction. Race (2005) explains that feedback can be given by people in different roles, including teachers, tutors, peers, professionals in the field, trainers, and others. Feedback can be both positive and negative, and can come in many different forms including verbal, written, or electronic. Specific forms of feedback, as categorised by Race (2005), include: handwritten comments on (or about) students’ assessed work; word-processed overall comments on each student’s assessed work; model answers or solutions that are issued to students along with their marked work; assignment-return sheets; word-processed overall class reports on an assignment; codes written on students’ work which are then debriefed in a whole group session; face-to-face feedback to individual students, small groups of students, or whole classes; emailed comments on students’ assessed work; computer conferences for overall comments on batches of students’ work; and computer-delivered (pre-prepared) feedback. Each of these forms of feedback has both advantages and disadvantages, and some forms are more suited to specific situations than others. A combination of forms is sometimes the best way to deal with a situation so that all learners can be accommodated. However, regardless of the advantages and disadvantages of each form of feedback, it remains an essential part of the teaching/learning process that needs to be adopted by all those who are involved in it.
Background to the study
The study reported in this chapter took place in response to the 2007 CEQ of UWA.2 The results indicated that a less favourable aspect of the learning experience for students was the provision, or lack, of formative feedback to them by their lecturers, tutors or other relevant personnel. Consequently, CATL at UWA undertook the ISS Project in 2007 and 2008 to determine the cause of this dissatisfaction. The project entailed canvassing staff and students from faculties across UWA for their views on the feedback process. This was achieved through an online survey of staff and through focus group interviews with students in various year levels of each faculty. All members of staff who were responsible for providing feedback to students were invited to participate. In total, 88 members of staff from eight faculties took part in the survey. However, this chapter will focus on the findings from the social science disciplines which represent the views of 45 staff members.
The data emerging from the research were analysed and presented in individual reports to the faculty representatives (CATLysts) on the CATL Committee. The CATLysts then initiated action related to the findings within their respective faculties. This action entailed new or innovative approaches to providing formative feedback to students for maximum effect. These approaches were trialled during the course of 2007 and their effectiveness was recorded in faculty-specific reports by each of the CATLysts.
Definitions of feedback
According to Race (2005), one type of feedback refers to what was and was not achieved in past work. This is also referred to as ‘summative’ feedback. It can be both positive and negative, and can be provided during the learning-oriented action, or after it, or both. The purpose of feedback is to:
help students make sense of what they have done
help students clarify and take ownership of the need to learn as defined by the intended learning outcomes they are working towards achieving
enhance students’ want to learn by increasing their self-esteem and confidence whenever possible, and by helping them to believe that they can achieve the intended learning outcomes, and demonstrate this in ways where they will be duly credited for this achievement
motivate students to move forward into their next episodes of learning by doing, focusing their efforts more sharply towards bringing the experience from their past work to bear on making their next work better.
While this definition is valid for certain aspects of feedback, the results of the online survey of staff in the social science disciplines at UWA referred to a different kind of feedback – formative feedback.
Formative feedback, according to Race (2005), is ‘feed-forward’ in that it points towards improving and developing future work. Feed-forward is described by Race (2005) as being those aspects of feedback which point in particular towards what to do next, rather than merely looking backwards at what has or has not already been achieved by students. In this regard, it assists students with the following:
details of what would have been necessary to achieve better marks or grades, expressed in such a way that students can seek to improve their future assignments or answers
direct suggestions for students to try out in their next piece of work, to overcome problems or weaknesses arising in their last assignment
suggestions about sources to explore, illustrating chosen aspects of what students are being encouraged to do in their own future work.
However, the timing of this type of feedback is a crucial factor to its success, or even its nomenclature as being ‘formative’. In other words, the intention may be to provide formative feedback but because of the delay or time lapse in the provision of that feedback, it becomes summative in nature. If students receive feedback on an assessment task after they have already moved on to another unit of work or assessment task, then they are not likely to take much notice of feedback from their lecturers/tutors on previous work from weeks, or even months, before. The only thing that may register with them is the mark or grade, while the lengthy, handwritten comments accompanying that mark or grade are overlooked. Arguably then, for feedback to be really effective for students, it needs to reach them as fast as possible while they still remember clearly what they were trying to achieve.
The problem of untimely feedback pervades all levels of education. A study reported by Wilhelm (2007) in his address to the Tasmanian English Teachers’ Association refers to the importance of students having a clear purpose and timely feedback if learning is to be enhanced. ‘Feedback … often came a long time after a test or written assignment – usually when it was too late to make use of the provided information’ (3). For example, when compared with the very clear purpose inherent in each of the various video games used in the classroom, and with the immediate feedback that they received as they progressed through the game, the classroom situation ran a very poor second.
As a result of the CATL online survey ‘Investigating Formative Feedback Provided to Students’ (2007), a composite, university-specific definition of the term ‘feedback’ was derived:
Feedback is information provided to students regarding their performance in assessment tasks and their overall progress in the relevant unit. It can be provided verbally, in writing, or electronically in a number of forms to individuals, small groups, or a whole class. It is intended to achieve the following aims:
i) Inform students in a qualitative and/or quantitative manner of their performance in assessment tasks and on their overall progress;
ii) Draw attention to errors or weaknesses in assessment tasks or problems with progress;
iii) Highlight positive aspects of achievements to date;
iv) Encourage students to improve on their performance;
v) Respond to specific questions from students;
Staff views on formative feedback provided to students
The online survey for staff involved in the provision of feedback to students was conducted in 2007. It comprised 17 questions, some of which included multiple choice responses while others were open-ended. The participants remained anonymous and they included coordinators, lecturers, tutors and demonstrators. All of the responses were submitted electronically by the year’s end. The total number of staff involved from the social science disciplines was 45.
The analysis of each of the faculty responses to the online survey commenced in March 2008 and was completed a month later. It involved recording all of the responses from each of the faculties in turn; noting the frequency of each response; grouping/clustering responses under common themes; prioritising clusters in terms of frequency indicated; and drawing conclusions from these prioritisations. Discussion of the completed analytical report took place at the CATL meeting in April 2008, where an overview of the analytical process and a summary of the findings were provided to committee members by the ISS project officer. Key issues and perceived problems, with specific reference to the ‘process of moderation’, were addressed. All CATLysts were satisfied with the analysis conducted of their respective faculty and all resolved to act on various aspects of the findings.
The findings
Those who provide feedback to students within the respective faculty units represented in this survey hold one or more of the following positions (positions are listed in descending order of those who give feedback most frequently to students):
Students sometimes provide feedback to their peers in some faculties. However, for the purpose of this chapter, those who give feedback will be referred to as either ‘academic staff’, ‘lecturers/tutors and/or relevant others’, or simply ‘lecturers/tutors’ for expediency.
An overview of the findings of the social science disciplines from the online survey, the CATLyst Network Project Investigating Formative Feedback Provided to Students, follows.
Participants’ understanding of the term ‘student feedback’
Overall, most participants understood the meaning of the term ‘student feedback’ as feedback provided in various forms at various times by them to students. While a comprehensive response to the open-ended question was not always given by individual participants, the collective response from each of the faculties indicated a sound understanding of the term. A composite, university-specific definition emerged, as has already been stated. In the social science disciplines only a few of the participants misunderstood the term; they took it to mean feedback provided by students on their performance as teachers (student perspectives on teaching (SPOT) surveys), rather than feedback given by them to students.
Types of feedback provided
Various types of feedback were provided to students across the social science disciplines. The most common forms included:
grade or minimal comments on written assessments
extended written comments on assessments
group feedback in tutorials or laboratories
Less common types of feedback, also used in other faculties included:
web-based assessment items that provide immediate feedback
discussion during office hours
email responses to student queries
general web-based responses to student queries
posting of model answers for students with less than 55 per cent in examination results.
The varied types of feedback in each of the faculties, and the predominance of some over others, reflected the academic discipline, the nature of the unit, and the preferred practice of the participants. In some cases, it also reflected faculty-specific mandates on feedback. Overall, however, various types of feedback were utilised in each of the faculties.
Structured feedback provided
The findings indicated that the majority of the participants in the social science disciplines gave structured feedback. They understood this to be an explanation of errors and what needed to be done to improve.
Regularity of structured feedback
The most regular provision of structured feedback in the social science disciplines was that which followed assessments. Some indicated that it was provided on a weekly or fortnightly basis while a few participants stated that they gave feedback on a daily or monthly basis.
Ways in which feedback was provided
The most common ways in which feedback was given in the social science disciplines were as follows:
Less common ways in which feedback was provided included placing general comments and/or explanations of errors on the course website or WebCT page, student-to-student critiquing of work, and specific feedback forms, followed by face-to-face consultation.
Moderation of feedback within unit
The majority of the participants in the social science disciplines stated that the opportunity for moderation of feedback was provided within a given unit where more than one person was teaching. A slightly smaller proportion of the participants stated that the feedback was at the discretion of individual teachers and an almost equal proportion of participants did not respond to this question, raising alarm as to the level of understanding of the question or even the term ‘moderation’.
The overall discrepancy in responses can be attributed to a number of factors, including the following:
only one person was teaching/assessing the unit, therefore there was no need for moderation of feedback
there was confusion regarding the meaning of the term ‘moderation’ or with the actual question in the survey
the participant was unaware of the existence of a moderation process within the faculty.
Type of moderation process
While most responses indicated an awareness of the moderation process, a number of them demonstrated a level of misunderstanding of the meaning of the term. A smaller number still stated that they did not understand the question. Typical approaches to moderation included:
Awareness of students’ use of feedback
In the social science disciplines just over half the participants stated that they were aware of their students’ use of feedback, while the remainder stated that they were not. A variety of reasons was given by the participants in support of their claims. Awareness was expressed through the following types of evidence:
feedback from students, either through email or face-to-face where they describe how they have actually used the feedback or how/when they intend to apply it
improvements noted in specific areas singled out by the marker
Evidence that students were not using feedback included:
a complete lack of improvement
no evidence as no further work was handed in on the topic
many students did not collect marked assignments and tests
many students did not see the submitted work as being part of the bigger ‘learning’ picture.
Problems identified in the follow-up of feedback included the following:
impossible to have a student-lecturer relationship with about 300 students
half of the students did not attend class
the anonymity of assessments and examinations made it difficult to follow up.
There was an obvious dichotomy regarding the responses from academic staff about the actual application of feedback by students. Furthermore, many of the comments relating to the non-application of feedback were strongly worded, indicating that some lecturers/tutors had given up providing feedback believing it to be a waste of their time since students ignored it.
Overall aim of feedback
A variety of responses was provided across the social science disciplines for the overall aim of feedback. Generally, the stated aims covered all expected key reasons for why feedback should be given to students in a timely and comprehensive manner. In some instances, however, participants found an opportunity to express concern over matters involving students who did not collect assignments after the marking process, rendering the feedback process pointless. Some stated that they had stopped providing feedback due to students’ poor response in this regard. Others stated that they had found other means by which to provide feedback to counteract the problem of indifference or apathy on the part of some students regarding feedback, or to assist those students who did not know how to apply the feedback effectively.
Satisfaction with feedback provided to students
The responses regarding satisfaction with feedback provided to students fell into three main categories:
1. those who were completely satisfied with the amount/ type/method of feedback that they provided to their students
2. those who were partially satisfied with the amount/type/ method of feedback that they provided to their students but who held some reservations
3. those who were not satisfied with the amount/type/ method of feedback that they provided to their students. In this case, the participants stated the reasons why they were unhappy with the feedback provided, usually attributing the problem to external factors.
Those who were completely satisfied gave the following reasons:
although time-consuming, written feedback was explicit and constructive about progress and recommendations
the feedback provided in the unit was both adequate and ‘solid’
personal interaction with students and assessment forms used early in the semester to identify problems supported the feedback process.
Those who were partially satisfied stated that this was because:
feedback could have been better but most lecturers/tutors were overworked
difficult to provide detailed feedback with as many as 1000 students
feedback was important for the students’ long-term learning, but they had a short-term view of it.
Those who were not satisfied with the amount/type/method of providing feedback gave the following reasons:
Suggestions for improvements or changes to feedback provided to students
Overall, the academic staff of the social science disciplines felt that improvements or changes to feedback given to students were necessary. These would be made possible with more of the following: time, funds, resources, and new innovations. A more systematic approach to the provision of feedback, along with more explicitly-stated expectations and improved, simpler marking tools were also stated as being necessary components to the process of improvement and change. Other suggestions included: offering more structured consultation sessions; computer-aided assessment; more timely provision of feedback; and more opportunity for one-on-one verbal feedback. It was felt that this would be possible with better timetabling and coordination of lecturing/tutoring sessions to allow for student contact time.
Some academic staff felt strongly about the availability of lectures on the internet because they felt that these discouraged student presence on campus, negating opportunities for teacher-student interaction. They also felt that student numbers needed to be reduced for more meaningful communication to take place. Finally, it was felt that students needed to be more proactive regarding the collection of marked work, following up on feedback received, and the application of that feedback. In this regard, they needed to be made aware of what constitutes feedback, how to interpret it and how to apply it.
Only a small proportion of the participants indicated that they were satisfied with the feedback process that was already in place and that there was no need for change or improvement. These participants based their views on the SPOT survey results and on verbal feedback received from students, or on the improved performance of their students following on from feedback provided by them.
Student views on formative feedback provided to them
Focus group interviews were conducted with students from eight faculties at UWA in 2007 and 2008. The data from the interviews revealed that, overall, students were dissatisfied with the feedback received from their lecturers, tutors, or other relevant personnel. The reasons given for this dissatisfaction varied from one faculty to another but there were some commonalities. A number of clusters emerged from the findings in the social science disciplines and these have been categorised below under broad themes.
The findings
Good feedback
All the students agreed that there were common elements in what constituted ‘good feedback’, irrespective of their faculty, year level or unit. These included the following key characteristics: feedback should be timely, consistent and regular; it should be detailed enough to explain the ‘why’ a particular mark received; it should come in different forms to suit the nature of the assessment task as well as the receiver, the student; it should be transparent, equitable and fair in nature (i.e. assessment criteria rubric, marking keys, etc.); it should be constructive so as to assist the student in his/her learning journey; and examples of good work which students can emulate or use as a guide should be provided.
There was a strong preference for a ‘personalised’ approach to feedback, that is, verbal, face-to-face feedback. Further to this, innovative approaches to feedback were sought, such as specially-designed electronic software. These, it was stated, would cater for the different learning styles among the student body. In the social science disciplines, some of the best feedback received included that for ‘studio work’, offered verbally to small groups and on a regular basis. In terms of written work, best practice included detailed and specific feedback with corrections on everything (i.e. grammar, punctuation, referencing, etc.).
Poor feedback
Where poor feedback was concerned, students had a great deal to say, ranging from comments about illegible handwriting on the part of the lecturer/tutor through to the complete non-existence of feedback. Many comments emerged regarding the fixation that markers seemed to have on students’ poor referencing skills or use of paragraphs, for example, concentrating their feedback in these areas rather than on the content of the assignment. This focus, the students felt, was unwarranted and at the expense of their progress in the relevant course.
Other examples of poor feedback included generic comments such as: ‘Good. Good luck!’ or ‘You’re missing the point here!’ without any further explanation. Similarly, a comment such as ‘Good!’ followed by a mark that did not seem to match was considered equally exasperating. What was considered to be even worse was receiving only a mark at the end of a long assignment, or ticks throughout and then an ‘empty’ comment such as, ‘Well done! Some interesting points!’. This made the students feel that their work had not even been read.
Another example of poor feedback was the variation of standards and/or expectations within the faculty, indicative to a degree of a lack of moderation in the assessment process. Discontent was also voiced over unfair procedure, explained, for instance, as students having their marks adjusted if they bothered to complain, while those who did not had to accept the given mark. Poor feedback also included lecturers/tutors being dismissive of anonymous student feedback surveys, rendering that form of communication as being pointless. Another key point made by many students was that feedback usually honed in and focused only on the negative or weak aspects of the assessment task, while ignoring strengths.
The role of the lecturer/tutor in the feedback process
The student voice was ‘audible’ where the role of the lecturer/tutor in the feedback process was concerned. It appealed for lecturers/tutors to make their expectations and standards known at the beginning of a unit or course (feedforward), thus assisting students in their pending learning journeys. It also highlighted that academic staff needed to be more ‘visible’/available for consultation following lectures or tutorials, particularly for one-on-one follow-up on feedback already provided.
A specific observation was that the attitude of lecturers/ tutors made a big difference to the success or failure of students in their respective courses. Those who were passionate about their teaching, it was deemed, gave better, more useful feedback to students. Those who were not interested had bad marking habits. All in all, it was felt that there was a correlation between passion and teaching and, consequently, constructive feedback.
A major responsibility of lecturers/tutors was the timely provision of feedback, particularly where an assignment was relevant to examination performance. It was acknowledged, however, that third/fourth-year assignments were returned more promptly than first-year assignments. This emphasised the importance of feedback for those students who were close to graduating from their courses. However, it was also stated that first-year students needed timely feedback just as urgently as their peers in other year levels.
The role of the student in the feedback process
The student participants believed that, just as the academic staff should be responsible for the articulation of expectations and standards of course work at the start of the year or semester, so too should students be proactive in a number of ways in terms of maximising the potential of feedback. One of these ways, they suggested, was to learn the discourse, or ‘lingo’, of their particular discipline so that the feedback received was not foreign to them. Another was to set out to receive (‘fish for’) specific one-on-one feedback from their lecturers/tutors. On this, students felt that those who got to know their teachers ended up creating a more meaningful relationship with them, thus opening the communication channels. This, in turn, favoured a more productive feedback process.
Suggestions for improvement
The students provided specific suggestions for improving the provision of formative feedback. Some of the key suggestions, excluding those already mentioned above, included: feedback tailored for the course being taught; improved feedback on theory, with more in-depth discussion; well-publicised consultancy hours for increased student-teacher liaisons; explanation of how the feedback system works and the changes that students should expect as they progress through their course and along the timeline of first to third/fourth year; providing more structure to feedback through assessment criteria, marking keys, rubric, matrices, etc.; explaining the focus of assessment of a given assignment; and informing students of what they need to know and do to improve for the next assessment task.
One important finding was that students were very keen to receive feedback on their examination performance as this was usually not common practice. Students generally received a mark and/or grade only, although it was acknowledged that the writing process involved in examinations was very different to that of other assessment tasks during the course of a year. Feedback or, more importantly, feed-forward on this would be greatly valued by the students.
Suggestions for improvement in the provision of formative feedback
Current and sound educational practice, recent research on the provision of formative feedback to students, and the data available through this study have all guided the list of 10 recommendations which follows.
Timeliness of feedback
Feedback can, and should, be provided before, during, and after the submission of an assessment task. It can be given beforehand (feed-forward), in a general sense, in the form of expected outcomes which are articulated to the larger group in a lecture or to the smaller group in a tutorial, for example. It can be presented as a ‘guideline for best results’ so that students can act on the advice before submitting the assignment. It can, in this regard, be presented in an oral, written, or visual form; that is, through the use of electronic media, such as PowerPoint presentations.
Another form of feedback during the course of preparation for a particular assessment task is for lecturers/tutors and relevant others to be available, if possible, for students to consult with on a one-on-one basis or in small groups, regarding queries that they might have on the pending assignment. By offering a specific time in a day or week, the situation can be managed more effectively. Students will need to be proactive in seeking out feedback and lecturers/ tutors can help by making the first move, negating any apprehension that students might have in this regard. Alternatively, email correspondence or the posting of information on a specific website that students can access while working on the assessment task can assist with the provision of feedback and/or feed-forward.
The provision of feedback as soon as possible after the submission of an assignment, even if all the assignments have not been marked, is essential to enhancing the learning process. This feedback might be from having marked a few assignments only, or from past experience. If signalled appropriately to students, this can serve to make it less threatening. When all assignments have been marked, lecturers/tutors should aim to provide feedback to individual students as soon as possible, offering to meet them for further discussion if needed.
Provision of regular feedback
Feedback is an important learning and teaching tool and should be given as regularly as possible. Lecturers/tutors or relevant others should make the provision of feedback part of their regular lecturing and/or tutoring routine. By allowing time during lectures for interaction with students regarding an upcoming assessment task, feed-forward is achieved. Furthermore, by asking for queries or concerns, and addressing these for the entire group, lecturers/tutors are inadvertently assisting those students who may be too embarrassed to ask. As a regular part of teaching, students will become more and more comfortable with the concept of asking questions regarding pending assessment tasks.
Alerting students to the importance of feedback and how to use it effectively
It is important that lecturers/tutors articulate the fact that they are providing feedback and/or feed-forward as students may not be able to distinguish this during a lecture or tutorial. They can simply state that what will now follow is, in fact, feedback, or feed-forward regarding the students’ most recent or pending assessment task. Furthermore, lecturers/tutors can highlight the importance of this feedback with regard to the overall learning process and how students may gain by acting upon it, providing them with ideas or strategies by which they can do this. For example, students can be advised to go over their written assessment task, checking for the number of examples or quotes cited to support their argument. By stressing that this will be a key criterion for good marks in this particular task, the students have something specific on which to work. Lecturers/tutors can also provide sample answers for students to emulate.
The explanation of symbols, commonly-used annotations, or specialised language is another way of assisting students on the path to improvement. These signposts help students to focus on what it is that lecturers/tutors will be looking for in their subsequent assessment task. The key, however, is for lecturers/tutors to stress the fact that feedback is being provided. This needs to be done on a regular basis so that students start to take notice of this very important learning and teaching tool.
Personal and specific feedback
Despite the time constraints and pressures under which academic staff operate, it is important that some time is allocated to the personalisation of the comments made on students’ assignments. This can be achieved by using the student’s name, if appropriate, and then focusing on specific strengths and weaknesses. For the feedback to be truly formative in nature, it is important that there is greater focus on areas needing improvement and an explanation of how to achieve this to. Statements such as ‘You missed the point!’ need to be avoided unless followed by an explanation of how the point could have been addressed more effectively. The same applies to ticks, crosses, or other symbols if there is no as to why they are there. Instead, lecturers/tutors could opt for specific comments that relate directly to students’ work.
Verbal feedback, provided one-on-one or in small groups, is a method preferred by students as they can learn a great deal about the positive and negative aspects of their work. The personalised nature of this approach offers lecturers/ tutors and the student/s the opportunity to get to know each other better. It is also a much quicker way of getting the point across to students with the detail that is required.
Furthermore, the body language of both the giver and receiver of the feedback can be ‘read’, which assists in interpreting how that feedback is being given and received. If there are problems or areas of concern, they can be addressed immediately. Equally, if there is a misunderstanding, this too can be clarified.
Non-threatening feedback
As stated previously, both positive and negative feedback can be given in a non-threatening way, such as through a whole-class or small-group approach. By making the feedback generalised in nature, that is, by addressing collective performance on an assessment task, lecturers/ tutors are employing a non-threatening approach. This type of feedback can be provided verbally during lectures, small group tutorials, or via email or website postings.
The one-on-one approach is best saved for individualised feedback. In this regard, students are not embarrassed by others knowing how they have performed in a particular assessment task. They are also free to talk about their work in a more detailed and specific way with their lecturer/tutor or relevant other.
Focusing on what can be improved next time
In providing formative feedback, lecturers/tutors should try to outweigh any negatives with positives (a good formula is for every one negative comment two positive comments can be made about the work). When negative feedback is being given, the focus should be on how the work can be improved next time. By providing specific examples or advice in this regard, students will have a better understanding of the process of improvement. This, in turn, constitutes formative feedback; timely and specific feedback that guides towards improved performance.
Provision of clear assessment guidelines and marking criteria
In an outcomes-based learning environment, students need to know what outcomes they are meant to be striving to achieve. This, ironically, can also lighten the burden of marking and assessment for lecturers/tutors. By taking the time to identify the outcomes of a particular assessment task and the weighting or allocation of marks for each outcome, lecturers/tutors are providing criteria that will assist them when the time comes to assess the work. This information, that is, the assessment guidelines or marking criteria, can be provided to students as the cover page for their assessment task or from the outset of the commencement of a unit or course. In this way, students are well-informed in advance, which helps them to work towards addressing the criteria and thus improving their performance. Feedback on the performance can then be related back to the assessment guidelines or marking criteria, making it concrete and formative in nature.
Consistency of markers within the unit, course, year level and/or faculty
Fairness in marking and a consistent approach among lecturers/tutors within a unit, course, year level, or faculty are vital components of a transparent process, as perceived by students. Being labelled an ‘easy’ or ‘hard’ marker is deemed by students to be a less worthy profile than that of the ‘fair’ marker. One way of ensuring that a consistent approach to marking is adopted is through cross-marking with colleagues within the faculty. This also assists with the process of moderation. Lecturers/tutors should aim, therefore, for a consensus on assessment guidelines or marking criteria among colleagues and work together to reach this consensus. This will require a shared understanding of what constitutes a ‘higher distinction’, for example, for an assessment criterion in the given assessment task. The sharing of assessment design, including assessment guidelines or marking criteria, will then lend itself to the possibility of shared marking and thus more equal marking loads. A fellow marker need not have taught the course to be in a position to mark assignments if the guidelines or criteria for assessment are clear and agreed upon by everyone.
Provision of feedback on examination performance
If possible, lecturers/tutors should give feedback on examination performance. Students from UWA have indicated strongly that they need to know how they performed in their examinations, apart from the final mark or grade, and how they can improve on their performance in subsequent examinations. While many do not collect their examination papers, others are very keen to know the detail regarding their performance. At the start of the year, perhaps the new unit or course could commence with feedback on the examination performance of the previous year. However, this is often too late for students to act upon. Feed-forward prior to an examination could be more useful, drawing upon the examination performance of past students in the same unit or course. The main focus, according to the data, is to explain the difference between writing for an examination in a given unit or course and writing for assessment tasks in that same unit or course during the year.
Adopting a variety of types of feedback to cover all types of learners
People learn in different ways. Lecturers/tutors can reach more students by using a variety of feedback approaches such as:
model answers or examples of good work for students to emulate
email or website for whole-class, small-group, or individual feedback
PowerPoint presentations of points to consider in an upcoming assessment task (feed-forward)
written (legibly handwritten or word-processed) comments on assignments
feed-forward or feedback sheets regarding specific criteria/ points of an assessment task
electronic feedback from pre-prepared software packages
peer feedback where students assess each other’s work and make comments
self-assessment where students assess their own performance prior to submitting an assignment
retaining the mark or grade and providing detailed and/or specific written or verbal feedback only. Following this,
ask the students to guess their mark or grade received in accordance with that verbal or written feedback, or provide it to them at a later date. This will force the students to read or listen to the feedback more intently, hopefully applying it in future assessment tasks.
Conclusion
The timely nature of the ISS project in response to the CEQ at UWA not only gave valuable insight into the reasons why students were generally dissatisfied with the provision of formative feedback by their lecturers/tutors, it also gave the university’s staff the opportunity to voice their views and concerns. As a result, a more complete picture of the situation emerged; one that heralded the need for change. With the simple research tools of an online survey for staff and focus group interviews for students of various year levels in various faculties, along with background knowledge of research conducted in the field, this study provided the impetus for change across the university in terms of the way in which formative feedback was given to its students.
In subsequent reports to CATL from the various faculty representatives (CATLysts), it became apparent that new and innovative faculty-specific approaches were being taken to improve the provision of formative feedback to students. This was a direct result of the specific comments made by staff and students from the relevant faculties. Where the social science disciplines of UWA were concerned, the academic staff, having taken into account both the commonalities and the specific findings of the research, were able to trial a number of different approaches in the provision of formative feedback to students. Subsequently, they were also able to provide feedback to CATL on the outcomes of these approaches. This, in turn, confirmed the importance of such research as a feedback mechanism to the university’s stakeholders on the improvement of learning and teaching standards in higher education.
References
Race, P. Making Learning Happen. London: Sage Publications; 2005.
Teacher’s Association available from. http://tate. org. au/2012/05/28/2007-tatealea-state-conference-literature-literacy-and-the-inquiring-mind-hobart/.
Wilhelm, J. D. 2007. [An address given by Jeff Wilhelm to the Tasmanian English. ].