Youth-produced sexual images have been at the heart of moral panic and child protection concerns within public and legal discourse in the UK. This anxiety revolves around the notion that young people’s sharing of sexual images inherently triggers a chain reaction of harms and losses; from lost images, to lost innocence, lost privacy, and lost rights. Although the Protection of the Children Act 1978 and the Criminal Justice Act 1988 prohibit the circulation of nude images of under 18s in England, the criminal prosecution services have expressed a reluctance to criminalise young people for sharing images consensually amongst their peers. The non-legality of youth-produced sexual images means that educators and practitioners are unable to address the lived experiences of young people’s digitally-mediated relationships. As a result, young people are encouraged to refrain from sharing sexual images through deterrent-focused education messages, as exemplified by the Direspect NoBody campaign. I observe that this doubly negative framework upholds gendered double standards of sexual propriety and paradoxically engenders the very harms its aims to prevent, leaving young people who are exposed online unprotected. In this paper I aim to disrupt the victim-blaming discourse held in a dominant ‘pedagogy of regret’ and call for digital and sexuality education frameworks which promote a model of collective responsibility and a pedagogy of respect. Shame, loss and harm need not be a forgone conclusion for young people in the context of positive sexual rights and educational messages that Respect EveryBody.
Recent decades have seen a rapid decline in mental health among early adolescents. Moreover, new patterns have emerged in mental health issues, as a higher number of children from more resourceful backgrounds are getting affected in ways previously unseen. This development has by some researchers been described as a “new form of marginalization”, where mental health issues are no longer predominantly present among traditionally marginalized groups. A growing number of researchers have linked the decline in mental health among youth to a rise in experienced performance demands in general, but particularly in relation to social media. This study aims to understand how early adolescents’ experiences of performance demands when engaging with social media and their general well-being are structured by gender and class. The study was conducted among pupils in lower secondary education in Denmark and consists of focus group and individual interviews evenly distributed between four schools varying greatly on socioeconomic status of the school district (n=80). Connections between experienced performance demands on social media, self-critique and mental health complaints were common among middle/upper middle-class girls. However, girls also more often felt pressure to present stereotypical representations of gender and idealized versions of themselves on social media, but also felt surveilled and at risk of being labeled as “slutty”, shameful or lacking self-respect. Many middle/upper middle-class boys hardly ever posted pictures of themselves to a wider audience, as gender stereotypical representations of boys were viewed as distasteful and associated with masculine working-class culture.
This paper is derived in a larger study funded by the charity Catch22, which involved extensive focus groups and interviews conducted with 42 children and young people aged 10-22 years, during the COVID-19 lockdowns in the United Kingdom. A large number of the children and young people involved had experience of the criminal justice system, the care system and alternative education programmes. The study explored their experiences of online platforms, social media platforms, apps and gaming; experiences of online harms and the impact this had on their lives; perceptions of what ‘acceptable use’ is in online spaces; views on law enforcement’s role in addressing online harms and what future regulatory frameworks and arrangements should be developed. Further, the study included 15 qualitative semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders and professionals from police, safeguarding, youth work, victim service provision, tech and gaming companies, regulators and wider industry. It also involved collection and analysis of quantitative data from service providers pre-pandemic and during the UK lockdowns. This paper will explore the significance of sibling support. It will draw on the theory of ‘siblingship’ as developed by Goetting (1986). Young people described assisting younger siblings who experienced ‘unwanted content’ and ‘unwanted contact’. More broadly in relation to online safety, Third et al. (2013: viii) noted that older siblings can play a key role in ‘supporting the safe online engagement of younger users’. This paper also explores how young people refer to challenges and issues for younger children in online spaces, utilising them as an example of why better protections should be put in place.
Rather than being merely instrumental, social networking sites have become increasingly integral to the ways in which young people experience themselves. A popular cultural narrative of superficiality has been promoted with regards to social media, with users often criticised for being fake and self-absorbed. Focussing upon Instagram and Snapchat this paper seeks to re-locate discussion, questioning the perceived conflict between virtuality and authenticity, as well as challenging the widespread view that social media only has the capacity to foster narcissism. Working from a philosophical, phenomenological perspective, this paper develops ideas of ‘self-reflection’ and a ‘reflected-self’ in order to offer answers to the question ‘Who am I?’. Building upon the notion of storytelling, the constructive gaze, and visual communication it argues that SNS offer a different way of engaging with the real vs fake debate. Rather than arguing that social media encourages narcissistic portrayals of a fake, superficial veneer of life, perhaps born out of insecurity, it suggests that status updates can play an important role in authentic self-formation during adolescence.
Feedback plays an important role in acquiring a highly complex skill such as writing. Currently, feedback aiming to improve the writing process is scarce. In practice, teachers usually give feedback on the writing product. However, given that it is the writing process that generates the product, feedback on the writing process is valuable and should be taken into account as well.
We conducted an intervention study to explore the effects of two types of process-oriented feedback. A total of 67 Dutch students (grade 10) were randomly assigned to one of the feedback conditions. Each student wrote three synthesis texts (texts in which information from different sources is integrated) at three measurement occasions and received individual feedback at measurement occasion 2 and 3, prior to writing a new text. Participants received a customised process report generated with keystroke logging tool Inputlog, providing them with numerical and visual information on several aspects of their personal writing process. The process report was embedded into a feedback flow in which students were encouraged to reflect on their writing. In the position-setting feedback condition, students compared their writing process to that of students with a similar text quality score. The students in the feed-forward feedback condition, compared their writing process to better scoring students. These exemplary writing processes were selected from a national baseline study with more than 700 Dutch students. In our presentation we will focus on the development and implementation of the different feedback types. Moreover, we will present results on the effectiveness of the feedback: in the feed-forward condition the intervention was effective. When comparing the students’ progress to a national baseline study (serving as control group), we can conclude that in one week they made a progress comparable to one year of regular schooling.
In this study, we further elaborate on the notion of teacher feedback literacy by drawing on sociocultural theories of human learning and development (Linell, 2009; Vygotsky, 1978). We propose that feedback literacy is a social practice rather than an inherent trait or skill of a teacher. Feedback literacy is enacted, and further developed, through interactions and dialogues between teachers and their environments. Based on this assumption, we investigate how university teachers enact feedback literacy in interaction with other colleagues during peer mentoring (PM) meetings.
During PM, teachers meet regularly to discuss difficult cases from their teaching and supervision work and peer-mentor each other. Drawing on video observations from a sequence of peer mentoring meetings, we examine how teachers jointly enact feedback literacy by reflecting on past and prospective feedback dialogues, and the cognitive and social-affective support they are providing to their students.
The findings indicate that teachers discuss a wide array of issues related to their feedback practices during PM. The topics include challenges of helping students to understand feedback comments, managing students’ emotions related to critical feedback and making students aware of their strengths and weaknesses. An illustrative example is a teacher sharing her experiences of a student struggling with conducting qualitative data analyses. Together with her colleagues, the teacher defines the problem clearer and outlines an action plan to address the problem. This empirical illustration contributes to our understanding that teacher feedback literacy is a joint enactment of teachers making sense of their students’ challenges with feedback and of how they may support their students’ understanding and use of feedback in the future. In addition, our study further advances the empirical insights into typical challenges teachers face related to their feedback practices and what it means concretely to act and reflect in a feedback-literate way.
To encourage feedback literacy as a steppingstone towards a lifelong learning mindset, it is important for students to understand and actively engage with feedback. Especially for first-year students it is important that feedback is targeted and coherent. However, the teaching staff currently has no possibility to follow up on feedback from colleagues and mainly gives feedback based on their own personal view which makes targeted and coherent feedback challenging.
The final goal of this project is to develop a feedback ecosystem as a set of interconnected tools where students, teaching staff and student counsellors can follow up the progress of the students throughout their intensive laboratory sessions and projects. The tools should encourage students to interact with their collected feedback. A first step in this development process is defining a rubric for evaluation and the development of a tool to be used as a framework to align the feedback given by the teaching staff.
To measure the impact of the developed feedback ecosystem, the feedback literacy of our first-year students will be analysed during a PhD trajectory. A questionnaire early in the academic year followed by focus group discussions at the end of the first semester, will help to understand first-year students’ prior experiences with feedback. A similar questionnaire and additional focus group discussions at the end of the academic year, will show if students advanced and will help to identify reasons which prevent them from consulting and engaging with feedback. New cohorts of first-year students will be followed for three consecutive years to analyse how changes in the feedback ecosystem affect student feedback literacy.
The continuous follow-up of the skills and perceptions of the students will help to identify the priorities in the successive development of the feedback ecosystem and to achieve a positive impact on feedback literacy.
Developing Students’ Feedback Literacy in Higher Education: Effect of a Training Program and Goal Orientation on Students’ Feedback Seeking Behaviour in Workplace Learning
Sonja Broerse1 & Martijn J. M. Leenknecht2
1 Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
2 HZ University of Applied Sciences, Vlissingen, The Netherlands
Several studies indicate discontent amongst students about feedback practices in higher education and medical practices (Noble & Hassell, 2008; Urquhart et al., 2014; Winstone et al., 2017), while we know from previous research that students’ understanding and perception of feedback determines whether feedback achieves its’ objective (Boud & Molloy, 2013). We need students to be actively involved in feedback uptake (Carless & Boud, 2018) and feedback seeking behaviour (Leenknecht et al., 2019), in order to make feedback practices effective. Key element is students’ feedback literacy (Carless & Boud, 2018), as students’ shortcoming in feedback literacy levels hampers feedback effectiveness in higher education. Current curriculum in higher education does not always appear to offer means for improving students’ understanding of their role in feedback processes (Noble et al., 2019b). Feedback literacy benefits students’ feedback engagement and feedback seeking behaviour (Noble et al., 2019b). Similarly, goal orientation antecedes feedback seeking behaviour (Leenknecht et al., 2019).
Building on previous research by Noble et al. (2019a, 2019b), the current study investigates the effect of feedback literacy training and goal orientation on students’ feedback seeking behaviour in workplace learning in a teacher training programme using a quasi-experimental research design. At a Dutch university of applied sciences an experimental group was subjected to a two part feedback literacy training, whilst the control group was not. Feedback seeking behaviour and goal orientation were measured before the first and after the last intervention. A manipulation check was executed to determine what students had learned. Two factorial between group analyses (ANOVA) were performed to investigate the effects. The experiment ends in December.
Feedback can have substantial influence on learning and development if students are – or are supported to become – ‘feedback literate’. Student feedback literacy development, however, is not a homogenous process occurring in a vacuum, as feedback is a socio-cultural practice that involves different individuals (students, staff, peers), their experiences (previous, present and ongoing), and the diverse academic contexts in which it takes place.
Presently, higher education contexts reflect a highly diverse body; transitioning international students and UK-based educators are likely to be familiar with different feedback cultures and context-specific feedback practices. Consequently, international students are often asked to develop a ‘new’ feedback literacy that is ‘aligned’ to that of educators. Two questions then arise: (1) is academics’ feedback literacy to which students are asked to ‘align to’ homogenous across the staff body? (2) How can educators support international students’ development of feedback literacy avoiding assimilationist approaches?
Student perspectives on this were captured as part of a larger longitudinal narrative inquiry into international postgraduate taught students’ experiences with assessment and feedback, framed by theories of intercultural competence. Student narratives seem to suggest that academics’ feedback literacy is not homogenous: the way in which educators conceptualise and operationalise feedback varies, as do the approaches they take to foster and scaffold student feedback literacy development. Student stories seem to point out that teachers’ academic backgrounds, A&F histories, values, and beliefs play a significant role in this. Further, educators’ intercultural competence within contexts of assessment and feedback seem to impact on the approaches they take to support student development of ‘intercultural’ feedback literacy.
Overall, student narratives highlight the importance of fostering effective communication between students and staff. This presentation will explore how development of intercultural competence within contexts of assessment and feedback might support a culturally sensitive and aware co-development of feedback literacy.
Introduction – To safeguard quality and safety in modern day healthcare, health professionals from different specialties need to learn how to communicate with one another and to effectively use feedback. Providing the principles of interprofessional feedback can support teachers in preparing students for giving and using feedback in dialogues with interprofessional peers.
Aim – In this study we aimed to develop principles for giving and using interprofessional feedback, by combining findings from a literature study with outcomes of a Delphi study on feedback and interprofessional education.
Materials and methods – We performed a critical review of the literature on feedback, and on interprofessional education resulting in an initial framework with seven feedback criteria and corresponding principles. These principles were input for a Delphi study amongst international, leading scholars in the fields of feedback (n=5) and interprofessional education (n=5). In two rounds, experts’ individual (dis)agreement with the content and structure of the initial framework, as well as their suggestions for improvement were collected and used to improve the framework.
Results – The final framework consists of seven criteria regarding feedback dialogues: 1. Open and respectful; 2. Relevant; 3. Timely; 4. Dialogical; 5. Responsive; 6. (supports individual) Sense making; and 7. Actionable. For each criterion, the framework describes feedback principles for the feedback provider and user as well as specific elements that should be taken into account in an interprofessional health care context. Expert agreement with the framework increased between the two rounds of the Delphi study.
Discussion – The resulting framework can provide guidance to teachers and students in interprofessional education, therewith contributing to both student and teacher feedback literacy. Future research may investigate: if and how students improve in giving and using feedback after using the framework and hindering and supporting factors for applying the principles in their clinical rotations.
An extensive body of literature exists on the need for pre-service teachers to develop feedback literacy (Carless & Boud, 2018). This is a crucial factor in teaching and learning success because assessment may assume positive educational significance for both teachers and students (Popham, 2006; Stiggins, 2004; Winstone & Carless, 2019). It is essential in Italy to act as soon as possible through targeted strategies because pre-service teachers come into contact with their workplace very soon. A significant amount of internship hours are expected from the second year of the course; many of them are also already working at school with permanent or temporary contracts.
To this aim, we intend to create a specific learning path aimed at enhancing assessment and feedback skills, conceived as key competences for lifelong learning (European Commission, 2018). According to the Life Skill for Europe project’s theoretical framework, a feedback literacy path could strengthen personal and interpersonal capabilities (Life Skill for Europe, 2017). The learning path will be structured according to the European Qualification Framework model (European Commission, 2005). Participants will receive an Open Badge, which formally testifies the gain of professional and transversal skills at the European level.
According to the Student Voice (Cook-Sather, 2010) and the Students as Partners (Healey et al. 2014) approaches, for the planning of the FL path within the degree in Primary School Education at the University of Verona (Italy), we intend to involve students who in previous years have already participated in this type of training experience (53 fourth-year students in 2019, 25 first-year students in 2020). The overall structure of those first FL experiences was inspired by Winstone & Nash’s Engagement with Feedback Toolkit (2016) (Bevilacqua & Girelli, 2020).
The students’ perceptions have been gathered through a SWOT analysis used to evaluate teaching programs and identify areas for development (Dyson, 2004) and then analysed through the inductive content analysis (Elo & Kyngas, 2008). Preliminary results (2020 data analysis is ongoing) are consistent with the literature, which stresses the need to incorporate FL experiences within the curriculum (Malecka, Boud & Carless, 2020). On the other hand, students refer to the need not to exceed the study load because training experiences based on active learning, although effective, require a considerable commitment.
The importance of engaging student agency is often mentioned as a key feature of feedback practices. Commonly, the concept of agency is used to refer to students’ active role in the process of offering, receiving and acting upon feedback information. However, the notion of what student agency means is often taken-for-granted and rarely elaborated. Furthermore, earlier literature has mainly focussed on individualised and psychological conceptualisations of the term. What could feedback design learn from the idea of ‘agency’ – that dates back to writings of authors such as Aristotle and Kant? In this presentation we briefly introduce three conceptualisations for ‘student agency’ (sociomaterial, authorial and discursive) as proposed in earlier sociological and philosophical literature to understand the sociocultural aspects of feedback processes and students’ feedback literacy. Most importantly, we introduce what these three theoretical frameworks can offer us to further understand and develop feedback design in higher education. For instance, we highlight the importance to consider how agency is shared between humans and non-humans such as computers (sociomaterial agency), how feedback could be framed as a way of community-building (authorial agency), and how effective feedback practices could aim at disrupting student positioning as ‘performers’ rather than as lifelong learners (discursive agency). Overall, these three conceptualisations highlight the importance of structural changes for the contexts of feedback as a part of feedback interventions aiming to promote ‘student agency’.
The importance of engaging student agency is often mentioned as a key feature of feedback practices. Commonly, the concept of agency is used to refer to students’ active role in the process of offering, receiving and acting upon feedback information. However, the notion of what student agency means is often taken-for-granted and rarely elaborated. Furthermore, earlier literature has mainly focussed on individualised and psychological conceptualisations of the term. What could feedback design learn from the idea of ‘agency’ – that dates back to writings of authors such as Aristotle and Kant? In this presentation we briefly introduce three conceptualisations for ‘student agency’ (sociomaterial, authorial and discursive) as proposed in earlier sociological and philosophical literature to understand the sociocultural aspects of feedback processes and students’ feedback literacy. Most importantly, we introduce what these three theoretical frameworks can offer us to further understand and develop feedback design in higher education. For instance, we highlight the importance to consider how agency is shared between humans and non-humans such as computers (sociomaterial agency), how feedback could be framed as a way of community-building (authorial agency), and how effective feedback practices could aim at disrupting student positioning as ‘performers’ rather than as lifelong learners (discursive agency). Overall, these three conceptualisations highlight the importance of structural changes for the contexts of feedback as a part of feedback interventions aiming to promote ‘student agency’.
The focus of feedback research is extending from studies on the form of effective feedback, to studies on proactive feedback engagement of its receiver. However, studies keep showing that feedback often is not used to its full potential. This is often explained by students not being prepared for this proactive role in feedback. It is thus vital for teachers to explicitly address and support this to their students. Therefore, drawing from the concept of the Zone of Proximal Development, this paper presents an instructional model for feedback engagement.
The model outlines feedback engagement as comprising two student responsibilities each containing two feedback engagement strategies. The first student responsibility is to show independent problem solving, including the strategies: (1) making sense of feedback on a task, process, and self-regulation level and (2) using feedback through goal-setting and action-planning. The second student responsibility is to share information that is relevant to their development, including the strategies: (3) communicating on feedback use and (4) seeking feedback. For strategy 3 the acronym SUPER is developed to support students in sharing relevant information on feedback use.
SUPER: Shared perception, Use of feedback, Product improvements, Emotional impact, Request for feedback.
For strategy 4 the acronyms POWER and CLOSER are developed to support students in asking for relevant and concrete feedback.
POWER: Problem definition, Option overview, Weights of options, Express own preference, Request for feedback.
CLOSER: Context, Learning Objective, Self-Evaluation, Request for feedback
Based on this instructional model, an extended definition for feedback engagement is proposed including all four strategies. This fits in the current development of viewing feedback from a programmatic perspective. It aims to provide teachers with concrete tools to support their students’ feedback literacy and thus proactive feedback engagement. The ultimate goal of feedback literacy is to prepare students to be lifelong learners.
Introduction
The conceptualisation and practice of feedback in health professional education is transitioning from a model of the expert delivering judgement of the student’s workplace performance, to a process of co-construction between student and educator. This requires students to understand the purpose of feedback, and have the skills and opportunities required to utilise feedback. Defined as feedback literacy, these capabilities are import for students to develop such that they can be successful in using feedback both within and beyond settings for learning. What is not yet clear is how feedback literacy can be developed, particularly in the clinical environment.
Methods
Our study explored the impact of an educational intervention that aimed to develop the feedback literacy of occupational therapy and physiotherapy students through near peer mentoring during a clinical placement. Data sources were post-placement educator (n=12) and student (n=23) interviews, and senior students’ (n=10) ‘think-aloud’ interviews based on recorded feedback conversations. Data was analysed through the theoretical lens of practice architectures (Edwards-Groves & Kemmis, 2016), enabling a focus on enactments of feedback in relation to developing feedback literacy.
Findings & Discussion
Feedback conversations occurred within the context of the senior-junior student relationship. Two dominant practices characterised the feedback: (i) creating a comfortable learning environment in which to engage in the feedback process, including being aware of and accommodating junior students’ emotional response, and (ii) ensuring feedback for learning, including pitching this in a way that junior students could understand.
The ways in which senior students facilitated feedback conversations with junior students included elements of their own educators’ practices which they then modified to suit their near-peer mentor role. While much of the literature has focused on the development of educators, this research suggests that developing students’ feedback literacy through near-peer mentoring can support students to become educators of the future.
Feedback literacy research has variously cast the teacher in the role of ‘information provider’, or ‘contributor‘ to feedback dialogue, focussing on cognitive, and social-affective learner processes. If feedback is considered from an alternate, sociomaterial perspective (Gravett 2020), the role of all actors (human and non-human), and the importance of the interplay between those actors, resources, contexts, and structures, comes to the fore (Biesta & Tedder, 2007).
From this perspective, feedback literacies might be more than just a set of predetermined skills or capabilities. They could be understood as how an individual ‘reads the world’ (Freire, 1985) and participates in emergent situations which are not wholly under any one person’s control. In this framing, we contend that the role of one of these key actors: the ‘teacher’ needs to be further explored. We introduce the notion that there is a multiplicity of capabilities, and a symmetry of feedback literacies between learners and teachers, where context and role of both self and others are acknowledged.
We explore feedback literacies from a Theory of Practice Architectures perspective, which allows us to illuminate and interrogate the structures which influence the possibilities for feedback practice. We build on previous conceptions of teacher feedback literacy (Winstone & Carless 2020) to highlight the interrelatedness of teacher and learner practices, and how knowing not only one’s own role, but how human and non-human actors co-produce practices, underpins feedback literacies.
This conceptual work has implications for both feedback practice and research. It will open up possibilities for seeing teacher and student feedback literacies not as separate capabilities to develop, but as entangled and embodied knowing and acting. This may shift the focus of efforts to develop feedback literacies within educational settings. Future avenues and methodologies for research on teachers’ feedback literacies in higher education will also be shared.
(References can be supplied but are beyond the limits of this form)
In this talk we frame feedback within the wider context of teaching and make the case for using a discourse analytic approach to examining feedback talk in seminar classrooms. The higher education literature on feedback has generally focused on written feedback, with scant attention paid to verbal feedback. We report on a study which built on a small but emerging body of literature focusing on verbal, dialogic feedback and its role in supporting students’ learning. We drew on discourse analysis to identify linguistic and rhetorical indicators of feedback talk in six seminar events. The feedback talk was classified into codes which formed the basis of stimulated recall interviews held with tutors of two seminars to discuss their perceptions and understandings of verbal feedback. We argue that a framework of feedback talk provides a heuristic which can help us to further understand the relationship between feedback and teaching, and which teachers can use to examine their own feedback talk.
Typically, students are used to receiving text-based feedback on their work. However, as teaching and learning practices continue to expand into digital and technology-enhanced spaces, so too do possibilities for multimodal types of feedback.
Framed within the existing literature on feedback literacy and specifically that relating to audio and video feedback (Henderson & Phillips, 2015; Mahoney, Macfarlane, & Ajjawi, 2018), this lightning talk will explore the results of a scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) research study that sought to understand the effects of video feedback on feedback literacy and engagement. During the 2019-20 academic year, I recorded nearly 800 videos in order to provide the pre-service teacher education students in my Digital Technology and Social Media Applications course with feedback solely in video format. At the conclusion of the course, students were invited to complete a qualitative electronic survey. Results identified a lack of prior experience with video feedback, and yet unanimous agreement that the video feedback was more useful than previous non-video feedback. All participants (n=12) said that in their future K-12 teaching, they would be “somewhat likely” or “very likely” to use video feedback. Interestingly, they also identified specific details about their development of feedback literacy as a result of receiving video feedback.
On the other hand, implementing video feedback affects the instructor greatly. I will round out this session with reflections from my teaching journal on the process of giving video feedback. For instance, there were aspects to giving feedback that were unsustainable, such as the time commitment, and others that were truly rewarding (greater attention to individual student work). The lasting message from this study is that video feedback, like any type of feedback, should be deliberate, timely, ongoing, and specific (Carless & Boud, 2018).
A cross school project between The School of Health Sciences and The School of Pharmacy & Biomolecular Sciences at The University of Brighton was successful in introducing self and peer assessment of reflective writing as a formative assessment for level 4 and level 5 work-based learning modules, for students undertaking a Foundation Degree. The aim of the project was to proactively engage students to develop both their reflective writing skills, and their confidence in giving and receiving structured feedback using a clear model. These skills are vital for the development of students to prepare them to be competent reflective practitioners and assessors in clinical practice, capable of giving meaningful feedback to future learners and peers. To achieve this project three senior lecturers worked closely with a learning technologist, to ensure a rigorous and straight-forward process for the students.
Overall, there was a positive response to the task, for example during the project evaluation when asked ‘How likely do you feel that this process has supported you to develop skills in giving feedback in the clinical setting?’ A student responded, “I feel I could deliver the positive feedback sandwich and still maintain respect and good feeling between myself and a fellow peer”. This shows that the emotional impact of feedback is recognised by students and this process made them feel that they are better prepared to give feedback in the future.
This session will include an overview of the project, and an evaluation using student feedback and project team experience of using this method.
References:
Bain, J., Ballantyne, R., Packer, J. and Mills, C. (1999) Reflection in learning and professional development: theory and practice. Abingdon: Routledge.
Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice [Online], 5 (1), pp. 51-73.
Moon, J. (1999) Reflection in learning and professional development: theory and practice. Abingdon: Routledge
A Dialogic Technology-Mediated Model of Feedback Uptake and Literacy
Abstract
Despite the importance of feedback uptake in higher education, there is still much to learn about supporting it. Recent perspectives hold that guiding learners through feedback uptake oriented activities may also help them to develop feedback literacy. However, due to the acceleration of digitisation trends in higher education, there is an increasing need to explore feedback uptake and literacy development, exploiting opportunities offered by digital environments. This need constitutes a significant gap that is of immediate importance to practitioners teaching online and will also be crucial in a post-COVID-19 context in which the use of blended and online learning is expected to increase. This conceptual presentation draws on a synthesis of existing feedback uptake, formative assessment, and technology literature to offer a technology-mediated dialogic model of feedback uptake and literacy. Focused on how technological-mediation can enrich opportunities for co-regulation of the processes involved in feedback uptake and the development of feedback literacy, the model is intended for use in designing classroom feedback practices that can be embedded in standard curricula. The model serves to inform the discussion of feedback uptake and the nascent discussion of teacher feedback literacy in the digital settings in which many feedback practices in higher education now take place.