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.
Student engagement with their feedback is often limited, with some students only looking at their mark and not accessing the feedback comments at all. Part of the reason for this is that students often cannot see where the feedback can be applied in the future – known as having somewhere for feedback to land. Often feedback is provided after work on a module has finished and with no further work on that module, students may lack the feedback literacy to use their feedback as feedforward for other modules or see the link to other pieces of work, even if they are not the same format.
In this pilot study, we flipped the feedback for two pieces of coursework in a module and asked students to submit a draft report prior to releasing generic feedback and a self-evaluation for the students to complete based on common errors from previous years. As part of this reflection, the students needed to rate themselves against the mark scheme, identify things they were already doing well, things they could improve on and things they need to start doing. Additionally, students were asked to identify one or two areas that they would like specific feedback on. They were then allowed to submit a final version of their report. Both versions of the report were marked using an online rubric with only very brief, generic feedback statements. Students were surveyed to determine their satisfaction with this approach, with an overwhelmingly positive response, as well as an average 9% increase in scores from draft to final version ranging from 0 to 31% improvement.
Overall the average mark for the coursework in this module rose by 7% from 55% to 62% compared to last year’s cohort who did not use the flipped feedback approach. Despite marking the draft and final submission, actual staff marking time decreased as fewer comments needed to be made on submissions as students had self-identified their shortcomings. Overall this approach has shown a positive improvement of student engagement with their feedback and enhanced learning opportunities.
The aim of this contribution is to analyse the role of the type of assessment criteria and the criteria engagement strategies on evaluative judgement (Boud, Ajjawi, Dawson, & Tai, 2018) as a strategy to foster Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) (Nicol, Thomson & Breslin, 2014; Panadero, Jonsson & Strijbos, 2016). A group task with two feedback loops, which met Panadero, Jonsson and Strijbos (2016) criteria, was design so that students could peer-assess two versions of the task before the final submission. Students had also to reflect on the feedback received and state how they had integrated it (Winstone & Boud, 2020). An initial activity to develop students’ engagement with assessment criteria was done. The written criteria (focused onthe task and the process) were presented and discussed (Winstone, Nash., Parker & Rowntree, 201; Carless & Boud, 2018). The role of assessment criteria and criteria engagement strategies on evaluative judgement was studied analysing teacher students’ feedback quality. The content of students’ feedback was analysed through a guide ad hoc which focused on the type, focused, tone, content and direction of feedback. The results presented in this contribution belong to a 1st year subject from the Bachelor’s Degree in Primary Education at the University of Barcelona in which 59 students were enrolled. The analysis of the type of peer-feedback between loops 1 and 2 shows an improvement of feedback quality, which was progressively oriented to the process (Ajjawi & Boud, 2018; Hattie & Timperley, 2007); the feedback was more didactic and suggestive (more than corrective) and addressed to the peer. The components of evaluative judgement (Panadero, Broadbent, Boud & Lodge, 2019) seem to be fostered based on the improvement of the quality of feedback and the reflections on how it is integrated into the next task.
REFERENCES:
Ajjawi, R., & Boud, D. (2018). Examining the nature and effects of feedback dialogue. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 1-14, https://doi-org.sire.ub.edu/10.1080/02602938.2018.1434128
Boud, D., Ajjawi, R., Dawson, P., & Tai, J. (Eds.) (2018). Developing Evaluative Judgment in Higher Education. Assessment for Knowing and Producing Quality Work. New York: Routledge.
Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354
…
Providing high-quality, affordable, and enjoyable online learning opportunities for adults has never been more competitive or important. Effectively designed courses provide evidence of learning outcome mastery, efficient designs lead to quick results, and appealing designs are enjoyed by the learner. One challenge of addressing these tensions is that most higher education institutions lack the kinds of metrics that would allow leaders to make timely decisions related to curriculum and instruction. What if real-time data could provide proactive insight into a student’s experiences? Are there online-learner behaviors (rather than algorithms, which can be biased) that leaders could observe as early-warning signs of problems with the effectiveness of the instruction, the efficiency of the design, or the overall appeal of the courses? What are the key ingredients of learning, and could they be measured and monitored on a large scale?
Feedback is a powerful construct in the design of effective instruction, so it seems logical that feedback-delivery technology could be leveraged to increase efficiency by delivering immediate feedback, improve quality by delivering accurate feedback, and maintain appeal by being user-friendly. Many of these points of data are at least partially tracked by today’s learning management systems (LMSs) and adaptive learning courseware technologies.
This hypothesis was tested in a correlational study in which I compared the feedback experiences of learners with their achievement on standardized exams. Secondly, I compared the feedback experiences of learners with their satisfaction as reported on end-of-course surveys. To evaluate the learners’ feedback experiences, I gathered data from the last three online courses they took before completing their academic degree programs. I wanted to learn about the cumulative effects on a student who received, for example, great feedback from Professor A but less effective feedback from Professors B and C. At the same time, would learners who simultaneously had three great experiences with feedback be more likely to learn and enjoy their learning? The research question guiding my work is this: Are there correlations between learner achievement, learner satisfaction, and several measurable dimensions of the learner’s experience with feedback?
Learners’ feedback literacy, i.e. their capacity to seek, understand and take action on feedback to enhance the quality of their future work (Carless & Boud, 2018) is unlikely to be developed without feedback literate teachers. One of the aspects of teachers’ feedback literacy is their willingness to adapt, reflect upon and refine the feedback strategies used with students (Winstone & Carless, 2020). When educators notice that feedback does not promote student uptake or has little or no impact on student learning, they need to be willing to change their entrenched feedback practices in favour of experimentation in new pedagogic approaches. However, as teacher feedback literacy is a relatively new research area, current literature provides little insight into how these processes may occur. There is a need, therefore, to explore what motivates practitioners to enhance their own feedback practices and how the growth of teachers’ own feedback literacy may subsequently impact students as well as fellow teachers.
The aim of this lightning talk is to recount the speaker’s journey as a teacher, feedback researcher and feedback intervention designer. The talk will demonstrate how the self-reflective enquiry into feedback practices used with direct entry students at a major Australian university has stimulated the speaker to, first, undertake classroom action research and then pursue PhD study in student feedback literacy. The speaker’s reflections, supported by the review of relevant literature, have subsequently informed the design of the ipsative feedback intervention, implemented with three groups of students between February and May 2020. The intervention focused on placing student individual progress at the centre of feedback practice and providing opportunities for individual goal-formation and uptake of feedback. The talk will highlight how the process of designing and implementing the intervention has increased speaker’s interest in students’ judgements and emotional responses to feedback, thus strengthening student-teacher partnership.
References:
Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315-1325. doi:10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354
Winstone, N. E., & Carless, D. (2020). Designing Effective Feedback Processes in Higher Education: A Learning-Focused Approach. London: Routledge.