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.
Students are not alone in needing to develop feedback literacies, but they can feel alone if teaching is something that is done to them by educators. This paper will explore how thinking about connections and relationality leads us towards new ways of thinking about how students and teachers’ experiences can be interconnected, both with one another, and with a wider context. Sharing our own experiences as academics developing feedback literacies can be powerful. Normalising failures, expressing vulnerability, and being open about our continued engagement in learning processes can be transformative for both student and teacher, meaning that teaching and learning become entangled and that teacher and learner become co-learners. During this paper, I will explore theory to discuss how pedagogy can become a matter of relations and lead us towards a ‘pedagogy of response-ability’ (Bozalek et al. 2018) where we can share learning and teaching in new ways. I will also draw upon recent research (Gravett et al. 2019) to disrupt the binary between learning and teacher, and I will explore practical strategies for how we might enact relational pedagogies in the classroom, using storytelling, feedback exemplars and artefacts. Ultimately, I will consider how we can experiment with new ways of thinking about feedback literacies, leading us to new ways of thinking about relationships in learning and teaching.
References
Bozalek, V., Bayat, A., Gachago, D., Motala, S. and Mitchell, V. (2018). ‘A pedagogy of response-ability’. In Bozaelk, V., Braidotti, R., Shefer, T. and Zembylas, M. Socially just pedagogies: Posthumanist, feminist and materialist perspectives in higher education, pp. 81-97. London: Bloomsbury.
Gravett, K. Kinchin, I. M., Winstone, N. E., Balloo, K., Heron, M., Hosein, A., Lygo-Baker, S. and Medland, E. (2020). The development of academics’ feedback literacy: Experiences of learning from critical feedback via scholarly peer review. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45 (5), 651-665.
Feedback literacy is not only important to students and teachers but also academics. In particular, academics and researchers who are actively involved as peer reviewers for journals need to develop their capacity, ability, and disposition to provide constructive feedback to authors. In this presentation, I argue that it is especially crucial to develop feedback literacy of peer reviewers because they face more constraints than feedback givers in other contexts (e.g., education). For instance, the identity of the authors is usually unknown to peer reviewers, making it difficult to construct feedback dialogues; other hurdles include the restriction on the mode of feedback, power (im)balance.
Despite the above, not much formal training is available to equip peer reviewers to be feedback literate; the rather mystified scholarly peer-review process, which is usually done individually and “in the dark”, also discourages learning from observation. To demystify the feedback process of scholarly peer review and to share first-hand experiences, this presentation reports a collaborative autoethnographic study on two early-career researchers (ECRs) who are active journal peer reviewers. Since 2017, these two peer reviewers have reviewed for 22 international journals in various disciplines and completed 67 reviews. Recently, they were awarded the Reviewer of the Year Award by Routledge and Higher Education Research & Development, a top-tiered journal in higher education. Informed by conceptual frameworks of feedback literacy (Carless & Boud, 2018; Carless & Winstone, 2020; Chong, 2020) and networked ecological systems theory (Neal & Neal, 2013), personal narratives and reflections of the two peer reviewers will be shared. Implications for supporting less experienced peer reviewers (especially ECRs and doctoral students) to be feedback literate peer reviewers will be discussed.
Assessment and feedback approaches can be influential factors on the students learning and engagement throughout their university experience. However, the assessment and feedback practices used across higher education often represent a more procedural focus to maintain the status quo. There is a continued overwhelming emphasis on summative assessment, which also translates into a dominance in one-way feedback practices across academic disciplines and institutions. Dialogic feedback is making inroads into current practices but is not yet widespread and often forgoes the research suggesting the positive impact it can have on learning, student attainment, engagement and attendance. Higher education’s focus on graduate attributes is proliferating the curriculum, with authentic and integrative assessment being more and more prominent in the course design and implementation. With the increased emphasis on digital skills and the recent Covid-19 global pandemic, this has undoubtably risen up the agenda and will play an even increasing role in the future construction of curriculum, but this research highlights the need for synthesis between these elements. Assessment and feedback practices are often disjointed and limit the possible impact on student attainment and engagement as a result, whilst also being summatively focused and weighted at the end of a module/programme.
Observing people who use computers at work can be difficult. A person working with physical objects and physical technologies behaves in ways that an observer can readily track. For example, in early motion and time studies, the Gilbreths devised a system of 18 elemental movements (e.g., select, grasp, move, inspect) to analyze what workers did. A person working with digital objects and digital technologies poses a greater challenge for the observer because small, nearly indiscernible actions (such as typing a single letter) may initiate a series of work actions on the computer. Worse still, a person may be hard at work when away from the computer while software programs run “in the background.” In this talk, I discuss the methods that I developed with my colleagues to combat these issues in our multi-year field study of engineering work and technology. Our methods blend the industrial engineer’s
eye for detail with the ethnographic tradition of observation and interpretation. I discuss in particular methods for collecting and analyzing digital objects and for understanding the array of digital technologies in a workplace.
Dear Naomi
This is a test submission. Applicants have up to 2500 characters to fill here, which will allow just over 350 words.
If you would like more characters added, or would like to amend this form in any way to include other information please let me know.
Under the ‘Type’ section currently there are two options – paper and poster. If you wish to change this to say something else please let me know and I will tailor the form for you.
If you have any queries please let me know.
Best wishes
Vicki
test
Test
In advance of our catch up at 11am, here is the current status regarding 2019-20 Workshops (see excel table at the bottom of the email):
Pulsations in Intermediate mass – Giovanni is planning to hold his event online now and has been speaking to a collaborator who has run some virtual events. He wants to invite those who had already planned to attend initially as, if you remember, this event was due to happen in March and so the attendance and speaker list had been confirmed. He plans to do half day sessions over a week and to intersperse discussion with pre-recorded Zoom videos. He plans to recruit and ECR or PGR to act as a moderator/oversee the tech so that he can actively participate in sessions. I have offered him some admin support if he needs it and confirmed with him that he can use some of the budget to pay the helper at the event itself. I have also asked him to advise me if he wishes to update any text on the website and to send me his new proposed timetable for the event when he can. He has spoken to the RAS and they agreed to maintain their original funding of £1500. In order to preserve Surrey money, we will try to use as much of the RAS money as possible first.
Feedback Literacy: Naomi plans to hold her event online in January and has given us key dates and amended text which I have put onto the website. As you will see she is planning to open registrations from 19 October so we need to make sure the registration process is working correctly. I have set it up for her event so that the form will go live on 19th but am going to test the feature just to be sure. She wants to issue the call for papers now and I told her to go ahead. She is going to do it via emails to herself. I know we need to encourage use of the website feature for submitting abstracts but the feature currently limits abstracts to 1000 characters. I did a quick check and this would equate to about 182 words. She is asking for 350 words and I did not want to cause a problem until we have confirmed if we can amend the length ourselves. I also used her event to submit a test abstract but it did not appear on the abstracts dashboard. I may have done something wrong so am going to test it again now.
I am typing this as a test dlfdl jafkjdalr eiuaifjk euijkfhurie fdrhdisure hfdkh
]rhejrejhjekrjherjhej
Test
Testing
testing
test – can only have 1000 characters
testing
Test test