32
| Date post: | 13-Jun-2015 |
| Category: |
Education |
| Upload: | simon-davis |
| View: | 355 times |
| Download: | 0 times |
Outline
• Feedback; written vs video• Case study 1 – student presentations• Case study 2 – student work• Learning points
(Assessment &) feedback in HE
• Key to learning – constructive alignment (Biggs)• Weakest area for student satisfaction (NSS)• Feedback = “Any part of the learning process
which is designed to guide student progress”– Adequacy, timeliness, usefulness, fairness*
• Significant issues around timeliness, individualisation, engagement, impact, staff workload…
* University of York guide to Assessment, Standards, Marking and Feedback
Written feedback : the problem
Lack of engagement with written feedback is related to its limitations:
• Discourse of wfb - tacit knowledge making criteria explicit (Chanock, 2000)
• Lack of shared understanding of criteria (Sadler, 1989, 2010)
• Reinforces the distance between tutor expert and novice student
• (Mis) interpretation of feedback• Disconnect between commentary and subject• Lack of depth
Enhanced feedback
• Audio – “soundsgood” project• Screencast feedback (McLaughlin 2009,
Stannard 2007)• Video feedback (Thiissen 2012, Lightfoot 2010)
Case study 1: Video feedback to develop student presentation skills (Physics)
• Students n=125• Students give a presentation in term 1• These are recorded and uploaded onto the VLE• Feedback is given by staff, self reflection and peers• Students give a 2nd presentation in term 3 which
builds on comments
Case study: Video feedback
2010/11– Learning objects blog
• Students record presentations > batch converted• Batch allocate students to groups (*16)• Folders restricted to groups containing LO blogs• Multiple videos embedded within the blogs
– Individual tutor feedback – Peer feedback– Personal reflection
2011/12 – Blackboard blog
• Blogs restricted to groups with Adaptive Release– Could use the My Groups area
• Multiple videos embedded within the blogs– Peer feedback– Personal reflection– Staff feedback provided later
Impact: comparing marks 2009 - 2010
Impact: student evaluation (n=40)
Select from the list below, anything that you feel helped you to develop your presentation skills:
• Watching own presentation (94%) • Feedback from staff (83%)• Feedback from peers (83%)• Reflecting on my own presentation performance (76%)• Assessing the performance of other students against a
provided set of criteria (64%)
Impact: student comments
• “Watching the video was most useful. Several things I felt went wrong during the talk weren't noticeable at all, while some things I didn't notice were”.
• “The videos are especially good, and the fact that you can watch as many times as you like is very good. The ability to provide/ receive instant feedback is very helpful”.
• “Highlighted my weaknesses more effectively”.
• “It was useful having to analyse my own presentation rather than just forgetting about it. I was able to find faults myself which is more likely to help me improve next time. This wouldn’t have been possible without the talks being recorded”.
• “The VLE provided an interactive source of feedback which helped me improve my speaking skills. The videos also helped me to see where I was going wrong with my presentation”.
Case study 2: Screencast feedback on Academic Writing (Dept Education)
• Masters ESOL classroom practice• ~20 international students• Mid term formative task – short academic essay• Written feedback after 1 week• Screencast feedback 1 week later
– Via e-mail, VLE “too clunky”
Designing and delivering feedback / feedforward
• Review work and make notes / highlighting• Prepare positive and development bullet points• Prepare workspace and deliver feedback
– Greet student by name and introduce yourself– State what feedback is on and how it is structured– Comment on positive aspects – Expand in detail on highlighted points– Give brief summary with feedforward
(adapted from Cullen http://www.bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk/ftp/events/roehampton/screencast.pdf)
Impact: Student Survey (n=15/20 )
1)attention to both types of fb
2) evaluating wfb versus sfb
Students read wfb three times+ 9/15
Students viewed sfb three times+ 12/ 15
Q:If you were only able to receive one form of feedback, either written feedback comments or screen cast feedback, which of these two forms of feedback would you choose?
9 chose sfb 4 chose wfb (Kerr & McLaughlin study- three quarters chose sfb)
Impact: Student responses, strengths of screencast fb (12)• “I think the most obvious advantage is that students
can feel engaged as if their tutor is talking to them face to face”
• “More straightforward and personal. It's like the tutor is talking to you in person. And the comments are directed to the parts of your article clearly.”
• “More memorable because it’s like the teacher is talking to you and giving instructions to you. Sometimes I can't recognize teachers' writing in the written feedback.”
Learning from written feedback(12)
• Strengths of written feedback• “I think the written feedback is more clear and specific
about some small mistakes that I made (like some printing mistakes) while the screen cast tends to be focused mainly on the structure or some other macro aspects.
• “You can read it anywhere you like (3) and it's easy to go back to check whereas the screen cast can only be read on your computer. Also, the information is more memorable to visual learners.”
• Meeting this with screencast feedback• Ask students to respond to feedback with action points• Provide bullet pointed scripts along with
Use of screencasts - reflections
• Benefits – “over the shoulder intimacy”– ‘quick and dirty’ helps develop trust and authenticity– personal style / nuance – any innovation that shows tutor commitment engenders
positive attitude towards tutors (France & Ribchester, 2008)
– Sfb has all the benefits of audio fb -depth of explanation, personalisation etc. but with added visual element
– Most appropriate for formative feedback
• Challenges– Production workload (rendering, distribution to students
through VLE)– Getting “best of both” (written / screencast)
vGuidance Pilot project: online screencast creation & access control
• Bespoke system for (non-technical) careers advisers creating rich feedback (efficient, easy...)
• Respond to student CV submissions (username)• Record feedback online (server side production)
– Screencast-o-matic
• Generic E-mail with advice and link to students• Students log in to access all feedback provided• Opportunity for face to face follow up
Impact: student survey (n=12)
• vGuidance is:– Convenient: 5– Easy to use: 4.8– Personal: 4.5– Easy to understand feedback: 4.4– Saves me time: 4.3– Is engaging: 4.4– Want future vGuidance feedback: 4.8
Impact: student comments
• “…the video was much more engaging”• “I think it is good that I will be able to keep viewing it
whilst I update my CV with the suggestions that were made rather than leaving an appointment and maybe not remembering what was said.”
• “Going through the CV in a visual manner helps to understand not only where to modify it, but also how in terms of spacial and lay-out aspects”
• “It is easier to apply to the document you are working on. It creates extensive feedback so you are not confused by notes made.”
Impact: staff response
• Careers advisers:– Saves time (10-15 mins cf.30-60 for text equivalent)– Less fear of getting tone right / misinterpretation
• Bill Soden– Removes production overheads– Removes access control issues
Potential for integration with Blackboard
Opportunities• Single sign on potential for simpler integration with
VLE• Feedback could be organised by course,
assignment etc.
Challenges• Concerns over 3rd party API – funding• Scalability• Integration with Gradecentre• Room for human error (username)
Final questions / comments
• How can the ability to create and provide feedback through Blackboard be improved?
References
• Biggs, J.B. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham: Open University Press/Society for Research into Higher Education. (Second edition)
• Channock, K, (2000) Comments on Essays: do students understand what tutors write? Teaching in Higher Education, 5: 1, 95-105.
• Cullen, R. Screencast feedback. Last accessed 2nd June 2011 from
http://www.bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk/ftp/events/roehampton/screencast.pdf• France, D., & Ribchester, C. (2008). Podcasts and feedback. In G. Salmon & P. Edirisingha,
(Eds.), Podcasting for learning in universities (pp 70-79). Berkshire: Open University Press.• Kerr, W., & McLaughlin, P. (2009). The benefit of screen recorded summaries in feedback for
work submitted electronically. Last accessed 15th May 2011 from http://ebookbrowse.com/kerr-w-mclaughlin-p-formatted-b1-pdf-d116387872
• Lunt, T, & Curran, J. (2010) ‘Are you listening please?’ The advantages of electronic audio feedback compared to written feedback. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 35: 7, 759-769.
• Sadler, R. (2010) Beyond Feedback: developing student capability in complex appraisal. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 35: 5, 535-550.
• Stannard (2007) Using screen capture software in student feedback: A case study from the HEA English Subject Centre. Last accessed 15th May, 2011 http://www.english.heacademy.ac.uk/explore/publications/casestudies/technology/camtasia.php)
