File
Killingback C1,2, Mahato P2, Williams J2
1University of Hull, Hull, United Kingdom, 2Bournemouth University, Bournemouth, United Kingdom
Background: Providing students with feedback on assessments is an integral part of teaching and a potentially powerful enhancer of student learning. However, lack of engagement in feedback is common. Written feedback remains the most frequent method for communicating feedback. This has been criticised by students due to the vague nature of comments, impersonal text and lack of understanding of the meaning behind the text. In response to these criticisms, alternative modes such as audio, video, podcast, screen cast, face-to-face, self, and peer feedback have been explored. Given the range of feedback modes available, it would be important to understand student and lecturer preferences before implementing any changes to feedback delivery.
Purpose: To explore physiotherapy student and lecturer summative feedback experiences to date from one programme within a UK Higher Education Institution and understand how this can be used to inform decision making around feedback modes.
Methods: Ethical approval was gained from Bournemouth University Research Ethics Committee. The study employed a qualitative research design. Following informed consent, five lecturers were recruited for semi-structured interviews and 25 students for three focus groups. Focus groups and individual interviews were guided by a semi-structured interview guide. Data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis.
Results: Students valued opportunities to dialogue around feedback in relation to their understanding of the marking criteria, the marking process, and feedback post assessment. These opportunities were notably lacking at present. Students identified preferences for feedback modes which were lecturer led and which promoted a human connection such as face-to-face, video, audio, or screen cast. Lecturers similarly expressed the importance of dialogue around feedback although recognised that oftentimes the feedback marks the end of the student-lecturer interaction thus losing the opportunity for further dialogue. Most often, lecturers preferred feedback modes which were student led such as self-assessment or peer-feedback. These were seen as being more meaningful for the students and encouraged the development of reflective skills - a core aspect of continuing professional development.
Conclusion(s): The lack of feedback dialogue around assessment means that lecturers are not aware of how and if their feedback is being used whilst students are unaware of the potential contribution the feedback can make to their learning. Challenges were raised around selecting optimal feedback modes due to a lack of consensus on student and lecturer preferences. Students reported a preference for lecturer led modes whereas many of the lecturers were advocating for student led modes. Future work should focus on the views of students in regards to both formative and summative feedback.
Implications: Findings from this research have been used to inform an assessment feedback strategy within the programme under study aimed at improving the student and lecturer feedback experience. Each unit now includes explanations of the marking criteria, marking process, and opportunities for discussion post assessment through student drop in sessions. Students are provided with opportunities for self and peer assessment as formative feedback and screen cast and audio feedback have been piloted in summative assessments.
Keywords: pedagogy, assessment feedback, qualitative
Funding acknowledgements: This research was carried out with funding from Bournemouth University.
Purpose: To explore physiotherapy student and lecturer summative feedback experiences to date from one programme within a UK Higher Education Institution and understand how this can be used to inform decision making around feedback modes.
Methods: Ethical approval was gained from Bournemouth University Research Ethics Committee. The study employed a qualitative research design. Following informed consent, five lecturers were recruited for semi-structured interviews and 25 students for three focus groups. Focus groups and individual interviews were guided by a semi-structured interview guide. Data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis.
Results: Students valued opportunities to dialogue around feedback in relation to their understanding of the marking criteria, the marking process, and feedback post assessment. These opportunities were notably lacking at present. Students identified preferences for feedback modes which were lecturer led and which promoted a human connection such as face-to-face, video, audio, or screen cast. Lecturers similarly expressed the importance of dialogue around feedback although recognised that oftentimes the feedback marks the end of the student-lecturer interaction thus losing the opportunity for further dialogue. Most often, lecturers preferred feedback modes which were student led such as self-assessment or peer-feedback. These were seen as being more meaningful for the students and encouraged the development of reflective skills - a core aspect of continuing professional development.
Conclusion(s): The lack of feedback dialogue around assessment means that lecturers are not aware of how and if their feedback is being used whilst students are unaware of the potential contribution the feedback can make to their learning. Challenges were raised around selecting optimal feedback modes due to a lack of consensus on student and lecturer preferences. Students reported a preference for lecturer led modes whereas many of the lecturers were advocating for student led modes. Future work should focus on the views of students in regards to both formative and summative feedback.
Implications: Findings from this research have been used to inform an assessment feedback strategy within the programme under study aimed at improving the student and lecturer feedback experience. Each unit now includes explanations of the marking criteria, marking process, and opportunities for discussion post assessment through student drop in sessions. Students are provided with opportunities for self and peer assessment as formative feedback and screen cast and audio feedback have been piloted in summative assessments.
Keywords: pedagogy, assessment feedback, qualitative
Funding acknowledgements: This research was carried out with funding from Bournemouth University.
Topic: Education
Ethics approval required: Yes
Institution: Bournemouth University
Ethics committee: Bournemouth University Research Ethics Committee
Ethics number: ID15371
All authors, affiliations and abstracts have been published as submitted.
