Feeding forward on feedback: Upping our game in assessment and feedback at Kent April McMahon, Sue Rigby, Howard Griffin and Rory Murray V1.0 To change the footer on every slide: 1. On the menu go to Insert > Header and Footer… 2. Select the Footer checkbox and enter the footer text in the accompanying text box 3. Click “Apply to All”

Current position on Assessment and Feedback Kent’s NSS position on A+F was 66% in 2011, 30th place nationally –in 2016 we were 71% but 75th. This reflects a fall of 1% and 17 places from 2015 to 2016. The Academic Audit Committee notes that this is an area of persistently low performance and in Nov 2016 set up an Audit Team to explore the situation and make recommendations. These recommendations have now been endorsed by Education Board and Senate. BUT there is also exemplary good practice around the University in A+F – just not shared consistently.

Academic Audit Team of A+F April McMahon, DVC Education Sue Rigby, DVC University of Lincoln Mike Went, SPS Howard Griffin, KSA Alison Dean, KBS and Associate Dean Chris Mattinson, Kent Union Karen Browne, QA Office

Feedback events, March 2017 On 2 and 3 March 2017, the Audit Team held open meetings with staff and students on both the Canterbury and Medway campuses. We met nearly 100 students and colleagues from Schools, Faculties and PSDs. A full report sets out how recommendations flowed from the discussions at these meetings. Each meeting started with the two following slides to prompt discussion.

Assessment and Feedback: Key themes for students Students know about Assessment Criteria and where to find them, but often find them vague and are unsure about how to apply to them to their assignments. Students in their first year are also uncertain as to what a good assignment looks like with regard to the criteria; Students are keen to develop and improve between each of their assignments. However, this is made difficult by inconsistencies in Feedback Quality and Feedback Timeliness where feedback isn’t detailed enough to help them progress, or isn’t returned quickly enough to take on board ready for the next assessment (or a combination of the two); Students are concerned by the fairness of marking and whether it is objective enough; Students find that assessments are often clustered together without enough prior knowledge of these dates in order to plan around them, or find that deadlines are moved or changed without enough warning; Students enjoy a variety of assessments, particularly project work or presentations that at present don’t feature in every degree.

Questions for discussion How big an issue is consistency? For students or staff or both? Do we do enough to help students understand what feedback is and what it is for? What are the biggest issues you perceive with feedback and assessment, and how far do they overlap with the concerns raised by students? What is stopping us performing better on the issues students have identified as problematic? Do we have the pattern of assessment right? Should we consider winter exams at Kent? Are you aware of the Assessment and Feedback policy? Do you engage with it? What are the obstacles to adopting more diverse and innovative forms of assessment, or ways of giving feedback? What can the University do to help? What works well? Examples?

Process and next steps Sue Rigby – reflections on the process and on contributions from staff and students. April McMahon and Howard Griffin – recommendations (you have a paper copy of these, prioritised into Phase 1 and Phase 2). Questions and discussion – including Rory Murray (clear links with the preceding session).

What next? April will be meeting Directors of Education on Monday 26 June to discuss further. We will send out the full report of the Audit Team which went to Senate, including e.g. a sample feedback sheet from Psychology, to Heads of School and Directors of Education. We will also send the prioritised recommendations. What more would help? How can we support Schools? Resources, sharing good practice, networks…?

This