FeedForward & Recursive Feedback for Practice Learning Debbie Holmes On behalf of Dr Sandie Sandbrook & Karen Bartter

Evidence for Practice Learning Develop a portfolio using PebblePad Have at least 1 piece of written evidence for each placement learning outcome (PLO) 18 PLOS = at least 18 unique pieces of evidence Must include 4 reflections of 1500 words

Students built their portfolios they learnt the system Share with your mentor/mentors and your personal teacher Not graded at that time, but required to pass practice

The issues with the reflections: Students did not understand feedback Students did not know what was required A full draft facility was in place resulting in feedback being written twice First assignment due whilst on placement following only a short university block at start of course Students often made the same mistakes across modules

What was required A more formalised formative process for the first reflection Reduce the draft marking as all 4 reflections were being marked A way of enhancing the assistance to help students to make sense of their practice learning To create dialogue between personal teacher and student To help the student understand the feedback

Student Gains practice experience Submits reflection to PebblePad Tutor Marks, provides detailed feedback and a grade Identifies 3 areas to improve Loads the feedback onto the asset in PebblePad Student Access their work on PebblePad and digest the feedback Attend a face to face 15 minute interview with tutor Explain what they understood by the feedback Explain what they needed to do to improve the grade The Process

Student Submit with highlighted changes Submit with no changes Tutor Visits the 3 areas changed, decides if requirements met Put the grade up one grade band or leaves the same Provides a validation statement for the ones with no changes Student Only submits 500 word formative for remaining reflections Reviews all feedback from all modules with tutor prior to commencing next academic year

Successes 53% (n=43) of the students raised their average grade for the 3 remaining reflections 12% (28%) maintained the standard of the first 19% (n=8) produced a lower average grade Less marking of draft work More formalised formative process Early identification of students at risk

Successes The cohorts involved in the process have demonstrated improved grades with reflective writing compared to those students who had the full draft facility for all of the reflections The students had reduced journeys to University on days off or after shifts as no collection of work required and the tutors visited the placement area for the face to face meeting

Non proven & unexpected gains Even the students who received a B grade wished to try for an A Taking a student out of the process if the work was really poor enabled focussed support early in the programme Students appear to appreciate the annual review of all of the feedback

Added value Where mentors were actively involved by reading and providing feedback to students in PebblePad there was evidence of learning for them too The tripartite approach to supporting the student was enhanced and more transparent

Where are we now and where are we going? The process remains in the new curriculum Has worked well with an essay too Portfolio now graded PP3 could make the process more efficient as the workspace pause function would be a useful tool