e-Feedback Who’s using it and why? Simon Starr Canterbury Christ Church University LTEU Learning and Teaching Enhancement Unit

Session Outline 1.Context what’s the deal with feedback? e-feedback research 2.Approaches to e-Feedback at Christ Church Faculty of Business and Management Department of Geographical and Life Science Department of Computing 3.Developing University Strategy Turnitin GradeMark 4.Questions & Discussion

Context – National Students’ Voice “Feedback: Should be for learning, not just of learning … Should relate to clear criteria … Should be legible and clear” “tutors and students have differing impressions about what is expected from assessment and how a student can achieve a high mark” “Objectives for assessment and grade criteria need to be clearly communicated to, and fully understood by, student. Subsequent feedback should be provided primarily in relation to this.” NUS Feedback Amnesty Briefing Paper /

Context – Local Students’ Voice “[Arts & Humanities] students were in favour of electronic feedback, yet would like to see it customised for each assignment” “[Business & Management] students found that they were often unable to read tutor’s [sic] handwriting” “[Education] students understood that electronic feedback would be easier to read and more structured” “Students highlighted that feedback would be especially useful if staff used a marking grid to show the students [sic] competence in various areas, 100% of the [Health & Social Care] Reps present agreed that typed and electronic feedback would be preferable” “[Social & Applied Sciences] students agreed that typed comments were preferable” Minutes of Student Union Faculty Council Meeting 4th March 2009

Context – University Policy “Students have an entitlement to timely and constructive feedback” “The language of feedback should be accessible, constructive and relate directly to the criteria against which the assessment is conducted” “The use of statement banks and electronic templates can speed up writing feedback and contribute to the quality of feedback” Principles for Effective Feedback Accepted by Academic Board 2009/10

Context – Research at Liverpool John Moores 198 L4 Pharmaceutical Science and Science students (2007) Feedback template inc. assessment criteria and statement banks 48 e-feedback (e), 150 traditional (t) feedback Survey (n=169, e=40, t=129) Avg. 0.9 Likert point higher for e-feedback compared to traditional Amount of feedback I received: e=4.0, t=2.6 Information on where I went wrong: e=3.8, t=2.8 Identified aspects I did well: e=3.9, t=2.7 Markers support further use 2-3 mins avg. time saving/script = 2 hrs for 40 scripts Offset against programming criteria/statement banks … Denton, P., Madden, J., Roberts, M & Rowe, P. (2008) ‘Students’ response to traditional and computer-based formative feedback: A comparative case study’, British Journal of Educational Technology, 39 (3) pp

Context – Research at University of Wales 200 L4/5/6 undergrad. criminology essays (2004/5) Feedback template inc. assessment criteria and statement banks Survey (n=95) 79% more aware of assessment criteria 69% more “able to identify ways to improve in the future” 67% more “motivated to improve in the future” Average 4% improvement in performance per student L1-2 Marking time reduced, student queries reduced Adopted by department as standard Case, S. (2007) ‘Reconfiguring and realigning the assessment feedback processes for an undergraduate criminology degree’, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32 (3) pp

@Christ Church 1: Business & Management Module: Introduction to Financial Accounting (L4) Assignment: Financial Report; ~400 students in 113 self- selecting groups Marking Arrangements: 5 markers feeding back grade, summary- and criteria-related feedback assessment grid “plugged in” Technology: Feedback 15 software (LJMU) e-Feedback Driver: time –vs- amount and quality of feedback

@Christ Church 1: Business & Management Module Lead: Nicky Leatherbarrow

@Christ Church 1: Business & Management Criteria-related feedback …

@Christ Church 1: Business & Management … enabled using Feedback 15 software

@Christ Church 1: Business & Management Example Feedback 15 Report

@ Christ Church 2: Geographical & Life Sciences Module: Organic/Environmental Chemistry ~25 students (L5) Module: Pollution Science ~15 students (L6) Assignments: lab reports; research tasks; numerical problems Marking Arrangements: single marker - criteria-related feedback, summary key points and stock phrases e.g. "the axis in the graph should be labelled“ "references should be given in the Harvard format“ Technology: FormFeed (Heriot-Watt) – similar to Feedback 15 e-Feedback Driver: try out new technology - early adopter

@ Christ Church 2: Geographical & Life Sciences Module Leader: Emilia Bertolo “I preferred this method to conventional marking: the time is spent more creatively … with almost no time wasted in generating generic feedback again and again.” “nice to be able to use office to write the feedback, since it catches spelling errors (as a non-native English speaker, that was great)” “modifying the marking grid to make sure I was not leaving any irrelevant feedback took me longer than what I had expected” No formal evaluation with students but asked for comments – no negative feedback … “Informally, a couple of students told me that they liked it, and another mentioned how nice it was that the feedback was typed …” “One of the external examiners really liked, he thought the feedback was very meaningful … I consider this the greatest success of the experience”

@Christ Church 3: Department of Computing Modules/Assignments: various Marking Arrangements: since 2002 feeding back criteria-related marks, stock phrases and overall comment, auto sum mark, reports to students Technology: In-house Excel-Word-Outlook e-Feedback Driver: R&D interest

@Christ Church 3: Department of Computing

Module Leader: Dave Bennett Used by almost all academic staff most use for simple addition some made enhancements e.g. automatic comment based on grade and standard marking grid No formal evaluation with students but … “No major issues encountered so far…” “[students] like getting it by ” Paper on criteria for developing e-Feedback systems in progress …

Summary Church echoes research Students like: clarity – type-written structure & consistency – criteria driven “feedforward” potential for electronic return of feedback? Tutors like: stock phrases to save time criteria-related feedback to guide students’ learning potential for electronic return of feedback? Several technologies available – key is “plugging in” assessment grids; stock phrases; electronic return?

Where Next? Developing University Strategy … Strategic assessment enhancement 2010/11: 3 week turnaround institutionally supported e-Submission and e-Feedback systems Piloting Turnitin GradeMark April/May quality of feedback: criteria-related feedback and detailed stock phrases ease: web-based, access anywhere; intuitively programme in and share assessment grids lesser focus on speed … … e-submission; e-return of feedback? GradeMark Demo Marking exercises …?

Questions?  Are there any opportunities for e-feedback for your students?  What might some of the drawbacks be?  Wait a minute, can’t this be done on paper anyway?