Promise and practice: how should first-year students’ expectations regarding assessment be met? Mantz Yorke Higher Education Academy Conference Manchester, 3 July 2012

Agenda The evolving context of UK HE Presentation of some relevant issues Workshop Comments, questions and – hopefully – a few answers

Some relevant issues Pre-enrolment engagement Some students take time to ‘get it’ Expectation that school feedback practices continue in HE Turnaround time The personal/emotional dimension to feedback Staff availability Most of the sources cited can be found in a conference paper by scrolling down from

The provision of prior information (Data from first-year students in Art & Design) The match, by high/low level of prior information, between expectations and experience: Teaching Assessment methods The importance of pre-enrolment engagement: an example Yorke & Vaughan, 2012

Teaching Assessment methods Increasing match of experience with expectation Level of prior information High Low

Expectations regarding feedback, Australia Issue (abbreviated) N=979N=1774N=3091 % Agree Ready access to staff outside f2f is important 87 I expect teachers to read drafts52 Feedback on drafts is important to learning 9295 Crisp et al (2009); Scutter et al (2011)

Expectations re feedback... and experience Item theme (varies with group studied) At orientation % Agree End year 1 % Agree Teachers % Agree ‘Ready’ access to lecturers, tutors Feedback on submitted work Feedback on DRAFTS of work Colour code: Humanities Science Note: phrasing adjusted to fit circumstances Brinkworth et al (2009)

1 week2-3 weeks4-6 weeks 2006 % % %1960 Acceptable time-interval for return of work Crisp et al (2009); Scutter et al (2011)

Inadequate understanding of the task (Glover & Brown 2006) Student-staff differences in perception (Maclellan 2001) Feedback not understood (Chanock 2000; Weaver 2006) Tutors’ intentions re feedback not understood (Higgins et al 2002) ‘Being told’ is not engaging (Crisp 2007) Disjuncts in the feedback loop (Hounsell et al 2006) Transferability not perceived (Carless 2006; Duncan 2007) especially where assessment demands are diverse (Gibbs, TESTA) Timeliness (Brinkworth et al 2009) The grade’s the thing (Snyder 1971) Espoused theory & practice out of sync (Orrell 2006; Orsmond+ 2011) Issues relating to the effectiveness of feedback

Week 4Week 10 Lack of confidence23%40% ExpectedActual Distinction +7%~ 7% High pass80% 57% Fail1% 17% Cameron (2008) Self-confidence

For [first-year] students feedback goes beyond providing information on how to improve assessment marks. The ‘effective feedback’ for these students is that which provides emotional support and facilitates integration into university. (Poulos and Mahony, 2008) Acknowledging emotion To what extent can ‘the personal’ be accommodated in contemporary HE?

Students observed that feedback was given in such a way that they did not feel it was rejecting or discouraging... [and] that feedback procedures assisted them in forming accurate perceptions of their abilities and establishing internal standards with which to evaluate their own work Mentkowski and Associates (2000, p.82), emphasis added Feedback and feedforward

Broad subject area Full-time, N Part-time, N Total, N % PT Nursing & paramedical studies Biosciences Business & managem’t studies Humanities & lang-based studs Design & creative arts Sectoral employment of FT and PT staff (selected subject areas) HESA (2012) The staff availability issue

So how should first-year students’ expectations regarding assessment be met? Some of the issues that need to be considered: Some students take time to ‘get it’ regarding what is expected of them (especially academic standards) Younger students (particularly) may expect school practices regarding feedback to be continued in HE Turnaround time The personal/emotional dimension to feedback Staff availability Comments and questions on Post-its, please