1. e-Feedback for formative assessment:
Can it improve assessment efficiency? Tony Milanowski, Wine department, Plumpton College
Introduction & Aim
Feedback consistently receives poor levels of student satisfaction when compared to other aspect of higher education (see Table 1)
National union of students (NUS) feedback campaign (NUS, 2008) and research by McNicol (n.d.) and Brown, Bull & Pendlebury (1997) outline several principles of good feedback including:
Timeliness
Legibility & clarity
Accessibility
Flexibility: feedback dependent on student needs
Electronic feedback should allow tutors to achieve improvements with regard to these key principles.
The aim of this study was to evaluate different styles of electronic feedback according to:
Tutor efficiency
Quantity of feedback
Quality of feedback
Logistics & administration
Table 1. National union of students (NUS)
2008 National student survey (NSS)
Satisfaction %
Assessment and feedback
64%
Feedback on my work has been prompt
56%
I have received detail comments on my work
61%
Feedback on my work has helped me clarify things I did not understand
Table 2. Assessment & feedback styles investigated
Hand annotation of student work
Handwritten feedback
Word processed feedback
Audio feedback using MP3 recorder (Fig 1.)
Audiovisual feedback via handheld video camera (Fig 2.)
Electronic annotation and feedback of student work
Used Grademark function of Turnitin software (Fig 3.)
Method – Case study
Twenty nine FdSc Wine Production and BSc Oenology & Viticulture students submitted a word lab report. Using this assignment, different styles of electronic assessment & feedback were evaluated (Table 2).
Data collected:
Report size and time taken to assess & annotate work
Feedback amount and time taken to generate
Tutor thoughts on logistics and feedback
Student thoughts on feedback process
Fig 1.
Sanyo MP3 recorder
Fig 2.
Flip Mino video recorder
Fig 3.
Grademark by Turnitin
Table 3.
Results
Feedback style
Assessment Time a
(min)
Assessment Rate b (words/min)
Feedback Time c
Feedback Length (words)
Feedback Rate d (words/min)
Student feedback
Comments on logistics & Administration
Handwritten
24.6
137
7.0
100
14.3
Generally positive
Quick (~1 min) and robust return to student of work.
Word Processed
18.61 (19.5)
1701
(148)
12.0
191
15.9
Quick (1-2 min) return to student of work.
Feedback files can be corrupted, overwritten and can be misdirected.
Audio 23
153
8.4
14702
1752
Slow (5-10 min) return to student of work.
Audiovisual
26.6
158
8.0
12002
1502
Mixed3
Very Slow (10-20 min) return to student of work.
Feedback files can be corrupted, overwritten and can be misdirected
Grademark
26.4
131
12.2
173
Quick (1-2 min) and robust return to student of work.
Conclusions
Audio feedback in this case study performed the best according to the criteria of tutor efficiency, quantity of feedback and quality of feedback.
Audio feedback does have some drawbacks regarding potential loss or misdirection of files.
Solutions to this problem should be investigated further.
Grademark style assessment and feedback has strong logistic & administration advantages, but does not provide for the same quality & quantity of feedback as audio. This could be improved if Grademark was to develop an audio feedback capability.
Audiovisual proved to be the least effective feedback due to difficulties with file size & type as well as poor student response.
a Assessment time = Average time taken to read and annotate work
b Assessment rate = Average report word count / Average assessment time
c Feedback time = Average time taken to generate feedback
d Feedback rate = Average feedback length/ Average feedback time
Low average time taken due to one weak piece of work.
Figure in brackets has the outlying data removed
Feedback rate based upon average talking speeds
Students encountered problems with file type and size
Acknowledgements
Plumpton College Wine Department
University of Brighton
Learning technologies group
Centre for learning & teaching
Contact Details
Plumpton College, Plumpton ,
BN6 3AE East Sussex.
References
Brown, G., Bull, J., & Pendlebury, M., Assessing student learning in higher education. London: Routledge.
McNicol, D., n.d. Rethinking Formative Assessment in HE: a theoretical model and seven principles of good feedback practice. [online] HE Academy < web0015_rethinking_formative_assessemtns_in_he.pdf> , [date accessed ]
National union of students., The great NUS feedback amnesty. [online] National union of students
< accessed ]