1. The One-Two-Three Feedback Cycle
Elaine Brown Department of Computing and Technology
Anglia Ruskin University
Dr. Mike Hobbs, Department of Computing and Technology

2. Context Module: Fundamentals of Design
Computer Science ‘Fundamentals of Design’
Key learning outcome: Develop an information system design from a case study using UML design diagrams
Level 4, first year, first semester
One of the first modules studied
60 – 90 students
1 hr lecture, 2 hour seminar class
20-30 students in up to 4 separate classes with 2 or 3 tutors

3. Assessment Issues 100% Course work
Weekly class exercises during course delivery
BUT set as ‘homework’ rather than submitted.
Informal, in class feedback
One complete case study for final submission
Students showing lack of understanding of how to apply diagrams to case study.
Formal feedback given at end of assessment.
Attendance at lectures classes seen as optional
Students focusing on final submission rather than developing their skills.

4. Key Requirements Better results for students: Efficient delivery
Faster feedback that is used by students (feed forward)
More practice on using techniques (time on task)
Encourage attendance
Efficient delivery
More work in preparation, less time spent marking.
Use pre-prepared generic feedback
Use class time for feedback and live discussion
Establish good working practices
Module to act as a template for good learning practice.
Facilitate transition between student as recipient of knowledge towards an active learner
Academic maturity - encouraging student voice as equal partners in the learning process.

5. The One – Two – Three Feedback Cycle
Peer Evaluation
Detailed annotation
Most common errors
1. Within 1 day
2. Within 2 days
3. Within 1 week

6. The One-Two-Three Feedback
The weekly Cycle:
Hand work in at end of the lecture
Generic Feedback (1)
Tutor provides most common good practice, most common errors
Same day via posting to VLE
Detailed Annotated Feedback (2 )
Tutor provide detailed annotation on two scripts (not the answers)
Posted to the (VLE) and discussed as part of the Tutorial
Peer Evaluation (3)
Students review and annotate each other’s work in groups
Tutor gives marks for participation and ‘reasonable’ attempt
The same week (tutorials)

7. Critical Success Factors
Explain advantages of peer review
Includes references to learning pedagogy
Detailed step by step guide
Students explicitly instructed on how to use the feedback.
Multiple Feedback media
VLE posting, diagrams, Vod casts, video, examples, reading and further reading.

8. Disaster Recovery Why? First year, first semester module,
With lots of components it is easy to miss one
Need to reduce de-motivational aspects of assessment –
‘If at first you don’t succeed – give up’
Clearly identify what is being assessed and why
Students can get up to half marks if they get their work to the tutor before the next class.
Justified as their input to the peer review process is an essential and part so carries marks.
Rewards attendance and compliance but allows some flexibility without causing critical credit damage.

9. Assessment Media Paper based in-class work
Need to attend lecture / class to hand in / receive feedback.
Easy to annotate in class, provides a focus point for group activity
Automatic monitoring of attendance and attainment
Encouraging s sent via spread sheet mail merge – “you have completed X out of Y assessments…”
Turnitin Grademark – for electronic submission
‘Neat’ version of diagrams to incorporate class feedback.
Submission carries relatively low marks
Allow submission of ‘first attempt’ (part of disaster recovery)
Submission three weeks before final (main) Grademark - helps to identify problems and quick follow up of non-submission.

10. Results Results Higher number of passes with better average marks
Quality of content improved
Clearer more supportive process
Before
Tutor marked scripts (24 hrs+) for 1 piece of feedback to each student at the end of the course.
After
Tutor assesses work (8.5hrs) - Student feedback on 5 of their work but involved in assessing 15 others.
Year
Candidates
Submissions
Pass rate (submitted)
Mean mark
First time pass
2015/6 88 76
71% 57 54
2016/7 67
91% 61