1. Project lead: Heather Thornton Project team: Diana Davis, Karen Beeton, Sue Murray, Genevieve Ama-Boakye School of Health and Emergency Professions A Process for Enhancing Student Engagement with Coursework Feedback

2. Presentation Objectives Project aim Background Activities to date Forward plans Conclusion

3. Project Aim

4. Background to project There is a need for students to have self-reflection and evaluation skills as part of professional practice. Feedback on assessment was one of the lowest scoring areas in NSS in HEP. Initial action was to ensure quality feedback - in 2009/10 every staff member in HEP attended a workshop on giving quality feedback The next step was to get students to engage actively with feedback through self- reflection and evaluation Existing system in Physiotherapy but there was a perception that there was: diversity in students’ interpretation of what was self-reflection variation in the level of accuracy in students’ self-assessment inconsistent engagement with the task by both staff and students

5. Project Plan – activity to date

6. Key points from the literature Feedback is an important aspect of learning as it enables “the development of student self-regulation and error detection” (Hattie & Timperley, 2007), it also “enables teachers to determine the level of engagement from students”. (Munns et al., 2006) However even when timely feedback is given there is considerable evidence that suggests it may not be even read, understood or acted upon (Orsmond, Merry, & Reiling, 2002; Gibbs and Simpson, 2003). Whilst there is a large body of research around feedback “research on students perceptions of feedback remains thin”, (Poulos and Mahony, 2008)

7. Key points from the literature Students need to engage with the marking criteria in the process of self-assessment: “intelligent self-regulation requires that the student has in mind some goals to be achieved against which performance can be compared and assessed” (Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick, 2006) Sadler in 1989 identified three key points in self-regulation: Developing a concept of the standard being aimed at (Marking criteria) Comparing the actual or current level of performance with the standard (Self-evaluation and reflection) Engaging in appropriate action which leads to some kind of closure of the gap (Taking action on feedback) This has been more recently confirmed by research on student perception (Porkorny and Pickford, 2010)

8. Document analysis Student Self Assessment forms and Tutor feedback forms were randomly selected from StudyNet using the following criteria: 3 consecutive academic years (2007, 2008 and 2009) 2 modules from each level of study (levels 4, 5 & 6) 5 scripts per assignment 2 assignments from one module (Cardiorespiratory FT1 & 2) 2 assignments from similar subject areas (NMS1 and 2) 2 placement reflective assignments (Health & Well-being and Equality & Diversity) Feedback forms from a randomly selected individual across all three levels/years ( Level 4 2007; Level 5 2008 & Level 6 2009). Review of the assessment forms included: Comparison of student self assessment v tutor feedback – grade awarded and comments made Justification of mark awarded in student self assessment Account taken of previous feedback.

9. Document analysis – variations in student reflection Stated how they have used previous feedback Were unsure on what to include ‘I found it very difficult to keep within the word count for this assignment, and therefore feel not all of my knowledge could be demonstrated’. ‘it was commented that my paragraph organisation could have been better…I have attended study skills sessions and applied techniques and advice given.’ ‘I do not feel this is my best piece of work. I have been debating whether or not to state this in my reflection and I’m still not sure if I should’

10. Comparing staff and student feedback Some students do not appear to know how to make improvements based on the feedback given. Students received the same feedback more than once, after attempting to make changes using the feedback given the first time. Some students were more accurate in self evaluation There was greater similarity between self-assessment and staff feedback.

11. Focus Group findings Focus group of Physiotherapy students who had used the current tool Key findings - students’ wanted: Clear and specific points on how to improve Clear points on specific learning outcomes that need to be improved Action points Feedback that can be applied to future assignments Conversational style in feedback Detailed feedback which justifies the mark given and identifies weaknesses for individual learning outcomes.

12. Development of guidance Template the students fill in Staff guidance Student guidance Link Video of student guidance

13. Pilot - using the revised student assignment reflection tool ModuleLevelNumber of students Programme 6AHP005: Practice education 5- Service improvement 640Physiotherapy 6AHP055: Applied Research 640Physiotherapy 5AHP0052: Holistic Oncology Management 521Radiotherapy 6AHP0060: Developments in Radiotherapy Practice 622Radiotherapy 5AHP0074: Principles and Applications of imaging Science 2 5104Radiography 6AHP0051: Nutrition Healthcare Provision 628Dietetics 6AHP0044: Clinical education –clinical effectiveness 628Dietetics

14. Forward plans  Bristol Online Survey  Revise in light of feedback from staff and students  Role out across other modules and programmes

15. Conclusion Analysis of initial work in Physiotherapy – document analysis and focus group Identified strengths and weaknesses of current system Exploration of the literature Highlighted the benefits for student engagement and enhancement of self -evaluation skills Revision of the self assessment tool and development of guidance for staff and students Disseminated to the module leads and to the students through StudyNet Pilot undertaken using assignments from 7 modules in 4 different programmes To ensure transferability across programmes of assessment tool Review of outcome - ongoing Seek opinions regarding ease of use of students (online survey) and staff We would like to acknowledge the participation of the students in the focus group and the staff who are undertaking the pilot work

16. Discussion Any Questions?

17. EVS Do you think using this tool will enhance student reflection? A - Yes, definitely B - Probably C - Not sure D - No, Not at all

18. EVS Would you consider using this for your own students? A - Yes, definitely B - Probably C - Not sure D - No, Not at all

19. References Gibbs, G & Simpson, C. (2003). Does Your Assessment Support Your Students’ Learning? Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1(1), 3-31. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The Power of Feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81- 112. Munns, G. & Woodward, H. (2006). Student engagement and student self-assessment: the REAL framework. Assessment in Education Principles, Policy & Practice, 13(2), 193-213. Nicol, D.L. & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative Assessment and Self Regulated Learning: A Model and Seven Principles of Good Feedback Practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2),199-218. Orsmond,P., Merry, S, & Reiling K. (2002). The student use of tutor formative feedback in their learning. Presented at Learning communities and Assessment cultures conference: EARLI special interest group on assessment and evaluation. Northumbria: University of Northumbria, 28-30. Porkorny, H. & Pickford, P. (2010). Complexity, cues and relationships: Student perceptions of feedback. Active Learning in Higher Education, 11(1), 21-30. Poulos, A. & Mahony, M.J. (2008). Effectiveness of Feedback: The Students’ Perspective. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(2), 143-154. Sadler, D.R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems Instructional Science, 18, 119-144. Systems’,