Collaborative approaches to assessment feedback in college-based higher education
Authors
Claudine Barnes
Head of HE & Research, Solihull College and University Centre
John Murray
HE Academic Skills Tutor, Solihull College and University Centre
Chancelle Green
Foundation Degree in Specialist Needs and Disabilities and Inclusive Practice student
Drawing on findings from our Collaborative Enhancement Project, this blog post reflects on the authors’ individual experiences within their case study groups as well as the wider impact on assessment feedback across Solihull College and University Centre (SCUC).
Claudine’s reflection
Solihull College and University Centre (SCUC) is a fairly typical CBHE provider – the student cohort is a 50-50 split of young and mature learners; there’s a higher proportion of learners who meet widening participation criteria than a traditional higher education institution (HEI), and we pride ourselves on our personal approach, high levels of support and smaller class sizes. Both case study groups at SCUC were focusing on transitions from level 4 to 5, and the Animal Behaviour and Welfare (ABW) group looked at how to understand and utilise assignment feedback, and use it as a feedforward mechanism to improve grades. Any academic will tell you of their frustrations of writing long and detailed feedback, only for students to look at the grade and ignore the carefully crafted advice. The conversations that I’ve been part of during this project have helped me understand why some students choose to do this – and actually sometimes the ‘feedback essay’ we have written can be daunting to read, too complex, or remains unread as it was released at a time that was inconvenient for the student to spend time reading it. I wasn’t aware either of the extent of ‘grade anxiety’ in our ABW students, in the run-up to the grade and feedback being released.
Discussing with students the importance of understanding feedback and picking out what can be applied in future work was going to be paramount for success – and the first cycle started with a review of the feedback from the previous year, identifying patterns and common themes to the feedback on past assignments. Allowing the learners time to complete this exercise, making their own reflections and connections, to identify for themselves what they should focus on to improve their grades was the first observation cycle. In the post-observation discussion with the students in the project group, it was clear that being given the time to verbally discuss feedback, to digest what has been written, and to make a ‘pledge’ going forward (‘what I need to focus on in the next assignment’) would be greatly appreciated by learners. And hence this formed the basis of the 2nd cycle – feedback on the assignment was given verbally, (before the grade was released), and students were provided with a template on which to record their understanding of feedback, identify actions for the next assignment, and discuss with peers and tutors any aspects of their assignment feedback they were unclear about.
The feedback from learners on this new approach was clear:
“Receiving feedback before [the] grade means I am more likely to digest it, as normally I avoid it. It made me more confident, by avoiding criticism and not looking at my feedback. I wasn’t seeing what good things they had to say.”
“I thought the verbal feedback was beneficial; it means I actually have to take it into consideration and ask questions.”
“It was useful to discuss my results, and it helped me understand where I went wrong. This would have been beneficial last semester.”
“In future I would like the written feedback to reflect on, and the verbal discussion before the grade is released, so that it isn’t so worrying to check, as I know roughly how I did.”
“It’s useful to have written feedback but also to have face-to-face feedback which is two-way."
“I really enjoyed the verbal feedback, I enjoyed the ‘back-and-forth' aspect as it was a conversation, rather than just getting written feedback on Turnitin.”
“I enjoyed being told what I did well and what I could work on – physically it feels nicer and softer.”
The whole team have now decided to adopt this approach as new way of delivering feedback, made possible due to the smaller class size of this group.
John’s reflection
I think the conversation around what students do with feedback is important. Working with the HE students as an Academic Skills Advisor, I do get to hear comments and frustrations which seem to ‘cloud’ the students' perceptions of feedback. This can range from: “The tutor said it was good but then highlighted all the ‘mistakes’”, through to “I’m not really interested in what I did right, I want to know what I did wrong so I can get better” – and everything else in between.
One of the positives of the Cycle 1 we did with the Level 5 Special Educational Needs, Disability and Inclusive Practice (SENDIP) group was witnessing the increase in awareness of both the assessment marking grid/criteria and the tutor’s role in using that to aid their marking. Cycle 2 is designed to follow on from that – using a recently marked piece of coursework.
Another positive, even when the feedback is difficult, is the willingness of the HE students to engage with feedback. Having worked in a university setting and a HE in FE environment, it is good to see students engaging with feedback. It was common to hear: “The first year doesn’t count” in the university setting (and I probably felt the same when I studied); whereas even when there is frustration and confusion, there is at least some engagement in the HE in FE setting. That’s a useful place to start with in terms of making feedback more effective from both a student and tutor’s perspective.