This is an archive of the original site and you may encounter broken links and/or functionality

Feedback and lecture recording: The reality of assessment – a lightweight extensible tool for help with bulk formative feedback -- 75 -- Demonstration


10:50 - 11:50 on Wednesday, 12 September 2012 in 2.218

With the introduction of full fees from September 2012, HE students are likely to be more demanding about the service they are paying for and in-particular feedback on assessments. Results from the NSS for the last two years indicate that feedback needs to be improved across many intuitions (HEFCE 2011). Questions 7 on the NSS (whether feedback was prompt) in particular receives the lowest level of satisfaction across all HE institutions in the UK (HEFCE 2011).

The University of Salford is working hard to improve both the amount of formative feedback given and reduce turnaround time on assessment and has adopted the Turnitin assessment tool. Whilst Turnitin allows for detailed personal and direct feedback into a student's work, it is not always appropriate or possible to use this tool for assessment. Moreover it is not optimised for dealing with volume assessment of smaller pieces of work.

The authors are developing a simple, extensible, web-based system which allows lecturers to quickly construct a feedback tool particular to the assessment criteria of a module. The tool requires no plug-in technology and will work on all but the oldest web browsers. The interface has been optimised to reduce the input required to construct detailed feedback and the completed feedback statement can be copied into a VLE assessment feedback field with minimal effort. The tool offers multiple access meaning that staff involved in assessment on a module can contribute to the construction of a feedback statement bank for all to use. The tool has so far been in use for one semester on a first year module with a 150 students.

The module on which the tool was used was evaluated by asking students to complete an internal module evaluation questionnaire (MEQ). One question on the MEQ relates to satisfaction of feedback and is scored on a 5 point scale. Analysis of this question revealed an average score of x=3.46 (N=68) with σ=1.15 indicating a good level of satisfaction with the feedback given. This also suggests that feedback constructed in this way is at least as good as traditional methods from the students’ perspective.

Initial results indicate that the tool allows individual formative feedback to be constructed quickly as work is being marked and that the amount and level of feedback given to students is satisfactory. Given the process benefits associated with the production of feedback using the tool there is scope to role it out to modules with similar assessment regimes ensuring a consistent approach to formative feedback across the department.



Comments