Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick (2006) stress the importance of both“providing timely feedback – this means before it is too late for students to change their work” and resubmissions, where students get a chance to act on the feedback received. Both Nicol et al (2006) and Brooks (2008) emphasise the importance of feedback comments over grades, and providing the students with opportunities to discuss the feedback.
I find that even when the students have the opportunity to resubmit, they can still feel crushed after failing a unit. Research has shown that feedback given as grades have an especially negative effect on the self-esteem of low-ability students (Craven et al., 1991 in Nicol et al., 2006). This affects their motivation and performance during the remainder of the year. They will also have an increased workload when working towards their re-submission and their new unit simultaneously. This overload can be partly avoided with an improved curriculum design with more time for feedback, in the form of formative reviews and as an “integral part of the module as a whole” (Brooks, 2008). Feedback should also focus on “praising effort and strategic behaviours” rather than “praising ability or intelligence” (Nicol et al., 2006).
There was a problematic overemphasis on summative assessment when I started lecturing on the Bespoke Tailoring course. The students had 6 summative assessment points during year 1. The units where short and intense, with little time for formative reviews and feedback. During the summer term, 3 units where delivered parallel, and one of them had 2 different assessed components. The high concentration of assessment points set the students up for failure, and overwhelmed us tutors with the assessment workload. We were not allowed to change the unit structure until the re-approval process last year. Since then, we have improved the curriculum design with fewer and longer units, making it much more manageable for both students and lecturers without compromising on content.
One of the benefits of having short units was that students who were failing were identified quickly. The low grade could act as a reality check for what is expected of them in higher education, and help us tutors identify which students needed extra support. However, a formative assessment review can have the same result, without the negative effect on self-esteem. If the feedback is delivered correctly (i. e. offering corrective advice, involving praise alongside constructive criticism and using a non-authoritative tone (Nicol et al., 2006)) it does not crush the students’ motivation, and they also have the opportunity to act on the feedback, improve their work and thus learn more.
Nicol et al. (2006) concludes that “to produce an effect on internal processes or external outcomes the students must actively engage with these external inputs.” Brooks states that students want “the opportunity to have the comments explained to them and perhaps the chance to discuss or debate the mark”(2008). It is difficult to make sure that students read their summative feedback, understand it and reflect on it. Following a summative assessment, we offer sign-up feedback tutorials. However, high achieving students are more likely to engage with these. Brooks (2008) confirms that “students in the main tend not to take up” offers of one-to-one tutorials. It is easier to control this during a group formative review scenario where most of our students will engage actively by presenting their work. The feedback is delivered directly, with the opportunity to discuss it, ask questions and check understanding. The feedback is thus conceptualised as a “dialogue rather than as information transmission” (Nicole et al., 2006).
In addition, Nicol et al. concludes that “teachers should focus much more effort on strengthening the skills of self-assessment in their students” (2006). One way of doing this is to provide feedback “often and regularly”. As well as offering feedback during the reviews, I will aim for this to be an integral part of my technical sessions. By identifying areas of improvements, both in dialogue with the student and straight away, and discussing with the students how to enhance their skills, we provide the students with the opportunity to both improve their grades and their ability to monitoring and self-regulation, preparing them for developing in their practice after their degree.
References:
Nicol, D J. and 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
Brooks, K. (2008) ‘Could do Better?’: students’ critique of written feedback. Networks, 5.