In this post, Dr Su Goopy and Dr Neneh Rowa-Dewar, from the Deanery of Molecular, Genetic and Population Health Sciences, describe a feedback checklist co-created between students and staff to help audit the quality of markers’ feedback to students. Su is the PGT Research Manager and Lead for the Usher Masters’ Research Ethics Group, and Neneh co-directs the online Master of Public Health (MPH) programme and is the Director of Quality in the Deanery. This post is part of the Mar-May Learning & Teaching Enhancement theme: Assessment and feedback revisited↗️.
Most of us can remember the ‘trauma’ of receiving negative feedback on our assignments and essays as students, and conversely the joys of positive feedback from a respected teacher. When we become university teachers ourselves, often these experiences weigh on us as we consider what to say to individual students when we give feedback on their work. However fraught the process might be, giving student feedback is critical to validating marks and communicating with students in a way that can help them think critically, yet positively, about their learning. In this blog post, we hope to show how thinking about the way in which we give student feedback, and considering what our colleagues and the literature have said about this important aspect of teaching and learning, can help us to improve as university teachers.
We know that providing effective feedback positively informs student learning and the development and improvement of courses and teaching approaches (Nicol, 2007; Zarrinabadi & Rezazadeh 2020). Feedback provides students with information on many aspects of their learning and educational development. It will support students in both current and future courses to:
- Understand the marks they have been given.
- Understand their progress towards achieving learning outcomes.
- Identify strengths and weaknesses.
- Know where/what to improve for future assessments.
- Improve their understanding of subject material and build upon their learning.
- Develop assessment literacy skills.
- Make choices regarding study pathways.
- Become self-reflective practitioners and lifelong learners.
Feedback is most often thought of in terms of an essay submitted, observations taken, critiques made, marks given, and ‘feedback’ received by the student. This oversimplified but relatable description is of a situation where feedback generally ends up as part of a one-way communication from marker to student. Such an understanding of feedback, however, only begins to touch on the way in which feedback moves through and informs our daily academic practices.
Within higher education, teachers and students engage in acts of teaching and learning. From delivering a class to facilitating a seminar or workshop to discussing research one-to-one, to marking an assignment. In each of these encounters, and many others, we find ourselves actively, or otherwise, engaged in the giving and receiving of feedback. After all, feedback takes on many forms – from that which is easily identified through its explicit nature as oral or written language, to that which is implicitly offered through gestures and tone of voice. Feedback is something with which we are constantly involved.
Yet, if feedback is potentially so valuable, so familiar to us, and so ubiquitous within higher education, why is it that when it comes to assessment and marking, feedback is often dealt with awkwardly and with trepidation? At what point has this familiar practice become such an uncomfortable companion?
Feedback is something that our students place great value on – but are often critical of. This can cause frustration, disappointment, and even the breakdown of relationships between teachers and students. So, what is going on and why is something so familiar so difficult? And, what tools can help to keep us as academics on track and help us to support our students in an effective way?
As part of the quality enhancement work of the Deanery of Molecular Genetic and Population Health Sciences Quality Committee, four PGT programmes within the Usher Institute designed a peer audit process of student feedback. The process involved student consultation, consultation of the academic literature relating to useful feedback, peer auditing of the assessment feedback process in four courses within the four programmes, analysis and discussions. In response to the findings, a feedback checklist was designed to support staff, and, in turn, support students to engage with the dialogic process that is so crucial to effective feedback.
We measured feedback against nine key areas:
- The tone of the feedback is positive and encouraging.
- The feedback reflects the mark (e.g. uses correct good/very good/ excellent grade descriptor; balance of strengths/areas for improvement is appropriate to grade.
- The feedback reflects the marking criteria / rubric / model answers.
- The feedback identifies specific strengths of the assignment.
- The feedback offers specific advice on areas for improvement.
- The feedback comments on generic skills like academic writing.
- The feedback makes good use of in-test comments.
- The feedback identifies what the student could have left out or summarised more, not only what else they could have added.
- The feedback signposts relevant resources.
For the past three years, we have performed an annual peer audit* in most of the Usher Institute PGT programmes. The audit involves checking a random number of high-and low-marked assignments against the feedback checklist we developed, identifying exemplary aspects as well as any aspects which could be improved. Sharing this assessment with each other led to great peer learning.
“The feedback audit provided a timely and unique opportunity to have experienced academics review the feedback on the clinical trials programme and highlight the commendable, as well as, areas for improvement. These outcomes, in conjunction with the feedback checklist, are now central to ensuring our markers have consistency and are well informed of the high standard of feedback required, which can have an imperative role in student development.” – Afshan Dean, Programme Manager MSc Clinical Trials.
This was a transformative process across the Teaching Organisation and within the Master of Family Medicine team. The feedback checklist provides an important standard for feedback across our programmes and remains a reference point, particularly for new markers. The feedback audit brought our team together to enhance the quality of our feedback and inspired us to review and improve our entire marking and moderation process.’ – Dr Robin Ramsay, Clinical Programme Director Masters in Family Medicine
We are so glad some other schools and deaneries have used adapted versions of our checklist and audit process, and we have reproduced it here for anyone who may find it helpful: Feedback checklist.
Overall, our experience of thinking more completely about feedback and how we use it has helped us to become more aware of the vital role it plays in the relationships we build with students as teachers. We hope that the snapshot we have offered here might act to encourage and support your teaching processes as you seek to find meaningful ways to engage students in the learning process. Finding the points of similarity with our students – from our own experiences – can often be a catalyst for positive change and development. We are always looking for ways to improve both the teaching and the learning experiences and so would be very interested in hearing from you about your experiences of giving students feedback and engaging colleagues in the process of thinking about feedback.
*Please contact us for the audit process guidance if interested.
Su Goopy
Dr Su Goopy is the PGT Research Manager and Lead for the Usher Masters’ Research Ethics Group within the Deanery of Molecular, Genetics and Population Health Sciences, at The University of Edinburgh. With over 30 years experience in research, teaching, and management in higher education in the UK, Australia, Canada, Italy, Japan, and Taiwan, Su’s approach to contemporary issues and challenges in higher education focuses on finding innovative ways to engage colleagues, stakeholders, and students in open and progressive dialogues.
Neneh Rowa-Dewar
Dr Neneh Rowa-Dewar co-directs the online Master of Public Health (MPH) programme and is the Director of Quality in the Deanery of Molecular, Genetic and Population Health Sciences at The University of Edinburgh. Neneh has a background in research but her main interest and passion is education, co-creation with students and enhancing the student experience.