A departmentwide approach to Feedback Mandy Lee Jo

A department-wide approach to Feedback Mandy Lee Jo Miller Department of Education and Childhood

A Review of Assessment and Feedback issues, Summer 2016 From surveys in 2015 and 2016: We have good results for A&F and we have some excellent practice – but perfection is elusive! Issues: 1. Timing/organisation of assessments 2. Preparing students for assessments 3. Consistency in marking 4. Feedback

3. Consistency in marking • Marking is unfair because every teacher has different marking techniques. • There doesn't seem to be an agreed consistent marking scheme across the modules. • Have had mixed and sometimes conflicting information about criteria of assignments. On more than one occasion, this has led to confusion and lower marks than expected. • The marks given on essays are very mixed depending on what marker you get. I feel this can be unfair and a marking system needs to be put in place to stop this happening. We also discussed the possibility that many of the comments on inconsistent marking may actually be about significant differences in foci in feedback – so may be a feedback issue rather than a marking one.

4. Feedback • Feedback from assignments often need more clarity. • Feedback can be unclear • The marking and feedback is impersonal and does not consider the student and their development over the years. And when we looked at feedback earlier in the year we found a range of formats.

What issues do your programmes/departments face relating to A&F?

Review - Proposed actions for 2016 -17 Points around • Module planning for preparing students for the module and assessments • Review of best practices in moderation To address issues of consistency and feedback issues: • Develop one feedback sheet to use across the department – to include 3 development points – 2 of which must be transferable How do you try to ensure consistency of grading and feedback?

Department context – Common criteria already in place Used across all programmes for at least 4 years Each expressed separately at L 1, L 2, L 3, LM A: Conceptual Domain B: Literature Domain C: Contextual Domain D: Research Domain E: Ethical Domain F: Values Domain G: Action Domain

Common criteria already in place - rationale When we had module-specific criteria it led to: • Students needing to make sense of the criteria each time – without necessarily recognising the similarities between module criteria which may have been clear to us • Inconsistency in marking, including between levels Common criteria have supported: • Students’ developing understanding of expectations at this level of study, particularly critical analysis • It makes it easier to use previous feedback to inform future work

Common Feedback form for 2016 -17

Format: (Used alongside annotated scripts) Boxes: Highlights in appropriate places. Supports consistency • Makes it clearer about how the mark was arrived at • Supports clarity for markers (including new markers) and with it, parity across the marking team – visually supported ‘best fit’ • Easier to target feedback Level-specific: • Greater clarity for staff and students around level expectations (previously staff were subjectively judging against non-level specific criteria) • Makes it easier to define progress and for students to plan for this – it had previously been hidden in staff level-judgements

Format Strengths + Guidance to improve: • Consistently identified by students as a feature of effective feedback • Should support the mark - one complaint about a mark was probably really about feedback – a modest mark but little indicated to improve on Student response – action: • Prompts active engagement with the process • Followed up in APT – this supports rather than replaces discussion

Where we are with this pilot • Used in all modules • Positive feedback from tutors & anecdotally from students • Colleagues have suggested amends relating to : • Efficiency of wording • Some discussion about what goes against each level e. g. what the expectation is around use of primary sources • Addition of an 80+ column • Final drafts to a staff development session in July • Process has promoted engagement with what we expect at each level and at grade boundaries • Student feedback sought after the summer

Thoughts and feedback?