Tag Archives: feedback

Feeding forward from summative assessment: The Essay Feedback Checklist as a learning tool

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading...

Submitted by Samantha Mladen

Article Reference

Wakefield, C., Adie, J., Pitt, E., & Owens, T. (2014). Feeding forward from summative assessment: The Essay Feedback Checklist as a learning tool. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(2), 253-262.

Article DOI

Summary of Article

Aim: Investigate the use of the Essay Feedback Checklist (EFC) as a strategy to provide feedback to students that improves future performance on other forms of assessment

Method: 104 second year undergraduate sport studies students were recruited and randomized to a feedback-as-usual condition or an experimental condition with receipt of feedback via the Essay Feedback Checklist on a 2,500 word essay. The EFC requires students to rate their performance prior to submission of their assignment. The same checklist is then used by assessors and any significant discrepancies in scores are explained in additional feedback comments to the student. Students can also request additional feedback on specific domains. Randomization condition was assessed as a predictor of performance on a future assignment in the same subject area, but of a different format (knowledge test). Four students volunteered to take part in a subsequent focus group about the EFC process.

Results:
Repeated measures ANOVA demonstrated a significant group x assessment effect: students who received standard feedback had a decrease in score from 49.29 +/- 12.06 to 44.00 +/- 15.08. Students receiving EFC feedback increased in score from 50.11 +/- 11.51 to 56.85 +/- 17.74 on the subsequent assignment. Qualitative feedback revealed themes of advantages and disadvantages of the EFC, method of self-assessment, and perceived usefulness for future assessments. Students enjoyed the individualized nature of feedback, especially that assessors responded to the types of feedback specifically requested by students. Some students felt that the EFC hurt their morale, especially when they disagreed with scores given by assessors or when they felt that they did not understand the terminology used by assessors or the rubric. A primary benefit was improvement in students’ learning, including taking time to correct their assignment before turning it in and also adjusting for future assessments.

Discussion: The EFC demonstrated success “feeding forward” learning. Students appreciated many aspects of the procedure, but also raised some concerns, including morale and trust between students and assessors. These challenges offer opportunities for future improvements to the EFC.

Discussion Questions

  1. What is your goal in providing feedback to students? How does this influence what form of feedback you offer?
  2. How could the EFC be implemented in courses that don't use essays? How could the principles of the EFC be adapted for other types of assignments?
  3. Focus group participants in this study indicated that the form negatively impacted their morale. How could this be avoided, while still engaging students in the feedback process?

The role of feedback during academic testing: the delay retention effect revisited

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading...

Submitted by Chelsea Hughes

Article Reference

Dihoff, R. E., Brosvic, G. M., & Epstein, M. L. (2012). The role of feedback during academic testing: The delay retention effect revisited. The Psychological Record, 53(4), 533-548.

Article DOI

Summary of Article

THE STUDY:

Participants: 33 male, 62 female undergrad psychology students
Procedure: 5 multiple-choice quizzes throughout the semester. Final exam consisted of 50 items – 10 items randomly selected from each quiz.
Conditions (quiz format): No feedback (traditional answer sheet); No feedback (answer sheet, Scantron); end-of-test feedback; delayed feedback (24 hours); immediate feedback (IF AT).

RESULTS:

# of items recalled from quizzes: IF AT > End-of-test & Delayed > Traditional & Scantron
% of correctly identified initial errors: IF AT > Delayed > End-of-test
% of correctly identified initial responses: IF AT > Delayed > End-of-test
Mean confidence rating after test: IF AT > End-of-test > Delayed
% selecting same incorrect response: Traditional & Scantron > End-of-test > Delayed > IF AT

CONCLUSIONS:

“Immediate feedback promotes recall, the most accurate identification of initial responses, increased confidence in answers, and reduces perseverative incorrect responding.”

Discussion Questions

  1. What are your experiences with the conditions, or learning methods, presented in this article? What did you find useful, and what did you find not useful?
  2. This study only utilizes quizzes as a method of testing knowledge throughout the semester. What other methods could you use, while still incorporating immediate feedback?
  3. An interesting aspect of this article is the focus on not only retention, but perseverative incorrect responding and remembering which answer you put first. Both of these address the important issue of “Why did I get this wrong in the first place?” Precluding addressing it on a one-by-one basis, how can you incorporate this important aspect of learning in the classroom?