Link Between Field of Study and Feedback Type Frequency?

Before presenting and discussing themes identified in the data collected through the study, a potential relationship between students’ main subjects of study and the frequency of different types of feedback they believe to receive will be explored. Such a relationship had not been identified in the initial literature search. However, as mentioned in Section 3.8, several students who piloted the interview schedule recommended taking into consideration their academic discipline.

Two further responses to the eighth item (which allowed respondents to offer additional

comments) in the questionnaire likewise contained this suggestion. QU186’s reasoning was that “students of different majors receive different assessments,” setting as a

127

contrasting example English subject students and those studying science subjects. According to her, the former type of students received more annotations in their assignments than the latter. Similarly, QU220 explained that “different majors in [HI] may

have different orientations in the form of feedback.” She distinguished between the

social and natural sciences, and felt that students in the first category likely received more comments while those in the second likely received more grades.

Helping to substantiate this view retrospectively were explanations from two interviewees for the high frequency of all types of feedback they perceived to receive. QIU30, a social science student, stated that her classes were much smaller than natural science classes, and felt that her teachers would, thus, have “more time and energy” to provide feedback. QIU63, who reported often receiving a number of different types of written feedback, provided a similar explanation.

In light of these comments collected through the questionnaire pilot and main studies, it was decided to add a question to the final version of the interview schedule which asked interviewees to state their main subject of study. Fortuitously, precisely one half of the interviewees studied natural science subjects while the other half studied social science subjects so that a direct comparison is possible. In addition to testing whether this correlation actually existed, an additional motivation was that, if yes, it might have an important bearing on how the data should be interpreted or on how tutor feedback should be investigated in the future. Although speaking more broadly of formative assessment, Hodgen & Marshall (2005) made a similar realisation:

If there were substantial differences between subjects then this would have considerable implications for any attempt at generic discussions of formative

128

assessment. Indeed, if the differences were too great we might have to question the extent to which formative assessment was a meaningful concept (p. 156).

Figure 4.1 shows a comparison of natural and social science students’ beliefs regarding

the frequency of receipt of marks or grades. Roughly the same numbers believed they

“always” or “never” received this type of feedback. While more natural science students felt they “often” received it, more social science students perceived to “sometimes” receive it. Since the comparison is only between two sets of 15 students, the explanatory power is minimal. However, as far as this group of students is concerned, the idea that students taking natural science courses receive feedback in the form of marks or grades more frequently than their counterparts taking social science courses is, generally, not true.

Figure 4.1 Perceived frequency of receipt of marks/grades

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Natural Sciences Social Sciences

N o . o f stu d e n ts Always Often Sometimes Seldom Never

129

Figure 4.2 shows a comparison of natural and social science students’ beliefs regarding

the frequency of comments, i.e. all other types of feedback. The data shows that natural and social science students felt that they received feedback in the form of comments with roughly the same frequency. While fewer natural science students believed they

“often” or “seldom” received comments, fewer social science students perceived themselves to “sometimes” or “never” receive them. Thus, the idea that natural science students receive comments less frequently than their counterparts from the social sciences is, generally, also not true.

Figure 4.2 Perceived frequency of receipt of comments

These findings may be surprising considering the accounts of students cited previously. However, it emanated from some of the interviews that natural science students were required to take a number of mandatory social science classes and vice versa. In addition, it should be borne in mind that students’ reports of the feedback they received

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Natural Sciences Social Sciences

N o . o f r e sp o n ses Always Often Sometimes Seldom Never

130

encompassed all of their courses rather than only those related to their main subjects of study. In consideration of these two facts, it stands to reason that a contrastive examination, such as the one undertaken here, would likely not produce major differences.

In spite of this conclusion, it would be erroneous to assume that there is no relationship as such between students’ main subject area and the frequency with which they (believe to) receive different types of feedback, be it generally, more specifically at the host institution or even within the interview sample. More variables would need to be taken into consideration for the existence of a correlation to be confirmed or refuted with a higher degree of confidence. An example of a possible mediating variable is students’ year of study: students in different years of study may (tend to) take different numbers of courses related to their main subject area. Thus, for instance, a group of second-year social science students may (perceive to) receive comments less frequently than a group of their peers who are in their fourth year of study.

Subject-specific investigations into formative assessment are in the minority. Black & Wiliam (1998a) highlighted this shortcoming in several of the studies included in their paper. Other authors (e.g., Bloxham & Campbell, 2010; Bennett, 2011) also averred that not enough attention is given to the subject domain. Writing on self-assessment in religious education, Brooks & Fancourt (2012) asserted that “much of the literature is generic, displaying limited attention to the particular subjects involved, even though the curriculum in most schools, further and higher education is subject-based” (p. 124). The authors used English and mathematics to exemplify differences in various pedagogical practices between these two disciplines.

131

Hodgen & Marshall (2005) systematically compared formative assessment practices in these two subject areas which “are often thought of as contrasting disciplines, typifying the arts/sciences split in education” (p. 154). They concluded that what made the English and mathematics lessons they observed in their study formative was “largely the same” and that the “pedagogic principles of formative assessment appear to be generic” (p. 172). Despite this, they refrained from attempting a comparative analysis since they

found themselves “often talking at cross-purposes” (p. 155), for instance by using concepts from one of the disciplines which was incompatible with the other or by using the same terms but in reference to different phenomena. Alternatively, they

recommended “adapt[ing] the generic principles of formative assessment […] to the more specific demands of each school subject” (p. 172). A similar recommendation could be made in relation to investigations into frequency and other aspects of feedback in higher education. Section 4.3.2 further discusses feedback frequency.