Problems with feedback

Literature suggests that students do, in fact, value feedback. However, it is often not considered as useful as it has the potential to be (Weaver 2006). Where feedback has traditionally been provided in text, there are several commonly reported reasons for this, including firstly, the tone of the feedback; secondly, feedback is often regarded as too general or too brief; thirdly, it is often returned to students too late to inform the next piece of work; and finally, the type of submission can also make it difficult to form useful feedback using traditional methods such as text. Investigations into the use of audio as feedback have had some success, but it also has many downfalls. These problems are explored in this section.

The source of the unpleasant tone of feedback which is sometimes conveyed to students, is often attributed to the pressure on staff. Staff workloads have come under increased pressure due to an increase in student numbers in recent years. The consequential need to be concise may be responsible for the terse tone students

sometimes comment on (Mutch 2003). Some studies suggest that staff are insensitive to the emotional reaction a student has when reading feedback as text, especially when the news is not good. Staff rarely see the effect they have as, whether electronic or physical in format, delivery is often at a location away from them. The investment of time

and effort by students means an emotional reaction is inevitable. Dowden et al. (2013) found that the academic benefit of the feedback could be extinguished by a harsh tone and highlights the plight of the mature student trying to fit back into education, and others who have built up a resilience to cope with it.

Feedback that is too vague, or too general, is also a common complaint from students (Weaver 2006). A study by Price et al. (2010) across business courses at three universities and found that feedback lacked ‘specificity’, possibly due to the brevity of comments, can also be a consequence of high staff workload (Wolsey 2008). Even when using electronic text as feedback, it is common practice to use banks of commonly made comments, which get pasted in to the feedback area to save time, depersonalising feedback in the process.

There is a tendency for staff to be brief when producing feedback, to reduce the time taken. The reduction from a full explanation to a concise one can reduce the meaning in the message, as explanations are curtailed down to the bare minimum, sometimes without enough elaboration to enable understanding (Moore and Filling 2012).

The length of time between student submission and feedback return can be several weeks. Timeliness, as an issue, is not just about a long wait on the student’s part to receive their feedback. It affects its usefulness as a learning tool to feed into the next piece of work. Slow return could be to the detriment of subsequent submissions until the student has the opportunity to review, and learn from, their feedback. The QAA found that timely response was considered a weak point for over 40% of institutions teaching business as a subject, but only a minor issue on art courses, where face to face feedback is more common due to the visual nature of the work (Weaver 2006).

The traditional mode of feedback delivery in the arts has been face to face feedback. However, in modern times large numbers of students make this impractical. Cruikshank (1998) reconsidered delivery modes when feedback for 440 students had taken 5 weeks to complete, and so change had become essential. Face to face meetings have the overhead of organisation as well as the meetings themselves. In addition, once the student leaves the room the conversation is forgotten. Detailed notes may be possible but still not always as useful as a recording. There is additional stress caused for some students as they come face to face with the person making judgements (Henderson and Phillips 2015), especially where the standard of work is known to be poor.

Other types of submission particularly present difficulties when attempting to respond to students with text feedback. These often lack a linear flow, such as diagrams or

computer programming code (Gould 2011); or that require problem solving steps

explained, or demonstrated, as model answers e.g., numerical problems (Klappa 2015). It is difficult to write meaningful comments in the nooks of space around a diagram, or to link up comments about areas that are spatially separated across pages.

There have been many studies into audio as feedback with positive reactions from students. However, the novelty of the new format has been highlighted in comments from students (Durkacz and Mowat 2012), and it is possible that frequent use can cause students to stop listening (Ekinsmyth 2010). Criticisms of audio feedback vary according to the previous format used. For instance, where students are used to face to face feedback reviews, there are concerns about being unable to seek clarification (Cryer and Kaikumba 1987), whereas, for students comparing audio to text feedback this aspect is unchanged, and in fact, clarity is often vastly improved with audio and

improves satisfaction. On the other hand, students used to handwritten text pointed out the physical separation of feedback from the script where they were used to their work previously being annotated directly (Ekinsmyth 2010). In one study it occurred to some students that they were receiving comments on the work in the order in which staff reviewed it, ie: there was no sense of the important things being first (Cryer and Kaikumba 1987), and therefore, it becomes up to the student to prioritise the learning.

The time taken to review audio feedback is extended when compared to text feedback as it takes longer for students to listen to feedback than to read it but in one study masters level students were academically mature enough to determine that the

additional time was worth it. (Cryer and Kaikumba 1987). However, text does facilitate an overall perspective allowing students to scan for particular sections or points made, which is not available with audio (Cryer and Kaikumba 1987) It is often suggested that this disadvantage is more than compensated for by the quality of audio feedback (Evans and Palacios 2010).

A solution to this problem is for students to make notes, however, students have

complained about the extra work required to make the audio useful (Cryer and Kaikumba 1987). However, the time spent reflecting on performance may be of benefit to the student. They have now transformed an already enhanced message (compared to text)

into notes which they understand, and they have spent time engaging with the feedback.

When using audio, staff concerned with their ’performance’ are often concerned about not being able to erase errors (Cryer and Kaikumba 1987) as editing is deemed too onerous, and often not available in the software used to record. Historically. when audio was recorded on physical media staff were concerned about not being able to keep a copy but that issue is resolved by the use of electronic media, especially when the media is stored in a VLE where both parties have access (Cryer and Kaikumba 1987).

Staff consistently report the high burden of work and lack of student engagement with feedback (Cranny 2016). Staff may not always feel the effort of creating feedback is worth it since students don’t always review it (Gould 2011). This may explain why, when under workload pressures, some staff are willing to accept compromises that ease their load.

In general, both parties can see how the process could work to form a useful learning opportunity, yet the disparity between student satisfaction, and what staff are able to produce, continues. The question remains, how do staff a) produce feedback that students value and b) are prepared to engage with, within the constraints of available resources? For certain types of assessment, a sound pedagogical decision would be to explore other media, or media combinations, for creating feedback, other than text.

When students are used to a particular format of feedback e.g., written feedback, like many of us, they are reluctant to change. Before they experience feedback in a different media, when asked, they often express a preference for text as feedback over other media (Fawcett and Oldfield 2016). The problems and benefits with various types of feedback media, largely stem from either student perceptions, or the available

functionality. Table 1.1 summarises the consensus of opinion from literature regarding attributes of various media when used to provide feedback.