4.5 THE SUBCHAPTERS
4.6.4 STUDENT ROLE IN THE FEEDBACK PROCESS
The students in Programme A were not present at meetings when policy was being created
141
terms of their feedback. The students either did not get feedback (feedback is not provided on
exams and 24/32 assessments in the programme were exams), or, they felt that the feedback
they received was not something that they could carry forward to other assignments. Students
interviewed had not been asked what type of feedback they would like to receive from staff or
taught how to engage with the feedback. This has created a vicious circle where staff think
students are not interested in feedback, so they don’t make feedback a priority, which in turns
makes the students think that staff do not care, and therefore there is no reason to engage with
the feedback. The lack of formative options also halts students from being able to practice
engaging with their feedback.
Programme C, much like Programme A, did not have students who were actively involved in the
feedback process. As noted in Section 5.5, the staff felt that the university constraints and the
students’ lack of understand of the time it takes to provide feedback keep them from being able
to recognise the feedback as useful. Programme C is also structured so that students are provided
feedback much the same way they will receive it when they start their careers. Students are not
involved in the process because they would not be involved in the process when they are
working. The students had a problem with the timeliness of the feedback, and without being
involved in the process, there is a lack of understanding that providing useful feedback takes
time, or that there are issues that happen with staff that can delay feedback. If students had a
more active role in the feedback process, or had a stronger feedback literacy, they might not only
be more satisfied with feedback that is not returned in the university approved timeframe, but
142
chance for formative feedback that students recognise as feedback further isolates them from
feedback literacy.
Programme B was the only programme that had students formally involved in discussions around
assessment and feedback. The programme invited students to participate in staff away days
where important discussions in, and about, the programme take place. Students have a chance
to share their opinions and provide insight to what students think about what staff do. While the
staff are happy to have the students at the meeting, and are very open to feedback and
comments from the students, there does seem to be a lack of engagement on the part of the
students in terms of how they feel about the assessments and feedback on the programme.
Programme B had the lowest response rate to the survey, and none of the students participated
in the interviews. This shows that it is more than just the staff attitude that determines how
successful students will be in developing their feedback literacy.
Programmes D and E had very inclusive roles for students in the feedback process. Although there
was no mention of students being at formal programme meetings as with the students in
Programme B, the students in both Programme D and E are very active in the feedback process.
The formative feedback in Programme D means that students are helping their peers, and many
of the modules provide students the opportunity to meet with staff as part of the formative
process to get instant feedback and start a dialogue about the work. The students are also
143
different ways. The students in Programme D were the happiest with their feedback and had the
lowest decrease of the participating programmes when it came to the usefulness of the feedback.
Programme D had much the same approach to feedback in the programme. Students had
multiple opportunities for formative assessment and feedback, and the feedback was presented
to them in a variety of ways, including audio feedback. The students liked the audio feedback
because they felt like they were sitting across from the professor who provided the feedback.
Being able to hear the professor’s voice put the students at ease and allowed them to engage
with the feedback, even if it was not as positive as they expected. Students in Programme E also
had modules where teaching time was scheduled so students had a 10-15-minute slot during the
semester to sit down with lecturer and discuss their formative feedback before moving on to
completing the summative assignment. The students in Programme E also had ample opportunity
to provide staff with feedback at various points in the semester, and staff tried their best to
respond to student feedback and make changes accordingly.
4.7 CONCLUSION
This chapter has presented the data constructed from five programmes across Edinburgh Napier
University. This chapter started with a description of the participants and presented responses
to the surveys. This was followed by a discussion of the university’s approach to assessment and
feedback. This chapter was then broken into five subchapters that presented the data
constructed for each programme around the following themes:
144
o Is there a programme-focused approach to feedback and assessment? ▪ If not, is there a sustained approach to feedback in the programme? o Staff Attitudes toward feedback
o What role do students have in the feedback process?
145
5 DISCUSSION
5.1 INTRODUCTION
This research study investigates how a programme-focused approach to curriculum design
affected students’ feedback literacy. This research stems from the growing focus on feedback
literacy and what that implies for student engagement with feedback as a learning tool (Carless
& Boud, 2018; Molloy et al, 2019; Han & Xu, 2019). Current research discusses feedback literacy
as something that is learned at the module level, and something that the students must learn
while they move through their programme of study. What is missing from the literature is an
investigation on how the programme structure can aid, or hinder, a student in becoming
feedback literate. The literature is also missing an exploration of power dynamics in the
classroom and how this impacts student learning.
The previous chapter presented case studies of the participating programmes as centred around
the following themes:
o What is the structure of the course?
o Is there a programme-focused approach to feedback and assessment? ▪ If not, is there a sustained approach to feedback in the programme? o Staff Attitudes toward feedback
o What role do students have in the feedback process?
This chapter will focus on a discussion of two major findings that emerged from the case studies: • Power roles in the classroom and their effect on students’ development of feedback
literacy
• The importance of programme structure and programme level assessment and feedback practices on a student’s chance to engage with, and continually develop their feedback literacy.
146
This discussion will demonstrate how the above findings move beyond the current literature and
allow for a new lens with which to view, engage with, and encourage feedback literacy.
5.2 POWER IN THE CLASSROOM
It is important to note that all formal learning is produced in the context of power (Giroux, 1992).
As McConnell (1999) writes, lecturers strive to stimulate a ‘learning relationship’, yet they are
nevertheless constantly engaged in a power relationship. This power relationship is often
communicated to students. While there has been a shift away from the notion of the ‘sage on
the stage’ to a more student centred, learner focused model of teaching, in the eyes of the
students, the unequal power dynamics between staff and students still exist (Kaufmann &
Buckner, 2018). Frymier, Shulman, and Houser (2009) contend, instructors influence students’
perceptions empowerment as “a communication relationship is necessary to achieve an
alignment of values and actions between those acting in an empowering manner and those
feeling empowered” (p. 183). There is a danger here that students then become passive learners
and wait to be instructed on what learning they should do. Research used to posit that teacher
power exists only to the extent that students perceive it to exist and accept it (Richmond &
McCroskey, 1984). Now, though, research has moved to focus on the ways in which students
become co-producers of knowledge and take on an active approach to their learning (Cathcart,
Greer, & Neale, 2014; Kemp, 2013). This means that the function of the teacher is no longer one
of the imparters of knowledge, but one of a guide and a source of support while students
147
In the classroom, power hierarchies come from the notion that some students bring with them.
When students enter university, they see the lecturer as all-knowing, set up on a pedestal, while
they (the student) are at the bottom of the mountain in need of extensive training and knowledge
(Cummins 1994; Devine 2003). This is further enforced when staff provide less than helpful
feedback, or question whether students even want feedback without having that discussion with
the students. These notions can keep students from asking questions or really engaging with
their learning if they feel that there will always be the potential for them to fall short (Forsythe
& Johnson, 2017). These fears can hinder students from becoming autonomous learners or feel
that they can take ownership over their learning (Mayes, 2010; Tippin, Lafreniere, & Page 2012).
This issue around the use and understanding of language is problematic because it sets up a very
clear power hierarchy within the classroom. If students do not understand the feedback they
receive, or feel that they do not understand content, they might develop insecurities tied to their
time in the classroom (Molloy, Borrell-Carrio, & Epstein 2013). This puts the lecturer as the one
that knows all, and the student as the empty vessel to be filled.