Teaching-Learning Experiences and Satisfaction

By solely focusing on learning activities, Forbes et al. (2016) outline the use of video artefacts for learning of clinical skills in nursing education to be a promising future direction of research through its effectiveness, efficiency, usage, and quality strategies in TEL. Yet, while this is appropriate working within TEL environments from a practice perspective, it should be equally recognised that there are distinctions between different perspectives of SAF activity contexts, including Technology-Enhanced Management of Education (e.g. wider student population engaging with SAF in the design of online learning for selecting the MMA tools), Technology-Enhanced Education (e.g. online SAF delivery from lecturers about student results), Technology-Enhanced Learning (e.g. learning experiences of students) and Technology-Enhanced Teaching (e.g. SAF teaching experiences of lecturers) (Passey, 2019).

Regarding SAF contexts, by producing different types of information in their feedback (Boud, 2017), there is a tension between summative and formative assessment activities through their procedural applications (dictative/indicative), timeline, measurement results, levels (high-stake/low-stakes) and nature (formal/informal). For example, student engagement with SAF is much lower than formative assessment feedback, since students consider formative assessment feedback to be more useful and helpful for their own improvement needs than SAF (Zimbardi et al., 2017). Furthermore, there are procedural differences on timing of assessment, such as summative assessment being for final evaluations and grading purposes, as opposed to formative assessment conducted during their learning activities. Similarly, their level of importance (high/low-stake), attendance (mandatory/optional), and nature (formal/informal) are described as complementary (Dixson and Worrell, 2016). Therefore, SAF is often associated with its ‘pass/fail’ results in validation and accreditation processes in HE, as opposed to formative assessment feedback building up students’ knowledge for their success in the latter summative assessment activity (Bloxham and Campbell, 2010; Henderson and Phillips, 2014). Hence, SAF activities often become a judgement summary of all final evidences aligned with learning outcomes and assessment criteria (Broadbent et al., 2018; Phillips et al., 2016). However, although these operations are

already established in learning-teaching contexts, alternative strategies are also proposed such as assessment feedback activities forming a continuous process (i.e. not two separate or fixed) concerning a student learning journey until graduation (Bloxham and Campbell, 2010; Jackel et al., 2017). Nevertheless, amongst these definitions, Gikandi et al. (2011) and McCarthy’s (2015) definition of feedback aligns with my own experience of SAF being “assessment of learning”, and formative assessment feedback being “assessment for learning” in HE. Thus, I consider formative and SAF to be two distinctive activities in the study.

Assessment feedback activity is currently a popular topic in universities and conferences because HE student satisfaction rates with assessment and feedback processes in the National Student Survey (NSS) has been historically low for over a decade in the UK (HEFCE1, 2016; HEFCE2, 2017). The NSS 2017 survey consists of twenty-seven closed-category questions with overall dissatisfaction percentages of 'Definitely-Disagree’ and 'Mostly-Disagree’ options being negative emotions and both 'Definitely-Agree’ and 'Mostly- Agree’ options being positive emotions on a five-point Likert-scale for measurements of OSO. As I use the identical five-point Likert- scale measurement in this study, the relevant connections for measuring student experiences and their OSO should be mentioned. For instance, firstly, in NSS surveys, closed-category questions are about adding up three years of various SAF experiences of students

leading to certain generalisations being made, and so, only putting an emphasis on overall positive or negative emotions in students’ entire HE journeys (Warner, 2016). Secondly, there are also new amendments in the NSS 2017 survey by modifying three questions under the ‘assessment & feedback’ category to clarify meaning of the previous questions (HEFCE2, 2017). In this category (Table 2.7), while two questions (q6 and q7) in 2016 were amended for clarification (i.e. becoming Q9 and Q10) in 2017, the last two questions (i.e. q8 and q9) in 2016 were merged into a new one (Q11) in the 2017 NSS survey.

NSS Survey Questions, ‘Assessment & Feedback’ Category 2016 NSS Survey Questions

q5 - Criteria used in marking have been clear in advance. q6 - Assessment arrangements and marking have been fair. q7 - Feedback on my work has been prompt.

q8 - I have received detailed comments on my work.

q9 - Feedback on my work has helped me clarify things I did not understand.

2017 NSS Survey Questions

Q8. Criteria used in marking have been clear in advance. Q9. Marking and assessment has been fair.

Q10. Feedback on my work has been timely.

Q11. I have received helpful comments on my work. Table 2.7: NSS Survey (HEFCE2, 2017)

Nevertheless, despite differences in measuring each question between NSS 2017 and the earlier surveys, their comparisons can still provide an awareness of changing student experiences and OSO. Furthermore, while eligibility criteria in NSS surveys include only the final-year undergraduate nursing students and students studying NHS-funded subjects (NSS1, 2018), it excludes other students. In this study, I aim to include all student populations in the School-wide survey with the identical five-point Likert-scale so that these findings can be related to NSS results. Regarding NSS results in the UK, for example:

• Around only 40% of students are still overall dissatisfied with clarity and promptness of assessment feedback provided in the NSS 2010 survey (Marriott and Teoh, 2012).

• 73% are satisfied with their overall ‘assessment & feedback’ experiences in 2017 (HEFCE2, 2017), similar to 74% in 2016 (HEFCE1, 2016). While an increase from 60% (2010) to 73% (2017) is a positive trend on the total average, this category has still the lowest percentage amongst all other categories (i.e. teaching (87%), academic support (82%), learning resources (86%), personal development (82%), and OSO (86%)) in 2017.

• Notably, there are also regional statistical differences (named “Country by Scale”) in ‘assessment & feedback’ experiences.

For example, while overall ‘assessment & feedback’ satisfaction was around 74% in 2015, 2016 and 2017 in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland; these results were lower in Scotland, i.e. 68% (2015), 69% (2016), and 69% (2017) over the same period (HEFCE2, 2017).

• A breakdown of the 2017 ‘assessment & feedback’ category for full-time students in Scotland is shown in Table 2.8.

2017 NSS Survey Questions:

Full time, Scotland (%)

Q8. Criteria used in marking have been clear in

advance. 70

Q9. Marking and assessment has been fair.

[amended] 73

Q10. Feedback on my work has been timely.

[amended] 64

Q11. I have received helpful comments on my

work.[amended] 69

Table 2.8: 2017 NSS Survey (HEFCE2, 2017)

Notably, in 2017, results in the feedback activities (Q10 and Q11) are much lower than the (marking) assessment activities (Q8 and Q9) in Scotland. Therefore, such a gap between assessment and feedback activities equally highlights the relevance of my study to improve SAF with MMAs in a Scottish university.

• However, on the contrary, overall ‘assessment & feedback’ satisfaction category results have been higher in the University (where this study is conducted) as 73% (2015), 68% (2016) and 72% (2017) than average OSO results in Scotland. Such differences between the University and the other Scottish universities can be related to the University being an early adopter of TEL as a Post-1992 university with central institutional roots (Scott, 2012). For example, through the University’s follow-up report to an enhancement-led institutional review in October 2017 (QQA Scotland, 2018), the university was recommended the standardisation, improvements, and timeliness of SAF:

“to be implemented by all Schools to enhance consistency of assessment and feedback practice through online management of all assessment over two years period for:

o Reducing pockets of variability

o Implementing identified good-practices across the

University

o Enhancing clarity of feedback timescales”

Similarly, institution-wide policies about online management of assessments are varied in the UK and thereby their usage and acceptance levels; i.e. eSubmission (electronic submission), eMarking (electronic marking), eFeedback (electronic feedback) and

eReturn (electronic return of marking) (Newland and Martin, 2016). Henceforth, despite its recent increase in use and lecturers’ positive views, eFeedback, as an only form of feedback, is supported more on a School level than on an institutional level (Newland and Martin, 2016). Such findings have three major implications in my study. Firstly, a similar contradiction currently exists between the School and University in the study. For example, although online management of all SAF activities is mandatory in the School since 2016/17 academic year, the University assessment regulations currently do not necessitate the same process. However, responsibility for enhancing a coherent culture of TEL developments lies with:

• Universities to update their SAF strategies/regulations

• Schools’ lecturers’ views on student engagement, TEL and their training needs

• Organisational software/hardware developments

Unless these TEL developments are supported by the University- wide policies (i.e. resources, technical support and training), such developments tend to stay limited to the School level, and so only driven by enthusiastic practitioners and lecturers as good-practices and pilot studies.

Secondly, there is a need for more empirical research on SAF activities with different MMAs to convince lecturers with neutral

choices for its successful applications (Watkins et al., 2014; Reed et al., 2015). As well as providing necessary evidences for policy makers, TEL researchers should equally focus on uncovering alternative solutions in SAF with different MMAs, rather than solely depending upon online-written artefacts.

Finally, understanding SAF with different MMAs from both student and lecturer perspectives is necessary to solve any potential tensions between organisational TEL developments, engagement and students satisfaction. Hence, exploring SAF with MMAs through both student and lecturer interviews is a key interest for me in this study.