Theme: Understanding Feedback .1 Understanding Feedback

The Year 8 questionnaire data indicated there were only two subjects in which more than 50% of the students stated both written and verbal feedback were explained ‘all’ or

‘most’ of the time (English and Art: Table 10). It suggests there was a high proportion of occasions when feedback was not explained, however, written feedback might not have necessitated a follow up explanation. It also indicates there was a high proportion of occasions when verbal feedback was not clearly explained although students may not have considered verbal exchanges that occurred between them and the teacher as feedback. The third column of Table 10 indicates a slightly higher proportion of students felt feedback was easy to understand for some subjects despite a lower occurrence of it being explained. Feedback may have not needed an explanation all the time for it to be understood. When examining Chart 18, between one quarter and one third of students stated feedback could be improved by making it easier to read or to use simpler words.

If students found the terminology difficult to read or too complex, they would have difficulty in understanding feedback.

Table 11 summarised the English/Law data regarding student understanding of

feedback. Students in years 7 and 8 believed verbal feedback was more clearly explained than written, which also corresponds with the suggestion by these students that writing could be easier to read (Chart 19). However, over 80% stated feedback generally was easy to understand ‘all’ or ‘most’ of the time. So, it appears that when it could be read by the student, written feedback by Kirstie was structured in a way that was understood.

Further analysis of the English/Law survey shows that in the remaining years, the student views about the explanation of verbal and written feedback were more even,

159

with approximately two-thirds of students stating both written and verbal feedback was explained ‘all’ or ‘most‘ of the time.

Overall, whilst this data provides a mixed picture, it does suggest students in years 7 and 8 may find written feedback difficult to understand if they are unable to read the writing of the teacher, or they do not have the skills to make sense of the comments.

This highlights Dann’s (2018) concern that some students may not have sufficient cognitive development to understand feedback in these earlier years. This could influence and shape students’ perception, affecting their subsequent engagement with feedback in later years.

Table 12 presents a comparison of the students’ views about their understanding of feedback from the Year 8 and Year 10 surveys. There were 5 subjects when more

students stated they understood their feedback ‘all’ or ‘most’ of the time in year 10 than they did in year 8. This was Science (+27%), Geography (+25%), History (+6%), Technology +(8%), Art (+5%) and French (+4%). With the exception of Science, all of these subjects were optional, so an increase in the way students valued feedback could be a result of their preference for the subject. This was expressed by the students in the English and Art interviews (Appendix 9 and 11) who explained their liking for the subject influenced their engagement with feedback. In the interview with Annie (Appendix 14), she explained the Geography team designed their own assessments in KS4, whereas the Maths department used past exam papers. In their research to explore the use of summative assessments to support learning, Black et al (2011) believed using

summative assessments, such as past exam papers or ready-made tasks did not guide student learning. They also claimed using these did not encourage teachers to develop skills in designing their own tests. My data supports Black et al’s views suggesting the approach taken by the Geography teachers enabled them to give feedback that was easy to understand, encouraged students to think about and improve their work (Tables 12 and 16). An OfSTED inspection undertaken in September 2018 identified Geography as a high performing subject with good strategies to support students’ learning (OfSTED 2018). OfSTED’s view corroborates this data in my research.

In contrast, in the Maths department, where past exam papers were used, a lower proportion of students in KS4 understood their feedback, or felt it prompted them to think about or improve their work (Tables 12 and 16). In DeLisle’s (2015) research on the effect of formative assessment on a continuous assessment programme in Trinidad and Tobago, he found teachers focused on summative assessment to the detriment of formative. The emphasis on past GSCE papers in Maths in KS4 seems to have produced similar outcomes with teachers focusing on the process of undertaking external tests. If the students were regularly receiving grades on their performance in these tests, this

160

could influence how they felt about themselves, their learning and engagement with feedback. Peterson and Irving’s (2008) research in a New Zealand secondary school found students said low grades affected how they felt about their learning, whilst good grades made them feel good. The use of assessment papers in Maths in my research could influence students’ beliefs about their ability through the regular provision of grades. Such an approach would focus on an outcome, rather than exploring why students gave the answers they did. Bennett (2011) argued this is often overlooked when providing feedback and it could account for the perception by year 10 students.

Table 12 shows 50% of students understood the feedback in Maths ‘all’ or ‘most’ of the time, which indicates 50% of students only understood feedback ‘some’ of the time, or

‘never’ did. Such a wide variation in views could be due to grades being received positively by some students and in a negative way by others.

These findings suggest purposeful assessments designed by teachers provided more opportunities to support students’ learning and have important implications for developing practice in the classroom. However, an unstable teaching team in Maths, explained by Annie (Appendix 14), could also account for the student views as this may prevent relationships and mutual understandings to be achieved in the feedback process.

Despite the slightly more positive experience in year 10 than year 8 for most subjects, the data indicated that there were a considerable number of students who did not understand the feedback they received. It could be because they did not have the necessary skills or strategies to understand and engage with it (Jonssen 2012) or feedback was too complex or contradictory (Irons 2008). Jonssen (2012), Lawson (2013) and Ruiz-Primo and Brockhart (2018) explained feedback should adopt

terminology that students can understand. An assumption could be made by the teacher who provides the feedback that it will be understood by the student, however if it was not specific or related to targets or learning outcomes, the relevance of it may not be clear to the students. In both the Year 8 and the English/Law surveys, providing an example was the most common suggestion as to how feedback could be improved (Charts 18 and 19). This suggests students believed it would be useful for them to have a clearer understanding of what good quality work looked like, which Chappius (2012) explained is important in helping the student understand what they are aiming to

achieve. Without a clarity of the learning intention, feedback can lack purpose (Fluckiger et al 2010) and students focus on the activity, not on learning (Chappuis 2012).

6.2.2 Frequency of providing feedback

The English student interviews showed a range of preferences in the regularity and depth of feedback. The year 10 boys wanted more detailed feedback less often, a view

161

shared by the year 7 girls, whilst year 10 girls wanted feedback more regularly. Williams (2010) also identified girls were inclined to want feedback more regularly than boys. This was also demonstrated in my research, but the low numbers of students interviewed makes it difficult to draw any conclusions. It is possible previous experiences of the way feedback had been provided to students influenced their preferences. Lander (2011) and Francis (2000) suggested teachers’ perceptions of gender could influence how teachers provide feedback to students and support their learning. The varying data on gender preferences in this research could be explained by Lander and Francis’ views that the student preferences were influenced by prior experiences as well as personal choices.

6.3 Theme: Valuing Feedback

6.3.1 Useful feedback

A difference in the views of male and female students is seen in the response to the question ‘What do you find useful about feedback’. In the Year 8 survey, males identified feedback was useful to show them they had improved. In the English/Law survey, year 8 males stated feedback was useful to show them what they were good at. These aspects of feedback were not as important to the year 8 females and the difference was

statistically significant. From this data, it can be concluded that in year 8, males placed a higher value on the affirming aspect of feedback than the females did in these years.

Although it was still identified as an important aspect throughout the other year groups (Chart 13 and Appendix 15B), there was no significant difference between male and female views, possibly because females found it more important in these other years than they did in year 8. In the interview with the year 7 girls, one student explained ‘you don’t feel rubbish if it is not just about improvement but do want to know how to

improve and move on to the next level’. Although the importance of reassurance of success was expressed here, it was followed with clarification that feedback was important for improvement. The two year 10 males in the English interviews said they wanted feedback to tell them they were doing well because they ‘like to know they have got it and can move on’. The confirmation they were on track was important to them.

These views could reflect the confidence of boys identified by Murphy and Elwood (1998), Francis (2000) and Younger et al (2005). In the younger years, the male

students may require reassurance more than females to develop or maintain confidence in their ability. My data suggests reassurance of success was important for all students but appeared to be of particular importance to the year 8 males. In the year 10 survey, the higher proportion of students who did not disclose their gender might have masked any gender difference. The findings are significant for teachers, who should design feedback which recognises and builds on student success not just focusing on

162

improvement. Strategies used by teachers should ensure this is part of the feedback process and may need to reinforce success to younger males.

SLT noted that even when feedback was provided in the form of WWW/EBI, students did not always consider it to be useful (Appendix 6). The closed questions that teachers were asking as part of the process, were not useful to help students to engage with feedback. Although the teachers recognised this, they explained it would take too much time to write a question which required a longer student response (Appendix 7). The process of setting a question for students to answer was not found to be helpful by the students in the Art interview with comments such as ‘the question is okay, but you don’t always know what the question means’ and ‘[it] should be more specific and relate to the style of the topic’ (Appendix 8). This data demonstrates that even though when the school policy was being followed, feedback was not helpful to support student learning.

When she changed the question posed in Art to ‘Based on the feedback above, how will you improve your work?’ Katie recognised the feedback she gave to students had to change to enable them to answer this question. The students stated this change had improved the feedback they received from Katie (Appendix 9). Coe et al (2014), Brown et al (2012) and James (2006) explained teachers need to have a critical awareness of effective learning and feedback. This research had enabled Katie to reflect on the purpose of feedback and develop her approach to make it more effective.

6.3.2 Making feedback more useful

When examining the responses to the question ‘what would make feedback more useful’, examples and time to make changes to their work were the main categories selected (Charts 18 and 19). As previously discussed, an example could provide students with a clear direction of what they are aiming to achieve. However, it could narrow the learning by focusing on the outcome, which Torrance and Pryor (2002) described as convergent teaching, avoiding deeper learning. Students requiring time to make improvements to their work corresponds with Table 14, where students felt there were limited

opportunities to do this for many of the subjects in year 8. If students are not provided with opportunities to use feedback, they are unlikely to engage with it as they have not been able to apply it to their learning. This corresponds with Wiliam’s (2011) comments that feedback needs to occur within a system where students can use it, otherwise it should not be regarded as feedback.

As previously discussed, students in years 7 and 8 stated feedback could be easier to read, a view which reduced from year 9 to year 11. An explanation could be that students became more familiar with the teacher’s comments and writing as they were

163

older or developed skills to understand it better. This was noted by Dann (2018). Whilst her research was undertaken with primary school children, the data from these surveys suggests students entering into secondary education could also face challenges in the cognitive engagement with feedback. Table 12 shows between half and two-thirds of students generally found feedback easy to understand across the eight subjects,

indicating there was a proportion of year 8 students who stated they did not understand feedback often or at all. The Year 10 data shows a slight increase in responses by

students with regards to understanding feedback in some subjects, so the year 8 views could have been due to difficulty in reading or interpreting the writing. However, the small changes in Year 10 could also have been due to different techniques used when these students were in KS4.

6.3.3 Receiving feedback

All the data charts show a variation in student perceptions for all the questions. Even when the teacher was a constant factor (English/Law survey) a variation was still noted.

For example, Chart 4 shows a range of responses from ‘All’ of the time’ to ‘Never’ about student views as to whether they received written feedback on their work. Similar patterns of responses occur throughout the data. These variations could be a result of the importance and relevance students placed on feedback. Chappius (2012), Hattie and Timperley (2007) and Harlen (2007) explained higher attaining students can value feedback as a positive sign of their ability, whilst for lower attaining students, it can reinforce belief in their ability. Dann (2016) and Havnes et al (2012) added higher attaining students were more likely to actively engage with feedback, whilst lower attaining ones tended to take a passive or negative approach. If students actively engaged with it, they may be more likely to recognise they received feedback. The variance could also depend on how the feedback was presented. If it was presented in a way that students were unable to use or included terminology they did not understand, (Jonsson 2012, Bennett 2011) students may disregard it as feedback. Students in the first Art interview explained some of the feedback they received did not show them how they could apply the comments to future work. This may have resulted in them

disregarding the feedback and not acknowledging they had received it. Stiggins (2006) argues an assessment system should provide information about students’ achievement and inform them how to improve their work. If this is not achieved, feedback would have little value for students.

The type of feedback provided may also influence whether it is acknowledged by

students. Hattie and Timperley (2007) claimed the feedback teachers give is influenced by their perception of student needs. They argued teachers who considered students to be lower ability were more likely to give them praise rather than instruction. As praise

164

does not contain information (Hattie and Timperley ibid), it may not be regarded as feedback.

The variance in student perceptions is, therefore, important. It is possible lower attaining students did not recognise or acknowledge feedback as much as their higher attaining peers. This could lead them into a cycle of not engaging with feedback, thus maintaining their current performance, reinforcing to them and their teachers of their ‘ability’

resulting in a repeat of the cycle. As the Law students in Years 10 and 11 could be regarded as higher attaining students, based on the views of Dann (2016), Havnes et al (2012), Chappius (2012), Hattie and Timperley (2007) and Harlen (2007) it could be expected the pattern of responses of these students would show a greater indication of engagement with, and use of, feedback than their peers in an average group. The data in my research does not show this. Data from Law questionnaires does not show any difference in patterns to the student views across all groups. This indicates these higher attaining students did not show different preferences or relate to feedback in a more positive way than their peers. It should be acknowledged this may be due to the way Kirstie provided the feedback and the way she engaged with all of her students.

Nevertheless, it could be expected that the higher attaining students would still show a tendency to view feedback more positively than their peers. These findings are

significant for teachers as they show it should not be assumed that higher attaining students will engage with feedback in a different way from their peers. This highlights that all students need to be supported in the use of feedback to help them improve their work.

In their meta-analysis, Kluger and DeNisi (1996) identified feedback could have a negative effect on performance in 38% of the studies they examined. They argued this was due to the type of feedback provided. When feedback indicated the performance of the student fell short of the goal, the student could either change their behaviour to reach the goal; modify or abandon the goal; or reject the feedback. The value placed on the feedback will influence the subsequent action taken by the student. This can be determined by the way the feedback was presented and in their motivation in achieving the goal. Such power of feedback was noted by Hattie and Timperley (2007), who explained it can either motivate a student or reinforce views about deficiencies. A

student who receives feedback which they believe reinforces their deficiencies, may then reject the feedback or abandon their learning goals. Applying Habermas’ Theory of Communicative Action (1984), specifically validity claims, this could happen because the teacher’s claim to truthfulness or authenticity is questioned by the student if they do not feel the teacher is acting with the genuine intention to help them and without an

opportunity to challenge the teacher’s claim, the feedback is not communicated

165

effectively. A student who has received feedback on prior occasions, from this or other teachers, which reinforced deficiencies, will be influenced by this experience and it may affect how they value feedback on later occasions. Habermas (1987) referred to this as the lifeworld affecting how the student interprets the feedback they receive. Black et al

effectively. A student who has received feedback on prior occasions, from this or other teachers, which reinforced deficiencies, will be influenced by this experience and it may affect how they value feedback on later occasions. Habermas (1987) referred to this as the lifeworld affecting how the student interprets the feedback they receive. Black et al