{"id":1737,"date":"2023-08-01T09:09:31","date_gmt":"2023-08-01T09:09:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.kcl.ac.uk\/aflkings\/?p=1737"},"modified":"2023-08-30T11:34:17","modified_gmt":"2023-08-30T11:34:17","slug":"a-faculty-education-funded-research-project-experimenting-with-different-modes-of-group-feedback-in-formative-assessments","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.kcl.ac.uk\/aflkings\/2023\/08\/01\/a-faculty-education-funded-research-project-experimenting-with-different-modes-of-group-feedback-in-formative-assessments\/","title":{"rendered":"A Faculty Education Funded Research Project: Experimenting with Different Modes of Group Feedback in Formative Assessments"},"content":{"rendered":"

Instructor:<\/strong> Dr Laura Gibson with Mariam Ghorbannejad (Learning Developer at King\u2019s Academy)<\/p>\n

Contact<\/strong>: laura.gibson@kcl.ac.uk<\/a> and mariam.2.ghorbannejad@kcl.ac.uk<\/a><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong>Module: <\/strong>MA in Digital Asset and Media Management programme in the Department of Digital Humanities (DDH).<\/p>\n

Assessment Activity: <\/strong>as part of an Arts and Humanities Education Fund project, we have undertaken this research on how providing different types of feedback (written, audio, and audio-visual) to students improves their learning and take up of feedback.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Why did you conduct this research into different types of feedback?<\/strong><\/h3>\n

\u00a0<\/strong>The MA in Digital Asset and Media Management (DAMM) regularly has an annual cohort of more than 100 students. These students come from diverse educational and disciplinary backgrounds. For most, this is their first experience of university in the UK and of producing HE-level English language assessments. While DDH academic teaching staff are committed to assessment for learning\u2014whereby students have opportunities to learn from lower-stakes, confidence building exercises and receive feedforward<\/em> on these (Sambell, McDowell & Montgomery, 2013)\u2014the realities of such large cohorts and understaffing means giving meaningful feedback on assessments is a daunting task.<\/p>\n

Group work can potentially reduce the quantity of feedback required from assessors, but the challenge is ensuring that it still delivers high-quality information to individual students about their learning (Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006) so that they can use it to improve their work or learning strategies (Carless & Boud, 2018). We\u2019re interested in how we can innovate the format in which feedback is delivered so that it benefits both staff and students, and wanted to research realistic possibilities for overcoming some of the staffing challenges associated with continuous assessment within large cohorts.<\/p>\n

Mariam and I designed this research project around two student workshops to explore more specifically how different forms<\/em> of group feedback affect how students engage with, and then apply, group feedback to their individual work. For this project, we experimented with three types of feedback:<\/p>\n

    \n
  • written,<\/li>\n
  • audio,<\/li>\n
  • audio-visual.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

     <\/p>\n

    How did you set it up?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
    Workshop<\/td>\nDate<\/td>\nThe workshop content<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    \n

    1<\/h2>\n<\/td>\n

    		Early May 2023<\/td>\nA scaffolded synthesis task to identify key features and qualities<\/p>\n

    Students were divided into three groups to discuss 4 extracts on the impact of ChatGPT-4<\/p>\n

    Students produced a 200-word synthesis using the extracts in 20 minutes<\/p>\n

    Students then produced a Concept map (link) in class using A1 sheets and pens in response to the question: How can we rethink HE assessments in the age of ChatGPT?\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

    The Feedback Stage <\/strong><\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    – Students work was marked using the standard College PGT marking criteria<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    -all groups were given 3 areas of strength and 3 areas for improvement<\/td>\n

    		Two weeks between 1 and 2<\/td>\nEach of the three groups was assigned a mode of feedback at random:<\/p>\n

    Group 1- written on MS word doc<\/p>\n

    Group 2- audio using voice notes<\/p>\n

    Group 3- audio-visual using Kaltura Quick Capture on 3 animated slides<\/p>\n

    Students did not know which one they would receive.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

    \n

    2<\/h2>\n<\/td>\n

    		Mid may 2023<\/td>\nWe went through the PGT marking criteria with students<\/p>\n

    Each group had time to review and discuss the feedback given and to write clarification questions<\/p>\n

    45 mins to write a 300-word written response to the same questions as in workshop 1<\/p>\n

    Evaluation discussion to reflect on the types of feedback given as well as in other modules.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

     <\/p>\n

    What other considerations did you make about the feedback?<\/strong><\/h3>\n
      \n
    • For the Audio Feedback:<\/em> I wanted to recreate a more realistic feedback environment where I\u2019d be under time pressure to complete the marking and so, while I made a few notes that I referred to as I recorded, I resisted the temptation to first write my feedback in full or to re-record the audio to make it smoother.<\/li>\n
    • For the Audio-Visual Feedback<\/em>: I used different colours and symbols to underline sections of the text and highlight elements of the concept maps to emphasise the points to which I was referring in the audio. Again, I deliberately recorded the video in just one take.<\/li>\n
    • The depth and quantity of feedback<\/em> that I gave each group was similar. However, in terms of how long it took to produce the different forms after assessing the tasks, the audio feedback took the least amount of time (approx. 10 mins) and the audio-visual took the most (approx. 60 mins). I emailed the students the feedback file for their consideration a few days before the second workshop.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

      What were your key findings and recommendations from this research?<\/strong><\/h3>\n