Feedback provision and use in teaching and learning: a case study

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0040-0912.htm Feedback provision and use in teaching and learning: a case study Samuel Laryea School of Construction, Economics and Management, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa Abstract Feedback provision 665 Received 26 June 2012 Revised 21 October 2012 8 December 2012 Accepted 9 December 2012 Purpose – The information a student receives after they have completed a piece of work is often known as “feedback” and this can be provided in a range of formats. Despite its importance, results of the National Students Survey in the UK consistently suggest that feedback is an area where significant improvements are needed across the higher education sector. The purpose here was to explore and advance a better understanding of the way feedback is given by lecturers as part of teaching and how students perceive and use it in their learning. Design/methology/approach – In all, three methods were used for data collection in 2010-2011. First, semi-structured interviews with 52 students helped to acquire a preliminary understanding of their feedback experiences. Second, a questionnaire completed by lecturers helped to identify their feedback provision methods. Third, a questionnaire completed by 194 students across all year groups helped to obtain their views about the usefulness of various methods of feedback provision. Findings – A content analysis of the data shows the main methods used in Part 1 to provide feedback on assignments are verbal 1:1 and generic feedback in the classroom. The main methods used in Part 2 to provide feedback on assignments are comments written on the submission or a separate sheet. In Part 3, the main methods used to provide feedback are generic feedback given in the classroom; verbal 1:1; a standard template; and comments written on the submission or a separate sheet. However, a majority of students responding to this research prefer one-on-one and personal feedback which can clearly be time-consuming for lecturers. Originality/value – The originality here lies in the use of multiple methods to ascertain feedback practices from both the perspective of its provision by lecturers and its use by students. Keywords Built environment education, Feedback, Feedback provision, Feedback use, Case study, Higher education, United Kingdom Paper type Research paper Introduction The provision of “good” feedback to students, and its use by students, is central to supporting and enhancing their learning experiences whilst at university (see e.g. Race, 2001: “Ripples on a pond model”; Kolb, 1984: “Experiential learning cycle”). However, results of the National Student Survey (NSS) in the UK consistently identifies “assessment and feedback” as a problem area where significant improvements are needed across the higher education sector. Without a detailed understanding of the key issues involved in feedback practices in an academic environment, it would be difficult to tackle the problem and improve. Therefore, the aim of this work was to acquire a better understanding of the key issues involved in the provision and use of feedback in higher education based on research in a built environment department in a UK The comments from anonymous reviewers helped in a very significant way to improve the paper. The support of colleagues and students in carrying out the study is appreciated. Education þ Training Vol. 55 No. 7, 2013 pp. 665-680 r Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0040-0912 DOI 10.1108/ET-06-2012-0071 ET 55,7 university. The study findings help to develop recommendations to enhance feedback provision by lecturers and its use by students. 666 Literature review The literature on definitions of feedback, forms of feedback, elements of good feedback, and university policy on feedback provision is reviewed. An electronic search of Education þ Training journal database in October 2012 reveals only two papers with “feedback” in the paper title. Feedback is clearly an important subject and there is a need for systematic research into the findings and shortcomings expressed by students in the NSS in relation to the quality of feedback they receive from lecturers. Feedback Feedback can be defined as: “The information given to a student about the gap between actual performance and the performance goal in a way which helps the student to attain that goal” (Sadler, 1989). Another definition of “feedback” is: “The information a student receives after they have completed a piece of work and this can be provided in a range of formats” (University of Reading, 2010). There are other definitions of feedback in the pedagogic literature (see e.g. Schartel, 2012; Meerah and Halim, 2011; Higgins et al., 2010; Gibbs and Simpson, 2004). Most definitions dwell on the basic philosophy that feedback is the information given to students on a piece of work in order to help the students to assess their performance, understand where they went right and wrong, and identify the areas where they need to tackle in order to improve their learning and performance. Studies by Schartel (2012), Chan and Lam (2010), Wiggins (1997) and Race (2001) explain how good feedback can help learners to maximise their potential at different stages of their learning process, raise their awareness of strengths and areas for improvement, and identify actions to be taken to improve performance. Good feedback can help students to understand a subject better and offer clearer guidance on how to improve (Glover and Brown, 2006). The University of Reading (2010) explains that: “feedback can improve a student’s confidence, self-awareness and enthusiasm for learning”. The research by Chan and Lam (2010) on effects of different evaluative feedback on students’ self-efficacy in learning supports the underlying philosophy of the above quote on what feedback can achieve. Handley et al. (2008) and Higgins et al. (2010) demonstrate that students want and appreciate good feedback. Handley et al. (2008) investigated how students engage with feedback and feedback practices by academic staff in three universities. The study involved 35 semi-structured interviews with students and staff to elicit their understandings of feedback; 776 questionnaires responses from students on their views about different forms of feedback; and seven case studies on feedback methods used by staff. The same research found that students do not always engage with the feedback they are given. One reason for this lack of engagement was that students found feedback difficult to understand in instances where they could not relate it to the assessment criteria, or to what their “performance gap” was supposed to be. Thus, feedback ought to have a good fit with learning activities and assessment. Role of feedback in learning In all, two key theories on how feedback supports learning of students are summarized in the “Ripples on a pond model” by Race (2001) and Kolb’s (1984) four-stage experiential learning theory. The “Ripples on the pond” model is based on the assumption that the most effective form of learning is experiential learning, i.e. learning by doing. The metaphor of “ripples” is used to explain the role of feedback in learning, and the mechanism of how this works, in that, the presence of feedback in the learning process keeps the ripples going, increases the intensity of the rippling and deepens learning. Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning theory is based on a four-stage cycle of learning. It is a four-stage experiential learning theory that is systematic and combines the roles of experience, perception, cognition, and behaviour in enhancing learning. Clearly, there are similarities between Race’s (2001) theory of learning and that of Kolb (1984). Both are based on experiential learning. However, the four elements of Kolb’s model function sequentially whilst that of Race’s model does not function in the form of a sequential cycle. Since Kolb and Race, research by several authors continues to advance further understanding of the role of feedback in learning. For example, Bitchener (2008) examined the role of written feedback in corrective learning. Chan and Lam (2010) examined the effects of different evaluative feedback on students’ self-efficacy in learning. The research in clinical practice by Clynes and Raftery (2008) provides evidence which supports the essential role feedback plays in student learning. These studies clearly demonstrate that feedback plays an essential function in the learning experience of students. Thus, further research is needed to explore and deepen our current understanding of the relationship between feedback and learning. Forms of feedback The two main classifications of feedback often mentioned in the literature are formative and summative feedback (see e.g. Higgins et al., 2010; Shute, 2008). The research by Irons (2008) describes formative feedback as any information, process or activity which affords or accelerates student learning based on comments relating to either formative assessment or summative assessment activities. Thus, formative feedback represents information given to the learner that is intended to modify the learner’s thinking or behaviour for the purpose of improving learning (Shute, 2008). The main aim of formative feedback is to increase student knowledge, skills, and understanding in some content area or general skill. McAlpine (2004) explains that formative feedback provides students with the means to achieve a goal and thus orients students towards a learning goal. Summative feedback on the other hand focuses on the outcome without empowering students with the means to achieve the goal (McAlpine, 2004). It should be noted that a close link exists between feedback and assessment. When discussing assessment issues, many studies in the pedagogic literature mention feedback and vice versa (see e.g. Higgins et al., 2010 and NSS questions). The University of Reading (2010) guidance document on feedback explains that in formative assessment, which takes place during the module, the feedback given to students should identify their strengths and weaknesses and help them to develop strategies for improving their performance. Feedback in summative assessment, which counts towards the final grade/mark of the module, often provides little opportunity for students to improve. There are various methods that may be used to give feedback to students. Methods identified by Higgins et al. (2010) include written feedback, peer feedback, selfassessment, exemplar assignments, oral feedback, face-to-face feedback, and via podcast or video (see also Dewald, 2000). Guardado and Shi (2007) and Meerah and Halim (2011) examined the use of peer group mechanisms for giving feedback. Feedback provision 667 ET 55,7 668 Guardado and Shi (2007) demonstrated the effectiveness of internet-based peer feedback methods. Crook et al. (2012) and Crook et al. (2010) explored the feedback experiences of students and lecturers at University of Reading, UK. Totally, 79 students who responded to the survey by Crook et al. (2010 p. 14) said that they would prefer written feedback on their assessed work followed by comments from their lecturer or personal tutor during a one-to-one meeting. The study by Crook et al. (2010) demonstrated that the type of feedback given to students by lecturers may vary significantly from what the students actually prefer. Therefore it is important for lecturers to engage students in conversations about the usefulness of approaches for giving feedback. This should inform feedback methods embedded in curriculum design. Elements of “good ” feedback The definition of “good” feedback may be subjective. However, some indicators of good practice can be summarized from the pedagogic literature. Good feedback should provide constructive criticism and positive suggestions that can facilitate the learning experience of students ( Juwah et al., 2004). Feedback should be clear on strong and weak areas of a student’s work which suggests it should be personal and specific (Rogers et al., 2012). The form of the feedback should enable students to reflect about the work and opportunities should be given for discussion of the feedback. Thus, good feedback must be timely (i.e. provided quickly enough to be useful), focused on learning rather than marks, specific, linked to assessment criteria, understandable to students, and should allow the student an opportunity to act on the feedback, i.e. acted upon to improve performance (Wiggins, 1997). Duncan (2007) express the need for feedback to also include “feedforward” (see also Brown, 2007). The purpose of feedforward is to provide useful information to students that will help them recognize where gaps in student learning are with a view to using that information to move forward with the intent of closing the gaps in their learning. A detailed explanation on the usefulness of including elements of “feedforward” in feedback provision to students is contained in Duncan (2007) which examined how students can apply the feedforward provided by lecturers to improve. While feedback is information about what was and was not accomplished in a piece of work, feedforward is the reverse of feedback. It is the feedback that is forward-looking so that it can improve students’ learning and enhance their performance in future work (Carless, 2006). Research aim The literature review examines definitions, forms, classification and elements of feedback. Despite the wide range of literature relating to feedback, the NSS results in the UK consistently reveals shortcomings and a need to investigate and develop this area within the higher education context. Therefore, the aim of this research was to examine and analyse feedback practices in a built environment department in a UK university. Research objectives The specific objectives were to: (1) ascertain the methods used by lecturers for giving feedback to students; and (2) ascertain from students their feedback experiences; and the extent to which they find various methods of feedback provision useful. The scope of the study relates to the undergraduate (UG) part of programmes. This required an appropriate research design and methods for addressing the study objectives. Research methods In all, three main data collection procedures were adopted. First, it was decided to conduct interviews with students to identify and obtain an overview of their feedback experiences. Second, a questionnaire was designed and given to all lecturers to obtain a record of the range of feedback provision methods used across all modules in the school. Third, a questionnaire was designed and given to students to complete for the purpose of obtaining their views about the range of feedback methods used across modules. The main reason for choosing this research approach was to enable a broad overview of feedback practices across the school to be captured from the perspective of both lecturers and students. Documents relating to feedback provision were also examined. The question of feedback provision and use involves both lecturers and students. Therefore, it was decided to involve students and lecturers at all three parts. In the UK, the duration of UG programmes in universities is three years. At the time of the study, there were 417 UG students and 25 lecturers in the school. This reflects a lecturer-student ratio of 1:16 although 1:12 is recommended by the Higher Education Academy. But this aligns with the 16.8 average across the UK universities (Higher Education Statistics Agency). The University and College Union have argued that 16.8 is higher than the average student-to-teacher ratio of 15.5 at universities in the 34 member states of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Interviews with students The aim of the interviews with students was to explore issues relating to the following four main areas: (1) Please briefly explain your understanding of feedback. In other words, what does feedback mean to you? (2) What kinds of feedback (written, verbal, etc.) do you often receive on your work from lecturers? Is it often clear and adequate in a way that you can understand and find useful? (3) Within what time frame do you normally receive the feedback on your work? (4) What do you do with the feedback when you receive it? In other words, how do you make use of the feedback given to you by lecturers? (5) Do you have any concerns about feedback practices in the school or any suggestions for improving feedback from lecturers? The interviews were carried out in the 2010-2011 academic year. Students of all levels of the UG programme were involved, i.e. Parts 1-3. In all, 52 students were involved in the interviews as follows: Part 1 students (ten); Part 2 students (19) and Part 3 students (23), i.e. 12 per cent of the UG population. It was particularly informative gathering data from Part 3 students who have been in the school for at least two years. The interviews were semi-structured in nature. Each one took roughly 20 minutes and the researcher took notes whilst respondents spoke. The approach used to select interviewees was non-probabilistic in nature. A majority of respondents were obtained with the help of the students’ Construction Society. The remaining respondents were Feedback provision 669 ET 55,7 670 invited directly to participate in the study by sharing their feedback experiences in the school and how they use feedback when they receive it. The interviews were examined and analysed using content analysis and the emergent findings provided significant guidance for designing the questionnaire aspects of the study. Completion of questionnaire by module convenors A “feedback audit” questionnaire was issued to all module convenors (lecturers) to complete. The aim was to elicit information on methods used in the module delivery to give feedback to students. A range of methods were presented and each module convenor was asked to indicate which one they use. There was also a provision for stating other methods not captured in the questionnaire. The questionnaire included questions on the following areas: (1) module contributors; (2) method of assessment; (3) contribution to final assessment; and (4) forms of feedback. The questionnaire was completed for nearly all modules delivered in the school. Clearly, there are a range of alternative methods which can be employed to enhance feedback on modules, but before this can be undertaken there is the need to know what feedback is currently being provided. The questionnaire helped to gather that information. This was completed by module convenors as well as all staff contributing to modules. An analysis of the responses was carried out, to reveal examples of good practice. Completion of questionnaire by students A questionnaire was designed and given to students to complete in the autumn term of 2011/2012 academic year. The reason for using this approach was to obtain as many responses as possible. The response rate was as follows: Part 1 (22 students); Part 2 (95) and Part 3 (77). Therefore, a total of 194 students completed the questionnaire which represents 47 per cent of the UG population. The five main questions were: (1) To what extent do you like [x] method of giving feedback? For what kind of assignments is [x] method of giving feedback very helpful? (2) How do you rate the quality of your feedback experience in the school? (3) If your answer is “Poor” or “Average”, what is the main reason for this? (4) What method of assessment do you prefer for your modules? (5) Overall, how would you rate your feedback experience in the school this year? Results In all, three sets of results obtained through interviews and questionnaires are presented. The interviews provided preliminary insights that helped to probe deeper during the questionnaire-based research. The data relating to feedback experiences and preferences of students; and methods used by lecturers for giving feedback is summarized in Appendix. Students’ experiences in relation to feedback The semi-structured interviews with students showed that most of them have a good understanding of feedback and they consider it as an essential component of their learning experience. A content analysis of the interviews was carried out by collating the qualitative information collected through interviews with students and then highlighting keywords and themes in the content for a qualitative interpretation of the underlying context. A paper by Hsieh and Shannon (2005) offers a detailed explanation of the content analysis method of qualitative data analysis. Quotes from interview transcripts are used to illustrate some of the key points expressed by students and to also support the summary of findings. Most students expressed feedback as the information or communication provided by a lecturer to a student in relation to a piece of assessed work. The communication should point out strengths and weaknesses of the assessed work and guide the student on how to improve on their future performance. Many students expressed dissatisfaction with the “tick box” method of feedback provision where a standard template with a list of variables is ticked off to give a picture of the lecturer’s general impression of the work without specifics. According to students, this method does not provide a detailed explanation of strong and weak areas and hence contributes little to their learning experience. The students expressed a preference for comments that relate specifically to their individual work. The following quotes illustrate some of the student descriptions of “feedback”: Feedback comes from lecturers to students. It can be used to help improve the course in a variety of different ways. Feedback is very important in helping communication between staff and student to see where improvements can be made. . Feedback is a form of communication between the lecturer and the student as regards to what you have done in your work [y] whether it is right or not [y] it is basically guidance [y] gives a student the chance to assess their progress in that area. . Feedback is anything that is going to help you subsequently to improve your mark or standard of work generally. . These understandings of feedback resonate significantly with definitions of feedback in the literature. In response to the kinds of feedback that they generally receive, most students interviewed described these using expressions such as: . Written feedback. . Just tick-boxes with no explanation of why it was ticked ‘Good’ for example. . Verbal feedback. . Just ticks for each paragraph. The interview responses to the question on the quality and timeframes within which feedback is provided varied significantly. Most students indicated that they receive various forms of feedback from lecturers. However, the main problem was that this was brief in most cases and generic in form rather than specific and personal. In some cases, only a mark is provided without any supporting comments. Students expressed this as a worry. Sometimes the feedback given does not fully support the mark awarded and students used this to highlight the element of subjectivity involved in assessment and feedback provision. The following quotes illustrate some of the points articulated by students: . We get feedback but sometimes it does not get in the right time. For example, I would be waiting for a feedback on a handed in work while I would be assigned a new assignment to hand in leading to handing in both assignments with no progress in their delivery. Feedback provision 671 ET 55,7 672 There are times you just get work back and it is a simple mark. Out of 10 modules, you will get feedback on 5-6 marked assignments. Some are written, some are general, i.e. before a lecture. In written form, that tells you the areas where you have done well or not. Most of the written feedback is useful. It gives you a tool to sharpen yourself in the areas where you are weak. The verbal one is also good. But if you don’t write it down, you forget. But if it is written, then there is always a record that you can refer to. . Only few lecturers send feedback in written form. Most will just come in a lecture room and give a group feedback to the whole class. What we prefer is one-to-one feedback, written. . The interview responses on how students use feedback in their learning provided some insight into the attitude of students to feedback given by lecturers. Most students look at the feedback comments that may come with the grade for an assessed work. However, the level of attention given to the feedback comments may depend on the student’s level of satisfaction with the grade based on their expectation. If a satisfactory grade has been obtained, the detailed comments may not be read in detail. However, if the grade obtained is particularly less than expected, then the feedback comments becomes crucial in helping a student to understand why an expected grade has not been achieved and how future performance may be improved especially if the assignment has taken place in the early stages of a module. The following three quotes illustrate some of the student explanations: What you do with the feedback depends on the mark. I don’t always read my feedback. If it is a good mark, I don’t read it. But if it is not a good mark, then I read everything the lecturer has written on the work. You make a mental note of it for the future. I do not rewrite it to get it right or learn the lessons. Without feedback no one can learn how to do it properly. The way I learn is when I get it wrong and I get feedback to point me in the right direction. . Usually I note the feedback, and look back on it time to time to see where I could have done better on a project. How you use it depends on what kind of person you are, and how well you want to do at university, if you are motivated or not. . I note the areas commented upon, and the places I have gone wrong just to make sure I don’t repeat the same mistake again. I think that most students would just take note of the written comments and then hope to use it in future assignments. Some read it just because the lecturer has written it. Some will also read it to correct themselves. Some will also read it to see whether the marks are justified or not. . In the final part of the interviews, students were invited to offer suggestions for improving feedback provision. The content analysis of students’ response to this part indicated that they prefer feedback that is personal, not generic, timely, constructive and motivational, appropriately spread across the relevant areas of the work, has detailed comments and points out both what is right and wrong as a whole. Writing feedback alongside where the issues are might be the clearest way hence feedback arrangement is important. Many students also explained that feedback should be given in point form as it is clearer when it is in points. They were of the view that this will also be quicker for lecturers and clearer for the student to understand. The following quotes illustrate some of the points expressed by students: Specific. For example, saying ‘you could have done better’ is not helpful. Same as ‘it wasn’t well structured.’ . Good feedback is a proper critique of an assignment in terms of the language used, knowledge passed on, etc. . Good feedback helps you find out what you’ve done good/bad. It shows you what the lecturer is looking for in the way that a piece of work is marked. . Feedback provision The earlier the better [y] You would prefer to have the feedback when it is still fresh in your mind what you wrote [y] When still fresh in your mind, the processes you went through to get the assignment done. . The overall expressions and views provided by students demonstrate that they clearly understand and appreciate feedback provision by lecturers. If engaged in appropriate discussions around the subject of feedback provision and use, students can contribute towards the formulation of approaches that work for both lecturers and students. Methods used by lecturers to provide feedback The methods used by lecturers to provide feedback to students are summarized in Tables AIV and AVIII (see Appendix 1). This shows that in Part 1, there seems to be a well distributed use of verbal (33 per cent), written (38 per cent) and electronic (29 per cent) methods. In Part 2, written (39 per cent) and verbal (38 per cent) methods are common. Part 3 reflects a good range of usage between verbal (36 per cent), written (32 per cent) and electronic (31 per cent) methods of giving feedback to students. Specific types of methods within each category can be found in Table AVIII. Specific types of assignments for which the methods are addressed can be found in Table AIV. The two main methods used in Part 1 to provide feedback on assignments are verbal 1:1 and generic feedback given in the classroom. The two main methods used in Part 2 to provide feedback on assignments are comments written either on the submission or a separate sheet. In Part 3, the main methods used to provide feedback are generic feedback given in the classroom; verbal 1:1; using a standard template; and comments written either on the submission or a separate sheet. This seems appropriate given there are few course assessed by exams. Most courses are assessed by project work, essays and assignments. Students’ perceptions of feedback provision methods Results of the questionnaire completed by 194 students, that is, 47 per cent of the UG population yielded interesting results. The questionnaire was designed to obtain information on the extent to which they find the feedback provision methods helpful in their learning. This was completed by Part 1 students (22); Part 2 (95) and Part 3 (77). In terms of students’ preferences for the range of feedback provision methods, there was no significant difference in the preferences of students across the three-year groups. When it comes to verbal method of giving feedback, a majority of students, especially those in Parts 3 and 2, think it is very useful for assignments like projects and essays. When it comes to written method of giving feedback, the result is complex to interpret. Clearly many students think written feedback is useful but not a clear majority think it is “very useful”. When it comes to electronic method of giving feedback, the result is again complex to interpret. Clearly many students think electronic feedback is useful but not a majority think it is “very useful”. This does not seem surprising given the expressions earlier in student interviews that they prefer one-on-one sessions which are clearly time-consuming for lecturers. The results for the kind of feedback that students want on essays and projects were consistent among all year groups. Students prefer verbal feedback for projects and written feedback for essays. The ratings for quality of feedback experience and reasons for dissatisfaction are presented in Table AV-AVII. This shows that a majority of students seem satisfied 673 ET 55,7 with the feedback that they receive from lecturers despite problems such as delay in receiving feedback and lack of detailed comments. Discussion of results In all, three main points are discussed in relation to the study objectives. 674 Forms of feedback provided by lecturers The results reveal significant alignment between the feedback provision methods described by students during interviews, and the methods mentioned by lecturers in questionnaires. There is significant reliance on traditional approaches. The standard and usual form of feedback provision to students is by the return of an assignment, project or piece of work, (formally assessed or not), with, in addition to the mark, comments provided by the marker. There are other forms of feedback, in addition to the return of marked and commented upon work. These include, discussion with students in tutorials or seminars, asking of questions during formal teaching activities, electronic feedback using blackboard and comments on answers. The opinion of the student on the usefulness of this form of feedback will depend on the quality, clarity, comprehensiveness and relevance of the comments. The research by Crook et al. (2012) showed that the main problems associated with feedback practices are time efficiency for staff, lack of engagement by students with feedback and issues with the timeliness and quality of feedback. This demonstrates that traditional approaches alone may not be sufficient for moving forward. The research by Guardado and Shi (2007) and Meerah and Halim (2011) demonstrate the usefulness of peer group mechanisms for giving feedback. Crook et al. (2012) also explored the use of video technology for providing feedback to students, and found that it can enhance the feedback experience for staff and students. Therefore, it is recommended that peer and digital approaches should be blended with traditional methods. The data summarized in Table AIV showed that students find specific feedback provision methods more useful for specific types of assignments such as projects, essays, and quizzes. Clearly the method of feedback provision should match the nature of assignment in a way that students can easily understand and apply in their learning. Therefore, further research is needed to examine how different feedback provision methods lend themselves to different types of assignments in order to enhance learning experience for students. Feedback use by students The research findings show that students understand feedback and its usefulness to their learning experience. The study by Handley et al. (2008) similarly showed that students understand feedback. The understanding of feedback expressed by a majority of students resonates with definitions of feedback in the pedagogic literature by, for example, Hyland (2000), Higgins et al. (2010), Gibbs and Simpson (2004) and Sadler (1989). Therefore, some academics who may argue that students score them low on feedback because they do not understand feedback may not be correct in their perception. Students understand and appreciate good feedback provided by lecturers. Nonetheless, there appears to be an over-emphasis in the literature (see e.g., Higgins et al., 2010 and Gibbs and Simpson, 2004) and policy documents such as University of Reading (2010) on the role of lecturers (teachers) in the feedback loop with little emphasis on the role of students. This does not seem appropriate and should be addressed. The effective use of feedback by students is as important as its provision by lecturers. Focusing overly on the role of lecturers can create an expectation of one-way flow in the feedback process. Sadler (1989) discussed three conditions necessary for students to benefit from feedback. First, students must process a concept of the standard being aimed for. Second, students must compare their current level of performance with the goal or standard being aimed for. Third, students must engage in appropriate action which leads to some closure of the gap. Closing the gap between where students are and where they are aiming to be is what makes feedback powerful. Little attention has been focused on the role of students in the feedback process. If students would not make effective use of the feedback that they receive, then it begs the question of whether lecturers should spend much time in providing the feedback at all. Confluence of lecturer-student roles Lecturers and students effective have roles to play in the feedback loop or process in order for teaching and learning to become. Lecturers should provide good feedback to students. Students should use the feedback to enhance their learning, and follow up with lecturers where necessary. Most academics are busy people engaged not only with teaching but also other duties such as research, supervision, administrative work and external engagement (as mentioned in the Handbook of teaching and learning in higher education by Fry et al. (2008). The extent to which academics fulfil these roles well determines their career progression of which research activity is often the important criteria in research intensive universities. The role and responsibility of lecturers in providing feedback to students is clearly established in the pedagogic literature and practical ways like the NSS in the UK. However, it would be argued here that contrary to expectations that lecturers should be the ones driving the feedback process, students should take the initiative themselves in gaining feedback on their performance and progress in a module. Good students will always do this when they think they need it. They can answer questions or undertake tasks, asked by or set by themselves, and submit these for comments from the module convenor or they can analyse a set piece of literature and send their comments to the module convenor for a response. Students should be encouraged to do this by the provision of such self-assessment questions or tasks and by the provision of a prompt response. Clearly, the workload burden of this encouragement to students to submit work which is not formally assessed will be considerable on a module leader or contributor. However, there are facilities to do this by methods other than by individual face-to-face contact and discussion that may be less of a burden (see Crook et al., 2012). Such feedback can be given by e-mail or blackboard, etc., with self-assessment questions for which answers are made available, etc., which may mean that it is a task which is not impractical. This facility for easing the burden of feedback by non-face to face techniques applies to all forms of feedback. Feedback provision by lecturers should be timely in order to students to maximise the learning opportunity presented in the feedback. This point is highlighted in nearly every paper on the subject (see e.g. Crook et al., 2012; Hutchinson, 2010; Meerah and Halim, 2011). The responsibility for this part of the loop falls on lecturers. For the evaluation of a student’s performance in a module, the timing of the provision of the feedback is clearly vital. Obviously, feedback delivered after a module is finished and after it is assessed is not feedback to the student of their progress in the module. However, this seems a common pattern of occurrence. Modules of which the assessment is an assignment usually require the submission of the work at the end of Feedback provision 675 ET 55,7 the module. The return of the work with a mark provides no feedback on the module even if the mark includes significant comments. This failure of feedback by being too late is, of course, even more applicable for modules assessed by examination only. No feedback on the module performance is provided in a module such as this without some of the other techniques noted above being used in the module. 676 Conclusions and recommendations The study reveals significant use of traditional feedback provision methods by lecturers. This is not inappropriate as such. However, there was little evidence of peer and digital feedback mechanisms which should both be exploited. Students expressed a preference for personal one-on-one feedback. This can be time-consuming for lecturers and creates the need for feedback efficiency particularly with large student numbers. The use of peer and digital approaches can help to address some of the challenges linked with the problem of time and feedback efficiency. A majority of students described “good” feedback as: personal, timely, detailed, constructive and appropriately spread across the piece of work. Feedback provided in the forms of “tick-boxes” on a standard template is thus not constructive. For lecturers to be able to deliver the kind of personal and detailed feedback that students describe necessitates appropriate incentives and support structures. Students should take the initiative themselves in gaining feedback on their performance and progress in a module. Institutionally, if universities consider the provision of good feedback to students as a priority, then appropriate institutional systems there ought to be in place to support, monitor and reward it. The study findings point to a number of pathways for improving feedback practices. First, internal mechanisms should be in place to enable students comment on the quality of feedback that they receive from lecturers. A practical way to achieve this is to include feedback on assignments as one of the criteria in course evaluation sheets. Some lecturers are more experienced than others. Peer learning and support mechanisms should be in place to create opportunity for sharing and evaluating different feedback methods. A clear guidance for feedback provision to students, and how students can apply it effectively, should be developed. Most part of the literature has focused overly on the role of lecturers which creates the expectation of a one-way process. Despite the responsibility that lecturers have in connection with feedback provision, students should drive the process and engage with all feedback provided to enhance their learning experience. References Bitchener, J. (2008), “Evidence in support of written corrective feedback”, Journal of Second Language Writing, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 102-118. Brown, S. (2007), “Feedback and feed-forward”, The UK Centre for Bioscience Bulletin, Higher Education Academy, Vol. 22, Autumn, p. 12. Carless, D. (2006), “Differing perceptions in the feedback process”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 219-233. Chan, J.C.Y. and Lam, S. (2010), “Effects of different evaluative feedback on students’ self-efficacy in learning”, Instructional Science, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 37-58. Clynes, M.P. and Raftery, S.E.C. (2008), “Feedback: an essential element of student learning in clinical practice”, Nurse Education in Practice, Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 405-411. Crook, A., Mauchline, C., Mawc, S., Lawson, C., Drinkwater, R., Lundqvist, K., Orsmond, P., Gomez, S. and Park, J. (2012), “The use of video technology for providing feedback to students: can it enhance the feedback experience for staff and students?”, Computers and Education, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 386-396. Crook, A.C., Park, J.R., Lawson, C.S., Lundqvist, K.O., Drinkwater, R., Walsh, J., Gomez, S. and Maw, S.J. (2010), “ASSET: moving forward through feedback”, JISC final report 1 October 2008-31 March 2010, Institutional Innovation Programme 7/08, p. 20, available at: www. jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/institutionalinnovation/asset-final%20report.pdf Dewald, B.W.A. (2000), “Turning part-time students’ feedback into video programs”, Education and Training, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 33-39. Duncan, N. (2007), “‘Feed-forward’: improving students’ use of tutors’ comments”, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 271-283. Fry, H., Ketteridge, S. and Marshall, S. (2008), A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. Enhancing Academic Practice, 3rd ed., Routledge, London, p. 526. Gibbs, G. and Simpson, C. (2004), “Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning”, Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 3-31. Glover, C. and Brown, E. (2006), “Written feedback for students: too much, too detailed or too incomprehensible to be effective?”, BEE-j, Vol. 7 No. 3, available at: www.bioscience. heacademy.ac.uk/journal/vol7/beej-7-3.pdf Guardado, M. and Shi, L. (2007), “ESL students’ experiences of online peer feedback”, Computers and Composition, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 443-461. Handley, K., Price, M. and Millar, J. (2008), Engaging Students with Assessment Feedback, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford. Higgins, R., Hartley, P. and Skelton, A. (2010), “The conscientious consumer: reconsidering the role of assessment feedback in student learning”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 53-64. Hsieh, H. and Shannon, S.E. (2005), “Three approaches to qualitative content analysis”, Qualitative Health Research, Vol. 15 No. 9, pp. 1277-1288. Hutchinson, K. (2010), “Feedback to students on undergraduate programmes”, worker paper by Undergraduate Programme Director, SCME, University of Reading, Reading. Hyland, F. (2000), “ESL writers and feedback: giving more autonomy to students”, Journal of Language Teaching Research, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 33-54. Irons, A. (2008), Enhancing Learning Through Formative Assessment and Feedback, Routledge, Abingdon. Juwah, C., Macfarlane-Dick, D., Matthew, B., Nicol, D., Ross, D. and Smith, B. (2004), Enhancing Student Learning Through Effective Formative Feedback, Higher Education Academy, York. Kolb, D.A. (1984), Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. McAlpine, L. (2004), “Designing learning as well as teaching, a research-based model for instruction that emphasizes learner practice”, Learning in Higher Education, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 119-134. Meerah, T.S.M. and Halim, L. (2011), “Improve feedback on teaching and learning at the university through peer group”, Procedia – Social and Behavioural Sciences, Vol. 18, pp. 633-637, available at: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042811012067 Race, P. (2001), Using Feedback to Help Students Learn, Higher Education Academy, York. Rogers, D.A., Boehler, M.L., Schwind, C.J., Meier, A.H., Wall, J.C.H. and Brenner, M.J. (2012), “Engaging medical students in the feedback process”, The American Journal of Surgery, Vol. 203 No. 1, pp. 21-25. Sadler, D.R. (1989), “Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems”, Instructional Science, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 119-144. Feedback provision 677 ET 55,7 678 Schartel, S.A. (2012), “Giving feedback – an integral part of education”, Best Practice and Research Clinical Anaesthesiology, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 77-87. Shute, V.J. (2008), “Focus on formative feedback”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 78 No. 1, pp. 153-189. University of Reading (2010), “Providing feedback to students on their performance”, Guide to Policy and Procedures for Teaching and Learning, November 2010 version University of Reading, Reading, p. 24, available at: www.reading.ac.uk/web/files/qualitysupport/feedbackto students.pdf Wiggins, G. (1997), Feedback: How Learning Occurs, America Association of Higher Education Conference on Assessment and Quality, Miami Beach, FL. Further reading Guénette, D. (2007), “Is feedback pedagogically correct?: research design issues in studies of feedback on writing”, Journal of Second Language Writing, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 40-53. Hedgcock, J. and Lefkowitz, N. (1994), “Feedback on feedback: assessing learner receptivity to teacher response in L2 composing”, Journal of Second Language Writing, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 141-163. Lee, I. (2008), “Student reactions to teacher feedback in two Hong Kong secondary classrooms”, Journal of Second Language Writing, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 144-164. Nicol, D. and Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006), “Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 199-218. Price, M. (2007), “Should we be giving less written feedback?”, The UK Centre for Bioscience Bulletin, Higher Education Academy, Vol. 22, April 2011. Appendix. Students’ feedback experiences and preferences To what extent do you like verbal method of giving feedback? Students Very helpful (%) Average (%) Table AI. Verbal feedback Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Total 7 47 49 103 (32) (50) (64) (53) 13 (59) 42 (44) 25 (32) 80 (41) To what extent do you like written method of giving feedback? Students Very helpful (%) Average (%) Table AII. Written feedback Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Total 8 42 41 91 (36) (45) (53) (47) 9 (41) 49 (53) 33 (42) 91 (47) Not helpful (%) Total 2 (1) 6 (6) 3 (4) 11 (6) 22 95 77 194 Not helpful (%) Total 5 (23) 2 (2) 4 (5) 11 (6) 22 93 78 193 Feedback provision To what extent do you like electronic method of giving feedback? Students Very helpful (%) Average (%) Not helpful (%) Total 679 Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Total 10 28 44 82 (48) (30) (57) (43) 6 56 28 90 (29) (60) (36) (47) 5 9 5 19 (24) (10) (6) (10) For what kind of assignments is [x] method of giving feedback very helpful? Essays Projects Other Part 1 Verbal feedback Written feedback Electronic feedback Part 2 Verbal feedback Written feedback Electronic feedback Part 3 Verbal feedback Written feedback Electronic feedback 6 16 9 11 8 6 2 2 3 24 27 21 34 77 42 70 48 24 21 4 10 125 129 76 34 54 44 60 31 32 5 4 10 99 89 86 13 70 46 Very good Total 4 9 20 23 95 75 If your answer is “Poor” or “Average”, what is the main reason for this? Delay in Just marks without No feedback giving feedback detailed comments at all Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 5 37 14 15 51 43 2 6 5 Table AIII. Electronic feedback Total 11 17 12 How would you rate the quality of your feedback experience? Poor Average Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 21 93 77 191 Table AIV. Feedback preferences for various kinds of assignments Table AV. Quality of feedback experience Total 22 94 62 Table AVI. Reasons for dissatisfaction with feedback experience ET 55,7 680 Table AVII. Overall rating of quality of feedback experience Overall, how would you rate your feedback experience in the school this year? Acceptable Unacceptable Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 15 71 65 7 20 10 Total 22 91 75 Methods used by lecturers for giving feedback Number of modules Form of feedback None Verbal 1:1 in formal meeting Small group tutorial Generic in classroom Written On the submission On a separate sheet Using standard template Cutting and pasting standard answers Table AVIII. Ticking standard list of answers Methods used by lecturers Electronic to give feedback to Using blackboard students Other Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 9 9 17 – – 3 0 2 – – 1 0 0 – – 5 1 8 1 1 1 0 0 3 2 1 1 1 4 4 5 2 2 1 0 1 1 3 0 Corresponding author Samuel Laryea can be contacted at: [email protected] To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints Copyright of Education + Training is the property of Emerald Group Publishing Limited and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.