The team met on 21 Dec with our external consultant Prof David Boud to discuss our ideas and ensure alignment with best practice principles espoused by a number of authors including David’s Assessment Futures work: http://www.iml.uts.edu.au/assessment-futures/
Both David and the reference group felt that focusing on tutor feedback and feedforward although important are not sufficient to optimise the role of feedback in student learning. We discussed ways of integrating the self-review into our assessment processes. Peer review was also discussed, however, our non-semesterised programme adds complexity to the design or peer review. It was agreed that we would tackle peer review in the second year of this project once self-review and reflection on tutor feedback are embedded into the programme.
So now the design! Here is a mock-up of what we are thinking of implementing across the programme but mocked up for our Curriculum Planning Module. This is InterACT design Curriculum Planning_24012012
The feedback process will involve –
- student self-review of their own work against module learning objectives and broad criteria,
- tutors provide feedback against the students’ self-review,
- students reflect on tutor feedback and response to evaluative questions in their reflective journal.
- tutors may comment on the reflective journal but also see other tutors’ feedback and how students have responded to this.
This process should make evaluative decisions more transparent to students and staff. It should also promote a ‘dialogue’ (albeit asynchronous at this stage). Will this process promote students’ reflective knowledge building as per Prof David Nicol’s thesis? See this interesting JISC recording of this argument http://bit.ly/xn0IQe
In summary, he argues that tutor feedback alone is not enough and that we need to develop students’ evaluative judgements. He proposes that self- and peer- review is the way to go. We have integrated self-review in our process against the module learning objectives and in comparison to tutor feedback but will that do? and how do you measure that? Peer-review we will tackle in year 2 of this project.
So it remains to be seen how the technology can be adapted to facilitate this process (technical testing next!) and how students engage in this process. What the carrot (or perhaps stick) will be for the students and staff to engage with this process is yet to be determined…
Feedback on the design is welcomed…