Student feedback delivery modes: A qualitative study of student and lecturer views

Abstract

Background

Student feedback on assessment is fundamental for promoting learning. Written feedback is the most common way of providing feedback yet this has been criticised by students for its ineffectiveness. Given the wide range of feedback modes available, (written, audio, video, screencast, face-to-face, self and peer-feedback) a better understanding of student and lecturer preferences would facilitate recommendations for optimising feedback delivery. The aim of this study was to explore the experiences and preferences for summative feedback modes of physiotherapy students and lecturers.

Methods

A sample of convenience was used to recruit participants from one undergraduate physiotherapy programme in the UK. A total of 25 students were recruited for three focus groups and five lecturers for semi-structured interviews. Focus groups and individual interviews were guided by a semi-structured interview guideline and carried out by a research assistant who was not involved in teaching on the programme and therefore unknown to participants. Data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis.

Results

Three themes were developed in relation to student and lecturer experiences of feedback to date: the importance of dialogue; the value of feed forward; and feedback disparity. From the student perspective, three themes were identified supporting their feedback preference: the importance of human connection; added information from non-verbal communication; valuing the lecturer view. From the lecturer perspective, two themes were identified around feedback preferences: challenges of spoken feedback and the importance of self-assessment.

Conclusions

This study identifies challenges around selecting optimal feedback modes due to the lack of student-lecturer consensus. Students preferred lecturer-led modes, providing the highest quality personal interaction with lecturers (face-to-face, screencast, video, audio). Lecturers most often advocated for student led feedback modes (peer or self-assessment) as a means to students valuing the feedback and developing reflective skills.

Introduction

Providing students with feedback on assessment is a fundamental aspect of promoting student learning (Hattie and Timperley, 2007; Dowden et al., 2013). Feedback evaluates the quality of the work but should also provide guidance on how to improve (Quality Assurance Agency, 2012). However, research suggests that both students and lecturers are consistently dissatisfied with the current state of affairs, with a gap highlighted between the feedback given and the feedback that students act upon (Cartney, 2010; Evans, 2013; Hunukumbure et al., 2017). In response, many higher education institutions have sought to address this gap by improving the quality of written feedback provided to students (Glover and Brown, 2006). Written feedback is the most widely used feedback method (McCarthy, 2015). Despite these attempts to improve written feedback, students remain critical due to the vague nature of the comments, their difficulty in understanding the feedback, and a lack of constructive feed-forward (Duncan, 2007; Boud and Molloy, 2013).

Others have chosen to explore alternative feedback modes as a means of enhancing student feedback. These alternative modes include audio, video, podcast, screencast, face-to-face, self or peer feedback. Literature reviews of alternative feedback modes such as audio feedback suggest that these modes offer a pastoral role through facilitating a sense of care and more authentic connections between the learners and lecturers (Dixon, 2015). This was further supported in a recent qualitative literature review of tertiary student's perceptions of audio, video, podcast and screencast feedback modes (Killingback et al., 2019). These feedback modes promoted a sense of belonging through the individualised and personal comments as well as promoting greater comprehension from the non-verbal aspects of communication such as body language, tone of voice and inflection (Killingback et al., 2019).

The use of alternative feedback modes have been trialled through experimental research studies across a range of disciples. For example, mixed-methods research studies on audio feedback from the disciplines of education; developmental writing; business management; and nursing programmes found that audio feedback can enhance the student experience (Ice et al., 2007; Sipple, 2007; MacGregor et al., 2011; Gould and Day, 2013). Although challenges were also raised by some students in terms of difficulty in locating mistakes in their work when audio feedback was used (Sipple, 2007). Cavanaugh and Song (2014) in their case study of audio versus written feedback involving seven students from an online composition course found that the content of comments varied in audio and written feedback. Audio feedback led to more global suggestions for improvement, whereas written feedback were more likely to contain micro-level feedback and editing corrections (Cavanaugh and Song, 2014).

In their mixed-methods study involving 126 education students, Henderson and Phillips (2015) found that video-based feedback methods were valued more than written approaches. Video feedback was reported to be more individualised, personal, supportive, caring and motivating as well as being detailed and constructive. Feedback studies in education technology courses noted similar positive experiences with video feedback (Borup et al., 2014), however, some anxiety over watching feedback was expressed by some students, along with challenges in terms of matching video comments to text-based assessments (Henderson and Phillips, 2015).

Feedback through the media of screencast (technology that enables a digital recording of the computer screen where the student's assignment is displayed, with the addition of audio or video comments by the lecturer) has resulted in positive views. In a survey of 124 business and accounting students, at least 91% reported that screencast feedback was clear and easy to follow with 86% stating that it was more personal than written (Marriott and Teoh, 2012). Thirty-four undergraduate mathematics students also reported positive experiences of screencast over written feedback as it provided a richer experience (Robinson et al., 2015).

Removing the technological barrier, Chalmers and Mowat (2018) used focus groups to explore face-to-face feedback in a study with 20 first-year undergraduate biological science students. They found that face-to-face marking was a positive experience that allowed feedback dialogue and provided lecturers with the opportunity to explain and justify why marks were given.

Evans (2013), in her literature review on assessment feedback in higher education noted that there are mixed opinions regarding the value of peer assessment. Some view it as being motivational and enables students to engage in their own learning, whereas others see it as a way of reducing the heavy lecturer workload by offloading some of the assessment burden to students. From the student perspective, in a qualitative study involving 45 undergraduate social work students, there was a strong emotional component associated with peer-assessed work. Emotions ranged from feelings of anxiety in giving feedback to anger towards those who had not participated fully in the process of providing feedback (Cartney, 2010). Within the same study, other students commented on the positive use of feedback to enhance learning. Similarly, in an undergraduate biology course, it was found that both peer and self-assessment methods were useful in helping students reach their learning goals (Orsmond et al., 2004). Indeed, the development of self-assessment skills are viewed as important in supporting lifelong learning (Boud and Falchikov, 2007). Research suggests that students have the ability to self-assess reasonably accurately (Karnilowicz, 2012). However, it is difficult for students to develop self-assessment skills and they often require scaffolded support (Evans, 2013).

It is evident that there are a wide range of feedback methods, each with distinct positives and negatives, thus making the choice of feedback mode a challenge. To this end, these methods are often trialled by academics without initial input from students and the wider teaching team. Thus, the overall aim of this study was to explore physiotherapy student and lecturer summative feedback experiences to date and understand how this can be used to inform decision marking around selecting optimal feedback modes to enhance the student and lecturer feedback experience. In order to achieve the aim of the study, the following research questions were addressed:

• What are the experiences of undergraduate physiotherapy students and lecturers on summative written feedback to date?

• How do the experiences of undergraduate physiotherapy students and lecturers inform their views and preferences for a range of summative feedback modes (written, audio, video, group podcasts, screencast, face-to-face, peer, and self-assessment)?