Learning and Teaching Committee

Subject: Feedback to students on their work

Origin: Programme Development & Quality Team

PDQ at its meeting on 29 January 2007 considered a report on an investigation carried out by Derek Blease and Karen Roxborough on ‘Feedback to students on their work’. Recommendations arising from its discussions are set out below for consideration by Learning and Teaching Committee.

The report

The authors of the report had investigated the reasons for the University’s relatively poor performance in the ‘Feedback’ section of the National Student Survey, and suggested some ways in which departmental culture and student expectations might be changed to view ‘planning for feedback’ as an integral part of the learning a and teaching process.

A study was conducted across the University to look at:

student perceptions and expectations
Staff experiences
University procedures

This was achieved through focus groups with student course representatives, informal interviews and discussions with departmental Teaching Co-ordinators, tutors and administrators, and the scrutiny of departmental and University documentation.

Summary of findings

There are many examples of good practice in departments across the University however;
The University's performance on questions 7, 8 and 9, (feedback), of the National Student Survey suggests room for improvement;
The University Coursework Code of Practice (CWCoP) is compliant with section 6 of the QAA Code of Practice "Assessment of Students" and is therefore fit for purpose in specifying the students' entitlement to feedback on coursework;
The Students' expectation is that tutors will comply with the CWCoP however, student representatives report a degree of apathy towards feedback, possibly because of some bad experiences in the past;
Students report that the quantity and quality of feedback on their work varies widely between individual tutors and departments;
Students would welcome some form of feedback on examination performance, however the position regarding feedback to students on examination performance is unclear;
Tutors report that coursework, and therefore feedback, is often left either uncollected or unread;
The extent to which individual departmental documentation is compliant with the CWCoP is variable;
The extent to which departments monitor the quantity and quality of feedback provided by individual tutors, and hence compliance with the CWCoP, is variable;
Providing adequate, timely and appropriate feedback to students on all coursework assignments is not generally considered by tutors as integral to the process of planning the teaching and assessment of their modules;
University Procedures, including Feedback from Students, Programme Review, and External Examiners' reports do not adequately address the issue of feedback to students.

Recommendations

Following its discussion of the report, PDQ agreed to recommend to Learning and Teaching Committee as follows:

(i) The University Coursework Code of Practice currently required that Programme Handbooks ‘state the form of feedback that students can expect and that this information shall also be given to students when assignments are set’; departments should be encouraged to update their Handbooks, where appropriate, by incorporating the following extract or similar into their wording:

‘The feedback should enable students to understand the reasons for the mark/grade given and should include constructive comments on the strengths and weaknesses of their work.’

(ii) That departments be encouraged to raise the profile of feedback on coursework in departmental documentation by (a) emphasising to tutors the need to be consistent in complying with the University’s minimum requirements in every case, and (b) helping students to see feedback as a part of their learning experience just as important as the teaching and assessment.

(iii) That in the case of modules assessed entirely by examination, departments be required to provide some form of general feedback to students on the examination; and strongly encouraged to provide the same sort of feedback in the case of modules where 50% or more of the module mark is accounted for by examination.

(iv) That LSU consider, in collaboration with course reps, ways in which they might jointly communicate their concerns to departments and help students to make better use of feedback to enhance their learning; and, conversely, convey to students the importance of collecting work that academic staff had taken the trouble to mark and comment on.

(v) That question 16 on the External Examiners’ report form be amended to read: ‘Was the standard of marking and feedback in assessed coursework satisfactory?’

(vi) That documentation for programme review be amended (a) to ensure that the information requested on student feedback was to a specific standard (to be agreed in consultation with the AD(T)s), and (b) to include a requirement for departments to outline their strategies for ensuring that individual staff comply with the University’s minimum requirements on feedback to students.

(vii) That departments be required to include a question about the quality of feedback in the ‘individual tutor’ section of the OMR Module Feedback Forms.

Author – Robert Bowyer

Date – January 2007