Assessment and Feedback Practices to reduce turnaround time - Helen Puntha

The type of feedback given should always be determined by the nature of the assessment and the intended learning outcomes. Some types of assessment necessitate quick feedback, e.g. in-class feedback on oral presentations or posters or the provision of cohort feedback on exams. Others such as dissertations necessitate more in-depth feedback possibly in the form of annotated scripts.

Increasing the use of formative feedback given for example on work-in-progress should decrease the amount of summative feedback needed; in this way it could be described as a ‘front loading’ approach to assessment and feedback and may help to distribute staff workload across semesters as well as improving student learning. Gibbs (2010) cites the work of Black and William (1998) and Hattie and Timperley (2007) as indicating that improvements to formative assessment, in particular the provision of more, better and faster feedback has been the educational intervention which has had most impact in schools. Further, Gibbs concluded from a 2007 study, conducted with Dunbar and Goddet, that, ‘on degree programmes where the volume of formative assessment is greater, students take a deep approach to their studies to a greater extent’ (Gibbs 2010,p.34). Formative feedback can be used in combination with peer feedback and self reflection. Some of the forms it may take include drop-in sessions for students to discuss work-in-progress, students sharing and discussing assignments in-class or submitting drafts to receive feedback comments (e.g. using the track changes function in MS Word). Feedback given might include generic and/or individual feedback. For more on formative feedback see the CADQ resource on engendering a culture of the critical review (or crit). Self assessment and peer assessment described below do not necessarily reduce tutor marking time but by front loading in the way described above, such methods can reduce the need for very detailed summative feedback. This will contribute to a reduction in turnaround time:

Use of student self assessment can, when suitably organised, lead to significant enhancements in learning and achievement (Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick, 2006, p. 207). Self assessment might be formative (self evaluation) or summative and might be used before or after submission. For more on self assessment see the CADQ resource on engaging students with feedback. James Leinster in the Nottingham Business School has been utilising the self-assessment facility on NOW to help students engage after each face-to-face teaching session. Initial feedback from students on two postgraduate programmes is that self-assessment can be effective and is a useful tool. The tool has also been used to support student reading of core texts; again initial findings suggest that the tool is effective. An example of a feedback sheet for students to self-evaluate before receiving tutor comments is available online from the University of Plymouth (2009, p. 28). A case study on student self-assessment pre and post exams can be found in Delli-Colli (n.d., p. 8).

Use of peer feedback similarly particularly formative feedback, can: enhance disciplinary understanding and critical thinking skills; give students more ownership over their work; encourage active engagement with studies; foster student autonomy; and, increase understanding of learning outcomes particularly less tangible ones (Sadler, 2010). As with the introduction of any new form of assessment there may be initial resource implications. However, the use of peer feedback should, over time, reduce the amount of time tutors themselves need to spend on feedback. For more about peer feedback including benefits and applications, case studies and key features of the Critical Review (‘the Crit’) see the CADQ resource.

Below are some further examples of assessment and feedback practices which could help to reduce feedback turnaround time:

Electronic submission and return of work compared to paper-based submissions saves some administration time. According to an evaluation of NTU School-based pilots of e-submissions and e-marking, the use of electronic systems should save time at two points: around 24-48 hours speeding up collection of scripts from students and distribution of scripts to markers following submission; and, around 24 hours for processing returns (CADQ, 2011). Electronic submission can save time by reducing the number of tasks for which human input is required, e.g., logging of received submissions, receipting, and distribution of scripts to the marking team. The time savings at the return stage are similar to those at submission. It should however be noted that despite the efficiency gains, additional planning and preparation is needed to manage electronic submissions, particularly for large pieces of work. Such additional work might include for example, setting up submissions, monitoring and checking submissions and extracting submission reports (CADQ, 2011). Information Systems (IS) and CADQ are currently working on a project with the aim of improving current e-assessment systems on NOW. Further information will be available in due course.

Consideration of effective marking practices. The marking practices of individual lecturers vary in approach, for example in how much feedback is considered to be useful. Consideration of a programme team’s marking practices may help to reduce turnaround time and might also offer opportunities to increase student engagement with and learning through feedback. For further information see marking and moderation pages.

Time management strategies to allow adequate time for marking and feedback might include the following:

• staggering of assessment deadlines. In some cases this can be precipitated at a programme level through assessment and feedback plans.
• Use of student reading weeks to mark

Use of generic feedback e.g. in-class or via email may be appropriate as the sole piece of feedback for certain pieces of work or may be followed up with individual feedback. Generic feedback can sometimes be prepared in advance using submitted assessments from previous cohorts and/or model answers. It may be beneficial to include generic feedback from previous cohorts of students within module handbooks for students to read alongside the related assessment briefs. For more on generic feedback see the CADQ resource on cohort feedback for exams and an Oxford Brookes ASKe booklet on using generic feedback effectively.

Use of audio feedback. Audio feedback has been cited as saving time compared to written feedback (Delli-Colli, n.d., p. 10) however other research contradicts this finding (CADQ, 2011). Some considerations:

• Recording generic feedback as an audio / audio-visual file and posting a link can provide students with quick feedback whilst staff work on individualised feedback as appropriate/necessary.
• Some staff take an approach of providing only feedback but no mark on audio feedback with the understanding that students listen to the audio feedback before obtaining their mark directly from the tutor.
• Individual or group audio feedback can be provided for draft work to reduce the amount of feedback needed following final submission and marking.
• Audio feedback can also be used on work-in-progress with the advantage that feedback on final work can then concentrate on improving future work.
• Staff and students have reported that comments made in audio feedback can be less ambiguous and therefore more useful than those made in written feedback (CADQ, 2011).
• Students are able to replay the feedback as many times as is necessary for them to fully understand it.
• The same file may be re-used for future cohorts where relevant.
• Integrating audio feedback into written scripts can present challenges (CADQ, 2011).
• Any time saving made will be dependent on different variables such as the level of staff expertise in using the technology and the conditions for recording – whether there is background noise etc.
• Where audio feedback is summative in nature then external examiners may insist on a written summary of the audio feedback given. Students may also request written as well as audio which would therefore increase the time spent.

For more on audio feedback visit the Sounds Good project website based at Leeds Metropolitan University. A range of external case studies are available from the Higher Education Academy website. These can be searched by discipline or pedagogic theme. Further case studies are outlined below:

• Phil Wane in the School of Social Sciences provides individualised video feedback to students on their assessments; a case study is available from the CADQ resource on cohort feedback on exams.
• To find out how a group of students experienced audio feedback see the eLearning Showcase 2011 presentation from Rachel Smith in the School of Education entitled ‘Transition into placement: Collaborative wikis and the effectiveness of uploading audio feedback’
• Staff in the Lancashire Business School at the University of Central Lancashire (UCLAN) use multi-media to provide students with feedback on presentations; student presentations are videoed then the tutors provide written or audio feedback on the student presentations and any slides the students used. Students are able to see themselves on screen so can evaluate their own performance whilst being able to relate more directly the feedback they receive to their performance (Delli-Colli, n.d., p. 5).
• A detailed case study on audio generic exam feedback can be found in Delli-Colli (Delli-Colli, n.d., p. 8).
• NLS cohort audio feedback case study

You may also be interested in:
Feedback turnaround time
Assessment and feedback design to manage turnaround time
Marking and moderating text based coursework

References
CADQ (2011). Evaluation of School eSubmissions and e-marking pilots, Internal NTU report.

DELLI-COLLI, S., no date. UCLan Good Practice Guide to Feedback.  

GIBBS, G., 2010. Dimensions of Quality. York: The Higher Education Academy. [Accessed 7 November].

NICOL, D., and MACFARLANE-DICK, D., 2006. Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and seven principles of goof feedback practice, Studies in Higher Education. 31(2), 199-218.

SADLER, D.R., 2010. Beyond feedback: developing student capability in complex appraisal, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 35(5), 535-550.