margaret green 2008
DESCRIPTION
Session B - H6-09TRANSCRIPT
Developing Functional Feedback:A Case Study
Margaret GreenUniSA
Asking for feedback
We listened to:
what the students said they wanted
what they didn’t like
how they thought the course could
be improved
We acted on it
• Feedback– Tutor feedback within 24 hrs– Structured feedback form
• consistency• Easily identifiable criterion
– Peer feedback
Theories of education
Cooper et al. (2001)Systematic review
Evidence supporting IPPOnly 30/141 studies rigorous enough
73% those did not reflect on theory
Does this infer educational strategy inadequate?
Theories of education:
No evidence
Feedback sheetGrade Hypotheses Questions Learning goals:
before tutor intervention
Group dynamics
HD Excellent hypotheses with excellent reasoning formed under all relevant headings. Excellent use of current knowledge base
Excellent range, very well ordered and phrased. Able to modify planned questions depending on the answers received.
Very specific, well described. All LG identified and excellently applied to “client” and hypotheses.
Excellent contribution from all members, taking into account different roles in a group. No help with group dynamics required
Comments:
D Very good hypotheses with very good reasoning formed under most relevant categories. Very good use of current knowledge base
Very good range, ordered and phrased. Able to modify some planned questions depending on the answers received.
Mostly specific, well described and appropriate to the problem. Most LG identified and very well applied to “client” and hypotheses.
Very good contribution from all members, taking into account different roles in a group. Little help with group dynamics required
Comments:
24 hours
Peer feedback
3= major contribution 2= some contribution1= minor contribution 0= no contribution -1= a hindrance to the group
Josh’s rating 15/15= 1 80% 80%
Jess’s rating 12/10 = 1.2 80% 96%
Jem’s rating 9/10 = 0.9 80% 72%
Jenny’s rating 5/10 = 0.5 80% 40%
ConclusionHigh learning payoff
Highly efficient Not highly efficient
Low learning payoff
25
Race 2005, p. 117
Impact
Lowest quartile Highest quartile