salt 2015
TRANSCRIPT
Dialogic feedback: Contributing factors to student engagement
Dr. Hazel McMurtrie, Dr. Cristina Izura & Ms. Jennifer McGinnDepartment of Psychology
Swansea Academy for Learning and Teaching July 2015
2
Dialogic feedback: Contributing factors to student engagement
Background Study Conclusions
3
BackgroundIzura, C., McMurtrie, H., & Jiga-Boy, G. (2014).
Engaging UG students in assessment and feedback
Same mistakes are made over and over again
Feedback provided is not useful
Feedback Dissatisfaction
39%
4
• “A dialogic process in which learners make sense of information from varied sources and use it to enhance the quality of their work or learning strategies”
(Carless, 2015, p. 192)
• “Feedback needs to influence what learners do rather than merely providing information”
(Boud, 2015)
What is Feedback?
5
Old Paradigm New
Paradigm
Feedback as Pedagogy
6
Report 1
FeedbackReport 2
Feedback Report 3
Feedback
Report 4
BackgroundIzura, C., McMurtrie, H., & Jiga-Boy, G. (2014).
Engaging UG students in assessment and feedback
This method did not work because they attempted each report as new. Taking into account little or nothing from the previous report
7
BackgroundIzura, C., McMurtrie, H., & Jiga-Boy, G. (2014).
Engaging UG students in assessment and feedback
Report 1
FeedbackReport 2
In Report 2, state what aspects of the of the feedback you
have addressed
ENGAGINGI have
addressed the following…
NON ENGAGING????????
Report 2 Report 3 Report 43035404550556065 Engaged
Non-engaged
Mea
n m
arks
Rprt 2 Rprt 3 Rprt 4
Engaged (N = 35) 55.9 57.5 59.3
Non-engaged (N = 58) 38.6 38.0 41.0
8
BackgroundIzura, C., McMurtrie, H., & Jiga-Boy, G. (2014).
Engaging UG students in assessment and feedback
9
Why do some students engage more than others with feedback?
Background Study
10
Background Study
Engagement with feedback changes as a function of year of study (Ali, Rose & Ahmed, 2015).
Self-efficacy, effort regulation & help seeking predict grades in UG (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Komarraju & Nadler, 2013).
Students can regulate their own strategies for learning Self-regulated learning model, Pintrich, 2004).
Feedback can influence
motivation, self-efficacy and learning
strategies
Self regulated learning has been shown to promote student success by supporting student engagement (Rowden, 2013)
11
Cycle of Self-regulation
PerformanceSelf-control and self-observation
Self-reflectionSelf-judgement
and reaction
ForethoughtTask analysis and self motivation
beliefs
Zimmerman & Moylan (2009)
Background Study
12
1. What is the effect of enhanced feedback and self-reflection activities on academic performance
2. Do learning strategies, motivation and resource management predict student engagement?
Study
13
Procedure
Report 1
FeedbackReport 2
Feedback Report 3
Feedback
Report 4
In Report 2, state what aspects of the of the feedback you
have addressed
In Report 4, state what aspects of the of the feedback you
have addressed
In Report 3, state what aspects of the of the feedback you
have addressed
14
Procedure(MSLQ; Pintrich, Smith, Garcia & McKeachie, 1991)
81-item self report questionnaire
15
Motivation (31 items)
• Intrinsic goals• Extrinsic goals• Task value• Control of learning
beliefs• Self-efficacy for
learning & perf.• Test Anxiety
Cognitive & Metacognitive
Strategies (31 items)
• Rehearsal• Elaboration• Organisation• Critical thinking• Self-regulation
Resource Management
Strategies (19 items)
• Time & study environment
• Effort regulation• Peer learning• Help seeking
MSLQ Sub scales
16
50
52
54
56
58
60
62
64Average Grades
Results
p = .001
17
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1.Task Value .491** n.s .452** .399** -.213* .350** n.s n.s
2.Self Efficacy for Learning n.s .361** n.s n.s .271** n.s n.s
3.Test Anxiety n.s n.s n.s -.217* n.s n.s
4.Organise .426** n.s .328** n.s n.s
5.Time Study n.s .629** n.s n.s
6.Peer -.270** n.s n.s
7.Effort Regulation .215* .221*
8.Total no self reflection out of 3 .336**9.Mean MP grade
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Results Correlation matrix between individual difference measures, number of reflection reports completed and objective performance
18
Time & Study Environment
Task Value
Organisation
Peer Learning
Self-efficacy for Learning
Test Anxiety
Effort Regulation
No. of Self Reflection Completed
r = .63**
r = .35**
r = .33**
r = -.27*
r = .27*
r = -.22*
** p < .001* p ≤ .01^ p < .05
r = .22^
Overall Mean Grade
r = .34**
Results
r = . 22*
19
Conclusions
1- Those students that used feedback to engage in reflective practise performed better.
20
Conclusions
2- Effort regulation is directly related to student engagement with tutor feedback(number of self reflections completed) and indirectly related to objective performance
21
PerformanceOrganisationTime & Study Environment
Self-ReflectionEffort
Regulation
ForethoughtTask Value
Self-efficacyTest Anxiety
22
Conclusions
3- Developing self regulated learners who can manage their learning effectively is important to student-centred learning.
23
“Its only feedback if students take some
action” (Carless, 2015)
Closing Feedback loops
24
• Acknowledgements :– Swansea Academy for Teaching and
Learning
