Funded Competition Entry
Suggest feedback methods and explain how they would help you progress on your course
Beans on toast for tea has lead me to contemplate the issue of feedback. The clue is in the word ‘feedback’. Just as starving students are perpetually in search of sufficient nutrition, we require mental satiation in the form of constructive comments on our work without which we cannot grow and develop as scholars and future professionals. And just as we can survive on a basic diet of toast and baked beans, yes, we can survive intellectually on basic grades or cursory comments on our performance. However, we are eternally grateful when a kindly relative treats us to a slap-up meal, and similarly a hearty portion of really constructive feedback is more than welcome.
To continue with the nutrition metaphor, a varied diet and equally varied forms of feedback will help us thrive. So grades, pencil scratchings in the margin, fulsome assignment sheets where our achievements and failings are detailed, verbal comments and tutorial discussions are all to be welcomed. Whatever the form it takes, feedback needs to identify the rationale for our particular grade or assessment and give pointers to how we can improve in future.
However, as students preparing to work in the ‘real world’, we realise that beyond the confines of academia overt feedback will be rare. Instead it will take covert forms. If our performance is poor we might only obtain clues from tight-lipped supervisors, grumpy customers, disenchanted patients or the binning of our letters and reports. Therefore, it is important to develop our capacity to evaluate our own performance, in effect giving ourselves feedback.
Because of this I am advancing a proposal for some, although probably not all, exams or written assignments.
To explain, after being evaluated by tutors, our work would be returned with a grade. At the same time, a model answer would be made available. We would then be required to submit a supplement to our original assignment which would be a critique of the assignment, demonstrating our understanding of how our work fell short of the model answer. The final grade would be the original assignment mark combined with one given for the evaluation.
This has several advantages. First, this would distinguish those students who have greater understanding from those who have less. There is a considerable difference in ability between the student who can understand why a lower mark has been awarded and those who cannot. Therefore two students may achieve a C or 55% for an assignment. But the one who has sufficient understanding to appreciate the deficits in their assignment, “Oh, I see that’s where I went wrong” has far more ability than their fellow scholar who insists their essay was perfectly okay and cannot see what was amiss with their work.
This system, in terms of the second advantage, would avoid the tragedy of students who write wonderful assignments which fail because they did not answer the question set. There are instances of very able students whose ability is not reflected in their marks because they did not appreciate that they were misinterpreting the question set or were becoming overly absorbed by irrelevant material. Such able students would be able to rectify the situation and gain at least some acknowledgement of their hard work through their self-evaluation.
To give a numerical illustration, normally able Student A misinterprets some exam questions resulting in a dismal score of 30%. More limited Student B does the same and also achieves 30%. In their feedback, while Student A writes a fulsome and accurate evaluation of his or her exam shortcomings and is rewarded with 80%, giving an overall 55%, Student B shows only the faintest glimmer of understanding and manages 40% resulting in only a slight overall elevation of mark to 35%. The original 30% mark which both received did not reflect their differing abilities, whereas the final mark does so more accurately.
Thirdly, talking to student friends from a range of British universities there is the suspicion that some tutors have a cap on the highest marks they would ever give. Essays are returned with fulsome praise extolling the excellence of our work yet the mark is only 75% or A-, so where has the additional 25% gone? Where are the marks lost when almost no deficits in our assignment are highlighted? This system would require tutors to identify what a perfect answer looks like and mark assignments in comparison to the model.
It would, fourthly, give a double portion of feedback. Returning to the nutritional analogy, students would be served a main course and a pud. When the final assignment is returned there would be the tutor’s comments on both the original essay, project or exam and the subsequent self-evaluation.
The fifth advantage is that it should develop our ability to appraise our own work and performance. As mentioned, in the real world although there is some provision for formal feedback from supervisors, and customer or patient satisfaction surveys, most of the time we have to rely on ourselves to determine the standard of our writing or performance. Self-appraisal is a vital skill and could be enhanced by this double-feedback method.
Although the focus of this essay has been on written exams and assignments, the proposal could be adapted for practical skills. Often a model is naturally provided by senior clinicians or experienced staff, we could therefore be required to evaluate our own performance in relation to interventions and behaviours modelled by them.
Turning to practical logistics, it is recognised that this proposal would demand a greater time commitment by academic staff. However, remember how grateful we are for an occasional slap-up meal and how necessary such largesse is to our hungry bodies. Similarly, this meal-sized portion of feedback might not be part of the regular intellectual diet but would be very welcome as an occasional treat.
To conclude, variety of feedback adds spice to students’ endeavours. However, forms of feedback requiring self evaluation have a particular appeal and value. Now where have I put the can opener?
Submitted by
Narasimhaswamy Banavara, Medicine, Swansea University
This proposal was funded under the Student essay competition - 2009 call
