'Take away from the dry sixties style marking': Lecturer and student perceptions and experiences of audio feedback

Providing audio feedback to assessment is relatively uncommon in higher education. However, published research suggests that it is preferred over written feedback by students but lecturers were less convinced. The aim of this paper is to examine further these findings in the context of a third year business ethics unit. Data was collected from two sources. The first is a series of in-depth, semi-structured interviews conducted with three lecturers providing audio feeback for the first time in Semester One 2011. The second source of data was drawn from the university student evaluation system. A total of 363 responses were used providing 'before' and 'after' perspectives about the effectiveness of audio feedback versus written feedback. Between 2005 and 2009 the survey data provided information about student attitudes to written assessment feedback (n=261). From 2010 onwards the data relates to audio (mp3) feedback (n=102). The analysis of he interview data indicated that introducing audio feedback should be done with care. The perception of the participating lecturers was mixed, ranging from sceptism to outright enthusiasm, but over time the overall approach became positive. It was found that particular attention needs to be paid to small (but important) technical details, and lecturers need to be convinced of its effectieness, especially that it is not necessarily more time consuming than providing written feedback. For students, the analysis revealed a clear preference for audio feedback. It is concluded that there is cause for concern and reason for optimism. It is a cause for concern because there is a possibility that scepticism on the part of academic staff seems to be based on assumptions about what students prefer and a concern about using the technology. There is reason for optimism because the evidence points towards students preferring audio feedback and as academic staff become more familiar with the technology the scepticism tends to evaporate. While this study is limited in scope, questions are raised about tackling negative staff perceptions of audio feedback that are worthy of further research.

Nitrification (DMPP) and urease (NBPT) inhibitors had no effect on pasture yield, nitrous oxide emissions nor nitrate leaching under irrigation in a hot-dry climate

Modern dairy farming in Australia relies on substantial inputs of fertiliser nitrogen (N) to underpin economic production. However, N lost from dairy systems represents an opportunity cost and can pose a number of environmental risks. Nitrogen cycle inhibitors can be co-applied with N fertilisers to slow the conversion of urea to NH4+ to reduce losses via volatilisation, and slow the conversion of NH4+ to NO3- to minimize leaching of NO3- and gaseous losses via nitrification and denitrification. In a field campaign in a high input ryegrass-kikuyu pasture system we compared the soil N pools, losses and pasture production between a) urea coated with the nitrification inhibitor (3,4-dimethyl pyrazole phosphate - DMPP) b) urea coated with the urease inhibitor (N-(n-butyl) thiophosphoric triamide - NBPT) and c) standard urea. There was no treatment effect (P>0.05) on soil mineral N, pasture yield, N2O flux nor leaching of NO3- cf. standard urea. We hypothesise that at our site, because gaseous losses were highly episodic (rainfall was erratic and displayed no seasonal rainfall nor soil wetting pattern) that there was a lack of coincidence of N application and conditions conducive to gaseous losses, thus the effectiveness of the inhibitor products was minimal and did not result in an increase in pasture yield. There remains a paucity of knowledge on N cycle inhibitors in relation to their effective use in field system to increase N use efficiency. Further research is required to define under what field conditions inhibitor products are effective in order to be able to provide accurate advice to managers of nitrogen in production systems.