Public feedback - but personal feedforward?

Academic feedback is taken here as the reporting to student writers of the strengths and weaknesses of their submitted draft work, while academic feedforward refers to constructive advice regarding possible strengthening of students’ next work. Both originate from a tutor’s initial judgement of a student’s work. Feedback and feedforward on work showing need for improvement are problematic in a Confucian Heritage Culture. Even gently constructive advice within a programme seeking evidence for assessment of critical thinking may lead to perception of hurtful criticism by Taiwanese students. Some could withdraw from class activity accordingly. So the writers adjusted their response style. They now choose between different approaches featuring tutorial feedback or feedforward, depending on the standard of work being judged. When individual postings feature poor critical thinking, the writers opt for private messages concentrating on constructive feedforward. For better postings, they provide positive feedback with reasons for their judgements, and summarise to the class these exemplars of generic strengths in critical thinking. They also offer private prompting when they see scope for further enrichment of an able student’s critical thinking. This might also be a useful practice when tutoring solely in the West. (192 words) Keywords: Confucian Heritage Culture, public feedback, private feedforward, assessment

Choices of approaches in e-moderation: conclusions from a grounded theory study

Much has been published in recent years about the desirable nature of facilitated interactions in on-line discussions with educational purposes. However little has been reported about the roles which tutors actually adopt in real life learning contexts, how these range between ‘tutoring, ‘managing’ and ‘facilitating’, and what the distinctions between these three roles may be. In this paper choices of priorities in e-moderation, which were made in three naturalistic (real life) case studies by three higher education practitioners, are identified and discussed. These contrasting approaches were captured and analysed using grounded theory principles. The paper also discusses these occasions when the facilitation was less effective than might have been desired. It finally summarises the potential of various approaches within e-moderation – and some of the attendant risks. The finding is that principles and practices developed for face-to-face support of student-directed learning were found equally applicable in e-moderated online group work, despite several significant differences between the two types of setting. Keywords: higher education, e-learning, e-moderation, asynchronous discussions, learning outcomes, grounded theory