The feedback we give: university student perceptions and preferences

This paper reports the results of a study on higher education student perceptions of and preferences for feedback on their performance. The issue of feedback to students is becoming increasingly important in higher education, not only because it is an important element of learning, but also as a significant component of the student experience and its evaluation. Within a mass education context, written feedback on coursework may be an important opportunity available to students for individualised attention. The current research explored perceptions of feedback by participants who were studying in undergraduate business degrees in a UK university (N=175). The survey instrument asked participants to evaluate the feedback they receive at university in terms of its impact and influence, as well as their understanding of feedback received and preferences. Analysis of the data indicates that students generally find feedback provided to them helpful and encouraging in improving their work but they also indicate that they would prefer to discuss their work directly with their tutor instead of receiving written feedback. They comment on the illegibility of some hand written feedback received. They also report that, generally, they act on the feedback received in order to improve their work and say that it helps them to reflect on their learning. Students comment that negative feedback received does not make them angry or demotivate them. The survey found considerable variability in the students' understanding of 'typical' feedback comments. The majority of students (79%) also reported that they prefer a structured feedback matrix to general comments because they consider it more specific and easier to understand. The implications of these findings for feedback and assessment practices are discussed and suggestions for improvements developed.

The varieties of student experience - an open research question and some ways to answer it

Based on meetings of the Society for Research into Higher Education’s Student Experience Network over the past three years, the genuinely open research question is posed whether there is one or more undergraduate student experience within English higher education. Answering this question depends on whether what is taught or what is learnt is examined. If the latter, then a unitary student experience can be said to exist only in the narrowest of normative senses. What undergraduates actually learn – defined in the widest sense – is the $64,000 question of research on the student experience. Various ways to answer this question are proposed, including using students to research students. Conceptual tools to apply to findings can be developed from youth studies and cognate disciplines, particularly in relation to student identities and aspirations. Lastly, these proposals are placed in the wider context of comparative models of the varieties of student experience, including those emerging in the UK’s national regions.

Exploration of the student experience of e-learning: beginning to bridge the learning divide

Introduction This proposal aims, through debate within symposium to explore the student experience of e-learning. The team facilitating the discussion will draw upon their experience of an HEA funded pathfinder project, the main aim of which was to collect learner stories about their experience of using technology in their everyday learning activities at the University of Greenwich across a range of programmes, levels, locations and student groups. Method The project design responded to the growing body of student voice literature and then utilised and built upon the JISC-funded studies that focussed on understanding the learner perspectives on the role of technology in learning, namely: • the LEX study which investigated a broad spectrum of technology use by eliciting rich data about learners’ feelings, beliefs and intentions towards e-learning (Creanor et al, 2006); • the LXP studies which explored disciplinary differences in uses of technology by university students through a variety of methodologies (Conole et al, 2006). Results The symposium will be organised as a round table discussion that will be structured into three sections: • Designing an online survey tool, and the results of our survey. • Exploring student stories. • What can learned from the project and taking the findings back to enhance learning. To stimulate discussion each section will start by asking the participants to discuss and debate a particular question, this will be followed by an interactive presentation by the respective member of the project team who will share the findings of the project and invite contributions to the resulting discussion from personal perspectives. The questions are: • What is effective learning within a context of digital technology? • What are the myths and truths about the identity of today's learners? • What practical changes need to happen in order to see real change? Conclusion The final section of the symposium will invite contributions from the participants in order to collate the views and perspectives of all the participants in order to focus the discussion on the following: • The issues that have arisen as a result of the round table debates. • New speculative approaches to enhancing the student experience. • A controversial stand to the future of Higher Education teaching and learning and the role and integration of technology within that education. The symposium will provide an opportunity to explore the predictive value of Student Experience of E-Learning Laboratory (SEEL) project.

Student Experience of E-Learning (SEEL)

The Student Experience of E-Learning project (SEEL) was an institutional response to the university’s HEA/JISC Benchmarking exercise (Ryan and Kandler, 2007). The study had a social constructivist approach which recognised the importance of listening to the student voice (JISC 2007) within the University of Greenwich context, to interpret the student experience of e-learning. Nearly 1000 students responded to an online survey on their approaches to, and their use of, learning technology. The quantitative and qualitative questions used included identifying study patterns, using specific online tools, within the context of learning and beyond, and student’s attitudes towards using e-learning in their studies. Initially, individual responses to questions were analysed in depth, giving a general indication of the student experience. Further depth was applied through a filtering mechanism, beginning with a cross-slicing of individual student responses to produce cameos. Audio logs and individual interviews were drawn from these cameos. Analysis of the cameos is in progress but has already revealed some unexpected results. There was a mismatch between students’ expectations of the university’s use of technology and their experiences and awareness of its possible use in other contexts. Students recognised the importance of social interaction as a vehicle for learning (Vygotsky 1978, Bruner 2006) but expressed polarised views on the use of social networking sites such as Facebook for e-learning. Their experiences in commercial contexts led them to see the university VLE as unimaginative and the tutors’ use of it as lacking in vision. Whereas analysis of the individual questions provided a limited picture, the cameos gave a truer reflection of the students lived experiences and identified a gulf between the university’s provision and the students’ expectation of e-learning and their customary use of technology. However it is recognised that the very nature of an online survey necessarily excludes students who chose not to engage, either through lack of skills or through disillusionment and this would constitute a separate area for study.

Exploring knowledge and skills on HIV in student nurses and midwives

A cross-sectional survey design using a self-administered questionnaire was sent to a sample of 62 final-year student nurses and midwives to describe their knowledge of, skills related to, and attitudes towards, human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome. Out of the 47 respondents who return the questionnaire, only 53% stated that they had received class instruction on the topic and 63.8% claimed to have increased their knowledge mainly from reading professional journals. Although only 32% said that they had cared for a patient or knew of a family member or another person with the disease, 91% indicated that they were willing to care for such patients. Overall, the respondents demonstrated positive attitudes towards this group of patients and a good level of knowledge about the subject, although some gaps were evident. However, a large majority stated that their skills to cater for the physical and psychological needs of this group of patients were deficient and would like further training.

A case study of the effectiveness of the electronic survey as a research tool for measuring students' experience of e-learning

This paper uses a case study approach to consider the effectiveness of the electronic survey as a research tool to measure the learner voice about experiences of e-learning in a particular institutional case. Two large scale electronic surveys were carried out for the Student Experience of e-Learning (SEEL) project at the University of Greenwich in 2007 and 2008, funded by the UK Higher Education Academy (HEA). The paper considers this case to argue that, although the electronic web-based survey is a convenient method of quantitative and qualitative data collection, enabling higher education institutions swiftly to capture multiple views of large numbers of students regarding experiences of e-learning, for more robust analysis, electronic survey research is best combined with other methods of in-depth qualitative data collection. The advantages and disadvantages of the electronic survey as a research method to capture student experiences of e-learning are the focus of analysis in this short paper, which reports an overview of large-scale data collection (1,000+ responses) from two electronic surveys administered to students using surveymonkey as a web-based survey tool as part of the SEEL research project. Advantages of web-based electronic survey design include flexibility, ease of design, high degree of designer control, convenience, low costs, data security, ease of access and guarantee of confidentiality combined with researcher ability to identify users through email addresses. Disadvantages of electronic survey design include the self-selecting nature of web-enabled respondent participation, which tends to skew data collection towards students who respond effectively to email invitations. The relative inadequacy of electronic surveys to capture in-depth qualitative views of students is discussed with regard to prior recommendations from the JISC-funded Learners' Experiences of e-Learning (LEX) project, in consideration of the results from SEEL in-depth interviews with students. The paper considers the literature on web-based and email electronic survey design, summing up the relative advantages and disadvantages of electronic surveys as a tool for student experience of e-learning research. The paper concludes with a range of recommendations for designing future electronic surveys to capture the learner voice on e-learning, contributing to evidence-based learning technology research development in higher education.

The Students' Experience of E-learning

The Student Experience of E-learning Laboratory (SEEL) is a three year initiative that seeks to develop the University’s capacity to discover more about the impact of e-learning on our students in an attempt to narrow the gap between the digital natives and immigrants (Prensky, 2001). In its first year the project team have gathered data on the student experience of using technology in support of their learning from across the University. Initial analysis suggests we should listen more carefully to our students and may need to review some of our current practices in relation to e-learning and explore some new ways of working. In this workshop we will outline some of the findings and consider implications for our future practice.

Experts on e-learning: insights gained from listening to the student voice!

The Student Experience of e-Learning Laboratory (SEEL) project at the University of Greenwich was designed to explore and then implement a number of approaches to investigate learners’ experiences of using technology to support their learning. In this paper members of the SEEL team present initial findings from a University-wide survey of nearly a 1000 students. A selection of 90 ‘cameos’, drawn from the survey data, offer further insights into personal perceptions of e-learning and illustrate the diversity of students experiences. The cameos provide a more coherent picture of individual student experience based on the totality of each person’s responses to the questionnaire. Finally, extracts from follow-up case studies, based on interviews with a small number of students, allow us to ‘hear’ the student voice more clearly. Issues arising from an analysis of the data include student preferences for communication and social networking tools, views on the ‘smartness’ of their tutors’ uses of technology and perceptions of the value of e-learning. A primary finding and the focus of this paper, is that students effectively arrive at their own individualised selection, configuration and use of technologies and software that meets their perceived needs. This ‘personalisation’ does not imply that such configurations are the most efficient, nor does it automatically suggest that effective learning is occurring. SEEL reminds us that learners are individuals, who approach learning both with and without technology in their own distinctive ways. Hearing, understanding and responding to the student voice is fundamental in maximising learning effectiveness. Institutions should consider actively developing the capacity of academic staff to advise students on the usefulness of particular online tools and resources in support of learning and consider the potential benefits of building on what students already use in their everyday lives. Given the widespread perception that students tend to be ‘digital natives’ and academic staff ‘digital immigrants’ (Prensky, 2001), this could represent a considerable cultural challenge.

What a performance! Developing nurse teachers lecturing persona and identity: a performing arts perspective

Delivering lectures to large groups of students can provoke high levels of anxiety, particularly for new lecturers (Exley and Dennick, 2009). Further, to provide an informative and engaging lecture requires a teacher who is confident, has a sound knowledge and well developed teaching skills (Bentley-Davies, 2010). Thus, new lecturers often need experience and supervision to develop the tacit knowledge and insight into their own style and persona when teaching in order to feel confident when delivering a lecture (Quinn and Hughes, 2007). Considering this model, therefore, may potentially contribute to a lecturers’ development and performance in the classroom. This paper will present the results of the second phase of a two-stage mixed method study that investigated the similarities between lecturing and acting. Twelve in-depth interviews where undertaken with lecturers within one School of Nursing in The United Kingdom. Findings, established a model of ‘persona adoption’ that represents a series of stages that lecturers may go through to both develop and take on a persona when lecturing. This persona is often different from the way they lecturers present themselves in other parts of their working life. The first stage of this model of persona adoption is when the lecturer is subjected to a range of ‘influencing factors’ that provide not only the basic information about a lecture, but also the perceptual stimuli about giving a lecture on a specific subject, to a particular number of students, at a certain academic level. These influencing factors then inter-play with the ‘facets of the individual’, which represent the lecturer’s self-concept, subject knowledge base and philosophy of teaching. This may result in a cognitive dissonance between these ‘facets’ and the ‘influencing factors’, so affecting the lecturers’ perceptions, thoughts and feelings about having to give that particular lecture. This results in the lecturer undertaking specific ‘back stage preparation’ during which they decide on the content and modes of delivery to prepare in light of that discourse. It may result in delivering the information via single or multiple methods, which during the lecture will require various levels of interaction and participation from the students. Just prior to the lecture, the lecturer builds or ‘puts on their persona’ and gets into role, making their initial impact with the group. They use the ‘elements of acting’ as proposed by Tauber and Mester’s (1994) e.g. animated voice and body, space, props humour and suspense and surprise to portray and maintain their persona. This leads the to lecturer demonstrating either positive or negative ‘persona characteristics’ in terms of appearing confident, knowledgeable, fluent in the technical skills of delivering the lecture, being interesting and engendering interaction with the students, or not. These characteristics, may or may not, potentially heighten student interest, attention and attitudes to learning as suggested by Tauber and Mester (1994). This depends on whether the lecturer has successfully used the persona and if the lecturer has been able to engage students in the lecture, in competition with other factors that may be taking the students’ attention. Although the model suggests a linear process, to a great extent, the elements might be more interdependent and interrelated. This might suggest that depending on the lecturer’s perception of their effectiveness during the lecture, that they may decide to continue or adapt their persona and methods to appear more confident. Furthermore, depending on how successful the lecturer perceived the session to be, both their reflections ‘in’ and ‘on’ practice could influence how they teach in the future (Zwozdiak, 2011). Therefore, these reflections become part of the facets of the individual, via the ‘reflective feedback loop’, in the model, which then in turn influences progression through the model in subsequent lectures. This study concluded that these lecturers went through a process whereby they compare the demands of the lecture with their own knowledge base and skill, this resulted in them undertaking specific preparation in terms of content and delivery style, then they adopted their persona immediately prior to entering the lecture, maintain it throughout the lecture via the use of the elements of acting to achieve an informative interactive lecture. The results of which then feedback into their self-concept as a lecturer and consequently may affect the persona they project in future lectures. If lecturers, therefore, can take a step back to consider how they deliver lectures and the way they can deliberately, yet apparently naturally, use their voices, bodies, space and humour in meaningfully, they engage their students in lecture, it will not just result in them being perceived as a good lecturer, but also be a genuine act of education.