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.

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.

A regional chemostratigraphically-defined correlation framework for the late Triassic TAG-I Formation in Blocks 402 and 405a, Algeria

The Triassic Argilo-Gréseux Inférieur Formation (TAG-I) is one of the principal hydrocarbon reservoirs in the Berkine Basin of Algeria. Sedimentological studies have shown that it exhibits marked spatial and temporal facies variations on both a local field scale and a regional basinal scale. This variability, combined with a lack of diagnostic flora and fauna, makes regional correlation within the unit difficult. In turn, the lack of a consistent regional stratigraphic framework hampers the comparison of the various correlation schemes devised by operators in the basin. Contrasting the TAG-I in Blocks 402 and 405a exemplifies the problems encountered when attempting regionally to define a correlation framework for the interval. Between these two blocks, a distance of approximately 200 km, there are marked changes in the style of deposition from sand-dominated, proximal fluvial systems in the SW (Block 405a, MLN, MLC, KMD and MLNW fields) to a more distal, more clay-prone system in the NE (Block 402, ROD/BRSE/BSFN, SFNE and BSF fields). A chemostratigraphic study of the TAG-I in these two blocks has allowed a four-fold correlation framework to be defined, where each chemostratigraphic package has distinctive geochemical features. Chemostratigraphic Package 10, the oldest unit, lies above the Hercynian Unconformity, but beneath a geochemically identifiable hiatal surface. Chemostratigraphic Package 20 lies above the hiatal surface but is separated from the overlying packages by a mineralogical change identifiable in both claystone and sandstone geochemistry. Chemostratigraphic Packages 30 and 40 are chemically somewhat similar, but are separated by a regional event interpreted as a period of dolocrete and lacustrine development. By combining the geochemical differentiation of the units and recognition of their stratal boundaries, it is possible to define a correlation for the TAG-I between Blocks 402 and 405a. The proposed correlation between the two blocks suggests that the northern parts of Block 405a may have been occupied by a spur or subsidiary channel from the main SW–NE-trending fluvial system, resulting in one of the chemically defined packages being demonstrably absent in the MLNW, MLN, KMD and MLC fields when compared with the other areas of the study.

Notes and memoranda

On the occurence of the nudibranch Hancockia at Plymouth. Breeding of fish in the aquarium. The ammount of fat in different fishes. Notes on Saphenia mirabilis, Haeckel and Pleurophyllidia Loveni, Bergh.