feedback system project report, Study Guides, Projects, Research of Software Project Management

Download feedback system project report and more Study Guides, Projects, Research Software Project Management in PDF only on Docsity!

Student Feedback

Project 2007:

Report of findings

Kate Brooks

Kieran Kelly

School of Cultural

Studies

Student Feedback Project 2007:

findings

The report is based on responses to questionnaires from 166 students in Humanities Languages and Social Sciences and Art Media and Design, a sample of which was then interviewed in further depth. The literature indicates students often find feedback difficult to understand and therefore difficult to use. It has been suggested in the literature that this may be a result of academics using feedback to achieve purposes associated with both formative and summative assessment. The report considers a range of student opinion and proposes that consideration be given to developing the ability of students to use feedback as part of the normal teaching activity.

1. Introduction...................................................................................................... 3

2. Literature Review and Discussion................................................................... 4

3. Methodology.................................................................................................... 7

Methodology.................................................................................................... 7

4. Issues Raised by Responses to Initial Questionnaires .................................. 8

5. Students in Their Own Words......................................................................... 9

1. Initial Expectations..................................................................................... 10

2. The Assessment System........................................................................... 10

3. The student-tutor relationship................................................................... 12

4. Getting Feedback on Essays..................................................................... 15

6. Summary of Findings – Recommendations, Implications and Considerations

Practical recommendations:.......................................................................... 17

Wider implications.......................................................................................... 18

Considerations- concluding discussion......................................................... 18

Appendix One; Outcomes of previous project.................................................. 20

Appendix Two; Dissemination of Project Findings............................................ 20

Appendix Three; student questionnaire............................................................ 21

Appendix Four; Student interview/focus group question schedule................... 22

Bibliography....................................................................................................... 23

2. Literature Review and Discussion A survey of the literature (primarily conducted using Google Scholar) indicated that there is in existence a body of material on the subject of feedback to students, and related fields such as assessment practice, however little research had been conducted among students themselves. It may be that the assumption that feedback is necessary but little attention is paid to what it is actually for. Undoubtedly lecturers hope that it will help students to improve their future work. It also appears to serve the purpose of justifying the mark given for the piece of assessed work. This dichotomy does of course lie at the heart of Higher Education; HE is intended partly to develop the learner and partly to certify that the student has certain bench marked skills (QAA). The usual way to overcome this difficulty has been to separate out formative and summative assessment. This had not been a problem in the traditional university. The formative essay followed by the first year and final year examinations has been a widely used format. In contrast in the new (post-1992) universities the model of module based credit accumulation had tended towards the use of continuous assessment. Many marking schemes therefore include every assessed piece of work submitted after the first year in the final degree grading. Major reviews of the literature on formative assessment have been undertaken most recently by Black and Williams (1998) who took as their base-line two substantial review articles, one by Natriello (1987) and the other by Crooks (1988). It is impossible in the space available to consider these reviews in any detail (Black and Williams reviewed 681 articles). However it should be noted that they consider not only those articles that review techniques of assessment and review but also many that discuss the philosophical, social and psychological underpinnings of pedagogy. In the field of feedback, Black and Williams’ review highlighted those articles that indicated that feedback was most beneficial when teachers concentrated on the task rather than the student and highlighted the impact of supportive and positive encouragement. William and Black discussed this problem with some sophistication with reference to the national curriculum in schools. (Williams and Black 1996) In their conclusion they found themselves rather stumped primarily because of the external assessment schemes that dominate secondary education. It is worth noting that in HE where assessment is largely designed by academics who both teach and assess that the ‘continuum’ of assessment, i.e. the integration of assessment, that Williams and Black suggest may actually be practicable. An interesting example of such an approach in the Humanities is given in the teaching of mediaeval literature (Smyth 2004). Smyth describes a course wherein the differences between formative and summative assessment are made clear to students. In consequence the different sorts of critical evaluation and summative judgement associated with formative and summative assessment respectively are taught as part of the course. Such an approach to assessment may become more important as the cohort of traditionally prepared students becomes a minority in the face of mass higher education. It is therefore worth paying some attention to the larger issues for a moment, in particular the kinds of students who enter university and the attitudes to education that they bring with them. Our previous work on transition suggested that students sought models of how to be a student and that they attuned themselves to a model constructed from perceptions of the University, institutional context, student opinion and their own experience and expectations. This is not the place to explore alternatives to the current model of the University, however the increase in participation rates in Higher Education have

drawn in students who might not previously have participated in HE. However it appears that the expansion of HE has not brought in students from manual working class backgrounds where applications from the lowest socio-economic groups remain at around 25% ( The Guardian 12 June 2007). Rather it has drawn in a layer of young people who might previously have entered white collar work business and the public sector and relied on internal training to develop their careers. As the ‘certification’ role of HE has increased so ‘learning for learning’s sake’, particularly in the Arts and Humanities, has come into even greater tension with the role of preparation for work and certification in general. The development of mass HE, albeit of the character described above, has been accompanied by a considerable development of ideas in teaching drawing on a vast range of philosophical and pedagogic traditions As Haggis (2006) has pointed out the institutional structures of British Universities tend to support a directional transmission of knowledge from the lecturer to the student rather than a shared investigation and resolution of problems. Terrenzini (1999) has argued something similar in the US case. It should not be thought that the difficulties in academic feedback to undergraduates are exclusively a problem for new universities. Even in the ‘Old Universities’ the pressure to complete research means that many students are unlikely to receive an informal tutorial with an expert in their field. Rather feedback is also likely to be written and may even be provided by a PhD student. Bearing these factors in mind our attention turns to feedback itself. The primary concerns of the literature on feedback include two areas of interest (which are often commented upon in the same paper or project). One, the contradictory, difficult, obscure and sometimes simply unreadable nature of feedback provided by teachers and, two, the use, or lack of use, made of feedback by students. It is perhaps actually most important to take the latter first, in that if students do not use feedback, then no matter how much it is provided or demanded then there is no point in producing it. The most recent review of the literature on feedback has been undertaken as part of an Higher Education Academy funded FDTL5 project (Millar 2005).^3 The project has yet to report but the literature review offers a conclusion that both the institutional context and the views of academics on how students learn are crucial aspects of the process. In the sample researched by Higgins et al (2002) the principal conclusion was that students wanted to use feedback but could not always make sense of it. However it should be noted that for example in Holmes and Smith (Holmes and Smith 2003) the student difficulty was primarily with a lack of comment, indecipherable comment and overly negative comment (it is possible that the local practices were particularly poor). McCune (McCune 2004) reported even more negatively that feedback to a group of first-year psychology student had no impact whatsoever on the conceptualisations that they were supposed to develop through essay writing and feedback. However it proved difficult for the author to come to any deeper conclusion in view of the small sample. In an interesting article Orrell (2006: 442) has argued that the purpose of grading essays dominates the real process of assisting students to improve their essay- writing. It worth noting that in turn this aspect of feedback becomes an expectation among students (Brown 2007) “At the end of the assessment process, once assessors had decided on a grade, it was common practice for them to provide a summary explanation, in (^3) The FDTL Project “Engaging Students with Assessment Feedback” was underway at the time of writng.

3. Methodology Methodology This study draws on our previous project’s methodology; a more detailed account of these qualitative methods can be found in the Student Transition Report (Brooks and Kelly 2006).^4 Briefly, our approach consisted of three stages: (i) A review of relevant literature and current studies (ii) Approx 550 students were asked to complete a short questionnaire at the start of a number of lectures, and in and around the St Matthias SU Bar area, the Bower Ashton refectory and the Student Refectory at St Matthias. 166 responded and their responses are summarised in Section 3. (iii) The questionnaire asked anyone interested in being interviewed further to give us their contact details (to stand the chance to win an iPod). 100 students did so, and each student was emailed. Of the 100 emailed, 15 replied, and 11 turned up for an interview, either on a one-to-one basis or in a small group of two or three. (iv) A further few impromptu small group interviews occurred in a student café at Bower Ashton, where we interviewed a further 12 students bringing the total of interviews to 23. Each of these students also filled in a questionnaire, incorporated in the total of 166. Their responses to our questions are discussed in Section 4. We would like to point out here that the decision to include Bower Ashton was to begin to explore the possible differences between students’ experiences of assessment feedback across different faculties and types of assignments. Ideally, we would have included all faculties and conducted interviews at Frenchay and Glenside: limitations of time and funding precluded this. (^4) See footnote [1]

4. Issues Raised by Responses to Initial Questionnaires Almost 550 students were asked to fill in a questionnaire (see Appendix Two) on assessment feedback. They were asked to comment on what kinds of feedback they had found most/least helpful and effective. We received a total of 166 responses and of the issues highlighted by students at each level are highlighted below. Some issues highlighted by students at level 1, 2 and 3  ‘Effective feedback involves being able to discuss work with a tutor’

 ‘Effective feedback forms include detailed information on how to improve’

 ‘One-to-one tutorials allow you to ask questions’

 ‘Effective feedback forms break the essay down into sections and comment

on them (structure, grammar etc.)’

 ‘Ineffective feedback forms involve vague comments I don’t understand and/

or handwritten notes on the essay’

Discussion

The dominant theme at all levels is the request for verbal feedback. Unsurprisingly, students at all levels also want detailed information on how they can improve. In the first year, there is a marked need to be able to ask questions – echoing the suggestions in current literature that students completing their first assignments need more clarification on their feedback. In particular it echoes Higgins et al’s (2002) observation, above, that students want feedback but are unsure how to understand and use it. There is a strong dislike of what they perceive to be ‘vague’ feedback which does not offer constructive advice on improvement, and a dislike of the handwritten notes in the margins of their work. We also asked students what kinds of feedback they felt they needed and why. Of all 166 responses, just over half (56%) specifically stated they felt ‘one to one tutorials’ are or would be the most useful form of feedback. The following quotes exemplify the kinds of answers we received to this question. ‘A lot of feedback can be received in five minutes of talking than simply on a form’ ‘Face to face with my tutor I get a real sense of what I am supposed to be doing’ ‘ I want the chance to ask questions or to air all my grievances… ’ This suggests it’s not simply the opportunity to gain more information, although this is a significant motivation, but also to build a relationship with the tutor. This links in to our previous research on the transition experience which concluded that students feel they often lack a sense of belonging on their course, and can feel isolated and anonymous. In terms of ‘effective feedback’ one student notably said that: ‘Feedback is effective when it encourages and recognises you’ve done well…it can be inspiring’.

students’ own concerns rather than directly reflecting our question schedule (which can be found in Appendix Three). Each begins with examples of students’ own words, which best sum up the key themes within that category, as well as bring the research ‘to life’ in a way that statistical charts and tables can never quite manage.

1. Initial Expectations Feedback [at 6th^ form] was much more tailored to you personally and the tutors had a good idea of your strengths and weaknesses, and there was enough time to talk. I know uni is about the transition to working independently but when there’s people around who know your work it helps. I thought there’d be more time to discuss your work, it’s like it’s handed back very quickly in the seminar and then just forgotten about. I was really surprised there isn’t a standardised system of feedback, that was the biggest surprise to me. Students’ attitude to feedback can be linked to their expectations of university life in general – again this is discussed more broadly in the Transition Project. Specifically here students’ talk correlates to current research which investigates the mismatch between students’ understanding of ‘work’ and what work involves at university level, and how that notion of work relates to the practices of academic study. This is taken up by Grisoni and Wilkinson who argue that this mismatch is part of a wider shift towards the commodification of higher education, as staff expect students to work independently whilst students ‘demand guidance to achieve results’ (Grisoni and Wilkinson 2005: 14). How this mismatch is managed is open to debate, but certainly more preparatory work at A level could be beneficial, alongside introductory workshops aimed at clarifying university expectations (Marland 2003, Smith and Hopkins 2005). Summary: Currently, students could be better informed about the rationale and purposes of assignment feedback, in order to be better prepared for their first feedback sheets. Recommendations: Building in ‘what to expect from feedback’ sessions at the start of modules could clarify the purpose of tutorials and feedback. The assessment process could be more transparent, for example, tutors could talk through the rationale behind the feedback sheet criteria and explain about second marking, as well as highlighting tutors’ availability to discuss work pre- and post-deadlines, in office hours. 2. The Assessment System I like the professional cover sheet, it makes me feel proud of my work, and that my work is important, it’s not just shoved in someone’s pg hole. I feel the system protects work, so I take pride in it.

I think essays should always be marked by your tutor even if they are anonymous so that they can give you feedback later. Otherwise feedback isn’t personal as you don’t know that person enough to have a rapport with them. Students generally saw the system as ‘fair’, avoiding favouritism and meaning that students ‘were not judged on previous work’. A minority of students disliked the anonymity, pointing out for example that: ‘ second marking should prevent any bias… what is it about degree level work where it has to be anonymous? School and college work never was ’ and that, ‘ lecturers should be professional and not have favourites; anyway we only see them for an hour a week so no time for that kind of relationship to develop’. Generally however the anonymous marking system was seen as positive, although this is a contrast to the more personalised feedback system at 6th form/college.^5 It could also be assumed that anonymous marking encourages a more systematic and less idiosyncratic marking although one student noted attempts to ‘personalise’ this: ‘Even if marking anonymously different tutors have different expectations so it’s worth building rapport with them to see where they’re coming from; I know students who’ll just hang around [staff offices] to see who they can see, because they just want as much info as possible so they’re calling in to whoever's there or emailing all the time. This taps into Haggis’ concerns that contemporary students adopt a strategic ‘give them what they want’ approach to assignments (Haggis 2005). That is, the kind of approach popularly derided as superficial and instrumental. However it can also be read as a positive sign that some students do proactively seek out and engage with their tutors and learn again proactively to gather information on assignments. Such an approach may not fit the ‘deep learning’ model of learning nor perhaps the more traditionalist model of student learning involving self directed library research, yet it could be seen as a valid and effective way of preparing for assignments, based perhaps on a broader and more ‘entrepreneurial’ model of learning. These ideas are discussed more fully in our conclusion. One aspect of feedback which was uniformly critiqued was that of exam marking. What’s the deal with exams?! You’re not allowed to get the papers back? So you sit in on a seminar all about how everyone did in the exam except you’ve no idea how you did really even though you’ve got the mark because you can’t remember what you did! Clearly our current system of not giving papers back whilst giving more generalised feedback on content needs further thought, if we are to expect students to engage more fully and effectively with feedback in general. Currently, we are expecting students to recall almost perfectly, work they did at least three weeks previously, under pressure. Perhaps these sessions could be more usefully used as an (^5) Similarly, the Transition Project found that whilst current literature on the topic cited lectures as the most unfamiliar and potentially alienating uni experience, the students we interviewed were in the main very positive about ‘interesting…useful’ lectures. This suggests that the current picture of ‘what students think about uni’ is more complex than currently acknowledged in the literature. More research is needed to explore and perhaps contest these current assumptions, particularly when those possibly erroneous assumptions go on to inform university practices.

least one student thought should, ‘be less friendly and creative and give us more of a kick up the arse’). Mass education means the tutor-student relationship cannot be as personal as it possibly once was – tutors now have ever increasing numbers of students and can hardly be expected to build rapport with each and every one of them. Also, whilst there were a number of comments on tutors’ support and responsiveness, the last comment reveals that some students are unaware that some tutors – and commonly first year tutors (UCU Campaign Report 2007)- are hourly paid, which can cause misunderstandings. Summary : Contacting one’s tutor individually can be a challenge to less confident students, whilst those who see their education in terms of entitlement feel they can demand communication. Recommendations: Whilst communication is undeniably important we recommend further consideration on what kinds of communication are most effective and realistic to implement, rather than simply put the onus on the already over-stretched (and/or hourly paid) lecturer to encourage interaction. Supporting students with developing independent learning skills also means enabling them to realise when ‘demanding things’ is inappropriate. ( b ) One-to-one sessions One-to-ones are really good because you can get advice on how to improve grades even if you’re doing really well. One to one discussions are really valuable because they motivate you more and engage you more emotionally; it’s easy to forget about cover sheet comments but if you had to go and talk to someone and they went over your work with you that are invaluable. It should be built into the module that you go and see your tutor so that they’d know you, because your personal tutor won’t know your work, and some concerns are specific to your module anyway Summary: One-to-one tutorials can be labour intensive for the tutor – as we all know, the ‘ten minute slot’ allotted to each student so that so many students can be seen per hour, inevitably overruns. Workshops on what to expect from feedback, and what to do about it afterwards, could go some way to alleviating this problem, and avoid tutors repeatedly having to explain exactly what plagiarism is, for example, to individual students. Recommendations: We need to get a balance between the times when personal discussions are necessary (e.g. personal issues, plagiarism, failing) and the issues which could be more usefully discussed in group tutorials. As we’ll go on to argue, such group tutorials could include peer reviewing, which may enhance a sense of belonging as well as encouraging a more self-reflective approach to work and learning. (c) Listening to feedback When I go and see the tutor and talk through what they’ve written, then it all seems obvious and that’s reassuring because often they say what I thought about the essay anyway and that combined with a bit of encouragement is better than just seeing it written down on the paper

10 mins is not enough time because since the tutor marked anonymously they can’t remember and you have to explain the essay before you get to your question Some people just don’t want to go and talk to the tutor if they’ve done badly because they think the tutor will tell them off. If students don’t know what to do with feedback – summed up by the student who admitted she carefully filed her feedback forms, ‘but I don’t really read them’, then a verbal discussion of the rationale for the mark and what the tutor recommends for the future is invaluable. Indeed, one student went so far as to say that (as course rep) he’d seen that ‘some students who’ve had bad marks … take it badly, and just go off … and I think 5- 10 minutes with a tutor…a few words of encouragement face-to-face can make all the difference between dropping out and staying’ Some students can feel isolated and bewildered, and lack the confidence to build a rapport with their tutors. These feelings can be exacerbated by an anonymous marking system, and a seemingly negative and critical feedback sheet. Given that retention is a key issue then it does seem as if some personal contact, albeit minimal, can be vital. But again, we do need to consider if a tutor of a module attended by a high number of students can realistically offer both pre-and post deadline tutorials, and how – if at all- we can encourage those about to ‘just go off’ to come and see the relevant member of staff. Summary: Helping students does not necessarily mean more communication with the tutor (adding to their existing workloads) but clarifying when and what kinds of communications are appropriate. Tutors may also need to consider what role feedback plays in student retention. Recommendations: In addition to encouraging students to learn when it is appropriate to ask for support (and what kinds of support it is appropriate to ask for), we also need to examine the role feedback may play in students deciding to ‘drop out’ of their course. How we might go about this is further discussed in the final section of this report. ( d ) Getting feedback in seminars One way we could be said to be moving towards this ideal of students possibly working together to foster self reflective learning, is in the processes of seminar feedback: It’s good when they hand back essays in a seminar and then say some general things because then you are getting feedback but it’s more anonymous, like if they say ‘don’t use Wikipedia’ and you know you did, but it’s not like they are just telling you directly which could be a bit embarrassing. I like the general talk after work’s been handed back because I like to know about the process of doing work. If we were told the range of marks you’d know where you stood in relation to everyone else so general feedback is very helpful.

I always look at feedback sheets especially just before I hand work in to check I’m not doing the same mistakes, I keep the comments in front of me as I plan and write up the next piece of work to make sure I stay on track. I always use feedback; this is what you’re paying for! I feel like I’m getting money’s worth if the feedback is good at pointing out how to improve. Students’ critical comments concerning the feedback form system are exemplified below: Sometimes you get a vague handwritten comment like ‘expand on this’ – well what does that mean, if I knew I would have done! Identifying the problems isn’t the same as helping you solve them. Sometimes the comments don’t connect with the marks – you can get really good mark but lots of negative comments; sometimes they can be too negative which is depressing. We type essays so we should get typed feedback – a few scribbles and a paragraph at the end isn’t good enough, you can’t always understand what they say. The notion that tutors give feedback and students pay for that feedback is an interesting one, which needs further discussion elsewhere.^6 What are we as tutors doing when we write comments on feedback sheets? Are we reviewing the specific piece of work and evaluating its strengths and weaknesses? Is it clear to the student why this is relevant to their next piece of work? Are we giving general advice on how to improve, to support their general progress? Or are we justifying the mark? Whilst traditionally tutors see the learning process as one of debate and challenge, students, it is argued, increasingly demand support in order to get results. Thus the discursive mode of ‘critique’ when it comes to giving feedback, and students’ lack of awareness of that discursive mode, are perhaps key to this mismatch- a point which is taken up in our final section. Finally, another significant aspect highlighted by those students we interviewed was the way in which feedback is given out: One girl had her essay back, and it was a crap mark, right in the seminar just before she did a presentation, that was awful, they don’t have to just shove it back at the start of the seminar unless there’s time to talk about it with the tutor. If we DO want students to learn to engage more effectively with feedback, and not just shove it in their bags and forget about it, we need to consider, then, how handing work back without offering the opportunity to discuss it, or acknowledging he potential tension of the assignment hand back, can give a powerful message that, as one student put it: It’s too late now to do anything about it, so why bother! (^6) For further discussion on the so-called commodification of university learning, see for example Furedi, (2003) and Haggis (2006).

Summary: the strengths of the current system are its apparent standardisation and its perceived ‘fairness’. Those who use feedback sheets effectively see them as part of an ongoing critical dialogue from which they can learn for future assignments. Currently, however, the ways in which work is handed back ‘in a rush’ can reinforce students’ negative thinking that each piece of work is ‘done now’ and no longer relevant to learning. Recommendations  Setting aside time at the end of seminars to discuss marks and feedback  Building in to modules time for each student to have at least one one-to-one about their progress during the module.  Considering more widely the purpose of feedback in general. The next section will develop these recommendations further in a summative discussion.

6. Summary of Findings – Recommendations, Implications and Considerations The recommendations and implications of this report can be summarised two ways: firstly, in practical terms (what we can build on to make feedback more effective) and secondly, in theoretical terms (how further research could make an intervention into the current debates on feedback in university, and enable us to think of feedback more generally). Practical recommendations:  Implement ‘what to expect from feedback’ session at the start of modules, both in the first year and beyond, to emphasise how the criteria changes as students progress through their degree, and to make more transparent the assessment processes.  Establishing student support sessions in which the emphasis is on developing independent learning skills, and learning when and what questions are appropriate to ask, thus generating a sense of responsibility in/ownership of one’s learning.  Encourage peer reviews and other mutually supportive learning experiences both to share information and experiences.  In both of the above, the tutor’s role could be one of facilitator, rather than the existing and somewhat limiting role of ‘gatekeeper’ in the conventional post-assignment session in which the tutor reveals his/her opinion of the cohort’s general performance.

Once I’ve done my essay that’s it, I’ve done it and it’s in and that’s it, I just care if I’ve passed or not, but I don’t think about it This is the instrumental/superficial approach to learning that we as tutors deplore. However we have to consider that rather than battling against it, we do need to appreciate that the very systems of assessment feedback, such as the vague exhortations on feedback sheets, the rushed hand-back at the end of a seminar, and the limited time and opportunities for retrospective discussion, may actually encourage that very approach. What is also important to consider here is that whilst there is an ever-growing field of research into what makes students learn, what engages them with feedback, how they learn, and so on, we are still labouring under the impression that an optional, add-on essay writing workshop will somehow mop up the struggling minority who can’t keep up with their courses. Thus we need to address here how the very frameworks of our modules can exacerbate that assumption in the way we apparently give such a low priority to skills teaching ( cf Haggis 2006). Co-working amongst mutually supportive student study skills groups could incorporate a wider range of learning models than the dominant model of ‘private study’, as well as helping students foster a sense of belonging and community. It also makes retention of struggling students more likely thus maintaining student numbers. Making the processes of learning and assessment more transparent also empowers the student to find his or her ‘voice’ in academic culture as well as clarifying the assumptions behind the institutionalised voices s/he is struggling to comprehend. Our project starts to suggest that students feel alienated from their learning, and need to know how to learn, how to understand feedback, what to do with it, when to ask questions, what questions are appropriate to ask – and, ultimately, when to just get on with it.

Appendix One; Outcomes of previous project The Students’ Transition Report was successful in highlighting students’ attitudes to key aspects of current university life. Our recommendations arising from the findings have informed the current induction system and general teaching practices in the following ways:  Induction week now includes a welcome weekend  A personal tutoring system has now been implemented  Faculty implementation of Graduate development Programme  Presentation of findings informed discussions of good teaching practice at an HLSS Faculty Awayday 21st^ March 2006  Kate Brooks ran a teaching workshop informed by our findings, for new tutors at the MeCCSA Post-Graduate Conference at UWE in July 2007. Appendix Two; Dissemination of Project Findings These findings are being internally circulated within the University faculties, and both this and the previous project will inform two journal articles. The aims of this ongoing research are:

1. To make our findings available across faculties:
   • to inform tutors of what students expect and how they respond to feedback
   • to inform effective teaching practice within UWE
   • to support and inform extra-modular workshops on essay writing and other academic skills.

2. To continue writing up papers to contribute to field of teaching and learning

studies. It is expected that out of both projects we will write up a number of papers for publication, two are already in progress. One on the students’ transition experience (focusing on students’ investments in learning orientations), the second on students’ perceptions of effective and ineffective feedback, for the Art, Media and Design Higher Education Academy magazine, Networks.

3. To present conference papers for discussion: one paper on effective teaching practices and students’ perceptions was presented at the MeCCSA PG Conference, UWE 2007, and a further paper on students’ investments in learning has been accepted by the Social Policy and Social Work Conference on ‘University life uncovered’, November 2007.