Go to the Students section
Go to the Staff section
Go to the Alumni section
Go to the Study here section
Go to the International section
Go to the About section
Go to the Research section
Go to the Business and Employers section
Go to the Support us section
Charlotte E Taylor, School of Biological Sciences, University of Sydney, Australia
Session 4b, Tuesday 16.00
Feedback is an integral part of the Writing in Biology programme at the University of Sydney, playing a key formative role in the development of academic writing skills. This aspect of the learning process has been extensively evaluated and refined over the past 10 years (Taylor and Drury 2004, Ellis et al 2005), and its importance continues to be highlighted even in a period of cut-backs in face to face teaching. Although the provision of useful feedback is acknowledged as essential by both teachers and students (Orsmond et al 2005), there are logistical challenges in giving individual feedback to 1,000 students during their assignment writing. It is therefore crucial that we understand the effect of feedback on student learning so that we can maintain the efficiency and efficacy of this student-teacher interaction (Lea 2004; O’Donovan et al 2004).
Quantitative data from 300 first year biology students on their perceptions of the feedback process and their approaches to use of feedback indicate that the feedback process is a positive experience, leading to increased confidence in writing abilities and flow-on effects to future assignments. However a majority of students still approach their writing as a technical process divorced from the learning and understanding of biology, and do not indicate any engagement in reflection and review (Ellis at al 2006). Students acknowledge that that they generally make few to moderate changes, mainly associated with tidying up the text, but with little change to explanations.
With the advent of electronic submission of assignments (Laurillard 2002), and use of plagiarism software to check for cheating, we have the opportunity to analyse reports in draft and final presentation mode. The plagiarism software Copyfind (http://plagiarism.phys.virginia.edu/Wsoftware.html) compared each of 50 draft and final reports, and identified sections of the report which had been changed in some way following the initial feedback session. A linguistic analysis characterised the extent and level of changes made to the text. A parallel content analysis determined the level of changes made to the biological explanations within the report. The results indicate that student approaches to working with feedback can be categorised as:
In most cases changes did not encompass major revision of the biological content to enhance argument and include new ideas. Neither did most changes involve a more sophisticated use of language to improve cohesion or explanation. Many of the feedback comments on such requirements appear to have little effect on student revision, presumably because students do not understand how to make such improvements.
The outcomes of this study have emphasised the need for extensive modelling of the ways in which feedback can be used to make improvements. Accommodating the needs of large student cohorts has necessitated the design of online models, showing the process of changing language and content based on feedback comments.