Skip to content
Skip to navigation menu

Feedback rich assignments

Feedforward assignments
Collaboration as a source of feedback
On-display learning as a proxy for feedback

Traditional ways of providing feedback have inevitably come under searching scrutiny in the wake of widespread evidence of student dissatisfaction. But it has also prompted a root-and-branch reappraisal of the learning-teaching and assessment practices that give rise to feedback. These practices include the conditions under which coursework assignments have typically taken place — conditions which, it needs to be acknowledged, may hinder as much as kindle the generation of rich feedback.

One potentially constraining factor is that feedback may mark the end of a transaction rather than a step in an ongoing process of development. The feedback can convey to a student what has been done well and what could be improved, but if the assignment came towards the end of a course (as it frequently does), there may be no direct or imminent opportunity to try to put the resulting feedback to good use (Hounsell et al., 2008).

Two further hindrances are that assignments have traditionally been undertaken outside of timetabled classes, by students working on their own, as well as being privately submitted to and returned by tutors (Hounsell, 1997). In consequence, students don’t have the opportunity to learn from and with one another as they work on their assignments, nor to widen their appreciation of disciplinary standards by seeing one another’s completed and assessed work subsequently (unless they happen to have a good friend on the same course).

Finding ways of lessening these hindrances opens up the possibility of assignments which are much richer in the feedback they generate. Feed-forward assignments are designed with a built-in opportunity for students to put the feedback to immediate use (Carless, 2007). Forms of on-display learning such as oral and poster presentations ensure that students’ completed work is openly visible (Hounsell and McCune, 2003); while collaborative assignments enable students to learn from their peers as they work together on a shared task (Hounsell, 2007).

FURTHER READING

Carless, D. (2007). Learning-oriented assessment: conceptual bases and practical implications. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 44.1, pp. 57–66  http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/routledge/14703297.html

Hounsell, D. (1997) Contrasting Conceptions of Essay-Writing. In: Marton, F., Hounsell, D. and Entwistle, N. The Experience of Learning. 2nd rev. edn. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press. pp. 106-125. Available to download at: http://www.tla.ed.ac.uk/resources/EoL.html

Hounsell, D. (2007). Towards more sustainable feedback to students. In: Boud, D. and Falchikov, N., eds. Rethinking Assessment in Higher Education. Learning for the Longer Term. London: Routledge, pp. 101-113.

Hounsell, D. and McCune, V. (2003) Students’ Experiences of Learning to Present. In: Rust, C., ed.. Improving Student Learning Theory and Practice ­– Ten Years On. Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Improving Student Learning, Brussels, 2002. Oxford: CSLD. pp. 109-118

Hounsell, D., McCune, V., Hounsell, J. and Litjens, J. (2008) The quality of guidance and feedback to students. Higher Education Research & Development, 27.1, pp. 55-67. http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/carfax/07294360.html

Feedforward assignments

In fields such as engineering – from which the term ‘feedback’ was imported into education – feedback entails both diagnosis and remediation, i.e. not just an evaluation of the extent to which a given standard has been met, but also the taking of action to address any shortcomings.  And increasingly, experts on assessment in education have been highlighting the necessity of this interrelationship. Paul Black and his colleagues, for example, have argued that feedback can only serve learning fully “if it involves both the evoking of evidence and a response to that evidence by using it in some way to improve the learning” (Black et al., 2003, p. 122). Royce Sadler makes a similar point in setting out the ‘indispensable conditions’ under which feedback can lead to an improvement in the quality of student learning:

“The learner has to (a) possess a concept of the standard (or goal, or reference level) being aimed for, (b) compare the actual (or current) level of performance with the standard, and (c) engage in appropriate action which leads to some closure of the gap.”  (Sadler, 1989, p. 121)

But in 21st century higher education, feedback to undergraduate students is frequently after-the-fact and only indirectly linked to follow-up action by the students concerned. And since assignments and assessments tend to cluster towards the ends of semesters, it may be difficult for the students to spot where and when the next opportunity may arise to put that kind of feedback to good use.  In consequence (and however well-crafted it may be), the potential impact of the feedback is inherently constrained.  Contrast this with postgraduate research supervision, where feedback can have a much greater and more visible impact because it is typically given on an evolving draft – of, say, an initial research design, an analysis of emerging findings, or a thesis chapter in-the-making.  Supervisors’ comments can therefore ‘feed forward’ directly into refinements and revisions of the ongoing work.

Against this background, some undergraduate course teams have been devising ‘feedforward assignments’ that have a built-in connection between diagnosis and remedial action. Generally speaking, this involves creating a recursive cycle or ‘feedback loop’ (QAA, 2006, p. 10) in the sequence draftcomment – revise – resubmit.  The draft itself can be a full or near-complete draft of an assignment, or it might take the form of an initial outline or plan, an extended summary, or simply an opening page or two.

For the student, the advantages a feed-forward assignment offers are ‘low-stakes’ practice on assessable work and benefiting directly from feedback in a way that contributes to a subsequent formal mark or grade.  However, feed-forward assignments can bring forward deadlines in ways that may be difficult for a student to accommodate alongside other workload commitments.  Hence submitting a draft for comment may be optional rather than a mandatory course requirement, and in two of the current examples of feedforward assignments (Covic and Jones, 2008; Prowse et al, 2007), about half of the students opted to do so.

Kathy Pezdek describes the benefits of students revising their written work:

“The process of revising a paper requires students to rethink the organizational structure of their paper and how each paragraph fits within that organizational structure. It also requires them to play with language, to think about alternative ways of articulating a point, and then to decide which of these alternatives is preferable and why. This is the experience that is more likely to produce polished writing, the type of writing that will be required of them in a professional setting.”  (Pezdek, 2009, p.3)

Nonetheless, commenting on drafts may add worryingly to staff workloads unless avoiding action is taken. One strategy is a straight trade-off between ‘feedback first’ and ‘feedback last’.  Teachers give students the choice between pre-submission and post-submission comment, but not both.  Or they truncate post-submission comment to create time for pre-submission notes on an outline, plan or opening page. Alternatively, as in the case of an initiative at the University of Sydney (McCreery, 2005), pre-submission commenting on plans and outlines can be integrated into tutorials.

CASE EXAMPLES

Bharuthram, S. and McKenna, S. (2006) A writer-respondent interventionas a means of developing academic literacy. Teaching in Higher Education 11(4), pp.495-507.

In two university departments (Clothing Technology and Somatology) respondents were appointed to read assignments before submision and draw students’ attention to the academic norms of writing in their subject area, without editing or correcting the students’ work.  http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/13562517.asp

Covic, T. and Jones, M. (2008) Is the essay resubmission option a formative or a summative assessment and does it matter as long as the grades improve? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 33(1), pp.75-85.

Psychology students were given the opportunity to resubmit essays following feedback. 18 out of 26 resubmitted essays achieved higher grades.  http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/carfax/02602938.html

Duncan, N. (2007) ‘Feed-forward’: improving students’ use of tutors’ comments. Assessment & Evaluation in HIgher Education 32(3), pp.271-283.

Comments sheets from previous assignments were analysed by staff for recurring advice to individual students. This was then synthesised to provide individual learning plans for the students’ forthcoming assignments.  http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/carfax/02602938.html

Jenkins, J.O. (2010) A multi-faceted formative assessment approach: better recognising the learning needs of students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 35(5), 565-576

An Environmental Studies course was changed to give students one summatively-assessed assignment. Alongside this more formative guidance and feedback was provided, including a tutorial on writing the assignment and feedback on assignment outlines.  http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/carfax/02602938.html

McCreery, C. (2005) Less is more: rethinking assessment in a first-year History unit. Synergy 22. University of Sydney Institute for Teaching and Learning

Cindy McCreery has reported her attempts to refashion History coursework at Sydney University to help  first-year students to improve their essay-writing abilities. Two separate assignments, an analysis of a journal article analysis and a long essay, were replaced with a three-staged essay assignment comprising a draft essay plan, a bibliography and final version of the essay, interleaved with group discussion.  To aid this process, tutorials were refocused and students joined a tutorial group for the particular essay topic they had chosen.  http://www.itl.usyd.edu.au/synergy/article.cfm?articleID=265

Peat, M., Franklin, S., and Taylor, C. (2005). Application of ICT to provide feedback to support learning in first-year science. In: McLoughlin, C., and Taji, A. Teaching in the Sciences Learner-Centered Approaches. New York, London and Oxford: Food Producets Press. pp. 157-175.

At the University of Sydney, a writing learning cycle was developed in first-year Biology to emphasize the links between communicating through writing and understanding the biological concepts. The stages of the writing cycle involves: planning and preparation, in which students worked in groups to review examples of writing; individual writing up by students; a formative feedback from the teacher; lastly, revision and submission for the final report for summative assessment. An online seminar was also used to supported the process of writing.

Pezdek, K. (2009) Grading student papers: reducing faculty workload while improving feedback to students. Association for Psychological Science Observer 22(9)
This article suggests coding and reusing common comments used in feedback. It also describes a process for having students proofread each others assignments. http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/getArticle.cfm?id=2578

Prowse, S., Duncan, N., Hughes, J. and Burke, D. (2007) ‘…Do that and I’ll raise your grade’. Innovative module design and recursive feedback. Teaching in Higher Education 12(4), pp.437-445.

In a first-semester Education course, students were asked to submit a draft, discuss the feedback on this first draft and then resubmit.  http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/13562517.asp

Reed, R. and McKie-Bell, F. (2007) Using feedback to enhance referencing skills. Centre for Bioscience Bulletin No. 22, p.4
Following poor student performance in citation and referencing, each student on a first-year Bioscience course was required to post details of a website on a discussion board so that referencing skills could be checked.  http://www.bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/bulletin.aspx

Smythe, D.M. (2006). Research paper assignments that prevent plagiarism. In Carless, D. et al. (ed.) How Assessment Supports Learning: Learning-Oriented Assessment in Action. Section 3.1.  Hong Kong: Hong Kong UP.

A progressive process for writing an assigned research paper was introduced in the Sociology and Criminology Department at St. Mary’s University in Canada.  It follows the stages first draft/ feedback on first draft / final draft /marking. By creating a feedback loop, students have more time to reflect on and learn from constructive feedback within the context of their end-of-term assignments.  And in consequence, there has been a dramatic reduction in unintentional student plagiarism, while the pressure has lessened to produce work at the last minute.

Yu, F.Y.Y. (2006). Staged assessment and feedback. In Carless, D. et al. (ed.) How Assessment Supports Learning: Learning-Oriented Assessment in Action. Section 3.37. Hong Kong: Hong Kong UP.

In the Hong Kong Institute of Education, a single substantial assignment was turned into six more manageable, small assignments, forming a cycle that followed the phases learning/assessing/re-learning/. The initiative proved beneficial in  scaffolding students’ understanding and enabling them to consolidate what they had learned.

Collaboration as a source of feedback

As defined here, a collaborative assignment is a set task on which two or more students work cooperatively, and which results in some kind of interim or finished output (whether interim or in its final form) for which the students concerned are jointly responsible and which will be informally evaluated or formally assessed.

Like on-display learning by students, collaborative assignments can serve as a proxy for or complement to traditional feedback in the form of a tutor’s or lecturer’s comments or model answers.  They can have this effect because they furnish opportunities for students to “learn from and with each other in pooling not only perspectives and insights but strategies for tackling such tasks – for example, ways of dissecting a question, marshalling evidence, deciding on an optimal structure for a draft of an exposition or analysis, bringing an argument to a decisive conclusion” (Hounsell, 2007).

Coming face-to-face with a range of other students’ ‘moves’ or solutions to problems of procedure, analysis or communication “incidentally expands their own repertoire of moves” (Sadler, 1989, p. 140).  At the same time, collaborative assignments can function like directly accessible exemplars, which can be especially helpful to students with limited scope to mix and confer with other students outwith timetabled classes because they live off-campus, or are juggling academic studies with a part-time job or the care of dependents (Hounsell, 2008).

Collaboration may take the form of jointly working on plans or proposals, co-revising assignments, editing and redrafting, joint poster or oral presentations, and with peer feedback as a specific step in the process or simply interwoven thoroughout.  Opportunities for students to collaborate productively are being widened by emerging forms of ‘social software’ such as wikis and blogs, which can promote “a rich dialogue in relation to feedback and peer- and self-assessment activities which, by their nature, place the student at the centre of the educational process as an active participant in constructing knowledge” (Hatzipanagos and Warburton, 2009).

Where some aspect of the collaborative work is assessed, a common approach is to combine a group mark from the tutor with a mark for each group member individually. Reviewing studies of approaches to group work, Davis (2009) suggests that the most productive form of group task is additive, i.e. where each group member has a distinct, essential and identifiable contribution to make to a composite whole.  Other forms of group task are more likely to lead to ‘free-riding’, where some group members do not pull their weight, with the consequent risk of ‘the sucker effect’ when even the active members of the group become disenchanted at carrying an inequitable load and scale

CASE EXAMPLES

Asghar, A. (2010) Reciprocal peer coaching and its use as a formative assessment strategy for first-year students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 35(4), 403-417

First-year Physiotherapy students used reciprocal peer coaching to learn skills. Each student needed to be successful for the group to succeed. The effects of RPC on motivation are discussed.  http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/carfax/02602938.htm

Barbera, E. (2009) Mutual feedback in e-portfolio assessment: an approach to the netfolio system. British Journal of Educational Technology 40(2), pp.342-357

A network of e-portfolios was introduced to PhD students taking a research methodology course. The system allowed students to evaluate each others’ work.  http://www.wiley.com/bw/journal.asp?ref=0007-1013

Hamer, J. (2009) Collaboration and reflection in software engineering. In: Nicol, D. Transforming assessment and feedback: enhancing integration and empowerment in the first year. Case study 4, p.68. Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.  http://www.enhancementthemes.ac.uk/themes/FirstYear/outcomes.asp

Hargreaves, E. (2007) The validity of collaborative assessment for learning. Assessment in Education 14(2), pp.185-199  http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/0969594x.asp

Hatzipanagos, S. and Warburton, S. (2009).  Feedback as dialogue: exploring the links between formative assessment and social software in distance learningLearning, Media and Technology, 34(1) pp. 45-59

This paper discusses how social software, such as wikis and blogs, may best support effective feedback.  http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/17439884.asp

Johnston, C., James, R., Lye, J. and McDonald, I. (2000) An evaluation of collaborative problem solving for learning economics. Journal of Economic Education 31(1), pp.13-29

This article describes the introduction of a collaborative, problem-solving approach to learning in Economics.  http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/00220485.asp

Johnston, C. and Olekalns, N. (2002) Enriching the learning experience: a CALM approach. Studies in Higher Education 27(1), pp.103-119

Students studying Economics were asked to respond online to a series of ‘issues’. These responses were then critically commented on by other students. This enables students to view other students’ work, and give and receive feedback.  http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/carfax/03075079.html

McLoughlin, C. and Luca, J. (2002) A learner-centred approach to developing team skills through web-based learning and assessment. British Journal of Educational Technology 33(5), pp.571-582  http://www.wiley.com/bw/journal.asp?ref=0007-1013

Molyneaux, T. (2008) An investigation into the impact of using group wikis to facilitate project based learning in the first year of an engineering degree programme. Paper presented at the Higher Education Academy Annual Conference, July 2008.

A case study from Engineering where wikis were introduced to support group work.

http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/events/annualconference/2008/  Ann_conf_2008_Tom_Molyneaux

Nicol, D. (2009) Assessment for learner self-regulation: enhancing achievement in the first year using learning technologies. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 34(3), pp.335-352.

This paper includes a case study of a Psychology course which was redesigned so that the students worked collaboratively in groups online.  http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/carfax/02602938.htm

Northumbria University. Case Study 3 – Engineering. Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning in Assessment for Learning, Northumbria University.

A case study from a year 2 Computer Networks module, where students worked collaboratively on group projects which were assessed by group presentations and individual reflective commentaries. Peer feedback was given on the presentations.  http://www.northumbria.ac.uk/sd/central/ar/academy/cetl_afl/pubandpres/intpub/casestudies/

Orr, S. (2010) Collaborating or fighting for the marks? Students’ experiences of group work assessment in the creative arts. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 35(3), pp.301-313

This paper explores the tensions that may arise when Creative Arts students are assessed on how they work as a group as well as the outcome of the groupwork.  http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/carfax/02602938.html

Wheeler, S. and Wheeler, D. (2009) Using wikis to promote quality learning in teacher training. Learning, Media and Technology 34(1), pp.1-10

Wikis were used to improve the writing skills of Education students and provide a shared environment in which to discuss their work.  http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/17439884.asp

FURTHER READING

Davis, B.G. (1993) Collaborative learning: group work and study teams. From: B.G. Davis Tools for Teaching. University of California, Berkeley  http://teaching.berkeley.edu/bgd/collaborative.html

Davis, W.M. (2009) Groupwork as a form of assessment: common problems and recommended solutions. Higher Education 58(4), pp.563-584  http://www.springer.com/education+%26+language/higher+education/journal/10734

Hounsell, D. (2003). Student feedback, learning and development, in Slowey, M. and Watson, D. (eds.) Higher Education and the Lifecourse.  Buckingham: SRHE & Open UP, pp. 67-78.

Hounsell, D. (2007). Towards more sustainable feedback to students.  In: Boud, D. and Falchikov, N., eds. Rethinking Assessment in Higher Education. Learning for the Longer Term. London: Routledge, pp. 101-113.

Hounsell, D. (2008) The trouble with feedback: new challenges, emerging strategiesInterchange 2, pp. 1-10.   http://www.tla.ed.ac.uk/interchange/

Sadler, D.R. (1989) Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science,18 (2), 119-144.
Feedback is defined in a particular way to highlight its function in formative assessment. This paper argues that the key premise for effective feedback for student to improve is that they must develop the capacity to monitor the quality of their own work during actual production. And such skills can be developed by providing direct authentic evaluative experience for students by the instructional systems which make explicit provision for such acquisition. http://www.springerlink.com/content/102905/

On-display learning as a proxy for feedback

Almost a decade ago, a study of university students’ experiences of giving oral presentations brought a fascinating finding into the spotlight. Witnessing one another’s presentations had opened the students’ eyes to alternative ways of presenting similar material, and prompted them to think about what strategies made for an effective presentation  (Hounsell and McCune, 2003).  In other words, observation had acted as a feedback proxy or complement, augmenting the more traditional comments from a lecturer or tutor.  It could also contribute to connoisseurship, nurturing the students’ grasp of what counts as high-quality work in the subject, and thus enhancing their capacity to interpret and make use of feedback from staff (Sadler, 1989, 1998).

Much later came the realisation that this kind of on-display learning has long been well-established in studio- and workshop- based subjects such as architecture and art and design, where the ‘crit’ ­– an open discussion by a tutor or the work of each student in a group – is a familiar feature (see for example, Sara and Parnell, 2004).  And Sadler noted:

“In the manual, visual and performing arts … students are usually able to observe, as a matter of course, the results of other students’ efforts together with the teachers’ appraisals of those efforts, simply because the work is produced in workshops, studios, theatres and other open environments.  The best examples, or perhaps exemplary material developed outside the classroom, serve naturally and unobtrusively as reference points.  In the liberal arts and humanities, however, student often work privately, and do not get to see or read what other students have produced.  What constitutes work of high quality then remains to some extent unknown.”  (Sadler, 1989, p.129)

A highly pertinent question is whether feedback in a wider range of subject areas (the students in the study were from the physical sciences, humanities and social sciences) could be boosted by greater use of on-display learning? And what scope would there be for sharing across a student group the essays, reports and other written work that in many subject areas is privately submitted and privately returned?  Some possibly ways of taking this forward would be:

  • informally encouraging students to share their assessed work (including feedback comments) with one another
  • more formally, creating space within a timetabled class for ongoing or completed work to be shared and discussed
  • making use of peer feedback to enable students to learn to evaluate one another’s work
  • redesigning tutorials so that at certain key points – developing an initial plan, drafting the opening pages – students share and discuss what they have been working on (see the case example by McCreery)
  • developing a bank of exemplars to make more accessible to students contrasting examples of work in the subject at a given level
  • making greater use of collaborative learning assignments.

CASE EXAMPLES

Akister, J., Bannon, A. and Mullender-Lock, H. (2000) Poster Presentations in Social Work Education Assessment: a Case Study. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 37(3), pp. 229 – 233

In Social Work the ability to verbally support assessments undertaken in the workplace is an important skill which is not usually assessed. Using a poster presentation as an assessment strategy has offered some unexpected opportunities in this area since the students have to respond to questions from the assessors based on the material presented in the poster. This case study describes the experience of using posters for assessment and includes feedback from students who chose the option of presenting a poster and those who did not.  http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/routledge/14703297.html

Bracher, L. (1998) The process of poster presentation: a valuable learning experience. The Medical Teacher, 20(6) pp. 552-557

This paper describes the formative use of poster presentation in a Nursing Studies programme. At this early developmental stage poster presentation has proved to be as successful an assessment strategy as the traditional essay and students report poster creation and presentation to be a novel and engaging experience. Teacher experience shows that despite the intensity of the assessment procedure, observing the emergence of analytical debate and creative achievements of students is an exhilarating and worthwhile experience.  http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713438241

Dannels, D., Gaffney, A. and Martin, K. (2008) Beyond content, deeper than delivery: what critique feedback reveals about communication expectations in design education. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 2(2)
This article discusses how feedback to students studying Design gives students information about communication skills as well as content.  http://academics.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl/

Hounsell, D. and McCune, V. (2003) Students’ Experiences of Learning to Present. In: Rust, C., ed.. Improving Student Learning Theory and Practice ­– Ten Years On.  Proceedings of the10th International Symposium on Improving Student Learning, Brussels, 2002.  Oxford: CSLD.  pp. 109-118.

Jarvis, L. and Cain, J. (2003) Posters and Oral Presentations in Undergraduate History of Science. PRS-LTSN Journal, 2.2, pp. 50-72.  http://prs.heacademy.ac.uk/view.html/PrsDiscourseArticles/125

Johnston, C. and Olekalns, N. (2010) Enriching the learning experience: a CALM approach. Studies in Higher Education 27(1), 103-119

Critical and Analytical Learning in Macroeconomics (CALM) is an internet-based subject delivery and assessment system. Amongst other attributes, it allows students to read and comment on each others’ work.  http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/carfax/03075079.html

McCreery, C. (2005) Less is more: rethinking assessment in a first-year History unit. Synergy 22. University of Sydney Institute for Teaching and Learning

Cindy McCreery has reported her attempts to refashion history coursework at Sydney University to help  first-year students to improve their essay-writing abilities. Two separate assignments, an analysis of a journal article analysis and a long essay, were replaced with a three-staged essay assignment comprising a draft essay plan, a bibliography and final version of the essay, interleaved with group discussion.  To aid this process, tutorials were refocused and students joined a tutorial group for the particular essay topic they had chosen.  http://www.itl.usyd.edu.au/synergy/article.cfm?articleID=265

Nicol, D. (2008) Encouraging time on task in first year biology. Case Study 3 in: Transforming Assessment and Feedback: Enhancing Integration and Empowerment in the First Year. QAA Enhancement Themes.

Students work in groups to produce posters and to argue for the extinction from the planet of their chosen species.  http://www.enhancementthemes.ac.uk/themes/FirstYear/outcomes.asp

Reimann, N. Getting to grips: using posters for formative feedback. Signpost Leaflet 9. Northumbria University: CETL in Assessment for Learning.
A short example of English Language students giving each other feedback on posters.
http://www.northumbria.ac.uk/cetl_afl/resources/signposts/

Sara, R. and Parnell, R. (2004) The review process. CEBE Briefing Guide No. 3, Higher Education Academy Centre for Education in the Built Environment.
Guidelines for giving feedback to students through ‘crits’, where students present their work to peers, tutors and others, particularly in subjects such as Architecture.
http://www.cebe.heacademy.ac.uk/publications/briefguides/list.php

FURTHER READING

Sadler, D.R. (1989) Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems, Instructional Science,18 (2), 119-144.
Feedback is defined in a particular way to highlight its function in formative assessment. This paper argues that the key premise for effective feedback for student to improve is that they must develop the capacity to monitor the quality of their own work during actual production. And such skills can be developed by providing direct authentic evaluative experience for students by the instructional systems which make explicit provision for such acquisition.  http://www.springerlink.com/content/102905/

Sadler, D.R. (1998) Formative assessment: revisiting the territory. Assessment in Education, 5 (1), 77-84.
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/0969594x.asp

Comments are closed.