“Why haven’t you written on my work?”

2. “Why haven’t you written on my work?” Using audio for feedback on learning – an experiment to incorporate podcasted feedback into regular assessment methods. Warren Kidd Leader in Learning and Teaching Cass School of Education and Communities University of East London

3. Context • Teacher education pedagogy; • Well used and successful podcasting practice already in place (see Kidd, 2012; Nie, 2007); • ‘Assessment for Learning’ (Black and Wiliam, 1998); • This project follows themes and strategies raised in the keynote at UEL’s Annual Learning, Teaching and Assessment Conference in Summer 2010 provided by Professor Derek France, University of Chester - "Bringing Digital Technologies into Teaching and Assessment". (See also Ribchester, C., France, D., Wakefield, K., (2008) ‘It was just like a personal tutorial’: Using podcasts to provide assessment feedback’(Dept. of Geography and Development Studies, University of Chester)Paper presented at the Higher Education Academy Conference, July 2008)

6. Context • The centrality of the nature and quality of feedback and assessment in ‘shaping the student experience’ is well documented (Brown, 2005). • Existing research evidence suggests that audio developmental feedback can be used to improve the student experience (see Ribchester et. al., 2008). • It was believed – and now confirmed - that the use of audio tools/podcasts to provide individual and group feedback allows students to respond favourably to ‘assessment dialogues’ (Carless, 2006) and to engage with feedback and assessment in a more profound way.

7. Spirit of the project At the onset, it was conceived that audio tools could: • Provide formative assessment; • Provide summative assessment which nonetheless supports future learning turning summative assessment into formative learning; • Used in a bespoke fashion when commenting on individual submissions/postings or pieces of submitted work; • Engage whole groups in ‘broad brush’ summaries of work, findings, local practices and learning.

8. 2 key pieces of reflective practice • Lots of time and consideration spent over the creation of a ‘podagogy’ (Rosell-Aguilar, 2007) template for structuring the recordings; • Use of regular dialogue between colleagues to provide feedback on the early stages of making sample recordings.

9. Review • Middle assignment for FT cohort – 37 students • Last two assignments (packaged together) for second year PT cohort – 19 students • Early assignment (on assessment) for the year one PT cohort – 17 students Totals • 73 students • Making a total of 165 4-6 minute recordings between two members of staff

10. Review • All 73 students undertook an individual 2 minute ‘reflective writing’ exercise before any other discussion took place regarding the recordings; • 3 focus groups – one per each cohort – with 8 learners in each (self selected); • Informal and ongoing conversations (and with mentors too); • 15 learners in the FT cohort also complete an online ‘survey monkey’.

11. “The audio feedback was enjoyable to listen to as well as providing me with a more considered and reflective response to the assignment. I found that I was much more contemplative as I listened, and open to the comments, suggestions, making links which I might not have done had the feedback been textual.”

12. “I liked the audio feedback, I listened to it in the office while I was checking my emails. I liked that I could hear the tone I which comments were delivered as it is easy to misinterpret written feedback. I also think I paid more attention to the points given as on paper. I would tend to pay more attention to the pass/fail rather than the feedback in the past.”

13. “I thought audio was better as I could remember it better; can recall comments easier. It was much more personal and I thought much more concise. I was in my front room when I listened to it and that atmosphere was interesting – like having UEL in my home.”

14. Challenges • Some initial concern from some learners about the technology involved; • Location of receiving the audio – for some problematic and for others a benefit; • Misunderstanding regarding the relationship between the audio and traditional annotation on scripts; • Reliance upon email – fixes the length; • Skill/familiarity/ease of use for staff.

15. References Black, P. and Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards through Classroom Assessment. London: nferNelson. Brown, S. (2005). ‘Assessment for learning’, Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1, 81-89. Carless, D. (2006). ‘Differing perceptions in the feedback process’, Studies in Higher Education, 31, 219-233. Kidd, M. (2012). ‘Utilising podcasts for learning and teaching: a review and ways forward for e-Learning cultures’, Management in Education, 26(2) 52–57. Nie, M. (2007). Podcasting for GEES Subjects. Paper presented at the IMPALA 2 workshop, Dec 2007. Ribchester, C., France, D., Wakefield, K., (2008). ‘It was just like a personal tutorial’: Using podcasts to provide assessment feedback’(Dept. of Geography and Development Studies, University of Chester)Paper presented at the Higher Education Academy Conference, July 2008. Rosell-Aguilar, F. (2007). 'Top of the Pods – In Search of a Podcasting 'Podagogy' for Language Learning’, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 5(20) 471-492.