1 / 13

FeedForward & Recursive Feedback for Practice Learning

FeedForward & Recursive Feedback for Practice Learning. Debbie Holmes On behalf of Dr Sandie Sandbrook & Karen Bartter. Evidence for Practice Learning. Develop a portfolio using PebblePad Have at least 1 piece of written evidence for each placement learning outcome (PLO)

channing-thompson
Download Presentation

FeedForward & Recursive Feedback for Practice Learning

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. FeedForward & Recursive Feedback for Practice Learning Debbie Holmes On behalf of Dr Sandie Sandbrook & Karen Bartter

  2. Evidence for Practice Learning • Develop a portfolio using PebblePad • Have at least 1 piece of written evidence for each placement learning outcome (PLO) • 18 PLOS = at least 18 unique pieces of evidence • Must include 4 reflections of 1500 words

  3. Students built their portfolios they learnt the system • Share with your mentor/mentors and your personal teacher • Not graded at that time, but required to pass practice

  4. The issues with the reflections: • Students did not understand feedback • Students did not know what was required • A full draft facility was in place resulting in feedback being written twice • First assignment due whilst on placement following only a short university block at start of course • Students often made the same mistakes across modules

  5. What was required • A more formalised formative process for the first reflection • Reduce the draft marking as all 4 reflections were being marked • A way of enhancing the assistance to help students to make sense of their practice learning • To create dialogue between personal teacher and student • To help the student understand the feedback

  6. The Process

  7. Successes • 53% (n=43) of the students raised their average grade for the 3 remaining reflections • 12% (28%) maintained the standard of the first • 19% (n=8) produced a lower average grade • Less marking of draft work • More formalised formative process • Early identification of students at risk

  8. Successes • The cohorts involved in the process have demonstrated improved grades with reflective writing compared to those students who had the full draft facility for all of the reflections • The students had reduced journeys to University on days off or after shifts as no collection of work required and the tutors visited the placement area for the face to face meeting

  9. Non proven & unexpected gains Even the students who received a B grade wished to try for an A Taking a student out of the process if the work was really poor enabled focussed support early in the programme Students appear to appreciate the annual review of all of the feedback

  10. Added value • Where mentors were actively involved by reading and providing feedback to students in PebblePad there was evidence of learning for them too • The tripartite approach to supporting the student was enhanced and more transparent

  11. Where are we now and where are we going? • The process remains in the new curriculum • Has worked well with an essay too • Portfolio now graded • PP3 could make the process more efficient as the workspace pause function would be a useful tool

More Related