Download
1 / 18
180 likes | 310 Views
Enhancing formative feedback in large cohort modules: a case study from CARBS. by Cemil Selcuk Dept . of Economics Cardiff Business School. Outline. Rankings: Feedback is a major issue. This project: a controlled experiment Survey results and some analysis. Bristol, Cardiff, Lancaster.
E N D
Enhancing formative feedback in large cohort modules: a case study from CARBS by CemilSelcuk Dept. of Economics Cardiff Business School
Outline • Rankings: Feedback is a major issue. • This project: a controlled experiment • Survey results and some analysis
Bristol, Cardiff, Lancaster Teaching is OK Feedback is an issue..! Source: NSS – http://unistats.direct.gov.uk/
Large Modules • Econ modules (Micro, Macro, Econometrics, Money and Banking etc.) are taken by other business majors. • Providing feedback in large modules is a challenge. No magic solution..! • Most modules have tutorials, with less than 20 students in each session. • Idea: Involve TAs in the feedback process.
BS2550: Microeconomic Theory • Module size: >180 students • 14 Tutorials groups, 13-15 students each. 3 TAs • Students advised to solve questions before tutorials.
Feedback so far • Oral feedback in lectures and tutorials. • Answering questions via email. • Answers for past examinations. • Whole-class general feedback sheets (after Jan exams)
A controlled experiment • Treatment – 25% of students • One TA committed to this: “Submit your own solution before the tutorial and I’ll return them in two weeks with corrections.” • Participation was voluntary; no actual grading. • Control – 75% of students • Remaining TAs did not practice this (did not have to).
From Students’ Perspective • Voluntary participation; not graded. • Real effort by students. No incentive to cheat, so, monitoring is not an issue. • Self selection: students who care about feedback participate (Reduces hateful outliers in surveys, will come back to this).
From TA’s perspective Not a lot of extra work because: • A TA sees at most 50 students and not every student participates. • Spread over two weeks. • Nobody fights back for extra points. • Corrections can be brief if time is short.
Survey • Online survey at the end of the semester. • About 25% of all students were “treated”. • Question: Does the treatment make any difference on key feedback questions? • “I have received helpful feedback on my work.” • “Feedback (generic or individual) has helped me clarify things I did not understand.”
Results Seems to be working...!
Hateful Outliers • 1 = “I hate this course.” Usually accompanied by other 1s. • Occurs if “service received” falls below a certain threshold. • Treatment improved the score by reducing/eliminating outliers
Distribution of Scores • In the uncontrolled group there is a significant number of “angry customers”. • They’re the main reason why the average is low. • Upper tails are alike = little difference in the number of “happy customers”. Angry Customers 34% in total
Distribution of Scores • With the treatment the mass in the lower tail is eliminated and spread over. • Improving the average significantly..!
Other Questions • No difference in attendance to lectures or tutorials. • Every student in the treatment group attempted to solve the questions. • In the control group 26% did not make an attempt or, worse, did not even look at the questions.
Cardiff’s New Feedback Policy` • In line with the basic principles. • A good example for “feed-forward”.
Suggestions if rolled out • Applicable only if there are sufficiently many TAs. Compensation? • TAs may need training. The objective is providing feedback; not marking. • Should not have any weight in grading, • Monitoring becomes a serious issue. • Kills the incentive to put in own effort.
