Assessment and Feedforward: Exploring Group Assessment and the Usefulness of Feedforward in University

1. Assessment and FeedforwardUoH L&T Conference 2015 Bob Stead & Paul Smith

2. The current studies – (Level 5 Organisational Psychology) • Two studies spanning the last two years (2013/2014 & 2014/2-15) to explore: • The issues related to group assessment • The usefulness of feedforward • These two issues have NSS and implications • Students offered the opportunity of submitting draft chapters. • Written and face-to-face feedback in dedicated tutorials • The assumption was that students would engage at an early stage and produce high quality reports

3. MeasuresThe Guardian Higher Education Network • Group functioning – E.g. Solutions were developed, Attempts were made to resolve issues (loosely based on Tuckman & Jensen). • Student assessment preference • Anxiety and Depression (Fletcher 1999) • Assessment issues ( E.g. deadlines, feedback, clarity, assessment demands) • Psychological safety - An original scale constructed by Stead (2007) which attempts to measure self-image from an internal and external perspective. Deemed to be associated with social and emotional intelligence. Example items: I feel insecure, I feel I let myself down, I feel hurt because people don’t praise me, I fall out with people. • Assessment grades • Feedback take-up

4. Findings related to feedback/feedforwardThe Guardian Higher Education Network • Feedback did not help some students achieve what they originally indicated would be a desirable grade. • Mean grade for the 2013/2014 study was 50%. For 2014/2015 it was 54%. 2012/2013 students achieved 53% (without feedforward) Table 1. Advice given/acted upon (2013/2014) • Feedback assessed with regard to advice given in draft ,& advice acted upon in final report (r = .79, p<0.01) • The higher grade reports did utilise the feedback. • A box of management reports to be dumped in the bin

5. The findingsThe Guardian Higher Education Network 2013/2015 2014/2015 • Borderline Clinical & Clinical levels of Anxiety 32% 36% • Borderline Clinical & Clinical levels of Depression 11% 24%

6. Group assessment (2013/2014)The Guardian Higher Education Network Table 2. Student assessment preference Individual assessment 46% Mixed assessment 32% Group assessment 22% Table 3. Assessment preference & achievement (based on mean grades for all 1st and 2nd year grades) Exam Group Individual Mixed Individual preference 59.2 57.1 66.1 62.1 Mixed preference 53.0 64.2 55.3 56.3 Group preferences 57.0 59.4 57.0 59.3

7. Assessment preference and psychological factors (2013/2014)The Guardian Higher Education Network Table 4. Assessment preference & personal characteristics (%) Individual Mixed Group Preference preference preference Psychological Safety 63 77 75 Group functioning’ 64 78 75

8. How individual factors are associated with assessmentThe Guardian Higher Education Network Table 5. Personal factors and coursework assessment grades (2013/2104) Coursework grade x Psychological safety r = .45 p<0.007 Coursework grade x Anxiety r = -.41 p<0.01 Group assessment x Group functioning r = .56 p<0.000 Table 6. Personal factors and coursework assessment grades (2014/2015) Psychologically safe students significantly higher on assessment total (F = 8.4, df = 1, p,0.005) Coursework 57% vs 60% Exam 50% vs 60%

9. University for some, is an unsafe place (2014/2015) • Students in the low psychologically safe group perceive the world differently and more negatively compared to the the high psychologically safe group. • Knowing how to go about getting things done (F = 5.7, df = 1, p<0.019) • Unachievable deadlines (F = 7.9, df = 1, p<0.006 • Friction between fellow students (F = 14. 6, df = 1, p<0.000) • Taking responsibility for learning (F = 3.7. df = 1, p<0.05) • Good at meeting deadlines (F = 9.9, df = 1, p<0.002) • Managing time (F = 4.3, df = 1, p<0.04 • Self discipline (F = 7.2, df = 1, p<o.009) • Motivated by assessment deadlines ( F = 5.9, df = 1, p<0.017)

10. The implications - Feedback • Students who utilise feedback do achieve higher grades BUT: • Too many students do not appear to have a clue with regard to what feedback is or how to use it • Feedback is expensive. The feedback I give to my students costs me, not the university • A resource issue • Despite evidence of student’s thirst for feedback, students do not necessarily read it (Price, Handley, Miller & O’Donovan2010) and may not understand it or use it (Gibbs & Simpson 2004) • It seems that students do not understand feedback beyond a grade? • A major NSS issue? Why?

11. The implications - Anxiety/psychological safety • Anxiety and psychological safety are both related to assessment • Anxiety associated with how students perceive their environment • Anxious and psychologically unsafe students more likely to see the environment in a negative way • NSS implications? • The personal impact on students in their daily lives • It has been acknowledged that psychological distress in university students is increasing both in severity and incidence (Association of University and College Counselling, 2004; Stallman 2010) • We assume that students come her with the skills to learn and engage with others in a fearless manner. Most do not

12. The implications – Group funtioning and employability • It appears that although students hold the necessary qualifications, they do in the main lack the ‘soft skills’ required by employers (Archer & Davison 2008). • The two most sought after skills by employers which are utilised in group assessment • Communication • Team working • It is well know that students dislike group assessment (UHSU local survey) • Should we educate our student's with regard to what they need rather than what they think they need ?

13. References Association of University and College Counselling (2004). Annual survey of counselling in further and higher education 2002/03. Rugby: British Association of Counselling and Psychotherapy Fletcher, B (C). (1999). The Cultural Audit Gibbs, et al. (2004). Developing Students Transferable Skills. (Oxford, The Oxford Center for Staff Development Gibbs, G. & Simpson, C. (2004). Conditions under which assessment supports student’s learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1, no. 1, 1-31 Stallman, H.M. (2010). Psychological distress in university students: A comparison with general population data. Australian Psychologist, 45, 249-257 Price, M.K., Handley, K. & O’Donovan (2010). Feedback: All that effort but what is the effect? Paper presented at the 4th EARLI/Northumbria Conference: Challenging Assessment, August 8th, Berlin, Germany Stead, R. W. (2007). If to Love is Human and to be Human is to Love, Where are all the Humans? Human Mind – Human Kind Conference, Aarhus Demark.