painteverything: listen (CC BY 2.0)
Some weeks ago I wrote about correction and feedback on student work in Moodle. There are three longer pieces of writing over the semester that I look at in detail and in that post I described what I do with the first piece of writing: use track changes for (what would conventionally be seen as) errors and comment bubbles for more general observations, suggestions and recommendations. And praise, although I should probably add more of that. In my comment bank there’s a category titled “Good stuff”, which only has (gulp) 3 points. In the interest of full disclosure, I have 10 categories in total and 4 of these have 3 points or fewer.
I’ve recently corrected the second longer piece of writing and wanted to describe how this differs from the first. I got the idea for this from Clare Maas’ talk on multimodal learner-driven feedback, which she writes about in this post. I definitely recommend watching the talk as well; I thought it was embedded in the post and Google suggests it’s available on the LTSIG website, but unfortunately I wasn’t able to access it in order to include a link here.
In our face-to-face sessions we usually have a brief discussion on what the students consider important in a piece of writing, what they think they already do well and which areas they feel they would like to improve in. As they work on their second longer piece – which is usually no longer than 500 words – they have the option of looking back at the F2F activity and choosing an area (or areas) they would like more detailed feedback on.
Once they’ve handed it in, I use the same procedure as with the first submission (track changes and comment bubbles) but those students who’ve requested feedback on a specific area also receive an audio recording, in which I address these more specific issues – hence multimodal.
In terms of the tech involved, I use Speakpipe or Vocaroo, both of which are simple and intuitive, and add the audio files to Moodle along with the corrected version of the students’ submissions. The recordings are often no more than 5 minutes long – particularly with Speakpipe which cuts me off after 5 minutes – and I think this is a good thing because it forces me to be succinct and not ramble on unnecessarily. Of course, if I haven’t made all the points I wanted to, I’ll make another recording. I often make brief notes about what I want to say to help me stay on track.
Students don’t have to request feedback in a specific area and generally there are more of those who don’t. Just to give you an idea, in this semester’s group 5 out of 13 did. It now occurs to me that I could have included a question on this in the learning journal. Ideas I’ve had so far on why someone may have opted out include:
- they don’t feel there’s any area they’re particularly good or bad at
- they haven’t had practice in assessing their writing critically
- they’ve put little effort into their submission (for whatever reason) and don’t feel comfortable with asking me to zero in on any aspect
- they’re happy with “traditional” correction because it’s what they’re used to
- they wouldn’t be taking the class anyway if it were optional, so they aren’t interested in feedback
On the other hand, re those who *do* ask for specific feedback, my guess is that they’re genuinely interested in the answer and will take the time to listen to the recording. I don’t let the students know beforehand that some of them will be receiving audio comments, so I guess you could argue that more of them might ask for feedback if they knew they’d receive it in a different format, if only for the sake of novelty. But I see this as something that might happen during office hours: if someone is interested in speaking to me about something specific, they’d come in and talk to me. In this case they can’t opt to talk to me, but they can ask a question they’re interested in and hear my answer.
I haven’t done any research yet on how students feel about different feedback modes, my reasoning being that the sample size is too small for anything conclusive. I guess I could treat it as a case study. This is something that’s on the back burner and could end up staying there for a while, although as I write this I feel guilty about not making time to hear the student perspective, regardless of how few of them have opted in.
I was wondering if your learners have a say in what they’d like you to give them feedback on re writing (or another skill), which formats you prefer to use for this and why. How do your learners feel about the different formats?
Thanks for reading!
3 replies on “Correct me if I’m wrong II”
I generally use Camtasia for providing video feedback using screencasting on my own projects. But I’ve never actually given learners a choice in how they’d like to receive feedback … food for thought!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Adi, thanks for the comment. I’ve been thinking of including video feedback at some point but I’m having trouble deciding what the advantages would be over audio files, apart from the online presence aspect, which admittedly is pretty important because we’re online for the whole semester. What do you see as advantages of screencasting for feedback?
LikeLiked by 1 person
[…] in; I haven’t checked). I’ve written about using SpeakPipe for audio comments when students request feedback on specific areas of their writing and I actually like the time limitation because it forces me to be succinct. I guess I could be […]