Action research demonstrating the impact of two formative
assessment methods on the learning of a group of level 2
BTEC Health and Social Care students
Christine Watts
19 June 2013
Abstract
This paper describes an action research investigation into the effects of two formative
assessment methods on a group of level two health and social care students in further
education. The group’s learning needs were challenging, as they included several
developmental disorders. The group were asked to complete an assignment on anatomy
and physiology that included a mix of mastery and developmental tasks. The action
research was planned in order to investigate; firstly the impact of peer marking on student’s
learning and motivation and secondly the influence of feedforward techniques on student’s
learning and motivation. This study will demonstrate how the techniques actively involved
students in their learning and strengthened their cognitive abilities when, a) using an
exemplar and a peer marking template to formatively assess each other’s work b) using a
generic feedforward template adapted to meet the learning needs of level two students to
enable them to plan for their own learning and development. The results of the action
research are noteworthy:
27% increase in success rates in summative assessment at the first attempt and
53% increase in the second attempt.
Students motivated and engaged in the learning process
Introduction
This action research aims to provide a greater insight into how formative feedback benefits
level 2 college students. Considering the amount of literature available on the importance of
formative feedback for student learning including, Orsmond 2005, Wingate 2010, Sadler
1989, Topping 2005, Gibbs et al 2003, Tierney 2006, Rushton 2005, and Dochy et al 2001 it
is surprising how relatively little research there is to be found that is aimed at level two
college students in FE. Indeed since formative feedback was hailed as one of the single
most effective tools for learning back in 1998 (Black and Wiliam), it is not easy to find
research that directly addresses the effects of feedback on college students, except perhaps
for the work of Geoff Petty in his book ‘Evidence Based Practice’ (2006) which also cites the
work of Hattie (2003) and Marzano et al (2001), in which he states that ‘teaching methods
that provide feedback are amongst the most powerful at raising attainment’ (p.245).
Historically another key influence is that of Royce Sadler (1989) who argued that effective
feedback enabled learners to identify what they were aiming for, understand their present
position, and recognise a way to close the gap between the two. Murtagh and Baker (2009),
amongst others, developed this further by identifying the tutor’s role in supporting the student
to understand the learning aims of lessons and to have confidence in students’ ability to
improve. Such sound advice has provided a cornerstone for teaching for many successive
FE and HE tutors. Yet in 2012 the admission of a cohort of fifteen students with a very wide
range of abilities including seven with a range of development disorders to a BTEC level 2
course highlighted the weaknesses of existing support strategies. Previously used methods
of support proved insufficient, and despite detailed written feedback and verbal explanations
in one-to-one tutorials, the students’ success rate was lower than the previous year at the
same stage. In initial investigations that took place through collaboration with colleagues,
peers taking part in the IFL Practitioner Research Programme and through student feedback
both in writing and verbally it became apparent that tutor support on its own was insufficient
for some. They either could not understand their feedback or they forgot the content of
conversations. It was therefore necessary to find alternative method of support for the
students that could be in addition to traditional tutor feedback, which would enable all level
two students to complete their course to their full potential.
The action research then, was to investigate how formative feedback impacted on students
learning by exploring firstly, how a newly introduced method of feedback influenced their
performance, and secondly the impact of the formative feedback on their final graded
assessment. Thirdly it sought to answer the question of how feedforward would impact
student motivation and deep learning. Two methods were chosen for the research. The first
method was ‘peer assessment’ (Petty 2006, Race 2005, Topping 2005) using a peer
marking sheet that was devised collaboratively by students and tutor (appendix 1). The
subject selected for the research was anatomy and physiology. This is a relatively new
subject to many level two students on the health and social care course and the learning
curve they move on to can be quite steep. For their first graded assignment, which is
completed under controlled conditions, three weeks after the start of the unit, students have
to be able to locate, draw accurately and explain the function of sixteen body organs and
explain what body systems are. On Bloom’s taxonomy (cited in Roberts et al 2009) the first
half of the assignment is a lower order task, focused as it is on recall. The second half is
more challenging as it requires students to understand how organs interact to form body
systems. However, in the last two years even the recall task has proved to be a major
stumbling block and no student in the groups managed to pass the assessment at the first
attempt.
In order to support student’s learning further it was decided to research the usefulness of
peer assessment as a tool for learning. Black et al (2003, p.49-57) point out that in order to
reach a learning goal students need to be able to assess what they need to do to reach it.
They argue that if the skills needed for peer assessment are first taught to students it
becomes a valuable tool for motivation and learning by enabling students to understand the
quality of work required and promote discussion in a language that students can understand.
Moreover Petty (2006) claims that peer assessment is a way to enable students to construct
their own understanding of a topic and encourages students to be more supportive as a
group and develops their cognitive skills.
Initially students were taught the necessary skills to carry out a peer assessment including
the notion that individuals learn best by teaching others, by being tolerant and respectful of
others’ work and understanding what makes a good quality piece of work (Beere 2010).
This was done by first giving the students a spoof assessment and detailed guidelines on
how to carry it out. As Petty (2006) points out, these are a good introduction to peer
assessment as the whole class marks the same piece of work and can gain a group
understanding of what is required through practice and discussion.
As time was limited, before the summative assessment, a group peer marking sheet
(appendix 1) was devised by the tutor and students working together to formulate the
criteria. This was done at the end of the lesson with the spoof assessment as it enabled the
students to reflect on the session and based the questions on what was learned from the
spoof assessment. The marking sheet included both closed and open questions, enabling
the students to identify the strengths and weaknesses of their peers’ work with an
explanation of how they reached their decisions. The week before the summative
assessment was due the students were given a prearranged formative test requiring them to
locate and draw specified organs and identify their role in the body followed by an
explanation of body systems.
The formative assessment was carried out in the same conditions that the summative
assessment took place; the students had to work in silence, on their own, without notes or
text books. Several members of the group had become quite anxious about the forthcoming
test, many in the group had already had unhappy experiences of exams when sitting GCSEs
and had failed to reach the required standard of four GCSEs at grade C or above to enable
them to move up to level three. The students were anxious that they would ‘fail’ again.
However all managed to complete the test within the permitted time of one hour. Following
the assessment the papers, which were anonymous, were swapped around at random in the
room. The students were then asked to assess their peers’ work using the peer marking
sheet template and an exemplar. The students engaged well with this activity and clearly
took their marking seriously by adopting a mature thoughtful approach and considering each
question carefully. The students were given as much time as they needed to complete the
marking. During the exercise it was observed that they appeared to relax visibly and clearly
found the activity non-threatening. As they assessed, they referred constantly to the
exemplar and much discussion and comparison of notes and thoughts took place to clarify
their own ideas of what was right or wrong. Topping (2005) would describe this as peer
learning. He says that it brings about social and emotional gains as well as cognitive gains.
Nicol (2004, p.8) demonstrates even greater enthusiasm claiming that ‘Peer dialogue’ is
beneficial to student learning in a variety of ways. This includes the way peers are better
able to explain something they have just learned in an understandable way to their peers. In
addition, it supports students to look at ideas from alternative perspectives as well as
developing an objective approach when marking against the standards. Lastly, but no less
importantly, peer discussion is motivational. Students persist at their work as they have a
‘yardstick’ to measure their performance against.
The following week students had their controlled summative assessment. This was also
carried out in silence following the same format as the formative assessment. Following this
assessment the work was tutor marked. The results were compared with the results from
cohorts in the previous two years (table 2) and they were striking, showing a considerable
improvement. Students were also surveyed for their opinions of peer feedback as formative
feedback method. This was done with a questionnaire consisting of closed and open
questions (appendix 2).
Following the summative assignment the second feedback method used was feedforward
(appendix 3). This formative assessment method relies on the tutor supporting the student
to identify gaps in their learning/knowledge and planning to fill the gaps (Frey and Fisher
2011, Petty 2006, Race 2005, Davies 2000, Laight et al 2010, Gibbs 2010). Indeed Bell and
Cowie (2000, p.130) explain the difference between feedback and feedforward succinctly,
stating that feedback is informing students of the ‘correctness of their learning’ whereas
feedforward ‘indicates what a student might do in addition, to close the gap between what
they know and what is required of them.’ This can be interpreted in two ways, either subject
specific feedforward or generic feedforward. In this research the both aspects were
addressed in order to support the students to set targets for future development.
Vincent & Tong (2011) make a convincing case for the use of feedback and feedforward to
be used as ‘a core teaching component’ for both formative assessments and at the end of
summative assessments. To them each assessment is designed to build on the learning
from previous assessments, with the ultimate aim of enhancing students’ understanding of
course materials. The feedforward then, would enable the students to understand where
they needed to enhance their knowledge of the subject and improve their study skills. It was
given by means of a standardised sheet which was adapted and written in plain English by
the tutor. As each piece of student work was marked relevant individualised feedback would
be handwritten onto the work and relevant comments on the feedforward sheet would also
be circled. In this way the tutor could be sure the comments were understood as their
meaning and relevance had been discussed as part of a tutorial session. The formative
feedback sheet had the additional advantage of saving the tutor needing to constantly repeat
written comments. The feedforward sheet was acquired from the college Higher Education
Department, and had been aimed at level four students. At that point there were no existing
examples of templates suitable for level two students. Many of the points it made, therefore,
were not relevant for level twos and those that were needed re-wording to make them more
applicable and understandable. In addition it was necessary to add other cells containing
more basic comments. For example in the ‘communication’ column the following comment
was added; ‘In your next piece of work you need to make sure that your words are in the
correct order so your work makes sense’ (appendix 3) Each comment was written to
support students to recognise where they needed to set targets for improvement. As each
comment progressed down the column it built on the previous comment. This would also
mean that students could, if they wished, read on to the next cell to see what they would be
aiming for next. In short the layout of the sheet itself would provide feedforward and act as a
motivational tool.
Literature Review
Formative assessment is a topic that has been raised high up the teaching and learning
agenda since Black and Wiliam published their seminal work in 1998. Since then it has
been widely agreed that the formative feedback given from formative assessment is one of
the most effective student learning tools when given correctly (Hattie et al 2007; Petty 2006,
Race 2005, Brookhart 2008). Formative assessment has been variously defined by
researchers; perhaps the most apt definition being that by Black himself (1998), ‘assessment
becomes formative assessment when the evidence is actually used to adapt the teaching to
meet student needs’ He goes on to qualify that with the assertion that formative assessment
should not be accompanied by marks or grades as these can act as ego boosters or can
have the opposite effect when low. Either way, students often tend to see the grade and not
notice the detailed feedback. Yet Smith et al (2005) question Black’s definition of formative
feedback as being something that should be given throughout students work without the
distraction of grades. When they tried it, they got negative feedback from students,
colleagues and parents and actually witnessed a decline in students overall performance.
Clearly an alternative to tutor led formative feedback was needed.
Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick (2004) see formative assessment as something that the student
largely formulates himself. To them much student feedback is internal where the student
makes sense of his own learning and sets himself goals and targets that he works towards
and continuously revises as he proceeds. Here, external feedback, which could be given by
teacher or peer, exists to influence the student’s internal goals. Thus to be effective, it must
be of a high quality so it encourages, amongst other things, further self-assessment, clarifies
what ‘good performance is’ and provides opportunities to close the gaps in learning. Clearly
high quality formative feedback in this scenario is crucial to enhance students’ self-esteem,
motivation and knowledge.
Moreover in Geoff Petty's book, Evidence Based Teaching (2006), Petty argues that all
types of formative feedback are of huge benefit to both weak and strong students, but
particularly weaker students, improving their results by up to ‘0.81 mean effect size’ (Hattie
cited by Petty 2006 p.65). Petty gains much of his insights from the work of Black et al
(1998) who state that ‘frequent assessment feedback’ is particularly useful for raising the
achievement of low attainers. To Petty an effective form of feedback is peer assessment.
This is reinforced by Orsmond et al (2002) who claim that the use of exemplars and peer
feedback not only increases student understanding of their subject but motivates students
and raises the quality of their work. Yet Smith et al (2005) question Black’s definition of
formative feedback as being something that should be given throughout students work
without the distraction of grades. When they tried it, they got negative feedback from
students, colleagues and parents and actually witnessed a decline in students overall
performance.
This research incorporated an examination of two types of feedback, peer feedback which
was criteria based, and feedforward in which the teacher looked beyond students’ current
attainment and used a series of standardized comments plus some carefully chosen tailored
comments to support students to set targets to improve their future learning. In terms of
implementation the peer feedback trial proved the most challenging, but arguably, the most
rewarding. Orsmond et al (2002, p. 2) argue that peer marking causes Students to ‘take
greater responsibility for their own leaning. They think things through, tackle problems and
discuss their ideas with others’. In order for students to successfully and constructively mark
their peers’ work it involved them learning how to fully comprehend the requirements of their
assignment, understand what was and was not acceptable in an answer and then to be able
to constructively feedback to their peers. They did this with the help of exemplar answers
and feedback marking sheets which highlighted specific marking criteria.
Graham et al (2011), when investigating writing in literacy, take Orsmond’s argument further
by claiming that it not only increases student sense of responsibility but also that ‘writing
improves when teachers and peers provide students with feedback about the effectiveness
of their writing’ (p14). Laight (2010) goes even further when he claims that peer marking can
be seen as building a ‘community of practice.’ Students learn to work together and form a
common understanding of their subject. In addition as they are receiving feedback without
grades they learn to trust their tutor and gain confidence in themselves. Formative feedback
also needs to be relevant. Brookhart (2008) discusses the need to avoid giving ‘voluminous
amounts of feedback on poor quality work’ too much feedback will dishearten the recipient
and have a detrimental effect to their self-esteem and motivation to the extent that they will
not bother to read it
Topping (2005) also argues for the benefits of ‘peer learning’ stating that a concept is never
truly understood until it is explained to someone else. Topping goes on highlight the role of
peer assessment as a tool for peer learning although he warns against allowing the markers
to simply ‘quantitatively’ mark the work as this leads to ‘social discomfort’ and an average
mark being given for all work. He discusses how qualitative, formative marking is far more
cognitively beneficial for the giver and the receiver of feedback. Bearing this in mind it felt
appropriate to devise a semi-structured marking sheet so the students could explain and
justify their marking.
Another, increasingly popular form of feedback is that of ‘feed forward’ (Murtagh, 2009; Race
2005). They argue that feedback should not only be about the past, i.e. work that has been
completed, but it should also look forward by setting attainable goals for students. One way
of doing this is with standardised assessment feedback using feedforward comments that
are easily understood. Yet as previously stated it is not easy to find research that has
addressed feed forward for FE students. Even within the authors own institution it has only
been approached from an HE standpoint. It seemed worth investigating whether such a
method, if adapted to meet the needs of level two students, would be of benefit to them and
to the hard pressed tutor.
Methodology
To investigate the impact of formative feedback the research method used was Susman's
(1983) model of action research. His five point action plan enabled an investigation of the
impact of formative feedback on students that could be compared with previous evidence
from a similar group. A mixed methods, pragmatic approach as advocated by Creswell
(2003) was adopted in order to understand the impact of formative feedback. Creswell
states that mixed methods research is now commonly used in the social and human
sciences as it gives the researcher a way into managing the complex research designs that
are sometimes needed to understand the outcomes of a study. The mixed method approach
is described by Johnson et al (2009) as ‘the class of research where the researcher mixes or
combines quantitative and qualitative research techniques, methods, approaches, concepts
or language into a single study’ . Thomas (2003 p.1) compares these techniques and states
‘both can significantly add to the strength and depth of an argument’
Methods
This research quantitatively compares data of students’ success rates with a previous year
through the use of a questionnaire. The qualitative investigation is of students’ feelings and
attitudes towards their feedback which also needed to be understood if the research was to
reach any useful conclusions concerning how to motivate students and promote both surface
and deeper learning. Both methods were given equal priority as the data was collected
concurrently with the use of a semi-structured questionnaire for phase one of the research.
Evidence for phase two, which considered the usefulness of feedforward is qualitative; five
students were interviewed on their feelings about feedforward and its effectiveness at
motivating them and supporting them to set relevant goals.
Before distributing the questionnaire it was necessary to carry out a pilot study to ensure the
questions were appropriate. Indeed, Opie (2004, p.104) stresses that ‘Undertaking a pilot
study is an important part of designing a questionnaire but all too often this task is
marginalised by a beginning researcher or sometimes worse, ignored’. This was carried out
in collaboration with department colleagues who understood the requirements and were able
to make constructive comments. A questionnaire was chosen for several reasons, firstly a
well-planned questionnaire can generate information quickly and can be easy to analyse. It
can also be an appropriate tool when attempting to elicit specific information from smaller
groups. In addition the questionnaire included some open ended questions which were
intended to allow the students to feedback more detailed information. Thirteen
questionnaires were distributed and twelve students responded.
Ethics
Ethical issues were addressed throughout the research according to BERA ethical
guidelines for educational research (2011). All students participating in the research were
given a clear explanation verbally and in writing of the purpose and the aims and objectives
of the research. All participants were asked for permission in writing for their consent, if it
had not been given they would not have taken any part in the research. All participants were
assured of the confidentiality of information gained about them. It was important that all
students were treated equally so there was not a ‘control’ group. It was also important that
students were not subject to any approach that may have had an adverse emotional or
intellectual impact. This was essential both in the actual research and also the peer marking
trial. Students were given strict guidelines on how to give constructive feedback that would
not cause any distress. All questionnaires issued gave the students a clear written
explanation of what the questionnaire was for and an explanation why the research was
being carried out, students all had an option to remain anonymous. Moreover all results
remained anonymous and conclusions were reached by comparisons of students’
assessment results with the previous cohorts’ results.
Data collection
In phase one of the research data was collected with the use of a semi-structured
questionnaire (appendix 2) and distributed at the end of the session when the peer
assessment trial had finished. A Likert attitudinal scale was used for the first 7 questions of
the questionnaire. It had five rating categories which where: 1= not helpful 2 = not very
helpful 3= helpful 4= quite helpful 5 = very helpful.
The remaining questions were designed to draw more qualitative feedback from the
students. Each group of two questions started with a closed question followed by an open
question asking for an opinion, not all students gave a written answer in every box.
Phase 2. When the summative assignment was tutor marked feed forward sheets were also
completed for each student, (appendix 3) these contained generic comments relating to
spelling, grammar, referencing, communication, understanding and relating theory to
practice in placement. There was also a column for subject specific comments. The
relevant cell was circled by the tutor or comments written in the spare cells if needed. The
handwritten comments were related to specific issues relating to a student’s work that the
feedforward sheet failed to address. This was handed back to the students at the start of the
next Anatomy and Physiology lesson and the students were given time to read their
feedback and discuss it with peers or tutor and then set goals based on the feedback.
Nicole et al (2004 p.9) point out its importance, stating ‘feedback as dialogue means that the
student not only receives initial feedback information but also has the opportunity to engage
the teacher in discussion about that feedback.’
Findings
The results of the Likert scale questions (table 1) were interesting. From seven questions
asked all demonstrated that well over 60% of the students were positive about peer marking.
Questions 1 2 3 4 5
1. Was peer marking helpful to you?
0% 17% 33% 42% 8%
2. Did peer marking help you understand what you could have
done better in your own answer?
8% 8% 17% 50% 17%
3. Did having an exemplar help with peer marking?
0% 0% 0% 25% 75%
4. Did peer marking help you feel more confident in your own
work?
0% 25% 33% 33% 8%
5. Did peer marking help you to think of other things you could
have put into your own answer to improve it?
8% 17% 25% 25% 25%
6. Did peer marking give you more confidence in your own
answer because you realised it was more accurate than you
thought it would be?
17% 8% 17% 33% 25%
7. Do you think the feedback you gave to your peer was helpful
to them?
0% 8% 33% 25% 8%
Table 1 students’ scores to indicate the helpfulness of peer marking.
Analysis of responses
1. Overall 83% of the group were positive to some extent that peer marking was helpful
to them.
2. Overall 84% of the group who responded were positive that peer marking helped
them, to some extent, to understand what they could do better in their own answer.
3. Overall 100% of the group who responded were positive that having an exemplar
helped with peer marking.
4. Overall 74% of the group who responded were positive that peer marking helped
them to feel more confident in their work.
5. Overall 75% of the group who responded were positive that peer marking helped
them think of other things they could put into their answers to improve them.
6. Overall 75% were positive that peer marking gave them more confidence in their own
answer.
7. Overall 66% were positive that the feedback they gave to their peer was helpful to
them.
Yet despite this initial responses to the remaining eight questions were disheartening.
When asked if tutor feedback or peer feedback was most helpful, 100% of those who
responded said that tutor feedback was most helpful. Their comments are also identified
below. There seems to have been a consensus that tutor’s feedback is more reliable
and informative, especially when preparing for an assignment.
8. 100% of students preferred tutor feedback
9. Their comments included;
- I feel that the tutor is more able to give comments on what is expected
- When my teacher explains things and gives feedback it is more helpful because she
explains the areas we must improve on and what we could add to make it better, am
not saying my peers don’t do that but it makes more sense when my teacher tells us
it.
- Because tutor’s know better about work so their feedback is more helpful. Our
feedback might not be correct
- students don’t know everything – they might get the wrong end of the stick
- my peer said my marking wasn’t very good but didn’t say why
- tutor gives more detail – understands more
- the tutor knows how to mark better
- not more helpful but I think my feedback was helpful – I tried to show what needed
doing to make it better
All students who responded were negative about this question possibly highlighting
issues in teaching methods. They all felt that they could learn more from the tutor than
each other. Their comments indicated that they were dependent on the tutor for their
learning. Nicol et al (2004) cites Sadler (1989) when he states that students who
unthinkingly follow strict, prescriptive guidelines from the tutor without knowing why ‘will
not learn’. He goes on to claim that students who place too much trust in tutor
assessment rather than their own self-assessment become increasingly tutor dependent.
10. 83% of the group were happy to comment on their peer’s work. Their comments
included:
- It made me feel I was criticising the person and I did not like that
- Because I was not sure what to do.
- It felt awkward at the start but then it was OK
- it means we can get another opinion rather than just the tutor
- I thought what I said could help but I was scared to give a negative comment
- I thought my comments might help
- It was good to think I was helping
- I was worried about upsetting her but I could see some things that could be better
These comments indicate that students were happy to mark each other’s work, but still felt
insecure in giving constructive criticism. Petty (2006) argues that it is important that students
feel safe if they are going to feel able to feedback on their peers’ work. This comes about
with strict ground rules and practice. When reporting on their own research, Dochy et al
(2001, p.17) said that students
‘found it unacceptable to give negative scores without having the opportunity to give
informational feedback’.
This indicates that students needed greater instruction in giving feedback.
11. 66% of the group felt that tutor feedback was most helpful
12. They made comments such as:
- Tutor feedback is better because then I know what I need to do to improve my work.
- Because peer’s will not be as good as tutor
- The tutor is an experienced marker and know what they are doing
- tutor knows more
- it was good to hear what others thought and I understood the comments better
- I trust my tutor to give me the correct feedback to complete my assignmnents
- I didn’t think I was being compared
66% of students who commented said they preferred tutor feedback. One student thought
peer feedback was easier to understand. Again Nicol et al (2004:7) provides valuable
insight when he points out that feedback from ‘peers provides additional information that
helps challenge students to reassess their knowledge and beliefs’. He goes on to argue
that it is important that students have this opportunity as they do not always understand tutor
feedback.
13. 84% of the group stated that they believed peer marking helped them with their
assignment
14. Comments included:
- The comments on my sheet mainly related to my drawing which I have difficulties
with anyway, most of my positioning seemed to be ok.
- Sometime work that I do can be wrong so the peer marking can correct the wrong
and this actually happened to me once when I was doing p1.
- I had done a lot more than the other person, they didn’t really help
- It did not help, but it did improve it
- it helped to see someone else’s work – it gave me more ideas on what I needed to
do
- it made me think about what I needed in my answer to pass
- I realised I did know the answer – felt more confident
- Her answer was really good and I got a lot of ideas
These student responses were much more confident. Overall students said they gained a
lot from formative peer marking in terms of knowledge and preparation for the summative
assignment. Trigwell et al. (1999) would concur with this, they argue for the adoption of
student-focused approaches to teaching claiming that it will improve the quality of student
learning.
Following the assessment the work was tutor marked. The results were very satisfying, see
table 2. The table shows a huge improvement between the results for 2011, 2012 and the
results for 2013.
Year Pass 1st
attempt
Pass 2nd
attempt
Pass 3rd
attempt
Total
number of
students
2011 0 – 0% 5 – 25% 15 – 75% 20
2012 0 – 0% 4 – 20% 16 – 80% 20
2013 4 – 27% 11 – 73% 0 – 0% 15
Table 2 comparisons of pass rates for cohorts over the last three years.
Despite the issues that the 2013 cohort had, their first attempt results were a surprising 27%
better than the previous two years. On the second attempt the other 73% of the group
passed. Back in 1998 Black and Wiliam concluded that ‘formative assessment methods
have some of the highest effect sizes found in education’. They point out that it is the
weakest learners who benefit from formative feedback the most, and it could be argued that
the weaker learners had benefited here.
The effects of the feed feedforward were discussed three weeks later in one-to-one
interviews with five of the students. The interviews were semi structured interviews and
notes were made of the conversations. These were written up immediately following the
interviews in order to ensure the information gathered was accurate and a true reflection of
what was discussed. Comments were then compared with each other to look for common
themes. Burton et al (2008) recommend this approach as they state that face to face
interviewing is ‘appropriate for accessing key information from an important individual who
has a unique perspective of the issues under consideration’
Overall their responses were positive. They demonstrated that students found feedforward:
- Easy to understand
- Non-threatening as they were generic
- Made it easier to recognise and prioritise relevant goals for development
- Gave guidance on how to set goals
For example some of the comments were:
- I liked the feedforward sheets. It made it easier to set targets.
- I didn’t feel different, I mean sometimes there is so much written on my work I feel
embarrassed and don’t like the others to see it, but I wasn’t the only one who had the
same comments.
- I could understand what was expected ‘cos we had discussed the sheet in class.
- It was just much easier.
In her one to one, one student referred to the entire feedback trial and was very positive.
I really like the new kinds of feedback. It seems a lot clearer, what we need to do - and it’s
good having time to discuss the work during lessons I feel more like, you know, I feel more
able to do the work. I don’t go home and think “I can’t do this”
Discussion
It is now a widely accepted premise that formative feedback is a very effective learning
method, however most current evidence is from higher education or in children’s education.
This study was undertaken in order to establish if the impact of formative feedback given by
peers and through the use of a generic feedforward sheet rather than simply by the tutor is
beneficial to level 2 health and social FE college students. Overall the results were
remarkable. In the summative assessment there was a 27% increase in the number of
students who passed first time and a 53% increase in the number who passed second time.
There were, of course, issues that could have affected the results, including tutor objectivity.
Care had to be taken to repeat all the same methods from the previous two years’ teaching
apart from the introduction of the new methods. In addition it was important that the tutor
maintained the same approach throughout lessons and did not influence the outcome with
changed attitudes. As these variables were evident, it made it possible for the tutor to
consider and work to eliminate them although it is perhaps difficult to entirely eliminate the
possibility that the tutor’s own attitude and enthusiasm changed and affected the result. The
task was, however, kept a close as possible to the previous years, lessons were conducted
from the same lesson plans and the same teaching resources used and the same amount of
time was given to students to prepare for the assignment.
Yet despite the success of the investigation in terms of results the students had a mixed
response to peer marking. In the closed questions 1 – 7, the students consistently gave
positive responses to peer marking. Students felt that peer marking was helpful to their
understanding and gave them confidence in their own work. They also felt that their
feedback had been helpful to their peers’ learning. Dochy et al (2001) point out some
‘errors’ that should be taken into account when peers mark each other’s work, including
‘friendship marking’, resulting in over marking, and also ‘halo’ marking, where one criteria
becomes more important than others which skews the marking, another key consideration
for this group was over marking as some admitted in their questionnaires that they did not
want to give a lower mark. Again, these variables were considered and the need to avoid
the pitfalls was included in the students’ lessons so that they would be aware of them.
Observations of the students undertaking the task clearly demonstrated their enthusiasm
and interest in the project.
The open questions on the other hand were less positive. The students’ reflections showed
that they were not independent learners, but largely dependent on the tutor. Students did
not trust their peers to give them all the information they need to pass their assessments and
some did not feel their peers were fully interested in their work. Nicole (2004) argues that
students need to take ownership of their work if they are to achieve their learning goals. It is
perhaps the final question that demonstrates the students’ willingness to relinquish their
dependence on the tutor. Almost without exception the group reflected that they felt peer
feedback improved their summative assessment results. The dependency then could be
seen as a result of previous teaching methods and not as some kind of issue the students
had.
Clearly the formative feedback had dramatic effects on the students’ summative assessment
results. Table 2 shows how in the previous two years no students passed the assessment at
the first attempt. In the trial year four students passed first time, this represented 27% of the
group, the rest of the group passed the assessment in their second attempt. Clearly there
are similar variables to consider for the marking as peer marking. In particular it was
important to be aware of the dangers of marking too leniently, also of ‘halo’ marking and
giving priority to certain aspects of the assessment. This was overcome by the use of a
copy of a completed assessment from the previous year to act as a guide/benchmark for the
current assessment. Another variable that needed to be considered was that the tutor’s
enthusiasm may have reflected itself onto the students causing them to be much more
diligent in their own revision in preparation for the assignment. It was difficult to eliminate
this, however the group was originally noted for its weaknesses and yet the entire group
succeeded in completing the assignment successfully within two attempts. From the point
where students collaborated in devising their own peer marking sheet their interest was
aroused and it was sustained until they completed the assessment. There is little doubt that
formative peer assessment had a positive impact on the students, not only cognitively, but
also on their motivation and reflective skills.
The success of the second feedback method given through feedforward sheets has proved
more difficult to quantify. As they are based around setting learning goals these require
longer term monitoring than this trial had time to give them. However initial investigation
shows that the results show great promise. In one to one interviews with five students they,
again, gave positive responses. They found feedforward easy to understand and they were
able to take ownership of them to set their own learning goals. Indeed the goals they set
were realistic and appropriate for their own development. Examples of the goals students
set themselves following their feedforward advice include:-
- proof read out loud all assignments before handing them in.
- When starting assignments I will prepare by collecting all lesson notes and hand-outs
first.
Murtagh and Baker (2009) also argue that feedforward increases student self-efficacy, their
motivation and their confidence. In this instance initial findings indicate that feedforward
appears to be both extrinsically and intrinsically motivating by encouraging SMART target
setting and, unexpectedly, a new competitiveness. On receiving their feedback some
students were observed by the tutor to be comparing their feedback, and asking each other
which boxes had been circled in order to establish how far down the feedforward sheet they
were and discussing how they could move to the next box and who would get there first.
Furthermore the SMART goal setting appears to have spurred the students on to increase
their efforts to achieve better results. There is now an established group who attend college
every week in their own time to work on assignments and upgrade their work. It remains to
be seen if feedforward does have an overall impact on student learning in the longer term
and if it can be repeated for future groups. However, there is some evidence that at present,
feedforward has, amongst other things, encouraged SMART goal setting and encouraged a
level of competitiveness amongst the class to achieve higher grades. At present the group
are in a position to complete the course at either their target grade or above.
Conclusion
In conclusion the impact of two formative assessment methods on students’ learning is very
positive. It has been argued in this study that peer formative assessment has had a
dramatic effect on the student’s summative assessment results, demonstrated through a
27% increase in success rates in summative assessment at the first attempt and 53%
increase in the second attempt. Similarly feedforward shows much promise in being of great
benefit to students, in supporting them to become reflective, independent learners. From the
start their involvement in devising a peer marking sheet aroused students’ interest and gave
them ownership of the peer feedback process. This interest was sustained and each took
seriously their role as peer a marker which has demonstrated clear benefits. The benefits of
feedforward have been less straightforward to evidence, but early indications are that
students are increasingly motivated and engaged, with many striving to achieve beyond their
target grades. Overall this initial research has demonstrated that if given the opportunity
through formative feedback students can be motivated, reflective and confident in their
learning. It is hoped that further research over a year will yield similar results.
References
Beere J (2012) the perfect Ofsted lesson ofsted criteria Crown house :Camarthen
Bell, B. Cowie B (2000) Formative Assessment and Science Education.
Springer; USA
BERA (2011) - ETHICAL GUIDELINES FOR EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH (2011)
http://www.bera.ac.uk/publications/Ethical%20Guidelines down loaded 23.2.13
Black P & Wiliam D (1998) Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards Through Classroom
Assessment. British Educational Research Journal. Downloaded from
http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/accountability/educators/insidetheblackbox1998.pdf
Black et al (2003) Assessment for Learning: Putting it into Practice Open University Press:
England
Brookhart S (2008) Feedback that fits Educational Leadership, pp 54-59. Download from:
http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/dec07/vol65/num04/Feedback-That-
Fits.aspx
Brookhart S (2008) How to Give Effective Feedback to Your Students November 2008
Education Update P7 Download - Association for supervision and curriculum development
Burton, N. Brundett,M., Jones, M., (2008) Doing your research project. London: SAGE
Publications
Cresswell J (2003) RESEARCH DESIGN Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches second edition USA: Sage
Davies A (2000) Feed Back … Feed Forward: Using Assessment to Boost Literacy
Learning. On line Journal Research in Action. Classroom Connections International-
www.connect2learning.com
Frey N & Fisher D (2011) The Formative Assessment Action Plan: Practical Steps to More
Successful Teaching and Learning Association for Supervision & Curriculum Deve:USA
Graham S, Harris K, Hebert M (2011) Informing Writing, The Benefits of Formative
Assessment, A Report from Carnegie Corporation of New York: Download from
http://www.all4ed.org/files/InformingWriting.pdf
Gibbs G et al (2003) Improving student learning through changing assessment – a
conceptual and practical framework Open University
Harris L (2007) Employing formative assessment in the classroom, Improving Schools, Vol
10 No 3 pp 249–260. Download http://imp.sagepub.com/content/10/3/249
Hattie J and Timperley H (2007) The Power of Feedback, Journal Review of Educational
Research Vol. 77, No. 1, pp. 81-112 download from http://rer.sagepub.com/content/77/1/81
Laight J, Asghar A, Aslett-Bentley A (2010) Investigating Conceptions and Practice of
Formative Assessment in Higher Education. Literacy Information and Computer Education
Journal (LICEJ), Vol 1, Issue 3, September 2010 Leeds Metropolitan University
Link Roberts J, Ford Inman T (2009) Strategies for Differentiating Instruction: Best Practices
for the Classroom 2nd edition Prufrock Press; England
Murtagh L, Baker N (2009) Feedback to Feed Forward: student response to tutors' written
comments on assignments, Practitioner Research in Higher Education, Vol 3, No 1, page
20-28 Download from: http://194.81.189.19/ojs/index.php/prhe/article/view/30
Nicol D & Macfarlane‐Dick D (2006): Formative assessment and
self‐regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice, Studies in
Higher Education, 31:2, 199-218
Download : http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090
Orsmond P, Merry S & Reiling K (2002) The Use of Exemplars and Formative Feedback
when Using Student Derived Marking Criteria in Peer and Self-assessment: Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 27, No. 4, Download from:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0260293022000001337
Opie,C.(2004) Doing Educational Research: a guide for first time researchers. London: Sage
Publications
Petty G (2006) Evidence Based Teaching, Cheltenham: Nelson Thorne Ltd
Race P (2005) Making Learning Happen, A Guide for Post-Compulsory Education, London:
Sage
Rushton A, (2005) Formative assessment: a key to deep learning? Medical Teacher;
Sep2005, Vol. 27 Issue 6, p509-513, 5phttp://0-
ehis.ebscohost.com.brum.beds.ac.uk/ehost/detail?vid=24&hid=1&sid=35060b74-cfc0-450e-
9142-
89c01c1962a6%40sessionmgr11&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#d
b=ehh&AN=18406033
Sadler D (1998) Formative assessment: Revisiting the territory Assessment in Education;
Mar 1998; 5, 1; Academic Research Library pg. 77
Simpson-Beck V, (2011) Assessing classroom assessment techniques
Active Learning in Higher Education 12:125 Download
http://alh.sagepub.com/content/12/2/125
Smith E & Gorard S (2005): 'They don't give us our marks': The role of formative feedback in
student progress, Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 12:1, 21-38
Download from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0969594042000333896
Susman (1983) cited in Denscombe M (2007) The Good Research Guide: For small-scale
social research projects Milton Keynes: Open University
Thomas,R (2003) Blending Qualitative and Quantitative research methods in Theses,
Dissertations, California: Corwin Press
Tong C & Vincent H (2011) Linking summative assessments? Electronic feedback and
feedforward in module design British Journal of Educational Technology, Volume 42, issue 6
(November 2011), p. 152-155. Blackwell.England
Trigwell et al (1999) Relations between teachers’ approaches to teaching and students’
approaches to learning Higher Education 37: 57–70, 1999.
Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers
Weurlander M, Söderberg M, Scheja M, Hult H, & Wernerson A (2012): Exploring
formative assessment as a tool for learning: students’ experiences of
different methods of formative assessment, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,
pp747-760
download: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2011.572153
Wingate U (2010) The impact of formative feedback on the development of academic
writing. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. Aug2010, Vol. 35 Issue 5, p519-533.
15p. 1 Diagram, 5 Charts. DOI: 10.1080/02602930903512909. http://0-
ehis.ebscohost.com.brum.beds.ac.uk/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=4&hid=1&sid=35060b7
4-cfc0-450e-9142-89c01c1962a6%40sessionmgr11
APPENDIX 1
BTEC Level 2 Health and Social Care
Peer Assessment Sheet .
First read the assignment question and requirements carefully. Read through the
assignment and tick the boxes below. 1 means not met very well, 5 means met really well.
Name of peer reviewer
Name of person’s work being reviewed
1 2 3 4 5 Comments – between 2- 4 reasons for scoring
1. The answer meets the requirements of the criterion (has it identified, explained, outlined etc?)
If not what else needs to be covered to meet the criteria?
2. The answer has covered all the points in the example
3. The work is laid out in an understandable and logical way
4. The work was easy to understand.
What could be done to make the work more understandable?
5. There are lots of good examples used.
6. The spelling was good
7. The punctuation was good
8. The work contains paragraphs
9. The work is referenced in text
10. There is a reference list at the end
APPENDIX 2
For questions 1-7 put an X the appropriate box - 1= not helpful 2 = not very helpful 3=
helpful 4= quite helpful 5 = very helpful
1 2 3 4 5
1. Was peer marking helpful to you?
2. Did peer marking help you understand what you could have done better in your own answer?
3. Did peer marking help you feel more confident in your own work?
4. Did peer marking help you to think of other things you could have put into your own answer to improve it?
5. Did peer marking give you more confidence in your own answer because you realised it was more accurate than you thought it would be?
6. Do you think the feedback you gave to your peer was helpful to them?
Please type comments to the final questions
7. Do you think that your feedback was more helpful than the tutor’s? yes / no
8. Can you explain your answer?
9. Were you happy about having to comment on your peer’s work? Yes/no
10. Can you explain your answer please?
11. Do you prefer peer feedback or tutor feedback? Yes/no
12. Could you explain your answer please?
13. Do you think peer marking improved your overall result for the assessment for P1 of Anatomy and Physiology in which you had to draw and label and explain body parts?
Yes / no
14. Could you explain your answer please?
APPENDIX 3
Feedforward Sheet. Read the highlighted sections of this sheet to help you set targets for future work to help you improve your
next piece of work.
If you are unsure of what the guidance means ask your tutor
Name of Student
Unit
How you use your Experience and practice at placement
Your understanding of the topic Your written Expression of your ideas
Context; your use of your own distinctive experience of practice
Reflective practice; how you show that you reflect on your practice
Comprehension: your accuracy and understanding of the content
Referencing; your use of ideas from other people
Coherence; the structure and the way you build your arguments
Communication: the quality of your writing and expression
When you are answering a question explain your answer by giving examples from your placement.
Next time describe what you do or how you feel about things that happen at your placement.
For your next piece of work be sure to read the question and the requirements carefully. This will give you big clues on how you should answer the question and how to structure your answer
Write your next piece of work in your own words rather than copying out of books or copying and pasting off the internet.
Try explaining what you want to say in your work out loud to someone else. This will help you to be clear in what it is you actually want to say and when you write it down it should make more sense to you and your reader.
In your next piece of work you need to make sure that your words are in the correct order so your work makes sense
Next time around, make sure that you explain your own role within placement and how
For your next piece, try to go beyond simple description of your experiences, and
Last time some of your comments were not accurate. Next time check your class notes
In your last piece it was not always clear to the reader what were your own ideas and what were other people’s.
It is not always easy to make yourself understood when you have so much information you need to
For your next assignment, make sure you use capital letters at the start of each sentence, for
you reacted to particular incidents
get at reasons why events happened as they did and what the outcomes were.
and text book, and if you still don’t get it, do ask!
When you use information from books or tutors or websites write in brackets next to the information stating where you found the information.
include in your answer. To be sure it makes sense, if possible, ask someone else to read your work out loud to you. If not, read it out loud yourself.
people’s names and for legislation..
Now you showing your understanding of what you do the next step may be to look at some spin-off effects and even unforeseen results of what happened. (how did other people react? Did your practice change? Explain how
You demonstrate that you can pick out and identify some key points in your work. Next you need to start giving more information by describing your subject. That is give a detailed account of your subject
Now you are starting to identify where you got your information from begin referencing your work by stating the name of the author, the year the work was written and the name of the book/website you got it from.
Next time try writing your work under sub-headings to identify and make it clear to the reader what you are trying to explain.
You are starting to use capital letters and full stops in the correct places do check your spelling, and punctuation; you might find it useful to get someone else to read the piece through with you
Now you have described your practice, explain how it influences (and is influenced by) good practice in health and social care.
For your next piece, try to go beyond identifying and describing aspects of care and try to explain what you mean. Imagine someone is asking you questions such as why? Or how?
Now that you are writing references in your work, your next step is to write a list of the reference you have made at the end of your work.
How can your reader most easily make sense of your piece of work? Probably a (short) introduction and conclusion at least, and still using sub-headings to keep the material organised.
Next time try separating each group of sentences about the same topics into paragraphs
Or what?
When writing about your practice tell your reader how you felt it went. Was there anything you should have done differently? What would you do next time?
Now that you are able to explain what you mean remember that you can also discuss the topic you are writing about. This is where you look at the information (in your notes, text books and other sources) and make a case for or against an argument or point out the advantages and disadvantages of the subject. Remember to arrive at a conclusion.
Your next step is to become more systematic about how you use and cite other sources. Use the author/date system more carefully.
The basics of your writing are sound, so now turn more to the “flow” of your work, such as sentence and paragraph structure. Use linking words between paragraphs. Try reading the piece out loud; does it sound as it should?
You are now exploring the distinctive features of your own area of practice; try building on that and relating it to the theory that you learn in college
All practice is based on values, some implicit (your own values) as well as the formal explicit ones (values of care). What values are implicit in your practice? And are they good ones? Are any of them in
Now that you can use theories and ideas fluently, remember that you can also make judgements and evaluate their usefulness.
You are almost there! There are just a few flaws in your use of the system; but more practice should sort those out.
You are now writing in a way which makes it as easy as possible to follow the arguments; you might like to think about broadening your scope and trying alternative approaches. Just for fun!
Your writing is clear, with few problems with expression; how can you now use aspects like your choice of vocabulary to enhance the tone of what you want to say?
tension or conflict?
Keep it up! You’ve already shown how you can relate theory and practice, and explore your experience for pointers to new challenges and further developments. Do it again (even better, of course).
Keep it up! You have already demonstrated your ability by the way in which you draw on the work of others, and systematically reference them—as well of course as your own original thoughts. Of course, there is always more to read so use plenty of other sources.
Keep it up! The way you write and structure your work shows that you can communicate complex ideas clearly and use language effectively to enhance the message.