Audio feedback final


Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Audio feedback final

  1. 1. Keeping it Personal:The Impact of Audio Feedback Michele Raithby Lecturer in Social Work SALT Conference 2012
  2. 2. Themes Outline pilot project: Asynchronous audio feedback on assignment component Level 1 BSc (Hons) Social Work students Rationale Process Outcomes & what next
  3. 3. What do we Know Already? National Student Satisfaction Survey (HEFCE 2011)  High level (32%) of dissatisfaction persists with assessment and feedback Iceet al (2007)  Higher levels of satisfaction with audio feedback compared to text only  Audio feedback associated with increased retention of content  Feelings of a personalised approach and increased involvement with the learning community  Reduced staff time by 75%; increased feedback 225% ‘Sounds Good’ (2009); King et al (2008)  Not about saving staff time necessarily  Audio increased quality of feedback
  4. 4. Rationale Level one is a crucial time for early establishment of student engagement Enhance quality and student experience of feedback Mix audio and typed comments to personalise the experience more Integrate into existing student reflective assessment component, with individualised dialogue with the instructor for further development of reflective skills Optimise staff satisfaction and time (a bonus) in providing feedback Combat repetitive strain injury Evaluate student opinion of audio feedback, including how they listen to it, any technological issues, and compare with written feedback component of module
  5. 5. Students Characteristics 50 level 1 undergraduate Social Work students• Range of experience; current practitioners to minimum requirement of 210 hours experience• Ages from 18 to mature return to learn (51)• 6 males
  6. 6. Module Content Module on Ethics & Values (20 credits) in first term Student social workers need to be reflective, academically and in practice Embed critical thinking & reflective practice Link to future Practice Learning Opportunities Challenge students’ personal & professional values
  7. 7. Blog Task Student task to write weekly blog analysing learning from individual teaching sessions• Supported by seminars on reflective writing, values & practice• Use Blackboard journal tool• Blogs formative but basis for a summative component of assessment (20%)
  8. 8. Online Dialogue Privacy settings – not a discussion board Only visible to blogger and module convenor Module convenor commented briefly/constructively on each blog entry Develop reflective register of writing required for practice
  9. 9. Summative Assessment: 2 Parts Part 1 Essay (80%) – typed feedback Part 2 Synthesise blog into academic submission of reflection on learning (20%)  – audio feedback Level 1 marks do not ‘count’ to degree classification
  10. 10. Process Equipment: SALT small grant of £100 purchased Sony IC digital voice recorder Save recordings as MP3 via USB to computer Keep technical demands on students to minimum Used own microphone headset
  11. 11. Practicalities Need quiet space - no hoovering With handset can be mobile Tolerate pauses and re-record if necessary
  12. 12. Timescale November 2011- December 2011: Module delivery: explanation of audio feedback at beginning of module. Upload group podcast to explain technical procedure January 2012: Summative assessment submission in two parts February 2012: Return of feedback to students; combination of audio and text February/March 2012: Student survey to evaluate audio compared to written feedback
  13. 13. Written Feedback Example: Page 1
  14. 14. Page 2: Marking Grid
  15. 15. Audio Feedback Example
  16. 16. Audio Comments 48 students out of 50 submitted assignments Recorded comments ranged from 1 minute 57 sec to 5.13 Tended to make comments longer nearer the end (last one longest) Some correlation of longer comments for lower achieving students
  17. 17. Results: What Went Well Produced feedback ahead of deadlines Enjoyment & personal touch Encouraging tone of voice Extensive and specific feedforward remarks about future development
  18. 18. What Didn’t Go So Well Communication via Blackboard Unable to insert as podcasts for students to access So emails sent within Blackboard module site - could take a minute to send Large files – potential to jam email accounts (including own – copy automatically sent to staff account)
  19. 19. Fenella FieldingEffect I lost my voice….
  20. 20. Evaluation Domains Questionnaire: Likert scales 1-5 (not useful- very useful):  Usefulness of audio/ written components  Ease of access, audibility, technical issues  How many times listened to/read  Use of feedforward  Link to reflection  Preference for type of feedback
  21. 21. Evaluation Results 39 responses (78%) Age range 18-51 (average 30) 4 males, 35 females Smiley faces – 2 23 23
  22. 22. Usefulness Times listened to/Read Feed ForwardTyped 4.1 1.9 4.3Audio 4.8 2 4.5
  23. 23. Justify Explain Praise Develop Referencing Future Marks Thinking WorkTyped 4 4.1 3.7 4 4.5 4Audio 4.7 4.6 4.9 4.6 4.4 4.5
  24. 24.  1st response disliked audio:  “Don’t take much in listening it.’ (1) All the rest liked it ‘Personal’ used 18 times - most frequent adjective Students know their learning styles - (I don’t)
  25. 25. Keeping it Personal ‘Very personal. More so than written feedback. I listened more to the breakdown of the feedback, but also valued the positive feedback which I feels lacks in written feedback. ‘ ‘It was more in depth than the written feedback. It came across more positive than the written feedback – even though the basic premise of each was the same. I think this may be because it used more informal language. It also felt more personal.’ ‘Bit more human!’ (12) ‘5+ for encouragement.’ (6)
  26. 26. Tone of voice… ‘Your voice was very soothing.’ (6) ‘Audio feedback could be better used by greater emphasis and utilising your personality. The current feedback, although it was you, lacked your personality.’ (23) ‘A future beckons on late night radio!’ (24)
  27. 27. Accessibility ‘Handwritten can be kept, referred to and easily found. Audio – must listen to it over and over to find useful part.’ (16) ‘I downloaded to my phone so was able to listen to it wherever I was, as used advice for other essay.’ (26) ‘As I’m dyslexic I found it easier to listen to rather than reading it.’ (13)
  28. 28. Feed Forward and Reflection ‘Fully explained what I did well (nice to hear) but also development of future work - very helpful ‘ (7) ‘By far the most informative feedback to date. It ahs enabled me to distinguish my strengths and weaknesses and support my ongoing studies.’ (18) (...) personalised and therefore felt more like a reflective pice of work.’ (30)
  29. 29. Conclusions Students prefer a mix of audio and typed Typed good for specific guidance e.g. referencing Audio more like a tutorial: More personal, in depth, encouraging and tailored – less formulaic or curt than typed On script or off message? Pencilled remarks on script also appreciated Audio more congruent with subject matter of reflection Audio suits my personal style Further work needed on transmission of audio files via Blackboard
  30. 30. References HEFCE (2011) NSS results Ice, P., Curtis, R., Phillips, P. & Wells, J. (2007) Using Asynchronous Audio Feedback to Enhance Teaching Presence and Students’ Sense of Community. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 11 (2) [online] Available at: Higher Education Academy: Social Work and Social Policy (SWAP) (2010) Effective Assessment for the Degree in Social Work. JISC (2009a) Effective Practice in a Digital Age [online] Available at: JISC (2009b) Sounds Good: Quicker, better assessment using audio feedback. Final Report. [online] Available at: JISC (2010a) Audio feedback [online] Available at: JISC (2010b) Optimising Audio Feedback assisted Learning for Student and Staff Experience (AFAL). Final Report. [online] Available at: King, D., McGugan, S. & Bunyan, N, (2008). Does it make a difference? Replacing text with audio feedback. Practice and Evidence of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. 3 (2) 125 – 163
  31. 31. Diolch yn fawr! Any questions?