Professional Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/A-Case-Study-On-Audio-Feedback-With-Geo 👈

1. This article was downloaded by: [ University of Witwatersrand]
On: 06 October 2011, At: 00: 57
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Geography in Higher
Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http:/ / www.tandfonline.com/ loi/ cjgh20
A Case Study on Audio Feedback with
Geography Undergraduates
Sue Rodway-Dyer
a
, Jasper Knight
b
& Elizabeth Dunne
a
a
Education Enhancement, University of Exeter, UK
b
Department of Geography, University of Exeter –Cornwall
Campus, UK
Available online: 24 Nov 2010
To cite this article: Sue Rodway-Dyer, Jasper Knight & Elizabeth Dunne (2011): A Case Study on
Audio Feedback with Geography Undergraduates, Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 35:2,
217-231
To link to this article: http:/ / dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/ 03098265.2010.524197
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http: / / www.tandfonline.com/ page/ terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

2. A Case Study on Audio Feedback with
Geography Undergraduates
SUE RODWAY-DYER*, JASPER KNIGHT** & ELIZABETH DUNNE*
*Education Enhancement, University of Exeter, UK, **Department of Geography, University of Exeter –
Cornwall Campus, UK
ABSTRACT Several small-scale studies have suggested that audio feedback can help students to
reflect on their learning and to develop deep learning approaches that are associated with higher
attainment in assessments. For this case study, Geography undergraduates were given audio
feedback on a written essay assignment, alongside traditional written feedback. The pros and cons of
such a technique are explored via student questionnaires, focus groups and individual interviews,
combined with a stimulated recall session with the tutor to analyze the feedback process. Results
highlighted the need for careful consideration of various factors (optimum time length, style, tone of
voice, the register of language and timing) when giving audio feedback.
KEY WORDS: Geography, audio feedback, pedagogy, student learning, student satisfaction
Introduction
The use of technology in delivering feedback has attracted considerable interest in UK higher
education (Rotheram, 2008), for two main reasons. First, feedback on both formative and
summative assessment is one of the most powerful influences on student learning and
attainment (Hattie, 1987; Black & Wiliam, 1998; Gibb & Simpson, 2004), as well as on the
development of key transferable skills that are relevant to employability. Second, the UK-
wide National Student Survey has shown consistently that feedback is an area in which
students are often least satisfied, irrespective of institution or discipline. Technology has great
potential to deliver timely and high-quality feedback because it can be deployed quickly and
cheaply; applied to different situations or assessment tasks; tailored to group or individual
needs; and uses media with which students are already familiar.
In order for feedback of any kind to be effective in driving student learning and attainment,
five interrelated preconditions are important: (1) the feedback has to be timely and legible
(Nicol & Milligan, 2006); (2) students have to recognize what feedback is and therefore when
they are being given feedback; (3) the feedback, and students’ perceptions of it, has to be
perceived as useful and informative (Gomez & Osborne, 2005), and not confusing or
contradictory (Irons, 2009); (4) students have to know how to position their feedback with
respect to marking criteria such that they can link feedback to future understanding and
ISSN 0309-8265 Print/1466-1845 Online/11/020217-15 q 2011 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/03098265.2010.524197
Correspondence Address: Sue Rodway-Dyer, Education Enhancement Unit, University of Exeter, Laver
Building, New Park Road, Exeter, Devon EX4 4QE, UK. Email: s.j.rodway-dyer@exeter.ac.uk
Journal of Geography in Higher Education
Vol. 35, No. 2, 217–231, May 2011
Downloaded
by
[University
of
Witwatersrand]
at
00:57
06
October
2011

3. attainment (Black et al., 2002); and (5) engagement with feedback as a learning tool is
necessary in order for students to be actively involved in monitoring their own performance
(Falchikov, 2005). Emerging from these pre-conditional elements is the view that ‘feedback’
should be repositioned as ‘feed-forward’, in which students can engage with feedback in a
positive way and focus on what can be improved in relation to understanding and attainment.
Several studies have considered the use of different technologies (MP3 players, mobile
phones, etc.) in teaching, learning and assessment (e.g. Saunders & Klemming, 2003; Knight,
2006). In particular, audio feedback via MP3 files, present opportunities to support student
learning in an immediate and engaging digital form, which can lead to positive learning
outcomes with self-regulation and reflective learning (Zimmerman, 2002). Several recent
studies (e.g. Bridge & Appleyard, 2007; Merry et al., 2007) have emphasized the positive
experiences of audio feedback for students, and highlight its emotive and subjective qualities,
including the importance of tone of voice, ease of access and understanding, and potential for
in-depth detail. This comes about in part because learning styles differ between individuals.
Additionally, Nortcliffe and Middleton (2007) found recorded feedback impacted on self-
reflection and action, was preferred by students and was less stressful and time consuming for
staff. However, they also suggest that audio feedback does not necessarily lead to higher
achievement. Some background on the application and practice of audio feedback is provided
by the Sounds Good project (http://sites.google.com/site/soundsgooduk/).
Aims
The research described in this paper forms part of a Higher Education Academy-funded
project exploring the use of technology to improve student feedback. The overarching aim
of the project is to identify good practice and to promote a ‘feed-forward’ culture whereby
students engage with different types of feedback so as to improve their performance. This
paper has the following aims: (1) to gauge Geography undergraduates’ views on audio
feedback on a standard written assignment; (2) to ascertain the views and processes
involved for the tutor in giving this audio feedback and (3) to evaluate its value from both
the students’ and tutor’s perspective.
Methodology
Set-up of the Assignment
Detailed audio feedback on a 1500-word written essay assignment (n ¼ 73) was provided
in the form of an MP3 file for a compulsory level 1, first semester module in Geography,
entitled “Introduction to Earth System Science”. This essay is the first summative
assessment written at university, submitted at the beginning of the fifth week of study.
In 2008–2009, this cohort (M ¼ 31, F ¼ 42) comprised students on human geography
(n ¼ 27), physical geography (n ¼ 42) and joint honors pathways (n ¼ 4). Students
received explicit guidelines on assignment writing and assessment criteria from the tutor
for the course and in study skills sessions. Essays were marked anonymously by this tutor
and returned to students within four weeks. Percentage marks (mean 46, standard
deviation (SD) 12, range 10–75) were almost identical to the previous two years.
Feedback on the essays was provided in two ways. A written feedback sheet contained a
grade, comment on three good and three weaker aspects of the essay and space for the
218 S. Rodway-Dyer et al.
Downloaded
by
[University
of
Witwatersrand]
at
00:57
06
October
2011

4. student to write, at a later point, about one thing that they had done to improve
(to encourage the concept of ‘feed-forward’). Individual audio feedback was returned by
email as an MP3 file. Audio files all followed the same format, with the mark for the
student being given first along with its relationship to the marking criteria. This was
followed by positive comments and a detailed analysis of the essay from start to finish,
with constructive criticism on where it was not so good and exactly what was needed to
improve, plus a final summary comment. Individual MP3 files varied in duration and size,
from 8:23 to 23:46 min and 6240–17 092 KB. The commentary on the audio file was based
around the tutor talking through the main points of the essay. No script or prepared text
was followed. The tutor did not receive any prior training on preparing audio feedback.
Evaluation of Audio Feedback
Student evaluation of audio feedback was collated over a time period of one year. First, an
anonymous, paper-based, retrospective questionnaire was used to gain quantitative and
qualitative insight into student views on audio feedback. Two focus group sessions, one
each with human (n ¼ 2) and physical geography groups (n ¼ 4) lasting around one hour
without the tutor being present, allowed in-depth open-question discussion on assessment
in general. Brief informal individual interviews were undertaken at this time with all focus
group members about their individual essays. Second, six months after the initial essay,
participating students were emailed and asked to reflect upon the experience of audio
feedback with reference to feedback from their later assignments. Finally, one year after
the initial essay, a follow-up questionnaire was issued to ascertain whether further time
had influenced their views on audio feedback and role of feed-forward (n ¼ 48).
Evaluationofthe contentofaudiofeedbackwasundertakeninthreeways.First,writtenand
audio feedback was compared for similarities and differences in style. Second, a functional-
qualitative framework based upon WrAssE (a LearnHigher project on analyzing text-based
feedback at the University of Plymouth: http://www.learningdevelopment.plymouth.ac.
uk/wrasse/) was developed to enable content analysis. This allows for more effective
examination of the nature and focus of tutor comments (both audio and written) on the
assessment. Third, the tutor participated in a one-hour stimulated-recall interview, to prompt
explicit reflection on the quality of the feedback he had given and to consider potential areas
for improvement in future practice.
Student Results
Initial Questionnaire
A total of 51 students (70 per cent) completed the initial questionnaire on general views on
feedback. Most students listened to audio feedback twice (Table 1).
The majority of students felt that both audio and written feedback had provided a useful
experience (82 per cent audio, 80 per cent written). Table 2 shows the main advantages of
audio feedback to be the greater detail and depth, and that it is clearer and easier to
understand (more interesting than red pen), although this may not always be the case for
students from differing cultural backgrounds. The main reported disadvantages of audio
feedback related to difficulties in finding the point in the essay to which the audio feedback
referred. Other comments inferred that it was a time-consuming process and they found
A Case Study on Audio Feedback 219
Downloaded
by
[University
of
Witwatersrand]
at
00:57
06
October
2011

5. it a negative experience. The main advantages of written feedback were that it related to
specific parts of the essay, and was easy to look back at. As in other audio research projects
(e.g. Bridge & Appleyard, 2007), one of the main problems found with written feedback
was in the legibility of handwriting. Additionally, students sometimes found the written
feedback lacking in depth and detail and difficult to understand.
In general, students wanted more information on ‘how to improve’ (n ¼ 16). Some
requested sample answers and case studies (n ¼ 6), although in fact the lecturer had
provided these. Others wanted support with structure/style/grammar (n ¼ 6) or specific
content (n ¼ 6). Overall, students suggested the feedback they received would help them
perform ‘somewhat better’ (76 per cent) or ‘much better’ (14 per cent), though 10 per cent
felt that the feedback would not impact on their performance. Student views on other
forms of feedback were also gained (Table 3). Face-to-face verbal feedback from a tutor
was the most popular. More innovative feedback styles such as a movie file, real-time
video of their essay being marked, feedback using Skype or an online chat room had
neutral to negative responses (Knight, 2010).
Student Focus Groups and Interviews
The two semi-structured focus group sessions highlighted that previously experienced
class sizes in schools and colleges had varied from between 3 and 20 (hence these students
were not used to large groups), and that essays had been marked traditionally with the
opportunity readily available to talk to teachers. No students had previously received
feedback in an MP3 file and, although the technology posed no problems, they found it a
shock (despite the tutor having previously explained the feedback process in detail).
To listen to the feedback, some reported going to their study bedroom with the assignment
in front of them; others listened as soon as possible, even on the bus going home, but
without the assignment for reference. The student who first opened their audio file
achieved a low mark and considered the feedback to be very critical; word immediately
went round that the experience was very negative.
The focus group students considered that their feedback focused on the negative rather
than the positive “you just listen to someone saying everything bad that you have
done . . . you cannot say anything back . . . ”; they did not like aspects of the terminology or
the way in which it was used; nor did they always appreciate the tone of voice “It was as if
I was being told I’d done wrong . . . a feeling of being told off”; and in some cases the
Table 1. Number of times that students had listened to their audio feedback (modal class in bold)
Number of times listened
to audio feedback Frequency %
1 10 20
1–2 1 2
2 19 38
2–3 2 4
3 12 24
3–4 1 2
4 4 8
5 1 2
220 S. Rodway-Dyer et al.
Downloaded
by
[University
of
Witwatersrand]
at
00:57
06
October
2011

6. Table 2. Advantages and disadvantages of audio and written feedback
Advantages Frequency Disadvantages Frequency
Audio feedback
Greater detail/fully explained/more specific/in depth 15 Cannot always see what referring to/hard to follow or relate
to specific points in the essay
9
Easier to understand/clear and concise/informative/
constructive
12 Time consuming/quite long/not concise 5
Can look at the essay the same time as listen/check with
written feedback
10 Less confidence if essay is bad/more daunting/harsh/
negative
5
Can hear it repeatedly 8 Could not ask questions 3
Feels more personal 3 Difficult to listen to regularly 3
Pay more attention to what is said/more interesting 2 Misheard 2
Easy to do 2 Could be deleted accidentally 1
Can pause 1 Forgot what was said 1
Cannot be misinterpreted 1 Have to keep stopping it 1
Permanent records on computer 1 Harder to listen in one go 1
Choose when listen to it 1
Written feedback
See exactly where wrong/where to improve/specific parts of
essay
14 Illegible writing 10
Easy to refer back to/access it/look at/permanent 13 Not as much detail/information/brief 7
Easy to get main points/overview 3 Difficult to understand/unclear context 6
Go through it at own pace 2 Unable to ask question 1
Thorough 1 Can appear harsh 1
A
Case
Study
on
Audio
Feedback
221
Downloaded by [University of Witwatersrand] at 00:57 06 October 2011

7. feedback ‘went on far too long’. Furthermore , they had not known what to expect in terms
of university-style feedback or standards, and none of them had expected to fail or just
scrape a pass, especially having achieved high grades in preuniversity examinations.
Of interest is that none of the students in the focus group had looked at the marking criteria
(despite being repeatedly asked to do so by the tutor).
When asked what they would have preferred as feedback content, the students
acknowledged that they needed to know about areas for improvement, exactly as had been
outlined in their audio file. They also all stated they would have preferred face-to-face
feedback with the opportunity to respond to the tutor’s comments. However, none had
actually seen the tutor on receiving their feedback, despite being invited several times to
do so. One student stated that it was their first essay at a time when they were trying to
adjust to living away from home and making new friends, and that this made any negative
feedback more difficult to cope with.
All focus group students reported gaining higher marks since this first assignment,
finding that relating their grade to the marking criteria had helped them to understand what
exactly was required in essay writing. They acknowledged that the tutor had spent an
enormous amount of time giving them detailed feedback and, after the focus group, all
stated that they would listen to the feedback again to actually learn from it “I put off
listening to it again, but I think I need to. Try and interpret with my essay more. I think
I just listened and went ahhh! and switched it off. Maybe I didn’t go about it the right
way”. All suggested they would like more audio feedback, as long as they also received
written comments and some guidance in how to use the feedback.
Later Reflection
At the end of their first year of study, the same focus group students were asked, via email,
to reflect on the audio feedback from their first term. One student had not changed his
view: “I honestly don’t feel differently about the feedback. I believe that it was
informative, however it was extremely harsh. Yes I have improved my essays because of
the feedback”. Another student states: “I can now see that some of the things said have
helped me write future essays. I felt most of the things said were criticisms, so letting
people know that they had done something good would help their self-esteem. Maybe the
audio feedback shouldn’t be used for the first essay”. Another was more positive in terms
of motivation: “When I think back to when I received this feedback, I do think that it was
rather harsh. Maybe however this is part of the teaching process, as often people learn
Table 3. Student responses to other feedback styles (modal class in bold)
Not useful
at all
Not very
useful Neutral
Somewhat
useful Very useful
Total Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency %
Verbal feedback
from peers
51 5 10 7 14 12 23 20 39 7 14
Verbal feedback
from tutor
51 1 2 5 10 6 12 16 31 23 45
Written
feedback
51 0 0 7 14 8 16 23 45 13 25
222 S. Rodway-Dyer et al.
Downloaded
by
[University
of
Witwatersrand]
at
00:57
06
October
2011

8. if they have a bad experience at the beginning, as they put in more effort to avoid the same
happening again”. This student also felt that the feedback seemed less critical than it had at
the time: “Yes it does make more sense to me now. Having now done numerous essays
I can understand his comments, as I now know what is expected at degree level. I feel it did
push me to want to do better, and therefore this is useful”.
A year after the essay assignment, the same student cohort was asked their opinions on
audio feedback (Table 4). Students highlighted both positive (n ¼ 32) and negative
(n ¼ 24) aspects.
Students were also asked to list comments they could remember from their initial audio
feedback. Responses (n ¼ 29) included six students who could not recall anything. Others
remembered details on structure, content, use of case studies, diagrams, wider reading,
references and context, as well as general comments such as ‘disappointing’. Some were
quite specific. The majority (n ¼ 46) stated they had listened to their feedback once while
one student said twice, contrasting somewhat with the first questionnaire results. Table 5
shows that opinions about feedback styles have also changed over time. The perceived
importance of face-to-face feedback is emphasized by a greater majority of students
(63 per cent in the second questionnaire; 45 per cent in the first questionnaire) believing
that verbal feedback from the tutor is ‘very useful’, while the written feedback is perceived
as even more useful (89 per cent vs. 70 per cent).
The majority (n ¼ 40; 85 per cent) of students expected praise within their feedback.
When asked how they felt about critical feedback (n ¼ 47), the student responses varied
from brief comments (n ¼ 7) such as ‘worthwhile’ and ‘useful’ to detailed explanation
(n ¼ 40) desiring it to be constructive with a balance between negative and positive points:
“It helps me focus on areas I need to work on. However, positive feedback is also
necessary and encouraging” and “I much prefer to have a mixture of positive and negative
Table 4. Student responses on feedback from a second questionnaire a year after the initial essay
assignment, grouped into positive and negative themes
Themes Examples
Positive comments General Very good/good/OK
Specific Personalized//thorough, good idea in theory/get
more out of it/allows more to be explained in a
shorter time frame/easy and quick to receive/useful
to hear lecturer’s views/particular areas could be
pinpointed and explained
Prefer to other
feedback types
Much better than writing/handwriting is often
hard to understand
Negative comments General Not the most helpful feedback/overly negative
Specific Too critical/negative comments are likely to be
taken personally/went on for too long/too much
information
Prefer other
feedback types
Good in addition to written feedback but should
not replace it/prefer written that can easily be read
through again/prefer face-to-face/not as effective,
in any way, as other forms of feedback
Frequency Had it only once/should use this method for future feedback/able to
check or listen back after rereading/ better if used more often
A Case Study on Audio Feedback 223
Downloaded
by
[University
of
Witwatersrand]
at
00:57
06
October
2011

9. criticism, as long as it is constructive and therefore allows me to see how I am able to
improve and why what I did was wrong”.
Analysis of the Content of Feedback
Comparison between Written Feedback and Audio Feedback
Analysis of both written feedback (feedback sheet and writing on the essay) and audio
feedback transcripts for 13 focus group students (thus 17 per cent of the overall cohort)
highlighted how the tutor used the two forms of feedback in different ways (Table 6). Both
within the essay and on the cover sheet, written comments were brief, whereas audio
feedback contained considerable detail on what was missing and what was needed to
improve. Table 6 outlines a comparison between written and audio feedback.
In comparing the detail of written and audio feedback provided for one sample essay,
Table 7 highlights how the proportion of feedback varied little between the two forms.
This is typical for all examined essays.
WrAssE Analysis
The transcribed audio feedback for eight students selected randomly from the focus groups
was analyzed according to ‘functions’ and ‘qualities’ categories adapted from the WrAssE
LearnHigher project at the University of Plymouth (Stannard, 2008). The WrAssE project
categorized student work, whereas in this context categories applied to sentences or
statements in the tutor audio feedback (Table 8).
Problems that emerged during the analysis related to the potential for duplication, and
difficulties in assessing where a statement concluded. The proportion of critical comments
far outweighed the positive comments (Table 9), confirming the student view, but this was
due to the nature of the feedback offered, which actually fulfilled the students’ desire to
know where they needed to improve. The analysis shows that the tutor clearly described
how he intended to approach the feedback, and then he related it to each individual essay,
with this taking up almost a quarter of the feedback. Greatest importance was attached to
the critical analysis, which accounted for almost half of the feedback, thereby highlighting
the importance of the technical, geographical content of the essay.
Overall, 83 per cent of audio feedback for these eight students related to the functional
aspect. Since feedback on essays for the whole cohort took a similar form, it could be
Table 5. Feedback methods identified as usual from the second questionnaire, a year after the initial
essay assignment (modal class shown in bold)
Not useful at
all
Not very
useful Neutral
Somewhat
useful Very useful
Total Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency %
Verbal feedback
from peers
46 0 0 9 20 17 37 19 41 1 2
Verbal feedback
from tutor
48 0 0 0 0 2 4 16 33 30 63
Written
feedback
46 0 0 0 0 5 11 21 46 20 43
224 S. Rodway-Dyer et al.
Downloaded
by
[University
of
Witwatersrand]
at
00:57
06
October
2011

10. Table 6. Comparison of written and audio feedback for the focus group students (n ¼ 13)
Theme Written feedback Audio feedback
Performance Grade Reads out the grade
Marking criteria and description
Justifies the grade referring to the general problems with the essay
Adhering to the brief Comments on the essay template/handout Comments on the essay template/handout
Content Comments specifically on ‘Introduction’ section
Emphasis on specific words
Corrections on spelling or grammatical errors
circled
Questions/comments on geographical points Questions and explanation on geographical points and specific case studies
Ticks Comments on ticks
Single comments such as ‘expand’, ‘relevance’,
‘evidence’, ‘e.g.’
Expands on comments such as ‘expand’, ‘relevance’, ‘evidence’, ‘e.g.’
Specific examples on what to expand and how
Brief comments on where greater focus was
needed
More detailed comments on where greater focus was needed
Single comments on where labels (e.g. maps,
dates, etc.) are needed
Refers to lectures and lecture notes
Comments on structure
Comments such as: ‘very weak’, ‘OK’, ‘surely you mean . . . ?’
Referencing Annotations on where to insert references Comments on where to insert references
Incorrect referencing circled Comments on how to correct referencing or specific references on virtual
learning environment
A
Case
Study
on
Audio
Feedback
225
Downloaded by [University of Witwatersrand] at 00:57 06 October 2011

11. assumed that this emphasis on function would be apparent throughout. Such an analysis,
however, does not enable any judgment on appropriateness for the context, or whether
additional emphasis on quality would be more supportive for students.
Stimulated Recall Interview
The stimulated recall session, in which the tutor listened back to and commented upon two
audio files randomly selected from the focus group students (a weak essay and an average
essay) had three main aims: (1) to allow explanation of his thought processes during the
recording of the MP3 files; (2) to consider the students’ responses to his comments and
(3) to suggest improvements in the process. Several excerpts were played at intervals to
allow time for reflection and comment.
The tutor explained that the MP3 files had been created as if the student and he were going
through the essay together, page-by-page. He stated that the structure of the feedback had
‘evolved’ initially, relating to the feedback sheet, giving the mark (“the thing they are most
interested in”) and then the justification for that mark with reference to marking criteria. He
had attempted to make the link between performance and mark very clear by consistently
referring to the marking criteria, followed by a very detailed analysis of what the student
needed to have done and how to improve, highlighting strengths and weaknesses. He recalled
his frustration at having to continually point out the same weaknesses in the assignments,
especiallysincehehadtoldthestudentsexactlyhowtoachieveagoodmark,andhadprovided
additional support through easily accessible web materials and handouts. Additionally, the
essay template that students were requested to use was available on the intranet pages for the
module and easy to download, but not all students had done this.
To ensure clarity, he had read aloud the comments he had written on students’ essays,
because he recognized the common criticism that students ‘cannot read the tutor’s
writing’. He felt that reading comments would also be helpful to reinforce points. In some
instances, words were repeated and emphasized, to be the equivalent of underlining on the
essay text. He also referred to specific points, marked as ticks on the written assignment, in
the expectation that the audio file and the essay would be gone through together. However,
he also acknowledged how difficult it might have been for students to keep up with his
own advanced level of skim reading, even if they did have their essay in front of them, and
suggested that if students listen to MP3 feedback more frequently, there maybe the
potential to make rapid improvement in their skills. He felt that students who listen several
times would gain the most value by being able to reflect on it more, and would be able to
Table 7. Comparison of feedback weighting for different types of comments within a single essay
Written (com-
ments/words) Audio (time)
Feedback given No. % min:s %
Performance 1 3 0:46 9
Adhering to the brief 3 9 1:26 17
Content 18 55 4:34 54
Referencing 11 33 1:39 20
Total 33 100 8:25 (excluding pauses, etc.) 100
226 S. Rodway-Dyer et al.
Downloaded
by
[University
of
Witwatersrand]
at
00:57
06
October
2011

12. Table 8. WrAssE categories, with examples from the examined essays
Category Description Examples
Function—describe Description of tutor’s approach to feedback, what the student
has done and subject context such as defining the problem or
describing the challenges
“So what I am going to do is go through the essay and relate my
comments on the essay to the marks that you have been given”.
Function—analyze Statement of the geographical content needed as matched
against the assignment, questioning theory, methodologies or
explanation and asking students to analyze
“Throughout both of these case studies on the rivers and on the
coast you focus in on human activity—you hardly mention
geomorphological processes. So what you need to do is to first
of all describe the geomorphological processes that take place
in rivers and then you need to say: okay we’ve got these
processes, now let’s look at examples of how human activities
intervene in these processes and change them”.
Function—evaluate Comments on student work via value judgments, or pointing
out defects or omissions
“OK”/“That’s fine”/“Now what would be more useful . . . ”/“So
that would be better . . . ”
Quality—structure Linking to references, making specific structure comments and
providing signposting
“You need to describe the processes first”.
“Now you have your discussion, what you need to do in these
discussions is bring these case studies together effectively”.
Quality—authority Giving instructions on procedure or relating to materials
provided, etc.
“Throughout all of this you have no references whatsoever. I’ve
asked you to read some specific things I linked directly from
WebCT half a dozen or so papers that I asked you to read in
preparation for this”.
Quality—voice Comments on academic style “So don’t ask rhetorical questions. You do that quite a lot
towards the end of the essay”. “What you really need to do here
throughout your university experience is to use more scholarly
language in order to get your point across”.
A
Case
Study
on
Audio
Feedback
227
Downloaded by [University of Witwatersrand] at 00:57 06 October 2011

13. pick up on the suggestions without being influenced by their initial emotional context and
interpretations.
In listening to his feedback, he wondered about the value of having ‘plunged straight into
the detail’ by working from beginning to end, and suggested that a more general overview
might have been better at the beginning. He also felt that some of the comments might have
been too sophisticated for a first-year student, and suggested that some of the terminology was
inappropriate. He also accepted that his feedback might be perceived as negative since he
sometimes ‘sounded wearied and grumpy’, although he reinforced that realistic feedback is a
necessary experience in getting students to adapt to the standards required. Also, he felt that
his efforts to speak slowly and clearly came across as condescending and pedantic. Having
repeated the whole process for over 70 students, he said that it had become hard when stating
the same advice again and again to maintain a positive ‘up-beat’ tone. He recognized that
positive and encouraging words were rare and that changing this in future might help to
overcome the negative tone of some of the feedback. He also recognized that some statements
might not have been taken in the same way in a remote audio file as they would have been in
the face-to-face context, especially with students being unused to critical comment on
assignments: “During the audio playback, there were several instances where my choice of
language or phrase was not how I would have wanted it to be, and this was jarring; but it made
me more aware of what a student might put up with when listening to the file. The stimulated
recall was useful, therefore, in making me think more carefully about my practice.” As an
overall outcome of the interview, the tutor stated: “I will make some changes to the style and
organizationofwhatIsaywhengivingtheaudiofeedback,inordertomakemymeaningmore
clear”.
Discussion and Conclusions
Although this is a single case study, there are many issues raised that are likely to be
transferable to a variety of other contexts in which audio feedback might be used. Notably,
the technological aspect of audio feedback created no problem whatsoever for the tutor,
and only one student reported difficulty in downloading and listening to it. Difficulties
with audio feedback related far more to issues of pedagogy than technology.
The process of giving audio feedback within this case study can be summarized in relation
to the five key principles of effective feedback outlined in the Introduction to this paper.
Timely Feedback
It can be argued that the feedback for these students was timely, as no student complained
about not receiving feedback quickly enough and it was returned well within the time
Table 9. Function and quality analysis of audio feedback (n ¼ 8)
Mark
Function-
describe
(%)
Function-
analyze
(%)
Function-
evaluate
%
Quality-
structure
(%)
Quality-
authority
(%)
Quality-
voice
(%)
Positive
comments
Negative
comments
Mean 51 23 45 15 7 9 1 5 16
SD 21 4 8 7 3 6 2 3 8
228 S. Rodway-Dyer et al.
Downloaded
by
[University
of
Witwatersrand]
at
00:57
06
October
2011

14. period specified by the University of Exeter for return of marked work (four weeks).
However, factors such as timing of tutorials and office administration require more
attention to be given to the precise timing so that students all have the opportunity to
receive feedback at the same time, so as to alleviate the problem of rumors and negativity.
It may also be that audio feedback for the first assignment was difficult to deal with,
especially as they seemed unprepared for it, and the change from school to university
seemed to create difficulties. Students also reported finding audio feedback time
consuming to listen to. From the tutor’s point of view, it was certainly not time saving;
however, the objective had been to find a means of giving more detailed, feed-forward
support, not to save time. The question remains as to whether a first assignment is a good
moment for setting new expectations and ways of working, and how students can be
prepared for such experiences. The Sounds Good project suggests that ‘three or four
minutes may be plenty’ for an undergraduate essay, but we argue that this is simply not
long enough to provide feedback that is meaningful, detailed and useful for the student.
Recognizing Feedback
The students did realize fully that the audio feedback was ‘feedback’ in the same sense as
written essay comments, and that they should pay attention to it and the detail and multiple
methods of feedback highlighted the commitment of the tutor to support them as learners.
However, although the tutor deliberately gave positive and negative critique on all
assignments, students tended to pick up more strongly on the negative elements, again
perhaps being unaware of what to expect and the nature of critical analysis.
Understanding Feedback
The students found the audio feedback understandable, but appeared to require time to
comprehend the content, with some students only making sense of it as they progressed
with their studies. The intervention of the focus group also enabled a small number of
students to comprehend their feedback more fully, suggesting that more time may be
needed with students to work through feedback comments with a tutor. In order to connect
the audio feedback to written comments on essays, a practical tip would be to number
points on paper, and refer to these numbers when making the audio file. This would have
made the two forms of feedback less disjointed for students. Also, it is likely that
individuals respond in different ways to different feedback styles.
Addressing Assessment Criteria
From the essays, and within the focus groups, it was apparent that the majority of students
had not paid attention to the assessment criteria, despite explanations of their purpose and
importance by the tutor. However, it became clear that interpretation of these criteria is a
skill developed over time.
Using Feedback
The audio feedback offered by the tutor was detailed and evidenced a strong focus on feed-
forward for future improvement, and the student-reflective comments suggested that this had
A Case Study on Audio Feedback 229
Downloaded
by
[University
of
Witwatersrand]
at
00:57
06
October
2011

15. really had an impact. Student reports suggested that they had improved on their performance
over the course of a year, but how much of this was due to the audio feedback would be
impossible to establish. A longer and more sustained use of audio feedback for different
assignments might have greater impact on student learning.
Overall, this detailed case study has provided valuable insights into the practical and
pedagogic use of audio feedback. The design of the study allowed student views to be
ascertained over the course of a year, which allowed for changes in student comprehension
and reflection to be monitored, and highlighted their developing understanding of the
purpose of feedback. Although differences between the initial and second (reflective)
questionnaire highlighted an even greater desire for feedback in the form of writing or face-
to-face verbal tutor feedback, a positive view toward audio feedback prevailed; indeed,
there were requests for it to be used more often. More research would be useful on the extent
to which audio feedback can support learning, whether it is better remembered than reading
written comments, and whether this varies according to the student. Additionally, the
research methodologies themselves proved to be of value in relation to both students and the
tutor’s learning and reflective practice: the functional-qualitative framework provided
useful insights into the feedback and it would be interesting to use this with different tutors
and subject areas;the focus groups highlighted the benefit of reviewingthe feedback process
with students; and the stimulated recall activity with the tutor demonstrated the value of this
approach in developing professional practice. The feed-forward from this project, leading to
changes in the tutor’s experience in giving audio feedback and the usefulness of this
feedback for student learning, will be further explored with the aim of embedding the
concept of feed-forward into both tutor teaching practice and student study skills. It also
highlights the potential role of audio feedback and stimulated recall as a tool in professional
development.
References
Black, P. J., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B. & Wiliam, D. (2002) Working Inside the Black Box: Assessment
for Learning in the Classroom (London: NFERNelson).
Black, P. J. & Wiliam, D. (1998) Assessment and classroom learning, Assessment in Education, March, pp. 7–74.
Bridge, P. & Appleyard, R. (2007) A comparison of electronic and paper-based assignment submission and
feedback, British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(4), pp. 669–671.
Falchikov, N. (2005) Improving Assessment through Student Involvement: Practical Solutions for Aiding
Learning in Higher and Further Education (London: Routledge Falmer).
Gibb, G. & Simpson, C. (2004) Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning, Learning and
Teaching in Higher Education, 1, pp. 3–31.
Gomez, S. & Osborne, R. (2005) Enhancing students’ appreciation of written feedback on essay assignments,
Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Enhancing Teaching and Learning through Assessment,
June 2005, Hong Kong Polytechnic University.
Hattie, J. A. (1987) Identifying the salient facets of a model of student learning: A synthesis of meta analyses,
International Journal of Educational Research, 11, pp. 187–212.
Irons, A. (2009) Enhancing Learning through Formative Assessment and Feedback (London: Routledge).
Knight, J. (2006) Investigating geography undergraduates’ attitudes to teaching, learning and technology,
Planet, 16, pp. 19–21.
Knight, J. (2010) Investigating students’ responses to different styles of essay feedback, Planet, in press.
Merry, S., Orsmond, P. & Galbraith, D. (2007) Does Providing Academic Feedback to Students via Mp3 Audio
Files Enhance Learning? Report to HEA Centre for Bioscience. Available at http://www.bioscience.heaca
demy.ac.uk/resources/projects/merry.aspx (accessed February 2010).
230 S. Rodway-Dyer et al.
Downloaded
by
[University
of
Witwatersrand]
at
00:57
06
October
2011

16. Nicol, D. J. & Milligan, C. (2006) Rethinking technology-supported assessment in terms of the seven principles
of good feedback practice, in: C. Bryan & K. Clegg (Eds) Innovative Assessment in Higher Education,
pp. 64–77 (London: Routledge).
Nortcliffe, A. & Middleton, A. (2007) Audio feedback for the ipod generation, in: Proceedings of International
Conference on Engineering Education 2007, September 3–7, Coimbra, Portugal. Available at http://
icee2007.dei.uc.pt/proceedings/papers/489.pdf (accessed February 2010).
Rotheram, B. (2008) Sounds good: Quicker, better assessment using audio feedback, Report to JISC. Available at
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/programme_users_and_innovation/soundsgood.aspx
(accessed February 2010).
Saunders, G. & Klemming, F. (2003) Integrating technology into a traditional learning environment. Reasons for
and risks of success, Active Learning in Higher Education, 4, pp. 74–86.
Stannard, R. (2008) Supporting teaching with e-learning. Available at http://www.wmin.ac.uk/page-14126
(accessed February 2010).
Zimmerman, B. (2002) Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview, Theory into Practice, 41(2), pp. 64–70.
A Case Study on Audio Feedback 231
Downloaded
by
[University
of
Witwatersrand]
at
00:57
06
October
2011