A Technology Enhanced Approach to Improving Feedback Satisfaction:

An investigation into using screencast-video as a means of producing feedback delivered via the

Moodle gradebook

Tue 10th September 2013, Conference Suite 2, 446 John Morrison, Edinburgh Napier University Link to supporting website: http://digitaliteracy.co.uk

2

Contents

1   INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 5  

1.1   Background ........................................................................................................................................... 5  

1.2   Project aims ........................................................................................................................................... 5  

1.3   Project overview .................................................................................................................................... 5  

2   LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................... 6  

2.1   Effective feedback for learning ............................................................................................................ 6  

2.2   Technology-enhanced approaches ....................................................................................................... 8  

2.3   Multimodal learning ............................................................................................................................. 8  

3   DESIGN ......................................................................................................... 10  

3.1   Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 10  

3.2   Participants .......................................................................................................................................... 10  

3.3   Materials .............................................................................................................................................. 11  

3.4   Procedure ............................................................................................................................................. 12  

3.5   Results and analysis ............................................................................................................................ 14  

4   CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................ 16  

4.1   Future possibilities .............................................................................................................................. 16  

4.2   Limitations ........................................................................................................................................... 16  

4.3   Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 16  

5   REFERENCES .............................................................................................. 18  

3

List of Tables

Table 2-1. The criteria conducive for feedback to feed-forward effectively. ................ 7  Table 3-1. Results from survey to gauge student perceptions of feedback presented

as screencast-video. .......................................................................................... 14  

4

List of Figures

Figure 2-1. How the brain processes multimodal stimulus (Moore, 2011, p.10). ........ 9  Figure 3-1. iShowU screen-capture software interface, showing encoding options. . 11  Figure 3-2. AT2020 Audio Technica Cardioid Condenser Microphone. .................... 11  Figure 3-3. Moodle gradebook with link to screen-cast video feedback .................... 13  Figure 3-4. Bar graph to illustrate student perceptions of feedback presented as

screencast-video. ............................................................................................... 15  

5

1 Introduction

1.1 Background This report describes an investigation into using screencast-video as a multimodal method for providing feedback for learning. The rational for the study was based on feedback being recognised as an essential component of the student learning experience “…the lifeblood of learning” (Rowntree, 1987, P.24) and data from the National Student Survey (NSS) highlighting students continued dissatisfaction with current feedback methods (HEFCE, 2011). There are numerous studies that report on the conditions conducive for effective feedback for learning (e.g. Black & Wiliam, 1998; Gibbs & Simpson, 2004; Brown, 2006). However, many of these studies focus on feedback in traditional text-based formats and few provide any details of technology-enhanced approaches, or how best to encapsulate and nurture these conditions.

1.2 Project aims The aim of the project is to explore the suitability of a technology-enhanced method for improving student engagement and satisfaction with their feedback. Specifically, can producing feedback as a screen-cast video better capture the characteristics of good feedback than traditional text based means? And how suitable is the Moodle virtual learning environment (VLE) for delivering feedback captured in this format. This is the premise of the work presented in this report; it is framed around a pilot study within the Module ‘Digital Video Development’ (IMD08104) on the Digital Media programme in the School of Computing, at Edinburgh Napier University (ENU). The projects aims are evaluated from a tutor’s perspective in the experience of creating and distributing the screencast-video feedback and from a students’ perspective via an online survey.

1.3 Project overview Chapter 2: provides a definition of feedback, its role in the student learning experience and details on the criteria highlighted in literature as being conducive for effective feedback. New developments in technology-enhanced approaches to feedback are then explored, along with an overview of multimodal learning theory. Chapter 3: of the report highlights the considerations and procedures for designing and implementing the screencast pilot study as an assimilation of the literature. Including details of the student participants, evaluation method and results. Chapter 4: presents the conclusions, critical reflection and key findings of the study along with possible future directions for further research.

6

2 Literature review

This chapter explores a range of sources to add context to the area of feedback for learning and support a rationale for the study. It begins with a popular definition of feedback, its role in the student learning experience and details on the criteria highlighted in literature as being conducive for effective feedback. New developments in technology-enhanced approaches to feedback are then explored, along with an overview of multimodal learning theory.

2.1 Effective feedback for learning Ramaprasad (1983) defines feedback as "information about the gap between the actual level and the reference level of a system parameter which is used to alter the gap in some way", emphasising that the information by itself is not feedback unless translated into action (Ramaprasad, P.4, 1983). This perspective describes feedback in terms of its effect rather than its informational content. This definition is popular in educational literature, where feedback is widely recognised as a vital component in a student's learning experience (e.g. Hattie, 1987), reports that feedback has the most powerful single influence to student achievement in a comprehensive meta-analysis review of 87 studies. Likewise, the seminal studies and research on formative assessment conducted by Dylan Wiliam and Paul Black brigs to light the powerful and consistent positive effects that feedback has on learning compared with other aspects of teaching. Gibbs & Simpson (2004) highlight feedbacks relationship with effective assessment and course design and suggest the feedback generated on formative assessment is the most useful for learning. The core activity of formative assessment lies in the sequence of two actions; the first is a learner’s perception of a gap between a desired goal and their current ability. The second is the required action necessary by the learner to close that gap in order to attain the desired goal. The complete causal path that leads from the initial detection of the gap to the subsequent closing of the gap is known as a feedback loop (Sadler, 1989, cited in Black & Wiliam, 1998, p.20). Gibbs & Simpson (2004) assimilate many aspects of Black & Wiliam’s (1998) finings into a set of criteria that are conducive for effective learning. Brown, (2006) builds on the premise that effective feedback should primarily serve a formative function i.e. it should feed-forward and encourage students to engage with future learning and that the other criteria essentially act to allow feedback to feed-forward successfully. Table 2-1 synthesises some of the criteria highlighted in the literature with a short description of their role.

7

Feedback Condition Description Feedback that feeds-forward

Feedback should enhance future learning by providing opportunities for students to close the gap between their own performance and the desired performance.

Criteria conducive for feedback to feedforward effectively

Personalised and detailed Feedback should provide enough personally focused detail for students to be able to understand and use it to rate their own performance.

The timeliness of Feedback Feedback should be returned to students as soon as possible so they have a chance to reflect on their current capacity and be able to identify gaps, which can be nurtured in future studies.

The sentiment of feedback Structure a blend of critical feedback sandwiched between comments on positive aspects of achievement.

Learning focused feedback Nurture conditions conducive to skills focused feedback over content focused feedback.

Table 2-1. The criteria conducive for feedback to feed-forward effectively.

Whilst the definition is clear, the conditions necessary in generating and providing effective feedback, which can be harnessed by students and translated into action to improve their learning, are far from simplistic (Gibbs & Simpson, 2004). The National Student Survey (NSS) has provided a public forum for students’ since the surveys were first launched in 2005. Edinburgh Napier University (ENU) has participated since 2009. The ‘assessment and feedback’ category has consistently scored below all other sections since the survey began (HEFCE, 2011), highlighting continued student dissatisfaction in this crucial component of their learning experience. Phil Race, a Senior Fellow of The Higher Education Academy and guest speaker at the Edinburgh Napier 2011 Staff conference on Feedback, reflects on his website: “In my view, the actual survey is quite badly designed, but the results are taken very seriously, and turned into league tables both within institutions and nationally. And all feedback on the student experience in higher education is useful, even when the survey instrument is far from perfect.” (Race, 2009).

8

Feedback can be produced and delivered in many forms, from a simple grade generated by an exam, to detailed 1:1 formal meetings between learners and educators. The literature covers quite extensively which criteria are important for effective feedback. However, there are not many details on technology-enhanced approaches, or how to encapsulate and nurture these conditions. Does the format that feedback is produce and delivered in, impact on its effectiveness? I.e. does it influence its capacity to capture the characteristics of good feedback? These questions are explored in this section of the report framed though the impact of, and advances in technology.

2.2 Technology-enhanced approaches Developments in technology have widened the possibilities for providing feedback in alternative formats, e.g. e-mail, social networking and audio recordings (Chapman & Busch, 2009). Some studies argue that if feedback is returned via a medium that is physically separated from the student’s original work, it adds a cognitive load to interpreting it (Sweller, 1994) e.g. if a student is producing a programming focused coursework then providing feedback as tags in their lines of code can be more effective that delivering it separately. New potential feedback formats enabled by technology, can bring possibilities for richer, more contextually relevant feedback (e.g. Cummins, 2010). These can be tailored to individual subject disciplines and better embedded with students’ assessed coursework by design. Innovations in approaches to technology-enhanced learning were a popular topic at discussions facilitated through the 2012 JISC e-learning conference, which in 2012 was hosted for the first time entirely online via the Moodle virtual learning environment (VLE). In September 2012 Moodle replaced WebCT Vista as the VLE managed by ENU, bringing many potential opportunities to enhance student engagement. Advantages for using Moodle in relation to feedback include the potential for digital submissions and marking of coursework’s via the flexible gradebook tool, assisting in efficiencies for the timeliness of feedback. The capacity for embedding feedback in alternative formats such as audio and video is an element of the Moodle gradebook evaluated in the design component of this study. Edinburgh Napier University (ENU) recently established an initiative for encouraging the meaningful use of technology with the aim of enhancing the student learning experience. A key component of the initiative is Smyth’s (2011) Enhance-Extend-Empower framework (3EE), which was established as a benchmark for the meaningful use of technology in modules and encourages a focus on the theoretical rationale behind adopting new technology.

2.3 Multimodal learning There are many aspects of technology-enhanced approaches to feedback for learning worth examining further. The focus of this study is to investigate the potential for providing feedback in different media formats. Specifically, whether screencast-video as a multimodal feedback method can better encapsulate conditions identified in literature as being effective for learning.

9

Mayer (2009) suggests that people learn more deeply when concepts are expressed in words and pictures rather than words alone. He explores principles of instructional design based on experimental research and grounded in a cognitive theory of how people learn from words and pictures (Figure 2-1). The results are something he calls ‘cognitive theory of multimedia learning’. Mayer summaries that people learn better when multimedia messages are designed in ways that are consistent with how the human mind works and with research-based principles.

Figure 2-1. How the brain processes multimodal stimulus (Moore, 2011, p.10).

While detailing how multimedia messages are processed and assimilated by learners, Moore (2008) presents a practical overview of multimedia learning, highlighting connections between the principles, theoretical rationale and empirical evidence. Fadel (2008) provides more details of empirical evidence to support multimodal learning approaches in a report that presents a meta-analysis review of 23 studies. Fadel’s findings reveal multimodal approaches e.g. verbal and visual are more effective for learning than traditional unimodal methods e.g. text on its own. Although feedback is not explicitly mentioned, as a component of learning it is implicit in the notion that the two are intrinsically connected. As a multimodal format that includes a visual and audio component, screencast-video has had encouraging results from Russell Stannard of The University of Warwick, who has been generating feedback on his students English coursework assignments in this format since 2006. More details of Stannard’s work in this area can be found on the projects blog at http://digitaliteracy.co.uk. Screencast video as a technology-enhanced format is one that I was keen to evaluate within my own teaching domain of Digital Media. The next chapter describes the approach and findings from a pilot study conducted within the second year module; Digital Video Development (IMD08104), on the Digital Media programme in the School of Computing at ENU.

Mayer’s (2001) cognitive theory of multimedia learning

Echoic Sensory Memory

Whale Iconic

Sensory Memory

Pictorial Model

Verbal Model Sounds

Images

Integrated Model

Multimedia Message

Sense Organs

Working Memory

Long-Term Memory

Sensory Memory

Prior Know ledge

New Concept

New Concept

Dual-channel assumption Limited-capacity assumption Active processing assumption

10

3 Design

3.1 Introduction Key findings from the literature review were: • Feedback is a valuable part of the learning process (Hattie, 1987).

• Feedback is most effective when it is relevant for future learning i.e. feeds-forward

(Brown, 2006).

• A set of criteria was defined, which helped enable the conditions necessary for feedback

to feed-forward (Gibbs & Simpson, 2004).

• Students continue to express dissatisfaction with their feedback in the NSS (HEFCE,

2011).

• Studies reveal multimodal approaches e.g. a combination of audio and visual are more

effective for learning than unimodal methods e.g. text or audio their own. (Fadel, 2008).

Quantitative data from the National Student Survey (NSS) combined with encouraging findings from studies on multimodal learning approaches are identified as a rationale for conducting a more focused qualitative study in the author’s own domain. This pilot study aims to evaluate screencast-video’s capacity as a multimodal method for encapsulating the criteria highlighted as being conducive for effective feedback, and the suitability of the Moodle gradebook for embedding and delivering screencast-video feedback.

3.2 Participants For ecological validity, the pilot study was conducted on a cohort of students in the module Digital Video Development (IMD08104), on the Digital Media programme in the School of Computing during weeks 13-15 in trimester 1, 2012 at ENU. The module design is learning objective driven and the related assessment criteria are used as a method to generate feedback. Student statistics The module consisted of 59 students; 39 male. 20 female. 42 were native English speakers. 17 Had English as a second language. They were all in an age range of 18-34.

11

3.3 Materials A range of free screen-capture software solutions were evaluated, including Apple QuickTime and Tech Smith Jing. However, for £12 the iShowU software for Mac allowed much more flexibility for setting the size of the videos at the capture stage; meaning the resulting files were already optimised for web delivery without the need to do any encoding. The tutors voice was captured using an AT2020 Audio Technica cardioid condenser microphone. Though the ones build into many laptops or webcams is fine for this purpose.

Figure 3-1. iShowU screen-capture software interface, showing encoding options.

Figure 3-2. AT2020 Audio Technica Cardioid Condenser Microphone.

12

3.4 Procedure The procedure for this pilot study has been broken into two parts; the first describes the screencast capture process and the second the experience of uploading and distributing the files in Moodle. Capture There were two video-based coursework assessments on the module Digital Video Development; the first was primarily a formative assessment, deployed during the first four weeks. A mark and feedback comments in a typed format were delivered via the gradebook features of Moodle. The second assessment was primarily summative, a group project, delivered at the end of the module. This was where the screencast-video pilot study was conducted. A mark was generated in the Moodle gradebook, and instead of text based feedback comments a screencast-video was produced. The screencast-video feedback included both a visual element in the form of a video capture of students’ coursework being displayed on the computer screen, and an audio element in the form of the tutor’s narration, providing detailed comments on the work. This was a group project, which involved the submission of multiple supporting assets and the average length of the feedback videos produced was 5 minutes 30 seconds, resulteding in a file size of around 20mb. However, this will depend largely on the nature of individual coursework’s and I can imagine 3-4 minute videos being produced for individual student submissions. Although the feedback was being delivered at the end of the module the comments aimed to be skills focused and relevant for future learning on the programme. A sample of a screen-cast video file can be seen here: http://tinyurl.com/dvscreencast Moodle In theory the screencast-video files could have been uploaded and embedded in the feedback text box area of the Moodle gradebook. However, a bug in the current version of the Moodle media up-loader meant this was not possible. This issue was reported to the Moodle team at ENU and is a known issue they are working on: https://tracker.moodle.org/browse/MDL-27520 A workaround was established that involved uploading the video files to a separate area of Moodle and than pasting a URL link for the screencast-video into the feedback text box. (Figure3-3) In total 16 screencast-videos were generated, one for each group and after establishing a workflow, each took an average of 30 mins to produce and upload to Moodle, around the same time it would take me to write detailed and personalised feedback on the same project.

13

Figure 3-3. Moodle gradebook with link to screen-cast video feedback

The iShowU screen-capture software generated video files that were encoded in a h.264 codec and saved as .mp4 files. This is flexible and open video file format that allows for the videos to be viewed via Moodle on mobile devices such as smart phones and tablets. From my perspective the screencast-video encouraged me to make my feedback more personalised and facilitated a greater amount of detail to elaborate on aspects of the individual student video productions. An online survey was created for students, which was designed to gain some insight into their perceptions of feedback in a screen-cast video format and compare it to the feedback they received as text comments. Instead of having a ‘neutral’ option it was decided to include an ‘other’ text field with each question to allow students to elaborate on their opinion if they did not either agree or disagree with the questions.

14

3.5 Results and analysis This section of the study presents the results from a survey given to students to help establish their feelings towards screen-cast video as a format for feedback. Having two assessments within the same module allowed for a comparison to be made between the first, where feedback was generate as text based comments and the second, as screencast-video.

Strongly Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

The screencast-video feedback felt more personal than written feedback 88% 12% - -

The tutor’s tone of voice and emphasis helped me understand and make sense of the feedback 60% 40% - -

The screencast-video feedback included more detail and helpful information over typical written feedback about how to improve my work

79% 21% - -

I paid more attention to the screencast-video feedback than I usually do to text based feedback

57% 30% 9% 4%

I would like to receive screencast-video feedback again on my work in the future 84 % 16% - -

Accessing and viewing my feedback via Moodle was easy and convenient 52% 44% 4% -

I would be willing to share my feedback with the rest of the class 20% 48% 20% 12%

Table 3-1. Results from survey to gauge student perceptions of feedback presented as screencast-video

There were 25 responses recorded for the survey, which represented at least one student from each of the 16 assessment groups. Overall there was a very positive response to feedback delivered in the screencast-video format. 88% strongly agreeing that it felt more personal than the text based feedback they had received and 79% strongly agreeing screencast-video was more detailed and helpful. Responses to whether the feedback was easy to access on Moodle were slightly more mixed but still a mostly positive response. Being able to embed the video rather than provide a URL link would be more intuitive for both tutors and students so hopefully the aforementioned bug in the Moodle Media up-loader will be fixed soon. Interestingly the most polarising results were to the question regarding students sharing their work with others, this was not a core part of the study but could be interesting to explore in more detail in the future. Students were asked if the Facebook group would be a suitable place to share the feedback, some student comments on this question included:

15

“It's something not just my group can learn from, as everyone had access to the video itself through the Facebook page, everyone can then benefit from the feedback as a class.” “Yes. However wither or not I'd be willing to share feedback on Facebook with the rest of the class would be a on a case by case, rather than a blanket agreement to all feedback received in this manner.”

Figure 3-4. Bar graph to illustrate student perceptions of feedback presented as screencast-video.

Overall 84% strongly agreed that they would like to receive screencast-video feedback again. Student comments left at the end of the survey were overwhelmingly positive some examples are: “This is the best feedback I ever had. And I mean both the medium and the message.” “I think its just a very informative and personal way of delivering group feedback. However i don't think this would work with feedback for individual hand-ins, unless you yourself were willing to put in so much time recording/uploading the feedback, but otherwise its a great tool and it would be cool to see more feedback in this form.” “This form of feedback is absolutely perfect for such a module, parts of our video that John wished to discuss we're simply just clicked to so we immediately knew what was being talked about, it helped so much and will be very useful for future work.” “A breakdown of where we were lacking marks and why would be helpful as well as where we picked up our marks.” “Personally I think all feedback should be given in this form. It was both much personal and informative. With feedback in the past there has often been parts I haven't fully understood however hearing the feedback alongside viewing the specific parts of the assessments as the feedback is being given made everything very simple to understand and left me feeling completely satisfied with what was said.”

0   5   10   15   20   25  

I  would  be  willing  to  share  my  feedback  with  the  rest  of  the  class  

Accessing  and  viewing  my  feedback  via  Moodle  was  easy  and  

I  would  like  to  receive  screencast-­‐video  feedback  again  on  my  work  

I  paid  more  attention  to  the  screencast-­‐video  feedback  than  I  

The  screencast-­‐video  feedback  felt  more  personal  than  text  based  

 The  screencast-­‐video  feedback  included  more  detail  and  helpful  

The  tutor’s  tone  of  voice  and  emphasis  helped  me  understand  

The  screencast-­‐video  feedback  felt  more  personal  than  written  

Strongly  disagree    

Disagree  

Agree  

Strongly  Agree  

16

4 Conclusions

The aim of the project was to explore the suitability of a technology-enhanced method for improving student engagement and satisfaction with their feedback. Specifically does producing feedback as a screen-cast video influence its capacity to capture the characteristics of good feedback?’ This chapter summaries the findings, provides a critical appraisal of the approach and results along with possible future directions for the study.

4.1 Future possibilities Other possibilities for future studies include a closer analysis of Links between students’ individual learning style and their preferred method of feedback. Including those of dyslexic students and students with English as a second language. Additionally, exploring variables such as gender could generate interesting results for comparisons of learning preferences. The study also generated some new questions regarding whether students would be willing to share their personal feedback with the rest of the class, which is an area with lots of potential to explore in the future.

4.2 Limitations When planning and considering the investigation the scope was determined partly by the target cohort of students most accessible to me in my teaching practice and therefore potentially limited outside of the Creative Computing Suite of programmes at Edinburgh Napier University. However, it is hoped the study can inspire others from a range of disciplines to try out technology-enhanced approaches to provide effective feedback for learning. Although some interesting data was gathered and analysed with this approach, it is potentially limited beyond understanding more outside of student perceptions and desires for feedback. A longitudinal, qualitative study with a control group would be necessary if an argument for gauging tangible learning gains (over and above student satisfaction) were to be attempted. However, this would involve ethical concerns for the students, which did not receive the ‘enhanced’ feedback and ultimately difficult to support in the framework of this module, due to the large number of variables at play.

4.3 Summary

17

Key findings from this case study were: • Feedback is a valuable part of the learning process (Hattie, 1987).

• Feedback is most effective when it is relevant for future learning i.e. feeds-forward

(Brown, 2006).

• A set of criteria was defined, which helped enable the conditions necessary for feedback

to feed-forward (Gibbs & Simpson, 2004).

• Students continue to express dissatisfaction with their feedback in the NSS (HEFCE,

2011).

• Studies reveal multimodal approaches e.g. a combination of audio and visual are more

effective for learning than unimodal methods e.g. text or audio their own. (Fadel, 2008).

• A pilot study of a technology-enhanced approach to feedback was conducted in the

author’s own domain. This took the form of screencast-video, a multimodal method that

proved to be good at encapsulating the criteria highlighted as being conducive for

effective feedback.

• The Moodle VLE, was found to be a suitable platform for the hosting and delivery of

screencast-video feedback, allowing the feedback to be conveniently accessed by

students on multiple platforms including mobile devices such as smartphones and

tablets.

In conclusion, the findings of this study add weight to an argument that multimodal approaches can be effective methods to providing feedback. However, other variables such as the novelty factor of the screencast-video as well as it being in the same physical medium and embedding the student’s original work in the feedback, could have resulted in less cognitive load in interpreting it (Sweller, 1994). These add a certain amount of subjectivity to isolating the multimodal aspect of the feedback as being what makes it more appealing to students. The results however, also give an indication that screencast-video as a format for providing feedback can assist educators in including the criteria identified in literature as being essential for effective feedback e.g. being personalised, detailed and learning-focused. Despite the bug in the Moodle Media up-loader within the feedback section of the gradebook, which prevented the screencast-video feedback being embedded. The Moodle environment proved to be a convenient way to upload, host and distribute the feedback to students, enabling them to accessing and view their feedback on a number of platforms. What is clear however, is that whatever format feedback is produced and delivered in, it should have the characteristics of good feedback i.e. feedforward, be timely, detailed, relevant to the learning outcomes and assessment criteria and learning-focused (Brown, 2006). If a student’s only form of feedback is a short, difficult to understand, hand written comment on a proforma sheet, then there is clearly a need to think about how to make feedback more meaningful and accessible (Cummins, 2010).

18

5 References

Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998b) Assessment and classroom learning, Assessment in Education. , 5(1), 7–74 . Brown, E (2006) Effective feedback. The Open University. Retrieved 20h July 2012 from http://www.open.ac.uk/fast/CommentaryArticles.htm Cummins, S. (2010) Feedback 2.0: An Investigation into Using Sharable Feedback Tags as Programming Feedback. Durham University Fadel, C. (2008). Multimodal Learning Through Media: What the Research Says. Metiri Group. Retrieved 12th January 2013 from http://www.cisco.com/web/strategy/docs/education/Multimodal-Learning-Through-Media.pdf Gibbs, G. & Simpson, C. (2004). Conditions under which assessment supports students' learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1, 3-31 Hattie, J.A. (1987). Identifying the salient facets of a model of student learning: a synthesis of meta-analyses, International Journal of Educational Research, vol. 11, pp. 187-212. HEFCE. (2011). Eight out of 10 higher education students give their courses top marks. Retrieved 18th July 2012 from http://www.hefce.ac.uk/news/newsarchive/2011/name,62304,en.html Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Moore, S. (2011). Multimedia Learning: Multimodal Design. University of Virginia. Retrieved 31st December 2012 from http://www.jmu.edu/ttac/wm_library/Multimedia_UDL_Moore_JMU.pdf Nicol, D and Macfarlane-Dick, D (2004) Rethinking formative assessment in HE: a theoretical model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Ramaprasad, A. (1983). On the definition of feedback. Behavioral Science, 28(1), 4-13. Race, P. (2009, November 9) National Student Survey. Retrieved 30th July 2012 from http://phil-race.co.uk/national-student-survey/) Rowntree, D. (1987). Assessing Students: How Shall We Know Them? Nichols Pub Co. Selwyn, N. (2011). Education and technology: Key issues and debates. Continuum. Smyth, K. (2011). Benchmark standard for use of technology in modules. Retrieved 12th January 2013 from http://staff.napier.ac.uk/services/academicdevelopment/TechBenchmark/Pages/home.aspx Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4(4):295–312.