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.

Christine Watts

Christine Watts is a Foundation Degree Course Manager for Child and Family Studies and a

Health and Social care Lecturer at Bedford College