J Educ Eval Health Prof.  2012;9:10.

Improved quality and quantity of written feedback is associated with a structured feedback proforma

• Newton PM
• Wallace MJ
• McKimm J

Abstract

Facilitating the provision of detailed, deep and useful feedback is an important design feature of any educational programme. Here we evaluate feedback provided to medical students completing short transferable skills projects. Feedback quantity and depth were evaluated before and after a simple intervention to change the structure of the feedback-provision form from a blank free-text feedback form to a structured proforma that asked a pair of short questions for each of the six domains being assessed. Each pair of questions consisted of asking the marker 'what was done well?' and 'what changes would improve the assignment?' Changing the form was associated with a significant increase in the quantity of the feedback and in the amount and quality of feedback provided to students. We also observed that, for these double-marked projects, the marker designated as 'marker 1' consistently wrote more feedback than the marker designated 'marker 2'.

Keyword

Feedback; Assessment; Evaluation; Project; Transferable skills

MeSH Terms

Humans
Students, Medical

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 The mean amount of feedback returned for each transferable skills project. Data were compared by Kruskal-Wallis test with post hoc Dunn’s multiple comparison tests. Patient information leaflet, poster presentation, and oral presentation projects received statistically less feedback when compared to both of the other projects. *P< 0.05.

• 

  Fig. 2 More feedback (mean number of words) was entered on the structured feedback form versus the free-text feedback form for two different assignments. (A) Average number of words per feedback event for oral presentations. (B) Average number of words per feedback event for poster presentations. Data compared by unpaired t-test. *P< 0.05.

• 

  Fig. 3 More feedback (mean number of statements) was entered on the structured feedback form vs. the free-text feedback form for two different assignments. (A) Average number of statements per feedback event for oral presentations. (B) Average number of statements per feedback event for poster presentations. Data compared by unpaired t-test. *P< 0.05.

• 

  Fig. 4 ‘First markers’ write significantly more feedback than ‘second markers’ and this difference is consistent whether the feedback form is free-text or structured. (A) Average number of statements for marker 1 and marker 2 using the free-text and structured feedback forms. (A) Average number of statements for marker 1 and marker 2 using the free-text and structured feedback forms. Data compared by two-way ANOVA with post hoc Bonferroni test. *P< 0.05 when compared to free-text condition. †P< 0.05 when compared to marker 1.

• 

  Fig. 5 Use of a structured feedback form was associated with an increase in the depth of feedback. (A) A comparison of statement type quality using the free-text and structured form format for oral presentations assessment. (B) A comparison of statement type quality using the free-text and structured form format for poster presentations assessment. See Table 1 for classification of statement types. Data compared by two-way ANOVA with post hoc Bonferroni tests. *P< 0.05.

Reference

1. Shute VJ. Focus on formative feedback. Rev Educ Res. 2008; 78:153–89.

2. Boehler ML, Rogers DA, Schwind CJ, Mayforth R, Quin J, Williams RG, Dunnington G. An investigation of medical student reactions to feedback: a randomized controlled trial. Med Educ. 2006; 40:746–9.

3. Nicol DJ, Macfarlane-Dick D. Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Stud High Educ. 2006; 31:199–218.

4. Nicol D. From monologue to dialogue: improving written feedback processes in mass higher education. Assess Eval High Educ. 2010; 35:501–17.

5. Higher Education Funding Council for England. National Student Survey findings and trends 2006 to 2009 [Internet]. Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council for England;2010. [cited 2012 Jul 20]. Available from: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2010/10_18/.

6. Lunt T, Curran J. ‘Are you listening please?’ The advantages of electronic audio feedback compared to written feedback. Assess Eval High Educ. 2010; 35:759–69.

7. Merry S, Orsmond P. Students’ attitudes to and usage of academic feedback provided via audio files. Biosci Educ. 2008. 11:3. http://dx.doi.org/10.3108/beej.11.3.

8. Bailey RA. Undergraduate students’ perceptions the role and utility of written assessment feedback [Internet]. J Learn Dev High Educ. 2009. 1:Available from: http://www.aldinhe.ac.uk/ojs/index.php?journal=jldhe&page=article&op=view&path%5B%5D=29.

9. Mutch A. Exploring the practice of feedback to students. Activ Learn High Educ. 2003; 4:24–38.

10. General Medical Council. Tomorrow’s doctors online (2009) [Internet]. London: General Medical Council;2012. [cited 2012 Jul 20]. Available from: http://www.gmc-uk.org/education/undergraduate/tomorrows_doctors_2009.asp.

11. Glover C, Brown E. Written feedback for students: too much, too detailed or too incomprehensible to be effective? Biosci Educ. 2006. 7:3. Available from: http://www.bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk/journal/vol7/beej-7-3.aspx.

12. Brown E, Gibbs G, Glover C. Evaluating tools for investigating the impact of assessment regimes on student learning. Biosci Educ. 2003. 2:5. Available from: http://www.bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk/journal/vol2/beej-2-5.aspx.

13. Bryan C, Clegg K, editors. Innovative assessment in higher education. London: Psychology Press;2006.

14. Walker M. Feedback, assessment and skills development. Rust C, editor. Improving student learning: for what? Oxford: The Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development;2008. p. 228–40.

15. Irons A. Enhancing learning through formative assessment and feedback. New York: Routledge;2007.

16. Langer P. The use of feedback in education: a complex instructional strategy. Psychol Rep. 2011; 109:775–84.

17. Lea MR, Street BV. Student writing in higher education: an academic literacies approach. Stud High Educ. 1998; 23:157–72.