EMM v2.3 L5

'''L5. Students receive feedback on their performance within courses'''

Background
Evidence of capability in this process is seen through the use of informal feedback through various communication channels complemented by formal assessment feedback processes such as marking rubrics. Policy should require prompt and useful feedback aimed at improving student capability in related tasks rather than just the immediate goal and teaching staff should be provided with guidelines and assistance in the provision of more effective feedback.

Feedback that learners’ receive from teachers and from other students enables comparison of actual performance with expectations (Mory, 2004). Timely, constructive feedback affects students’ participation, performance, and engagement on a course, and learning outcomes (Laurillard, 2002). Hattie & Timperley (2007) argue that feedback about self-regulation is important and compliments feedback about task and feedback about processing of task. ‘Feedback that attends to self-regulation is powerful to the degree that it leads to further engagement with or investing further effort into the task’ (p. 102). However, feedback at the self or personal level (usually praise) is rarely effective.

Optimal feedback looks for balance between student needs and teaching management (Dennen, 2005), and must enhance understanding rather than just indicating correctness (Garrison, 1989). Feedback links knowledge and skills for understanding (Duhon et al., 2006). It involves numerous models that centre on a ‘feedback triad’ (Kulhavey and Wagner, 1993) of motivation, reinforcement, and information (Mory, 2004). Because feedback and action link to productive learning, extrinsic and intrinsic feedback is crucial for learners (Laurillard, 2002). A learning goal, or outcome, also prefigures unity between action, feedback and integration (Laurillard, 2002). Substantive and timely feedback improves online learning participation (Dennen, 2005). However, feedback also involves complex effects including: ‘candlepower’ (Hudson, 2002), which characterises the subtle intimacy that arises in online dialogue and concerns effects of critical dialogue; and ‘feedback specificity’. Although more specific feedback benefits learning responses in those who perform well, it is detrimental to learning responses in those who perform poorly (Goodman and Wood, 2004). Kiasu (a predominantly Asian attitude to diligent academic performance) has both positive (diligence to outperform others) and negative (diligence to prevent/hinder others outperforming) forms that impact on e-learning feedback practices (Hwang and Arbaugh, 2006). Hattie & Timperley (2007) argue from many meta-analyses that feedback is most effective when it provides information on correct rather than incorrect responses and when it builds on changes from previous trials.

Related Guidelines and Standards
This process is informed by: Implementing the seven principles: Technology as lever (Chickering and Ehrmann, 1996); Quality On the Line: Benchmarks for success in internet-based distance education (Merisotis, J. P., & Phipps, R. A., 2000) teaching/learning benchmark set; Queensland University of Technology teaching capabilities framework (2004/2005) and; Canadian Recommended E-learning Guidelines (Barker, K., 2002).