Salt 2015
Download as PPTX, PDF0 likes628 views
1) Students who engaged in self-reflection activities after receiving feedback performed better academically compared to students who did not engage in self-reflection. 2) Factors like effort regulation, time management, task value, and self-efficacy were correlated with student engagement with feedback and better performance. Students who regulated their effort and managed their time more effectively completed more self-reflections and earned higher grades. 3) Developing self-regulated learning skills is important for student-centered learning as it helps students take ownership of the feedback process and effectively apply feedback to improve their work and learning strategies.
More Related Content
Salt 2015
- 1. Dialogic feedback: Contributing factors to student engagement Dr. Hazel McMurtrie, Dr. Cristina Izura & Ms. Jennifer McGinn Department of Psychology Swansea Academy for Learning and Teaching July 2015
- 2. Dialogic feedback: Contributing factors to student engagement Background Study Conclusions 2
- 3. Background Izura, C., McMurtrie, H., & Jiga-Boy, G. (2014). Engaging UG students in assessment and feedback Same mistakes are made over and over again Feedback provided is not useful Feedback Dissatisfaction 39% 3
- 4. 4 • “A dialogic process in which learners make sense of information from varied sources and use it to enhance the quality of their work or learning strategies” (Carless, 2015, p. 192) • “Feedback needs to influence what learners do rather than merely providing information” (Boud, 2015) What is Feedback?
- 6. Report 1 Feedback Report 2 Feedback Report 3 Feedback Report 4 Background Izura, C., McMurtrie, H., & Jiga-Boy, G. (2014). Engaging UG students in assessment and feedback This method did not work because they attempted each report as new. Taking into account little or nothing from the previous report 6
- 7. Background Izura, C., McMurtrie, H., & Jiga-Boy, G. (2014). Engaging UG students in assessment and feedback Report 1 Feedback Report 2 ENGAGING I have addressed the following… NON ENGAGING ???????? 7
- 8. 30 40 50 60 70 Report 2 Report 3 Report 4 Meanmarks Engaged Non-engaged Rprt 2 Rprt 3 Rprt 4 Engaged (N = 35) 55.9 57.5 59.3 Non-engaged (N = 58) 38.6 38.0 41.0 8 Background Izura, C., McMurtrie, H., & Jiga-Boy, G. (2014). Engaging UG students in assessment and feedback
- 9. Why do some students engage more than others with feedback? Background Study 9
- 10. Background Study Engagement with feedback changes as a function of year of study (Ali, Rose & Ahmed, 2015). Self-efficacy, effort regulation & help seeking predict grades in UG (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Komarraju & Nadler, 2013). Students can regulate their own strategies for learning Self-regulated learning model, Pintrich, 2004). Feedback can influence motivation, self- efficacy and learning strategies Self regulated learning has been shown to promote student success by supporting student engagement (Rowden, 2013) 10
- 11. Cycle of Self- regulation Performance Self-control and self-observation Self-reflection Self-judgement and reaction Forethought Task analysis and self motivation beliefs Zimmerman & Moylan (2009) Background Study 11
- 12. 1. What is the effect of enhanced feedback and self-reflection activities on academic performance 2. Do learning strategies, motivation and resource management predict student engagement? Study 12
- 13. Procedure Report 1 Feedback Report 2 Feedback Report 3 Feedback Report 4 13
- 14. Procedure 14 (MSLQ; Pintrich, Smith, Garcia & McKeachie, 1991) 81-item self report questionnaire
- 15. 15 Motivation (31 items) • Intrinsic goals • Extrinsic goals • Task value • Control of learning beliefs • Self-efficacy for learning & perf. • Test Anxiety Cognitive & Metacognitive Strategies (31 items) • Rehearsal • Elaboration • Organisation • Critical thinking • Self-regulation Resource Management Strategies (19 items) • Time & study environment • Effort regulation • Peer learning • Help seeking MSLQ Sub scales
- 16. 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 0 Self Reflection 1 Self Reflections 2 Self Reflections 3 Self Reflections Average Grades Results 16p = .001
- 17. 1.Task Value .491** n.s .452** .399** -.213* .350** n.s n.s 2.Self Efficacy for Learning n.s .361** n.s n.s .271** n.s n.s 3.Test Anxiety n.s n.s n.s -.217* n.s n.s 4.Organise .426** n.s .328** n.s n.s 5.Time Study n.s .629** n.s n.s 6.Peer -.270** n.s n.s 7.Effort Regulation .215* .221* 8.Total no self reflection out of 3 .336** 9.Mean MP grade ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). Results 17 Correlation matrix between individual difference measures, number of reflection reports completed and objective performance
- 18. Time & Study Environment Task Value Organisation Peer Learning Self-efficacy for Learning Test Anxiety Effort Regulation No. of Self Reflection Completed r = .63** r = .35** r = .33** r = -.27* r = .27* r = -.22* ** p < .001 * p ≤ .01 ^ p < .05 r = .22^ Overall Mean Grade r = .34** Results 18 r = . 22*
- 19. Conclusions 1- Those students that used feedback to engage in reflective practise performed better. 19
- 20. Conclusions 2- Effort regulation is directly related to student engagement with tutor feedback(number of self reflections completed) and indirectly related to objective performance 20
- 21. 21 Performance Organisation Time & Study Environment Self-Reflection Effort Regulation Forethought Task Value Self-efficacy Test Anxiety
- 22. Conclusions 3- Developing self regulated learners who can manage their learning effectively is important to student-centred learning. 22
- 23. “Its only feedback if students take some action” (Carless, 2015) Closing Feedback loops 23
- 24. 24 • Acknowledgements :– Swansea Academy for Teaching and Learning
Editor's Notes
- #4: Differing perceptions of feedback between tutor and students. Staff – students only interested in the grade and ignore the feedback Students – feedback only to justify the grade. Doesn’t help to understand material or how to improve
- #6: Old paradigm Student does work. Tutor comments. Student looks at mark. Student does not always study comments. Student may not understand comments. New Paradigm Student does work and comments on it. 2. Student submits draft and/or works on draft with peer review and tutor check. 3. Student improves work. 4. Student submits work to tutor for marking and feedback. 5. Student studies feedback. 6. Student plans follow-up action. Teacher facilitated feedback Peer and Internal feedback (Nicol, 2010)
- #11: Feedback is often kept the same for all years of study A more promising process involves ‘feed-forward’ which refers to using previous feedback to improve the quality of subsequent work (Hounsell, 2007). The Self-regulated Learning model supports the notion that students can theoretically regulate their own strategies for learning, updating their goals and efforts over time to enhance performance (Pintrich, 2004).
- #12: Zimmerman & Moylan (2009): First students assess the task, perceived competencies and set goals. Learning strategies are then applied and performance monitored. Reflecting on ones progress can restart the cyclic process again. Self-reflection can make the student mindful of their own understanding and can encourage the use of effective learning strategies for future work (Lia van Grinsven & Harm Tillema,2006). Forethought Phase: Task Analysis = Goal setting, Strategic Planning. Self-motivation beliefs = Self-confidence, Outcome expectations, task interest, goals Performance Phase. Self-control = task strategies, time –management, help-seeking, interest incentives. Self-observation = self-monitoring against assessment criteria Self-Reflection Phase. Self-judgment = self-evaluation, causal attribution. Self-reaction = affect, adaptive / defensive
- #13: What are the contributing factors and will there be any differences between first and second year? Ethical approval obtained from Swansea Psych Dept to conduct the study
- #14: Students completed 4 ‘mini’ projects (MP1, 2, 3, 4) throughout the academic year. Dialogue begins in Report 1 when students asks for specific feedback on an aspect of their report. Each project was given enhanced feedback (including response to student feedback request) upon grading which could be referred to whilst writing subsequent reports. For projects two, three and four students were asked to complete a self-reflection activity where they recorded how the previous feedback had been considered and effort what changes had been made to their work / practises as a result. Objective academic performance measured. A self-report questionnaire measure was taken at the start of the academic year.
- #15: A self-report measure made up of 81 items (MSLQ; Pintrich, Smith, Garcia & McKeachie, 1991)
- #16: 15 sub-scales
- #17: Results: Y2 those that self reflect all the time and those that didn’t self reflect at all.
- #19: Direct and indirect pathways to objective performance