by Grace Koh and Kelvin Tan
Introduction
It is not uncommon to witness students repeating errors despite multiple feedback reminders, and this is a far cry from students being able to self-regulate their own learning without constant dependence on teachers. Hence, the proposition that “how feedback contributes to these processes (of students developing self-regulation and error detection skills) depends largely on the focus of feedback and the level to which it is directed” (Hattie & Timperley, 2007, p. 87) would be very attractive to teachers. But surely it takes more than teachers’ good intentions to focus feedback on a certain level to ensure that feedback produces self-regulated learners? The reality is clearly not so simple – mere intention, or even the provision of “quality feedback”, would not automatically result in students acting on feedback to address their learning gaps.
Two important caveats in Hattie and Timperley’s 2007 paper suggest what is needed to bridge teachers’ intended feedback to students’ actual learning outcomes. Firstly, Hattie and Timperley cautioned explicitly of “at least six major aspects that mediate the effectiveness of feedback for self-regulation – (1) the capability to create internal feedback and to self-assess, (2) the willingness to invest effort into seeking, and (3) dealing with feedback information, (4) the degree of confidence or certainty in the correctness of the response, (5) the attributions about success or failure, and (6) the level of proficiency at seeking help.” (p. 94). This first bridge may be understood as attributes of students’ eventual feedback literacy and maturing as learners, which would invariably take time.
A second bridge is an easier and earlier proposition – a framework of three vital questions that “assists in identifying circumstances likely to result in more productive outcomes” (p. 94). These questions are
Feed up – Where the learner is going (to)? What is a high standard that learners should look up to?
Feedback – How is the learner going (to achieve the desired level)? How can students look back at their work and identify what/how to improve?
Feed forward – Where to next (should the learner respond to feedback)? What actions should students take with feedback advice to forward their learning to another task/context?
Firstly, before students are asked to perform an assessment task, they should be afforded the opportunity to understand and appreciate good levels of quality to aspire to. Such good quality should be of an appropriately high standard for students to look up to. Instilling good feed up from (not just during) the onset ensures that students would henceforth have a referent standard to judge the quality of their performance and learning against. Hence, in the second phase when feedback advice is provided, students are able to interpret such advice to identify the gap between their current level of understanding against the feed up standard. Clarity of the feedback gap enables students to make sense of feedback advice to close the gap, and when students act on the feedback it would feed forward to a new performance level.
Towards a signature pedagogy of feedback
In this paper, we argue that the focus of feedback should not be limited to merely providing information to students, but rather be understood and used as a process for students to make sense and make use of feedback. Feedback should be enacted as a pedagogy to systematically optimize students’ learning, rather than be limited to the provision of information (To, Tan, & Lim, 2023). Feedback as pedagogy is learner oriented and may be understood, for simplicity, as a feedback cycle comprising three distinct phases – before, during, and after feedback information is provided (Tay & Lam, 2023).
Enacting feedback as a cycle, rather than a unilateral dissemination of information, would obviously require more time. This would not appeal to teachers who already perceive the lack of time for marking as the primary issue in their feedback practice. Two arguments are harnessed for readers to consider. Firstly, as I had argued in a previous issue of AFAL (Tan, 2022, see https://assessmentforall.com/the-four-boxes-of-assessment-feedback/), merely focusing on what teachers can or cannot do in feedback (box 2) without following through to ascertain whether any learning has been achieved (box 4) is pointless and unproductive. It should be the efficacy of feedback practiced that matters more than the effortness of giving feedback.
Secondly, there is the enticing prospect of signature feedback pedagogy (Pitt & Quinlin, 2021) which posits that a professional and disciplinary approach to feedback optimizes students’ feedback uptake and preparation for work and performance. This presumes the complexity of learning, deep disciplinary craft, and the ability to master the demands of time.
In their review of signature feedback pedagogies in higher education, Quinlan & Pitt (2021) provided a different perspective to understanding the issue of time, timing, and feedback. Instead of focusing on whether there was enough time to provide feedback, they observed signature feedback practices to enact the provision and uptake of feedback in three related ways – as rhythm, cycle, and spiral. There is no reason why teachers, as part of their professional craft, should fare any worse than other professions in signature feedback pedagogy. It is contended that teachers’ signature feedback practices may be a distinctive mark not just of the teaching profession, but also reflective of the unique pedagogy of each teacher.
An Example of the Use of the Feedback Pedagogy Cycle for Chinese Language Writing (by Grace Koh)
Language teachers have always been looking for solutions to help students improve their writing skills. Despite the significant amount of time invested by both teachers and students in teaching, practicing, marking, and correcting writing, this effort does not seem to yield high returns in terms of boosting students’ confidence and improving the quality of their written work. Most students feel that only those who can write will be able to do well, while those who cannot, will never be able to improve.
This led me to reflect on the purpose of the tedious process of teaching, marking, and giving feedback and how it could be further improved to build students’ confidence and self-efficacy in their Chinese Language writing. Some of the issues that I would like to address are as follows:
- Teachers spend a lot of time teaching writing, but students are still not seen using those skills in their essay writing.
- Teachers spend a lot of time marking writing, but students are more concerned about their marks and not the feedback.
- Students spend a lot of time doing corrections or rewriting their essays, but teachers are not seeing improvement in their next piece of work.
- Both teachers and students could not remember the feedback given in the previous assignment, and thus could not effectively ensure that the learning gaps were closed.
What was wrong with my initial practices?
The hard work put in by many teachers, including myself, was not effective in building students’ confidence and self-efficacy in their essay-writing competencies. Where has all the feedback gone, if they are not being used by students to improve their essay-writing competencies?
This could be explained by the “Feedback Black Box” framework proposed by Goh and Tan (2023). According to this framework, for external feedback to impact students’ actual performance, they need to engage in internal feedback along the Affective, Behaviour, Cognitive (A-B-C) dimensions (Fredricks et al,,2004; Zhang & Hyland 2019). The generation of internal feedback (Nicol, 2020) then helps them clarify their understanding of the feedback before translating it into actions that would demonstrate their understanding of the feedback.
Reflecting on my initial practices, what was missing was opportunities for students to engage with the feedback given. While teachers spend a lot of time teaching writing, we were teaching how to answer specific questions and the various types of skills involved in writing an essay. We did not involve students in understanding what is a good piece of essay writing. While teachers spend a lot of time providing feedback for students, we do not ensure that students appreciate, understand, and use the feedback given (Carless and Boud, 2018). Students also do not feel that corrections done in the form or re-writing their essays had any impact on improving their essay-writing skills.
Applying Feed Up, Feedback and Feed Forward in the Chinese Language Curriculum
The introduction of the 2021 Secondary Chinese Curriculum provided an opportunity for me to review how to improve the teaching and learning of essay writing skills. Using the “Feed Up-Feedback-Feed Forward” cycle below, we were more intentional in including students in the whole feedback process and factoring in opportunities for students to engage with the feedback given.
Figure 2: Chinese Language Essay Writing Feed Up, Feedback, Feed Forward Cycle
Phase 1: Ensuring Feed Up, Feedback and Feed Forward in one assignment cycle
Feed Up [Steps 1-3]: Clarifying “Very Good Learning” / Quality Work
In the teaching and learning of essay writing, many teachers use rubrics to inform students of the success criteria of a good piece of essay. However, do students understand the rubrics, and do they even use the rubrics to guide them in their learning? Bearman and Ajjawi (2021) propose that to promote meaningful enactments of criteria, the rubrics used should not only set appropriate boundaries for the assessment activity while taking account of students’ needs; there should be opportunities for students to engage with these rubrics to build their understanding of quality work. Therefore, in the example above, in the “Feed Up” stage, Step 1 involves teachers explicitly stating the learning intentions and success criteria of the assignment, and Step 2 involves students in understanding what quality work looks like. Step 3 not only includes designing suitable tasks for students to apply their learning, but teachers also prepare learning resources for them to better understand the skills needed while completing the assignment task independently.
Feedback [Steps 4-5]:
It was also important to reconsider how we give feedback as teachers. Questions that I reflected on when I reviewed the current feedback practices are:
- Should teachers highlight all the mistakes that are visible in the assignment, or should we adjust the way we give feedback based on students’ level of readiness?
- Are teachers merely pointing out mistakes and not referring to the success criteria to help identify learning gaps?
One important thing that we as teachers need to consider is that in the feedback stage, we are not just picking out students’ mistakes and telling them what they have done wrong. It is crucial that we help to identify their learning gaps, some of which are not even demonstrated in their work, to support students in closing their learning gap. Thus, it is important that we communicate the success criteria to our students and involve them in understanding the success criteria so that they can better understand how the feedback we give them can help them close the gap (Bearman & Ajjawi, 2021)
Next, we would also need to consider the readiness of students to accept our feedback. (Carless and Boud, 2018) In the teaching of essay writing, teachers tend to give feedback on all criteria, regardless of students’ level of readiness and competency in essay writing. This resulted in students, especially those who are not so ready, feeling demoralized when receiving the feedback and not knowing which gap to close first. Perhaps what is more important for us teachers to consider is “What feedback do my students want and ready to accept?” more than “What feedback should I give to show that I have dutifully marked their assignment?”. If we are more concerned about students’ recipience and understanding of our feedback, then the following considerations should be taken into account in Step 4 when we provide feedback.
- Providing feedback only on the specific learning outcomes that were related to the assignment. Refer to success criteria to help students identify their learning gap. Do not just point out mistakes of students.
- Limiting feedback to only three for each student, prioritizing those that are more accessible to the student.
- Providing actionable feedback that helps students to close their gap, i.e. they need to know how to close their gap or where to look for resources to help them close their gap.
Step 5 is a new inclusion in the teaching and learning of essay writing. The emphasis is on providing time and space for students to make sense of the feedback, while referencing the success criteria, to fix their learning gap. Time was provided in class for students to reflect, make sense of, and document their reflections on the marked piece of work. Teachers also take this time to engage the students on the various feedback given, helping them to better understand the written feedback. Students then proceed to complete a self-assessment of their proficiency in the identified skills, after internalizing the feedback given by teachers.
Feed Forward [Steps 6-7]:
Feedback given would not be useful if students do not have the opportunity to apply the feedback. In the Feed Forward stage, opportunities were provided for students to apply the feedback in two ways.
- Bite-sized approach to target skills-based feedback
Short exercises targeting various essay writing skills were designed for students to work on the feedback given. Students select the relevant exercises based on the feedback they would want to work on and not what the teachers want them to do. This bite-sized approach provided a scaffold for students learn a specific skill. These exercises could come in the form of writing short new paragraphs, modifying one of their paragraphs to include the new writing skills, or critiquing peers’ work.
- Task-based approach to apply feedback in a new context
With the acquisition of new skills, students would also need to be able to use them in a new context. As such, the timing of the first essay and the next are organized such that students would have to apply the skills to the next essay. This leads us to the next cycle of Feed Up, Feedback, and Feed Forward where the feedback provided in the first task would be personal learning goals for students in their next task.
Phase 2: Feed Forward as “New Feed Up” – a series of “Feed Up, Feedback, Feed Forward” [Steps 8-14]
According to Sadler (2007), learning is said to have occurred if (i) Good enough, (ii) Performed independently, and (iii) On demand. Therefore, we must provide a new context for students in order for them to demonstrate if they have learnt.
Completing Steps 1 to 6 has addressed the issues of more targeted feedback and increased student engagement with feedback. However, the issue of teachers and students not remembering the previous feedback given and regarding every essay assignment as a ‘new one’ and not one that builds on the previous was not addressed. Students need to see that the next assignment is an opportunity for them apply the feedback and demonstrate their learning. Thus, I propose that the ‘Feed Forward’ stage of one essay assignment, should be linked to the ‘Feed Up’ stage of the next essay assignment, creating this intricate relationship between every essay assignment.
The diagram above shows the difference between the feed up, feedback and feed forward stages in essays 1, 2 and 3. In essay 2, other than the learning goals identified by teachers, students would also identify personal learning goals based on their reflections in essay 1. This is the learning gap that was identified in essay 1 which they would try to intentionally close in essay 2. It is observed that for the low readiness students, the main source of feedback would be from the teacher as they are not so familiar with the success criteria in the feed up stage. However, the high readiness students would have a better understanding of the success criteria and would be able to identify learning gaps that they would like to close in the new assignment. Therefore, this shows that involving students in understanding the success criteria in the feed up stage is vital in developing students’ ability to request for feedback.
Examples of students’ personal learning goals posted on Students’ Learning Space (SLS)
At the feedback stage, teachers not only provide targeted feedback based on task 2 learning goals, we would also have to provide feedback on their personal learning goals. At the feed forward stage, if students’ learning gaps are those in Task 1, they would go back to try the correction exercise in Task 1. If new learning gaps have surfaced because of the new learning goals in essay 2, they would attempt the Task 2 correction exercise. At the end of essay 2, students would then reflect and decide on their personal learning goals again for essay 3.
Empowering students in the feedback pedagogy cycle through interactive feedback cover sheet
Boxham and Campbell (2010) proposed the use of interactive cover sheets to generate feedback dialogue between teachers and students. We have also seen an example of the use of interactive feedback cover sheets designed by the Chinese teachers at Riverside Secondary School (AFAL, 2022). The intent of the feedback cover sheet can be summarized in the diagram below.
With the introduction of the feedback pedagogy cycle for Chinese language writing, students now need to document their personal learning goals and request for feedback on them in their next assignment. The idea of ‘interactive feedback cover sheet’ was introduced but not without much resistance. As such a very simplified version was introduced to encourage students to transfer their reflection from one essay to another. They would write their personal learning goals on the top of the writing paper before starting on their new essay. Teachers would provide feedback on their personal learning goals directly on it too. (See diagrams below)
The advantage of the first version was that it was easily implemented. It also enabled students to identify learning gaps they wished to close and to request specific feedback from teachers. Teachers were able to provide more targeted feedback for individual students However, this only allowed tracking of growth between two assignments and not the growth of the students throughout the year. Therefore, a second version of the feedback cover page was introduced.
An excel sheet that includes all the success criteria was created for individual students. Students would key in teachers’ feedback and reflect on the areas for improvement that they would like to work on. This continued to allow students to request for the feedback they would like to have and at the same time allowed both teachers and students to see their growth over the year.
The last version of an interactive feedback cover sheet not only allows students to identify their areas of improvement, request for feedback, and document their growth, , we wanted to also link students to related learning resources that could help them close their learning gaps when they are ready to. A one-stop narrative essay writing package was created on the Students Learning Space (SLS) for this purpose. [Search SLS Community Gallery “2022圣尼各拉女校_中一高级华文记叙文写作配套” for the writing package]
Example of resources in SLS package
Introduces the writing skill to students.
Shares the success criteria for the writing skill using the textbook example.
Use of student examples to clarify success criteria.
Example of bite-sized approach to target skills-based feedback
Activity 1 for students to explain why the writing skill was not well applied. Activity 2 for students to improve on the paragraph using the skill learnt.
Examples of students’ reflection template
Students to self assess whether they have used the writing skill learnt and how well they have used the skill in their essay.
Students to transfer teacher’s written feedback onto SLS as a record of their learning progress.
Students to identify areas for improvement and set personal learning goals for their next essay. Students request for feedback through these personal learning goals.
Reflection and Conclusion
Teachers often believe that students’ repetition of the same mistakes stems from either not reading or not understanding the feedback provided. However, it is also important to reflect on our teaching whether we have prepared them well to receive and understand the feedback in the Feed Up Stage and, whether have we created opportunities for them to use the feedback in the Feed Forward Stage.
Moreover, the inclusion of personal learning goals and the linkage between the “Feed Forward” stage of one assignment and the “Feed Up” stage of the next essay assignment create a continuous learning process. This approach transforms our assessment design and enactment into a coherent and complete feedback cycle that contributes to students’ growth over time, emphasizing progress rather than isolated performance. It actively involves students in the feedback process, promoting reflection, and fostering a sense of ownership over their learning journey. Such a process elevates feedback pedagogy to empower students to make sense and make use of each feedback cycle, in the rhythms, cycles, and spirals of daily work and the curriculum and develops them to self-regulate and direct their learning.
References
Bearman, M., & Ajjawi, R. (2021). Can a rubric do more than be transparent? Invitation as a new metaphor for assessment criteria. Studies in Higher Education, 46(2), 359-368.
Bloxham, S., & Campbell, L. (2010). Generating dialogue in assessment feedback: Exploring the use of interactive cover sheets. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(3), 291-300.
Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315-1325.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of educational research, 74(1), 59-109.
Goh, R., & Kiat, K. T. H. (2023). What Happens in the Black Box in which Students Engage with Feedback?. In Unpacking Students’ Engagement with Feedback (pp. 9-25). Routledge.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of educational research, 77(1), 81-112.
Lam, K., & Tay, H.Y. (2023). From Discrete Feedback Practices to A Coherent Feedback Pedagogy. In Unpacking Students’ Engagement with Feedback (pp. 59-84). Routledge.
Nicol, D. (2021). The power of internal feedback: Exploiting natural comparison processes. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(5), 756-778.
Pitt, E., & Quinlan, K. M. (2021). Signature assessment and feedback practices in the disciplines. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 28(2), 97-100.
Quinlan, K. M., & Pitt, E. (2021). Towards signature assessment and feedback practices: a taxonomy of discipline-specific elements of assessment for learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 28(2), 191-207.
Sadler, D. R. (2007). Perils in the meticulous specification of goals and assessment criteria. Assessment in Education, 14(3), 387-392.
Tan, K. H. K. (2022). The Four Boxes of Assessment Literacy Feedback. Assessment For All Learners. https://assessmentforall.blogspot.com/2022/07/the-four-boxes-of-assessment-feedback.html
To, J., Kiat, K. T. H., & Lim, M. (2023). Student-Centered Feedback Pedagogy and Implications for Feedback Partnerships. In Unpacking Students’ Engagement with Feedback (pp. 125-143). Routledge.
Zhang, Z. V., & Hyland, K. (2018). Student engagement with teacher and automated feedback on L2 writing. Assessing Writing, 36, 90-102.