UCL WIKI

UCL Logo

Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

  • The feedback is likely to be more substantive - less time is spent making grammatical corrections. It may also be higher level (Chiang, 2009, Milanowski, 2009).
  • There is some debate about whether audio feedback should be supplementary to written feedback.
  • Merry and Orsmond (2008) found that provided as long as the tutor indicated the points in the student's submitted text to which the feedback comments referred, it wasn't necessary to supplement audio feedback with written feedback. They compared audio and written feedback on 15 Human Biology students' essays, parts of dissertations and written reflections. Counting and categorising feedback comments yielded some statistically significant discrepancies which can be viewed in Figure 1 of their paper. Written feedback contained far more identification of errors but less correcting feedback which corrected errors and engaging engaged students in thinking than feedback via audio.
  • Emery and Atkinson (2009) report a number of case studies. In one, recorded discussions between two markers were made available to the individual students. In most of the case studies, tutors felt that audio allowed for far more detail and clarity of comment in expression, and students agreed. Merry and Orsmond (2008).
  • Carruthers and colleagues (2015) recommended making any marked annotated work available to students but stopped short of actually stipulating that it is necessary. What found that what cannot be replaced is a conversation with the marker to discuss the feedback.

...

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save