learning - Academic Conferences Limited

Rachel Fitzgerald
running full data collection, but with the time factor and a Christmas holiday in the midst of the data
gathering, it was decided to run the full survey. Although not ideal, as the first stage of an AR cycle it
was considered that all data would be of interest and any limitations would serve to improve the next
cycle of research. Survey, as a method was chosen specifically because it suited the time constraints
and students with erratic attendance patterns. An online survey was deployed in the virtual learning
environment where students access all module materials (and assessment feedback), this seemed
ideal for gathering many responses and opinions about the process. Awareness of the students also
informed the researcher to add a number of response categories to the survey to encourage them to
get involved. This allowed the survey to be uncomplicated and swiftly completed with an option to add
qualitative opinions for general analysis. The type of survey questions affect the quality of data
received, O’Leary (2005), but as this data was gathered to get a general consensus, it was expected
to generate questions for further cycles of research.
To participate, students submitted their assignments electronically. Prior to recording the audio, the esubmissions
were read and graded with some rough notes made about the work, then a selection
were sent (via email) to be second marked. Typed comments from the second marker were
incorporated into the rough notes and then the feedback recording for all students took place over two
days. Seven survey questions were put together to measure the students’ perception of these areas
and to understand if they found the experience more personal. In addition, the survey was designed
to collect data about the impact of the process on international students, with a view to informing
practice in the DL area. In terms of the feedback that was to be recorded, Gibbs & Simpson (2004)
suggests that poor feedback is feedback that is backward looking and addresses issues that will not
be required again. With the feed-forward aspect of the assessment in mind, feedback addressed the
student personally and commented on meeting the learning outcomes and included clear guidance
about academic writing, referencing and points to expand on for the next assignment and then they
received the grade.
6. Critical reflection on the process
Recording feedback required little technical knowledge, just the use of a headset and Audacity
software. After a trial recording to test, each recording took less than two minutes, the feedback was
quite specific and therefore time efficient. To keep a personal touch, feedback was in a natural tone
and intonation, and spoken as if talking directly to the student. In a study of 15 students, Merry and
Orsmond (2007) highlight the importance of tone for audio feedback, but what may have been easy
with just 15 students was not the case with over 100 and it was difficult maintaining a natural or even
enthused tone throughout the process. The feedback was similar for many students so it became
perfunctory and repetitious. Rotherham (2008, 2009a) suggests that audio feedback reduces the time
spent on feedback and this was also the case in this research, however while it is easier and quicker
to verbally explain a concept, when one uses typed feedback there is an opportunity to cut and paste–
with large student numbers, this can be a useful tool. In addition, while the recordings saved time,
there was a lot more time spent uploading each individual file to a secure area on the VLE, this
administrative process added at least two days to the process and meant that the feedback was a day
late being returned. This would be a barrier to using audio feedback for these students in the next
cycle.
When the feedback was available to the students, a notice was posted to the VLE informing students
and offering a transcript if required. To get a transcript students had to email me, in all around fifteen
students requested a transcript of their feedback. Using the report tool in the VLE, the graph in Fig 2
shows significantly increased activity on the day the feedback was available (7 th Dec 2010) and in the
subsequent days, this activity tails off during the Christmas vacation and then returns to what can be
considered normal access during Jan 2011. A classroom discussion with the students indicated that
they had no trouble accessing the audio file and most found it to be a novel approach and were happy
to accept this as a new method of feedback. All indicated they were aware that they could have a
transcript on request, but generally didn’t feel the need to request one.
Through the VLE we can see how often each student on the module accessed their feedback, the
VLE report indicated two interesting points that will need further investigation:
The majority of students on the module accessed the file at least twice, with two students
accessing the folder over twenty times. Rotherham (2009b) suggests that students find it harder
to skim through audio feedback and therefore need to go back to listen again to clarify their
understanding. However it could also mean that the students found my voice difficult to
259