Reading 'The motivational paradox of feedback: teacher and student perceptions'

I was alerted to the most recent volume of The Curriculum Journal (25:4) by my supervisor, as it was an Assessment for Learning special. I immediately set out to find and download it, and was not let down! Inside, I found a bunch of new articles that will be of use (or at least of interest) to me for my Thesis. The first one that I read, an article by Lisa Murtagh, titled 'The motivational paradox of feedback: teacher and student perceptions', was the most relevant to my own study. I was pleased to see that a number of the articles I read for my literature review, as well as the article I critically reviewed for Essay 2,  were cited by the author. This suggests to me that I have a pretty firm grasp of the literature, which is always a relief to hear.

Murtagh points out, as I have in my own analysis so far, that research into how children perceive feedback is 'somewhat scant' (p. 517). She specifically cites Hargreaves (2013), which is the paper I reviewed for Essay 2; as such, I have a very strong knowledge of the references that Murtagh makes, and an understanding of why she conducted her study. Her reasons are very similar to mine, so it's nice to see that research of this type is being conducted and published. That being said, the study that Murtagh undertakes concerns primary students again, which does little to fulfil the gap regarding secondary student perceptions. I'm not annoyed by this fact, as it proves yet again that I have identified a gap in the research - one that I hope to address.

The paper takes a different focus that I plan to take though, in that it focused on feedback and motivation. Specifically, she states that 'there is still a gap in the field about how feedback affects children's motivation to learn' (p. 519).

It goes on to discuss things like the different types of feedback; phatic, which is merely an acknowledgement of an exchange of information ('tick and flick'); evaluative, which provides some form of evaluation of pupils' work; and descriptive, which is defined as information communicated to the learner that is intended to modify the learners' thinking or behaviour (p. 518-519). The next bit of key terms used are performance goals versus learning goals. I particularly liked the clarity Murtagh gave to these last two terms; it's made me realise that I definitely know the most effective types of feedback, as learning goals are obviously the best to help reach goals and make progress.

One thing I noticed in the review, and I put this down to how critical I had to be for Essay 2, was that there was no mention of the ethical considerations given in the study. There is no mention about obtaining the consent of the parents or students involved in the interviews, nor how the two teachers agreed to participate. She mentions briefly why she chose the two teachers subjects, but no mention is given over which students were selected for individual or group interviews. That being said, I imagine that this version of the paper is the condensed version that was necessary to meet the publication requirements. Still, it would have been nice to see even a brief acknowledgement that the study was ethically sound.

One major thing that I will take away from the paper are the questions that she asked to the students during a focus group task. These were included in a table outlining her data collection methods, and included prompts like:

the teacher explains and model answers; the teacher talks to me about my work; the teacher writes on my work, telling me what I need to do to improve it; the teacher writes comments on my work in relation to the learning objective; the teacher writes on comment on my work; the teacher ticks my work; I know the criteria and mark my work myself; the teacher tells us the answers and we mark it ourselves; a friend marks my work with me (p. 523).

I think these questions would be useful for my baseline questionnaire. The results would be very interesting, especially because they could provide me with a snapshot of what the students think about their feedback.

One of the main conclusions that the report makes is that teachers often think they are using assessment in a way that provides students with targets for improvement, but actually, when you ask the students, and when you actually look at the feedback itself, it's clear that the teachers are not always providing descriptive feedback; often it was phatic or evaluative, with smilie faces and tick marks (p. 524).  In her own look at the feedback given in the two year 6 classes, Murtagh noticed that 'there was limited evidence of feedback that related specifically to the learning objective of the lesson (p. 524). This obviously poses a problem, because one of the first rules of giving effective feedback is that you need to make the goals and intensions clear from the start in order to ensure student success. If the work being marked doesn't even match the learning intentions, then what's the point of that piece of work?

Another point that Murtagh makes, and which came up in my own pilot interviews, is that teachers tend to give, and therefore students tend to focus on, spelling, punctuation or grammar targets. As mentioned above, these targets are not often linked to the learning goals. It's no wonder then that most students think that teachers mark their work for these types of surface features; if teachers aren't making the learning intentions clear, alongside specific success criteria, then students will inevitably assume that their work will be marked for more basic criteria.

She also reinforces the literature, alongside my pilot findings, that students do not like 'tick and flick' marking, and that instead they like receiving 'cues or reinforcements to learners in the form of instructional feedback and/or related to goals' (p. 533). Similarly, the idea that students need to have better training in how to conduct self and peer-assessment came up. She mentions how students need to learn how to 'trust' each other when it comes to doing peer-assessment (p. 535); this came up in my pilot interview with one student suggesting that they were uncomfortable with peer-assessment because they found that other students either marked too easily or didn't take the targets seriously, providing silly comments like 'write neater'.

I really enjoyed the fact that Murtagh appears to be on the 'side' of teachers; while she acknowledges that sometimes her two subject teachers didn't always 'get it right', she does suggest that their intentions were good and that it was a lack of training or time that kept them from doing things properly. She goes further to suggest that providing too much feedback, especially delivered as phatic or evaluative, will actually do the students a disservice; they will become too reliant on teacher feedback, becoming less able to self or peer-assess.

Murtagh also mentions that there is a 'disparity between descriptive feedback in written form compared with that provided orally' (p. 524). In fact, what I noticed from the interview and observation quotes was that the teachers often provided verbal feedback, both from themselves and peers, but very little of this feedback was stored in a way that the students could later use and reflect upon.  It would be interesting to explore how verbal and written feedback are used by students in lessons, so this might be a question that I pose to my research subjects.

Finally, the article was useful to me because it provided me with more backup for continuing down the road I'm going in. Towards the end of the paper, Murtagh suggests that 'research with children, rather than solely about them, is vital to promoting the importance of the 'child's voice' as well as providing a means of access to it' (p. 536). I highlighted this as a key quote, because I think it supports my own reasons for consulting pupils directly and making use of student-researchers. Overall, it was a very good read, and has provided me with a lot of supporting evidence for my own research project.

ResearchMeet Reflection

I'm going to be slightly rude and have this window open whilst listening to the various ResearchMeet presentations. My initial idea is to type up what people are saying, should I happen to find it interesting or relevant. Hopefully, if I have time, I can go back over my initial thoughts and clarify them. Apologies in advance if I've quoted anyone out of context or misinterpreted what people have said. Also, you'll have to excuse the briefness of my responses; people are talking for short periods of time before someone else goes up, which limits the amount of time I can reflect!

Anyways, here goes...

The first group of speakers were aiming to talk about the impact of MEd research on practice. The first presenter, a former MEd student, felt that taking part of the SUPER MEd allowed her to better access 'the third space' - essentially bridging teaching and research. This is definitely something that I can agree with, as I feel like I can better see the connection between educational research and the process of teaching.

The next speaker, Laura, is a current MEd student in the same cohort as myself. She felt that being part of the SUPER MEd allowed her to become: Stretched, Ubiquitous, Practitioner, Enthusiasm, Reflective. She felt that it was the best CPD that she's ever done, and I'm inclined to agree. It has totally changed how I see teaching, as it has Laura as well.

It was really nice to see other MEd students who are passionate about their thesis projects. We all seem to have pretty ambitious aims, hoping to be able to use our findings across the whole school. I think we all plan to take our findings and make use of them after we finish the actual thesis. I know I certainly don't want my thesis to be the end of my academic learning. Similarly, I sometimes I worry about the 'generalisability' of the research I plan to undertake, but at the end of the day if I can provide useful information to myself and my school, then that's all that should matter.

Another current MEd student really made me think about the use of setting within subjects. I'd really like to read his thesis, once he's done, because it sounds like a really interesting topic. As an English, history and media teacher myself (whom he identified as subjects most likely to be 'against' setting), I completely agree that sometimes setting isn't necessary. I teach mixed ability GCSE groups and set GCSE groups, and to be honest, I don't have to differentiate any differently for the set group versus the mixed ability group. Differentiation should take place in EVERY classroom, so having mixed ability groups doesn't necessarily mean more work for teachers, which I think some fear.

The next speaker was discussing cultures of research at Sharnbrook - specifically, how to inspire people to partake in research. He stated, rather correctly, that there will always be some people who are interested in taking part in research projects (such as myself), and others who don't find it at all alluring. The speaker then went on to talk about how they're trying to 'close the gap' between teachers who are interested and those who are not. At their school, it seems like they're using Lesson Study to reach this aim. He also mentioned the use of 'Top-down' research about homework (re: the use of it, etc.), although I must admit I'm not sure what he meant by that. Clearly there's some questions I need to ask him, perhaps an explanation of what that means. He ended by saying that it's a  'Slow and ponderous journey' to embed a research culture within a school. He's not wrong.

Impington has a really cool idea going, with their Imp-Act in-house journal. That's an idea that I think my school should really get on board with; teachers SHOULD read more academic articles, even if it is a condensed version. I know we have a 'Teaching and Learning' newsletter, but sometimes I find that a bit basic and repetitive. It's definitely something to chase up in the future. I know it's tooting my own horn a bit, but I think that something like this blog, where I review books and articles that I've read, is more what we need to produce for staff members. Overall, Impington sounded like a pretty enthusiastic school, when it comes to a research culture. I got the impression that the assistant head who was speaking first was quite 'buzzing' about what was (or will be) happening at their school.

I also enjoyed hearing about the Faculty's work in Kazakhstan, where they tried to share the SUPER idea with teaching communities in Kazakhstan in order to create research partnerships. Bottom up research in an action research format. Culturally, the teachers in Kazakhstan didn't want to talk to teach other - they wanted to listen to the researchers. This would mean they had a tricky task - to change that culture. No easy feat. When discussing what the TRCs brought to the programme - they stated that it was beneficial to the other teachers to see that it was 'normal' practitioners who were driving research within the school; they got to see real people who are doing the job of teaching and researching, which could hopefully inspire them to do the same. This is something that even teachers in the UK need to see, I would argue!

Another MEd student, Dave, spoke briefly about teaching on the edge of chaos. He included a very interesting quote, which stated that 'The effective teachers keeps the classroom on the edge of chaos' (Harjunen, 2012). I found this a very interesting concept! I applaud Dave for taking such a huge leap with his own classes. I would really be interested in reading his thesis as well, because it would be really cool to read about the outcomes of his 'chaotic' experiment.

The penultimate presenter gave a pretty sound piece of advice, in that she told us to ask our supervisor to challenge us. I think this is something I definitely have to do more often. I was disappointed with the outcome of my essay 2, and maybe it's because I didn't ask my supervisor to push me hard enough. That being said, I am a bit of a perfectionist.

So those were my initial thoughts. Enjoy.

Preparing for my ResearchMeet presentation

Right, so I'm off sick today (a terrible run of insomnia has gripped me over the past few weeks - I can usually last a few days without decent sleep, but once I get to about three or four days running I really need to stop and re-charge), so I've decided, after a brief cat-nap, to try and produce some planning for the presentation I have to give tomorrow at a ResearchMeet (if you've ever heard of a TeachMeet, it's kind of like that, but on a more research-based level). What follows here is a summary of some of the ideas I plan to discuss tomorrow. However, given that I only have five minutes to present, it's likely to be a condensed version of the rambling you find here. I find it helpful, when planning, to have a written dialogue of my ideas because I can more easily reduce a long stretch of text.

Right, so my topic is: Using Students as Researchers (SARs) to Help Conduct a Masters Thesis Study

First of all, I think I should identify my discomfort with the word 'Using' in the title above; I don't want to phrase my inclusion of students in the research project in this way because it suggests that I will be 'using' the students for my own gain. In a way, because I will hopefully obtain a Masters of Education as a result of my thesis, this cannot be avoided. I don't want the students to think that they are 'objects' to be studied; instead, I will work to ensure that they feel like active participants. Cook-Sather et al (2014) state that as long as teachers are 'willing to truly share - not give up, but share - power and responsibility' and 'if they stay in open and honest dialogue with students about the processes as well as the outcomes, then [the students] are not likely to think you are experimenting on them'. As such, I won't be 'Using' the students to help me conduct my research; instead, I will be 'inviting' students to join me in a joint-research partnership.

So why include students in the research process? Well, Cook-Sather et al. (2014) state that 'students have invaluable insight into curricular structures, assessment methods' and 'learning goals'. Ruddduck and Flutter (2004) state that 'pupils of all ages can show a remarkable capacity to discuss their learning in a considered way'. Similarly, they state that by giving students 'the opportunity to participate in a learning-focused dialogue [we] may help to improve [their] attitudes towards teachers and schools' (Rudduck & Flutter, 2004). By using SARs to access the thoughts of other students, my hope is to elicit better, more honest responses to how students perceive and make use of the written feedback they receive. I believe 100% in the positive contributions that students can make to the research process, not only as 'informants' but also as the researchers themselves.

In their own research, Cook-Sather et al. (2014) found that students found collaborative work with faculty 'made them realise that "it is up to the entire community to make learning spaces function, so that means students have just as much responsibility as"' teachers. In this regard, using SARs should help improve the metacognitive understanding of the students involved, helping them to better understand their own learning as well as the learning of those around them. Rudduck and Flutter (2004) similarly state that by 'giving young learners the opportunity to think and talk about aspects of teaching and learning' we can 'have a direct impact on [their] metacognitive development and on their understanding of how they learn'.

Lorna M. Earl (2013), in her text on Assessment as Learning (AaL), also suggests that teachers should emphasise the role of the student in creating and assessing their own learning, and that they should 'personally monitor what they are learning and use the feedback from this monitoring to make adjustments, adaptations and even major changes'. By engaging SARs in the research process, I hope to include their perspective in the ongoing dialogue surrounding 'effective' feedback.  My (very ambitious) hope is that students who take part in the project with me will become better students - ones who are better able to reflect on their own use of feedback.

In fact, Cook-Sather et al. (2014) state that 'When criteria for grading and other forms of summative assessment are negotiated, student learning and engagement deepen. Understanding grading and feedback criteria helps students meet expectations more effectively and comprehend more fully where (and why) they did not adequately demonstrate their learning'. While they are speaking about the results of a particular study, I like to think that this can be generalised to the students who will participate in my project; by allowing students to see the literature behind what makes 'effective feedback' and then comparing this to the responses they receive from the interviews, the hope is that they will develop a better understanding of how powerful feedback can be, and how they can better use it to their own advantage.

In terms of 'Why Pupil Premium students?' my aims are, again, quite ambitious. I hope that, by including PP students in the research process I will instil in them a) better learning skills, b) better research skills and c) a desire to continue their education post-16 and beyond. Studies have shown that students who are PP are less likely less likely to achieve well in school (Ofsted, 2012). They are also less likely to attend University (Ofsted, 2012). It is these gaps that I hope to help close by including PP students; including them in a University study will hopefully give them a (positive) experience of what higher education is all about, as well as to improve their metacognitive skills on a more immediate level.

To meet this end, I will train the students on basic research skills, such as how to conduct research-based interviews, how to collect and analyse data, as well as to perhaps (this bit I am not 100% sure on yet) write their own report of their findings. All of these tasks will provide them with a range of skills that they might not learn on their own. Hopefully, the students involved will build on their own academic skills, change their own attitudes towards feedback and learning, and improve their own sense of self-efficacy (Cook-Sather et al, 2014). As Cook-Sather et al. (2014) state, it's these types of skills that are 'considered to be of strategic importance' to universities; by having PP students work with these skills now, they may be inspired to take what they've learnt further, and have university level aspirations for themselves.

By including students in the research process, and specifically having them work with issues around feedback, my hope is that my team of student researchers will better understand, and perhaps be critical of, the feedback they receive, thus making better use of it (or, perhaps, even challenging moments when the feedback isn't enough to push them forward). Similarly, by providing the interview students with notebooks to record their thoughts of feedback throughout a given week, they may be inspired to actually take note of, and think about, issues around feedback that they hadn't thought of before. All of this leads to students who are more aware of how they learn, which the research suggests is a good step towards improving progress.

To summarise, drawing on Rudduck and Flutter (2004), my answer to 'why include students as researchers' is the following:

-to better develop students understanding and awareness of how feedback works within the school
- to help the students see feedback (and their subsequent learning) as a serious matter
- to promote the development of higher order thinking skills (metacognition)
- to raise the self-confidence, self esteem and academic aspirations of my student researchers
- to develop students 'technical language' for talking about feedback and learning

References

Cook-Sather, Alison; Bovil, Catherine and Felton, Peter (2014). Engaging Students as Partners in Learning and Teaching: A Guide for Faculty. Jossey-Bass

Earl, Lorna M. (2013) Assessment as Learning: Using Using Classroom Assessment to Maximise Student Learning. 

Ofsted (2012). 'Unseen children: access on achievement 20 years on: Evidence report'. Available online at http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/unseen-children-access-and-achievement-20-years 

Rudduck, Jean and Flutter, Julia. (2004) Consulting Pupils: What's in it for schools? RoutledgeFalmer