Printer-friendly version
Send to friendFeed-forward for report writing in a large first year biology cohort
Large classes
Assessment of large classes, writing skills, giving, and using, feedback
We integrated a Writing in Biology program [Taylor 1] into the first year Biology curriculum to enhance student attitudes to writing and understanding of academic writing. A key component of the program is a series of opportunities for students to get feedback on their writing. This involves using peer feedback on a practice report - a formative exercise early in the course. Subsequently students then prepared a report for summative assessment, and could approach staff for feedback during the writing process. This rarely happened mainly because students left the writing process until the last minute. After evaluation of our writing program we decided to add in further feedback sessions to encourage students to reflect on their writing during the process. A decision was taken to spend one entire lab session giving students feedback on a draft report - a significant curriculum change given the size of the cohort (n=1200 students and up to 50 staff). Each student has time (albeit only about 10 minutes) with a member of staff to talk about their completed draft report and get help on how to improve the final report. During the rest of the session students work, independently, in the lab on computer based materials. A feedback sheet is completed by each student for submission with their draft report. This has a series of sections most of which the students complete as a self appraisal exercise. They deal with questions about
- Following instructions on presentation eg font, sections of the report, presenting data
- Creating a reference list and citing references in the text
- Putting information in the correct sections
These aspects are seen as being technical points which students should be able to address using the notes and information provided on the feedback and marking sheets. The teacher then spends time talking about how the student can improve aspects such as
- Interpretation of results
- Limitations of the experimental methodology
- Linking results to those reported in the literature
- Suggestions for further work
These areas require a more sophisticated approach to writing, and a degree of critical thinking, particularly in integrating information from the literature.
Teachers do not write comments on the draft report - but may indicate areas for attention on the feedback sheet. Thus all students have the same type of feedback and are reminded to make use of the detailed marking sheet, which is available in their manual. Students then have one week to make changes to their draft before submitting a final report. Markers are trained to provide standardized marking and feedback on the final reports. Marks are allocated for submission of the draft report (approx 3%), 15 % for the final report and a further 2% for an initial practice report on a separate lab experiment. The vast majority of students submit their completed draft report for feedback, and we now have no problems with late submissions of final reports (although we know that some students make no changes and submit the draft as the final report).
Extensive evaluations of the session over the past five years have shown that students value the exercise and the majority make changes (often very extensive) to their draft as a result of the feed-forward process. It isn't clear to what extent their marks improve but students indicate positive outcomes in terms of the following:
- Understood better what was expected
- Understood feedback and agreed with feedback
- Had increased confidence after experience
- Will use feedback in next assignment
We are currently analyzing student draft, and final, reports to determine in what way changes are made. The Copyfind plagiarism software can be used to highlight the extent and areas of change. We are also matching these areas of change to the types of feedback given by staff to determine what type of feedback is most useful for students.
Some problems occur, particularly with such a large cohort, in that the extent and quality of feedback varies between different teachers. Students are encouraged to seek further feedback from first year staff if they feel disadvantaged. Similarly there are some problems where students address points made by one teacher, only to be penalized by a marker who applies the criteria differently - these are relatively rare but provide a negative experience for students. We have further enhanced staff training to try and address the issue of standardised marking and feedback, and by discussing with staff the results of our research and evaluations.
We plan to maintain the feed-forward sessions in as many units as possible - since students have asked for more chances to get such feedback. This includes units in higher years, including postgraduate coursework units. Despite the limitations of the process, in terms of variations between the feedback given by staff, it is a positive experience for first year students, providing them with opportunities for reflection and teaching them the importance of the drafting and feedback process in scientific writing.
Taylor, C.E. and Drury, H. (2004). The effect of student prior experience, attitudes and expectations on performance in an undergraduate science writing programIn: G. Rijlaarsdam, (Series Editor) and G. Rijlaarsdam, H. van der Beerg, & M Cousijns (Eds) Studies in Writing, 14, Effective Teaching and Learning of Writing: a handbook of writing in education pp 561-574. Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Ellis, R., Taylor, C.E. and Drury, H. (2005).Evaluating writing instruction through an investigation of students' experiences of learning through writing
Instructional Science 33 (1) 49-71.
Taylor, C.E. (2006). Investigating students' perceptions and use of feedback for first year undergraduate science assignments Paper presented at the 14th Improving Student Learning conference. Oxford Centre for Student Learning and Development, University of Bath, UK.
