Notes from the reading group – free choice

Digital wellbeing toolkit from BBC R&D (notes from Suzi Wells)

This is a toolkit from BBC R&D is designed for addressing wellbeing in digital product development. Given the increasing focus on student wellbeing, I was interested in whether it could be useful for online & blended learning.

The key resources provided are a set of values cards along with some exploration of what these mean, particularly for young people (16-34 year olds). These were developed by the BBC through desk research, focus groups and surveys.

The toolkit – the flashcards especially – could certainly be used to sense-check whether very digital teaching methods are really including and supporting the kinds of things we might take for granted in face-to-face education. It could also be useful for working with students to discuss the kinds of things that are important to them in our context, and identifying the kinds of things that really aren’t.

Some of the values seem too obvious (“being safe and well”, “receiving recognition”), or baked-in to education (“achieving goals”, “growing myself”), and I worry that could be off-putting to some audiences. The language also seemed a little strange “human values” – as though “humans” were an alien species. It can feel like the target audience for the more descriptive parts would be someone who has never met a “human”, much less a young one. Nonetheless, the flashcards in particular could be a useful way to kick off discussions.

Three example flash cards showing the values: being inspired, expressing myself, having autonomy

New studies show the cost of student laptop use in lecture classes (notes from Michael Marcinkowski)

The article I read for this session highlighted two new-ish articles which studied the impact that student laptop use had on learning during lectures. In the roughly ten years that laptops have been a common sight in lecture halls, a number of studies have looked at what impact they have on notetaking during class. These previous studies have frequently found a negative association with laptop use for notetaking in lectures, not only for the student using the laptop, but also for other students sitting nearby, distracted by the laptop screen.

The article took a look at two new studies that attempted to tackle some of the limitations of previous work, particularly addressing the correlative nature of previous findings: perhaps low performing students prefer to use laptops for notetaking so that they can do something else during lectures.

What bears mentioning is that there is something somewhat quaint about studying student laptop use. In most cases, it seems to be a foregone conclusion and there is no getting it back into the box. Students will use laptops and other digital technologies in class — there’s almost no other option at this point. Nevertheless, the studies proved interesting.

The first of the highlighted studies featured an experimental set up, randomly assigning students in different sections of an economics class to different conditions: notetaking with laptop, without laptop, or with tablet laying flat on the desk. The last condition was designed to test the effect of students’ being distracted by seeing other students’ screens; the supposition being that if the tablet was laid flat on a desk, it wouldn’t be visible to other students. The students’ performance was then measured based on a final exam taken by students across the three conditions.

After controlling for demographics, GPA, and ACT entrance exam scores, the research found that performance was lower for students using digital technologies for notetaking. However, while performance was lower on the multiple choice and short answer sections of the exam, performance on the essay potion of the exam was the same across all three conditions.

While the study did address some shortcomings of previous studies (particularly with its randomized experimental design), it also introduced several others. Importantly it raised questions about how teachers might teach differently when faced with a class of laptop users or what effect forcing a student who isn’t comfortable using a laptop might have on their performance. Also, given that multiple sections of an economics class was the subject of the study, what role does the discipline being lectured on play in the impact of laptop use?

The second study attempted to address those though a novel design which linked students’ propensity to use or not use laptops in optional-use classes based on whether or not they were forced to or forced not to use them in another class on the same day. Researchers looked at institution-wide student performance at an institution that had a mix of classes which required, forbade, or had no rules about laptop use.

By looking at student performance in classes in which laptop use was optional, but by linking that performance to whether students would be influenced in their laptop choices based on other classes held the same day, researchers wanted to be able to measure student performance when they had a chance not to use a laptop in class. That is, the design allowed researchers to understand in general how many students might be using a laptop in a laptop-optional class, but still allowing individual students to make a choice based on preference.

What they found was that student performance worsened for classes that shared a day with laptop mandated classes and improved on days when classes were shared with laptop prohibited classes. This is in line with previous studies, but interestingly, the negative effects were seen more strongly in weaker students and in quantitative classes.

In the end, even while these two new studies reinforce what had been previously demonstrated about student laptop use, is there anything that can be done to counter what seem to be the negative effects of laptop use for notetaking? More than anything, what seems to be needed are studies looking at how to boost student performance when using technology in the classroom.

StudyGotchi: Tamagotchi-Like Game-Mechanics to Motivate Students During a Programming Course & To Gamify or Not to Gamify: Towards Developing Design Guidelines for Mobile Language Learning Applications to Support User Experience; 2 poster/ demo papers in the EC-TEL 2019 Proceedings. (notes from Chrysanthi Tseloudi)

Both papers talk about the authors’ findings on gamified applications related to learning.

The first regards the app StudyGotchi, based on Tamagochi (a virtual pet the user takes care of), which aims to encourage first year Java programming students to complete tasks on their Moodle platform in order to keep a virtual teacher happy. Less than half the students downloaded the relevant app, with half of those receiving the control version that didn’t have the game functions (180) and half receiving the game version (194). According to their survey, of those that didn’t download it, some reported that was because they weren’t interested in it. Of those that replied to whether they used it, less than half said they did. According to data collected from students that used either version of the app, there was no difference in either the online behaviour or the exam grades of the students, between the groups that used the game or non-game versions. The authors attribute this to the lack of interaction, personalisation options and immediate feedback on the students’ actions on Moodle. I also wonder whether a virtual teacher to be made happy in particular is the best choice of “pet”, when hopefully there is already a real teacher supporting students’ learning. Maybe a virtual brain with regions that light up when a quiz is completed or any non-realistic representation connected to the students’ own development would be more helpful in increasing students’ intrinsic motivation, since ideally they would be learning for themselves, and not to make someone else happy.

The second paper compares 2 language learning apps, one of which is gamified. The non-gamified app (LearnIT ASAP) includes exercises where students fill in missing words, feedback to show whether the answer is correct/ incorrect and statistics to track progress. The gamified app (Starfighter) includes exercises where the students steer through an asteroid field by selecting answers to given exercises and a leaderboard to track progress and compete with peers. The evaluation involved interviewing 11 20-50 year old individuals. The authors found that younger and older participants had different views about the types of interactions and aesthetics of the two apps. Younger participants would have preferred swiping to tapping, older participants seemed to find the non-gamified app comfortable because it looked like a webpage, but were not so sure about the gamified app. The game mechanics of Starfighter were thought to be more engaging, while the pedagogical approach of LearnIT ASAP was thought to be better in terms of instructional value and effectiveness. While the authors mention that the main difference between the apps is gamification, considering the finding that the pedagogical approach of one of the apps is better, I wonder if that is actually the case. Which game elements actually improve engagement and how is still being researched, so I would really like to see comparisons of language learning apps where the existence or not of game elements is indeed the only difference. Using different pedagogical approaches between the apps is less likely to shed light on the best game elements to use, but it does emphasize the difficulty of creating an application that is both educationally valuable and fun at the same time.

Digital Accessibility Events for 2019/20

The Digital Education Office are hosting a series of events focusing on Digital Accessibility. AbilityNet are running four sessions on individual accessibility needs. Speakers will share their lived experience of various conditions and impairments and discuss how these influence the way they access and consume digital content.

They will share their professional experience as Accessibility and Assistive Technology Professionals in supporting Disabled Learners in the context of accessing digital platforms and content.

The sessions will engage participants by developing their understanding of potential pitfalls when creating digital content and will include easy to consume guidance on creating accessible content for all audiences. Additional support videos and guidance will be provided after the events.

With new legislation requiring the University to ensure that all content published on websites, intranets or mobile apps is accessible, these talks offer a chance to learn how to improve the materials and content you create to support students learning.

 

You can find out more and book tickets for the individual sessions via the following links:

Digital Accessibility and Sight Impairment 30th October 2pm – 4pm

Digital Accessibility and Mental Health 13th November 2pm – 4pm

Digital Accessibility and Physical Impairment 4th December 2pm – 4pm

Digital Accessibility and Neurodiversity 15th December 2pm – 4pm

 

 

Curriculum theories – notes from reading group

Thanks to Sarah Davies for setting us some fascinating reading!

Connected curriculum chapter 1 (notes from Chris Adams)

The connected curriculum is a piece of work by Dilly Fung from UCL. It is an explicit attempt to outline how departments in research-intensive universities can develop excellent teaching by integrating their research into it; the ‘connected’ part of the title is the link between research and teaching. At it’s heart is the idea that the predominant mode of learning for undergraduates should be active enquiry, but that rather than students discovering for themselves things which are well-established, they should be discovering things at the boundaries of what is known, just like researchers do.

It has six strands:

  • Students connect with researchers and with the institution’s research. Or, in other words, the research work of he department is explicitly built into the curriculum
  • A throughline of research activity is built into each programme. Properly design the curriculum so that research strands run though it, and it builds stepwise on what has come before.
  • Students make connections across subjects and out to the world. Interdisciplinarity! Real world relevance.
  • Students connect academic learning with workplace learning. Not only should we be teaching them transferable skills for a world of rapid technological change, but we need to tell them that too.
  • Students learn to produce outputs – assessments directed at an audience. Don’t just test them with exams
  • Students connect with each other, across phases and with alumni. This will create a sense of community and belonging.

This last point is then expanded upon. Fung posits that the curriculum is not just a list of what should be learned, but is the whole experience as lived by the student. Viewing the curriculum as a narrow set of learning outcomes does not product the kind of people that society needs, but is a consequence of the audit culture that pervades higher education nowadays. Not all audit is bad – the days when ‘academic freedom’ gave people tenure and the freedom to teach terribly and not do any research are disappearing, and peer-review is an integral part of the university system – but in order to address complex global challenges we need a values based curriculum ‘defined as the development of new understandings and practices, through dialogue and human relationships, which make an impact for good in the world.’

I liked it sufficiently to buy the whole book. It addresses a lot of issues that I see in my own department – the separation of research from teaching, and the over-reliance on exams, and the lack of community, for example.

Connected curriculum chapter 2 (notes from Suzi Wells)

As mentioned in chapter 1, the core proposition is that the curriculum should be ‘research-based’ – ie most student learning “should reflect the kinds of active, critical and analytic enquiry undertaken by researchers”.

Fung gives a this useful definition of what that means in practice. Students should:

  • Generate new knowledge through data gathering and analysis
  • Disseminate their findings
  • Refine their understanding through feedback on the dissemination

All of it seems fairly uncontroversial in theory and tends to reflect current practice, or at least what we aspire to in current practice. There’s some discussion of the differences in what research means to different disciplines, and how that filters through into assessment of students, and potentially some useful studies on just how effective this all is.

Fung mentions the Boyer Commission (US 1998) and its proposed academic bill of rights, including (for research intensive institutions): “expectation of and opportunity for work with talented senior researchers to help and guide the student’s efforts”. Given increasing student numbers, this is possibly a less realistic expectation to meaningfully meet than it once was.

There’s some useful discussion about what is needed to make research-based-teaching work.

I was particularly interested in the idea that providing opportunity for this form of learning isn’t everything. Socio-economic factors mean that students may have differing beliefs about their own agency. Fung cites Baxter-Magdola (2004) on the importance of students having ‘self-authorship’ which includes ‘belief in oneself as possessing the capacity to create new knowledge’ and ‘the ability to play a part within knowledge-building communities’. You can’t assume all students arrive with the same level of this, and this will affect their ability to participate.

This part of the chapter also talks about the importance of not just sending students off “into the unknown to fend for themselves” – imagine a forest of ivory towers – but to give them support & structure. Activities need to be framed within human interactions (including peer support).

Towards the end there is a nod to it being anglo-centric – African and Asian educational philosophy and practice may be different – but little detail is given.

How Emotion Matters in Four Key Relationships in Teaching and Learning in Higher Education” (notes from Roger Gardner)

This is a 2016 article by Kathleen Quinlan, who is now Director of the Centre for the Study of Higher Education and Reader in Higher Education at University of Kent, but was working at Oxford when this was written.

She writes that while historically there has been less focus on Bloom’s affective domain than the cognitive, recently interest in the relation of emotions to learning has been growing although it is still under-researched. The article comes out of a review of the existing literature and conversations with teachers at the National University of Singapore in August 2014.

The paper focusses on four relationships: students with the subject matter, teachers, their peers and what she calls “their developing selves”. For each section Quinlan includes a summary of implications for teaching practice, which provide some very useful suggestions, ranging from simple things such as encouraging students to introduce each other when starting activities to help foster peer relationships, to advocating further research and exploration into when it is appropriate and educationally beneficial for teachers to express emotions and when not.

Quinlan says “discussions about intangibles such as emotions and relationships are often sidelined”, but it now seems essential to prioritise this if we are to support student wellbeing, and this paper provides some helpful prompts and suggestions for reflection and developing our practice.  If you are short of time I recommend looking at the bullet point “implications for practice”.

What is “significant learning”? (notes from Chrysanthi Tseloudi)

In this piece, Dr. Fink talks about the Taxonomy of Significant Learning; a taxonomy that refers to new kinds of learning that go beyond the cognitive learning that Bloom’s taxonomy addresses. The taxonomy of significant learning – where significant learning occurs when there is a lasting change in the learner that is important in their life – is not hierarchical, but relational and interactive. It includes six categories of learning:

Foundational knowledge: the ability to remember and understand specific information as well as ideas and perspectives, providing the basis for other kinds of learning.

Application: learning to engage in a new kind of action (intellectual, physical, social, etc) and develop skills that allow the learner to act on other kinds of learning, making them useful.

Intergration: learning to see, understand, and make new connections between different things, people, ideas, realms of ideas or realms of life. This gives learners new (especially intellectual) power.

Human Dimension: learning about the human significance of things they are learning – understanding something about themselves or others, getting a new vision of who they want to become, understanding the social implications of things they have learned or how to better interact with others.

Caring: developing new feelings, interests, values and/ or caring more about something that before; caring about something feeds the learner’s energy to learn about it and make it a part of their lives.

Learning how to learn: learning about the learning process; how to learn more efficiently, how to learn about a specific method or in a specific way, which enables the learner to keep on learning in the future with increasing effectiveness.

The author notes that each kind of learning is related to the others and achieving one kind helps achieve the others. The more kinds of learning involved, the more significant is the learning that occurs – with the most significant kind being the one that encompasses all six categories of the taxonomy.

Education Principles: Designing learning and assessment in the digital age (notes from Naomi Beckett)

This short paper is part of a guide written by Jisc. It covers what Education Principles are and why they are such a vital characteristic of any strategy. Coming from someone unspecialised in this area it was an interesting read to understand how principles can bring staff together to engage and develop different education strategies. The guide talks about how principles can ‘provide a common language, and reference point for evaluating change’.

The paper talks about having a benchmark in which everyone can check their progress. I like this idea. So often projects become too big and the ideas and values are lost on what was first decided as a team. Having a set of principles is a way to bring everything back together and is a useful way to enable a wide variety of staff to engage with each other. The guide mentions how having these principles means there is a ‘common agreement on what is fundamentally important.’

Having these principles developed at the beginning of a project puts the important ideas and values into motion and is a place to look back to when problems arise. Principles should be action oriented, and not state the obvious. Developing them in this way allows for a range of staff members to bring in different ideas and think about how they want to communicate their own message.

I also followed up by reading ‘Why use assessment and feedback principles?’ from Strathclyde’s Re-Engineering Assessment Practices (REAP) project.

Suggested reading

Near future teaching – notes from reading group

For our latest reading group, following Sian Bayne’s fascinating Near Future Teaching seminar for BILT, we wanted to look in more depth at the project materials and related reading.

Michael read ‘Using learning analytics to scale the provision of personalized feedback,’ a paper by Abelardo Pardo, Jelena Jovanovic, Shane Dawson, Dragan Gasevic and Negin Mirriahi. Responding to the need to be able to provide individual feedback to large classes of students, this study presented and tested a novel system for utilizing learning analytic data generated by student activity within a learning management system in order to deliver what the authors called ‘personalized’ feedback to students. As it was designed, the system allowed instructors to create small, one or two sentence pieces of feedback for each activity within a course. Based on these, each week students would be able to receive a set of ‘personalized’ feedback that responded to their level of participation. In the study, the authors found an improvement in student satisfaction with the feedback they received, but only a marginal improvement in performance, as compared to previous years. There were limits to the methodology — the study only made use of at most three years of student data for comparison — and the author’s definition of ‘personalized feedback’ seemed in practice to be little more than a kind of customized boilerplate feedback, but nevertheless the study did have a few interesting points. First, it was admirable in the way that it sought to use learning analytics techniques to improve feedback in large courses. Second, the authors took the well thought out step to not make the feedback given to be about the content of the course, but instead it focused on providing feedback on student study habits. That is, the feedback might encourage students to make sure they did all the reading that week if they weren’t doing well, or might encourage them to be sure to review the material if they had already reviewed it all once. Third, the article offered an interesting recounting of the history of the concept of feedback as it moved from focusing only on addressing the gap between targets and actual performance to a more wholistic and continuous relationship between mentor and student.

Suzi read Higher education, unbundling, and the end of the university as we know it by Tristran McCowan. This paper starts with a thorough guide to the language of unbundling and the kinds of things that we talk about when we talk about unbundling, followed by an extensive discussion of what this means for higher education. My impression from the article was that “unbundling” may be slightly unhelpful terminology, partly because it covers a very wide range of things, and partly because – if the article is to be believed – it’s a fairly neutral term for activities which seem to include asset-stripping and declawing universities. As an exploration of the (possible) changing face of universities it’s well worth a read. You can decide for yourself whether students are better off buying an album than creating their own educational mixtape.

Roger read “Future practices”.   For world 1 , human led and closed, I was concerned that lots was only available to “higher paying students” and there was no mention at all of collaborative learning. For world 2, human led and open, I liked the the idea of the new field of “compassion analytics”, which would be good to explore further, lots of challenge based learning and open content. World 3, tech led and closed, was appealing in its emphasis on wellbeing in relation to technology, and a move away from traditional assessment, with failure recognised more as an opportunity to learn, and reflection and the ability to analyse and synthesise prioritised. From world 4 I liked the emphasis on lifelong learning and individual flexibility for students eg to choose their own blocks of learning.

Chrysanthi read Future Teaching trends: Science and Technology. The review analyzes 5 trends:

  • datafication – e.g. monitoring students’ attendance, location, engagement, real-time attention levels,
  • artificial intelligence – e.g. AI tutoring, giving feedback, summarizing discussions and scanning for misconceptions, identifying human emotions and generating its own responses rather than relying only on past experience and data,
  • neuroscience and cognitive enhancement – e.g. brain-computer interfaces, enhancement tools like tech that sends currents to the brain to help with reading and memory or drugs that improve creativity and motivation,
  • virtual and augmented realities – e.g. that help to acquire medical skills for high-risk scenarios without real risk, or explore life as someone else to develop empathy, and
  • new forms of value – enabling e.g. the recording and verification of all educational achievements and accumulation of credit over one’s lifetime, or the creation of direct contracts between student-academic.

I liked it because it gave both pros and cons in a concise way. It allows you to understand why these trends would be useful and could be adopted widely, at the same time as you are getting a glimpse of the dystopian learning environment they could create if used before ethical and other implications have been considered.

Suggested reading

Feedback, NSS & TEF – notes from reading group

Chrysanthi read “Thanks, but no-thanks for the feedback”. The paper examines how students’ implicit beliefs about the malleability of their intelligence and abilities influence how they respond to, integrate and deliberately act on the feedback they receive. It does so, based on a set of questionnaires completed by 151 students (113 females and 38 males), mainly from social sciences.

Mindset: There are two kinds of mindsets regarding malleability of one’s personal characteristics; People with a growth mindset believe that their abilities can grow through learning and experience; people with a fixed mindset believe they have a fixed amount of intelligence which cannot be significantly developed. “If intelligence is perceived as unchangeable, the meaning of failure is transformed from an action (i failed) to an identity (i am a failure)” (p851).

Attitudes towards feedbackSeveral factors that influence whether a person accepts a piece of feedback – e.g. how reflective it is of their knowledge and whether it is positive or negative – were measured, as well as 2 outcome measures.

Defence mechanisms: Defence mechanisms are useful in situations we perceive as threatening, as they help us control our anxiety and protect ourselves. But if we are very defensive, we are less able to perceive the information we receive accurately, which can be counterproductive; e.g. a student may focus on who has done worse, to restore their self-esteem, rather than who has done better, which can be a learning opportunity.

The results of the questionnaires measuring the above showed that more students had a fixed mindset (86) than growth (65) and that their mindset indeed affected how they responded to and acted on feedback.

  • Growth mindset students are more likely to challenge themselves and see the feedback giver as someone who can push them out of their comfort zone in a good way that will help them learn. They are more motivated to change their behaviour in response to the received feedback, engage in developmental activities and use the defence mechanisms considered helpful.
  • Fixed mindset students are also motivated to learn, but they are more likely to go about it in an unhelpful way. They make choices that help protect their self-esteem, rather than learn, they are not as good at using the helpful defence mechanisms, they distort the facts of the feedback or think of an experience as all good or all bad. The authors seemed puzzled by the indication that fixed students are motivated to engage with the feedback, but they do so by reshaping reality or dissociating themselves from the thoughts and feelings surrounding said feedback.

Their recommendations?

  • Academics should be careful in how they deliver highly emotive feedback, even if they don’t have the time to make it good and individualised.
  • Lectures & seminars early in students’ studies, teaching them about feedback’s goal and related theory and practice, as well as action action-orientated interventions (eg coaching), so they learn how to recognize any self-sabotaging behaviours and manage them intelligently.
  • Strategies to help students become more willing to experience – and stay with – the emotional experience of failure. Eg, enhance the curriculum with opportunities for students to take risks, so they become comfortable with both “possibility” and “failure”.

I think trying to change students’ beliefs about the malleability of their intelligence would go a long way. If one believes their abilities are fixed and therefore if they don’t do well, they are a failure, a negative response to feedback is hardly surprising. That said, the responsibility of managing feedback should not fall entirely on the student; it still needs to be constructive, helpful and given in an appropriate manner.

Suzi read: An outsider’s view of subject level TEFA beginner’s guide to the Teaching Excellence FrameworkPolicy Watch: Subject TEF year 2 by the end of which she was not convinced anyone knows what the TEF is or how it will work.

Some useful quotes about TEF 1

Each institution is presented with six metrics, two in each of three categories: Teaching QualityLearning Environment and Student Outcomes and Learning Gain. For each of these measures, they are deemed to be performing well, or less well, against a benchmarked expectation for their student intake.

… and …

Right now, the metrics in TEF are in three categories. Student satisfaction looks at how positive students are with their course, as measured by teaching quality and assessment and feedback responses to the NSS. Continuation includes the proportion of students that continue their studies from year to year, as measured by data collected by the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA). And employment outcomes measures what students do (and then earn) after they graduate, as measured by responses to the Destination of Leavers from Higher Education survey – which will soon morph into Graduate Outcomes.

Points of interest re TEF 2

  • Teaching intensity (contact hours) won’t be in the next TEF
  • All subjects will be assessed (at all institutions), with results available in 2021
  • Insufficient data for a subject at an institution could lead to “no award” (so you won’t fail for being too small to measure)
  • Resources will be assessed
  • More focus on longitudinal educational outcomes, not (binary) employment on graduation
  • It takes into account the incoming qualifications of the students (so it does something like the “value add” thing that school rankings do) but some people have expressed concern that it will disincentivise admitting candidates from non-traditional backgrounds.
  • There will be a statutory review of the TEF during 2019 (reporting at the end of the year) which could change anything (including the gold / silver / bronze rankings)

Suzi also read Don’t students deserve a TEF of their own which talks about giving students a way in to play with the data so that, for example, if you’re more interested in graduate career destinations than in assessment & feedback you can pick on that basis (not on the aggregated data). It’s an interesting idea and may well happen but as a prospective student I can’t say I understood myself — or the experience of being at university — well enough for that to be useful. There’s also a good response talking about the kind of things (the library is badly designed, lectures are at hours that don’t make sense because rooms are at a premium, no real module choice) you might find out too late about a university that would not be covered by statistics.

Roger read “How to do well in the National Student Survey (NSS)” an article from Wonkhe,  written in March 2018. The author, Adrian Burgess, Professor of Psychology at Aston University, offers some reflections based on an analysis of NSS results from 2007 to 2016.

Whilst many universities have placed great emphasis on improving assessment and feedback, this has “brought relatively modest rewards in terms of student satisfaction” and remains the area with the lowest satisfaction.

Burgess’ analysis found that the strongest predictors of overall satisfaction were “organisation and management” closely followed by “teaching quality”.

Amy read Feedback is a two-way street. So why does the NSS only look one way?, an article by Naomi Winstone and Edd Pitt. This piece highlighted the issue that the NSS questions on feedback are framed as if feedback should be a passive experience – that students should be given their feedback. In 2017, the question was changed from “I have received detailed comments” to “I have received useful comments”. Both the old and new question frames feedback as something that is received, a ‘transmission-focussed mindset’, whereas Winstone and Pitt argue that feedback should be a two-way relationship – with the student working with the feedback and their tutor to develop.
The authors do not believe that changing the NSS question will solve all of the problems with students perception of feedback (though it will definitely help!) but they do believe that by promoting feedback as something that individuals work with, have responsibility for and seek out if they feel they need to develop in a certain area, that gradually the mindset will change and become a more sustainable form of learning for students.

Suggested reading

From WonkHE

From the last time we did assessment & feedback, which was July 2017 (I’ve left in who read what then)