INTENTO DE SUICIDIO

Any delays of SAF can make feedback irrelevant for students because they would likely to move into new activities (Rea and Cochrane, 2008). Hence, timing of SAF is important. For example: (PGS5): “I remember that the system was not working for two days when were supposed to get the grade and feedback. I had to phone the School to learn my grade. When I got the feedback two days later, I had already known the grade and lost the interest”.

However, as a formal rule in the School, the standard timing of SAF delivery is four weeks. Besides, contradicting with Lunt and Curran (2010) about audio and Crook et al. (2012) about video being faster to produce in SAF, Zimbardi et al. (2017) demonstrate that producing an audio artefact in SAF can take much longer than online-written. Similarly, when considering additional time required for preparation, recording, editing and distributing these MMAs under the intervention conditions, I observed the same operational burden in the School. Therefore, any attempts to adopt the use of audio or video artefacts in OSCE feedback must take into consideration larger cohort numbers and the standard four weeks production period. Nevertheless, when compared to hard-copy, online SAF provides immediate availability (Watkins et al., 2014), as one student suggests:

(UGS1): “I am used to receiving digital feedback. It is very practical and faster than paper-copies”.

Furthermore, the usefulness is equally connected to the students’ views on their speed of learning in SAF with different MMAs. For example, the earlier findings in the School indicate that faster to learn ( _XV =4.13), ease of access ( _XV = 4.12) and easier to remember (_XV =4.07) are the highest scores relate to video in SAF, despite its usefulness ( _XV =3.70) being much lower in their experiences. Similarly, one student argues that:

(PGS5): “I know some students don’t read their SAF when they learn their grade. For video feedback, I didn’t feel this because I knew the video was going to shorter and faster to watch”.

However, notably, overall average lengths of video artefacts in SAF are much longer than audio and online-written text in the study. 6.6.1.2.C. Usefulness about Self-Management

For usefulness of SAF with MMAs, students should self-manage their learning activities through engagement, motivation, confidence and reflection (Nicol and MacFarlane-Dick, 2006; Scott, 2017). For example, the pre-intervention test survey shows that almost all first-year undergraduate (n=27, 93%) and postgraduate (n=9, 90%) students are willing to use online-written artefacts in SAF in their courses. However, while almost all postgraduate students (n=9, 90%) are more willing to use the video artefact in SAF, the undergraduate students’ willingness to use video in SAF (n=21, 72%) is much lower in the intervention groups. Consequently, during the post-intervention test interviews, two student comments identify different characteristics of each MMA and their benefits in SAF activities as:

(UGS2): “But receiving all three versions was so handy. I think I was more focusing on the voice on the audio and try to understand the points were crucial for me. I did prefer the video because I felt

like I’d like to see the person. I think if your videos don't work that well for you, then you can have audio to listen”.

(UGS1): “Depends, it felt like they had different uses for me. It is difficult to choose between them”.

Subsequently, while SAF activity with face-to-face (synchronous) format can become impractical and reliant on student memory on the day, online-written comments can also be limited in depth and open to multiple interpretations by causing uncertainty amongst students (Henderson and Phillips, 2014). Yet, asynchronous nature of the audio artefact in SAF can cause similar issues by being impractical and reliant on student memory as follows:

(PGS7): “Audio feedback was difficult to remember. For example, I was easily able to go back and search for a specific sentence with video and written feedback. It was difficult to remember where to find the information within audio. There is no signposting or markers for reference on it”.

On the contrary, Cann (2014) still suggests a mixture of observations in laboratory notebooks to be difficult to convert into the online-written format, and thus, proposes audio-only SAF through its connectedness, timeliness, and perceived relevance. Subsequently, when comparing the video artefact to online-written in SAF activities, many students find video in SAF more personal, supportive, effective at revitalising their enthusiasm, and prompting

reflection. However, some may be hesitant to use it due to being unable to match the video feedback to relevant sections in their written assignment (Henderson and Phillips, 2014). Hence, training students for relevant SAF rules is crucial through a balanced combination of exemplars, rubrics and different MMA (Broadbent et al., 2018). Moreover, many students believe annotations in online- written artefacts to be more useful for referring directly to new resources (Sopina and McNeill, 2015). Similarly, not aligning with Cann’s (2014) findings about effectiveness of audio-only artefacts in SAF for essay types of assignment, the following student comment in the study is indicative of the importance of referring directly to new references in SAF as:

(PGS6):”For the similar clinical practice assessments (OSCE), I prefer to receive video feedback. For an essay exam, I am not sure. For our essay exams, we are getting longer feedback with additional references. In this case, maybe online-written feedback might be better”.

In fact, the intervention groups in the study often repeat this indicative student comment.