1. PROBLEMA
2.4. CONTENIDO DEL ESCRITO DE CASACIÓN EN MATERIA
2.4.12. Posibles reformas en cuanto a los requisitos establecidos en el art 6 de la Ley
There is extensive knowledge of learning and teaching behaviour and practice at
undergraduate level, but limited, albeit increasing, knowledge of postgraduate taught study. The Entry to Study survey explored students’ experiences of previous learning and teaching methods, their understanding of academic feedback and their preferences, as well as their expectation, of learning at PGT level. The majority of the findings in this chapter are from this survey. The focus groups explored the students’ actual experience of learning and teaching on their course. Where appropriate the PTES 2015 findings are reported.
a. Key points
Expectation of how to study at postgraduate level
• Just under two fifths of the aggregate sample did not know what to expect when studying at PGT level.
• Second generation and UK respondents were more likely to have an expectation of how to study at PGT level.
Previous academic feedback
• The most common type of academic feedback received in their previous studies was
written feedback (hard copy) and then face to face (with the tutor individually).
• Use of technology such as email and Turnitin was not commonly experienced.
• The most preferred method of receiving feedback for both assessed and non-assessed work was face to face with tutor (individually).
• UK respondents were more likely to prefer written feedback (hard copy) for assessed work compared to their EU and OS counterparts.
• Almost all of the respondents stated that they had always collected and read their previous academic feedback and used it to improve their previous assignments.
• Male respondents were more likely to have approached a tutor to discuss the feedback compared to females, and female respondents were more likely to have never thought about asking for feedback.
Current academic feedback expectations
• Respondents felt that receiving regular academic feedback in their studies was the most important activity and the least was discussing feedback with fellow students outside of class. • Respondents felt that the most helpful type of academic feedback they could receive
on their work was written comments on assessed work followed by ongoing informal
discussions with a tutor outside of class.
• Respondents’ preference for academic feedback was face to face with the tutor
individually and written feedback (hard copy). The least preferred were face to face in a group and audio.
• Full-time respondents were more likely to prefer face to face individual feedback compared to part-time respondents.
• Part-time respondents were more likely to prefer email feedback compared to full-time respondents.
• Half of the respondents expected to receive comments on their feedback within 1 to 2 weeks. • The expected timeframe of receiving feedback was reflected in the method of giving
feedback (e.g. up to three days by email; one week by face to face; up to a month by
Contact and independent study hours
• Respondents at PGT level expected that as their contact hours decreased the number of independent study hours increased.
Preferred method of learning and assessment
• Respondents preferred learning both in groups and independently, but when it came to assessment they preferred to be individually assessed.
• Respondents coming from the Russell Group university were more likely to prefer
studying independently compared to those coming from other type of universities.
• Part-time respondents were more likely to prefer studying independently and be assessed individually compared to those who were full-time.
Learning strengths
• Respondents who rated their skills as very strong did so in the areas of organising their ability to study independently, numeracy and literacy.
• Respondents who were under 25 years of age or male were more confident about the knowledge of their subject compared to those above 31 years of age or who were female. • Females were more likely to rate higher their ability to organising their study
independently than males.
• There were no major generational, domiciled or route into study differences. b. Expectation of how to study at PGT level
Source: Entry to Study survey
Of the aggregate sample, 62.2% respondents had an expectation of how to study at
postgraduate study compared to 37.8% who did not. Second generation respondents reported that they were more likely to know what to expect (65.8%) in comparison to first generation (59.2%). No major differences were found between respondents in the different social classes, those coming from different routes into study and between different age groups.
UK domiciled respondents were more likely to have an expectation on how to study at postgraduate level (65.4%) in comparison to EU respondents (54%). This may be due to them having an understanding the UK higher education system. The lower expection by EU respondents may be due to only 22.6% having previously studied in the UK.
In terms of subject discipline, physical science respondents were the most likely to have an expectation of how to study (69.9%) and computer sciences (54.4% the least).
Respondents were asked if they intended changing their learning behaviour at postgraduate level as a result of their prior learning experiences. Their qualitative responses fell into four broad themes: time management, autonomous learning, interactions with teachers and peers, and career-focused learning. The sub-themes are presented in Table 88.
Table 88. Expected learning behaviour changes
Themes Sub-themes
Time management
More study hours outside the classroom Respect deadlines
Daily study
Balance study with work
Autonomous learning Research own sources of information Interactions with teachers and peers Study in groupsMeet the tutors more often
Career focused learning Getting involved in volunteering and societiesLinking studies with industry demands and opportunities c. Previous academic feedback experience
Source: Entry to Study survey
Feedback is recognised as a key activity in facilitating learning, hence the inclusion in the annual PTES run by the HEA. This section reports the respondents’ understanding of feedback and their previous experience of it from the Entry to Study survey.
i. Understanding the purpose of academic feedback
The respondents were asked to state what they understood by the term academic feedback. Their answers fell into four main themes: comments, content, grade/marking, and assessment of academic staff (by students). The sub-themes for each one of these themes are showed in the Table 89 below.
Table 89. Purpose of feedback
Themes Sub-themes
Comments
Purpose of the comments
Qualitative assessment Achievements Improvements
Feedback as a learning process Regularity
Type of comments
Written comments by teachers Individual feedback
Peer feedback Group feedback Content Academic contentWriting style
Referencing
Grade/Marking Quantitative assessmentAcademic standards Level of knowledge Assessment of academic staff Course assessmentStudents’ satisfaction
ii. Previous types of academic feedback
Respondents were asked to identify all the different types of academic feedback that they had received previously (see Table 90). Written feedback (hard copy) (73.1%) was the most common type of feedback received, followed by face to face (individually) (52.7%) then face to face as group (33.2%).
Table 90. Types of academic feedback received Type of academic feedback Aggregate sample Written feedback (hard copy) 73.1%
Face to face with tutor (individually) 52.7% Face to face with tutor (as a group) 33.2%
Via email 31.6%
Written feedback via Turnitin 17.0% Via an internal intranet site 13.5% Audio (verbally recorded) 3.8%
Video feedback 1.0%
When analysed by a range of variables, a number of noticeable differences emerged. • Biological sciences respondents were more likely to have received written feedback
(hard copy) (81.2%) in comparison to engineering respondents (66.4%) and computer science respondents (63%). The other disciplines ranged between 69% and 81%.
• Biological sciences respondents were also more likely to have received written feedback via Turnitin (25.6%) in comparison to engineering and computer science respondents (11.9% and 10.1% respectively). The other disciplines ranged between 10.3% and 26.8%. • Computer science respondents cited face to face with tutor (individually) more
frequently (61.1%) than engineering and technology respondents (46% and 31.7% respectively). The other disciplines ranged between 51.7% and 56.3%.
• Feedback via email was more cited by computer science (40.4%) and biological science (35.6%) respondents in comparison to those studying engineering (23.8%). The other disciplines ranged between 31% and 32.5%.
iii. Previous academic feedback method preferences
The most preferred method of receiving academic feedback for assessed work was face to face with tutor (individually) followed by written feedback (hard copy) (see Figure 16). These two ways of receiving academic feedback were also the most preferred for non-assessed work followed by feedback via email. It is interesting to note that the most common method of receiving feedback cited above is not the primary preference. Also, in an age of technology, traditional methods such as face to face feedback still appear to most popular rather than IT approaches.
Figure 16. Academic feedback method preferences
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
Non-assessed Assessed
Face to face with tutor (individually) Written feedback (hard copy) Via email Written feedback via Turnitin Via an internal intranet site Face to face with tutor (as a group) Audio (verbally recorded)
Video feedback 0.2% 0.1% 0.4% 0.6% 3.2% 11.7% 4.1% 3.3% 4.8% 2.0% 12.3% 18.7% 31.0% 19.4% 42.9% 42.9%
When analysed by a range of variables, a number of noticeable differences emerged.
• Computer science respondents were more likely to prefer feedback via email for their assessed work (16.8%) than those studying physical sciences (7.8%).
• Biological science respondents were more likely to prefer written feedback (hardcopy) (26.2%) in comparison to engineering and computer sciences respondents (15% and 13.5% respectively).
• UK respondents were more likely to prefer written feedback (hardcopy) for assessed work (36%) in comparison to EU and OS respondents (22.5% and 23.9% respectively). • Feedback via email was more likely to be favoured by OS respondents (19%) than UK
respondents (8.5%). This was also the case for non-assessed work (similar figures). • Female respondents were more likely to prefer written feedback (hardcopy) for assessed
work (38.4%) than males (26.6%), but male respondents were more likely to prefer face to face with tutor (individually) (46.4%) in comparison to female respondents (37.3%). • Male respondents were more likely to prefer feedback via email (20.8%) in comparison
to female respondents (15%).
• Biological and physical science female respondents’ first preference for feedback on assessed work was written feedback (hard copy) (40.8% and 43.0% respectively). For females in all other disciplines it was face to face (with tutor individually).
iv. Previous use of feedback and tutor discussion of academic feedback
Of the aggregate sample, 94.3% of the respondents said that they always collected and read academic feedback. And of these, 96.8% stated that they used the given academic feedback to improve future assignments.
Of the 73.2% respondents who stated that they had approached a tutor to discuss their academic feedback, the most commonly cited reason was that they wanted more feedback on how to improve their mark. Only 7.6% stated that they had done so because they did not understand the feedback, 11.8% did not agree with the mark and 3.2% did not agree with the feedback.
Of the 26.8% respondents who stated that they had not approached a tutor, the top two most commonly cited reasons were I got the grade I expected (61.4%) followed by I understood the written feedback (53.5%). However, 28.6% stated that they did not feel comfortable asking about the feedback, 23.7% that they had not thought about asking for feedback, 10.9% stated that it was not worth the effort and 10.6% said that their tutors were hard to contact. Only 1.5% stated that they did not contact a tutor because they did not agree with the mark. When analysed by a range of variables, a number of differences emerged.
• Male respondents were more likely to have approached a tutor (77.2%) compared to female respondents (66.4%).
• Female respondents (29.4%) were more likely than males (18.4%) to say that they never thought of asking about the feedback when asked to cite the reasons for not having approached a tutor.
• UK respondents were more likely to have approached a tutor to get more feedback on how to improve the mark (78.5%) in comparison to EU respondents (64.7%).
• EU respondents (25.5%) were more likely to have approached a tutor because they did not agree with the feedback in comparison to UK and OS respondents (8.9% and 12.2% respectively).
• UK respondents (65.8%) were more likely to mention having got the expected grade when asked to cite the reasons for not having approached a tutor in comparison to OS and EU respondents (50.5%).
• UK respondents stated that they were also more likely to have understood the written feedback (61.7%) than OS respondents (41.2%). This could be due to lack of understanding as a result of language barriers.
d. Current academic feedback expectations Source: Entry to Study survey
i. Academic feedback activities
Respondents were asked to rank in order of importance which academic feedback activities were the most or least important to receive during their course. The findings shown in Table 91 highlight that for 56% of the aggregate sample getting regular academic feedback was the most important feedback activity to receive followed by 25.1% wanting to know what they did well and what they could improve. For 44.7%, discussing feedback with students outside of class was the least important, followed by 24.1% citing receiving feedback that is encouraging and raises my confidence levels.
Table 91. Most and least important academic feedback activities
Academic feedback activity Most important
first ranked Least important sixth ranked
Getting regular academic feedback 56.0% 1.7%
Discussing feedback with fellow students in the class 4.3% 17.9% Discussing feedback with fellow students outside of class 2.0% 44.7% Telling me what I did not do well and how to improve 25.1% 1.3%
Telling me what I did correctly 3.0% 10.0%
Receiving academic feedback that is encouraging and raises my
ii. Most helpful type of academic feedback
Respondents were asked what the most helpful type of academic feedback on their work would be in their current postgraduate studies. For the aggregate sample, the most commonly cited responses were comments on written or assessed work (45.3%), followed by ongoing informal feedback outside of class (32.3%) (see Figure 17).
Figure 17. Most helpful type of academic feedback
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
Other Feedback by peers Ongoing informal feedback during lessons/workshops/seminars etc Ongoing informal conversations outside of class (e.g. meeting your tutor one to one or by email)
Comments on written or assessed work 45.3%
32.3%
19.6%
2.1%
0.7%
No differences were found for mode of study, route into study, discipline and age. However, statistical differences were found when previous university was analysed. Respondents coming from a UK university (non-Russell Group and not the same as their current university) were more likely to have cited ongoing informal conversation outside of class (40.6%) in comparison to respondents studying at the same university (30.3%) and respondents coming from a non- UK university (30.5%). This may be due to the different learning and teaching experiences of their previous institution.
iii. Academic feedback at PGT level preference
Respondents were asked to rank in order of importance which type of academic feedback they would prefer to receive during their PGT course. The findings shown in Table 92 reflect their preferences as in their previous studies with 38.6% of the aggregate sample preferring academic feedback face to face on an individual basis followed by 34.5% preferring hard copy written feedback. Again, receiving feedback via audio was the least preferred method followed by receiving feedback face to face with the tutor in groups.
Table 92. Academic feedback at PGT level preference
Academic feedback method Most important
first ranked Least important 7th ranked
Face to face with tutor (individually) 38.6% 1.6%
Written feedback (hard copy) 34.5% 1.4%
Via email 15.8% 0.7%
Written feedback via Turnitin 6.9% 10.6%
Via an internal intranet site 2.1% 7.8%
Face to face with tutor (as a group) 1.6% 32.6%
Audio (verbally recorded) 0.5% 45.3%
When analysing preference and mode of study, 22.1% of part-time respondents were more likely to rank first that they preferred receiving feedback via email compared to 14.5% of full- time respondents. Full-time respondents were more likely to rank first that they preferred face to face individual feedback with 40.3% compared to part-time respondents with 29.9%.
iv. Timeframe in receiving academic feedback
Respondents were asked to state how soon after handing in an assignment at PGT level they expected to receive academic feedback. This question was an open one and the time periods have been grouped by the responses received. For 32.5% of the aggregate sample, the most expected time frame was up to two weeks and for 20.1% it was up to one week (see Figure 18). It is unclear whether the timeframes were shaped by their previous study experience, set by their current university via pre-entry information or orientation/induction, or whether they just felt that it was a reasonable period of time.
Figure 18. Timeframe in receiving academic feedback
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
No answer Unsure/it depends More than a month Up to a month Up to 3 weeks Up to 2 weeks Up to 1 week (7 days) Up to 5 days Up to 3 days 6.1% 3.8% 1.0% 11.7% 12.2% 32.5% 20.1% 8.1% 4.6%
When different variables were analysed, a number differences emerged.
• OS and EU respondents were more likely to expect feedback up to one week (29.3% and 29.7% respectively) compared to UK respondents (13.9%).
• UK respondents were more likely to expect feedback up to two weeks (38.9%) in comparison to OS respondents (20.5%).
• Respondents coming straight from university were more likely to expect to receive feedback in up to a month (17.1%) than respondents coming straight from work (8.4%). • Part-time respondents were more likely to expect to receive feedback in up to two
weeks (43.7%) compared to full-time respondents (30.3%).
• Full-time respondents were more likely to expect to receive feedback in a timeframe of up to one week (21.5%) than part-time respondents (13.1%).
• Computer science and physical science respondents were more likely to expect to receive feedback within two weeks (38.9 and 38.9% respectively) in comparison to mathematics and engineering respondents (10.3% and 26.9% respectively). • Biological science and physical science respondents were more likely to expect to
receive feedback within one month (21.2% and 16.7% respectively) in comparison to engineering and computer sciences respondents (6.2% and 4.3% respectively).
Source: Focus groups
When academic feedback was raised, respondents generally reported that the feedback was provided in an adequate timeframe.
I’ve found some of our feedback has been very timely, excellent and useful but in other modules it’s been hopeless…. Hard to obtain…..so the feedback we’re getting is….. so different, yeah it depends on the lecturer really, yeah, it’d be nice if it was a bit more consistent….
v. Method of returning academic feedback within a specific timeframe
Table 93 below presents how respondents expected to receive their feedback within a chosen timeframe. Respondents were asked to select one method and one timeframe. The table doesn’t reflect their overall choice of preference as described in section iii above, but their expectation. The findings suggest that respondents expect to receive a certain type of feedback dependent on the timeframe. For up to one week, respondents stated that feedback via email and face to face (individually) were the most expected means of receiving feedback. As the timeframe lengthens these methods reduce and others are chosen as the most expected. For example, the use of Turnitin and written hard copy for feedback becomes the most expected method up to a month. Feedback using an internal intranet site or audio feedback are not expected methods.
Table 93. Method of returning academic feedback within a specific timeframe Length Written feedback via Turnitin (114) Written (hard copy) (418) Via email (263) Via an internal intranet site (40) Audio (verbally recorded) (4) Face to face with tutor (individually) (233) Face to face with tutor (as a group) (19) Up to 3 days 3.6% 12.5% 51.8% 3.6% 1.8% 26.8% 0% Up to 5 days 4.1% 23.5% 34.7% 4.1% 0% 32.7% 0% Up to 1 week 9.4% 28.2% 25.7% 1.2% 0% 30.2% 4.1% Up to 2 weeks 10.3% 41.8% 24.2% 4.5% 0.3% 16.6% 2% Up to 3 weeks 15.4% 49.7% 14.1% 3.4% 0% 16.8% 0.7% Up to a month 14.9% 52.5% 11.3% 5.0% 1.4% 13.5% 0% 1 month plus 0% 41.7% 33.3% 8.3% 0% 16.7% 0%
e. Current feedback experience
This section reports the feedback experience of respondents from the six participating institutions in PTES 2015 and the focus groups across the 9E Group.
Source: PTES, 2015
The respondents in the PTES 2015 stated that generally they had received a good experience in assessment and feedback (see Table 94). Of the aggregate sample, 70.8% stated that the criteria used in marking had been made clear in advance; 69% agreed that the assessment