One of the project’s main aims is to provide a platform for feedback on the courses, accessible to the students undertaking – or considering to undertake – studies at the University of Southampton. Even though student feedback is valued by the University as an integral part of the module assessment – currently being provided by the Module Feedback Surveys at the end of each semester – it is not, at the moment, a transparent process, meaning students do not have access to either the surveys data or their impact on module planning.

It is a hypothesis of this project that access to student feedback on the offered modules will assist current and future cohorts in having more realistic expectations out of the modules, adapting quicker and better to the expectations of teachers, improving their performance and making more informed decisions when choosing optional modules.

Relevant literature seems to agree with this assumption, highlighting that student dissatisfaction often stems from a lack of dialogue on feedback. Higher education at the moment keeps feedback provided by or given to students a one way written procedure (Nicol, 2010).

In fact, UK NSS in its regular surveys about student satisfaction, consistently find that students do not understand feedback provided by the teachers. In Douglas’ study (2006), current methods of feedback have been consistently identified as one of the elements of high importance but low satisfaction from students. Researchers argue that there is a need to transform students to active constructors of feedback, seeking it out from multiple resources and re-construct it by asking questions, connecting it with prior knowledge and discussing it with others (Nicol, 2010).

The same can be held about coursework comprehension. Research has found that a list of printed criteria and a description of the coursework is not enough for students to understand what exactly is being asked from them. Better results can be achieved by comparing prior good and poor assignments and comments from previous cohorts and discuss which is better and why (Nicol, 2010). When students regularly provide feedback on their modules, they develop a better ability to distinguish between quality criteria and how to satisfy them.

Peer discussions and peer feedback increase opportunities for dialogue with the teachers, but also provide a different type of feedback. Peers who have tackled the same assignment might be more able to provide more relevant and easy to comprehend comments to fellow students. On top of that, more extensive student feedback might give a better idea to teachers what students most value (Nicol, 2010).

The importance of peer advice is also evident when considering non-native English speakers. Surveys have shown that only one out of three foreign students fully understand everything their lecturers say (Warner and Miller, 2014). In those cases, other students can act as mediators between lecturer and student, often clarifying things in ways an academic would not be able to.

Unfortunately, the current field only allows for limited collaboration and collective reflection on modules. Sadler (2005) found that a large number of students, even when advised to compare feedback to identify strengths/weaknesses, do not have the knowledge to do so due to lack of experience on such processes. Other studies highlight that a peer support unit can level this lack of experience and provide an education experience of better quality (Hill et al., 2003).

These shortcomings of current higher education could be addressed with incentives for more activated students. It is this issue that this project is trying to address by providing a common platform across modules for students to comment, review and tackle misconceptions and requirements of their course.

 

 

 References

Douglas, J., Douglas, A. & Barnes, B. (2006). Measuring student satisfaction at a UK university. Quality assurance in education, 14, 251-267.

Hill, Y., Lomas, L. & MacGregor, J. (2003). Students’ perceptions of quality in higher education. Quality assurance in education, 11, 15-20.

Nicol, D. (2010). From monologue to dialogue: improving written feedback processes in mass higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35, 501-517.

Sadler, D. R. (2005). Interpretations of criteria‐based assessment and grading in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30, 175-194.

Warner, R. & Miller, J. (2014). Cultural dimensions of feedback at an Australian university: a study of international students with English as an additional language. Higher Education Research & Development, 1-16.