Feedback Conversations

Abstract

In this paper, the authors describe how a study of a large database of written university teacher feedback in the department of Industrial Design led to the development of a new conceptual framework for feedback and the design of a new feedback tool. This paper focuses on the translation of related work in the area of feedback mechanisms for higher education into a tailored framework for feedback in the area of Industrial Design, the translation of the existing corpus of data into indicators of feedback quality and how feedback is received and further on used by students in their learning process. The newly developed tool structures teacher feedback into very targeted and highly focused feedback dialogues between teacher and individual students tailored to their individual learning process. The tool is described in this paper with respect to conversational aspects. In the future, the tool will be used actively in Industrial Design education, also with the purpose of further investigating how the quality of written feedback evolves and redesigning educational processes around feedback tools.

Narrative Assessments in Higher Education: A Scoping Review to Identify Evidence-Based Quality Indicators

“…36 Undergraduate medical education studies represented 25.5% (12/47) of included articles. 30,32,42,47,53,55,[57][58][59]64,67,70 Similarly, studies at the undergraduate level (12/47) 24,25,29,33,36,37,39,41,43,49,50,52 and postgraduate medical education level (12/47) 6,28,34,45,48,51,56,61,62,65,68,69 each represented 25.5% of included articles, Figure 1 Article review and selection process for a scoping review of the literature on narrative feedback in assessment in higher education, 2020, conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. 20 while studies at the graduate level represented only 4.3% (2/47) of included articles.…”

“…28,32,45,47,66 For the remaining articles, narrative comments were provided without any additional assessment (20/47, 42.6%). [25][26][27]29,30,33,35,40,41,43,48,[52][53][54]57,61,[63][64][65]69 Narrative comments were delivered through an electronic platform (e.g., iPad, mobile phone app, online email) in 7 studies (7/47, 14.9%), 24,25,29,30,43,48,51 paper format was used as a delivery format in 4 studies (4/47, 8.5%), 32,34,55,64 and both paper and electronic formats were used in 5 studies (5/47, 10.6%). 27,37,44,46,58 In the remaining articles, delivery format was unspecified (31/47, 66.0%).…”

“…27,37,44,46,58 In the remaining articles, delivery format was unspecified (31/47, 66.0%). 6,26,28,31,33,35,36,[39][40][41][42]45,47,49,50,[52][53][54]56,57,[59][60][61][62][63][65][66][67][68][69][70] In nearly half of the articles, narrative comments were provided exclusively by assessors (20/47, 42.6%), 6,24,27,28,30,37,41,43,45,47,49,50,52,[54][55][56]…”

“…After full-article review, 47 articles were determined to address our research questions appropriately. 6,24–37,39–70…”

“…6,24,25,28,30,[32][33][34]37,42,[44][45][46][47][48][49]52,[55][56][57]61,62,64,65,68,69 Studies suggest that providing opportunities for assessors to share their experience, compare good practices, and explore frustrations and confusions associated with their complex role would enhance their ability to provide high-quality narrative comments. 24,27,31,33,39,40,43,45,46,52,56,62,63,65,66,68,69…”