Limitations of Corrective Feedforward: A Call for Resubmission Practices to become Learning-oriented

Abstract

As part of well-planned formative assessment, feedback can help students to understand the demands of a summative assessment task, evaluate their current level of performance, and then find ways to close the gap. As students take a more active role in this process, their feedback can be thought of as becoming 'feedforward' since it serves a specific purpose and drives student action. As the value of formative assessment design is becoming emphasised in higher education, summative assessment practices need to be re-evaluated in terms of how well they support learning as opposed to just supporting valid judgements of student performance. However, despite significant discussion of Assessment for Learning and Learning-Oriented Assessment, resubmission practices are largely overlooked even though resubmission can be a key event in whether students are retained.As part of a learning support department's effort to provide effective feedback on academic writing, students referred for support were offered two types of feedback: one was simple correction, the other was in-depth dialogic feedback which followed "feedback for learning" guidance (Askew and Lodge 2000). Student engagement with the two types of feedback was analysed by looking at the changes students made to their work and feedback from their subject tutor (including the resubmission grade). The tutor's feedback was also analysed to see if any intentions for the resubmission task could be inferred.Results suggest that corrective feedback is highly efficient in enabling students to pass resubmissions and that more in-depth feedback is much less efficient. This paper highlights some of the ways in which resubmission practices can unknowingly encourage surface approaches, and suggests some ideas for how learning support can better align with subject tutors to enable resubmission to become more learning-oriented.

Teachers’ Feedback Practice and Students’ Academic Achievement: A Systematic Literature Review

“…On the students' part, they need to either 1) put in more effort and effectively employ learning strategies or 2) lower or change their present goals. Carver (2017) states that teachers can give suitable goals and effectively help students using feedback and learning strategies. The feedback given can be based on four levels, namely level of tasks (what), process levels (how), addressing self-regulation lists for students, and self-level (students' personalities).…”

“…According to Anne and Hazita (2020), teachers are still doubtful about feedback's potency in academically engaging students. Further, Carver (2017) mentioned that teachers usually feel that it is onerous to provide students with the feedback they need and apply. In education, students are consumers, and teachers are compelled to provide accurate feedback that is specifically tailored to address students' demands and interests.…”

Integrating Formative Assessment with Foreign Language (English) Process Writing Instruction: Lessons from Two College Writing and Reading Classes in Germany

“…In 1972, in his programmic essay 'Teach Writing as a Process not Product,' Murray pointed out that product evaluation does not improve the product. Another problem with summative assessment in the form of a timed essay is that it leaves out the social interactions with a teacher or peers that the writer needs to create the final product (Carver, 2017;Porto, 2001;Prior, 1998as cited in Lee, 2006Weigle, 2002;Wiggins, 1994).…”

Reframing the effectiveness of feedback in improving teaching and learning achievement

“…Consequently, written input can be improved by discourse. The method of contact should be two separate ways [42][43][44], between teacher and student, with the aim for the teacher to explain when feedback is not clearly communicated and why it is not significant. Teachers must examine the comments made concerning previous and recent work to identify the features of comments that support the process of learning and those that did not contribute to the changes made to this task.…”