1. CLT Conference 2015 6 th July 2015 Nudge! A structured programme of support aimed at improving student achievement where average grades are just below a grade boundary Nigel Kelleher, Edge Hill University

2. “But the feedback is… n _ _ m _ _ _ u _ _”

3. “But the feedback is not much use”

4. But it’s not really a surprise! Students not effectively engaging with feedback (Duncan, 2007) Feedback has “little or no effect” (Sadler, 2010, p.535; Crisp, 2007) Feedback repeatedly shown not to “lead to an increase in standards...or [be] acted upon” (Elbra-Ramsay, 2011,p.16)

5. “But the feedback is not much use” What a waste! All this effort to help our students become self regulating and independent learners (Butler and Winne, 1995) “dispiriting” (Pardoe, 2000 cited in Crisp, 2007, p.571)

6. So how do our students use summative feedback? Do our students think about summative feedback in the same way we do ? “But the feedback is not much use”

7. BA Hons Social Work (3 year; full time) Modular delivery Electronic marking and feedback via Blackboard Level 5 (Year 2) 5 modules Practice learning placement Academic modules x 3Academic modules x 1 Hand in Some programme context (& limits!)… nudge! time

8. “But the feedback is not much use” Do our students... -know what feedback is for? -read the feedback they get? (and we can’t take those things for granted (Hepplestone and Chikwa, 2014)) yes no But our students lack a timely opportunity to apply all the summative feedback (Crisp, 2007)!

9. “But the feedback is not much use” Do our students... -see “feedback as the end- product of the assessment process and... not see connections between assignments, modules, years of study and employment”? (Hepplestone and Chikwa, 2014, p.41). yes no

10. But there are some important limits on summative feedback… tutor time word limit up to 5000 characters + unlimited boxes comment “But the feedback is not much use” topic analytical skills presentation

11. “But the feedback is not much use” And for all our hopes of a dialogic relationship re feedback, students do not always “put effort in to try and get feedback [or explore it further]” (Hepplestone and Chikwa, 2014, p.45).

12. So we started thinking about some kind of practical and efficient scaffold to support the effective use of feedback (Elbra-Ramsay, 2011). Particularly, the idea that “students often experience problems interpreting the academic language underpinning assessment [re both learning outcomes and feedback]” (Higgins et al., 2002, p.56) So what would that look like?

13. nudge! Do you find your grades hover just a little below a grade boundary (ie just below 50%, 60% or 70%)? Do you want to do something about it? Try nudge! - a series of brief seminars designed to help you understand how improve your grades and cross over that boundary In other words, low cost,...(high gain?)

14. brief regular focused (To date: investment of 5 x 15 min sessions)

15. nudge! Why focus on grade boundaries? a) Motivate participation (but sessions were voluntary and open to all) b) Enable data analysis

16. nudges! beginning & endings learning outcomes grading criteria critical writing Why these? Clarify ‘discourse’ Connect Transfer “Assignment specific content is difficult to use” (Hepplestone & Chikwa, 2014, p.48) patterns in feedback

17. nudge! connects with important agendas.... Student agenda Desire to understand (Higgins et al., 2002) Desire to achieve (award classification) Competitiveness in labour market University agenda performance data +++ Tutor agenda job satisfaction +++

18. nudge! is not trying to displace dialogue or duplicate tutorial or learner services support. So why do it? Proximity Accessibility Consistency Identity local, informed, coherent responsive investment Satisfaction Achievement? Self regulating learners?

19. nudge! what happened next? Eligible sample: 26 Participation: aver. 6 Target sample: 8 (based on level 5 grades) Quantitative data: available in Yr 3 (2015/16) Qualitative data:

20. nudge! what happened next? Qualitative data: “Really helpful” Offered by students as example of academic support during recent validation and approval event Sense of ‘department going the extra mile’

21. nudge! next steps... -expand to include levels 5 & 6 -timing matters! (moving to Jan-Mar 2016) -trial nudges in ‘presentation’, ‘theory/practice linkage’ and referencing (Crisp, 2007) -action planning and linkage with PPDP -explore useful potential for “trusted” peer student support (Crisp, 2007) -analyse achievement patterns

22. If nudge! fails? There is always Plan B...

24. nudge! contact Nigel.kelleher@edgehill.ac.ukNigel.kelleher@edgehill.ac.uk

25. References Butler, D. and Winne, P., 1995. Feedback and self-regulated learning: a theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3) pp.245-281 Crisp, B., 2007. ‘Is it worth the effort? How feedback influences students’ subsequent submission of assessable work’. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(5), pp.571-581 Duncan, N., 2007. Feed-forward: Improving students’ use of tutors’ comments. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(3), pp. 271-283. Elbra-Ramsay, C., 2011. ‘Can 'Quality Marking' be used to provide effective feedback within Higher Education?’ Journal of Pedagogic Development, 1(2), pp.16-30 Hepplestone, S. and Chikwa, G., 2014. Understanding how students process and use feedback to support their learning. Practitioner Research in Higher Education 8(1), pp.41- 53 Higgins, R., Hartley, P. and Skelton, A., 2002. The conscientious consumer: reconsidering the role of assessment feedback in student learning. Studies in Higher Education, 27(1), pp.53-64 Sadler, D.R., 2010. Beyond feedback: developing student capability in complex appraisal. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), pp. 535-550.