Research School Network: Mic check – can someone please sort the feedback? – part 2 Amarbeer Singh Gill’s latest Feedback blog considers common pitfalls, task design and focusing on ‘principles’ over ‘methods’.
—
Blog
Mic check – can someone please sort the feedback? – part 2
Amarbeer Singh Gill’s latest Feedback blog considers common pitfalls, task design and focusing on ‘principles’ over ‘methods’.
In our previous blog on Feedback we said that one of the obstacles we run into when discussing feedback is that there isn’t a shared definition of the term.
We attempted to address this by using the analogy of a thermostat to come up with a shared understanding:
‘Feedback is information about how far the current state is from the desired state, and forms part of a feedback loop with a mechanism to bring the current state closer to the desired state.’
We then looked at common pitfalls:
Using ‘marking’ and ‘feedback’ to mean the same thing.
Focusing on the form feedback might take (eg verbal or written) rather than how it might improve learning (eg by being clear, manageable, actionable etc).
Not having feedback in mind at the point of task design.
Having a prescribed frequency that feedback should be delivered with.
We suggested that an alternative approach would be to focus on the principles of effective feedback over the methods.
So, what might that look like?
Let’s return to our thermostat analogy to help us and remind ourselves of our rough workings of one:
Set required temperature (desired state)
Measure current temperature (current state)
Compare current temperature with the required temperature (identify gap between current state and desired state)
Engage system that will bring the current state in line with the desired state (close the gap).
So, what could this look like in a classroom?
Task design
Setting the desired state must be the starting point not just for feedback, but for thinking about how we facilitate student learning.
Without having a clear idea of where we want students to go, we won’t be able to help them get there.
So, when thinking about feedback it’s crucial that we design ‘tasks with feedback in mind’1. This serves several purposes:
It ensures that students are working towards something, not just working.
It gives us a baseline against which we can measure student thinking.
The second point is where feedback comes into play. By having a clear baseline against which we’re measuring student performance, we will be able to figure out when it falls short, why it’s fallen short, and how we can close the gap between students’ current performance and the desired performance.
Consider a PE teacher attempting to teach students how to shoot a basketball. The teacher must be able to break down all of the key points that go into this overarching technique: the position of your feet, body, hands, arms, order of movement, point of release etc.
One way the teacher might create tasks that would allow them to give clear, manageable, and actionable feedback might be to get students to practise small elements of the overall technique before attempting to actually shoot a basketball.
In doing so, they can provide feedback that respects the limits of working memory, making it more likely students will be able to act on them and improve their performance.
By having a clear baseline against which we’re measuring student performance, we will be able to figure out when it falls short, why it’s fallen short, and how we can close the gap between students’ current performance and the desired performance.
It’s also worth acknowledging how this may differ for different subjects and contexts. Consider a maths teacher attempting to teach how to ‘collect like terms’.
Applying the strategy the PE teacher has used above would be tricky: there’s not much that can be broken down, and the elements that can won’t necessarily relate to our goal.
Instead, what we could do is provide students with a list of questions that are only subtly different:
4x + 5x
4x x 5x
4x + 5y
4x + 5y + 5x
4x + 5y + 5y
4x + 5y + 0.5y
Each of these questions is a very slightly different application of the same goal, so the performance on each question will give the teacher different information on the extent to which the student understands the underpinning mathematical principle.
This allows them to provide feedback that will be most appropriate for their particular level of understanding.
Respecting the context
Both of the above examples make use of feedback in visibly different ways.
What this means is that both teachers have avoided one of the key pitfalls we mentioned in the previous blog – ‘a focus on methods over principles’.
Instead, in both examples the teachers had a clear desired state in mind, then designed tasks that will allow them to easily measure the current state, compare it to the desired state, and intervene to move the current state closer to the desired state.
Neither approach is the ‘right’ one, instead both respect their separate disciplines and incorporate the principles in ways that would be most helpful for their context.
It’s also worth noting that even within subjects it doesn’t mean tasks/feedback will always be the same: a maths teacher won’t always be best served by providing a list of subtly different questions just as a PE teacher won’t always be best served by having students practise very small parts of a technique.
Instead, we can take a ‘best fit’ approach by starting with clear end goals as these will allow us to find the way that best fits how we get students from their current state to the desired one for a given context.
