I spent most of Friday at a workshop on audio feedback for student work. It proved to be a very thought-provoking day. The meeting was funded by HEA Social Sciences, based on a project funded by the University Teaching Enhancement Fund, which has two parts (so far):- A personal voice (good practice in audio feedback)
- AUDIBLE (linguistic analysis of audio feedback)
The morning consisted of a workshop generating and receiving audio feedback on a group work exercise. At first, I found this excruciating, but as the morning wore on, it became more and more interesting, comparing technologies and experiencing both sides of the feedback equation in short order. I learned that I need to reduce my use of the word "disappointing" when giving feedback (or the linguistics police will get me ;-)
The afternoon consisted of presentations by a number of speakers, which were interesting, but for me, not as interesting as the discussion they invoked. A few of the main points I took from this discussion:
- Structure and signposting are particularly important (e.g. numbed points) in audio, otherwise it is very difficult to pick out and retain key points.
- Audio feedback is much more like a tutorial than written feedback - conversational, with a performance element.
- Students like audio if it augments rather than replaces written feedback. Oh dear, not much prospect for time saving then, but the possibility of improving quality?
- Does feedback really matter? Feed forward is the important goal, and audio tools don't do anything to help with that issue.
Sarah Horrigan's reflections.
0 comments:
Post a Comment