I believe that effective teaching is highly dependent on assessment and feedback approaches. Drawing from Race (2020) assessment drives learning by determining what and how students learn. I used to believe that the feedback process does not necessarily need to involve a lot of two-way communication. For example, when students had difficulty performing practical tests, I explained them again, however, not making sure (through their feedback) that they understood what I was explaining. Reflecting on the diverse learning approach, some students may be shy and not necessarily express their thoughts in class (V1), therefore, my one-way feedback approach may not have been the best. After going through the feedback module of “Teaching Advantage”, my understanding of feedback is changed; feedback has to be a process where both learner and educator improve themselves and get better in learning and teaching, respectively (Carless, 2015).
In the context of the optometry profession, besides formative (class discussion, quiz, and demonstration) and summative (presentation, report, written and practical exam), authentic assessment tools are used to build employment skills for working in a real-world context (Villarroel, Bloxham, Bruna, Bruna, & Herrera-Seda, 2018) (K2). I particularly appreciate the realism approach such as activities simulating a ‘real context”or professional work. For example, in a recent assessment for clinical optometry in contact lens complications and management at UNSW, I used individialised virtual case studies with different chief complaints, occupation, refraction and contact lenses type to different students. Students were asked to prepare reports on their patients to manage specific conditions. These tasks stimulate students’ critical thinking in a simulated real world context. Cognitive challenges e.g. problem-solving and decision-making tasks help develop meta-cognitive skills, which are useful tools for authentic assessment.
Futhermore, in the ophthalmic optics practicals, I demonstrated tasks, which were related to the lectures of the previous week, to students. Usually, on the first week of practice, I demonstrated the tasks then the students performed the tasks by themselves and I provided additional assistance if required. On many occasions, I explained the tests by demonstrating them again and watching them do the technique and then advising on how they could improve. For some practical tasks, I referred students to online material e.g. YouTube videos which they could watch, and they could practice again in their own time (K4). During the following week, students performed the tasks independently and completed a report that would be marked and formed part of their overall assessment. I supported the unit coordinator to provide summative feedback on these assessments. Feedback was provided to the entire class if many students had similar issues or on an individual basis if only a few students had trouble with specific issues. I believe that summative feedback is useful to evaluate students’ learning so that we could know what is working and what is not working and modify the teaching approach as required. In addition, in the mid-semester exam, I supported students’ evaluation using a variety of assessments including multiple-choice questions, clinical slides, and short answer critical thinking type questions (K2). When the unit coordinator marked the mid-semester exam using marking guidelines, individual face-to-face feedback was provided. I supported the feedback sessions by highlighting their strengths and suggesting potential improvement areas using a constructive feedback approach.
In my role as a sessional academic, feedback on teaching was requested at the end of the module through a students’ survey in which less than 5% of the students took part. I strongly believe that it would be useful to request feedback from the early days of teaching. In addition, more students can be encouraged to take part by assuring that feedback will be highly valued to improve teaching. Drawing from Carless (2018) feedback has to be provided constructively in such a way that both parties can appreciate and implement it as soon as possible (V3). Quality feedback should specify which part of the course content was achieved by a student and what needs more work so that it provides confidence and motivation to students (Dunworth and Sanchez, 2016) (V3).
In my future teaching, I plan to get feedback more frequently e.g. after each practical test on how the particular test went, and whether the instructions in the practical manual were useful or not. I also plan to make the feedback mechanism sustainable. I will facilitate peer feedback to discuss the practical tests between groups initially and then I will provide information on the issues not answered from the peer feedback process. I plan to use one-minute paper and GoSoapBox tool to get anonymous feedback on the practical test depending upon the access to the internet in the class. For one-minute paper activity, I ask a variety of questions ranging from “Yes or No” to critical thinking and decision making, and the students write the answer in the paper provided and stick them on the wall anonymously. For example, I may ask: 1. did you find today’s practical (lensometer) useful- Yes or No? 2. Suggest one thing (method) that worked well and one thing that did not work so well in today’s activity 3. Please name two uses of lensometer in a real-world situation.
All in all, I believe that assessment and feedback have to be aligned with the course outlines. I also believe that feedback has to be a two-way process and starting it at the early phase of teaching makes it more effective. I am flexible to let both the assessment and feedback process evolve with time so that one aspect supports the other to make teaching effective.
Note: A, K, and V denote Areas of Activity, Core Knowledge and Professional Values, respectively from the UK Professional Standard Framework (Appendix). Available online: https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/uk-professional-standards-framework-ukpsf
References
Carless, D. (2015). Excellence in university assessment learning from award-winning teaching. London; Routledge.
Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315-1325.
Dunworth, K., & Sanchez, H. S. (2016). Perceptions of quality in staff-student written feedback in higher education: a case study. Teaching in higher education, 21(5), 576-589.
Race, P. (2020). The lecturer's toolkit: a practical guide to assessment, learning and teaching (5th edition. ed.). Abingdon, Oxon; Routledge.
Villarroel, Verónica, Susan Bloxham, Daniela Bruna, Carola Bruna and Constanza Herrera-Seda. 2018. Authentic assessment: Creating a blueprint for course design. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 43 (5): 840-854.