Providing effective feedback with soaring class sizes: It’s still possible

Abstract

“Do more with less”, is a message that many of us are likely used to hearing, whether explicitly, or implicitly. We consolidate resources, streamline processes etc, in the name of economy. Sometimes streamlining grading and feedback means grading with minimal or no feedback, and/or eliminating intensive writing assignments that take a lot of time to grade. However, in upper‐level, discipline‐specific classes, automated grading and feedback do not always do what we need it to do for formative assessment. Writing assignments are a critical component of students demonstrating learning outcomes, and thoughtful, specific feedback accompanying the grading, is just as important. But how we do this in a class of 20 students just isn’t scalable. Does that mean the feedback component is lost? Not necessarily. My hypothesis is that the feedback that students require on higher Bloom’s level assignments can be consolidated by topic/question, and effectively delivered to large classes via video feedback.ResultsIn studying the errors made in different types of questions/topics of a particular assignment over multiple semesters, it appeared that between 3‐5 specific errors accounted for more than 95% of the errors in each question on the assignment. When the protocol was implemented, grading was completed expeditiously, without any direct written feedback other than number grades. Subsequently, a feedback video was released to the class discussing the assignment and going through each question/topic. Common errors, and how to avoid them, were covered in the video feedback. In a class of 68 students, 186 video plays were recorded for a single remediation assignment. And although some of the engagement durations were highly variable, that is the engagement model that was suggested to students by encouraging them to only watch those parts of the video feedback they felt was necessary.ConclusionsIn concert with other types of feedback including peer feedback, and immediate in‐class feedback, video feedback for common misconceptions/errors provides an efficient way to engage students in formative learning. Despite this, it is clear that alternative (or traditional) access to feedback must be provided for those students who fall outside these so‐called normal thresholds. However, streamlining the feedback process for >90% of students will allow more time to be spent with non‐typical learners, or other students who require alternate resources. In this way, it is hoped that learners from marginalized communities and neuroatypical learners, who may benefit from increased guidance, can still get what they need, while the greater majority have opportunities to refine and tailor the feedback they most need.