This article was downloaded by: [North West University]On: 18 December 2014, At: 21:35Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Assessment & Evaluation in HigherEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/caeh20

Hearing you loud and clear: studentperspectives of audio feedback inhigher educationJill Gould a & Pat Day ba Community Specialist Primary Care Nursing (District Nursing),Sheffield Hallam University , Sheffield , UKb Specialist Community Public Health Nursing, Sheffield HallamUniversity , Sheffield , UKPublished online: 13 Mar 2012.

To cite this article: Jill Gould & Pat Day (2013) Hearing you loud and clear: student perspectives ofaudio feedback in higher education, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38:5, 554-566,DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2012.660131

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2012.660131

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

35 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

Hearing you loud and clear: student perspectives of audiofeedback in higher education

Jill Goulda* and Pat Dayb

aCommunity Specialist Primary Care Nursing (District Nursing), Sheffield HallamUniversity, Sheffield, UK; bSpecialist Community Public Health Nursing, Sheffield HallamUniversity, Sheffield, UK

The use of audio feedback for students in a full-time community nursing degreecourse is appraised. The aim of this mixed methods study was to examine stu-dent views on audio feedback for written assignments. Questionnaires and afocus group were used to capture student opinion of this pilot project. Themajority of students valued audio feedback as more detailed, personalised andsupportive than written feedback. Lecturers were also consulted about theirexperience of audio feedback and its place within current assessment strategies.Further development of this innovative assessment feedback strategy and itsintegration into a post-registration nursing course is considered.

Keywords: audio feedback; independent learning; post-registration communitynursing students; community specialist education

Introduction

Community nursing degree programmes in the UK are challenging in that theyrequire students to attain a degree- or master’s-level qualification while achievingproficiencies in advanced and specialist practice. While there are specific academicrequirements for entry to the course, students may have attained these many yearspreviously. Some students need to make rapid progress academically to meet therequirements of the course. Conversely, some students may have more recent aca-demic qualifications but require additional support in making the transition to spe-cialist practice. Carey and Whittaker (2002, 661) concur, stating: ‘it is unlikely thatthose joining post-registration community specialist programmes will share a com-mon preparation for working within primary care’. For lecturers, these variations,the intensity of the programmes and the necessity to consider individual studentneeds pose great challenges. For students, there can be heightened stress and anxi-ety regarding academic and professional expectations and fear of failure.

Background/literature

The distinct and varying needs of these students require that assessment feedbackstrategies to facilitate learner autonomy are in place at an early stage. It has beensuggested that to meet the educational needs of these community students, strategies

*Corresponding author. Email: j.y.gould@shu.ac.uk

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 2013Vol. 38, No. 5, 554–566, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2012.660131

� 2013 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

35 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

‘that foster self-directed learning … are crucial for practitioner development’ (Careyand Whittaker 2002, 662). Learner autonomy relates to the ability to self-regulateand work independently towards identified goals (Nicol and MacFarlane-Dick2006). This is facilitated in the academic setting through feedback in relation toassessment criteria and learning outcomes. The aim of the feedback is to promotecognitive and analytical mechanisms that enable the student to assess their own pro-gress and apply a critically reflective approach to academic work and professionalpractice.

Self-regulation refers to the degree to which students can self-monitor theirthinking, learning and performance (Pintrich and Zusho 2002). Learner autonomyand self-regulation are necessary for these students as they have highly individua-lised learning needs that require self-generated goal setting. Considerable academicand practice workloads with potentially conflicting demands contribute to the needfor effective assessment feedback strategies to ensure success as autonomous learn-ers and advanced practitioners.

The complexity of specialist community nursing is reflected in the multi-dimen-sional nature of assessed work. This needs to be matched by feedback, which isresponsive to the students’ ability to analyse the complicated world of practice. Inorder to benefit from its main purpose as a feed-forward process, students need tobe able to understand and engage with feedback (Price et al. 2010). This can bedependent on a range of factors such as the emotional effect of feedback, a stu-dent’s previous educational experience and their knowledge of learning processes(Price et al. 2010). In a study of business schools in three universities, confusionabout the purpose of feedback was apparent amongst students and staff (Price et al.2010). Students were also found to lack ‘assessment literacy’, which meant theycould not apply their feedback to future learning (Price et al. 2010). Students needto develop their critical appraisal skills and gain appreciation of how teachers makequalitative judgements about their work (Sadler 2010). The potential contribution ofaudio feedback to enhancing this skill is largely untapped. The detailed and conver-sational style of audio feedback could enable students to reach greater understand-ing of how their work has been assessed.

Some theorists regard feedback to be the most powerful single influence on stu-dent learning and achievement (Gibbs and Simpson 2004). This is reflected in lec-turer feedback being used as an indicator of teaching quality (Quality AssuranceAgency for Higher Education 2006). It is also a major contributor to the level ofstudent satisfaction with their courses. According to the National Student Survey(Higher Education Funding Council for England 2007), most students (81%) werehappy with their course but only about half rated the quality and timeliness of theirfeedback. This is a serious issue as it has been shown that feedback has a pro-nounced effect on student motivation and learning (Brown 2001).

The use of effective feedback by teachers/lecturers provides the foundations forlearner autonomy and a framework for high achievement. Merry and Orsmond(2008, 11) suggest ‘the language of feedback (scaffolding) enables students toachieve goals to a greater extent than they would without peers or tutors’. Effectivefeedback is essential as the scaffolding that enhances learning. Good feedbackshould relate to performance in terms of goals, criteria and expected standards(Nicol and MacFarlane-Dick 2006) and should also be timely, detailed and specific.

Audio feedback fits within this learning paradigm in that it is reliably evaluatedby students as being ‘richer’ than other forms of feedback (King, McGugan, and

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 555

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

35 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

Bunyan 2008). In practical terms, 1min of audio feedback is equivalent to approxi-mately 100 words and has been shown to provide a more in-depth and detailedreview of the students’ work than written feedback (Emery and Atkinson 2009).This idea of specificity is identified, in that audio feedback is more likely to includesuggestions for how to improve work, rather than just identifying the problems.Emery and Atkinson (2009, 3) found that students ‘preferred (audio feedback) tothat of written feedback, (it) made a lot more sense and could decipher where andwhat could be improved’.

Audio feedback is seen as conveying more than ‘mere words’ (Middleton, Nortc-liffe, and Owens 2009). Tone, expression, pronunciation and emphasis add to thedepth of this means of communication (Rust 2001). It can present ‘learning conversa-tions’ in a personalised and involved way. Students feel it to be more supportive andcaring than written feedback and additionally report a greater understanding of tutor/lecturer comments (Ice et al. 2007). A study by Ice et al. (2007, 13) reported the mostfrequently expressed theme was ‘the ability to detect nuance and inflection in theaudio commenting …’. For example, one student commented: ‘I know you were say-ing the same things in your (audio files) and in what I transcribed, but the differencewas you were saying them. When I looked at the transcription there was no stressplaced on any of the words or sentences …’ (Ice et al. 2007, 14). In addition to thecontent or the words themselves, intonation and emphasis within the feedback con-vey to students how important specific comments are (Merry and Orsmond 2008).

Due to the increasing evidence base for audio feedback, a pilot project utilisingthis technique was conducted. The aim of this study was to evaluate student viewsof the impact of audio feedback on their learning. Research questions concernedwhether audio feedback contributed to student learning, the emotional impact ofaudio feedback and comparison with written feedback.

Methods

Sample

Audio feedback was piloted with a cohort of community specialist students com-prising 18 health visitors (HVs), 22 district nurses (DNs) and 11 school nurses(SNs). Students were provided with ‘audio-only feedback’1 for one formative (draft)assignment and three summative (final) pieces of work, all of which were submittedin the first semester of a three-semester programme. One further assignment for DNstudents utilised written feedback. While differences in the purpose of the assess-ments are acknowledged, the feedback consistently aimed to enhance student learn-ing, improve their subsequent academic work and to foster a critically reflectiveapproach to practice. Six lecturers were involved in the pilot. Two had previousexperience of delivering audio feedback on the pre-registration nursing course andfour had none.

Design

Questionnaires were developed by the learning, teaching and assessment (LTA) leadfor nursing at Sheffield Hallam University. These had been piloted with a previousstudent cohort. The questionnaires were distributed to students in the classroom set-ting at the end of the module. This resulted in a high response rate with 49 out of51 (96%) returned. A further evaluative questionnaire designed and previously

556 J. Gould and P. Day

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

35 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

piloted by the LTA lead was distributed to the team of six lecturers. Four of the sixlecturers (66.6%) anonymously completed and returned this questionnaire.

In addition to the questionnaires, a focus group was held with self-selected indi-vidual students from the cohort, purposefully representing the three professional dis-ciplines. Two DNs, two SNs and one HV took part in the 40 min focus group. Thefocus group took the form of a semi-structured interview, facilitated by the LTAlead. The questions in the initial questionnaire and for the focus group were pilotedand validated by previous research into audio feedback within the subject group.The focus group session was taped and transcribed.

The questionnaire consisted of the following statements which required a scaledresponse from students. The students were asked to indicate whether they agreed ordisagreed with the statements using the phrases: not at all; moderately and substan-tially (see Table 1).

The focus group questions were a mixture of open and closed questions andreflective comments. For example, following responses to open questions, the facili-tator then reflected a summarised version back to the students to confirm her under-standing of what they meant. It was a free flowing discussion based on an iterativeapproach, where responses evoked further questions. Some examples of the initialquestions include: ‘Was the feedback easy to access? Did you like to receive feed-back in this format? How did the feedback help you to learn? Did you think itcould have been done differently?’ Themes were explored until saturation occurred.

Ethics

The qualitative evaluation of this pilot project was by a member of the LTA depart-ment. This teaching fellow was unconnected to the teaching or assessment on thecourse. As an evaluation of LTA strategy, it fell within the accepted universityframework in relation to ethical approval. Written consent was obtained from partic-ipants and the data anonymised.

Data analysis

Thematic analyses were applied to the comments on the questionnaires and thefocus group transcripts. This fits within a grounded theory approach (Glaser andStrauss 1967). The thematic grouping, comparison, interpretation and generalisationof data were based on recognised methods of qualitative data analyses as outlinedin Table 2 (Whittemore and Knafl 2005). In order to interpret and make sense ofthe data, a grounded theory approach was used as a framework (Glaser and Strauss1967). This involves creating categories and coding them. Categories can be seen

Table 1. Statement summary.

S1 Audio feedback contributed to my learningS2 Receiving audio feedback formatively enabled me to improve the quality of my final

piece of workS3 I found audio feedback supportiveS4 My audio feedback was detailedS5 I preferred audio feedback to written feedback

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 557

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

35 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

as concepts or themes. Data are categorised until nothing new can be added (Strauss1987). This is a dynamic process, which involves continuous analysis during datacollection. Through keeping close to the data, further questions and theories emerge(Charmaz 2011). This method enables a developmental approach to be adopted inrelation to examining a case study and fits well with this study of audio feedback.In this example, the case study is context bound and multi-dimensional in nature.Case studies are seen as useful in the early stages of a project in order to generatehypotheses (Flyvbjerg 2011).

Statistical analysis of questionnaire results

A clear majority of students (92%) expressed that audio feedback contributed totheir learning. This is a strongly positive result, although 8% felt that it did not helpat all. Although, there is still a clear majority of students (84%) who felt that thefeedback impacted positively on their final summative work, it was perceived bysome students that it did not help at all. Responses to question 3 showed that aclear majority of students (88%) felt supported by this type of feedback. This is acommon theme in the findings of other studies into audio feedback, but it would bepreferable to ask this question in relation to differing types of feedback. The highestpositive response relates to the details of the feedback, with students almost univer-sally expressing that the feedback was detailed. Interestingly, despite the benefits ofaudio feedback being clearly expressed by students in the first four questions, a sig-nificant minority (27%) stated they would prefer to not have audio feedback fortheir work. The possible reasons for this are considered further in the discussion(see Table 3, Figures 1–5).

Table 3. Summary of questionnaire results.

Not at all Moderately Substantially

S1 Audio feedback contributed to my learning8% (n=4) 59% (n=29) 33% (N = 16)S2 Receiving audio feedback formatively enabled me to improve the quality of my final

piece of work16% (n=8) 49% (n=24) 35% (N=17)S3 I found audio feedback supportive12% (n=6) 39% (n=19) 49% (N=24)S4 My audio feedback was detailed2% (n=1) 44% (n=22) 54% (N=27)S5 I preferred audio feedback to written feedback. I would also like Audio feedback for …27% (n=13) 18% (n=9) 55% (N=27)

Table 2. Elements of data analysis.

Noting patterns and themesClusteringMaking contrasts and comparisonsSubsuming particulars into general

Note: Based on Miles and Huberman (1994), Sandelowski (1995) and Patton (2002) in Whittemore andKnafl (2005).

558 J. Gould and P. Day

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

35 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

Figure 1. Statement 1: Audio feedback contributed to my learning.

Figure 2. Statement 2: Receiving audio feedback formatively enabled me to improve thequality of my final piece of work.

Figure 3. Statement 3: I found audio feedback supportive.

Figure 4. Statement 4: My audio feedback was detailed.

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 559

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

35 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

Analysis of qualitative data

The comments on the questionnaire forms and the transcription of the focus groupdiscussion were analysed using the techniques outlined in Table 1 to identifythemes. This thematic analysis resulted in the following topic areas: the perceivedcontribution of audio feedback to student learning; the perceived impact of audiofeedback and the structure of audio feedback. DN students were able to comparewritten and audio feedback whilst HV and SN students had only received audiofeedback on their work. Further to this, the questionnaires completed by lecturerswere analysed and summarised.

The perceived contribution of audio feedback to student learning

A sizeable majority of students found audio feedback to be beneficial and reportedthat it contributed to their learning. Some of the comments from the focus groupinclude: it was ‘easy to understand what they (lecturers) meant’. ‘I found audiofeedback very useful. The feedback I received was clear and understandable. It waslike having a ‘mini tutorial’ and ‘good for distance learning’. As students in thecourse come from a wide geographical area, this is an important finding.

Students felt audio feedback contributed to their learning and improved theirsummative work when used formatively. Comments from the questionnairesinclude:

(it) ‘made me look at my language, abbreviations’, ‘how to structure’, ‘advised how tostructure for greater impact’, ‘the need to fully explain’. The general comments aremost useful. Once I have the mark then that assignment is out of the way. Once themodule is finished, the feedback on content is gone’.

However, some students were more ambivalent about their feedback. One student,who fell within the ‘moderate’ range of response to the questionnaire, commented:

Found some of the feedback ‘slow’ and … a little ‘all over the place’. Lecturer’s voicenot the best for listening to very long feedback … felt it could be more succinct andnot repeated. Generally useful though.

One student from the focus group commented they wanted solely written feedbackand:

Figure 5. Statement 5: I would also like audio feedback for …

560 J. Gould and P. Day

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

35 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

found face-to-face feedback the most helpful. This allowed questions to be asked bymyself to the marker and I could clarify what the comments were.

While audio feedback has been shown to evaluate positively compared with writtenfeedback, and in enriching distance learning (Ice et al. 2007), there is little explora-tion or comparison of it as a substitute for face-to-face tutorials.

The perceived impact of audio feedback

Most students in this study found audio feedback supportive. ‘The feedback wassensitive, positive and improved my confidence’. ‘It gave me confidence in myabilities’. One student could ‘tell by the tone of the voice, how it is going’. ‘Writ-ten’s always a bit cold’. There were a few exceptions to the generally favourableresponse to hearing the feedback in relation to its impact. Some expressed that itwas stressful (linked to repeated listening i.e. the more they listened the worse theyfelt).

For instance, one student in the focus group stated:

… I found I had to listen to it several times by which point it began to feel bad anddestroy my confidence (at this point I felt like crying …).

This illustrates the emotional influence that may be negative for some, but whichmany students report as an added value to this type of feedback. Audio feedbackinvolves a multi-dimensional means of communication not suited to all students,although many report that it conveys a greater sense of personalisation and engage-ment (Ice et al. 2007). One student commented that ‘I … liked the fact that I wasable to listen to it repeatedly in the comfort and privacy of my own home’. Aninteresting comment by one student was that audio feedback helped build the rela-tionship with the tutor. It meant they were ‘more approachable’. The student com-mented that this could work both ways as the lecturer was also able to envisage thestudent when delivering the feedback.

The structure of audio feedback

One of the major advantages of audio feedback is the amount of detail it is possibleto give orally in comparison to the written word (King, McGugan, and Bunyan2008). Audio feedback in this study varied between 5 and 30min in length, depend-ing on the lecturer who delivered it. This inconsistency was noted by students, par-ticularly in the focus group with statements such as:

my only concern is that individual lecturers have their own style and the level of feed-back may not be consistent in terms of detail, amount of comment made and the levelaimed at depending on the lecturer giving the feedback.

Another student expressed concern over variations in feedback quality: ‘Listeningto other students who have received audio feedback from different lecturers itappears that some were far more helpful than others’. Generally, the detailed nat-ure of audio feedback was viewed positively, as seen in some of the question-naire responses: ‘Can get down what they want to say more than when they

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 561

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

35 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

write’. ‘It was all relevant’. ‘I don’t think you can ever have too much feed-back’.

The views of lecturers on audio feedback

Lecturers varied considerably in their response to audio feedback with an assort-ment of comments expressed on the questionnaire. One lecturer thought it was

brilliant! I must admit to being a sceptic before I tried it but once I did I am now aconvert. It is far more personal than written feedback. You can use the tone of yourvoice in the way you say things to soften the feedback. It is far quicker and simpler.

Another was less comfortable, using it:

I didn’t particularly like providing feedback in this format – but got more comfortablewith it after awhile. I had to type out a script or make notes because I couldn’tremember everything I wanted to say. So for me, it is more time-consuming.

Confidence about the method was a major issue for one member of staff:

I do not like hearing my own voice, I am nervous of the recording and I always writea script. Possibly it is the impact of age, it is hard to change, particularly with theheavy workload.

Views about its contribution to student learning were also at different ends of thespectrum. One lecturer felt it would ‘improve motivation and the feeling of beingsupported’. There was less conviction about its effect on academic work. ‘I’m notconvinced that it improves the analysis, logical argument etc., writing related skillsrequired in the majority of assignments’.

One lecturer expressed concern about its possible detrimental impact on studentsand its potential for misuse:

If you give negative feedback what is the possible impact on the student? I am con-cerned with what the students might do with the audio feedback e.g. put it on Face-book. What do we do if there is a complaint, or an appeal against the grade? (It is)safer to have written feedback.

‘Huge variation among lecturers even in a small team’ was highlighted as an issueby one lecturer. This reiterated the concerns of students about the length and struc-ture of audio feedback. It may also account for the ‘sizeable minority (of students)that do not like it’.

Discussion

Most aspects of audio feedback were evaluated positively by this student cohort.The benefits were identified as its greater personalisation, detail and perceivedpotential to improve student work. This is in keeping with the evidence base forgood practice in feedback for learning. Students may be uncertain regarding expec-tations of assessments in higher education. ‘Being explicit about what is required

562 J. Gould and P. Day

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

35 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

for success is an important part of equitably unpacking for new students, the cultureof higher education and discipline learning’ (Kift 2009, 2). Early detailed feedbackparticularly that which breaks down or interprets academic language reduces studentanxiety and stress concerning assessment (Field and Kift 2010). This ethos ofsupportive, constructive and personalised feedback was viewed positively by thiscommunity nursing student cohort.

The questionnaire response from students that most suggested a less favourableview of audio feedback was concerning its use for future assessments. Although themajority responded they would choose audio feedback for all of their work, nearlyone-third would prefer it for none of their work. This may be a reflection of themore ambiguous responses, where aspects such as the ‘perceived contribution tolearning’ were noted as ‘moderately’ rather than ‘substantially’. These perceptionscould be influenced by a range of variables including: the type of course work, thestudent’s results and their perception of the purpose of the feedback. Students whoperceive the aim of the feedback as broadly enhancing learning may view this moredetailed and multifaceted feedback as aptly corresponding to the complex issuesthey face in practice.

While it is difficult to measure, it is also reasonable to posit that the lecturers’varying adeptness or partiality may also have had some impact on the students’responses. A portion of respondents were likely to have been influenced to someextent by the fluctuations in the length of feedback and lecturers own ambivalenceabout these methods.

Recommendations

Although most students regarded audio feedback favourably, some felt less inclinedto the approach. This may relate to their individual learning styles. Learning stylesconnected with visual, aural, written or kinaesthetic information have been identi-fied (Martin 2007). Although students should be encouraged to experiment withtheir learning styles, an awareness of their preferences may lead to a more tailoredapproach. It is evident that audio feedback does not suit all learners and in a similarway, this may also account for the mixed response by lecturers. A flexible responseis required by course leaders and a cohesive plan for the implementation of newassessment strategies. Suggestions for improvement included incorporation of rigor-ous evaluation into its development.

For new cohorts of students on the community nursing course, the first submis-sions are an opportune time to trial audio feedback, with subsequent modules allow-ing students to vote on the type of feedback they prefer. It is recommended thatstudents and staff are allowed choice in the type of feedback to be given. Choice offeedback type is identified as good practice in the National Union of Students(NUS) charter on feedback and assessment (NUS 2010), although the practicalitiesof facilitating this would need to be explored.

Another strategy to address the mixed response to audio feedback is to explore,and if appropriate, trial alternative methods that potentially appeal to a greater rangeof learners. For example, Chiang (2009) identifies ‘audio-visual feedback’ as usinga combination of audio clips and visual annotations. In a direct comparison of audiofeedback methods, learners rated audio-visual feedback most highly, with simpleaudio feedback as their least favourite (Chiang 2010, 2658). Although this is only

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 563

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

35 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

one author’s findings, it can be inferred that this feedback method as described haspotential to address issues related to differing learning styles.

It is proposed that inconsistencies in the length and content of feedback will bemanaged through guidance. The optimal amount of feedback appears to be 5–6minlong (King, McGugan, and Bunyan 2008). Feedback that emphasises not juststrengths and weaknesses but areas for development is seen as good practice (Nicoland Macfarlane-Dick 2006). Attention to addressing assessment criteria and usingexamples to illustrate comments is also advisable. It is seen to be more helpful iffeedback ‘is succinct, to the point and clear about the specific page they (lecturers)are talking about’.

Reservations by lecturing staff about the use of audio feedback require carefulconsideration. Some aspects may be resolved through more practice in the tech-nique. Honing of the skills and agreeing clear and concise guidelines will help con-tribute to its success. Consultation about guidelines for audio feedback is essentialin order to ensure consistency. The benefits to student learning require robust quan-titative and qualitative evaluation in order to justify the extra time involved in for-mulating the feedback. There is a suggestion that this method is in fact,significantly more time-efficient with more feedback conveyed, in a shorter timeperiod (Ice et al. 2007; Lunt and Curran 2009; Nicol 2009). However, unless lectur-ers are fully engaged with the system, students will not gain maximum support andbenefit from its use.

Key recommendations

• Agree concise guidance for the timing and main content of the feedback.• Continue evaluation of feedback methods; undertake further research to ascer-

tain student and staff views.• Explore options for widening the appeal of audio feedback, such as methods

that embed a visual element.

Limitations

This was a small study conducted in the early stages of development of an unfamil-iar assessment technique. Whilst student evaluations correlate with the limitedresearch available on audio feedback, results cannot be generalised to the wider stu-dent population. Further research with larger and diverse groups of students isrequired to strengthen the evidence base for its use.

Conclusion

A significant majority of community nursing students found audio feedback benefi-cial to varying degrees. It has a personal and richer quality which they valued.Some students found it challenging and support is required to meet their needs.However, in an increasingly technological world it can be used to complement tra-ditional forms of assessment feedback and could contribute greatly to a student’slearning experience. Rich oral detail can be provided concerning complex issues inpractice. Dilemmas regarding assessment of vulnerability and referral to social ser-

564 J. Gould and P. Day

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

35 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

vices, for example, can be drawn out to encourage the critical debate of practice.Improvements in the use of this innovative technique could be made through ensur-ing more consistency by lecturers and through ongoing development informed bystudent perspectives.

Note1. Audio-only: refers to the recording of an audio file (MPEG4). A text-based marking grid

was also provided so students could see their score in relation to the criteria.

Notes on contributorsJill Gould is a senior lecturer in community specialist primary care nursing (district nursing)and a member of the Association of District Nurse Educators. Interests include nurseprescribing, palliative care, community nursing and the use of technology to improve theclient and student experience. Her recent publications include: Organisation and managementof care, in A textbook of community nursing (2012); Decisions about weight management: Asynthesis of qualitative studies of obesity, Clinical Obesity (2011).

Pat Day is a senior lecturer in specialist community public health nursing (school nursing)with an interest in behaviour change, motivational interviewing, safeguarding, healthinequalities and improving the client and student experience. Recent publications include:The use of CBT to strengthen emotional well-being, British Journal of School Nursing(2009); Using CBT to treat obsessive compulsive disorder, British Journal of SchoolNursing (2009); Is anybody there? Supporting young people with psychosis, British Journalof School Nursing (2009); Keep school nurses on the children’s policy agenda, BritishJournal of School Nursing (2010); Healthy school meals: a recipe for success, BritishJournal of School Nursing (2010); Taking a solution-focused approach to public health,British Journal of School Nursing (2010).

References

Brown G. 2001. Assessment: A guide for lecturers. LTSIN Generic Assessment Series No.3.

Carey, L., and K. Whittaker. 2002. Experiences of problem-based learning: Issues for com-munity specialist practitioner students. Nurse Education Today 22: 661–8.

Charmaz, K. 2011. Grounded theory methods in social justice research. In The Sage hand-book of qualitative research, ed. N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln, 359–80. London: Sage.

Chiang, I.A. 2009. Which audio feedback is best? Optimising audio feedback to maximizestudent and staff experience. Paper presented at the 1st Annual Meeting of A Word inYour Ear, in Sheffield, England.

Chiang, I.A. 2010. Evaluation of three audio feedback methods. Proceedings of World Con-ference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, in Sheffield,England (Chesapeake, VA: AACE) 26542658.

Emery, R., and A. Atkinson. 2009. Group assessment feedback: ‘The good, the bad and theugly’. Paper presented at the 1st Annual Meeting of A Word in Your Ear, Sheffield, UK.

Field, R., and S. Kift. 2010. Addressing the high levels of psychological distress in law stu-dents through intentional assessment and feedback design in the first year lawcurriculum. The International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education 1, no. 1:65–76.

Flyvbjerg, B. 2011. Case study. In The Sage handbook of qualitative research, ed. N. Denzinand Y. Lincoln, 301–16. London: Sage.

Gibbs, G., and C. Simpson. 2004. Conditions under which assessment supports learning.Learning and Teaching in Higher Education 1: 3–31.

Glaser, B., and A. Strauss. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualita-tive research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 565

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

35 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

Higher Education Funding Council for England. 2007. National Student Survey. www.hfce.ac.uk/learning/nss.

Ice, P., R. Curtis, P. Phillips, and J. Wells. 2007. Using asynchronous audio feedback toenhance teaching presence and students’ sense of community. Journal of AsynchronousLearning Networks 11, no. 2: 3–25.

Kift, S., and K. Moody. 2009. Harnessing assessment and feedback in the first year to sup-port learning success, engagement and retention. ATN Assessment Conference, RMITUniversity.

King, D., S. McGugan, and N. Bunyan. 2008. Does it make a difference? Replacing textwith audio feedback Practice and Evidence of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning inHigher Education 3, no. 2: 145–63.

Lunt, Tom, and John Curran. .2009. ‘Are you listening please?’ The advantages of electronicaudio feedback compared to written feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Edu-cation, First published on: 01 September 2009.

Martin, C. 2007. About the reading project (online). http://reading.cornell.edu/project.htm(accessed October 21, 2011).

Merry, S., and P. Orsmond. 2008. Students’ attitudes to and usage of academic feedback pro-vided via audio files. Bioscience Journal 11: 11–3.

Middleton A., A. Nortcliffe, and R. Owens. 2009. iGather: Learners as responsible audiocollectors of tutor, peer and self reflection. http://research.shu.ac.uk/lti/awordinyourear2009/docs (accessed February 1, 2011).

Miles, M, and A. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.National Union Students (NUS). 2010. Charter on feedback and assessment. www.nuscon-

nect.org.uk/ (accessed October 10, 2011).Nicol, D. 2009. Assessment for learner self-regulation: Enhancing achievement in the first

year using learning technologies. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 34, no.3: 335–52.

Nicol, D., and D. Macfarlane-Dick. 2006. Formative assessment and self regulated learning:A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education31, no. 2: 199–218.

Patton, M.Q. 2002. Qualitative research and evaluation methods . 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Pintrich, P., and A. Zusho. 2002. Student motivation and self regulated learning in the col-lege classroom. In Higher education: Handbook of theory, research, ed. J. Smart and W.Tierney. New York, NY: Agathon Press.

Price, M., K. Handley, J. Millar, and B. O’Donovan. 2010. Feedback: All that effort, butwhat is the effect? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 35, no. 3: 277–89.

The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. 2006. Code of practice for the assur-ance of academic quality and standards in higher education: Section 6: Assessment ofstudents. Gloucester, UK: QAA. http://www.qaa.ac.uk/Publications/InformationAndGuid-ance/Pages/Code-of-practice-Section-6.aspx.

Rust C. 2001. A briefing on the assessment of large groups. www.heacademy.ac.uk/resouces/detail/ourwork/tla/assessment_series.

Sadler, D. 2010. Beyond feedback: Developing student capability in complex appraisal.Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 35, no. 5: 535–50.

Sandelowski, M. 1995. Qualitative analysis: What it is and how to begin. Research in Nurs-ing and Health 18: 371–5.

Straus, A. 1987. Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Whittemore, R., and K. Knafl. 2005. The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journalof Advanced Nursing 52, no. 5: 546–53.

566 J. Gould and P. Day

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

35 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014