This article was downloaded by: [Texas A & M International University]On: 06 October 2014, At: 01:05Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Assessment & Evaluation inHigher EducationPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/caeh20

Reflection and Feedbackon Learning: A strategy forundergraduate researchproject workD. J. A. Heylings & V. N. TariqPublished online: 27 May 2010.

To cite this article: D. J. A. Heylings & V. N. Tariq (2001) Reflection andFeedback on Learning: A strategy for undergraduate research projectwork, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26:2, 153-164, DOI:10.1080/02602930020021995

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602930020021995

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions andviews of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor& Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information.Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,

reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

& M

Int

erna

tiona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:05

06

Oct

ober

201

4

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 26, No. 2, 2001

Re� ection and Feedback on Learning: astrategy for undergraduate research projectwork

D. J. A. HEYLINGS, School of Medicine, The Queen’s University of Belfast,Northern IrelandV. N. TARIQ, School of Biology & Biochemistry, The Queen’s University of Belfast,Northern Ireland

ABSTRACT This paper describes how students and staff worked collaboratively toensure curricular changes through staff development activities informed by studentinput. The activities resulted in a structured scheme for use with undergraduate researchproject work which: (a) supports students’ active learning during the project, (b)formalises both formative and summative feedback, and (c) provides an opportunity forstudents to re� ect upon the skills they are developing. The key elements of the schemeinclude: (a) the submission by students of three interim progress reports and theprovision of written and oral feedback by staff, (b) a requirement that students maintaina project logbook, and (c) a skills self-evaluation exercise to encourage students tore� ect on their learning. Student focus groups were used as the process was � ne tunedand embedded within staff and student culture.

Introduction

Previous reports have explored tutor and student conceptions of the traditional under-graduate honours research project (Stefani et al., 1997) and described the developmentand implementation of a criterion-referenced approach to the assessment of under-graduate research projects in the life sciences (Tariq et al., 1998). This paper describesthe evolution of a strategy aimed at supporting the continuous learning opportunities forstudents that exist within the traditional undergraduate research project (which extendsover two consecutive academic semesters). In particular, we focus on how major changesin policy and practice regarding assessment and feedback strategies may be effectedwithin a traditional university setting, which relies heavily upon informal oral feedbackand provides little opportunity for structured re� ection on the part of the student. Earlier

ISSN 0260-2938 print; ISSN 1469-297X online/01/020153-12 Ó 2001 Taylor & Francis LtdDOI: 10.1080/0260293002002199 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

& M

Int

erna

tiona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:05

06

Oct

ober

201

4

154 D. J. A. Heylings & V. N. Tariq

work (Stefani et al., 1997) highlighted the existence of opportunities for projectsupervisors to provide increased levels of support for students’ active learning during theperiod of the project work (including preparation of the � nal thesis) through a structuredmechanism, which formalises both formative and summative feedback. In addition, thestrategy described here provides an opportunity for students to re� ect upon the skillsthey are developing during their project work.

Feedback on an individual’s performance is important because it facilitates learningand should lead to an improvement in performance through increasing motivation.However, improvements in performance will only be attained if the feedback is speci� c,timely, accurate, realistic in terms of what is achievable and is expressed in a way whichencourages the student to re� ect on and change his/her performance if necessary (Brown& Pendlebury, 1992; Boud, 1995). However, it is important that students do not relysolely on feedback from tutors, but evolve into effective, responsible and autonomouslearners through the development of self-assessment (self-evaluation) skills (Baume,1994). Such skills should help students become realistic judges of their own performanceand better able to monitor their own learning and skills development (Boud, 1995).

Previous experience had highlighted some of the dif� culties encountered withintraditional academic departments when attempting to implement curriculum changes thatcontribute to a more student-centred approach to teaching, learning and assessment(Stefani et al., 1997; Tariq et al., 1998). Therefore, as has been suggested (Towle, 1993),it was considered important that both staff and students be fully involved in thedevelopmental process as well as in subsequent reviews, evaluations and decisions. Theprocess was designed such that both groups were afforded the opportunity to worktogether, negotiate with one another and express their opinions in formulating any actionplan to provide both groups with a greater sense of ownership which in turn might resultin greater acceptance of the � nal scheme. However, the bene� ts of collective decisionmaking may accumulate only if there is at least some level of participation across adepartment (Conway et al., 1994). Staff interaction and participation in the process cantake many forms, e.g. informal discussions, formal workshops, or reports and feedbackfrom departmental meetings (Conway et al., 1994). All these strategies were adopted inthe developmental process described here.

The Developmental Process

The developmental process outlined in Table 1 began with a two-day residential course.The participants included the local representative of an international company whoprovided an insight into how employers might contribute to the students’ researchprojects and how the projects inform potential employers about the quality and skills ofgraduate students.

The aim of the residential course was to provide a forum for academic staff andstudents to explore (in groups) opportunities for skills development within the under-graduate research project. Its primary objectives were to:

(1) increase exposure of staff to the learning issues related to skills development;(2) identify how staff could increase their awareness of employers’ requirements;(3) develop an assessment protocol that would enhance learning; and(4) identify and develop a mechanism for raising self-awareness of the skills developed

in each student as they completed their research projects.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

& M

Int

erna

tiona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:05

06

Oct

ober

201

4

Re� ection and Feedback on Learning 155

TABLE 1. Time-line and key stages in the developmenta l process

Date ActionAugust 1996 A two-day residential course, attended by eight academic staff, four graduates of the

course, a local representativ e of an internationa l company (employer) and a facilitator .Workshops were held to identify the: transferabl e skills associated with project work;skills sought by employers; project structure ; feedback mechanism; continuous assess-ment process.

September 1996 Approval by the Teaching Committee of a pilot study.Set in motion administrative processes to ensure an increase in the continuous assessmentweighting for the project in 1997/98.

October 1996 Pilot study began.January 1997 Half-day staff workshop to report on progress in the pilot study.June 1997 Focus group meeting with � rst group of students .August 1997 Staff workshop to discuss implementation of the scheme on a wider scale.September 1997 Increase in the continuous assessment weighting for the project from 10% to 25%; wider

implementation of the scheme.May 1998 Focus group meeting with second group of students .May 1999 Focus group meeting with third group of students .

It was reassuring to hear from the employer that staff and students had identi� ed manyof the skills that employers were expecting students to gain from such project work. Inaddition, the employer identi� ed new issues and skills that might be gained when aproject was located within an industrial setting as opposed to being based solely on auniversity campus. These issues included:

(1) communication with other employees;(2) negotiating access to information required to complete the project; and(3) resource management.

The skills employers seek in their graduate workforce have been con� rmed in moreextensive local studies (Windrum, 1998).

One of the groups’ tasks for the second day was to draft a scheme that would allowregular monitoring of students’ progress during their project work. At this stage thestudent participants suggested that they should constitute a group with no staff member.Interestingly, the students’ scheme was similar to that devised by the staff groups andwas based upon the fundamental principle that students should prepare and submit aseries of structured interim progress reports. Although there was some disagreement overthe number of interim reports, the students argued strongly that marks should be awardedfor these and that the marks should contribute 50% toward the � nal overall project mark.Students felt that without such a mark allocation there would be little incentive tocomplete and submit the reports. The students also drafted a ‘Student/Staff Study Guidefor the Honours Research Project’ which provided detailed guidelines and summarisedthe draft scheme for the regular monitoring of students’ progress and the provision offeedback (Table 2).

The new scheme possessed three key elements, designed to provide a more formalstructure to the project, and to encourage students to re� ect on and acquire a greatersense of ownership of their learning (Brown et al., 1997). The � rst element consisted ofthree interim reports submitted at the end of weeks 5 and 11 in the � rst semester andweek 5 of the second semester. In many respects these represented progress reports, with

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

& M

Int

erna

tiona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:05

06

Oct

ober

201

4

156 D. J. A. Heylings & V. N. Tariq

TABLE 2. Draft scheme for monitoring students’ progress during their honours research project and providingfeedback

AssessmentTime-line of (indicatingformal action maximum % ofpoints Action project mark)

Semester 1 Discussion of relevant COSHH assessment , resourcesWeek 1/2: (� nancial and other), ethical considerations .Initial meeting Consideration s unique to project. Introduction to the task,with supervisor hypothesi s formulation, techniques and equipment

involved and direction towards relevant literature .Drawing up a skills checklis t unique to student andproject.Start laboratory logbook.

Week 5: First interim report prepared in student’s own time toinclude:

1. COSHH assessment.2. Details of resources.3. Details of practical progress .4. Evidence of literature search.5. Action plan (targets for project) .

Week 6: Formal Oral presentation , audience to include peers from Formativefeedback research group and supervisor . assessment onlymeeting withsupervisor and Written feedback on the interim report, initialing of Summativefeedback logbook and self-assessmen t of skills using proforma. supervisor

assessment (5%)

Week 11/12: Second interim report structured as before but with new Summativeheadings to include: supervisor

1. Review of interim report 1. assessment (15%)2. Re� ning of initial project objectives .3. Action plan—review and revision.4. Initial data analysis .

Followed by a discussion of progress /dif� culties, resultsto data, comments/suggestion s from supervisor /peers.Discuss/advise on preliminary data presentation .Initialing of logbook and self-assessmen t of skills usingproforma.

Semester 2 Third interim report structured as before plus: SummativeWeek 6/7: 1. Review of action plan. supervisor

2. Data analysis. assessment (20%)3. Comprehensive literature review.4. Draft thesis.5. Reviews of interim reports 1 and 2.Discussion/reconsideratio n and initialing of skills checklist and logbook.

Week 10: Submission of thesis (two copies). Thesis read by twoAlso submission of: assessors—each1. Interim reports 1–3 and feedback provided . providing a2. Logbook. summative mark3. Skills assessment checklist. (25%)

Week 12: Oral presentation of project to staff and external Based onexaminer(s) presentation skills

(10%)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

& M

Int

erna

tiona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:05

06

Oct

ober

201

4

Re� ection and Feedback on Learning 157

the second and third reports building on the previous one(s). Within each report studentswere expected to outline their action plans and provide re� ective comments on how theirwork had proceeded during the previous few weeks. Staff provided written and oralfeedback on the content of each report. The second element of the scheme was a formalrequirement that students maintain a hand-written, daily record of their work (i.e. aproject logbook) through which they might develop the discipline and skills of accuraterecord keeping. In addition, Wetherall & Mullins (1996) suggest that logbooks (orlearning journals) provide:

(1) a mechanism for formalised re� ection;(2) an outlet for the student’s personal feelings;(3) an opportunity for feedback on a student’s progress and on the course;(4) the student with a summary of the year’s work; and(5) a means by which students and their tutors may gain insight into the learning

process.

The third element of the scheme was the introduction of a skills proforma (Figure 1)which students were asked to complete as a self-evaluation exercise. The aim of thisexercise was to encourage students to re� ect on their own learning, strengths andweaknesses and to make judgements about their success or otherwise in developing arange of skills associated with the project at key points throughout the project duration.Project supervisors were expected to countersign the proforma after agreeing with eachstudent a particular strategy if the student requested assistance in developing skills inwhich they perceived themselves to be weak or de� cient. Boud (1992, 1995) recom-mends the use of self-assessment schedules as a means of providing a comprehensiveand analytical record of learning in situations which permit the students to havesubstantial responsibility for what they do. Although Boud (1992, 1995) suggests thatsuch a schedule may provide a product that can form part of a formal assessmentprocedure, in this case the skills evaluation proforma was solely for the student’s ownuse, to develop their own self-awareness (Baume & Baume, 1986).

Following approval, the draft scheme (Table 2) was piloted (in 1996/97) by one of theauthors of this paper and his � ve project students to test the scheme’s acceptability toand ease of use by students and staff. The imminent start of the new academic yearmeant it was impossible to alter the contribution that the interim reports would maketowards the � nal project mark during the pilot year. However, steps were taken to ensurethat a change in the weighting would be introduced the following year should the pilotprove successful.

Students were provided with guidelines on how to prepare each of the three interimreports and it was stressed that the latter should be used to gradually re� ne the variouscomponents of the � nal thesis over the two semesters of the project. The � rst and thirdinterim reports were submitted in the middle of the � rst and second semesters,respectively, while the second report was submitted at the end of the � rst semester, justprior to the Christmas vacation. On each occasion project supervisors were expected toprovide written feedback and/or annotate each student’s submission within one week ofreceiving the reports where possible, but certainly within two weeks. This procedureformalised and documented the more informal progress meetings with students and oralfeedback that had occurred previously, although the interim reports were meant tosupplement, rather than replace the informal process entirely. The interim reportsprovided documentation of a student’s progress (supported by the student’s projectlogbook) which would be available for scrutiny by external examiners should the need

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

& M

Int

erna

tiona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:05

06

Oct

ober

201

4

158 D. J. A. Heylings & V. N. Tariq

Please indicate the point of development of each of the skills listed below as you feel is mostappropriate at this point in the project.

Date of meeting:

Score

TRANSFERABLE SKILLS 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

Commitment

Punctuality/Attendance

Initiative

Attitude

Independence

Time-management

Negotiating skills

Inter-personal skills

Ethics

Accuracy/Numeracy

Data analysis/Statistics

Computer skills

Laboratory technical skills

Oral presentation

Written presentation

Other:-

Scale de® nitions: 1 5 very poor2 5 poor3 5 satisfactory4 5 good5 5 excellentN/A 5 not applicable

The grades on this sheet are for self-evaluation purposes only and will not be used in theformal assessment of the course work.

Signed: (supervisor) Dated:

Signed: (student) Dated:

FIG. 1. Proforma used by students in the self-evaluatio n of transferable skills.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

& M

Int

erna

tiona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:05

06

Oct

ober

201

4

Re� ection and Feedback on Learning 159

arise. In addition, since this scheme provided formal documentation that satis� ed theUniversity’s examination regulations, it permitted a proportion of the supervisor’s marksfor the � nal thesis to be transferred to the three interim reports, increasing the continuousassessment component of the � nal project mark from 10% to 25%. The supervisorretained 20% to allocate on the basis of his/her reading of the � nal thesis. This gave thesupervisor a total mark component equivalent to 45% of the � nal project mark.

Following the pilot year, the study guide was revised to include greater clari� cationon the structure of each interim report, and incorporated a greater emphasis on students’self-evaluation of their progress and skills development. All staff in the Department ofAnatomy adopted the interim report system in 1997/98 and other staff involved withhonours research projects adopted the scheme on a voluntary basis. This ‘opt in’ policy,encouraged by the student body, continued the following year (1998/99).

Staff and Student Reactions to the Scheme

Focus group meetings between the students, the authors and staff have been heldannually to gauge student and staff reactions to the scheme. The numbers attending haveincreased annually as the scheme has gained wider acceptance. These meetings, all heldafter the students had completed their projects and submitted their theses, provided theopportunity for all (but particularly the students) to formally express their views on theprocesses that they had just experienced as part of their honours research projects. Priorto the establishment of these focus group meetings there was no formal evaluation of thehonours research project by the students.

The focus group discussions over the three years to date have indicated that studentscan clearly identify their own strengths and weaknesses in completing an honoursresearch project. They particularly enjoyed meeting new people, employers, testing theirresearch skills and learning new techniques developing particular expertise in their � eldthrough working alone or in a group. The projects gave them a sense of ownership ofpart of the curriculum with a feeling of achievement as it provided a vehicle to enhancetheir ability to express their own opinions. Students have been unanimous in � nding theinterim reports useful, particularly in helping them prepare for writing their theses. Inaddition, they found that the interim reports helped them structure and manage theproject work itself, providing � xed time points towards which they could focus theirefforts. Students commented that the reports helped to focus their efforts on the task,provided direction, identi� ed problems early, divided up the project into more manage-able units, and the accompanying assessment process helped students gauge theirprogress. Students on literature-based projects found the interim reports particularlyuseful in ensuring they divided their efforts appropriately; each year several studentshave commented that they would not have started work so early in the academic yearif they had not had to prepare interim reports. Conversely, a few students (10% of the34 present in 1999) who undertook particularly demanding laboratory projects resentedhaving to take the time to prepare the reports, especially the second and third reports,when they were very actively involved in their experimental work. An imbalance wasidenti� ed in workload, which related directly to their enthusiasm for the research workwhich made it dif� cult to balance this important activity with the work for the taughtmodules running concurrently. Overall, however, students con� rmed the bene� ts of theprocess, which they had stated frequently on an informal basis, and which had beenidenti� ed during the original developmental process.

One recurrent problem for a proportion of the students (numbers varying each year)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

& M

Int

erna

tiona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:05

06

Oct

ober

201

4

160 D. J. A. Heylings & V. N. Tariq

was the timing of the submission date for the second report in week 11 (of the 12-weekteaching semester) of the � rst semester, as this clashed with submission deadlines foranother taught module. Dabney (1995) has reported that students � nd it particularlystressful having several deadlines in the same week or deadlines close to the examinationperiod. Staff had selected week 11 for submission of the second report primarily to allowthe students to consolidate their � rst semester progress before the vacation and examin-ation period by ensuring formal student feedback before the Christmas vacation. It hadbeen hoped that this would allow the students to relax a little over the vacation andconcentrate on revising for their taught module examinations in January without havingto worry about their research project at the same time. However, as in previous focusgroup meetings, in 1999 10% of students suggested abolishing the second report as theyfelt it was an unnecessary intrusion into valuable laboratory time (a view supported bytheir supervisors). However, the latter view suggests that on each occasion students werepreparing an entirely fresh interim report, rather than building on the previous one, ashad been the original intention of the scheme. Such comments tended to be moreprevalent among those students with demanding supervisors, where the project waslaboratory-based and the work was proceeding well. When this topic was raised with the1998/99 cohort of students, overall they felt that the second interim report should beretained, although they suggested that the timing of submission should be reviewed andthat it could be made more � exible. The real issue, however, may be one of timemanagement, a skill perceived by colleagues and some students to be poorly developedin many students and highlighted by employers as a weakness in new graduates(Windrum, 1998). Even though the scheme attempts to assist students in managing theirproject time effectively and ef� ciently, for some it was not successful in achieving thisaim. Conversely, many students have acknowledged that an improvement in the skill oftime management has been one of the short-term bene� ts of the interim report system,whilst some acknowledged it was still a weakness. Another consistent comment over thepast three years concerns the slow provision of feedback by supervisors, and supervisorsnot meeting students’ expectations. In general, students � nd it unacceptable having towait over a month for work to be returned, tutors failing to return work at all, ormislaying it altogether (Dabney, 1995). Fortunately, the latter two scenarios did notoccur at any time as oral feedback was provided if there was a delay providing writtenfeedback. However, failure to provide suf� cient or comprehensive feedback promptlymay result in students feeling that they are working blindly, without direction or anysense of how hard they need to work to attain an acceptable standard (Dabney, 1995).Several students indicated they would like more frequent group discussions to allowdiscourse on various aspects of the projects of immediate concern and to assistindividuals in developing a strategy to enhance their skills development. The addition ofa section allowing students to request speci� c feedback has been used to varying successand being most successfully utilised by students who also provided the more detailed andhonest re� ection on their progress and action plans. In addition, it provided a formalmechanism for them to document speci� c areas of concern they had in connection withthe project. It was reassuring to hear in the focus groups that students when re� ectingon their action plans were openly identifying why they had not been able to meet theirown goals. Over the year they became more realistic as to what was achievable withina given time, further evidence that the issue of balancing the various work and studycommitments was being achieved.

Not all of the staff who initially supported the concept of interim reports andformalisation of the provision of regular feedback to students shared the same level of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

& M

Int

erna

tiona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:05

06

Oct

ober

201

4

Re� ection and Feedback on Learning 161

enthusiasm in practice. This may have been due in part to the fact that staff found asigni� cant increase in the time and effort required by them in providing the additionalfeedback throughout the year. However, this was compensated for to some extent by areduction in student requests for and time spent reading drafts of the � nal theses towardsthe end of the second semester, even though there were more students being supervisedthan had been the case in previous years. A further advantage of the interim reports wasthat supervisors gained a greater insight into their students’ efforts and performancethroughout the project, especially if the project did not involve laboratory work or workwithin the university department. Interestingly, it has been those staff supervisingrelatively few students who have complained most about the number of interim reportsand who have tended to be late in providing feedback to students. However, as time hasprogressed more staff outside the initial core group have adopted the scheme, primarilydue to student pressure, although some staff still refuse to adopt the scheme despitestudent requests to do so. This latter group of staff includes those who are based outsidethe two teaching departments (Anatomy and Physiology) that provide the bulk of theteaching to this cohort of students, and who do not contribute to other elements of thestudents’ learning experience (e.g. taught modules). Although some staff remain reluc-tant to participate in the process, student requests for their participation will continue tocause the new scheme to cascade throughout the School and to eventually becomeembedded in the curriculum. Those staff supervising larger numbers of students remainenthusiastic about the scheme. Although not all supervisors manage to provide writtenfeedback quickly, they nevertheless do provide oral feedback to students within oneweek, with the written comments following at a later date. Some students who had twosupervisors, one academic and one employer, in the haste to ensure rapid feedback,gained confusing messages as both supervisors appeared to be suggesting changes thatappeared to be contradictory. This was usually an issue with the better student as bothsupervisors saw the opportunity for the project to be developed further, beyond the initialagreed project goals.

Most members of staff have acknowledged the value of the scheme to student learningand the proportionate reduction in workload (for both staff and students) towards the endof the second semester when students prepare their � nal theses. Conway et al. (1994)remind us that it is almost inevitable that any department will display heterogeneousattitudes to any innovation, ranging from enthusiasm, through scepticism, to totalopposition. However, they go on to point out that innovations in teaching may be fullyeffective only if they are applied throughout a course.

Future Developments

Many of the constructive comments made by students during the focus group meetingshave led to changes being incorporated in the guidelines provided for students (Table 3).These have included the incorporation of a new section within the reports in whichstudents may comment on problems they have encountered and request feedback onspeci� c areas. Other comments emerging from the focus groups require further re� ectionas the scheme is � ne-tuned. However, one key aspect the enthusiasts have to bear inmind is the large number and diversity of staff involved in supervising research projects.This arises due to the need to enhance project variety, choice and the opportunity forstudents to work in an area that will develop their career aspirations. Therefore, the poolof projects extends beyond the immediate group of teaching staff and introduces tostudents a new group of staff who would otherwise have no input into their degree

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

& M

Int

erna

tiona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:05

06

Oct

ober

201

4

162 D. J. A. Heylings & V. N. Tariq

TABLE 3. Current guidelines for students on the preparation and presentation of the interim reports

AssessmentTime-line of (indicatingformal action maximum % ofpoints Action project mark)

Semester 1 Length 700–1500 words to include: SummativeWeek 5: 1. Title/nature of project, an outline of the problem supervisorSubmission of posed. assessment (5%)� rst report 2. Evidence of literature searching and reading, start of

literature review.3. Working hypothesis /aims.4. Outline of methods used (data sources for literature

review projects) .5. Action plan for next 6 weeks, with realistic targets.6. COSHH and costing forms as appropriat e for project.7. Start of reference list.8. Identi� cation of problems encountered , requests for

speci� c feedback .Week 11/12: Second report should build on the � rst report and SummativeSubmission of feedback provided , no word limit and should include: supervisorsecond report 1. Re� nement of the problem/project title. assessment (10%)

2. Focus on background literature to the project.3. Clear statement of hypothesis /aims of the project.4. Details of the methods used/to be used (not required

in literature review projects).5. Initial results (if any), giving an indication of how

they may be presented (for literature review projectsthis is a detailed critique of the literature) .

6. Review of last action plan (were targets met, if not,then why?).

7. Action plan for next period—to interim report 3.8. Reference list.9. Request for speci� c feedback , problems encountered .

Semester 2 Third report should build on the second report and SummativeWeek 5: feedback provided , no word limit and should include: supervisorSubmission of 1. Clear, concise title and introduction . assessment (15%)third report 2. Further focus on background and literature review

(but if a literature review project this only sets scene).3. Clear statement of hypothesis /aims of project.4. Details of methods used (not relevant for literature

review project) .5. Results to date, presentation style and analysis .6. Draft discussion , including initial interpretation of

data.7. Reference list.8. Review of last action plan (were targets met, if

not why?).9. Final action plan to handing in of � nal thesis.10. Request for speci� c feedback , problems encountered ,

concerns.Week 10: Final report due, format based on that developed in SupervisorSubmission of interim reports and as discussed with supervisor assessment (15%)� nal report depending on the nature of the project. Other reader’s

assessment (45%)

Note. Each report will be read and assessed as a complete piece of work, using the format listed above.However, the criteria will vary as required according to the nature of the project. The assessment processwill also take into account writing style, grammar, spelling, use of references , readability and the abilityto criticise your own work and action plans. Interim reports provide the opportunit y to allow your supervisorto re� ne your written presentation style, including reference citation.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

& M

Int

erna

tiona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:05

06

Oct

ober

201

4

Re� ection and Feedback on Learning 163

course. Although this enriches the learning experience for students, it brings with it thechallenge that such a wide and diverse group of colleagues will come with disparateviews on the nature and purpose of the research project (Stefani et al., 1997). It isimportant, therefore, that changes to and further embedding of this innovative schemeare encouraged within the framework of a staff support programme. Such a programmeis currently being developed and will help ensure that all staff are truly committed to thescheme. Students clearly feel that lack of commitment on the part of some staff mayadversely affect the quality and speed of the feedback they receive. Through this staffdevelopment programme the authors hope to address the main outstanding issue, that isto attempt to bring a measure of uniformity to the feedback process and the formativeelement of project assessment.

Additional guidance to students, which is easily incorporated into the project studyguide, will be aimed at reducing the pressure the students feel under, particularly towardsthe end of the � rst semester. In future there will be an element of � exibility in thesubmission date for the second interim report (at the end of semester one) by negotiationwith the supervisor, with the proviso that the report must be handed in before theChristmas vacation.

For both staff and students the greatest change since standardisation of the assessmentprocess for the � nal honours thesis (Tariq et al., 1998) has been the introduction ofinterim reports and the provision of written feedback during the project. Past experiencesuggests that making small changes annually to a process is preferable to making moresweeping changes, particularly if the process has the general support of the majority ofthose staff and students involved. Any attempt to introduce more major changes at thisstage, while still embedding the principle of interim reports and the provision of writtenfeedback, might put at risk the entire process. However, one of the authors is currentlyexploring the feasibility of using communication and information technology (C&IT) inthe establishment of student e-mail discussion lists. Such electronic discussion listswould create an active peer support group (monitored and supported by a member ofstaff), facilitate peer discussion and the sharing of student experiences, and developfurther students’ IT skills.

There still remains the issue of ensuring that all students learn to manage their timeef� ciently, particularly with regard to preparing the interim reports. This may be bestaddressed through individual supervisors who could focus in a more personal way on thedevelopment of such skills within their own group of students. However, many studentsalready exhibit excellent time management skills and clearly demonstrate their ability toorganise the con� icting needs of different course components taught in parallel whilestill maintaining extra-curricular, paid, part-time employment in the evenings and/or atweekends.

It has been particularly encouraging to hear students (both anonymously and directlyto the authors) extol the virtues of the new scheme and suggest that the process shouldbe compulsory for all students in the same degree programme, rather than optional as atpresent.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank academic staff and BSc students in the Departments ofAnatomy and Physiology for their patience and continuing support in developing,re� ning and implementing the changes described here. The whole process has been apartnership between all parties involved.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

& M

Int

erna

tiona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:05

06

Oct

ober

201

4

164 D. J. A. Heylings & V. N. Tariq

Notes on Contributors

DAVID HEYLINGS (to whom all correspondence should be directed) is a SeniorLecturer in the Department of Anatomy, School of Medicine, The Queen’s Universityof Belfast. Correspondence: David J. A. Heylings, School of Medicine, The Queen’sUniversity of Belfast, 97 Lisburn Road, Belfast BT9 7BL, Northern Ireland, UK.Tel: (028) 90272138. Fax: (028) 90235483. E-mail: d.heylings@qub.ac.uk

VICKI TARIQ is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Biology & Biochemistry, TheQueen’s University of Belfast. Correspondence: Vicki Tariq, School of Biology &Biochemistry, The Queen’s University of Belfast, 97 Lisburn Road, Belfast BT9 7BL,Northern Ireland, UK. E-mail: v.tariq@qub.ac.uk

REFERENCES

BAUME, D. (1994) Developing learner autonomy, SEDA Paper 84 (ISBN 0-946815-73-9) .BAUME, D. & BAUME, C. (1986) Learner know thyself: self-assessmen t and self-determined assessment in

education, New Era in Education, 67, pp. 65–67.BOUD, D. (1992) The use of self-assessmen t schedules in negotiated learning, Studies in Higher

Education , 17, pp. 185–200.BOUD, D. (1995) Enhancing Learning through Self Assessment (London, Kogan Page).BROWN, G. & PENDLEBURY, M. (1992) Assessing Active Learning: effective learning and teaching in

higher education , module 11. (Shef� eld, CVCP).BROWN, G., BULL, J. & PENDLEBURY, M. (1997) Assessing Student Learning in Higher Education

(London, Routledge) .CONWAY, R., KEMBER, D., SIVAN, A. & WU, M. (1994) Making departmental changes through action

research, based on adult learning principles , Higher Education, 28, pp. 265–282.DABNEY, J. (1995) Stress in students: implications for learning, Innovation s in Education and Training

International, 32, pp. 112–116.STEFANI, L. A. J., TARIQ, V. N., HEYLINGS, D. J. A. & BUTCHER, A. C. (1997) A comparison of tutor and

student conception s of undergraduat e research project work, Assessment & Evaluation in HigherEducation , 22, pp. 271–288.

TARIQ, V. N., STEFANI, L. A. J., BUTCHER, A. C. & HEYLINGS, D. J. A. (1998) Developing a new approachto the assessment of project work, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 23, pp. 221–240.

TOWLE, A. (1993) Effecting Change Through Staff Development (London, Kings Fund Centre).WETHERALL, J. & MULLINS, G. (1996) The use of student journals in problem-based learning, Medical

Education , 30, pp. 105–111.WINDRUM, C. (1998) Joint NIHEC Report: personal development and graduate skills for employment

(Belfast, Centre for the Enhancement of Learning and Teaching, The Queen’s University of Belfast).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

& M

Int

erna

tiona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:05

06

Oct

ober

201

4