Talking about feedback: investigating audio feedback at
Edinburgh Napier
Project report
‘Thanks to the intonation I felt as if I was praised for getting a good mark which made
me feel really good and makes me want to work hard in the future as well.’
Edinburgh Napier student, 2010
1. Introduction
One of the biggest influences on the learning and achievement of any student at Edinburgh Napier
will be the quality and quantity of the feedback they receive on their work (Black & William, 1998;
Ramsden, 2003). While there are many examples of excellent and innovative feedback practice in
place across the University, feedback persists as a troubled and high profile issue. On the one hand,
students consistently report dissatisfaction in this area (Edinburgh Napier Student Satisfaction
Survey 2009), on the other, staff are frustrated when students fail to engage with feedback that they
have worked hard to provide. There are many perspectives worth examining around this issue
(Hounsell, 2007; Higgins et al, 2001) but one area ripe for investigation is the potential to provide
feedback in different media formats. Digital audio is one format that has had encouraging results
(Rotherham, 2009) and that we were keen to evaluate within the Napier context.
2. Literature review
A number of recent studies have found that the majority of students respond very positively to
audio feedback (France & Ribchester, 2008; Lunt & Curran, 2009; Stockwell, 2009; Trimingham &
Simmonds, 2009). For example, the ‘Sounds Good’ project based at Leeds Metropolitan University,
coordinated a number of case studies across a variety of subject areas and educational levels and
concluded that students were ‘overwhelmingly’ positive about receiving audio feedback on their
coursework (Rotherham, 2009). Compared to traditional written feedback, students find audio to
be much more personal, informal and easier to understand. They also appreciate that audio
feedback tends to be richer and more detailed. The power of the human voice has proved a key
factor – it offers nuance, pace, tone and emphasis to help students interpret their feedback and
conveys a valuable sense of immediacy and personal involvement from the tutor (Ice et al, 2008).
Studies have also found that students engage well with audio feedback. Merry & Orsmond (2008)
found that a large majority listened to their feedback more than once and annotated their work as
they listened, leading them to argue that ‘students perceive and implement audio file feedback in
different and more meaningful ways than written feedback’. It has also been suggested that the
‘concealed’ nature of the final mark in audio feedback (embedded within an audio file rather than
instantly viewable on a feedback sheet) encourages students to engage with it (France & Ribchester,
1
2008) - though it could equally be argued that students may find it hard concentrate on feedback
comments until they have established their mark.
Interestingly, there is the also an indication that the use of audio may encourage a more
developmental approach to feedback from the tutor. Analysis of feedback comments in one study
(Merry & Orsmond, 2008) found that compared to written feedback, the audio files tended to focus
on helping students to improve their work rather than on pointing out problems. This probably
relates to the scope that the audio format provides to give more detailed explanations and
suggestions – Lunt & Curran (2009) estimate that one minute talking equals six minutes writing. At
the same time, it would be unrealistic to expect the method of feedback to determine its quality; as
France & Ribchester have pointed out (2008, p75) audio files can ‘just as easily facilitate excessively
judgemental, opaque, summative commentaries as they can deliver sensitive, clear, formative
feedback’.
Studies have highlighted some negative aspects of audio feedback, particularly the difficulties
students experience in going back to a recording to locate particular comments (Rotherham, 2009).
From a learning perspective this may have its own advantages however as skim reading is no longer
an option. It should also be noted that across most of these studies a small minority of students
expressed a preference for written feedback.
Audio feedback has also proved popular with tutors who have welcomed the opportunity to provide
more detailed and meaningful feedback and to give more examples of how students’ work might be
improved (Ennis-Reynolds, 2008; Merry & Orsmond, 2008; Rotherham, 2009; Stockwell, 2009).
However, initial anticipation that audio might save tutors’ time has generally not been realised;
Rotherham (2009) concludes that this is likely only in certain circumstances, and that overall
preparing and distributing audio feedback takes ‘at least as much time as traditional feedback’. At
the same time, most studies show that lecturers find the extra time involved to be worth it; for
example ‘the additional time taken was not excessive compared to the increase of information given
to the students’ (Stockwell, 2009).
Particular challenges for tutors to consider include finding quiet spaces in which to record and the
time taken to rename and distribute audio files to students.
Note that the studies cited here were all small-scale and drawn from a variety of contexts which
make comparison and generalisations difficult. For example, it may be significant that Merry &
Orsmond’s (2008) work was a pilot study based on a small number of self-selected volunteers.
Moreover, as Rotherham (2009) has acknowledged ‘Sounds Good has explored students’ learning
experiences, not how well they learned’.
3. The Edinburgh Napier ‘Talking about feedback’ project (Trimester 2, 2009/10)
Following the workshop ‘Sounds good: using digital audio for assessment feedback’ in November
2009, facilitated by Bob Rotherham from JISC-funded ‘Sounds Good’ project for the Edinburgh
Napier Professional Development programme, we were keen to support academic staff in exploring
the potential of audio feedback. The ‘Talking about Feedback’ project was set up in December 2009
and gave academic staff the chance to try out audio feedback as part of a cross-University evaluation
2
project. In exchange for providing audio feedback on one round of student work and participating in
evaluation activities, participants were offered:




The loan of a Sony UCD digital mp3 recorder
Training on the use of digital audio recording tools and advice on approaches to audio
feedback from Professional Development
Peer support from other project participants and Professional Development via the
Edinburgh Napier Education Exchange
Evaluation of their experience of providing audio feedback and that of their students
receiving it
Academic Development funded the purchase of 15 handheld Sony mp3 recorders.
The aims of the project were to:





Develop our understanding of the potential and drawbacks of audio feedback within the
Edinburgh Napier context
Try out the Sony recording equipment
Test run the available methods for distribution of audio feedback at Edinburgh Napier
(WebCT /email)
Highlight any issues that audio feedback raised with institutional administrative or quality
procedures
Draw up guidelines for Edinburgh Napier staff on the effective use of digital audio for
feedback
More general aims were to:



Encourage and evaluate innovative approaches to enhancing feedback across the University
Support academic staff in developing technology-enhanced approaches to teaching
Evaluate the potential for the Edinburgh Napier Education Exchange as a platform for peer
support
3
Figure 1: ‘Talking about feedback’ project on the Edinburgh Napier Education Exchange
A total of fifteen lecturers used the equipment during 09/10 academic year and nine formally
participated in the ‘Talking about Feedback’ project:









Karen Campbell, School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Care
Colin Cavers, School of Arts and Creative Industries
Isabel Dosser, School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Care
Graeme Drummond, School of Marketing, Tourism and Languages
Mary Ann Kennedy, School of Arts and Creative Industries
Ian MacRae, School of Life Sciences
Shuna Marr, School of Marketing, Tourism and Languages
Gail Norris, School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Care
Karen Strickland, School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Care
Assessments for which audio feedback was provided included the following. (Figures in brackets
indicate the numbers of students who received audio feedback / the numbers who completed the
online questionnaire about their feedback).
1. A lab report for Practical Module 2/Microbiology BMS 07103, School of Life Sciences (27/12)
2. An essay for Global Airline Industry TSM09113, School of Marketing, Tourism & Languages
(24/13)
3. A draft essay and final essay for Palliative Care for Enduring Conditions NMS 09111, School
of Nursing, Midwifery & Social Care (27 check / 44/15)
4. An exam for Labour & Birth MID07100, School of Nursing, Midwifery & Social Care (28/9)
5. A report for Online Marketing MKT08106, School of Marketing, Tourism & Languages (9/4)
6. A presentation and editorial portrait brief for Photography Practice 3 LMD09107, School of
Arts & Creative Industries (30/2)
4
7. A group activity (production of a book) for Photo Constructed LDM 08108, School of Arts &
Creative Industries (4 groups, 37 students / no student feedback obtained)
Evaluation was carried out via:


An online survey for students, which asked about the practical aspects of accessing and
listening to feedback, as well as opinions of its effectiveness and overall feedback
preferences and suggestions (Appendix 1)
An online survey for staff, which asked about the practical aspects of preparing and
distributing feedback, opinions about its value and lessons learned (Appendix 2)
Additional data was gained from:



Postings made to the online collaborative space for staff, the Edinburgh Napier Education
Exchange
Informal / anecdotal feedback from students to staff
Comments from internal moderators / external examiners
5
4. Findings – What did students think?
4.1 Practical aspects
There were no problems with the practical aspects of listening to audio feedback (with one
exception where the sound in one file had become distorted). Across the studies, nearly all
respondents reported that it was ‘easy’ to access and listen to their feedback and that the technical
quality of the recording was either ‘good’ or ‘ok’. Length of recording varied across the different
modules though most averaged between 2 – 5 minutes, and most students judged this to be ‘about
right’.
4.2 Engagement
Most students listened to their feedback more than once and more than one fifth of respondents
listened to it 3 or more times, as seen in Figure 2:
45%
40%
40%
35%
30%
25%
23%
22%
20%
15%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Once
Twice
Three times
More than three
times
Figure 2: How many times have you listened to your feedback?
(Note that one case was feedback on a draft essay where students were more likely to listen
repeatedly to their feedback.)
A number of students anticipated listening to their feedback again (37 %); others were not sure
(44 %).
In terms of what students did while listening to their feedback, it might be assumed that audio
feedback would be most useful in conjunction with the original script. It is striking then that the
majority of students in most cohorts ‘did nothing extra – just listened’ or in some cases ‘looked at
my work’ (though it should be noted that one instance was feedback on an exam script which was
unavailable to students at the time of receiving their feedback). In one cohort figures were
appreciably different (93% stated that they ‘made notes on my work’) and significantly, this was
where the tutor had encouraged the student to have their script in front of them as part of the
recording.
6
4.3 Reactions
Across the studies, most students responded positively to their audio feedback, agreeing that it felt
personal and was easy to understand. However opinions were mixed as to whether the audio was
more helpful than other written feedback they had received, and as to whether they paid any more
attention to audio. Overall 76% agreed that they would like to receive audio feedback again (Table 1)
The audio feedback felt more personal
than written feedback
The audio feedback was easy to
understand
The tutor’s tone of voice and emphasis
helped me make sense of the feedback
The audio feedback included helpful
information about how to improve my
work
The audio feedback was more helpful
than the written comments I have
received for my work on other modules
I paid more attention to the audio
feedback than I usually do to written
feedback
I would like to receive audio feedback
again on my work in the future
Strongly
Agree %
25
Agree
%
47
No opinion
%
13
Disagree
%
15
Strongly
disagree %
-
36
64
-
-
-
29
45
15
11
-
29
64
7
-
-
26
22
35
13
4
14
24
24
33
5
35
41
15
4
5
Table 1: Students’ opinions of audio feedback
4.4 Advantages
Comments from students about the advantages of audio for feedback highlighted the impact and
value of the human voice in communication, particularly in comparison to the (hand)written word:
Much more personal, and the tone of voice makes it easier to understand.
It allows the student to understand better as the sound of the voice is encouraging, it does
not dismiss your work like some written statements sometimes do.
I think that the audio feedback was a really great technique as it helped me understand what
was been said instead of trying to make sense of written comments. The fact of being able to
listen to the tutor’s tone of voice alone helped me to distinguish whether she was happy with
the work. Would prefer this method again.
Written comments can be very sterile and don’t give you any sense of which points made
were more personal. Hearing the tutor’s voice I could understand which points were most
important for future work.
Thanks to the intonation I felt as if I was praised for getting a good mark which made me feel
really good and makes me want to work hard in the future as well.
7
Audio clearly meets some students’ preferences for processing information:
I take in a person’s voice more.
I found that the information was clear, I could concentrate better on the info given because I
was listening rather than reading.
As previous studies have highlighted, students also appreciate audio’s scope for including more
expansive explanations:
Audio feedback has more scope for in depth explanation of points raised during marking, i.e
more can be said.
More detail given than in hand written feedback. Sometimes handwriting on written
feedback can be hard to understand.
Students’ comments also underlined that the potential benefits of audio are not always realised and
that the content and structure of feedback has to be of high quality, regardless of the method:
Can’t see any advantages, before receiving this form of feedback I thought that tone would
help however it was not apparent in the feedback I received.
Could be more descriptive as I thought that it did not cover all the issues in my work
(grammar, references, etc.)
It was very basic. Just saying you should be more critical but maybe it would have been a
better help if it mentioned the exact passages where it needed more critical opinion.
4.5 Disadvantages
Students identified several disadvantages of audio feedback.
One issue is that it can be time-consuming or inconvenient to go back to specific comments within
an audio file:
Not easy to refer on the feedback later on as it’s not printed.
Although it was easy to understand the feedback, I had to keep replaying the feedback,
whereas on other modules the written feedback was easy to orientate through, felt much
more practical.
Having to play back the whole recording to hear certain comments.
Not as precise as written feedback. Not so easy to access quickly on a specific point
afterwards.
8
However, it may be that there are learning benefits from being forced to actively engage with
feedback comments rather than skim reading them. For example, the student who identified the
major disadvantage as:
Having to keep rewinding it as I kept forgetting what was said.
may arguably have benefitted from the repeated listening and from making notes and annotating
the original script along the way. Student expectations and feedback ‘habits’ are another factor here.
This comment was from a cohort accustomed to receiving feedback via Microsoft Word’s ‘Track
Changes’ feature where it is straightforward for them to apply a tutor’s suggestion by simply clicking
to accept suggested changes. Responding to audio feedback to draft work requires more
engagement on the student’s part. As one lecturer recognised this new way of working may not be
popular with students:
I think part of the negative comments is due to the way our students have been socialised
into getting passive means of feedback.
Does audio make it harder to receive negative feedback? This study highlighted different
perspectives with one student commenting that:
My confidence remained intact due to the tone of voice being used. Previously I have found
that written feeback is predominantly negative which does nothing for self esteem.
and another revealing that:
The audio was fine once I got used to it. Although I was waiting for the tutor to say “You
really have got it all wrong – do it again....!!!”, was more worried about hearing negative
feedback than reading it.
As found in other studies, some students remain ambivalent about the way that their feedback is
delivered:
I have no strong feelings for either method – and pay equal attention to both.
and a minority will always prefer the written form:
I prefer to read rather than listen to any feedback, as the written form is more
understandable to me.
4.6 Preferences
All students were also asked how they would prefer to get feedback on their work. Results showed
that most students would prefer a one-to-one meeting with their tutor, with a group meeting being
the least popular option. It is anticipated that many tutors will raise their eyebrows at this finding,
given anecdotal reports that students often fail to take up opportunities for individual consultations
about their work. Interestingly, ratings for audio and written are fairly evenly matched and a
combination of written and audio proved a popular choice (Table 2).
9
How would you prefer to get feedback on your work? Please rank the following options:





Written
13
21
29
25
12
Audio
15
19
37
22
7
Combination
of written and
audio
32
28
22
9
9
Face-to-face
meeting
(individual)
48
15
10
20
7
Face-to-face
meeting
(group)
13
13
10
6
58
Table 2: Students’ preferences for feedback
5. Findings – What did staff think?
5. 1 Advantages
Tutors found the main advantage of audio for feedback to be the scope to provide more detailed
comments, as well as to take a more personal approach:
I was able to give much more substantial feedback on audio. Comments could be much more
focused and linked to notes on the assignment. I found that I could emphasise points better
on audio.
Overall feels easier to verbally give the feedback rather than write it.
Use of tone and explaining understanding of how parts read. Being able to say exactly where
they went wrong e.g. in referencing
More personal, timely and detailed. Also very probably more appropriate within the visual
field.
There appears an immediacy to it that I think the students responded to. Although this may
change after they have received many such feedback audios.
The biggest plus for me was that it seemd to make the marking more meaningful. Much of
the time when marking I feel that it is a waste of my time and the student's, as I don't have
enough time and space to expand on comments sufficently to make them clear, especially
10
when there is often the necessity to repeat them, both within one student's work and across
the cohort. The extra 2 hours was worth spending.
The added value that audio brought to feedback was also acknowledged by an external examiner:
The feedback from the external was great - she loved the audio, felt it was well worth the
effort and would like to see it expanded, if anything.
Another lecturer received encouraging feedback from both her internal moderator and external
examiner:
The audio format allowed more of the tutor’s personality to come through than is normally
the case with formal written responses to work, allowing her to place additional emphasis on
areas of concern or praise. I imagine that this is of increased value in modules where the
tutor has developed a close working relationship with the students concerned. I appreciate
that there are likely to be drawbacks to this approach, although I can only speculate as I
haven’t used it myself. This approach probably takes longer and requires greater
preparation from the tutor. Also, the student doesn’t have a written record of the feedback,
so they are required to note down what they consider the most important points if they want
this form of record ... I commend her for trying this approach and I hope she has received
positive responses from the students. (Internal moderator)
Re the audio feedback. My feelings are that from a student perspective a far more detailed
feedback can be given than if it were written and this covered many important elements,
such as perhaps stylistic comments, which may not be mentioned on account of time
constraints in a written feedback. I would be interested however in the student view – it is
hard to get them to take on even minimal feedback sometimes! Did they listen and apply it?
(External examiner)
5.2 Disadvantages
However, the practical challenges proved significant for a number of participants.
One issue is that audio feedback requires a quiet place for recording. One lecturer was used to
preparing her feedback during regular long train journeys, and finding a new time and space to
record her feedback rendered the process almost unworkable as it ended up being a two-stage
process of note-making then recording:
I needed to mark them all first and then go back to do the audio feedback I needed to give
myself lots of reminders what my mark was based on – so I ended up doing lots of pencil
comments and writing in the grades on the essay itself – so duplicate work.
Another difficulty for those used to providing written feedback via a computer is the inability to
reuse comments:
Whereas I can usually ‘cut and paste’ repeat comments, here I had to say them over and over
again. The main problem was trying to keep the weariness of repeating a comment for the
15th time out of my voice!
11
The same tutor included the grades within the audio recordings and later found this problematic as
it was difficult to adjust the grades later on as well as to find a convenient record of results. For this
reason, it is may a good idea to provide the mark separately and to maintain a separate system for
for keeping note of individual grades.
Reliability of the recording devices is another factor. In terms of time efficiency, it is obviously better
for tutors NOT listen to recordings to check them over once they have been made. However the
project encountered two separate and as yet unexplained incidents of recordings which had become
distorted on playback and required re-recording. In one case this was noticed by the tutor prior to
distribution, in the other case the recipient of the distorted file suffered considerable frustration at
the poor quality of the recording.
The distribution of large audio files via email or WebCT was another issue with the longer recordings:
Took a long time to upload as the files were very big. Had to record at home due to
background noise (I share an office) and because I needed to do it at the same time as
marking – couldn’t see me doing this in the office or on the train. This was my most difficult
challenge.
Other challenging aspects include getting used to new ways of using voice and technology:
‘Talking’ to one’s self in non-private space
Niggling concern that I’ll say the wrong thing and won’t ‘see’ it
I still have to write a script or notes I could not do it free-form. This may change as I do more.
It is interesting in that speaking the feedback makes you feel more responsible or liable! For
your comments that perversely one doesn’t feel with the written feedback. This I think is just
insecurity on my part.
I was initially concerned about getting it "right", however, soon decided that a few uhms and
ahs added to the personalisation (if that is a word). I tried to talk as if I was addressing the
student face to face and that worked OK. I was also initially nervous about colleagues in the
adjacent room hearing my utterances.
Overall, most tutors spent much more time preparing their audio feedback compared to their usual
methods:
Twice as much time and effort.
More time consuming than I envisaged. Found it difficult to use recording device while
marking and to resist temptation to write feedback out the read the ‘script’
It is to be expected that any change in process makes demands on those involved, and some
participants recognised the possibilities beyond the initial innovation stage:
12
Slightly more time consuming but lessons learned and practice will make this better.
As with any technology it takes time for both students and staff to feel totally comfortable
and sometimes it fails us ...so it might put people off.
5.3. Impact on approach
Staff were asked to compare how they feedback they gave via audio compared to the feedback they
usually provided. For one, the format had little impact:
Feel it was about the same. Effectively an audio version of what I’d have written
Others noticed some changes and new possibilities:
The feedback was more general about style and concepts rather than correction by track
changes which could be quite detailed.
Ability to use voice for encouragement within more constructively critical analysis. More
apparent freedom to be repetitive and at the same time easier to go into more detail and
personalise for the cohort. More ability to structure as feed-forward.
I suspect it was shorter and I felt more focused. Although I did write down what I wished to
say prior to recording.
I would usually give a written text as feedback for this, which last time was longer than I
have done for the audio. I think with the written one it is wider in giving information, in order
for clarity. The audio I think helps you to be more precise and your voice inflections give the
depth of importance to the relevant parts.
I found it more difficult to comment on the poor efforts, but decided that a rather
disappointed tone might have a greater effect on future student performance than a
judgemental approach.
5.4 Tips and suggestions
One of the most valuable outcomes of the project is the collection of tips shared by the participants
(both staff and students) in the project.
In terms of the recording process, tips for staff include:
Don’t labour over what to say, a few pauses and umms and errs only add to the
personalisation of the feedback. Don’t go back and edit!
Learn the pause button first ... suss out the playback possibilities
Plan longer time and don’t hesitate when speaking. Be aware of where you are for
background noise etc
13
Do it as an experiment on anything (but with and understanding it is a critique)and then send
it to someone to hear, and ask what they think. Also try to speak with your own voice rather
than your ‘written voice’ – I realised that they are very different.
With reference to the extra time that many audio can require, recommendations include:
Try it out on a formative piece of work, for perhaps groupwork where the number of groups
would be small.
Don’t panic, give yourself plenty time, communicate with the students about a reasonable
timescale for getting feedback. If there are problems don’t spend ages thinking it’s you, get
help.
Contributions from students included:
Could try returning the written copy with a symbol denoting the places that the audio
feedback applies to.
An introduction from the tutor during audio feedback, eg You’re on the right lines here, and
I’m making a few suggestions to improve, OR Your focus is not exact enough, and I’ll be
saying why not.
5.5 The future
Lecturers were asked if they intended to use audio again in the future. Some were enthusiastic or at
least resolved:
Yes, I like to use it again for draft feedback as I do think it promotes active engagement with
feedback.
Yes, I found it a very powerful way for me to think about the feedback i am giving and to
make it more general and not give in to make track changes.
Yes. More personal, timely and detailed.
Participation has opened up a range of possibilities I’m excited about pursuing. Will be
embedding it in developing MFA as a matter of course.
I think that I will. It helped me to get more information across clearly.
Others were less keen:
The feedback from the students has been fairly positive but not enough to bowl me over. I
don’t think my experience has made me keen to do it again.
Would prefer not to unless students indicated the majority preferred this. The time factor for
me was an issue because of workload and capacity.
14
6. Conclusions and next steps
This small study has shown that some students respond extremely positively to audio feedback,
valuing the personal approach and in-depth commentary that it can afford. At the same time, it
reveals that a sizeable minority of students are either indifferent or not in favour of audio as a
method of feedback, perceiving no added value from it or preferring a traditional written approach.
Many students appreciate a combination of both audio and a written record.
It has also shown that while lecturers appreciated the opportunity to provide more extensive and
nuanced feedback via audio, this can be time-consuming for them to prepare and distribute and that
it is essential for them to establish a ‘preparation-recording-distribution’ process that will work
effectively within their individual context.
The study also indicates that responses to feedback may depend on student expectations and the
feedback culture to which they are accustomed. It also reminds us that feedback has to be of good
quality whatever the format, and that adherence to established principles of effective practice (Nicol
& Macfarlane-Dick, 2006) is always valuable.
Finally, the weight and slant of positive responses to the involvement of the human voice in giving
and receiving feedback suggest that we should further investigate the potential of using digital audio
in learning materials and interactions.
For the academic year 2010/11, the ‘Talking about Feedback’ project leads into a number of
developments:







‘Food for thought’ lunchtime event for the Professional Development programme where
‘Talking about Feedback’ participants will share their experiences and insights from the
project
‘Look who’s talking’: using digital audio for teaching and learning – workshop for the
Professional Development programme , November 2010
‘Look who’s talking’: using digital audio for teaching and learning – tailored workshop for the
Business School, February 2011
Completion and distribution of Edinburgh Napier ‘Talking about Feedback’ Guidelines
Ongoing support and advice for staff keen to try out audio feedback during 2010/11
Collaboration with C&IT regarding institutional solutions to distribution and storage of large
media files
Contributions to internal and external conferences
There is scope for further research around a number of interesting questions relating to audio
feedback. These include:


In which subject areas and assessment types is audio feedback particularly appropriate?
Do students use audio feedback in a more active way than traditional written forms of
feedback? What is the potential for audio feedback to enable staff and students to engage in
a personal ongoing dialogue about assessed work?
15



Is audio feedback more effective once students know their mark or is it better to withhold
the mark until they have engaged with the commentary?
Does using audio for feedback provide a catalyst for tutors to review or reframe their
approach to feedback?
Does audio feedback actually enhance students’ learning compared to more traditional
forms of feedback?
Elaine Mowat, Academic Development
July 2010
16
References
Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998) Assessment and classroom learning, Assessment in Education. 5 (1),
pp7-74
Ennis-Reynolds, G. (2008) Using Brookes Virtual to give audio feedback to students for coursework
https://mw.brookes.ac.uk/display/teachingnews/Using+Brookes+Virtual+to+give+audio+feedback+t
o+students+for+coursework [accessed 19 July 2010]
France, D. & Ribchester, C. (2008) Podcasts and feedback, in G. Salmon & P. Edirisingha (eds)
Podcasting for Learning in Universities. (pp 70 – 79). Maidenhead: OUP
Higgins, R., Hartley, P. & Skelton, A. (2001) Getting the message across: the problem of
communicating assessment feedback, Teaching in Higher Education, 6:2, 269-274
Hounsell, D. (2007) Towards more sustainable feedback to students, in D. Boud and N. Falchikov (eds)
Rethinking assessment in higher education. (pp101 – 113). London: RoutledgeFalmer
Ice, P., Swan, K., Kupczynski, L., & Richardson, J. (2008) The impact of asynchronous audio feedback
on teaching and social presence: A survey of current research. Paper presented at the ED-MEDIA
2008 - World Conference on Educational Multimedia & Telecommunications.
Lunt, T. & Curran, J. (2009) 'Are you listening please?' The advantages of electronic audio
feedback compared to written feedback, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602930902977772 [accessed 19 July 2010]
Merry, S. & Orsmond, P. (2008) Students’ attitudes to and usage of academic feedback provided via
audio files, Bioscience Education e journal, Volume 11
www.bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk/journal/vol11/beej-11-3.pdf [accessed 19 July 2010]
Nicol, D. J. & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006) Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model
and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education 32(2), pp199 – 216.
Ramsden, P. (2003) Learning to teach in higher education. (2nd edn) London: RoutledgeFalmer
Rotheram, B. (2009) Sounds Good Final Report.
http://sites.google.com/site/soundsgooduk/downloads/Sounds_Good_Final_Report_15.pdf
[accessed 19 July 2010]
Stockwell, J. (2009) Audio Feedback for students: JISC audio mini-project case study.
http://www.engsc.ac.uk/downloads/FinalReportonSUproject_formatted.pdf [accessed 19 July 2010]
Trimingham, R. & Simmons, P. (2009) Using audio technology for student feedback : JISC audio miniproject case study.
http://www.engsc.ac.uk/downloads/casestudytrimmingham_v2_formatted.pdf [accessed 19 July
January 2010]
17