Editorial

Whatever the role and nature of higher education in today’s economic climate, wherever we are in the world we, educators, always have in our minds and practices, both within and beyond the classroom, the achievement of our learners. Whether undergraduate or postgraduate, we hope that our teaching practices impact in one way or another positively on not only the achievements in terms of performance of our learners but also on their learning and development more generally. We are, after all, in the business of education, and that is, or should be, far wider than simply assisting our learners in the learning of subject matter sufficient for them to be able to achieve the stated learning outcomes for modules or courses and, at the end of that, getting their certificate or award. Our role, as educators, would be a lot easier, perhaps, if it were simply a matter of ‘teaching to the test’, in order to ensure that our learners learn what they need to learn in order to pass modules or courses; it would arguably be a great deal more boring. One of the most exciting, and challenging, aspects of the role of being an educator, an academic, is to play some part in the development of the student as a person, rather than as simply ‘a student’. Throughout their time at university, whether if only for a year or so as a postgraduate or longer in the case of undergraduates, we have the opportunity to engage with them on an intellectual level, to engage with their thinking, and on aspects that are wider than those related solely to the content of the subject matter or discipline. In today’s economic times, when class sizes are generally so much larger than of old, that interaction is limited in terms of one-to-one interaction, but we nonetheless have opportunities that present themselves, whether in the classroom or outside of it. However, having said that the role or nature of higher education is more than simply about helping our students to pass modules or courses, assessment is at the heart of so much that we, and our learners, do while at university, and it therefore means that much of our efforts, and those of our learners, are targeted towards this.

Our interaction with our learners during all aspects related to assessment is a fundamental aspect of their learning and achievement, as demonstrated in the first article comprising this issue. Its authors, Graham D Hendry, Peter White and Catherine Herbert, all from the University of Sydney in Australia, argue that research has told us that feedback and our interaction with our learners via our teaching has a strong and positive effect on the achievement of our learners. Entitled ‘Providing exemplar-based ‘feedforward’ before an assessment: The role of teacher explanation’, the authors rightly say that it is all the more difficult to provide constructive feedback to our students, particularly if that feedback is in written format, when class sizes are big and thus the time taken to provide it takes so long. Marking perhaps hundreds of scripts takes a very long time indeed, and if those scripts have to be moderated, too, before the provisional marks/grades and written feedback can be provided, as is common in the sector, then the timescales involved can easily run into many weeks, if not longer. The result of this, say the authors, is that written feedback returned to students may be delivered at a time when it is too late for them to apply it to the next, upcoming task, whether assessed or not. Is there anything that we can do to address this, that is, to provide feedback to our learners earlier on in the process? The study described in this article is an attempt to do so. The article describes, first, what is meant by feedback (it encompasses a wide range of activities) and also feedback and ‘whole-class interactive teaching’, going on to say that among the choices open to us as to how to provide it, feedback on students’ work can be given in the classroom. However, and as the article points out, students the world over perceive that the feedback that we provide is unsatisfactory in one way or another, and however extensive or excellent it might be, if it is provided ‘late’, this is not going to help in making our students feel better about it. The article goes on to say that some educators have addressed this by providing feedback not after the assessment task but instead before it; something known as ‘feedforward’, and by definition, it is provided at a time at which it is argued that it is most needed (prior to, not after, the assessment) and also future-oriented (in contrast to ‘normal’ feedback, which is by definition about the assessment that has already been done, so it focuses on past, not future, performance). The article goes on to describe what this ‘feedforward’ feedback might comprise, including the use of asking students to judge/‘mark’ examplars, that is, examples of students’ work that have already been marked by markers, and its success as an approach, although like everything, it is not without its negatives, as they rightly acknowledge. However, the authors argue that despite the many studies which provide evidence of the usefulness of this, there is still much that we need to better understand, hence the study described in the article. To note is that the students who took part in this study, where they marked examplars, did not get any marks/grades for so doing.

The results and subsequent discussion make for very interesting reading, particularly in terms of how well, or otherwise, the students performed in the assessed task which followed this intervention. Also interesting is whether the students ranked their own marking and efforts more or less highly than that of the lecturer’s explanation, given in the classroom, of why they, the marker, graded the work in the way that they did, and whether those who achieved higher or lower grades rated them differently or not. In recognising and detailing the limitations of their research, the authors rightly suggest that future work needs to look at whether or not this kind of approach to feedback can or will lighten the load for us, the markers/educators, as, however, wonderful any approach, there are constraints upon our time, as with anything else. Whether or not the use of such approach will make our students feel any more satisfied with the feedback that we provide remains to be seen. As those of us with very long experience of marking and providing written feedback will attest, even writing pages and pages of text, as feedback, followed by a lengthy one-to-one meeting to discuss that feedback and going through it line by line with a student, can sometimes generate a ‘it wasn’t enough’ from that student. Indeed, a marker/educator, if they write more than another marker/educator, can be criticised on this ground too, which only confirms the fact that, however, wonderful or brilliant anything is, there will always be some, fortunately, a very small minority, who will never be happy with anything, and so we just have to accept that. The second article looks at the very same thing, that is, feedback, and says that the literature on this confirms that it is only ‘common sense’ that feedback promotes learning. Some might well take issue with that, as there are assessments for which no written or oral feedback is normally provided, for example, on examinations, yet it is doubtful that anyone would say ‘no learning has taken place here’, although the measuring of that learning is, as always, by no means an easy one. However, much depends on what is meant by ‘feedback’. The feedback in question in this second article is that with which we, educators, are very familiar with these days, that is, providing written feedback in an online environment. This is fast becoming the norm, if it is not so already.

Those of us teaching class sizes of some 400 plus know, to our cost, that the marking load is enormous; marking 400 plus scripts, whether online or first downloading them and then marking them (many if not most markers still print them off for marking purposes) is extremely time consuming, however fast the marker. However, more time consuming than the actual marking itself is often the time that it takes to write the feedback that has to be provided via the virtual learning environment (VLE). VLEs have very many truly excellent capabilities, and we all use them for that reason, but they are ‘clunky’ and there is still a long way to go in terms of making them as user-friendly as they need to be. Added to the workload for markers is that there are often two computer systems to work with; one, a VLE and usually one that is an ‘off the shelf’ one, and two, the university’s computer system where the marks/grades have to be uploaded to. It is usually the case that the two are not linked, and so the marker has two, different, systems to upload the marks/grades to, thus adding to the time involved, not to mention the potential for increasing the chances of error. However, despite the downsides, markers are usually required to provide personalised, written feedback via a VLE and the study described in this second article looks at the very pertinent question of whether or not such feedback actually improves student learning or, more accurately, their performance in assessments which follow(ed) and, importantly given that satisfaction about feedback is not rated highly in the sector, whether or not this increases how satisfied students are with their course and/or instructor. Entitled ‘Comparing student self-assessment to individualized instructor feedback’, its authors, Jennifer C Gibbs and Jimmy D Taylor, from Pennsylvania State University at Harrisburg and Ohio University in the United States, respectively, look first at feedback more generally and then about the importance of comparing feedback from the instructor/marker to student self-assessment, arguing that although the literature has told us a great deal about the ‘how’ aspects of providing feedback to learners there has been a dearth of studies into the ‘who’ in terms of assessing the work of students, that is, whether students or instructors, and how, if at all, this influences subsequent performance and student satisfaction.

Describing at length these two methods of providing feedback, their pluses and minuses, no one would disagree with their conclusion that what is known as ‘the feedback landscape’ is extremely complex, as their comprehensive description and analysis of the literature around learning, self regulation and feedback demonstrates. Arguing that few studies have compared student self-assessment with individualised instructor feedback, the study described in the article looks at this very thing, seeking to test three hypotheses, namely, that there will be a difference in student learning between students receiving personalised instructor feedback and students required to self-assess using model answers, that there will be a difference in student performance between high and low achieving students and that there will be differences in student satisfaction with the course and with the instructor between these two groups, the last being posited given the suggestion in the literature that students prefer personalised feedback to model answers. As the concluding discussion confirms, there are many challenges when it comes to assessment (and everything else) in the online environment, and these are as much for us, the educators, as for our students, and so a study such as this one is all the more welcome. Of particular interest, perhaps, is what the results of this study tell us about the difference, if any, in the actual performance of students, as measured by grades, following the two types of feedback provided. However, and as the authors rightly raised at the start, everything around assessment is complex, and while there is the matter of actual performance there is also the matter of perception. If, say, we believe that eating butter is ‘bad’ for us, then even if there are 10 (or 50) studies telling us otherwise, it is sometimes difficult, or impossible, for us to change our thinking from ‘butter is bad, to never be eaten at all’ to ‘butter isn’t all bad’. When it comes to students in higher education, the ratings and rankings, and thus perceptions, are all the more important, and as the authors rightly say, there is much that we, educators, need to do in terms of dealing with not only the conceptions of students but also their misconceptions. And ours, no doubt.

Echoing the sentiments of the authors of the second article, those of the third, Cecile Morris and Gladson Chikwa, from Sheffield Hallam University in the United Kingdom and the Middle East College, Muscat, Oman, respectively, say that while we know a great deal about feedback per se, little is known about the impact of different types of feedback on the actual performance of students. They, too, look not only at actual performance but also on the preferences that students have for one or the other, here, the use of either audio or written feedback. Entitled ‘Audio versus written feedback: exploring learners’ preference and the impact of feedback format on students’ academic performance’, the authors argue that while feedback to learners has an extensive literature, little has looked at the impact that a particular type of feedback has on a student’s actual performance. Because, while our students say ‘we want feedback, and as much of it as you can possibly provide’, if we, the markers, are to provide it, it is argued that we need to know which type of feedback, or feedback via which means or mechanisms, might ‘deliver’ what students often seek from feedback, namely, an improvement in any subsequent piece of assessment that they carry out. The study described in the article looks at feedback provided via two different means; written feedback and feedback delivered via audio. Written feedback is the standard, the norm in the sector, but it is good to see that providing feedback via audio is becoming increasingly popular. In terms of performance, the performance being looked at here is within the same module/unit, that is, the students were given one piece of work to do which was assessed, feedback was provided on it, and they then had to do another piece of assessed work at a later date. Describing at length the literature around learning, engagement and feedback, the article provides evidence for the claim that feedback to learners is of value, and in many ways, although it is the case that, the world over, this is an aspect of their studies at university that students are the least satisfied with. The article goes into detail about why that might be the case, saying that there is more that both the markers/providers of that feedback and also the students need to do in this area, including providing feedback via different means, to take into account the different learning styles of different learners. Citing literature that says that students prefer to receive feedback on a one-to-one basis from the marker, so that there is the opportunity for dialogue, there is the issue of class size to take into account here. It is not uncommon for class sizes to be anything over 1000 students. This is, after all, a ‘mass market’ sector in many if not all countries, and so while naturally taking into account the preferences of learners, there is the inescapable issue of the actual practicalities here, and the need for an appropriate balance to be struck somehow. That said, and while naturally by no means perfect, this article cites the very many plus points of providing feedback via audio, that is, in the form of digital audio files.

For those markers who have not yet used this as a mechanism, those who have done so report that it has many benefits to the marker (and to learners), not least of which is the far greater amount, and arguably quality, of feedback that it is possible to provide, as well as doing away with the need to type or write (a bonus in itself). However, whether delivered either by audio file or written comment of some sort, the article describes a study which looks at the actual performance of students who have (or have not) used the feedback provided to them via these two means following their first piece of assessed work and its impact, if any, on their performance in the next one. The thorny issue of whether or not the type of feedback received did or did not impact the subsequent marks/grades is presented and discussed in the final section, and it makes for very interesting reading indeed, most notably, perhaps, when it comes to the students who did not do well, that is, those who got the lowest marks/grades, on the first piece of assessed work compared to those who got the higher ones. Suitable reflection on feedback and opportunities afforded to students to feed forward, as well as guidance to markers, is provided in the final section of this article, but as with anything around assessment, there is still much, much more that we need to do to better understand this core aspect of learning and teaching in this sector. Feedback to learners, whether in writing or via audio, is a dialogue, an engagement, of some sort, between learner and teacher/educator. The relationship between learner and teacher is an important one for many reasons, as the fourth article, entitled ‘Examining charisma in relation to students’ interest in learning’, tells us. Its authors, Yun-Chen Huang and Shu-Hui Lin, both from National Taichung University of Science and Technology in Taiwan, argue that the behaviours of teachers/educators play a central role in how learners approach their learning both inside and outside the classroom and that there is a link between certain characteristics of the teacher/educator and the interest or otherwise that learners have in the subject matter and the course itself. While a difficult thing to define, the authors explore the notion that if a teacher/educator has charisma, which they say encompasses knowledge, character traits, teaching techniques and humour, this will lead to greater interest on the part of their learners. Detailing what ‘good teaching’ and also what a ‘good teacher’ is and is not, the review of the literature in this article provides an overview of the research that has been undertaken in the area of student engagement, and looks, in turn, at knowledge, character traits, teaching techniques and humour and takes these into account in the study undertaken and described.

The article does not tell us what percentage of any teacher/educator population has those within it who have the elusive trait of charisma, but whatever it is, it must be quite small given that this word describes only a very small number of any population, whether teachers, managers or anyone else. Although the article does not acknowledge this, charisma can, of course, be a trait in those whose purpose in life is an entirely negative one. There are those who are beguiled by a charismatic stranger who goes on to murder them a short while later (stories of such things abound in, say, television programmes looking into the minds and behaviours of those who commit such crimes), or in high-profile crimes committed by fraudsters whose audacious behaviour has us gasping at how easily their extraordinary powers of charm, wit and persuasion, all evident in the charismatic, led to, say, either individuals being unwittingly duped out of their life savings or well known institutions such as banks or media corporations collapsing and going out of business entirely. So, as with all other human characteristics, there are two sides of every coin, whether charisma or anything else. While we would hope that no teacher/educator would turn out to be a fraudster, a teacher/educator with charisma in abundance is likely one who can easily overwhelm and perhaps intimidate the shy and those lacking in confidence, who likely form a significant proportion of any population, student or otherwise. And, if all the teachers/educators in a particular department of a university were highly charismatic, this would likely be a very uneasy learning environment, not only for students but for the teachers/educators themselves given that the charismatic often like to be centre stage and to have their voice heard not only in the classroom but in staff meetings and similar (it is rare that someone with lots of charisma is shy and retiring in a public space of any sort). The description of a charismatic teacher is that, according to the article, they tend to have the traits of tolerance, openness and candour, being patient and slow to reprimand, have compassion and that they give unconditional attention and focus on the learning of their students. The very traits of quite a few, rather than the merely the charismatic, surely.

However, whether having a lot of charisma or not, no one would disagree with the argument made in the article that students want us, their teacher/educator, to be friendly, knowledgeable, well-organised, encouraging, helpful and to be, or to appear to be anyway, concerned for students’ individual needs and greatly interested in their learning. And, that it helps to have a sense of humour, presumably whether in the classroom or anywhere else. All these factors, and others, are not unconnected in some way to the interests and motivation of learners, which in turn impact their behaviours both inside and outside the classroom, although how much and in what ways is unclear, particularly when it comes to subsequent performance in assessments. Inevitably, there is always the issue of assessment. Given the choice between a highly charismatic teacher/educator who is friendly, knowledgeable, encouraging, with a great sense of humour and the rest and one who is at the other end of the scale, if half the students fail the module/course run by the highly charismatic one and everyone passes the module/course with good marks/grades on the one run by the teacher/educator who lacks some or all of these traits, if given the choice of which teacher/educator to run the module/course, it is argued here that it will be the rare student who picks to be taught by the highly charismatic one, however inspiring and the rest, and amusing, that classroom is. However, even if we do not possess charisma and/or humour, traits which are innate not learned, it is certainly the case that we can be, indeed must be, knowledgeable, well prepared, encouraging and the rest which, the article tells us, helps to make students more committed and hard working. How much interest a student has in the subject matter is not unimportant, as corroborated in the study described in the fifth and final article of this issue. Entitled ‘Evaluating the use of lecture capture using a revealed preference approach’, its authors Caroline Elliott and David Neal look at the introduction of lecture capture technology into a classroom with large student numbers where, arguably, it is more difficult to engage with students and to create and sustain interest, whether using humour, being charismatic or anything else. By ‘large class’, these authors mean ‘class sizes of some 700 students in one classroom’, which is, by anyone’s measure, a large class. Rightly, the authors say that much of the literature in this area has been concerned with exploring what students perceive (with the emphasis on perceive) about their use of lecture capture technology or has attempted to look at the impact or otherwise that the watching of recordings of lectures has had on performance in terms of assessment.

When faced with something that we are told is ‘a good thing’ and then subsequently asked for our perceptions and views of it, as human beings, it is more likely than not that we will reply with ‘it’s a good thing’, particularly if those who tell us this are, as here, those in authority and those who have responsibility for its introduction. So, if we ask students ‘do/did you watch the recordings of the lectures that I put up for you’, or ‘how useful did you find the recordings that I made for you’, as we are likely the ones to be marking their work at a later date, even if they provide their responses anonymously, it is perhaps not unsurprising that students will claim to have watched them and/or will respond by saying that they found them useful. Here, in the study described in this article, rather than simply ask them if they watched the recordings of lectures, data were gathered about their actual use, that is, to what extent they actually watched the recordings. In addition, rather than looking over only the timeframe of one single module/course in one academic year, which is standard in most studies into this and other technologies, the viewings of students were tracked over two academic years. As the authors say, it is by no means uncommon for us, teachers/educators, to use lecture capture technology to record lectures and seminars. Indeed, it might be argued that, very shortly, it will be fairly uncommon for us not to do so. So, rather than arguing ‘should we use it or not’, it is now the case that we can move on from this and instead accept that it is normal, standard to use it and instead to explore, as here, certain aspects of it in order that we can better understand its use and impact. Those of us who have been reading this literature since lecture capture technology has been used to record lectures and seminars will remember the early days, when there was great consternation that this would mean that students would never turn up to the actual lecture or seminar, because it was believed that students would simply choose to watch the recordings rather than turn up in person. This fear was, like so many where technology is involved, unfounded. And, as this article tells us, for a certain group in the student population, to have such recordings is essential. This might be because either they missed the lecture or seminar for good reason (illness, say) or they have a learning disability of some sort, where the ability to watch the recordings in their own time, in their own way, and as often as they wish, is a distinct advantage.

There are many other advantages, as this article lists for us, including reduced student attrition and, given that we are in a competitive business, whether in the for-profit or not-for-profit market, our competitiveness. This comes as something of a surprise to those students in the UK sector, and likely elsewhere in the world where the same applies, when they find out that, despite the fact that they pay for their undergraduate or postgraduate studies, nearly all universities in the United Kingdom are classified as charities. As no university, regardless of being a charity or otherwise, wants to go under, it is perhaps not surprising that our investment in technology, and also its widespread use within it (the mere purchase of it is unlikely to provide an advantage; we have to actually use it) means that even the most technically challenged of us, teachers/educators, are having to get on board when it comes to using such technology. Fortunately, the technology is, as each year goes on, getting easier, although not easy, to use. However, at the time of writing, the use of lecture or seminar recordings are very much a supplementary resource, that is, as teachers/educators we still turn up to the lecture theatre or classroom and run the lecture or seminar as normal, but record it. Few have taken it further, that is, to record a lecture or seminar from, say, their office, home or a recording studio, thus doing away with the need for students to turn up to them, although some do so, and use these as supplementary, additional, lectures or seminars. As the informative and extensive review of the literature on the issue, described in this article, tells us, although lectures are not conducive to active learning, students still value them. However, whether they value ‘the turning up, in person, to a lecture’ or instead ‘having a lecture (made available to them as a recording but without the actual attendance at it)’ is as yet unclear given that we are currently supplementing, not replacing, lectures and seminars with such recordings. Of interest in this regard is whether or not students would be willing to pay for such recordings; the reader will have to read the article to find out, but it makes fascinating reading. However, for all its benefits, nothing is without its downsides, as the authors acknowledge and describe, not least of which is actual take up, actual use, of these recordings. In the study described, the authors take what is known as a revealed preference approach, which they say is characterised by observing consumers (in this case, students) and looking at both their actual demand for the good or service and their actual usage of it.

Here, in the study, this approach was used to measure the extent to which the technology is used, including its use around revision periods, rather than any focus on what students claimed, thought, said, that they used or valued about it. This is a vitally important distinction and points to the merits of a study such as this. Because, while it is all very well to look at perceptions of x or y, whether the use of the recordings of lectures or anything else, if we are interested in actual behaviour (and we say that we are), then we need to look at that actual behaviour. Also of note in this study is that it uses larger class sizes than is usually the case in studies such as this which, as it provides more data, particularly as the data were gathered over two academic years not one, is all the more welcome. The authors argue that such a study on actual rather than claimed use of the technology is vital given that, to date, the literature has given us mixed results about its use. The authors rightly raise the issue of the fact that todays’ learners have more and more technology at their fingertips, in the form of ever more sophisticated tablets and mobile phones, so this might perhaps increase demand for recorded lectures. With growing use of what is known as the flipped classroom, the authors suggest that an avenue for future research is to also look at preferences with regard to this, too, given how recorded lectures also come into play within such a classroom. However, while there are advantages to making recorded lectures available to students, the authors rightly caution that, as with everything, there are costs, one of which is about academic freedom. That is, is it up to the individual lecturer to decide whether or not their own lecture(s) should be recorded or is this a decision to be made by the university, that is, its use to be mandated? As with so much in higher education, this is likely to be a debate with strong arguments and views put forward on every side and, as higher education is characterised as being conservative in nature and practice, we will all be discussing this for some while yet.