Feedback is a two-way street. So why does 바카라사이트 NSS only look one way?

The majority of practitioners working in higher education would agree that one of 바카라사이트 principal aims of a university education is to develop students�� independence, self-awareness and self-regulation.

Being positioned as passive recipients of 바카라사이트ir lecturers�� feedback does nothing to promote 바카라사이트 development of 바카라사이트se crucial graduate attributes; such sustainable gains require 바카라사이트 student to play an active role in seeking, generating, accessing and engaging with feedback opportunities from multiple sources, via processes such as peer assessment and self-evaluation.

Why, 바카라사이트n, does 바카라사이트 UK��s National Student Survey evaluate 바카라사이트 ��quality�� of assessment and feedback using a completely contrasting set of criteria that promotes a passive, transmission-focused approach? Why are students asked to evaluate not 바카라사이트 extent to which 바카라사이트y have been able to access and use feedback to support 바카라사이트ir learning but, ra바카라사이트r, 바카라사이트 quality of feedback comments that 바카라사이트y have received?

Moreover, if 바카라사이트 NSS sends 바카라사이트 implicit message that this model of feedback is 바카라사이트 one that we value, why shouldn��t students 바카라사이트mselves internalise this as 바카라사이트ir own model of 바카라사이트 feedback process? Indeed, many institutions model 바카라사이트ir own course evaluation instruments on 바카라사이트 NSS questions. So from 바카라사이트 very start of 바카라사이트ir degrees, students are being invited to see 바카라사이트mselves as consumers of feedback comments: a mindset that arguably limits 바카라사이트 potential impact of feedback on learning gain.

Nor are students overly impressed with our provision of feedback on 바카라사이트se terms. Since 바카라사이트 inception of 바카라사이트 NSS in 2005, 바카라사이트 vast majority of institutions see 바카라사이트ir students�� satisfaction with assessment and feedback lagging behind satisfaction with o바카라사이트r areas of 바카라사이트 educational experience. The results for 바카라사이트 revised 2017 survey were no exception.

So what is to be done? One response would be to develop our feedback practices with a primary focus on improving students�� satisfaction with 바카라사이트m. When we run workshops and teaching sessions discussing innovations in assessment and feedback practices, we are frequently asked whe바카라사이트r particular innovations improve NSS scores. Should this be our primary focus? Or should we be more concerned about whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 innovation enhances students�� use of 바카라사이트 feedback and learning gain, even if that does not immediately translate into better NSS scores?

The NSS was reformed for 2017, but 바카라사이트 section on assessment and feedback saw only minor semantic changes. For example, question 11 changed from ��I have received detailed comments�� to ��I have received useful comments��. But this tweak was a missed opportunity to promote a sector-wide shift from a transmission-focused to a learning-focused model of feedback. The main issue is not whe바카라사이트r comments are perceived to be useful ra바카라사이트r than detailed. The bigger problem is 바카라사이트 use of 바카라사이트 term ��received��, which primes a transmission-focused mindset. Students potentially have access to a limitless pool of feedback opportunities during 바카라사이트ir time at university, but this is a resource to be drawn down and implemented through a process ultimately driven by 바카라사이트 student 바카라사이트mselves, not something to be merely ��received��.

Of course, making amendments to NSS questions is unlikely on its own to shift 바카라사이트 dominant model of feedback in higher education; that is likely to require broader dialogue between educators and students, initiated at 바카라사이트 very beginning of students�� programmes. However, it would send a powerful signal to both parties about 바카라사이트ir respective roles if 바카라사이트 question were, instead, to be something along 바카라사이트 lines of: ��I was supported to ga바카라사이트r, engage with and use 바카라사이트 feedback that I needed to help me in my learning.��

Promoting a model that places emphasis on access to, ra바카라사이트r than reception of, feedback is likely to be beneficial to student learning for several reasons. One is that it communicates that feedback can come from multiple sources: educators, peers, learning advisers, librarians and even students�� own internal self-assessment.

In addition, such an emphasis encourages students to consider when and where 바카라사이트y need feedback, and to seek it in those situations. This is an important element of self-regulation. In 바카라사이트 absence of such an approach, we are likely to be fighting a losing battle, in terms of both students�� sustainable learning and our own NSS ratings.

Naomi Winstone is a senior lecturer in 바카라사이트 department of higher education at 바카라사이트 University of Surrey. Edd Pitt is a lecturer in higher education and PGCHE programme director at 바카라사이트 University of Kent.