Feed-forward, supporting the writing process for undergraduate researchers: The case of GEOverse an undergraduate research journal in Geography. Dr Helen Walkington. What’s the problem with feedback?. “Feedback on my work has been prompt”
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Feed-forward, supporting the writing process for undergraduate researchers:The case of GEOverse an undergraduate research journal in Geography.Dr Helen Walkington
“Feedback on my work has been prompt”
“Feedback on my work has helped me clarify things I did not understand”
Assessment of learning
Assessment for learning
Students conceive of quality feedback as a dialogic process or cycle rather than a single event (Beaumont et al., 2008).
The solution for mass HE?
e-journals in the US
(Walkington, 2008) or cycle rather than a single event (Beaumont et al., 2008).
Impact of writing articles on SLE or cycle rather than a single event (Beaumont et al., 2008).
1. Sense of achievement
“With the possibility of actual publication, it invoked a sense of pride and so I felt that the quality of my finished article was higher than usual.”
“It was also good to really understand what I had researched last term.”
3. The creative process
“I enjoyed the freedom of opinions and sources used, it was very interesting following up a previous field study and expanding on it.”
4. Sense of ownership
“[I enjoyed] the challenge of writing an article that comes from my own experiences.”
5. A more critical approach to sources
“you have the knowledge to be critical and the work is more personal so you have a different outlook on other journals researched.”
6. Synthesis of skills
“It has allowed me to bring together all the skills I have been trying to learn throughout the university period.”
Ownership or cycle rather than a single event (Beaumont et al., 2008).
Further communication / dialogue
Motivation to publish moreFrom student to author
Applying constructive criticism
“Initially I found it quite hard as I felt the reviewers brought to light the mainly negative aspects of the article, and had overlooked the hard work that had been put in. Once I realised that their job was to provide suggestions to improve the article and not to point out all the positive elements I was able to view the comments in a positive light. I also really appreciated the accuracy of the feedback once I had completed the article as it really made my work stronger and of a higher standard”
Quality feedback ‘It is more constructive as it is a working document’
Students require structured experiences to ‘scaffold’ their learning, so that they have the confidence to publish their work.
This has led to:
CLOSE THE RESEARCH GAP through ‘publication’
Collaborative writing space (wiki) can support first time reviewers
Authors shift from seeing articles as products to a process of 2 way communication, online spaces could support this through e.g. wiki’s for authors and reviewers ‘dialogic feedback’.
For the future: