Search

Background: Delivering effective feedback to large groups of students represents a challenge for the academic staff at universities. Research suggests that undergraduate students often ignore the Elaborated Feedback (EF) received via digital learning environments. This may be because instructors provide feedback in written format instead of using more engaging channels (e.g., audiovisual). Objectives: This quasi‐experimental study examines the extent to which feedback format (video vs. written) influences students' perceptions of feedback, their decision to access EF messages related to high‐stakes assignments in digital environments, and its impact on academic performance, while considering the effect of their academic engagement. Methods: A total of 171 undergraduate students received generic EF messages through a learning platform the day after submitting each course assignment. 78 students received EF in written format and 93 in video format. Results and Conclusions: Our results showed that feedback format influenced students' decision to access EF and their academic performance, but not their feedback perceptions. Students in the written‐feedback group accessed EF messages more often, but students who received video‐feedback performed better than their counterparts in the written‐feedback group. Moderation analysis showed that the relationship between the feedback format and students' academic performance was moderated by their academic engagement, suggesting that students with lower levels of academic engagement may benefit from video‐feedback. Takeaways: The results reveal that using video feedback in digital environments may influence students' decisions to process EF and their academic achievement, especially when it comes to students with lower levels of academic engagement. Lay Description: What is currently known about the subject matter: Delivering Elaborated Feedback (EF) to large groups of students represents a challenge for instructors.Undergraduate students often ignore the EF received via digital learning environments.Students usually prefer audiovisual formats to receive feedback compared to the written format.Results in regard to whether video‐feedback is best for learning are inconclusive. What this paper adds: A quasi‐experimental study to compare two feedback formats (video and written) in an ecologically valid setup.Data of students' voluntary decisions to process EF related to high‐stakes assignments.The moderating effect of students' academic engagement on the relationship between feedback format and academic performance. The implications of study findings for practitioners: Students positively value the EF received in both video and written formats.Students may not engage with EF as expected even when provided in audiovisual formats.Students may access written‐EF more frequently than video‐EF.Video‐EF may positively influence academic performance when students have low levels of academic engagement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The complexity of communication presents challenges for clinical assessment, outcome measurement and intervention for people with acquired brain injury. For the purposes of assessment or treatment, this complexity is usually managed by isolating specific linguistic functions or speech acts from the interactional context. Separating linguistic functions from their interactional context can lead to discourse being viewed as a static entity comprised of discrete features, rather than as a dynamic process of co‐constructing meaning. The ecological validity of discourse assessments which rely on the deconstruction of linguistic functions is unclear. Previous studies have reported assessment tasks that preserve some of the dialogic features of communication, but as yet, these tasks have not been identified as a distinct genre of assessment. We suggest the term 'co‐constructed communication' to describe tasks which are specifically designed to capture the dynamic, jointly produced nature of communication within a replicable assessment task. Aims: To identify and summarize how co‐constructed communication has been assessed with individuals with non‐progressive acquired communication disability regarding task design, measures and psychometric robustness. Methods: A scoping review methodology was used to identity relevant studies. Systematic database searches were conducted on studies published before July 2021. Studies in the yield were assessed against eligibility criteria, with 37 studies identified as eligible for inclusion. Main contribution: This is the first time that co‐constructed communication has been defined as a genre of discourse assessment for stroke and traumatic brain injury populations. Co‐constructed communication has been assessed for 144 individuals with aphasia and 111 with cognitive–communication disability. Five categories of co‐constructed communication tasks were identified, ranging in complexity. Variability exists in how these assessment tasks are labelled and measured. Assessment measures require further psychometric profiling, specifically regarding test–retest reliability and validity. Conclusions: Co‐constructed communication is a discourse genre which offers researchers and clinicians a replicable method to assess language and communication in an experimentally rigorous way, within an ecologically valid context, bridging the gap between experimental and ecological assessment approaches. What this paper adds: What is already known on this subject: Standardized assessments of language skills and monologue offer reliable, replicable ways to measure language. However, isolating language from an interactional context fundamentally changes the behaviour under study. This raises questions about the ecological validity of the measures we routinely use to determine diagnoses, guide treatment planning and measure the success of treatment. What this study adds to the existing knowledge: This review highlights studies that conceptualize, and often quantify, interaction by combining experimental rigour and aspects of everyday dialogue. This is the first time this genre of discourse assessment has been identified. We propose the term 'co‐constructed communication' to describe this genre and provide an operational definition for the term. What are the practical and clinical implications of this study?: Co‐constructed communication assessment tasks require refinement, particularly regarding aspects of psychometric robustness. In the future, these tasks offer pragmatic, meaningful ways to capture the effect and impact of aphasia and cognitive–communication disability within interaction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Formative online multiple‐choice tests are ubiquitous in higher education and potentially powerful learning tools. However, commonly used feedback approaches in online multiple‐choice tests can discourage meaningful engagement and enable strategies, such as trial‐and‐error, that circumvent intended learning outcomes. These strategies will not prepare graduates as self‐regulated learners, nor for the complexities of contemporary work settings. Objectives: To investigate whether providing only a score after formative online multiple‐choice test attempts (score‐only feedback) increases the likelihood of students to engage in self‐regulated learning compared with more directive feedback. Measurable outcomes included deeper learning, collaboration, information seeking, and satisfaction. Methods: Data in this mixed methods study were collected from nursing students through surveys, test results, focus groups, and student discussion board contributions. A quasi‐experimental design was used for quantitative data, and qualitative data were analysed thematically against domains of self‐regulated learning. Results and Conclusions: Students receiving score‐only feedback were more cognitively engaged with the content, collaborated constructively, and sought out richer sources of information. However, it was also associated with lower satisfaction. In this study, minimal feedback created states of uncertainty, which resulted in the activation of self‐regulatory actions. Implications for Practice: Providing overly directive feedback for formative online multiple‐choice tests is conducive to surface‐level learning strategies. By minimising feedback and allowing for extended states of uncertainty, students are more likely to regulate their learning through self‐assessment and problem‐solving strategies, all of which are required by graduates to meet the challenges of real‐world work settings. Lay Description: What is already known about this topic: Formative online multiple‐choice tests are widely used in higher education.Feedback is a critical element in the design of effective online multiple‐choice tests.Formative feedback should promote self‐regulated learning.Feedback types used in multiple‐choice tests facilitate strategies not conducive to self‐regulation. What this paper adds: Online multiple‐choice test feedback can influence how students self‐regulate their learning.Less feedback can result in greater self‐evaluation and performance in summative assessment.Less feedback can encourage richer help‐seeking strategies (collaboration and information seeking).However, less feedback can result in student dissatisfaction. Implications for practice and/or policy: Judicious use of feedback is required in the design of online multiple‐choice tests.Educators should consider providing less feedback to promote learner self‐regulation.Satisfaction with online multiple‐choice tests does not necessarily equate to greater learning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Recently, the Standardized Tool for the Assessment of Bruxism (STAB) and the bruxism screener (BruxScreen) have been developed for use in research and clinical settings. Objective: As to ascertain high‐quality use of both instruments worldwide, it was our aim to develop a guideline for the translation and cultural adaptation of the STAB and the BruxScreen. Methods and Results: This paper describes a 12‐step guideline for the translation and cultural adaptation of the STAB and the BruxScreen. A format of a translation log is provided as well. Besides, a website has been created for the guidance of translation teams. Conclusion: Following the 12 steps, new language versions of the STAB and the BruxScreen will be ready for further testing (reliability, validity, responsiveness and interpretability) and, ultimately, application in research and clinics around the world. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To explore how undergraduate nursing students are assessed on nursing numeracy and medication calculations from the perspective of Australian nurse education leaders. Design: A qualitative study. Methods: Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with 17 nurse education leaders between November 2022 and January 2023. Braun and Clarke's six phases of thematic analysis were used to analyse the data. Results: Five key themes were identified: (i) high expectations to keep the public safe, (ii) diverse assessment formats, (iii) different ways of managing assessment integrity, (iv) assessment conditions incongruent to the clinical setting and (v) supporting struggling students. Conclusion: Nurse education leaders set high standards requiring students to achieve 100% in numeracy and medication calculation assessments, thus maintaining the reputation of nursing and patient safety. However, students struggled to meet this expectation. Diverse assessment formats were implemented, with some examination conditions contrary to clinical practice. Currently, there is no benchmark or independent point of registration examination in Australia, hence the problem is each university had a different standard to judge students' competence. Gaining insight into how these assessments are conducted provides an opportunity to work towards an evidence‐based model or benchmark for the assessment of numeracy. Implications for the Profession: Dosage errors in clinical practice threaten patient safety and the reputation of the nursing profession. The accuracy rate of calculations by undergraduate and registered nurses is deficient worldwide. This research highlights a major educational issue, that being the wide variation in how numeracy assessments are conducted with no clear pedagogical rationale for a standardised method. Such assessments would establish a national standard, contributing to quality assurance, the development of the nursing profession and improve patient safety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]