Search

This study reports on a further iteration of an action research cycle, discussed in Burns and Foo (2012, 2013). It explores how formative feedback on academic literacy was used and acted upon, and if a Formative Feedback Intervention (FFI) increased the students' confidence in future assignments. It also considers whether the assignment of a grade was beneficial. Students were asked to give written reflections using Gibbs reflective model (1988) and later via a semi-structured questionnaire. In-depth interviews were also carried out to provide rich data. Findings suggest students are taking appropriate actions to close the gap (Sadler, 1989) in particular sharing with their peers. Feedback is reported to be an emotional experience; the grade assigned is highly valued and appears to be used for self-motivation. In addition, students raised the issue of the cultural adjustment they are making to bridge the gap between the teaching and learning of their home and new environment.

Assessment is too often concerned with measurement, rather than learning; however, there is a growing interest in research into formative assessment, which appears justified by studies into its effects on learning. Changes in higher education have led to increased numbers of students, many of whom are from non-traditional backgrounds. This has highlighted the need for transparency and student involvement in assessment. However, the corresponding pressures on staff and on resources mean that many desirable innovations are not easy to implement. The overall aim of this formative feedback intervention (FFI) was to provide timely and helpful feedback to international students who are final-year direct entrants in a large business school. Timeliness of feedback and the development of academic literacy were key concerns. The study concludes that although the FFI did not have a significant impact on module grades, the intervention was successful in getting students to engage in academic writing at an early stage. Most respondents perceived the feedback to be helpful and the feedback messages were clearly received and internalised. Whether appropriate actions were taken by the students to close the gap between their current and their target level requires further investigation.

Abstract: Objectives: The United Kingdom abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) screening programme refers aneurysms with ultrasound (US) diameters of ≥5.5 cm to vascular services for consideration of computed tomography (CT) and intervention. We investigated the discrepancy between US and CT, implications on clinical decisions and question at which stage CT be used. Design/methods: AAA USs over 5 years were retrospectively analysed. Patients included had aneurysms measuring ≥5 cm on US with subsequent CT within 2 months (n = 123). Based on maximum US diameters, 44 patients had aneurysms between 5 and 5.4 cm (group I) and 79 patients ≥5.5 cm (group II). Results were cross-referenced. Correlation and limits of agreement were calculated. Two radiologists re-measured 44 pairs of CT/US scans and the inter-observer bias in determining discrepancies between imaging modalities calculated. Results: Mean difference between imaging modalities was 0.21 cm (±0.39 cm, p < 0.001). Limits of agreement were −0.55 to 0.96 cm, exceeding clinical acceptability. Mean difference was higher and significant in group I (0.39 cm, p < 0.001) compared to group II (0.10 cm, p > 0.05). Seventy-percent of group I patients had CT scans revealing diameters of ≥5.5 cm. Inter-observer bias was not significant. Conclusion: Significant differences between imaging modalities, more in US diameters of below 5.5 cm, exist. We recommend AAAs measuring ≥5 cm on US should undergo earlier referral to a vascular service and CT. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]