The famous American poet and lecturer Ralph Emerson once wrote that a teacher should “be an opener of doors for such as come after thee”. To me this means that the most important and noblest goal of a teacher is to be a facilitator of learning so that opportunities, the figurative doors, are opened for students. Then hopefully the students will develop good thinking habits or dispositions to enable them to become compassionate, inquisitive, open- minded and resilient citizens of their 21st century communities. In turn, these students will become the ‘door openers’ for those that ‘come after’ them and the cycle of learning and teaching should be replicated. With this in mind I reflected on what I consider good teaching practice so that I could become a more effective ‘opener of doors’ for my students.

Throughout my career I have become keenly aware that “The mediocre teacher tells. The good teacher explains. The superior teacher demonstrates. The great teacher inspires” (William Arthur Ward, American dedicated scholar, author, editor, pastor and teacher). However, great teaching is not just about inspiring students. The ancient Chinese proverb states that if you “tell me... I'll forget; show me and I may remember; involve me and I'll understand.” Great teaching needs to intricately involve the learner in the educational process. Thus, I decided to focus on one aspect in which a student can be directly involved; formative feedback. I did some research on feedback strategies and read with interest Susan Brookhart’s book How to Give Effective Feedback to Your Students.  I subsequently decided to focus on the one on one conferencing style formative feedback approach for this writing project.

When I started planning, preparing and researching ,I wanted to write a learning story in which the outcome was clear and I could unequivocally state that through my good teaching practice my students’ learning had been irrevocably enhanced. While my findings did indicate that the students’ skills in historical essay writing had improved, each student’s learning journey was quite different and I had to amend my teaching practice with one student in particular, who presented with some significant learning difficulties. What follows is the story of three girls and their learning journey in acquiring the skill of historical essay writing over a 6 month period. 

BACKGROUND STORY ON FORMATIVE FEEDBACK

From our own school days we know how teacher formative feedback can either be a soul enriching or soul destroying experience. As Brookhart wrote, “Feedback can be the information drives the process [of learning], or it can be a stumbling block that derails the process”(p.4). She refers to a study by Kluger and DeNisi (1996), whose meta-analysis of studies of feedback found that on average performance was affected by .41 by feedback. Thus in effect across all the studies they surveyed, the groups receiving feedback outperformed those not receiving feedback by .41 standard deviations (the same as moving from the 50th to the 66th percentile on a standardised test). But they also found that 38 % of the studies had a negative result, which shows that in some cases feedback had an adverse effect.

These results show two things quite clearly: feedback does have an impact on learning, and this impact can be positive or negative. Thus, if done well, teacher formative feedback can provide students with the confidence they need to seek further improvement in their learning outcomes and for many students it can be a source of great comfort to know that a teacher knows their work and by inference knows ‘them’ so well.  It should also provide them with a ‘learning map’ of how they can get there, with choice and options of how they can reach their destination; it should not be a one way road map approach. So in essence, ‘the power in formative feedback lies in its double-barrelled approach, addressing both cognitive and motivational factors at the same time” (Brookhart, 2008,p.2).

My own interest in teacher formative feedback gained momentum two years ago when I became involved in the MLC Ithaka group and the Ithaka schools’ network. I was introduced to the theories of Understanding by Design, Thinking Routines and Formative Assessment. As I became more familiar with the ideas and started to embed them in my teaching, I became more aware of making thinking visible in the classroom, not just through formal assessments, and of  providing students with explicit opportunities to “have control over their own learning”(Brookhart, 2008,p.2). However, my interest in enhancing student learning outcomes had started before this.

I had always had an interest in providing learning opportunities which promoted student outcomes, through involvement in PEEL in my previous school. However, I was still in the phase of using PEEL as an activity based learning philosophy rather than truly embedding thinking in my classroom to the point where it became a cultural practice. I realised that using a PEEL activity once in a lesson twice a week was unlikely to have any long term effects on the way my students approached learning. I needed to find, develop and consistently use pedagogical routines which would expose student thinking and allow them to become masters of their own learning independently of me. Over time I noticed that my conversations with students centred more on learning as a goal in its self rather than just a focus on the learning outcome, and I found myself using the language of learning more explicitly and frequently in the classroom. I stated using the Thinking Routines often, so that they were not just activities but a part of the fabric of the lessons, and I also developed some units of work with my colleagues using the UbD framework. Key understandings and essential questions were the foundation upon which the Thinking Routines, learning assessments and all my formative feedback were based.

What I found so intriguing and so illuminating was that UbD, Thinking Routines, Formative Assessment and therefore feedback were connected by virtue of the fact that the student was central to all of these approaches; enhancing student learning was the express goal.

Well, I can almost hear the sound of an incredulous scoff from my readership (at least that is what I would be doing if I was reading this statement) at this point as you wonder why I would make such an absurd comment; after all isn’t it the express goal of any educational system to increase student learning outcomes? May I remind you of Kluger and DeNisi’s research findings and the fact that not all teaching practices lead to positive learning outcomes. As educational practitioners we cannot become too complacent and lax. We cannot assume that just because there is a teacher in a classroom that learning is taking place. Teaching is an age old profession and yet this does not mean it has been mastered. Thus, my desire to continue to learn was rejuvenated with the discovery of UbD and Thinking Routines and the refocus on Formative Assessment set the scene for my desire to take the next step in my teaching and own learning journey: I now wanted to take the next step and be both a researcher and teacher.

SETTING AND METHOD EMPLOYED FOR THIS ACTION RESEARCH

I decided to use my Year 11, 20th Century History class and the skill of historical essay writing as the focus for my action research project. After returning essays to students using the online edukate facility (and providing them with written feedback on edukate), I conferenced with them. My aim was to explore how effective this was in making them use the feedback I provided more actively to inform how they would approach the same skill next time.

My intention was to focus on three students and to observe how their essay writing improved in three essays over the period of 6 months-Semester 1, 2010. I was also curious to learn more about how the timing of the conference sessions, and the structure and preparation for it required of students, had on enhancing historical essay writing for different students. It should be noted that the content for two of the essays was the same and one was different. While I acknowledge that this may have had some effect on the findings, the feedback focussed on the skill and so its effect should have been negligible.

It is through the theoretical lens of the socio-cultural constructivist that I have loosely designed my research project and analysed it. Socio cultural theorists see learning “from a participation perspective, [where] much learning is informal [and] simply an integral part of everyday activity...the focus of attention switches from cognitive processes within the person to the socio-cultural practices of living in particular situations” (Hodkinson & Macleod, 2010, p.175). My teaching has been and continues to be greatly influenced by Vygotsky’s theoretical construct of the zone of proximal development (ZPD) which is situated quite clearly within the social cultural constructivist paradigm. The ZPD is “the distance between the actual developmental levels...and the potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers” (Vygotsky, 1978, p.86). This aligns closely with Ralph Emerson’s idea that as teachers we are the ‘openers of doors’. However, the student brings with them their own experiences and this of course frames the nature of the exchange between the teacher and the student. Furthermore, learning does not take place in a vacuum; in schools is conducted in a classroom environment so the influence of peers and group interactions is of importance (ZDP).

RATIONALE FOR SELECTING THIS RESEARCH TOPIC

I have always used one on one conferencing in both my English and History classes, but like most teachers I am pressed for time and want to have some confidence that the time I dedicate to this style of formative feedback is valuable in the long term in enhancing student learning outcomes. I have often found that by using written feedback only the students would not always internalise what I had written and the same ‘mistakes’ often appeared in the same skill based learning task. Similarly, if I only gave them verbal feedback they would often forget what I had suggested to them and similar mistakes would appear. I became both frustrated and disheartened that my efforts had not paid dividends for the students, and wondered what I was doing wrong. Why were the students making the same mistakes? Why was their learning stagnating? What could I do differently? There were merits in both approaches but individually it seemed they were not working. Thus, I made the decision to combine the written and oral modes of formative feedback.

CASE STUDIES AND FINDINGS (DATA COLLECTION)

Students were given an outline of how to structure an historical essay and information on how to footnote and write a bibliography when the practice task was given to them. It was explained to them in detail before they were asked to write the first practice task. They were given a mark, based on criteria they were given before completing the practice task. Written feedback was also provided to each student before their conferencing session.

Student one, who I will call Anna for the purposes of this story, is a Year 10 student enrolled in a Unit 1 & 2 subject, who had missed quite a bit of school in the Junior Secondary School (years 7-8) years due to ongoing illness. Thus she missed much formalised instruction for essay writing, her confidence in this area is minimal.

Anna did not hand in a completed second practice essay. A draft was submitted late and only after another conferencing session (instigated by me). When questioned about why she had not handed it in, she became emotional and revealed that she struggled to hand something in because she wanted it to be perfect. She found it hard to decide on which key points to use as she spent perhaps too much time researching. She felt ‘unintelligent’ and while she did not say it in these words it was evident that she felt ‘like a failure’. I had to follow her up as she did not willingly tell me about her learning difficulties. Anna’s confidence and lack of maturity seem to have created a barrier for her and have made it difficult for her to trust in this learning process. At the end of the semester Anna decided to discontinue with the subject in Semester Two due to her health issues and organisational issues.

Her results were:

ϖPractice task one: 14/20 = B

ϖPractice task two: draft only submitted – detailed annotated feedback provided to student from teacher

ϖExam essay (final essay for the semester): 15/20 = B+

For the first practice essay Anna received a 14/20 (B) which equated to a B grade. The written feedback I provided her with was as follows:

Detailed response with clear knowledge of the area of study. Work on the wording of your topic sentences and a clearer wording of the contention. Relevant evidence was included and some very thoughtful analysis was also included and you made an earnest attempt to relate it back to the contention. Need to use more linking words to establish more links between your ideas.

The conferencing feedback session was recorded with Anna’s consent and the main aspects were:

1.Student asked by teacher if she had taken the time to read through the written comments/ feedback on edukate. The student replied that she had.

2.Student asked if based on that feedback what do they need to work on.

3.What are your strengths?

4.Student responded: Research skills – get the right information – good historical knowledge

5.Student responded:  Area of concern – not allowing enough time write up the essay

6.Suggestion: use the discussions in  class as a means of collecting the historical information – use class more productively – much of historical information presented and discussed in class

7.Work on wording of topic – have not written many essays before – need to work on topic sentences – general statement which captures the whole purpose of that main paragraph

8.So I do not talk about Germany?

9.What do you think?

10.I do not know that is why I am asking?

11.Okay what is your contention?....

12.Good so your focus is on Germany so in answer to your question Germany is your focus but acknowledge the role of other countries

13.Recapping – strength research skills

14.Areas to work on- what are they? Time management – use class time more (student) and Topic sentences – so need to write a plan ( teacher)

15.Any other questions? (teacher) None at this stage 

16.One more thing – teacher: So you need to.... how does this relate back to your contention? I do not know – lack of confidence noted at the end of the conversation –

17.8 min conversation (conferencing)

Student two, who I will call Alexandra, is a Year 11 student. Her skill in this area did improve marginally over time. I attribute this to Alexandra’s open- mindedness to learn and to her enjoyment of the subject; however, she did not dedicate much time outside class to developing skills and knowledge. Alexandra is continuing with the subject.

Her results were:

ϖPractice task one: 11/20 = D+

ϖPractice task two: 12/20 = C

ϖExam essay (final essay for the semester): 13/20 = C+

Practice essay one: 11/20 = D+. My written feedback was as follows:

This is a well structured essay which addresses the topic directly with a clear contention and relevant key points (supporting arguments). You clearly understand the topic and have reflected on it. You use indirect evidence to support your explanation and arguments but you have not used direct evidence or footnoting in your essay. This is essential in an historical essay. You also needed to include a bibliography.

Practice essay two: 12/20 = C

It is clear you have researched this topic to some degree but the fact you did not have a paragraph on the Enabling Law and Article 48 was remiss with such a topic. You also needed to mention the Reichstag Fire. Use the correct referencing system. Please refer to the bibliography guide for details. Avoid using 'because' at the start of a sentence, it is a conjunction and in essence its grammatical function does not allow it to be used at the start of a sentence in a piece of formal writing. On the whole the evidence you used was relevant and poignant but you need to work on the way you weave and integrate it into your main paragraphs.

The conferencing feedback session was recorded with Alexandra’s consent after the submission of the first practice essay, and the main aspects of the session have been noted as follows:

1.Teacher asked: Have you taken time to read the written feedback I gave you for the essay?

2.What are your strengths – structure of my paragraphs but need more detail

3.The teacher recapped /paraphrased to check

4.So what do you do when you start writing an essay? What procedure is followed?

5.Sort of start with an introduction – not write too much – key points

6.I would suggest you go one step back and writing a plan and key your ideas (arguments) then list in note form your evidence under each key idea i.e. statistics etc Then you need to select your strongest arguments.

7.So how would you do that?

8.I would ....(student made suggestions)

9.They are good strategies ... but what we are suggesting now.... recapping

10.Refer back to written comment – you forgot footnoting

11.Student recognises that she forgot to put them in – go through and footnote as you go through the essay rather than leave it to the end and then forget where you got the source from

12.Spoke about time management

13.Recap again

14.Areas to work on ... student asked to reply

15.Student much more confident and interactive than student one

5 mins 20 secs – approx- length of conferencing session

Student 3: who I will call Alison, is a Year 11 student. She started a couple of weeks into the course due to a subject change from Literature. She presented as a confident student but she had not followed all the aspects of the task in the first case. She improved dramatically throughout the semester in this area. She showed an open mindedness to learn and take aboard advice. Furthermore, unlike, Alexandra, Alison has dedicated time outside of class to develop the skills and knowledge. Alison is also continuing with the subject.

Her results were as follows:

ϖPractice task one: 10/20 = D

ϖPractice task two: 15/20 = B+

ϖExam essay (final essay for the semester): 14/20 = B

Practice essay one: 10/20 = D

You have responded to the topic and engaged with it directly, however, you needed to link your key ideas together more. Your essay also lacked direct evidence, footnoting and a bibliography. It was clear that you had researched the topic and there was indirect evidence in your main paragraphs, however, all historical essays need to have direct evidence as well. Your analysis lacked depth at times. An earnest attempt was made which was good to see given you joined the class after subject changes but we will need to spend some time reviewing this skill.

Practice essay two: 15/20 = B+

Overall, a well detailed essay with a clear contention and line of argument. The key points were relevant and well explained with regard to the topic and the established contention. However, avoid repetition; this was evident in the first main paragraph. Also you needed to support your assertions with more evidence (direct evidence) in the first main paragraphs and in some other ones. You also need to work on the framing of your topic sentences- they need to be broader statements which capture the essence of what the entire main paragraph is about. For example, Hitler and the Nazi party used the economic fallout from the 1929 Depression to gain further electoral support and this contributed in their succession to power in 1933. Also please be mindful to use a more formal tone in the introduction. The beginning was too conversational whereas the second half of the introduction was more appropriate for this task. The introduction also did not need to be divided into two as you did. Please also use more linking words and sentences to connect your key ideas together more.

Overall, it was evident you had researched this topic extensively and that you had a good understanding of the key factors contributing to the Nazis' rise to power and you provided some very good explanation.

The conferencing feedback session was recorded with the student’s consent after the submission of the first practice essay and the main aspects of the session have been noted as follows:

1.Focus on what you did well

2. Key ideas but could have put more evidence as you say ( referring to written comment)–student stated

3.More practice needed –student stated – more links needed

4.Teacher read through suggestions as written in the comment – recapping – lacked direct evidence- needed to include footnoting and bibliography also needed

5.So what do I put in a footnoting –.... oh so... (student)

6.Teacher shows the student how to insert why computer and then gave an example and typed it.....so visually showing the student –and then recapped

7.What I would suggest you go is go to the Bibliography guide which is available on the class Wiki and school intranet

8.Explained Bibliography and student asked questions as went through it .. demonstration

9.Topic- essay – so what are the key concepts?

10.Student responded – WW1, Germany to Blame...

11.So what’s your opinion?

12.Yes – they are to blame – but others too- middle...

13.Middle contention is fine ..... but you need to .....

14.What is imperialistic? 

15.Student laughs .... wait... wait – student attempts to answer the question and shows a real desire to answer it  and show their knowledge – eager to learn and improve

16.So that should help you with your next writing ( teacher)

17.That helps a lot ( student responds enthusiastically and confidently)

Time of conference: 10 minutes 30 seconds

CONCLUSIONS AND REFLECTION

Overall, all three students showed an improvement in the historical skill of essay writing over the six month period. They were all asked to write an historical essay under timed conditions in the exam and all three students were able to do with a degree of success. The conferencing was conducted between the completion of the first practice essay and before the second practice essay was due. Written feedback was provided for practice essay 1 and 2 but not the exam essay. The first two essays formed part of the formative feedback learning experience and the exam essay was considered to be the summative Outcome grade for that skill for Unit One. While each student improved her results over time, their personal learning journeys were very different. They highlight the fact that while formative feedback in the form of one and one conferencing combined with written feedback is effective, its degree of effectiveness depends on what the student brings to the learning experience. Thus, it seems only logical and in keeping with the theoretical lens that I examine each student’s story separately.

Anna’s story is perhaps the most interesting and disheartening. Her story is shared by many students, where their lack of confidence and their inability to overcome their perfectionist tendencies inhibit their ability to learn to their full potential. Anna’s fear of failure and making mistakes prevented her from submitting her second practice essay in a completed format. She only completed a draft and submitted it only through my insistence and with a great degree of reluctance. Due to her lack of organisational skills she did not submit a final copy for correction. It appears she took on board some of my feedback (both written and verbal) in producing the essay in the exam. She also completed the exam essay under timed conditions which is truly amazing for such a student. However, it appears that the feeling of fear of failure plagues Anna and when she does not understand something her natural inclination is to retreat; thus she appears to have little resilience to stressful situations. This fear appears to have manifested itself into a destructive pattern of avoidance and a reluctance to communicate her concerns unless prompted. Anna is not the only Year 10 in this class so excusing her issues on the grounds that she is younger than her peers is not entirely accurate. However, her chronological age may have a bearing on the developmental learning issues she is facing. Nonetheless, Anna’s results show that she did learn something and more importantly that her essay writing skills in History are not problematic. I do wonder, however, whether the one on one conferencing style was too confronting for Anna, given her learning fears. She once said to me that she felt like she was letting ‘me down’ and that she felt ‘stupid’. I hope that with time and learning support Anna will develop confidence and that she will see learning as an enjoyable experience; which can at times have its challenges, but where the rewards far outweigh the stresses. 

Alexandra’s story is a common story. She represents the students who will take on board some of our suggestions but who will do the bare minimum of work. Alexandra still needed to work on her citing (footnote) skills and bibliography, which were not finely tuned between essays and shows she had not carefully attended to this issue, which was highlighted in both the written feedback and also in the conferencing session. She did ask questions during the conferencing session and showed a willingness to learn. Her case highlights the reality that a willingness to learn is not sufficient unless the student is committed to making time to develop a skill outside class. Alex was, and still remains, attentive in class and she is open to accepting advice and feedback but she does not put in the effort to develop her knowledge and skills outside the classroom. Thus, her improvement in marks was marginal.

Alison’s story is heartening; it is students like Alison who keep us buoyed as teachers. She openly accepted and worked on the advice I gave her. She did use direct evidence as requested after the first practice essay but still needed to attend to it after the second. However, she showed evidence of developing this skill between the two practice tasks. The dramatic change in her marks and the feedback showed that she attended to my feedback and made an earnest effort to address the issues. The slight change in the mark from a B+ to a B in the third essay is negligible given it was a reduction in one mark and could be attributed to the fact that perhaps she was a bit more stressed working under timed conditions. Alison’s story is also noteworthy as she often works with her peers in class and she seems to flourish in an environment where discussion and collaborative learning is favoured. She appears to be a fine example of where Vygotsky’s theory of the ZPD is working at its best.

In short, my research has confirmed Brookhart’s findings that feedback can have a positive effect on student learning. Furthermore, my action research shows that combined with written feedback and more than one formative practice learning task student improvement can be achieved. However, the students themselves are quite obviously important players in any learning journey.  I opened the door for all three students in this learning story and Anna was too scared to walk through it, Alexandra walked inside but did not venture far into the room and Alison walked in confidently and has the next door in sight.

WHERE TO NOW...

Through conducting this action research and writing this learning story I have considered how and what I would change in the future and what I would keep the same. I found the hybrid approach of providing both verbal and written feedback to be successful, and therefore would try to adhere to this format in future. I have used this approach with my Year 12 English class and found it to be of a great benefit in improving student learning. However, there are some aspects of the feedback process which I will seek to amend:

¬After reading the work of Dylan Wiliam, I am aware that providing a written comment and a mark is not useful in terms of improving student outcomes, as he argues students will look at the mark first. Thus, if they score well on the learning task they will not read the comment as they will think they have nothing more to learn. If students score poorly, they will not read it as they are likely to feel dejected and thus will not read the comment or be open to any learning suggestions.

¬Interestingly I did find that due to the combination of written feedback with a face to face meeting, the students were obliged to read the comment and at the start of the meeting they were asked what were their strengths and areas for improvement. However, I see merit in Wiliam’s findings and will not give the student the grade but a level of result instead (high, medium, low) or a written comment only. This is the approach I use in my Year 12 English class and it works well so I am happy to extend this approach to my Year 11 History class as well.

¬In future I would try to conduct all conferencing sessions shortly after the learning task is completed and the written feedback is provided. By the time I met with the some students they had forgotten the essay content, however, I countered this problem by making it compulsory for them to read their comment and essay again before their scheduled meeting with me in the ensuing lesson.

¬The structure of the conferencing session was helpful, starting with students providing feedback on where they had succeeded and where they needed to improve. However, it was noted that on occasion they were only reiterating what I had written. In some cases though there was an awareness of where improvement was needed. They were able to use the metalanguage of the subject in many cases and this improved over time.

¬One aspect of the written and verbal feedback which was problematic at times was trying to explain to students what analysis is and how to incorporate it into their main paragraphs. This is an area I want to focus on in the future. In this study I used the students’ written work to demonstrate that analysis should explain how and why the evidence supports a key idea and a contention. For some students this is not directive enough.

¬I was mindful of the structure in which I delivered oral feedback (praise, improve, praise and lots of repetition) but I need to work on the structure of written feedback. I will list improvements so that they are easy for students to see, refer to and review. I will still ensure that I start written feedback with praise, and endeavour to end it also on a positive note.

I have always known the power of good feedback to transform learning. Conversely, bad feedback can derail the learning process and debilitate  learning. I will continue to refine and reflect upon how and when to give feedback; it is my obligation and responsibility as a teacher. Thus, the learning story continues...

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Brookart, S., (2008), How to give Effective Feedback to your Students, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD), USA

Hodkinson, P. & Macleod, F. (2010), Contrasting concepts of learning and contrasting research methodologies: Affinities and bias, ‘British Educational research Journal, vol.36, no. 2. pp. 173-189.

Vygotsky,L. (1978), Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes, edited by Cole, M., Steiner, J., Scribner, S., & Souberman, E. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

William, D., Embedding Formative Assessment, Specialist Schools and Academics Trust