Está en la página 1de 4

Cycle 4 Adding a Mid-Point Critique: 6 Respondents ACTION TAKEN: The rubric was again modified to improve the clarity

y of feedback based on student suggestions. In this cycle I offered a midpoint critique for any students interested in utilizing that time for guidance, before turning in their final images. RESEARCH QUESTION: How will using a multimodal approach paired with inclass critiques at the midpoint, and a rubric modified for clarity, affect studentlearning outcomes, as evaluated by the students? PREDICTED OUTCOME: Though a midpoint critique is offered this cycle, I do not expect students to utilize that time because normally they do not have enough finished artwork. The clarification of the rubric would also be helpful to the students understanding of their assessment because the wording would be less confusing. EVIDENCE USED TO EVALUATE THE ACTION: The evidence used to evaluate the actions at the end of this cycle was survey with the following questions: 1. Having received video feedback for the fourth time, how do you feel about it? 2. This assignment provided the option to present what you were working on to the group or to the teacher individually. No one chose to have a mid-point critique of their work. Do you think providing this option for mid-point feedback was helpful? 3. Why do you think no one chose to volunteer for feedback at the mid-point? 4. The rubric was modified to add space for written reflections from the teacher. Was it helpful to see the teachers thoughts and feedback written at the bottom of the rubric? 5. The rubric was modified to clarify some of the categories. Did the clarification of categories improve your understanding of the rubric? 6. Are there any other parts of the rubric that need more clarification?

EVALUATION: Students responded that they continued to prefer the use of video feedback, and the responses were again overwhelmingly positive. 50% of the responses were top marks and the rest of the respondents were neutral or better. These findings continued to suggest that video feedback was a beneficial tool to evaluate student artwork. When asked if providing an opportunity for midpoint feedback was useful, 50% of the respondents thought this was beneficial, while the rest of the respondents were against they idea. Since the question was designed to look for a majority opinion, split results create an inconclusive finding. Most respondents stated that they did not chose to take advantage of this midpoint feedback option, and 66% respondents

suggested that students normally do not have their enough work finished by the midpoint to take advantage of the critique. Two replies were removed from the findings because they did not answer the question. The two responses given were I would have, and I don't understand the question.

Was written feedback on the rubric helpful?


0% 17% 33% 17%

Yes, I think it was very helpful Yes, I think it was somewhat helpful I don't feel either way No, I don't think it is that helpful

33%

No, it is not helpful at all

Figure 4.1. The rubric was modified to add space for written reflections from the teacher. Was it helpful to see the teachers thoughts and feedback written at the bottom of the rubric? The fourth question asked if it was helpful to see the written feedback on the bottom of the rubric (Figure 4.1.) 66% of the students indicated that it was helpful, 17% respondent was neutral and another 17% indicated that it was not helpful. The negative responses were further explained in the comments section with the statement, you mentioned everything through voice so the written reflection does not add any info. Even though this point is accurate, the idea behind the multimodal approach is to present the information through written and verbal channels in the hopes of increasing retention. While this is a valid point, the majority of feedback was positive so I will continue writing my thoughts because was beneficial to my overall quality of feedback. Rewriting of the rubric provided at least some clarification to the information to 50% of the respondents. All of the responses for the subsequent question, are there any other parts that need clarification, indicated that there was not a need for further clarification. These responses taken together suggested that the two neutral responses on the use of the rubric might be because the responders did not have any confusion with the rubric to begin with. It could also indicate that they did not

closely look at the changes that had been made to the rubric before responding to this survey so they had no basis to accurately answer the question. REFLECTION: This is the first time that I have received a neutral response when asking the students how they felt about video feedback. I have been expecting neutral responses to occurred earlier and I am surprised that they are only beginning now. There are a number of potential reasons why I did not receive all positive response, the first being that the newness may have worn off. The class has been using video based feedback since November and the students may finally be adapting to the format. Another possibility could have been based in my number of respondents whose opinions could have influenced the results. Not all of my students complete every project, and so I did not provide feedback for the five students who did not finish their work. It could also be that this neutral student did not complete previous assignments, and as been feeling this way all along. The final possibility is that the student could have received more criticism this time than in previous assignments, and they were unhappy when they completed the survey. I may have to test the idea of midpoint feedback again in a setting that takes longer to complete, so that the students who think this is a beneficial idea would have an opportunity to utilize this feedback. The current model of these assignments runs between a week and a week and a half, which does not give the students a great deal of time to work ahead. I can envision that having a midpoint critique could be a helpful way of guiding the students work, however, using the midpoint critique on a project based around three class periods does not appear to benefit the students. I may bring the midpoint critique back in a future assignment that covers more class days, to see if it is beneficial to longer projects. There were two responses that did not address question three. I would have, indicates that the student may not have been at that class, however, this is not proof that they had the work done. This statement could also indicate that they were not expecting a midpoint critique, and so they had not completed their work. One student responded that they did not understand the question. I cannot determine if they truly were confused or they just did not want to answer the question. Regardless, both of these responses were removed from the findings. I will continue placing written feedback at the bottom of my rubrics, not because of overwhelming support from the students, but rather it helps me to clarify my thoughts, which in turn, allows me to provide better feedback. In staying with the multimodal model, presenting written feedback is a good way to transfer information and increase the chances of the students retaining the information. The student responses were not against the written feedback, only the need for its existence. While they may not have seen the need for written feedback, it made a great difference in my thought process and in the overall quality of my feedback. Therefore since it is not detrimental to the students learning, and it has been helpful to me, I will continue providing written feedback at the bottom of the page.

Finally, rewriting of the survey questions was a good idea. While it did not benefit all students equally, it did help some students and it did not harm the learning of others. Creating an effective rubric is something that I have struggled with, and the action research process that I am undertaking has been the best way I have found to create a more effective tool. Rather than suggesting to the students the best for them to be evaluated, having them telling me what they find most helpful has improved my practice a great deal. I do not believe that I am finished modifying my rubric, and I believe that I will be removing the total score section to make the tool more of a guideline and less of a firm grade. Moving forward I will continue to modify my rubric and based the results I gathered from the in-class poll. I will also attempt a smaller group approach of partners to test how that affects their learning. Average length of recording 2:38.5 minutes.