The Wicked Problem of Giving Feedback on Wicked Problems
2 likes470 views
This document discusses the challenges of providing feedback on "wicked problems" in authentic problem-solving assessments. It presents two case studies where students worked on real-world problems in groups. For the first case, linguistics students created a website, and feedback focused on content accuracy, presentation, and collaboration. The second case had students develop business ideas; feedback included skills audits, blog posts, and feedback from partners and peers during the pitching process. The document concludes that authentic assessments provide more opportunities for formative feedback to enhance learning compared to traditional exams.
The Wicked Problem of Giving Feedback on Wicked Problems
- 1. TheWickedProblem ofGivingFeedbackon WickedProblems. Anna Nibbs a.nibbs@sheffield.ac.uk | @nibbsy_a Dr Gary C Wood g.c.wood@sheffield.ac.uk | @GC_Wood Dr Ali Riley a.h.riley@sheffield.ac.uk | @alisheff
- 2. Authentic problem solving • Engages students in learning through applying their (developing) knowledge to ‘real-world’ problems • Characteristics: • No definitive formulation or solution • Solutions are not ’right/wrong’ but ‘effective/ineffective’ • No ‘stopping rule’ • No immediate test of a solution • Every wicked problem is essentially unique • Truly contextualised within academic discipline.
- 3. Authentic problem solving • Requires authentic assessment to ensure constructive alignment • Changes the nature of feedback: • Keep focus on academic discipline knowledge • Assess the work as an authentic solution • Ensure the output is accurate and workable, if it’s really going to be used.
- 4. Principles of Assessment • Assessment should be reliable and consistent • Information about assessment should be explicit, accessible and transparent • Assessment should be an integral part of programme design and should relate directly to programme aims and learning outcomes.
- 5. Tensions • Academics used to assessment in academic context, but difficulties arise if external clients are involved • Different advice and feedback • What should students value and ’believe’? • Unanticipated learning outcomes are sometimes more valuable than the set LOs – how do we give them credit? • Do we assess process or output? • Academic rigour or ability to communicate and show creativity?
- 7. The example • First year English Language & Linguistics students • Lack of appreciation of diversity of discipline • Taster sessions in different aspects of linguistics.
- 8. The assessment • Develop a website for A-Level students to help them learn about and appreciate the diversity of linguistics • Students worked in groups each focused on different sub-disciplines • Had to make connections between topics • Couldn’t be an essay with pictures!
- 10. The assessment Six areas considered in assessing submissions: 1. Awareness of audience 2. Content 3. Summary of research 4. Presentation/multimedia 5. Links and signposting 6. Working together and responding to feedback.
- 11. The feedback • Workshops as Project Meetings – facilitate connections and promote feedback between groups • Students met with A-Level teachers and students to test their ideas • Had to revise and review continuously • Two deadlines: • 1st – content and accuracy • 2nd – website effectiveness overall • Visible to tutors throughout development.
- 13. The example • 20-/15-credit interdisciplinary, multi-level elective module(one semester) • Student-led, using Lean/Business Model Generation approaches • Partnering with local community organisations and businesses.
- 14. The example • Project brief • Developed collaboratively between USE and partners (internal/external) • Focused on a specific social ‘theme’ • Aligned with one of the University’s research priorities • Groups to develop financially sustainable, socially-driven business ideas.
- 15. The example • Partners’ input into teaching/learning activities • Guest talks (week 1 lecture) • ‘Meet the Experts’ event (week 6) • Pitch presentations Q&A panel (week 10)
- 16. The assessment • Formative: • Skills audits (Weeks 1 and 13) • Eight weekly reflective blog posts (choice of topics) • Summative: • Group 30-second multimedia advert and 3-minute ‘elevator pitch’ presentation (20%) (Week 10) • Group business plan (50%) (Week 12) • Group assignment marks moderated by peer assessment (anonymous, submitted Week 13) • Individual reflection (30%) (Week 13) (including appraisal of skills audits)
- 17. The feedback • Tutor-led: • Feedback on two blog posts (Week 4 plus choice of one other) • Group tutorials (Weeks 4 and 11) • Formal written feedback on summative assignments (after Week 13; QuickMark templates to ensure consistency across markers) • Peer-/student-led: • “Practice” peer assessment (end of Week 4; outcomes shared confidentially with each student in Week 5) • Group peer critique of Business Model Canvas (Week 8) • Group peer critique of practice pitch (Week 9) • External partners: • ‘Meet the experts’ event (Week 6) • Written feedback on pitches (provided Week 11) • Customer discovery!
- 18. Value of Authenticity • Authentic assessment often creates greater visibility of the process of students’ work, which provides and enhances opportunities for feedback that can effectively become feed- forward, in a way that rarely occurs with traditional assessment. • If you want a graduate engineer, you don’t want a graduate who can do an exam in engineering: you want a graduate who can do engineering! • Increased student engagement and less focus on grades. • It’s a more inclusive form of assessment to engage diverse student groups.
- 19. TheWickedProblem ofGivingFeedbackon WickedProblems. Anna Nibbs a.nibbs@sheffield.ac.uk | @nibbsy_a Dr Gary C Wood g.c.wood@sheffield.ac.uk | @GC_Wood Dr Ali Riley a.h.riley@sheffield.ac.uk | @alisheff