Formative Feedback in Computer Programming Learning and Assessment Environments

• In Event: Innovative Practices for Assessment in Computer-Based Learning Environments

Abstract

Developing effective technologically rich learning environments for students requires administering appropriate assessments and delivering suitable feedback. Although content and delivery of feedback has been investigated previously (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996), one issue that remains relatively unexplored is student preferences over the mode in which feedback is delivered following assessment activities; in particular, do students prefer feedback delivered by means of a computer or a human being and do these student preferences correlate with achieving a deeper level of understanding of the subject matter? Surprisingly, not much work has focused on learners’ affect with respect to feedback (Shute, 2008). One reason to investigate student preferences over the mode in which feedback is delivered rests with increasing the likelihood that students (a) experience productive emotional responses in relation to feedback, (b) acknowledge and accept the feedback given and (b) use it to modify their learning. Thus, the objective of the present research is to describe students’ views, preferences, and subsequent learning in association with two distinct modes of feedback delivery – error-focused elaborated feedback provided via a computer or human agent.
The Learning Errors and Formative Feedback (LEAFF) model (Leighton, Chu, & Seitz, 2013) guides the present correlational study, which focuses on student preferences over the mode in which feedback is delivered within a computer-programming learning and assessment environment. According to the LEAFF model, instructors engage in pedagogical behaviours in their classrooms (learning environments) that either explicitly or implicitly promote safety or risk for learners experimenting with new concepts, ideas, and procedures. Specifically, the model suggests that students who make mistakes in a learning and assessment environment they consider to be pedagogically safe will be more emotionally receptive towards the feedback they receive following an assessment activity and more willing to use the feedback in a meaningful way to modify their learning.
In the present study, the LEAFF model was applied in a fourth-year computer-programming course. When students practice their programming skills in a computer-programming classroom, feedback can be provided through – (a) computers, (b) peers; and (c) teaching assistants. Feedback from peers and teaching assistants is expected to be more elaborate at outlining potential impasses and possible solutions while the computer-based feedback is expected to be more restrictive. However, during the trial-and-error or prototyping stage of computer programming, it is expected that students are more likely to prefer feedback delivered via the computer instead of from peers and teaching assistants because the computer reflects a non-evaluative, impassive vehicle for conveying feedback about learning errors. According to the LEAFF model, delivering feedback that reduces the evaluative or judgmental component for learners is more likely to be perceived as trustworthy and used to meaningfully modify learning (Leighton et al., 2013; Kluger & DeNisi, 1996).
By understanding the mode of feedback students prefer when learning computer programming or other abstract and/or logical content domains, instructors can tailor their assessments and instructional feedback to help students learn from their errors in meaningful ways without the stigma that is normally associated with mistakes.

Authors

• Man-Wai Chu, University of Alberta

• Jacqueline P. Leighton, University of Alberta