Use of Feed-forward Mechanisms in a Novel Research-led Module

Figures & data

Table 1 Feedback grid accompanying written comments. The grid is accompanied by a statement explaining the marking as follows: ‘The table below should give you an idea of the areas in which more work is needed and those that are done well in this report. Each statement below is given a score of 0 to 3 where 3 = excellent and 0 = not done at all. Note that not all of these may be relevant to all pieces of work, and the mark you receive for the work is not based entirely on these scores – the idea is to give you an indication of what is done well and where the work needs improvement.’

Score	Area
	Concise, snappy title
	Just enough background to understand the topic
	Clear statement of scientific question/hypothesis tackled
	Any specialised terms clearly and concisely explained
	Focal study introduced early in the piece
	Focal study introduced by a statement of the key findings/conclusion
	Novelty of study highlighted clearly
	Details of study findings following statement of findings
	Methodological detail limited to essential points
	Secondary findings discussed
	Mechanisms behind the findings discussed
	Article contains a concluding paragraph
	Conclusion ties back to scientific question
	Suggestions for wider implications and/or further research
	Careful use of additional referencing
	Study referenced properly in text and in the reference list
	Article written using scientific voice, avoiding chattiness/colloquialisms

Table 2 Numbers of students enrolled on the module and first, randomly selected and chosen reports assessed, for the three cohorts.

Year	2010/2011	2011/2012	2012/2013
Enrolled	23	33	31^2
First	23	33	29
Randomly selected	37^1	66	60
Chosen	46	66	60

¹The strategy for selection of reports during the module differed slightly in 2010/2011 and was refined following student feedback.

²In 2012/2013 one student failed to submit the first report, and one student’s marks have been excluded from analysis as the student did not follow the procedure for selecting reports. The reflection submitted by the student stated two reports had been chosen at random for summative assessment, rather than through self-assessment.

Figure 1 Mean (± 1 standard error) mark (%) awarded to students first, randomly selected and chosen reports. Stars and dashed lines indicate where significant differences lie.

Figure 2 Mean (± 1 standard error) difference in the average marks awarded for the two chosen reports and the average marks awarded for the first and two randomly selected reports, for students selecting 0, 1 and 2 reports that had previously been given a mark. Stars and dashed lines indicate where significant differences lie.