Engaging student voices via digital feedback platforms: new directions, dilemmas, and affordances
Abstract
Higher education institutions have adopted multiple tools to engage students’ voices on key areas, including teaching, learning opportunities, assessment, and feedback. Concerns about timeliness have meant that the effectiveness of such methods has been questioned. This has prompted the adoption of alternative approaches that can capture student feedback at earlier points in the degree programme. This paper explores how the adoption of the digital feedback platform Unitu, has impacted students’ experiences and their interactions with the academic staff. This was accomplished through a mixed method approach using surveys, semi-structured interviews, and focus groups with students and staff. This study indicates that Unitu can provide many affordances for staff and institutional leaders in their scope to surface students’ experiences and provide timely responses to students’ feedback. The dilemmas that educators must address if they are to continue promoting effective learning experiences through digital feedback platforms are also discussed in this paper.
Downloads
References
Adams, W. C. (2015). Conducting semi-structured interviews. Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation, 492–505. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119171386.ch19
Ahmed, V. and Opoku, A. (2021) ‘Technology supported learning and pedagogy in times of crisis: The case of covid-19 pandemic’, Education and Information Technologies, 27(1), pp. 365–405. doi:10.1007/s10639-021-10706-w.
Ashwin, P. (2021) ‘Developing effective national policy instruments to promote teaching excellence: Evidence from the English case’, Policy Reviews in Higher Education, 6(1), pp. 27–45. doi:10.1080/23322969.2021.1924847.
Benton, S. L., & Cashin, W. E. (2013). Student ratings of instruction in college and University Courses. Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, 279–326. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8005-6_7
Bottrell, D. and Manathunga, C. (2019): Resisting Neoliberalism in Higher Education Volume I: Seeing through the cracks. (2019). Higher Education, 79(1), 179–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00384-6
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Chan, Z. C. Y., Stanley, D. J., Meadus, R. J., & Chien, W. T. (2017). A qualitative study on feedback provided by students in Nurse Education. Nurse Education Today, 55, 128–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2017.05.016
Charmaz, K. (2009). Grounded Theory. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods. Sage Knowledge. https://sk.sagepub.com/reference/socialscience
Creswell , J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches | Online Resources. https://edge.sagepub.com/creswellrd5e
Christopoulos, A. and Sprangers, P. (2021) ‘Integration of educational technology during the COVID-19 pandemic: An analysis of teacher and student receptions’, Cogent Education, 8(1). doi:10.1080/2331186x.2021.1964690.
Darwin, S. (2021). The changing topography of student evaluation in Higher Education: Mapping the contemporary terrain. Higher Education Research & Development, 40(2), 220–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1740183
Feldman, K. A. (2007). Identifying exemplary teachers and teaching: Evidence from student ratings1. The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: An Evidence-Based Perspective, 93–143. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-5742-3_5
Fielding , M. (2013). Transformative approaches to student voice: Theoretical underpinnings, recalcitrant realities. British Educational Research Journal, 30(2), 295–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/0141192042000195236
Freeman, R. (2016). Is student voice necessarily empowering? Problematising student voice as a form of Higher Education Governance. Higher Education Research & Development, 35(4), 859–862. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1172764
Gravett, K., & Winstone, N. E. (2020). Making connections: Authenticity and alienation within students’ relationships in Higher Education. Higher Education Research & Development, 41(2), 360–374. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1842335
Gravett, K., Kinchin, I. M., & Winstone, N. E. (2020). ‘more than customers’: Conceptions of students as partners held by students, staff, and institutional leaders. Studies in Higher Education, 45(12), 2574–2587. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1623769
Gravett, K., Yakovchuk, N., & Kinchin, I. M. (2020). Enhancing student-centred teaching in higher education: The landscape of student-staff research partnerships. Palgrave Macmillan.
Harvey, L. (2003). Student feedback [1]. Quality in Higher Education, 9(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538320308164
Harvey, L. (2011). The nexus of feedback and improvement. Student Feedback, 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-1-84334-573-2.50001-x
Hayes, A., O’Neill, E., Nemetz, F., & Oliver, L. (2020). Building an enhanced student experience. Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Computing Education Practice 2020. https://doi.org/10.1145/3372356.3372363
Kidd, P. S., & Parshall, M. B. (2000). Getting the focus and the group: Enhancing analytical rigor in Focus Group Research. Qualitative Health Research, 10(3), 293–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973200129118453
Lygo-Baker, S., Kinchin, I. M., & Winstone, N. E. (2019). Engaging student voices in higher education diverse perspectives and expectations in partnership. Springer International Publishing.
Mayhew, E. (2019). Hearing everyone in the feedback loop: Using the new discussion platform, Unitu, to enhance the staff and student dialogue. European Political Science, 18(4), 714–728. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41304-019-00211-7
Medina, M. S., Smith, W. T., Kolluru, S., Sheaffer, E. A., & DiVall, M. (2019). A review of strategies for designing, administering, and using student ratings of instruction. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 83(5), 7177. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe7177
Pitt, E., & Winstone, N. (2020). Towards technology enhanced dialogic feedback. The Enabling Power of Assessment, 79–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41956-1_7
Sabri, D. (2011). What’s wrong with ‘the student experience’? Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 32(5), 657–667. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2011.620750
Scanlon, L., Rowling, L., & Weber, Z. (2007). ‘you don’t have like an identity … you are just lost in a crowd’: Forming a student identity in the first-year transition to University. Journal of Youth Studies, 10(2), 223–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676260600983684
Su, F. (2022) ‘The datafication of Higher Education: Examining universities’ conceptions and articulations of “teaching quality”’, Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, 28(1), pp. 38–45. doi:10.1080/13603108.2022.2064933.
Warburton, S., Foreword, in Lygo-Baker, S., Kinchin, I. M., & Winstone, N. E. (2019). Engaging student voices in higher education diverse perspectives and expectations in partnership. Springer International Publishing.
Seale, J. (2010). Doing student voice work in Higher Education: An exploration of the value of participatory methods. British Educational Research Journal, 36(6), 995–1015. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920903342038
Unitu - Home. Unitu. (2023). https://unitu.co.uk/
West, D. S., Monroe, C. M., Turner-McGrievy, G., Sundstrom, B., Larsen, C., Magradey, K., Wilcox, S., & Brandt, H. M. (2016). A technology-mediated behavioral weight gain prevention intervention for college students: Controlled, quasi-experimental study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 18(6). https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.5474
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:a. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
b. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
c. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
