How effective is our feedback? : feeding forward and self-regulation

Giving and receiving feedback is based on a number of stages, procedures, and factors that could determine whether the feedback is effective or not. The key stakeholders of feedback are the tutor and the student, who could work together towards building bridges, such as holding dialogues, giving and receiving constructive criticism. Ideally, feedback is not a one-way, top-down approach, where the tutor ‘commands’ the discourse, whilst the student is merely a passive recipient. In whatever form it is delivered, the feedback that is passed on to the student should be more than ‘correcting’ the work; it could involve a communicative approach whereby the tutor passes on salient information that the student may utilise to sharpen his or her work. Hence, the possession of feedback is not solely relegated to the tutor. Instead, there is a transference where the student claims ownership of the feedback, and thus becomes responsible for its implementation. The responsibility to do so should not be perceived by the student as though he or she were doing a favour to their tutor, but an action which is undertaken for their own personal benefit and gain. Rather than feeding ‘back’, it is transformed to feeding ‘forward’, as the tutor provides suggestions that help shape future writing or assigned work. This paper, which is the result of a doctoral study conducted by the author, aims to present some benefits and challenges of feedback. Whilst exploring various areas of feedback, it suggests that, by revisiting practices, perceptions, and conceptualisations, there can be a shift towards feed forward and eventually offer the possibility of harnessing students’ autonomy and self-regulation.peer-reviewe

Reading and Writing about Unseen Literary Texts at a Post-16 School in Malta: Practices, Perceptions, Feedback, and Challenges

This study explores the practices of preparing students for reading and writing about unseen literary texts at a post-16 school in Malta. The types of feedback students receive on their essays about unseen literary texts are also examined. This study discusses whether students apply their teachers’ feedback to future writing. Data collection occurred through semi-structured interviews with students and teachers, and classroom observation. The study adopts an interpretivist paradigm, and data were analyzed according to a grounded theory methodology. The reported findings are presented according to four elements of grounded theory: Processes, Actions, Perceptions, and Challenges. The study’s main contribution is to present interconnected research on three categories: reading, writing, and feedback. Primarily, how reading and writing about unseen texts take place, how they are perceived, and the challenges students face. This leads to a consideration of teacher feedback on writing, how it is provided and perceived, feedback application and challenges in the latter. Students’ and teachers’ perceptions in shaping practices emerged as a recurring issue in all three categories. The perceptions also highlight a number of challenges pertaining to writing essays and using teacher feedback. The study concludes that the differing perceptions held by teachers might be influencing the students’ attitudes towards unseen literary texts, leading to a fear of literary criticism and writing. Hence, holding more dialogues between teachers and students on the nature of reading and writing about unseen texts is suggested. Another conclusion heightens the need for more work on feedback provision and application. Timing and the language of feedback emerged as pressing issues over which there was doubt and uncertainty. These conclusions prompt further research and training on the multifaceted nature of reading and writing about unseen texts, and feedback application

Global economic burden of unmet surgical need for appendicitis

Background There is a substantial gap in provision of adequate surgical care in many low- and middle-income countries. This study aimed to identify the economic burden of unmet surgical need for the common condition of appendicitis. Methods Data on the incidence of appendicitis from 170 countries and two different approaches were used to estimate numbers of patients who do not receive surgery: as a fixed proportion of the total unmet surgical need per country (approach 1); and based on country income status (approach 2). Indirect costs with current levels of access and local quality, and those if quality were at the standards of high-income countries, were estimated. A human capital approach was applied, focusing on the economic burden resulting from premature death and absenteeism. Results Excess mortality was 4185 per 100 000 cases of appendicitis using approach 1 and 3448 per 100 000 using approach 2. The economic burden of continuing current levels of access and local quality was US $92 492 million using approach 1 and$73 141 million using approach 2. The economic burden of not providing surgical care to the standards of high-income countries was $95 004 million using approach 1 and$75 666 million using approach 2. The largest share of these costs resulted from premature death (97.7 per cent) and lack of access (97.0 per cent) in contrast to lack of quality. Conclusion For a comparatively non-complex emergency condition such as appendicitis, increasing access to care should be prioritized. Although improving quality of care should not be neglected, increasing provision of care at current standards could reduce societal costs substantially