A reflective approach is important when introducing technological innovations. Reflection enables us to draw on the past and present and direct ourselves into a better future (Hinett, 2002). This reflective report uses a framework based on the stages Driscoll’s model of reflection; What?; So what?; Now what? (Driscoll, 2007 cited by Dandrea, 2009). As this is a reflective report, parts of it will be written in the first person (University of Reading, 2012). Firstly, the ‘What?’ stage of the model involves the identification and description of the chosen innovation. Feedback has been identified as a principle factor underpinning successful learning and has been described as the most important dimension of the work of teachers in post-compulsory education (Race, 2005). Without feedback the student could be likened to someone learning to play chess blindfolded and wearing earmuffs (Knight and Yorke, 2003). There are many ways in which feedback can reach students and it is recognised that the more varied the ways in which feedback is delivered, the more likely we are to ensure that students receive at least some feedback in ways which suit their own personal approaches to learning (Race, 2005). In 2011 the National Student Survey scores for student satisfaction with feedback were the lowest for any aspect of learning and teaching both national and locally and locally at Keele University (National Student Survey, 2011). This report proposes that in relation to the questions in the NSS that relate to feedback being prompt and detailed, providing students with audio feedback could potentially be a means of improving students’ satisfaction. Audio feedback can be linked to social constructivist theory as it uses language to promote deep learning through the process of scaffolding (Vygotsky, 1978). Although there is a lack of published literature to support the use of audio feedback specifically for nursing students, there is a growing body of evidence emerging for the use of audio feedback in higher education (Nortcliffe & Middleton, 2007; Merry and Orsmond, 2008; Lunt & Curran, 2010; McGarvey & Haxton, 2011). From a student perspective the results of the studies demonstrated that the majority of students enjoyed receiving audio feedback (Merry and Orsmond, 2008; Lunt & Curran, 2010; McGarvey & Haxton, 2011) although some authors exercise some caution when reporting this due to the potential ‘halo effect’. A ‘halo effect’ can be said to occur where in contrast to generally poor standards of existing feedback there may be disproportionately high levels of student enthusiasm (Lunt & Curran, 2010). Merry and Orsmond (2008) cite a similar phenomenon as the ‘novelty effect’ and state that this could only really be judged by comparing their results with future studies as students are given more feedback in this format. The majority of students enjoyed the flexibility of audio feedback as it can be listened to anywhere which could be a particular advantage for international students (Lunt & Curran, 2010) and the majority of students found the feedback to be more personal and demonstrated that the tutor really cared about their work (Merry and Orsmond, 2008; Lunt & Curran, 2010). It seems like the most important finding from a student perspective was that feedback in audio format was easier to understand and provided more detail and richer feedback than written or typed feedback (Merry & Orsmond, 2008; McGarvey & Haxton, 2011). Whist audio feedback appears to be liked by the majority of students there could possibly be students with hearing impairments within groups which this method of feedback may not be suitable for (Lunt and Curran, 2010).

From a tutor perspective there was also some similarities in findings. Tutors reported that preparing audio feedback was quicker than preparing written feedback (Lunt & Curran, 2010; McGarvey & Haxton, 2011) apart from one tutor who reported that it had not actually saved any time but thought that it would do with more practice (Merry and Orsmond, 2008). Lunt and Curran (2010) state that the rule of thumb appears to be that one minute of audio is equal to six minutes of writing. It was reported that tutors can initially feel self-conscious but with experience this becomes less of an issue. Again, the most significant advantage of audio feedback from a tutor perspective was that it allows wider, richer and more direct vocabulary than formal written English permits (Lunt and Curran, 2010; McGarvey & Haxton, 2011). The second stage of the reflective model is concerned with ‘So what?’ This stage of the model prompts us to analyse and evaluate feelings and discuss effects of actions (Driscoll, 2007 cited in Dandrea, 2009). Audio feedback was delivered to 12 students on the BSc Children’s Nursing programme at Keele University. The students were required to develop a teaching plan for a health promotion session. The piece of work was short (1000 words) and therefore was considered to be an appropriate starting point to pilot audio feedback. It is well recognised that all nurses, in particularly children’s nurses need advanced communication skills as part of their toolkit of professional attributes (Glasper, Aylott & Battrick, 2010) and therefore it was anticipated that nursing students’ would be receptive to receiving audio feedback as it would hopefully provide them with a good practice example of effective communication. I was fortunate to have support from Keele University Project STAF (Technology Supporting Assessment and Feedback) whose project team had experience of supporting university colleagues in delivering audio feedback and as such they were a vital source of support. I recognised that the support of the student group was essential and therefore in addition to discussing the innovation with the group I developed an information sheet for students. I felt that this was important to allow students to opt out should they choose to. To my surprise I didn’t encounter any resistance to the innovation. The literature discussed was useful in providing me with a framework on which to base this innovation. Merry and Orsmond (2008) and Lunt and Curran (2010) provided some useful suggestions for academics who are new to providing audio feedback. I chose to use a combination of suggestions from these studies. Merry and Orsmond (2008) suggested the use of the software package ‘Audacity’ http://audacity.sourceforge.net/ Benefits of this package were that it was free, easy to install, user friendly and converted files to mp3 format easily. Despite some initial microphone problems with my laptop, I managed to record the files successfully. Although the studies reviewed did not explore the ideal length of audio, discussion with the authors of one of the studies (McGarvey & Haxton, 2011) revealed that they found 3-4 minutes of audio works well for short pieces of work, eg 1000 word long. I would agree with this as it took me approximately 3-4 minutes to provide detailed feedback on the work. Initially, as suggested by Lunt and Curran (2010) I did feel self-conscious when hearing the sound of my own voice however I soon got used to this. I found preparing feedback on the students’ work very time consuming but this was due to the fact that had to also provide them with typed feedback. I feel that if I had just provided audio feedback, then it would have been less time consuming than preparing typed feedback, again mirroring the

findings from the literature (Merry and Orsmond, 2008; Lunt & Curran, 2010; McGarvey & Haxton, 2011). Lunt and Curran (2010) suggested that the most efficient way of disseminating audio feedback is via the VLE, however given the small numbers of students I found it quick and easy to send the mp3 file as an attachment to their student email addresses. The final stage of Driscoll’s reflective model ‘Now What?’ guides us to apply, synthesise and consider implications and actions (Driscoll, 2007 cited in Dandrea, 2009). Evaluation is intrinsically linked to reflection and is a vital component of the educational process (Mohanna, Chambers & Wall, 2007). The evaluation of the audio feedback pilot involved asking the correct questions to measure if audio feedback had increased the level of engagement that students have with their feedback. An electronic evaluation had already been created by project STAF using ‘Survey Monkey’ (www.surveymonkey.com). The evaluation contained questions that required a response from the students on a likert scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree and some questions allowed students to enter free text answers. The link to the survey was sent out to all students in the same e-mail that the audio feedback was attached to. Responses to questions were very encouraging. All students strongly agreed or agreed that audio feedback had helped them to get more out of their feedback when compare to usual method of feedback (typed). In addition to this they all strongly agreed or agreed that the feedback felt more personal and that they would like to continue to receive feedback in this way. Qualitative comments made by students were as follows: ‘I felt that I could hear the tone in which things were said, so I could understand them more clearly.’ ‘Feedback was more personal. I found it easier to understand marker’s comments about which points of my assignment they were discussing and how to improve my work.’ ‘The feedback is more specific and detailed, for example some of my referencing was incorrect and on the audio it stated on which page therefore I can review my assignment. There was also a greater amount of feedback than usually given.’ ‘Verbal feedback helped me to understand points more effectively using everyday words.’ These positive comments made by students appear to mirror the findings of the published literature in relation to the feedback being richer and more personal to the students (Merry and Orsmond, 2008; Lunt & Curran, 2010; McGarvey & Haxton, 2011). One student stated that a disadvantage of audio feedback is that ‘It is difficult to insert it in to my professional portfolio as it is not in written format.’ With the introduction of electronic portfolio tools it is anticipated that this shouldn’t be a problem in the future as audio feedback files could be uploaded. The comments made as part of the formal evaluation coupled with informal comments that students have verbalised to me suggests that audio feedback has developed the students’ ability to use

feedback which according to Sadler (1989, cited in Merry & Orsmond, 2008) is pivotal if learning is to take place. I received an e-mail from a student in Tanzania who had managed listen to her feedback. The student hadn't had time to complete the evaluation but stated in the e mail that the feedback had been 'really meaningful to her'. This demonstrates that audio feedback in mp3 format has the capability to reach students in a variety of locations. The use of a model of reflection has been useful in guiding the writing of this report. Overall, this learning journey has been a positive experience for me as it has not only allowed me trial a technological innovation but it has also given me chance to reflect on my feedback practice in general. The fact that students’ had identified the feed forward element of my comments was very rewarding.

Reference List Audacity. [Online]. Available at http://audacity.sourceforge.net/ [accessed 23.3.12] Dandrea, J. (2009) Models (or frameworks) of reflection. [Online]. Available at http://libweb.surrey.ac.uk/library.skills.Critical%20Reflection%(nurses)/models/index.html [accessed 28.4.12] Glasper, A, Aylott, M & Battrick, C. (2010) Developing practical skills for nursing children and young people. London: Hodder. Hinett, K. (2002) Improving learning through reflection-part one. HE Academy. [online]. Available at http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/York/documents/resources/resourcedatabase/id485_improvin g_learning_part_one.pdf [accessed 28.4.12] Kline, D & Burstein, D. (2005) Blog! How the newest media revolution is changing politics, business and culture. New York: CDS Books. Knight, P & Yorke, M. (2003) Assessment, Learning and Employability. Maidenhead: SRHE/Open University Press. Lunt, T & Curran, J. (2010) ‘Are you listening please?’ The advantages of electronic feedback compared to written feedback. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. 35(7), 759-769. McGarvey, D J & Haxton, K J. (2011) Using audio feedback on assessments: tutor and student experiences. New Directions. 7, 5-9. Merry, S & Orsmond, P. (2008) Students’ attitudes to and usage of academic feedback provided by audio files. Bioscience Education Journal. 11-3. [Online]. Available at http://www.bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk/journal/vol11/beej-11-3.aspx [accessed 27.4.12]. Mohanna, K, Chambers, R & Wall, D. (2007) Your Teaching Style: A Practical Guide to Understanding, Developing & Improving. London: Radcliffe Publishing. National Student Survey. (2011) [Online]. Available at http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/year/2011/cl152011/ [accessed 27.4.12]. Nortcliffe, A & Middleton, A. (2007) Audio feedback for the ipod generation. International Conference on Engineering Education. Sept 3-7 2007. Price, B. (2010) Dissemination best practice through a web log. Nursing Standard. 24(29), 35-40. Project STAF, Keele University. [Online]. Available at http://projectstafkeeleuniversity.jiscinvolve.org/wp/about/ [accessed 25.4.12] Race, P. (2005) Making Learning Happen. London: Sage Publications. Survey Monkey. [Online]. Available at www.surveymonkey.com [accessed 2.5.12]