The objective of the course is for students to learn to theorise and discuss as well as reflect on the influence of national screening programmes at society, group and individual levels. The course provides the students with an insight into the perspectives, theories and methods that are relevant as regards screening – including the design of a screening program, the measuring and estimation of the effect, ethical issues, health economy issues, communication of information and screening results, and the organisation of the screening programme. The aim of the course is for the students to be able to identify and describe the possibility of conducting a new study that can contribute new knowledge in the field of screening.
A need was found to create greater compliance between the semesters and the final bachelor’s project by focusing more explicitly on academic writing. The idea was to enhance the students’ learning about academic writing and their reflection of both subject-related and academic writing, using peer feedback. A wish was expressed to support the students’ self-regulated learning through criteria-based rubrics prepared by the teacher and students together.
At the beginning of the course, the students were taught the reasons behind the principles of peer feedback (e.g. feed up, feed back and feed forward) and the purpose of using rubrics. They were instructed to primarily work with formative feedback, and received instruction in academic writing.
During the course of the semester, the students were asked to contribute a text-in-progress to a textbook in public health science. The overall structure of a book chapter was developed together with the students. Using existing textbooks as inspiration, they discussed what was the best structure, and a group of students were given the responsibility of reaching a conclusion on behalf of the entire class. Each chapter included three elements which were repeated in all chapters in the book.
The feedback consisted of three parts: oral peer feedback, written peer feedback, and written feedback from the teacher.
Rubrics for facilitating peer feedback were prepared. The teachers made a draft and received the students’ feedback on and proposals for this. Reflecting on and discussing the criteria in a rubric support the student’s understanding of the subject and of what quality is (Andrade, 2000 and 2005). A group of students were given the responsibility of reaching a conclusion on behalf of the entire class.
Peer feedback was organised in two-week rounds. Each study group consisted of four students.
In the first round, the students gave each other feedback on text-in-progress about the same element within a specified book chapter. Each student was given the opportunity to prepare their feedback on the basis of rubrics. The students accessed each other’s texts-in-progress in Blackboard (NB: Brightspace is now used) and uploaded the texts two days before the peer feedback. The feedback recipient wrote feed up comments at the top of their text-in-progress to ensure that the individual student received the feedback they needed. The feedback recipient was given the opportunity of feed forward in connection with the oral peer feedback session. Subsequently, the students were given time to correct their texts based on the oral feedback.
In the second round, the individual study group had to compile the text on which they gave each other oral feedback in the first round, focusing on content and form. The study groups then gave each other written feedback, focusing on academic writing, and the students were asked to give reasons for their feedback. One study group gave written feedback to another study group that had written about a different element in the same specified book chapter. The study groups were subsequently given time to correct their texts on the basis of the written feedback received, and the texts were then submitted to the teacher.
The teacher gave the students written feedback on content and form and regarding vocabulary and level of formality.
In addition to feedback, the students’ learning was enhanced through jigsaw exercises and a review of essential concepts within the topic of screening; the students corrected each other’s written assignment papers anonymously based on a correction list.
At the beginning of the course, the students were taught the reasons behind the principles of peer feedback (e.g. feed up, feed back and feed forward) and the purpose of using rubrics. They were instructed to primarily work with formative feedback, and received instruction in academic writing.
During the course of the semester, the students were asked to contribute a text-in-progress to a textbook in public health science. The overall structure of a book chapter was developed together with the students. Using existing textbooks as inspiration, they discussed what was the best structure, and a group of students were given the responsibility of reaching a conclusion on behalf of the entire class. Each chapter included three elements which were repeated in all chapters in the book.
The feedback consisted of three parts: oral peer feedback, written peer feedback, and written feedback from the teacher.
Rubrics for facilitating peer feedback were prepared. The teachers made a draft and received the students’ feedback on and proposals for this. Reflecting on and discussing the criteria in a rubric support the student’s understanding of the subject and of what quality is (Andrade, 2000 and 2005). A group of students were given the responsibility of reaching a conclusion on behalf of the entire class.
Peer feedback was organised in two-week rounds. Each study group consisted of four students.
In the first round, the students gave each other feedback on text-in-progress about the same element within a specified book chapter. Each student was given the opportunity to prepare their feedback on the basis of rubrics. The students accessed each other’s texts-in-progress in Blackboard (NB: Brightspace is now used) and uploaded the texts two days before the peer feedback. The feedback recipient wrote feed up comments at the top of their text-in-progress to ensure that the individual student received the feedback they needed. The feedback recipient was given the opportunity of feed forward in connection with the oral peer feedback session. Subsequently, the students were given time to correct their texts based on the oral feedback.
In the second round, the individual study group had to compile the text on which they gave each other oral feedback in the first round, focusing on content and form. The study groups then gave each other written feedback, focusing on academic writing, and the students were asked to give reasons for their feedback. One study group gave written feedback to another study group that had written about a different element in the same specified book chapter. The study groups were subsequently given time to correct their texts on the basis of the written feedback received, and the texts were then submitted to the teacher.
The teacher gave the students written feedback on content and form and regarding vocabulary and level of formality.
In addition to feedback, the students’ learning was enhanced through jigsaw exercises and a review of essential concepts within the topic of screening; the students corrected each other’s written assignment papers anonymously based on a correction list.
The teacher found that the students took more responsibility for their own learning. In the evaluation, the students commented, for instance, that in many cases, the literature on the subject was articles that explained the concept briefly and superficially. This meant that they themselves had to search for literature that explained the concepts and increased their understanding.
The teachers found that the students in groups where all four members had prepared for and turned up for the peer feedback benefited the most from the activities.
The students were happy to receive feedback in three different ways. However, a number of students said that the written feedback was better than the oral feedback; they said, for instance, that giving feedback in three different ways was elaborate.
The teachers found that the peer feedback helped promote the writing process, and that it caused the students to pay attention to writing academically.
The students themselves said that they overcame their reluctance to show unfinished texts to fellow students.
The concept of peer feedback and the use of rubrics were new to the students. This caused frustration in a number of students, as they found it difficult initially to understand the purpose of using rubrics and were uncertain about the setup with peer feedback. The teachers currently aligned expectations with the students and adjusted the course during class sessions; for instance, written feedback from the teacher was planned about a month after the semester had started.
Peer feedback promotes the students’ learning as this encourages them to enter into dialogue with the academic content. This learning becomes clearer the more the students practice giving and receiving feedback, and during the course of the semester they acquire a shared “language” as regards the overall topic of screening.
Clear communication of the purpose of the course, a structured setup in Blackboard (NB: Brightspace is now used), and current alignment of expectations between teacher and students contribute to increased alignment between the learning objectives and testing.
Faculty: Health
Degree programme: Public Health Science
Course: Masterclass in Public Health
Study level: BA, fifth semester
Size of class: 40 students
Form of instruction: Classroom instruction
Extent: Activity
Primary activity type: Exercise and practice
Applied technology: Blackboard (NB: Brightspace is now used):
How the case is carried out: Classroom teaching using learning technology
Example of rubric used in teaching (in Danish):
