Feedback flows multiple ways. Here, I’m focusing on feedback from students to teachers/lecturers. And I’m focusing on two types. Active feedback, where students give feedback on specific points, and passive feedback, where the transparency of twitter, and curation artefacts, allow you to glean.
This can be done in severak ways. You can setup a twitter poll, to collate answers from a particular question or poll during, or after class. You can ask students a particular question about the topic, lesson, resources or context.
The advantages are, it’s easy, instantaneous, and quick. But do be careful. As the feedback is both public (unless your students DM you) and linked to their iodentity, the takeup on this avenue may be quite low.
This is probably where twitter will be of greater help. If your studnmets twet aspects of their classes, or their project work, if they livetweet notes and curate them, if there is a backchannel during class, or you have a hashtag where students can access hep from you, other teachers, or other students, then you have a rich vein of material to mine for data about the topic, your students, and how things are going for them.
Diane Laurillard has a nice duagram, describing the feedback loop between stusdents and teachers, teachers and students, and students and students. For her, the feedback is both face to face, and online, depending on her blend of the class. And all fporms of feedback are useful.
Part of Laurillard’s feedback involves teachers having access to stuedents reflections. Their reflections on their own work. Their reflectioins on the work of othjers. Their reflections o their meetings with teachers, on peers comments on their ideas, projects and thoughts, their assessment of their pwn progress, and their assessment of the material, advice and assessments they get from their teachers.
The fact that digital formats allow teachers to access all of these reflections is an iommensely powerful tool. When I wnet to college, email accounts were things your university gave you if you had a valid research reason. Twitter and Facebook didnlt exist. Tutorials, lectures, and coffee table conversations after class were the extnt of the reflectve process.
Doigital reflections allow you to see the entire process. They let the lecturer sit down at the post seminar coffee table with everyone who has the cpnversation digitally. They let you see the note taking process unfold for your students. You get to see their concepts form as they take shapoe online.
You get to see what went well in class. What didn;t. What examples and teaching points helped form concepts, and what onews hindered. You get to see where people need more help, and where they need less. You get to give feedback on concpets as they are being formed. Thos is the esence, in some ways, of Laurillards Convcersational framweork. You get to access the conceptualisations of your students as they form, and that access allows you to tailor your next set of lectures, tutorials, or projects to the insights into their needs this has allowed you to gain. You can identify troublesome concepts, and feed that knowledge in to your lesson planning.
It’s a wa for your students to, consc=iously and unconsciously, provide you with the formative feedback that can help develop a more targetted, apt, and needs appropriate teaching practice.
Digital media can help make your studnets inner workings transparent to you in ways that were either stupoendously difficult, or impossible in conventional ways.
Twitter, and curation tools, can be a larg part of that process.