Want to make creations as awesome as this one?

Transcript

Overview of digital feedback methods

Start

the book

the project

the author

Click here

for user
guide

Digital fEEDBACK MAP

Jun.-Prof. Dr. Jennifer Schluer

+Info

tABLE

OF
CONTENTS

Overview of digital feedback methods

1. General Overview

2. Overview by Different Filters

2.3. Feedback Timing

2.4. Feedback Criteria

2.1. Feedback Direction

2.2. Feedback Mode

Home

In the 1. General Overview section, you can see all 15 digital feedback methods. In the 2. Overview by Different Filters section, we have categorized these 15 digital feedback methods according to different approaches.

The feedback filters here do not encompass all feedback categorizations, nor are the digital feedback methods in each classification absolute.

We encourage the breaking down of boundaries and the use of different feedback methods for a variety of situations.

As the project progresses, we will continue to update and add different categories of digital feedback methods.

ABOUT

THE
AUTHOR

Dr. Jennifer Schluer is an Assistant Professor for TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages)/ Advanced Academic English at Chemnitz University of Technology, Germany. As an applied linguist and teacher educator, she specializes in digital teaching and digital feedback processes as well as language awareness and culture learning. She is particularly interested in video-based methods and multimodal analyses to derive empirically validated didactic designs. Her most recent book “Digital Feedback Methods” was published by Narr Francke Attempto in 2022.

Further information:



ABOUT

THE
BOOK

Schluer, J. (2022). Digital Feedback Methods. Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto.

The crucial role of feedback in the learning process is undisputed. But how can feedback be exchanged in the digital age? This book equips teachers and learners with a research-based overview of digital feedback methods. This includes, for instance, feedback in text editors, cloud documents, chats, forums, wikis, surveys, mails as well as multimodal feedback in video conferences and recorded audio, video and screencast feedback. The book discusses the advantages and limitations of each digital feedback method and offers suggestions for their practical application in the classroom. They can be utilized in online teaching as well as to enrich on-site teaching. The book also provides ideas for combining different feedback methods synergistically and closes with recommendations for developing dynamic digital feedback literacies among teachers and students.

Digitalization of

teacher education


Using digital media for

individualized learner support


Encouraging feedback dialogues

in the digital age


Knowledge, reflection,
application

ABOUT

THE
PROJECT

Since 2018, Jun.-Prof. Dr. Jennifer Schluer has conducted research on digital feedback.
Her initial project focused on the use of screencast feedback in teacher education.
Afterwards, she has looked at a wider range of feedback methods as part of the DigiFeed project. For this, she has been granted a Digital Fellowship by the Saxon State Ministry for Higher Education, Research and the Arts (Sächsisches Staatsministerium für Wissenschaft, Kultur und Tourismus, SMWK).
DigiFeed stands for “Digital Feedback” and deals with various methods and tools for providing constructive comments on a learner’s work in progress. The overarching aim is to derive recommendations for teachers and students regarding the didactically motivated and meaningful use of digital feedback.
In winter term 2021/22, the focus was set on the utilization of digital feedback methods at different stages of the research and academic writing process.
From winter term 2022/23 onwards, further contexts of use will be explored that will make this map grow further. This follow-up project is funded by the Stiftung Innovationen in der Hochschullehre .

Click for list of project publications

Schluer, J. (2022). Digital Feedback Methods. Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto.

Schluer, J. (in print 2022). Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of their digital feedback literacy development before and during the pandemic. International Journal of TESOL Studies. Special Issue: “Teaching and teacher development in technology-enhanced language learning” (Guest Editors: Lindsay Miller & Junjie Gavin Wu).

Schluer, J. (2022). Individuelle Lernunterstützung durch multimodales Feedback: Potenziale digitaler Medien in heterogenen Gruppen. In N. Harsch, M. Jungwirth, M. Stein, Y. Noltensmeier, & N. Willenberg (Eds.). Diversität Digital Denken – The Wider View. Eine Tagung des Zentrums für Lehrerbildung der Westfälischen Wilhelms-Universität Münster vom 08. bis 10.09.2021 (pp. 237–246). Schriften zur allgemeinen Hochschuldidaktik: Vol. 8. Münster: WTM-Verlag. ISBN 978-3-95987-177-8. https://www.wtm-verlag.de/wider-view-2021/

Schluer, J. (2021). Multimodales Feedback lernförderlich gestalten: Möglichkeiten und Herausforderungen für (angehende) Fremdsprachenlehrkräfte. Zeitschrift für Fremdsprachenforschung (ZFF), 32(2), 157–180.

Schluer, J. (2021). Digitales Feedback mittels Screencasts in der Lehrkräfteausbildung: Rezeptions- und Produktionsperspektiven. In M. Eisenmann & J. Steinbock (Eds.). Sprache, Kulturen, Identitäten: Umbrüche durch Digitalisierung. Dokumentation zum 28. Kongress für Fremdsprachendidaktik der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Fremdsprachenforschung Würzburg 2019 (pp. 161–175). Beiträge zur Fremdsprachenforschung: Vol. 16. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren. ISBN: 978-3-834-02089-5.

Schluer, J. (2020). Individual learner support in digital ELT courses: Insights from teacher education. Special Issue: ELT in the Time of the Coronavirus 2020 (Part 2). International Journal of TESOL Studies, 2(3), 41–63. doi:10.46451/ijts.2020.09.17. https://www.tesolunion.org/journal/details/info/aNjYu5ZDQz/Individual-Learner-Support-in-Digital-ELT-Courses:-Insights-from-Teacher-Education

Schluer, J. (2020). Feedbackvideos erstellen lernen: Praxisbericht zur Förderung digitaler Feedback-Kompetenzen im Lehramtsstudium. Themenspecial "Digitale Medien im Lehramtsstudium" [Special Issue: Digital media in teacher education]. Tübingen: Leibniz-Institut für Wissensmedien. https://www.e-teaching.org/praxis/erfahrungsberichte/feedbackvideos-erstellen-lernen-praxisbericht-zur-foerderung-digitaler-feedback-kompetenzen-im-lehramtsstudium

Asynchronous

Synchronous

Synchronous/ Asynchronous

Mainly One Mode

Several Modes

Audio Feedback

Survey Feedback

Blog Feedback

Text Editor Feedback

Screencast Feedback

Video Feedback

E-Mail Feedback

Cloud Editor Feedback

Wiki Feedback

Forum Feedback

Chat Feedback

Automated Writing Evaluation (AWE)

Live Poll Feedback (ARS)

Video Conference Feedback

1. General Overview

Overview of digital feedback methods

E-Portfolio Feedback

2.1 Feedback Direction

Classification of digital feedback according to feedback direction

+Info

Self Feedback

Instructor to Student

Peer Feedback

Student to Instructor

Feedback direction refers to the direction in which the feedback is provided. In often cases, the direction is either from a teacher to a student (teacher feedback) or from a peer to a peer (peer feedback among learners or teachers). However, it can also come from another person, such as a parent, friend or tutor, or even from a digital tool (such as a software program or learning app) or another medium (e.g. a textbook with an answer key) or from oneself (self-feedback) (cf. Biber et al., 2011, pp. 9, 13; Carless & Boud, 2018, p. 1316; Hattie, 2009, p. 174; Voerman et al., 2012, p. 1108).


References:

Biber, D., Nekrasova, T., & Horn, B. (2011). The effectiveness of feedback for L1-English and L2-writing development: A meta-analysis. TOEFL iBT Research Report No. RR-11-05. Arizona: Northern Arizona University.

Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315–1325. doi:10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York: Routledge.

Voerman, L., Meijer, P. C., Korthagen, F. A.J., & Simons, R. J. (2012). Types and frequencies of feedback interventions in classroom interaction in secondary education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(8), 1107–1115. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.06.006

2.1 Feedback Direction

Classification of digital feedback according to feedback direction

Self Feedback

Automated Writing Evaluation (AWE)

E-Portfolio

Feedback

2.1 Feedback Direction

Classification of digital feedback according to feedback direction

Instructor to Student

Text Editor

Feedback

E-Mail Feedback

Screencast

Feedback

Video Feedback

Video Conference

Feedback

Audio Feedback

2.1 Feedback Direction

Classification of digital feedback according to feedback direction

Peer Feedback

Forum Feedback

Chat Feedback

Blog Feedback

Wiki Feedback

Cloud Editor Feedback

2.1 Feedback Direction

Classification of digital feedback according to feedback direction

Student to Instructor

Survey Feedback

Live Poll Feedback

(ARS)

Classification of digital feedback according to feedback direction

+Info

Mainly One Mode

Mainly Two Modes

Mainly Three Modes

2.2 Feedback Mode

Feedback modes refers different semiotic resources that feedback methods contains to communicate meaning, such as writing, speech, images, colors, sounds or gestures (Kress, 2004, pp. 22, 35–36). Feedback can be presented in one mode only (unimodal feedback) or in several modes (multimodal feedback) (Narciss, 2008, p. 139).


References:

Kress, G. (2004). Literacy in the new media age (Reprinted). Literacies. London: Routledge.

Narciss, S. (2008). Feedback strategies for interactive learning tasks. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, & J. van Merrienboer (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 125–143). Mahwah, NY: Erlbaum.

Mainly One Mode

AUDIO

TEXT

2.2 Feedback Mode

Classification of digital feedback according to feedback direction

Live Poll Feedback (ARS)

Cloud Editor

Feedback

Survey Feedback

Audio Feedback

Automated Writing Evaluation (AWE)

Email Feedback

Blog Feedback

Forum Feedback

Wiki Feedback

Text Editor
Feedback

Classification of digital feedback according to feedback direction

TEXT

AUDIO

Mainly Two Modes

AUDIO

VIDEO

Video Feedback

Screencast Feedback

2.2 Feedback Mode

Classification of digital feedback according to feedback direction

TEXT

AUDIO

VIDEO

Video Conference Feedback

E-Portfolio

Feedback

Mainly Three Modes

2.2 Feedback Mode

Chat Feedback

2.3 Feedback Timing

Classification of digital feedback according to synchronous/ asynchronous

+Info

Asynchronous

Synchronous/ Asynchronous

Synchronous

Feedback timing refers to synchronous and/ or asynchronous ways in which digital feedbacks can be exchanged (Ahmed et al., 2021, p. 293).


References:

Ahmed, M. M. H., McGahan, P. S., Indurkhya, B., Kaneko, K., & Nakagawa, M. (2021). Effects of synchronized and asynchronized e-feedback interactions on academic writing, achievement motivation and critical thinking. Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal, 13(3), 290–315. doi:10.34105/j.kmel.2021.13.016



2.3 Feedback Timing

Classification of digital feedback according to synchronous/ asynchronous

+Info

Synchronous

Synchronous/ Asynchronous

Asynchronous

Feedback timing refers to synchronous and/ or asynchronous ways in which digital feedbacks can be exchanged (Ahmed et al., 2021, p. 293).


References:

Ahmed, M. M. H., McGahan, P. S., Indurkhya, B., Kaneko, K., & Nakagawa, M. (2021). Effects of synchronized and asynchronized e-feedback interactions on academic writing, achievement motivation and critical thinking. Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal, 13(3), 290–315. doi:10.34105/j.kmel.2021.13.016



2.3 Feedback Timing

Classification of digital feedback according to synchronous/ asynchronous

+Info

Synchronous

Synchronous/ Asynchronous

Asynchronous

Feedback timing refers to synchronous and/ or asynchronous ways in which digital feedbacks can be exchanged (Ahmed et al., 2021, p. 293).


References:

Ahmed, M. M. H., McGahan, P. S., Indurkhya, B., Kaneko, K., & Nakagawa, M. (2021). Effects of synchronized and asynchronized e-feedback interactions on academic writing, achievement motivation and critical thinking. Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal, 13(3), 290–315. doi:10.34105/j.kmel.2021.13.016



Classification of digital feedback according to synchronous/ asynchronous

Asynchronous

Feedback Methods

Text Editor Feedback

Audio

Feedback

Survey Feedback

Video

Feedback

Blog

Feedback

E-mail

Feedback

Screencast Feedback

E-Portfolio

Feedback

2.3 Feedback Timing

2.3 Feedback Timing

Classification of digital feedback according to synchronous/ asynchronous

Synchronous/ Asynchronous

Feedback Methods

Cloud Editor Feedback

Wiki Feedback

Forum Feedback

Chat Feedback

2.3 Feedback Timing

Classification of digital feedback according to synchronous/ asynchronous

Automated Writing Evaluation (AWE)

Live Poll Feedback (ARS)

Video Conference Feedback

Synchronous

Feedback Methods

2.3 Feedback Timing

4. Feedback Criteria

+Info

Classification of digital feedback according to local/ global

Local Feedback

Global Feedback

Local/Global Feedback

Feedback criteria refer to the distinction between local and/or global issues reflected by the feedback (Nelson & Schunn, 2009, p. 380). Local issues, or “lower-order” issues, comprise coherence, argumentation, organization and idea development, etc., whereas global issues, or “higher-order” issues, include mechanical aspects of spelling and punctuation as well as grammar and word choice (e.g. Chang, 2016, p. 82; Min, 2005, p. 298).


References:

Chang, C. Y.-h. (2016). Two decades of research in L2 peer review. Journal of Writing Research, 8(1), 81–117.

Min, H.-T. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System, 33(2), 293–308. doi:10.1016/j.system.2004.11.003

Nelson, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2009). The nature of feedback: How different types of peer feedback affect writing performance. Instructional Science, 37(4), 375–401. doi:10.1007/s11251-008-9053-x




Classification of digital feedback according to local/ global

Local Feedback

Feedback Methods which are suitable for local erros

4. Feedback Criteria

Wiki Feedback

Live Poll

Feedback (ARS)

Automated Writing Evaluation (AWE)

Classification of digital feedback according to local/ global

Local/ Global Feedback

Feedback Methods which are suitable for local and global erros

4. Feedback Criteria

Screencast Feedback

Cloud EditorFeedback

Chat Feedback

Video Conference Feedback

Text Editor Feedback

E- Portfolio Feedback

Classification of digital feedback according to local/ global

Global Feedback

Feedback Methods which are suitable for global erros

4. Feedback Criteria

Video Feedback

Audio Feedback

E-Mail Feedback

Forum Feedback

Blog Feedback

Survey Feedback

Automated Writing Evaluation

(AWE)

Navigation:

Feedback Direction:

Self Feedback

Grammarly

Writing Mentor

E-rater

MI Write

Mostly used platforms:

Disadvantages

&
Combinations

Advantages

Contexts

of
Use

List of
References

Local Feedback

Feedback Mode: Mainly One

Synchronous Feedback

Definition

AWE feedback relies on Artificial Intelligence and Natural Language Processing techniques to provide automated feedback and correction to its users. It is primarily used for self-correction and as a supplement to teacher feedback.

(Barrot, 2021; Cotos, 2018)

Ariyanto, M. S. A., Mukminatien, N., & Tresnadewi, S. (2021). College students’ perceptions of an automated writing evaluation as a supplementary feedback tool in a writing class. Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan (JIP), 27(1), 41–51. doi:10.17977/um048v27i1p41-51

Bai, L., & Hu, G. (2017). In the face of fallible AWE feedback: How do students respond? Educational Psychology, 37(1), 67–81. doi:10.1080/01443410.2016.1223275

Barrot, J. S. (2021). Using automated written corrective feedback in the writing classrooms: Effects on L2 writing accuracy. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1–24. doi:10.1080/09588221.2021.1936071

Barrot, J. S. (2020). Integrating technology into ESL/EFL writing through Grammarly. RELC Journal, 17(2), 1–5. doi:10.1177/0033688220966632

Chen, C.-F. E., & Cheng, W.-Y. E. (2008). Beyond the design of automated writing evaluation: Pedagogical practices and perceived learning effectiveness in EFL writing classes. Language Learning & Technology, 12(2), 94–112.

Cheng, G. (2017). The impact of online automated feedback on students’ reflective journal writing in an EFL course. The Internet and Higher Education, 34(7), 18–27. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.04.002

Cotos, E. (2018). Automated writing evaluation. In J. I. Liontas & M. DelliCarpini (Eds.), The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching (pp. 1–7). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. doi:10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0391

Cotos, E. (2018). Automated writing evaluation. In J. I. Liontas & M. DelliCarpini (Eds.), The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching (pp. 1–7). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. doi:10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0391

Dembsey, J. M. (2017). Closing the Grammarly® gaps: A study of claims and feedback from an online grammar program. The Writing Center Journal, 36(1), 63‐96, 98‐100.

Gao, J. (2021). Exploring the feedback quality of an automated writing evaluation system Pigai. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 16(11), 322–330. doi:10.3991/ijet.v16i11.19657

Jingxin, G., & Razali, A. B. (2020). Tapping the potential of Pigai automated writing evaluation (AWE) program to give feedback on EFL writing. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(12B), 8334–8343. doi:10.13189/ujer.2020.082638

John, P., & Woll, N. (2020). Using grammar checkers in an ESL context: An investigation of automatic corrective feedback. CALICO Journal, 37(2), 169–192. doi:10.1558/cj.36523

Li, Z. (2021). Teachers in automated writing evaluation (AWE) system-supported ESL writing classes: Perception, implementation, and influence. System, 99(2), 1–14. doi:10.1016/j.system.2021.102505

Lv, X. (2018). A study on the application of automatic scoring and feedback system in college English writing. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 13(3), 188–196. doi:10.3991/ijet.v13i03.8386

Miranty, D., & Widiati, U. (2021). An automated writing evaluation (AWE) in higher education. Pegem Journal of Education and Instruction, 11(4), 126–137. doi:10.47750/pegegog.11.04.12

Palermo, C., & Wilson, J. (2020). Implementing automated writing evaluation in different instructional contexts: A mixed-methods study. Journal of Writing Research, 12(1), 63–108. doi:10.17239/jowr-2020.12.01.04

Wang, J., & Bai, L. (2021). Unveiling the scoring validity of two Chinese automated writing evaluation systems: A quantitative study. International Journal of English Linguistics, 11(2), 68–84. doi:10.5539/ijel.v11n2p68

Zhang, S. (2021). Review of automated writing evaluation systems. Journal of China Computer-Assisted Language Learning, 1(1), 170–176. doi:10.1515/jccall-2021-2007

Automated Writing Evaluation (AWE)

Advantages

For Students

Time saving, as students can apply the system themselves to check their papers instead of having to wait for instructor feedback (Ariyanto et al., 2021, p. 45)

Can be a “confidence builder” (Ariyanto et al., 2021, p. 45) and can lead to increased autonomy and motivation (Bai & Hu, 2017, p. 69; Chen & Cheng, 2008, p. 108; Zhang, 2021, p. 175).

Feedback is easily accessible, independent of time and place restrictions (Dembsey, 2017, p. 89)

It can give immediate feedback about a wide range of error categories (Barrot, 2021, p. 3)

With plagiarism detectors, students can also monitor their source use (cf. Barrot, 2020, p. 2)

Relatively reliable and useful for learners (e.g. Palermo & Wilson, 2020, pp. 95–96), especially regarding mechanics and other lower-level aspects

For Teachers

AWE can contributes to a reduction of teachers’ workload when marking students’ papers (e.g. Palermo & Wilson, 2020, p. 94; Wilson & Czik, 2016, quoted in Ariyanto et al., 2021, p. 43)

It can serve as a time and cost relief for large-scale assessments (Zhang, 2021, p. 174)

AWE appears to be more neutral since it is unaffected by “the mood or current state of mind of the teacher” (Barrot, 2021, p. 3)

It can give teachers more time for form-focused feedback (Miranty & Widiati, 2021, p. 127)

Many of them offer a plagiarism detection feature (e.g. PaperRater, Grammarly).

Automated Writing Evaluation (AWE)

Disadvantages

For Students

For Teachers

The huge amount of feedback provided by AWE might make students feel overwhelmed (Barrot, 2021, p. 15), discouraged (Cheng, 2017; Cotos, 2018, p. 6) and confused about how to prioritize and proceed with the revision (Cotos, 2018, p. 6)

AWE feedback can be highly inaccurate (Bai & Hu, 2017, p. 73): not all errors are recognized (Bai & Hu, 2017, p. 68), others are overcorrected (Barrot, 2021, p. 3)

Higher-order aspects and “sophisticated syntactic errors” (Wang & Bai, 2021, p. 778) might be specifically challenging for the programs.

AWE is not very useful for improvements of fluency, text structure (Lv, 2018, p. 194), argumentation and creative expression

AWE is non-interactive (Gao, 2021) and impersonal (Dembsey, 2017, p. 89; cf. Cotos, 2018, p. 6). Consequently, it may not be as facilitative in terms of uptake and understanding as teacher feedback (Li, 2021, p. 9)

Feedback is often provided in English (Jingxin & Razali, 2020, p. 8337); it might be less suitable for lower-proficiency students (Ariyanto et al., 2021, p. 47)

AWE software can be expensive (John & Woll, 2020, p. 172) or merely offers some basic functions in the free version, which are of limited use for learners and teachers

Lack of praise and positive feedback can lead to demotivation (Cheng, 2017; Dembsey, 2017, p. 89)

Students’ queries about unclear AWE feedback can lead to a higher workload (Chen & Cheng, 2008, p. 101)

Suggested Combination:

Text Editor Feedback

Screencast Feedback

Suggested Combination:

Blog Feedback

Wiki Feedback

Forum Feedback

Email Feedback

Suggested Combination:

Chat Feedback

Video Conference Feedback

Automated Writing Evaluation (AWE)

Contexts of Use

Assignment Types

Sample Tasks

Learning Objectives

Learner Groups

Learning Environment

Subjects/ Disciplines

  • Mainly concerned with written assignments (Cotos, 2018, p. 2)
  • The scope of assignments also be widened to other file types in which text elements are found, such as in PowerPoint presentations or chat messages

  • Many subjects, but these AWE systems had been originally developed for writers in English-speaking countries (Jingxin & Razali, 2020, p. 8335)
  • Foreign language writing instruction (cf. Jingxin & Razali, 2020, p. 8335), mostly for EFL students, but for the learning of other languages, such as the Spanish Writing Mentor

  • Hybrid Class

  • Online Class

Navigation:

Feedback Direction:

Self Feedback

Mostly used platforms:

Disadvantages

Advantages

&
Combinations

Contexts

of
Use

List of
References

Local/ Global Feedback

Feedback Mode: Mainly Three

Asynchronous Feedback

Definition

Electronic portfolios are personalized, web-based collections of course work or other activities that document learners' progress and achievements. They encourage (self-)reflection and the exchange of ideas. E-portfolio feedback is suitable for self-feedback as well as formative assessment by the instructor and peers.

(Alawdat, 2013, p. 340; Farrell, 2020, p.9)

E-Portfolio Feedback

Mahara

Sakai

Adobe Portfolio

Portfolium

Weebly

Google Sites

Alawdat, M. (2013). Using e-portfolios and ESL learners. US-China Education Review A, 3(5), 339–351.

Chionidou-Moskofoglou, M., Doukakis, S., & Lappa, A. (2005). The use of e-portfolios in teaching and assessment. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Teaching (pp. 224–232).

Ciesielkiewicz, M. (2019). The use of e-portfolios in higher education: From the students’ perspective. Issues in Educational Research, 29(3), 649–667.

Farrell, O. (2020). From portafoglio to ePortfolio: The evolution of portfolio in higher education. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 19(1), 1–14. doi:10.5334/jime.574

Kiffer, S., Bertrand, É., Eneau, J., Gilliot, J.-M., & Lameul, G. (2021). Enhancing learners’ autonomy with e-portfolios and open learner models: A literature review. Education Thinking, 1(1), 1–9.

Lu, H. (2021). Electronic portfolios in higher education: A review of the literature. European Journal of Education and Pedagogy, 2(3), 96–101. doi:10.24018/ejedu.2021.2.3.119

Newby, D., Allan, R., Fenner, A.-B., Jones, B., Komorowska, H., & Soghikyan, K. (2007). European portfolio for student teachers of languages (EPOSTL): A reflection tool for language teacher education. Languages for social cohesion: Language education in a multilingual and multicultural Europe. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publ.

Pegrum, M., & Oakley, G. (2017). The changing landscape of e-portfolios: Reflections on 5 Years of Implementing E-Portfolios in pre-service teacher education. In T. Chaudhuri & B. Cabau (Eds.), E-portfolios in higher education (pp. 21–34). Singapore: Springer.

Sharifi, M., Soleimani, H., & Jafarigohar, M. (2017). E-portfolio evaluation and vocabulary learning: Moving from pedagogy to andragogy. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(6), 1441–1450. doi:10.1111/bjet.12479

E-Portfolio feedback

Advantages

For Students

Help develop multimodal skills and digital literacies (Pegrum & Oakley, 2017, p. 28) because during their compilation learners may draw on various modalities and media

Processes of selecting, organizing, and reflecting on their own work help build students’ metacognitive thinking (Ciesielkiewicz, 2019, p. 653; Lu, 2021, p. 169).

Encourages self-reflection and self-assessment of students’ accomplishments and areas for improvement (Sharifi et al., 2016, pp. 7-8). This can foster their self-directed learning skills (Kiffer et al., 2021, pp. 4-5) and facilitate their active involvement in the learning process, their critical thinking and self-regulation (Ciesielkiewicz, 2019, p. 650)

Collaboration with others (e.g. while creating e-portfolios or during peer-review processes) can have social and affective benefits. Insights into each other’s work and peer-feedback process are valuable for confidence-building about their own abilities and for their further development (Lu, 2021a, pp. 170–174)

For Teachers

By employing e-portfolios, (pre-service) teachers can broaden their repertoire of assessment strategies (Alawdat, 2013, p. 347)

E-portfolios give the instructor (or assessor) an insight into students’ progress over time (Farrell, 2020, p. 9) while learners can also gain “a more holistic sense of their learning journeys” (Martin, 2013, as cited in Pegrum & Oakley, 2017, p. 22)

Teachers can likewise use e-portfolios as a tool for their professional self-reflection (Newby et al., 2007, p. 5)

E-portfolios are easily accessible, and feedback can be exchanged instantaneously (Chionidou et al., 2005, p. 230). The opportunity to incorporate various hyper- and multimedia materials also allows for easy access of external resources (Alawdat, 2013, p. 345)

Suggested Combination:

Text Editor Feedback

Audio Feedback

Video Feedback

Screencst Feedback

E-portfolios do not only foster self-assessment skills, but also serve as a foundation for follow-up feedback dialogues.

E-portfolio Feedback

Disadvantages

For Students

Students might be concerned about the confidentiality and privacy of their e-portfolios (Pegrum & Oakley, 2017, p. 31; Valdez, 2010, as cited in Alawdat, 2013, p. 349) due to the tool’s dual role for personal reflection and educational assessment.

For Teachers

Compiling e-portfolios demands appropriate digital literacy and is time consuming (Alawdat, 2013, p. 349). It may lead to learners’ frustration during the creation process, especially if they lack digital skills (Alawdat, 2013, p. 342; Lu, 2021, p. 174).

Actual learning gain from e-portfolios is still unclear (Alawdat, 2013, p. 341).

Assessing e-portfolios might be time-consuming for teachers.

Contexts of Use

E-portfolio Feedback

Assignment Types

Sample Tasks

Learning Objectives

Learner Groups

Learning Environment

Subjects/ Disciplines

  • All types of assignemnts

  • Many disciplines, including vocational education (cf. the review by Lu, 2021a, p. 97)
  • Assist the transition from school or higher education to the job market
  • "Document continuous professional development activities for those already in the workplace" (as reviewed by Farrell, 2020, p. 10)

  • Face-to-face Class

  • Hybrid Class

  • Online Class

  • Show a person’s development over time (Farrell, 2020, p. 9)
  • May be utilized to showcase one’s own competencies (Farrell, 2020, p. 9)
  • Reflective and thus rather personal, can be frequently shared with others for some kind of assessment purpose

  • Language learners and prospective language teachers
  • Student self feedback
  • External feedback by teachers, employers or peers

Language learners:
The European Language Portfolio (ELP)

Language teachers:
The European Portfolio for Student Teachers of Languages (EPOSTL)

Screencast Feedback

Navigation:

Feedback Direction:

Instructor to Student

Mostly used platforms:

Local/ Global Feedback

Feedback Mode: Mainly Two

Asynchronous Feedback

Loom

List of
References

Screencastify

Interactive VideoSuite

Opencast

Camtasia

Techsmith Capture

Disadvantages

&
Combinations

Advantages


Contexts

of
Use

Definition

Screencast feedback is an audiovisual feedback method in which assessors record their screen while commenting on an electronically submitted task, e.g. a text draft. It is particularly suitable for longer written and visual work.

(Schluer, 2020a; 2020b, p. 44)

Quick Time (iOS)

iMovie (iOS)

Ali, A. D. (2016). Effectiveness of using screencast feedback on EFL students’ writing and perception. English Language Teaching, 9(8), 106–121. doi:10.5539/elt.v9n8p106

Anson, C. M., Dannels, D. P., Laboy, J. I., & Carneiro, L. (2016). Students’ perceptions of oral screencast responses to their writing: Exploring digitally mediated identities. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 30(3), 378–411. doi:10.1177/1050651916636424

Bakla, A. (2017). An overview of screencast feedback in EFL writing: Fad or the future? Conference Proceedings of the International Foreign Language Teaching and Teaching Turkish as a Foreign Language (27-28 April, 2017), Bursa, Turkey (International Foreign Language Teaching and Teaching Turkish as a Foreign Language). Bursa, Turkey, pp. 319–331. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322804886_An_Overview_of_Screencast_Feedback_in_EFL_Writing_Fad_or_the_Future

Cavaleri, M., Di Biase, B., & Kawaguchi, S. (2013). The effect of video commentary feedback on the development of academic literacy. Learning conference, Rhodes. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289642533_Academic_literacy_development_Does_video_commentary_feedback_lead_to_greater_engagement_and_response_than_conventional_written_feedback

Chronister, M. A. (2019). The effects of media-enhanced feedback on the writing processes of students who self-identify as having ADHD: A qualitative case study. Thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in English (Composition) at the Department of English, California State University, Sacramento.

Cunningham, K. J. (2019). Student perceptions and use of technology-mediated text and screencast feedback in ESL writing. Computers and Composition, 52(8), 222–241. doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2019.02.003

Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2016). Supporting second language writing using multimodal feedback. Foreign Language Annals, 49(1), 58–74. doi:10.1111/flan.12183

Fang, B. (2019). Factors influencing faculty use of screencasting for feedback. Thesis submitted to the College of Graduate and Professional Studies of Abilene Christian University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Education in Organizational Leadership. https://digitalcommons.acu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1172&context=etd

Ghosn-Chelala, M., & Al-Chibani, W. (2018). Screencasting: Supportive feedback for EFL remedial writing students. International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 35(3), 146–159. doi:10.1108/IJILT-08-2017-0075

Grigoryan, A. (2017). Audiovisual commentary as a way to reduce transactional distance and increase teaching presence in online writing instruction: Student perceptions and preferences. Journal of Response to Writing, 3(1), 83–128.

Henderson, M. & Phillips, M. (2014). Technology enhanced feedback on assessment. Paper presented at the Australian Computers in Education Conference 2014, Adelaide, SA. http://acec2014.acce.edu.au/session/technology-enhanced-feedback-assessment

Mahoney, P., Macfarlane, S., & Ajjawi, R. (2019). A qualitative synthesis of video feedback in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 24(2), 157–179. doi:10.1080/13562517.2018.1471457

Mann, S. (2015). Using screen capture software to improve the value of feedback on academic assignments in teacher education. In T. S. C. Farrell (Ed.). International perspectives on English language teacher education. Innovations from the field (pp. 160–180). International Perspectives on English Language Teaching. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.

McCartan, S., & Short, A. (2020). Screencasting: A tool to enhance workplace feedback practices and improve employee learning and performance? SocArXiv, 1–38. doi:10.31235/osf.io/an4kg

McLaughlin, P., Kerr, W., & Howie, K. (2007). Fuller, richer feedback, more easily delivered, using tablet PCs. In F. Khandia (Ed.), 11th CAA International Computer Assisted Assessment Conference. Proceedings of the Conference on 10th and 11th July 2007 at Loughborough University (pp. 329–342). Loughborough: Loughborough University. https://hdl.handle.net/2134/4572

Özkul, S., & Ortaçtepe, D. (2017). The use of video feedback in teaching process-approach EFL writing. TESOL Journal, 8(4), 862–877. doi:10.1002/tesj.362

Schluer, J. (2020a). Feedbackvideos erstellen: Eine kurze Einführung (Screencast Feedback). Abgerufen am 13.08.2021 von https://youtu.be/q0YAnwebakE

Schluer, J. (2020b). Individual learner support in digital ELT courses: Insights from teacher education. Special Issue: ELT in the Time of the Coronavirus 2020 (Part 2). International Journal of TESOL Studies, 2(3), 41–63. doi:10.46451/ijts.2020.09.17

Schluer, J. (2020c). Feedbackvideos erstellen lernen: Praxisbericht zur Förderung digitaler Feedback-Kompetenzen im Lehramtsstudium. Themenspecial “Digitale Medien im Lehramtsstudium” [Special Issue: Digital media in teacher education.]. https://www.e-teaching.org/praxis/erfahrungsberichte/feedbackvideos-erstellen-lernen-praxisbericht-zur-foerderung-digitaler-feedback-kompetenzen-im-lehramtsstudium

Séror, J. (2012). Show me! Enhanced feedback through screencasting technology. TESL Canada Journal/ Revue TESL du Canada, 30(1), 104–116.

Silva, M. L. (2017). Commenting with Camtasia: A descriptive study of the affordances and constraints of peer-to-peer screencast feedback. In S. Plane, C. Bazerman, F. Rondelli, C. Donahue, A. N. Applebee, C. Boré, P. Carlino, M. M. Larruy, P. Rogers, & D. Russell (Eds.). Research on writing. Multiple perspectives (pp. 325–346). International Exchanges on the Study of Writing. Fort Collins, Colorado: The WAC Clearinghouse.

Soden, B. (2016). Combining screencast and written feedback to improve the assignment writing of TESOL taught master’s students. The European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL, 5(1), 213–236.

Stannard, R. (2007). Using screen capture software in student feedback. The English Subject Centre Archive. http://english.heacademy.ac.uk/2016/01/16/using-screen-capture-software-in-student-feedback/

Stannard, R. (2019). A review of screen capture technology feedback research. Studia Universitatis Babeș-Bolyai Philologia, 64(2), 61–72. doi:10.24193/subbphilo.2019.2.05

Thompson, R., & Lee, M. J. (2012). Talking with students through screencasting: Experimentations with video feedback to improve student learning. The Journal of Interactive Technology and Pedagogy, 1. https://jitp.commons.gc.cuny.edu/talking-with-students-through-screencasting-experimentations-with-video-feedback-to-improve-student-learning/

van der Zijden, J., Scheerens, J., & Wijsman, L. (2021). Experiences and understanding of screencast feedback on written reports in the Bachelor Pharmacy. Transformative Dialogues: Teaching and Learning Journal, 14(1), 46–67.

Vincelette, E. J., & Bostic, T. (2013). Show and tell: Student and instructor perceptions of screencast assessment. Assessing Writing, 18(4), 257–277. doi:10.1016/j.asw.2013.08.001

West, J., & Turner, W. (2016). Enhancing the assessment experience: Improving student perceptions, engagement and understanding using online video feedback. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 53(4), 400–410. doi:10.1080/14703297.2014.1003954

Zhang, Y. (2018). Analysis of using multimodal feedback in writing instruction from EFL learners’ perspective. English Language and Literature Studies, 8(4), 21–29. doi:10.5539/ells.v8n4p21

sCREENCAST fEEDBACK

Advantages

For Students

Multimodal: the commenting process is audible and visible and thus accommodates different learner preferences (Ali, 2016, p. 117; Grigoryan, 2017; Schluer, 2020c, p. 3)

Traceability, increased transparency and clarity of feedback (Ali, 2016, p. 117; Cunningham, 2019; Schluer, 2020c, p. 3)

For Teachers

Spoken feedback allows for more information (Ali, 2016, p. 108) and more in depth explanations (Cavaleri et al., 2013; Özkul & Ortactepe, 2017; Schluer, 2020b, p. 44)

Strengthen the rapport between instructors and learners (Ali, 2016, p. 109; Anson et al., 2016, pp. 392, 397; West & Turner, 2016) without bring too much affective stress (Séror, 2012, p. 110).

More personalized, makes the learners feel that the teachers have “a genuine interest in their work” and progress (McCartan & Short, 2020, p. 22)

The oral comments convey emotional color, praise and encouragement as well as a depth and subtlety that cannot be transported by written feedback alone (cf. Séror, 2012, p. 111; Silva, 2017, p. 334).

Interactive (hyperlinks to websites, quizzes, reflective questions) (Schluer, 2021b, p. 160)

Convenient, as it is independent of time and space (e.g. McCartan & Short, 2020; Séror, 2012, p. 110;).

Gain additional language input (Vincelette & Bostic, 2013, p. 267), e.g. pronunciation and listening skills

Screencast fEEDBACK

Disadvantages

For Students

For Teachers

As a one-way interaction (e.g. Mahoney et al., 2019, p. 166; Stannard, 2019, pp. 67–68; Thompson & Lee, 2012), students were unable to immediately reply to it and ask questions (cf. Bakla, 2017, p. 328; Mann, 2015, p. 171; Özkul & Ortaçtepe, 2017, p. 873).

The “multiple modalities may overwhelm” some students (Fang, 2019, p. 36; cf. Henderson & Phillips, 2015, p. 63) because they require them to listen, think and write at the same time (Ali, 2016, pp. 108, 115; Elola & Oskoz, 2016, p. 69).

Technical problems, such as bad audio quality (e.g. Ali, 2016, pp. 110, 116, 118), storage space (Anson, 2015, p. 381; Fang, 2019, pp. 88–89) and and long download times of video files (e.g. Ali, 2016; Bakla, 2017, p. 329)

L2 learners may find it hard to follow the contents if the feedback provider talks too fast (Soden, 2016, pp. 224, 230; Stannard, 2007; Zhang, 2018, p. 27).

Due to unfamiliarity with the method, both assessors (van der Zijden et al., 2021, p. 60; Vincelette & Bostic, 2013, pp. 270, 273) and learners (Ali, 2016, pp. 109, 118; Bakla, 2017, p. 329)may feel an initial anxiety.

It is still unclear whether SCFB is a time saver as compared to other feedback methods (Bakla, 2017, p. 327; Fang, 2019, pp. 118, 147; Ghosn-Chelala & Al-Chibani, 2018, p. 150).

Students and lecturers might have different feedback preferences (McLaughlin et al., 2007, p. 338); reluctance to try new methods (Mann, 2015, p. 175; Özkul & Ortaçtepe, 2017, p. 874)

Suggested Combination:

Text Editor Feedback

Suggested Combination:

Cloud Editor Feedback

Video Conference Feedback

Contexts of Use

Screencast fEEDBACK

Assignment Types

Sample Tasks

Learning Objectives

Learner Groups

Learning Environment

Subjects/ Disciplines

  • Anything that can be displayed on a screen, such as electronic texts, presentations, simulations or websites (e.g. Borup et al., 2015, p. 179; Delaney, 2013, p. 299; Perkoski, 2017, pp. 45, 47, 51–52)

  • Most commonly in language learning contexts, notably for improving students’ writing skills
  • Teacher education and teacher training (e.g. Borup et al., 2015; Schluer, 2020b; 2021a; 2021d)
  • Many further disciplines, including social and natural sciences, medicine and nursing, mathematics and engineering


  • Hybrid Class

  • Online Class

  • Primarily beneficial for formative assessment, i.e. in-process support (e.g. Kerr, Dudau, Deeley, Kominis, & Song, 2016)
  • Summative assessments can also be done via SCFB if institutional regulations allow it (e.g. MacKenzie, 2021; McCarthy, 2015; 2020).

  • Mainly used by higher education staff to provide feedback to students
  • peer-to-peer SCFB (Schluer, 2021a) or learner-to-instructor SCFB (McDowell, 2020a; 2020b; 2020c)

Audio Feedback

List of
References

Navigation:

Feedback Direction:

Instructor to Student

Mostly used platforms:

Global Feedback

Feedback Mode: Mainly One

Asynchronous Feedback

Disadvantages

&
Combinations

Advantages

&
Combinations

Contexts

of
Use

Definition

Teachers record their voice (verbal feedback) using an (internal or external) microphone and then share the electronic audio file with the learners. It is appropriate for longer, reflective assessments of written work.

(Bond, 2009; Chan, 2020; Renzella & Cain, 2020)

Audio comments in MS Word, GoogleDoc or Evernote

Voice memo apps (recording)

Audacity, YOCLE or Vocaroo (recording and distribution)


Bond, S. (2009). Audio feedback. Centre for Learning Technology, London School of Economics and Political Science. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/30693

Cann, A. J. (2014). Engaging students with audio feedback. Bioscience Education, 22(1), 31–41. doi:10.11120/beej.2014.00027

Cavanaugh, A. J., & Song, L. (2014). Audio feedback versus written feedback: Instructors’ and students’ perspectives. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(1), 122–138.

Chan, C. K. Y. (2020). How to provide high-quality audio feedback? [Brochure]. Hong Kong: The University of Hong Kong.

Heimbürger, A. (2018). Using recorded audio feedback in cross-cultural e-education environments to enhance assessment practices in a higher education. Advances in Applied Sociology, 8(2), 106–124. doi:10.4236/aasoci.2018.82007

Hennessy, C., & Forrester, G. (2014). Developing a framework for effective audio feedback: A case study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(7), 777–789. doi:10.1080/02602938.2013.870530

Lunt, T., & Curran, J. (2010). ‘Are you listening please?’: The advantages of electronic audio feedback compared to written feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(7), 759–769. doi:10.1080/02602930902977772

Macgregor, G., Spiers, A., & Taylor, C. (2011). Exploratory evaluation of audio email technology in formative assessment feedback. Research in Learning Technology, 19(1), 39–59. doi:10.3402/rlt.v19i1.17119

Merry, S., & Orsmond, P. (2008). Students’ attitudes to and usage of academic feedback provided via audio files. Bioscience Education, 11(1), 1–11. doi:10.3108/beej.11.3

Olesova, L. A., Weasenforth, D., Richardson, J. C., & Meloni, C. (2011). Using asynchronous instructional audio feedback in online environments: A mixed methods study. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7(1), 30–42.

Pölert, H. (2020). Audiofeedback mit Sprachaufnahmen und Qwiqr - individuelle Rückmeldungen geben. Unterrichten Digital. Retrieved 17.09.2021 from https://unterrichten.digital/2020/05/05/audiofeedback-qwiqr/.

Renzella, J., & Cain, A. (2020). Enriching programming student feedback with audio comments. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering Education and Training (pp. 173–183). Seoul, South Korea: ACM. doi:10.1145/3377814.3381712

Rotheram, B. (2007). Using an MP3 recorder to give feedback on student assignments. Educational Developments, 8(2), 7–10.

Sipple, S. (2007). Ideas in practice: Developmental writers’ attitudes toward audio and written feedback. Journal of Developmental Education, 30(3), 22‐24, 26, 28, 30‐31.

AUDIO fEEDBACK

Advantages

For Students

Vocal emphasis can clarify the meaning of certain comments, and the pace of speech can be varied to draw the learner's attention to complicated concepts (Bond, 2009, p. 2)

Learners’ confidence can be fostered because audio feedback often leaves a more positive overall impression (Cavanaugh & Song, 2014, p. 126)

For Teachers

More personal, providing more constructive feedback for improvement than simply evaluating the task (Hennessy & Forrester, 2014); enables and encourages detailed feedback (Pölert, 2020)

Less writing or typing can alleviate physical problems such as RSI syndrome (overuse syndrome) (Bond, 2009)

Timesaving: one minute of audio recording is equivalent to six minutes of written feedback (Lunt & Curran, 2010)

Audio feedback is often more elaborate than traditional written feedback (Bond, 2009, Merry & Orsmond, 2008), and spoken explanations result in less misinterpretation (Sipple, 2007)

Clearer, more detailed, more personal, more understandable, and allows less room for ambiguity (Bond, 2009; Merry & Orsmond, 2008)

The audio files can be listened to repeatedly and accessed on the go as well as at home (Cann, 2014)

Very well suited for auditory learners; benefits dyslexic learners and learners with visual impairments (Bond, 2009)

Signals teacher’s interest and commitment (Rotheram, 2007)

Suggested Combination:

Text Editor Feedback

A direct integration is possible by inserting voice comments into a document that also contains written feedback.

Audio fEEDBACK

Disadvantages

For Students

Not suitable for visual learners (Olesova et al., 2011)

For Teachers

Editing of audio files requires specific software and technical expertise (Bond, 2009, p. 3; Cann, 2014)

Often less emphasis on grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors (Cavanaugh & Song, 2014)

Feedback is separated from the work being assessed; no direct reference (unlike, for instance, written comments in the margin) (Bond, 2009)

The effectiveness of audio feedback is not higher than that of written feedback (Macgregor et al., 2011)

Initially, the recording and sharing of individual audio files is more (time) consuming than written feedback (Merry & Orsmond, 2008)

Learners cannot skim the feedback and search for keywords; they must listen to the whole audio file (Cann, 2014)

Audio files may be too large to send via e-mail, and, thus, an online server is required (Hennessey & Forrester, 2014)

Suggested Combination:

Text Editor Feedback

In this combination, written feedback can be handed out separately, e.g. in the form of a completed assessment rubric or any other written summary. The brief written remarks (for instance as bullet points) can then serve as a guideline for (producing and) processing the more detailed audio comments (Heimbürger, 2018, p. 114).

To solve this, the teacher (or even the students) might use speech-to-text software to obtain the transcripts (cf. Bond, 2009, p. 2; Rotheram, 2009, p. 23)

Suggested Combination:

Text Editor Feedback

To enhance this, it is suggested to combine audio feedback with follow-up exchanges

Suggested Combination:

Video Conference Feedback

Chat Feedback

Email Feedback

Contexts of Use

Audio fEEDBACK

Assignment Types

Sample Tasks

Learning Objectives

Learner Groups

Learning Environment

Subjects/ Disciplines

  • Mainly used to provide feedback for written tasks, such as essays (Cann, 2014) and seminar papers (Carruthers et al., 2014)
  • Group presentations (Carruthers et al., 2014)
  • Pronunciation teaching (Yoon & Lee, 2009)

Many disciplines, such as
  • sociology (Bond, 2009)
  • biology (Merry & Orsmond, 2008)
  • nursing (Gould & Day, 2013)
  • business (Chew, 2014),
  • programming (Renzella & Cain, 2020)
  • engineering (Heimbürger, 2018)
  • geography (Ekinsmyth, 2010)
  • English (EFL and ESL) (Olesova et al., 2011) and other language courses

  • Face-to-face Class

  • Hybrid Class

  • Online Class

  • Mostly been employed by teachers to give feedback to learners
  • Mostly been implemented in higher education settings (mainly undergraduate)

  • Suitable for summative and formative purposes (Hennessy & Forrester, 2014, p. 778; Rotheram, 2009, p. 22)
  • Either for the work of individuals or groups (Heimbürger, 2018, p. 107)

List of
References

Email Feedback

Navigation:

Feedback Direction:

Instructor to Student

Global Feedback

Feedback Mode: Mainly One

Asynchronous Feedback

Disadvantages

&
Combinations

Advantages

&
Combinations

Contexts

of
Use

Definition

Teachers and their students exchange feedback by writing e-mails. It typically refers to feedback messages written in the mail text, but it may also include file attachments of various kinds (reviewed assignment, resources).

(Barton & Wohler, 2007; De Coursey & Dandashly, 2015; Huett, 2004)

Barton, E. E., & Wolery, M. (2007). Evaluation of e-mail feedback on the verbal behaviors of pre-service teachers. Journal of Early Intervention, 30(1), 55–72. doi:10.1177/105381510703000105

Bond, S. (2009). Audio feedback. Centre for Learning Technology, London School of Economics and Political Science. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/30693

De Coursey, C., & Dandashly, N. (2015). Digital literacies and generational micro-cultures: Email feedback in Lebanon. English Language Teaching, 8(11), 216–230. doi:10.5539/elt.v8n11p216

Glei, J. K. (2016, October 7). How to give negative feedback over email. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2016/10/how-to-give-negative-feedback-over-email

Honeycutt, L. (2001). Comparing e-mail and synchronous conferencing in online peer response. Written Communication, 18(1), 26–60.

Huett, J. (2004). Email as an educational feedback tool: Relative advantages and implementation guidelines. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 1(6), 35–44.

Kurtzberg, T. R., Belkin, L. Y., & Naquin, C. E. (2006). The effect of e‐mail on attitudes towards performance feedback. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 14(1), 4–21. doi:10.1108/10553180610739722

Nnadozie, V., Anyanwu, C. C., Ngwenya, J., & Khanare, F. P. (2020). Divergence and the use of digital technology in learning: Undergraduate students’ experiences of email feedback in a South African university. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 17(3), 137–148. doi:10.53761/1.17.3.10

Email fEEDBACK

Advantages

For Students

For Teachers

No pressure to respond immediately to the criticism and feedback received (Bond, 2009)

Feedback mails can include questions or response options for learners to encourage a dialogue between them and the teacher (Barton & Wolery, 2007, p. 56)

Timesaving: it does not require scheduling with learners (in contrast to on-site feedback) (Barton & Wolery, 2007, p. 56)

E-mails provide an electronic record of the feedback. Learners can thus review it at any time (Barton & Wolery, 2007, p. 56)

Teachers can use their e-mail record to see the progress and development of individual learners over time (Barton & Wolery, 2007, p. 56)

Quicker and more immediate feedback (Huett, 2004, p. 38)

Learners tend to respond very positively to the use of digital tools and often prefer them over traditional methods; they are familiar with e-mailing from their personal lives (digital literacy) (De Coursey & Dandashly, 2015, pp. 216-217)

Transmitting large amounts of information quickly and easily to learners (Nnadozie et al., 2020, p. 7)

General feedback can be sent simultaneously to all course participants, which saves time and effort (Nnadozie et al., 2020, p. 7)

Seen as a more casual form of communication (compared with, for instance, on-site office hours) and could thus encourage more questions and comments from learners regarding their individual feedback and progress (Huett, 2004, p. 38, Barton & Wolery, 2007, p. 56)

E-mail can create a sense of anonymity, which caters for the preferences of shy learners in particular. It may thus encourage greater interaction (e.g., follow-up questions, need for clarification) (Huett, 2004, p. 38).

Quicker and more immediate feedback (Huett, 2004, p. 38)

Suggested Combination:

Text Editor Feedback

Combination with text editor: Specific comments could be directly inserted into the attached file, while the mail text will offer general corrective feedback or advice (suggested by Honeycutt, 2001, p. 53 )

AWE

Combination with AWE:
the mail text might be checked by using an AWE tool

Quicker and more immediate feedback (Huett, 2004, p. 38)

Easy to attach hyperlinks and further documents

Suggested Combination:

Audio Feedback

Video Feedback

Email fEEDBACK

Disadvantages

For Students

E-mails lack social cues (facial expressions, gestures, certain tone of voice and other non-verbal communication). However, people rely on these cues to decide how to respond or what to do next. This could lead to a "negativity bias" towards e-mails (Glei, 2016; Huett, 2004, p. 39).

For Teachers

The lack of social cues in e-mails has been shown to hinder relationship-building with learners, contrary to, for instance, on-site meetings (Kurtzberg et al., 2006, p. 6)

E-mail communication is a primarily text-based medium and thus disadvantageous for auditory learner types (Huett, 2004, p. 38)

Teachers cannot directly address and comment on the errors but can only refer to specific errors in their e-mail, which can lead to ambiguities (De Coursey & Dandashly, 2015, pp. 223-224)

Multitude of e-mails (especially from several courses) is unmanageable. Teachers can quickly lose track of e-mails, and the incoming mails from learners could be overwhelming (De Coursey & Dandashly, 2015, p. 222)

Suggested Combination:

Audio Feedback

Video Feedback

Suggested Combination:

Video Conference Feedback

Negativity bias”: if the sender has a positive attitude towards an e-mail, the recipient usually has a neutral attitude, and if the sender perceives the message as neutral, the recipient usually perceives it as negative (Glei, 2016).

Contexts of Use

Email fEEDBACK

Assignment Types

Sample Tasks

Learning Objectives

Learning Environment

Subjects/ Disciplines

  • General feedback to a course or group (e.g. Keefer, 2020; White, 2021)
  • Personal feedback provided to individual students (Barton & Wolery, 2007; McLeod et al., 2019; Zhu, 2012)

  • Face-to-face Class

  • Hybrid Class

  • Online Class

  • Summative comments written at the end of an assignment
  • Formative purposes (e.g. Zhu, 2012), including progress feedback, e.g. in blended learning (see van Oldenbeek et al., 2019) or distance learning settings (cf. Huett, 2004, p. 35)

  • Often for teacher-to-student feedback and peer feedback among students (e.g. Carswell et al., 2000; Honeycutt, 2001) and colleagues (Clayton, 2018b)
  • Also for student-to-instructor feedback (e.g. Bloch, 2002)

Many disciplines, such as
  • psychology (Keefer, 2020),
  • EFL (Farshi, 2015; Hosseini, 2012; 2013)
  • audit (White, 2021),
  • engineering (Hassini, 2006)
  • business (Hassini, 2006; Nnadozie et al., 2020),
  • computer science (Voghoei et al., 2020),
  • teacher training (Barton & Wolery, 2007; McLeod et al., 2019)
  • education (Yu & Yu, 2002)

Learner Groups

List of
References

(Talking-head) Video Feedback

Navigation:

Feedback Direction:

Instructor to Student

Mostly used platforms:

Global Feedback

Feedback Mode: Mainly Two

Asynchronous Feedback

Loom

Screencast-O-Matic

Camtasia

Photo Booth

(iOS)

Disadvantages

&
Combinations

Advantages


Contexts

of
Use

Definition

Teachers use a webcam or other camera (e.g. smartphone camera) to record themselves while providing verbal feedback (talking head) (Mahoney et al., 2019, p. 158). Alternatively, the camera recording can be combined with a screen-recording (Borup, 2021).

iMovie (iOS)

Borup, J. (2021). Back to feedback basics using video recordings. Educause Review Online. https://er.educause.edu/blogs/2021/2/back-to-feedback-basics-using-video-recordings

Borup, J., West, R. E., & Graham, C. R. (2012). Improving online social presence through asynchronous video. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(3), 195–203. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.11.001

Borup, J., West, R. E., & Thomas, R. (2015). The impact of text versus video communication on instructor feedback in blended courses. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(2), 161–184. doi:10.1007/s11423-015-9367-8

Borup, J., West, R. E., Thomas, R., & Graham, C. R. (2014). Examining the impact of video feedback on instructor social presence in blended courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(3). doi:10.19173/irrodl.v15i3.1821

Hall, T., Tracy, D., & Lamey, A. (2016). Exploring video feedback in philosophy: Benefits for instructors and students. Teaching Philosophy, 39(2), 137–162. doi:10.5840/teachphil201651347

Henderson, M., & Phillips, M. (2015). Video-based feedback on student assessment: Scarily personal. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(1), 51–66. doi:10.14742/ajet.1878

Lee, A. R., & Bailey, D. R. (2016). Korean EFL students’ perceptions of instructor video and written feedback in a blended learning course. STEM Journal, 17(4), 133–158. doi:10.16875/stem.2016.17.4.133

Mahoney, P., Macfarlane, S., & Ajjawi, R. (2019). A qualitative synthesis of video feedback in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 24(2), 157–179. doi:10.1080/13562517.2018.1471457

Ryan, T. (2021). Designing video feedback to support the socioemotional aspects of online learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(1), 137-140. doi:10.1007/s11423-020-09918-7

Tochon, F. (2008). A Brief History of Video Feedback and its Role in Foreign Language Education. CALICO Journal, 25(3), 420–435. http://www.jstor.org/stable/calicojournal.25.3.420

Tseng, S.-S., & Yeh, H.-C. (2019). The impact of video and written feedback on student preferences of English speaking practice. Language Learning & Technology, 23(2), 145-158. https://doi.org/10125/44687

(talking-head) Video fEEDBACK

Advantages

For Students

For Teachers

Videos can help learners build a sense of connection or relationship with the teacher (Borup et al., 2012, p. 201; Borup et al., 2014, p. 236)

Allows for natural, open and casual communication with learners (Borup et al., 2014, p. 240)

Is personalized for the learner (Borup, 2021), so learners perceive the teacher as more authentic and honest (Borup et al., 2014, p. 242; Hall et al., 2016, pp. 17-18)

Can facilitate high-quality formative feedback (Hall et al., 2016, p. 1)

Creates the impression of face-to-face feedback, which is one of the most favored feedback methods, as it allows learners to perceive social cues (Borup et al., 2014, p. 243, Hall et al., 2016, p. 13)

Increases the teacher’s social presence. It allows them to have a “conversation”, speak with emotions and develop a sense of closeness with the learners (Borup et al., 2014; Ryan, 2021, p. 138)

Fewer misinterpretations due to the perception of social cues, such as body language, facial expressions or gestures (Borup, 2021), as well as conversational cues, e.g. tone and pace of voice (Ryan, 2021, p. 138);

Learners perceive video feedback very positively (Hall et al., 2016, p. 9), thus helps promoting learner engagement and motivation (Hall et al., 2016, p. 1)

Quicker and more immediate feedback (Huett, 2004, p. 38)

Addresses multiple learner preferences (visual and auditory learner types)

Quicker and more immediate feedback (Huett, 2004, p. 38)

Feedback can be paused and viewed repeatedly (Tseng & Yeh, 2019, p. 146)

Filming oneself raises awareness of one's own actions and thus enables teachers to reflect upon and improve their own feedback practices (Tochen, 2008, p. 426)

Allows for elaborate, clear, and detailed feedback (Borup et al., 2015, pp. 176–177; Hall et al., 2016)

Less time-consuming than detailed handwritten/ typed feedback (Borup et al., 2015)

(talking-head) VIDEO fEEDBACK

Disadvantages

For Students

For Teachers

Very difficult to locate specific aspects of the feedback in their own work (due to separation of work and feedback) or to refer to specific passages when asking questions about it (Hall et al., 2016; Henderson & Phillips, 2015)

Learners who perceive on-site oral feedback situations as negative and uncomfortable might feel similar about video feedback (Hall et al., 2016, p. 20)

Outdated or slow devices or unstable internet connections result in long loading times for videos (Lee & Bailey, 2016, p. 146)

Potential frustration over student’s poor performance cannot be hidden in the video due to recorded body language and facial expressions (Borup, 2021)

The teacher must be in a quiet room with minimal external auditory and visual distractions (Borup et al., 2014, p. 236)

Requires a certain level of technical expertise (Borup et al., 2014, p. 236; Lee & Bailey, 2016, p. 138)

Complex editing and time-consuming creation of videos (Borup et al., 2014, p. 236; Lee & Bailey, 2016, p. 138)

Integrated webcam videos may obscure parts of the image or presentation (Borup, 2021)

Suggested Combination:

Text Editor Feedback

To solve this, written feedback could be provided additionally, e.g. by means of a completed assessment sheet or by typing comments into the submitted assignment (Bahula & Kay, 2020, p. 6539)

Screencast Feedback

When being used together with screencast feedback, depending on the size of the displayed talking-head video, its effects might diminish

Contexts of Use

(talking-head) VIDEO fEEDBACK

Assignment Types

Sample Tasks

Learning Environment

Subjects/ Disciplines

  • Specifically suited for “feedback that doesn’t require you to show student work” (Borup, 2021, n.p.)
  • Less appropriate for written assignments

  • Face-to-face Class

  • Hybrid Class

  • Online Class

Many disciplines, such as
  • education
  • business
  • the humanities and the natural sciences (cf. the review by Bahula & Kay, 2020, p. 6536; Crook et al., 2012)

Learning Objectives

  • Commonly from instructors to students (e.g. Henderson & Phillips, 2015; Parton, Crain-Dorough, & Hancock, 2010)
  • also for peer feedback (Huang, 2016)

Learner Groups

List of
References

Text Editor Feedback

Disadvantages

&
Combinations

Advantages

&
Combinations

Contexts

of
Use

Definition

Text-editor programs with commenting and editing features are used to provide learners with written digital feedback. It is one of the most popular forms of e-feedback and is suitable for written work as well as peer feedback.

(Chang et al., 2018)

Navigation:

Feedback Direction:

Instructor to Student

Mostly used platforms:

Local/ Global Feedback

Feedback Mode: Mainly One

Asynchronous Feedback

Open Office Writer

MS Office Word: “Track changes”

Pages (iOS)

and comment features

Chang, C., Cunningham, K. J., Satar, H. M., & Strobl, C. (2018). Electronic feedback on second language writing: A retrospective and prospective essay on multimodality. Writing & Pedagogy, 9(3), 405–428. doi:10.1558/wap.32515

Ene, E., & Upton, T. A. (2018). Synchronous and asynchronous teacher electronic feedback and learner uptake in ESL composition. Journal of Second Language Writing, 41(3), 1–13. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2018.05.005

Ge, Z. (2011) Exploring e-learners’ perceptions of net-based peer-reviewed English writing. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. 6: 75-91. doi:10.1007/s11412-010-9103-7.

Rodina, H. (2008). Paperless, painless: Using MS Word tools for feedback in writing assignments. The French Review, 82(1), 106–116.

Silva, M. L. (2012). Camtasia in the classroom: Student attitudes and preferences for video commentary or Microsoft Word comments during the revision process. Computers and Composition, 29(1), 1–22. doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2011.12.001

Text Editor fEEDBACK

Advantages

For Students

For Teachers

Ideal for anonymous peer feedback (this can lead to more direct, honest, and critical feedback) (Chang et al., 2018, p. 409)

Quicker and more immediate feedback (Huett, 2004, p. 38)

Feedback is more detailed and longer (Rodina, 2008, p. 106)

Quicker and more immediate feedback (Huett, 2004, p. 38)

Learners can access feedback from anywhere (e.g. from home, the university, the library, etc.)

Quicker and more immediate feedback (Huett, 2004, p. 38)

Timesaving: suggestions for changes can be taken over directly (Silva, 2012, p. 11)

"Track changes" feature (MS Word) preserves the original learner-product in addition to the suggested corrections, allowing learners to make a cognitive comparisons and identify differences between their original and the suggested forms (Chang et al., 2018, p. 409)

Students perceive text editor feedback as positive, straightforward, and convenient (Chang et al., 2018, p. 408)

Can lead to improved writing skills in areas such as grammar, spelling, sentence structure, or vocabulary (Chang et al., 2018, p. 409; Ene & Upton, 2018, p. 2)

Requires no special technical expertise compared to e.g. screencast feedback or audio feedback

Quicker and more immediate feedback (Huett, 2004, p. 38)

Low time investment, as correction and commenting can be done simultaneously

The actual editing and adding of comments is intuitive and quick (Rodina, 2008, p. 109)

Timesaving for teachers, as papers are usually submitted as Word documents and can thus be edited immediately using the same program (Chang et al., 2018, p. 409)

Teachers may insert preset text-based comments or links to helpful websites (Chang et al., 2018, p. 409)

One of the most accessible and easiest methods for digital feedback (Ene & Upton, 2018, p. 3)

Suggested Combination:

Automated Writing Evaluation

Text editor fEEDBACK

Disadvantages

For Students

For Teachers

When used for peer feedback, learner proficiency can influence the effectiveness of the feedback. Low proficiency learners often benefit more from peer feedback than high proficiency learners (Chang et al., 2018, p. 409; Ge, 2011, p. 88)

High amount of comments can be overwhelming; not possible to structure the comments or set a focus

Not particularly motivating and does not promote learner-teacher interaction (Ene & Upton, 2018, p. 3)

Potential incomprehensibility and miscommunication if there are only written comments (Ene & Upton, 2018, p. 3)

High time consumption to read the whole document (Ene & Upton, 2018, p. 3)

Lack of flexibility of the text editor software, as not all settings can be adjusted. For example, the default settings are often very red-heavy, which can be discouraging for learners (Chang et al., 2018, p. 409)

Detailed and long comments can lead to space problems and make the edited document cluttered (Silva, 2012, p. 3)

Focus is often on the textual surface (such as spelling, punctuation, grammar, formatting), thus neglecting the content, structure, and organization of the text (Ene & Upton, 2018, p. 3)

Rather impersonal; does not strengthen the relationship between teachers and learners (Silva, 2012, p. 9)

Suggested Combination:

Audio Feedback

Video Feedback

Screencast Feedback

Contexts of Use

Text editor fEEDBACK

Assignment Types

Sample Tasks

Learning Environment

Subjects/ Disciplines

  • Most frequently employed for feedback on written assignments, especially in large classes (Clark-Gordon et al., 2019)

  • A common practice in numerous disciplines (see e.g. Clark-Gordon et al., 2019)

  • Face-to-face Class

  • Hybrid Class

  • Online Class

Learning Objectives

Learner Groups

  • Teacher-to-student feedback (e.g.Rodina, 2008)
  • Peer feedback purposes (e.g. AbuSeileek, 2013b; Ho & Savignon, 2013)
  • Combination (Al-Olimat & AbuSeileek, 2015, p. 27), i.e. starting with peer feedback and complementing it with instructor feedback

List of
References

Video Conference Feedback

Disadvantages

Advantages

&
Combinations

Contexts

of
Use

Definition

Teachers (and learners) provide immediate feedback to individuals or groups via a videoconferencing app. Depending on the tool, various functions (e.g. screen- and file-sharing, note-taking, digital whiteboards, chats and live polls) can be used to support the feedback provision process. The method is particularly suitable for distance education and e-tandems.

(Fatani, 2020; Samuels, 2006)

Navigation:

Feedback Direction:

Instructor to Student

Mostly used platforms:

Local/ Global Feedback

Feedback Mode: Mainly Three

Synchronous Feedback

Zoom

BigBlueButton

Skype

Microsoft

Teams

Google Meet

Ahmed, M. M. H., McGahan, P. S., Indurkhya, B., Kaneko, K., & Nakagawa, M. (2021). Effects of synchronized and asynchronized e-feedback interactions on academic writing, achievement motivation and critical thinking. Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal, 13(3), 290–315. doi:10.34105/j.kmel.2021.13.016

Chiappetta, E. (2020). How conferencing for assessment benefits students during hybrid learning. Edutopia. https://www.edutopia.org/article/how-conferencing-assessment-benefits-students-during-hybrid-learning

Fatani, T. H. (2020). Student satisfaction with videoconferencing teaching quality during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Medical Education, 20(1), 1–8. doi:10.1186/s12909-020-02310-2

Guichon, N., Bétrancourt, M., & Prié, Y. (2012). Managing written and oral negative feedback in a synchronous online teaching situation. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25(2), 181–197. doi:10.1080/09588221.2011.636054

Martin, M. (2005). Seeing is believing: The role of videoconferencing in distance learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(3), 397–405. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00471.x

Monteiro, K. (2014). An experimental study of corrective feedback during video-conferencing. Language Learning & Technology, 18(3), 56–79.

Rassaei, E. (2017). Video chat vs. face-to-face recasts, learners’ interpretations and L2 development: A case of Persian EFL learners. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(1-2), 133–148. doi:10.1080/09588221.2016.1275702

Rottermond, H., & Gabrion, L. (2021). Feedback as a connector in remote learning environments. Michigan Reading Journal, 53(2), 38–44.

Samuels, L. E. (2006). The effectiveness of web conferencing technology in student-teacher conferencing in the writing classroom. A study of first-year student writers. A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of North Carolina State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts English. https://repository.lib.ncsu.edu/handle/1840.16/511

Schluer, J. (2020). Individual learner support in digital ELT courses: Insights from teacher education. Special Issue: ELT in the Time of the Coronavirus 2020 (Part 2). International Journal of TESOL Studies, 2(3), 41–63. doi:10.46451/ijts.2020.09.17

Seckman, C. (2018). Impact of interactive video communication versus text-based feedback on teaching, social, and cognitive presence in online learning communities. Nurse Educator, 43(1), 18–22. doi:10.1097/NNE.0000000000000448

Video conference fEEDBACK

Advantages

For Students

For Teachers

Students and teachers can see each other during the feedback process (Rassaei, 2017, p. 2), but due to modal differences, it is not as intrusive for the learners as face-to-face interaction (Rassaei, 2017, p. 1)

Students “can ask questions and/ or work through revisions on the spot” (Rottermond & Gabrion, 2021, p. 41), discuss reasons behind certain mistakes and corrections (Ahmed et al., 2021, p. 305)

Saves time and travel costs (Martin, 2005, p. 400), allows for interaction among students and teachers in different places around the world (Martin, 2005, p. 397), and can thus enhance communication and collaboration skills (Martin, 2005, pp. 298, 402)

Quicker and more immediate feedback (Huett, 2004, p. 38)

Utilizing the screen-sharing function is useful for discussing work in progress (Schluer, 2020, pp. 53-54)

Quicker and more immediate feedback (Huett, 2004, p. 38)

May increase students’ motivation and engagement in the learning progress (Ahmed et al., 2021, p. 307)

Quicker and more immediate feedback (Huett, 2004, p. 38)

Conference can be recorded and downloaded for later review (Rottermond & Gabrion, 2021, p. 41)

Quicker and more immediate feedback (Huett, 2004, p. 38)

May improve students’ listening skills (Martin, 2005, p. 402), especially in foreign language learning settings

Interactive online communication includes verbal and visual cues, e.g. body language (Monteiro, 2014; Rassaei, 2017, p. 2)

Enables immediate feedback and supports collaborative learning among students (Fatani, 2020, p. 29)

Students and teachers can enhance communication by using text charts, note-taking, screen-sharing, file-sharing etc. (Monteiro, 2014, p. 58)

Quicker and more immediate feedback (Huett, 2004, p. 38)

Contributes to a significantly higher cognitive, social and teaching presence (Seckman, 2018, pp. 20-21)

Suggested
Combination:

Text Editor Feedback

Screencast Feedback

Cloud Editor Feedback

Suggested
Combination:

Chat Feedback

Live Poll Feedback

Cloud Editor Feedback

Text Editor Feedback

E-Portfolio Feedback

Video conference fEEDBACK

Disadvantages

For Students

For Teachers

Verbal, paraverbal and nonverbal information is often restricted in video communication due to technological limitations as compared to in-person exchanges (Rassaei, 2017, p. 2), e.g. regarding eye gaze and physical distance

Possible difficulties with handling the software or lack of hardware (e.g. microphone or web camera) (Samuels, 2006, p. 92)

Agreement on meeting times outside of normal online sessions might be difficult (Ahmed et al., 2021, p. 293); the scheduling process can be time-consuming (Chiappetta, 2020)

During one-on-one conferences with students, the rest of the course needs to work on their own without teacher guidance (Chiappetta, 2020; Schluer, 2020, pp. 53-54)

Students are possibly overwhelmed, confused, or frustrated by the multimodal functionalities of conferencing tools (Seckmann, 2018, p. 21), which can constitute a cognitive challenge for them (Guichon, 2012, p. 189)

Contexts of Use

Video conference fEEDBACK

Assignment Types

Sample Tasks

Learning Environment

Subjects/ Disciplines

  • Mostlyutilized as a teaching tool (e.g. Ghazal, Samsudin, & Aldowah, 2015)
  • Oral corrective feedback strategies as part of online teaching sessions (Monteiro, 2014; Rassaei, 2017)

  • Almost all subjects and disciplines


  • Hybrid Class

  • Online Class

Learning Objectives

  • Individual feedback conferences for formative or summative feedback, but related research is almost non-existent (e.g. Chiappetta, 2020; Samuels, 2006)

  • Instructor-to-student feedback
  • Peer feedback as part of e-tandem exchanges (e.g. Arellano-Soto & Parks, 2021; O’Dowd, 2007)

Learner Groups

List of
References

Blog Feedback

Disadvantages

&
Combinations

Advantages

&
Combinations

Contexts

of
Use

Definition

Blogs are online journals that can be used for self-(re)presentation, or for personal reflective or journalistic purposes. Blog feedback is an interactive method in which comments are posted in response to a person's blog entry. It is particularly suitable for peer feedback on writing tasks.

(Çiftçi, 2009; Gedera, 2012; Huang, 2016; Sayed, 2010)

Navigation:

Feedback Direction:

Peer Feedback

Mostly used platforms:

Global Feedback

Feedback Mode: Mainly Two

Asynchronous Feedback

Blogger

WordPress

In-built Blog Tool of LMS

Çiftçi, H. (2009). The effect of blog peer feedback on Turkish EFL students’ writing performance and their perceptions. Thesis submitted to the Institute of Educational Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in English Language Teaching. Yeditepe University, Istanbul, Turkey. https://acikbilim.yok.gov.tr/handle/20.500.12812/339863.

Çiftçi, H., & Kocoglu, Z. (2012). Effects of peer e-feedback on Turkish EFL students’ writing performance. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 46(1), 61–84. doi:10.2190/EC.46.1.c

Dippold, D. (2009). Peer feedback through blogs: Student and teacher perceptions in an advanced German class. ReCALL, 21(1), 18–36. doi:10.1017/S095834400900010X

Gedera, D. S. P. (2012). The dynamics of blog peer feedback in ESL classroom. Teaching English with Technology, 12(4), 16–30.

Hernandez, H. P., Amarles, A. M., & Raymundo, M. C. Y. (2017). Blog-assisted feedback: Its affordances in improving college ESL students’ academic writing skills. The Asian ESP Journal, 13(2), 100–143.

Huang, H.-Y. C. (2016). Students and the teacher’s perceptions on incorporating the blog task and peer feedback into EFL writing classes through blogs. English Language Teaching, 9(11), 38–47. doi:10.5539/elt.v9n11p38

Kitchakarn, O. (2013). Peer feedback through blogs: An effective tool for improving students’ writing abilities. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 14(3), 152–164.

Novakovich, J. (2016). Fostering critical thinking and reflection through blog-mediated peer feedback. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32(1), 16–30. doi:10.1111/jcal.12114

Pham, V. P. H., & Usaha, S. (2016). Blog-based peer response for L2 writing revision. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(4), 724–748. doi:10.1080/09588221.2015.1026355

Sayed, O. H. (2010). Developing business management students’ persuasive writing through blog-based peer-feedback. English Language Teaching, 3(3), 54–66. doi:10.5539/elt.v3n3p54

Xie, Y., Ke, F., & Sharma, P. (2008). The effect of peer feedback for blogging on college students’ reflective learning processes. Internet and Higher Education, 11(1), 18–25. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.11.001

Zhang, H., Song, W., Shen, S., & Huang, R. (2014). The effects of blog-mediated peer feedback on learners’ motivation, collaboration, and course satisfaction in a second language writing course. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30(6), 670–685. doi:10.14742/ajet.860

blog fEEDBACK

Advantages

For Students

For Teachers

Blogs create a discourse community (Çiftçi, 2009, p. 45; Çiftçi & Kocoglu, 2012, p. 73), promote learner interaction and nurture a sense of class community (Micelia, Murraya & Kennedya, 2010, cited in Pham & Usaha, 2016, p. 727)

Can cultivate learning communities “that build professionalism and engage students in higher levels of self-reflection” (Novakovich, 2016, p. 17)

Useful tool to improve students’ writing skills (Hernandez et al., 2017, p. 115), attitude towards writing, confidence in writing (Hernandez et al., 2017, p. 138), critical thinking skills (Çiftçi, 2009, p. 45; Huang, 2016, p. 44), cooperative and autonomous learning (Zhang et al., 2014, p. 679)

Writing to an authentic audience can foster leaners’ writing motivation, interaction, and self-confidence (Çiftçi, 2009, p. 45; Gedera, 2012, p. 28; Huang, 2016, p. 44)

Quicker and more immediate feedback (Huett, 2004, p. 38)

Allows students to read their peers’ assignments at their own pace, time and place, making them feel less rushed or under time pressure (Gedera, 2012, p. 27; Sayed, 2010, p. 55)

Quicker and more immediate feedback (Huett, 2004, p. 38)

Gives rather shy and quiet learners more time for the formulation of responses and consideration of what to write (Kitchakarn, 2013, p. 155; Sayed, 2010, p. 55)

Blogs “are made available to both instructional practitioners and students involved, free of any financial costs” (Zhang et al., 2014, p. 679)

The feedback comments can be viewed in chronological order (Çiftçi, 2009, p. 43), which helps teachers to monitor the contributions by individual students

It motivates both students and the instructor to interact beyond the classroom (Greer & Reed, 2008, as cited in Pham & Usaha, 2016, p. 727)

Quicker and more immediate feedback (Huett, 2004, p. 38)

Easy and quick creation (Sayed, 2010, p. 55)

Quicker and more immediate feedback (Huett, 2004, p. 38)

Can be used for individual or group feedback (Çiftçi, 2009, p. 43)

Suggested Combination:

Audio Feedback

The comment function is often restricted to text. However, via hyperlinks, additional resources can be integrated that may direct the blogger to external websites or video platforms or to a shared cloud space.

Video Feedback

Text Editor FB

blog fEEDBACK

Disadvantages

For Students

For Teachers

Due to the public nature of online blogs, students might not dare to openly express their opinions or to write about certain topics (Novakovich, 2016, p. 26; Sayed, 2010, p. 58). Especially for peer-review, students might be more conservative in their writing. This is not conducive to students' self-reflection (Xie, Ke & Sharma, 2008, p. 23)

Some blogs require registration before users can comment on blog posts; remembering various log-in data can be troublesome (Zhang et al., 2017, p. 680)

Blog usage lacks structure (Sayed, 2010, p. 58) and the’ online environment can be more distracting and less formal for learners (Hernandez et al., 2017, p. 106)

Blog usage may cause challenges regarding practicality and data security (Pham & Usaha, 2016, p. 727)

Some students do not feel competent enough to read and comment on their peer’s blogs (Çiftçi, 2009, p. 109)

During peer-review, students are inclined to use informal language and social comments instead of engaging in meaningful, constructive feedback activities (Wu, 2006, p. 133; Xie, Ke & Sharma, 2008, p. 23)

It is “difficult to signpost errors in order to enable students to improve on their performance” (Dippold, 2009, p. 28). Thus, blogs might rather be implemented for very general feedback than for specific corrective feedback (Huang, 2016, p. 44)

Due to blogs’ asynchronous nature, comments cannot be immediately followed up

Highlighting language errors on blogs takes more time than marking errors on paper (Huang, 2016, p. 44)

Direct editing of blog entries is not possible (Dippold, 2009, p. 32)

Increased workload as teachers may have to “maintain constant attention to how well the students have been progressing […] in terms of the essay completed, peer feedback, and revision” (Zhang et al., 2014, p. 680)

The reviewers may print a PDF of the blog in order to annotate it with specific comments

Suggested Combination:

Text Editor FB

Suggested
Combination:

Video Conference Feedback

Suggested Combination:

Wiki Feedback

Cloud Editor FB

To facilitate collaboration, blogging could be preceded by collaborative writing in a wiki (Dippold, 2009, p. 32) or in a cloud document.

Contexts of Use

bLOG fEEDBACK

Assignment Types

Sample Tasks

Learning Environment

Subjects/ Disciplines

  • Mainly concerned with written assignments (Cotos, 2018, p. 2)
  • The scope of assignments also be widened to other file types in which text elements are found, such as in PowerPoint presentations or chat messages

  • Many subjects, but these AWE systems had been originally developed for writers in English-speaking countries (Jingxin & Razali, 2020, p. 8335)
  • Foreign language writing instruction (cf. Jingxin & Razali, 2020, p. 8335), mostly for EFL students, but for the learning of other languages, such as the Spanish Writing Mentor

  • Face-to-face Class

  • Hybrid Class

  • Online Class

Learning Objectives

  • Summative comments written at the end of an assignment
  • Formative purposes (e.g. Zhu, 2012), including progress feedback, e.g. in blended learning (see van Oldenbeek et al., 2019) or distance learning settings (cf. Huett, 2004, p. 35)

  • Often for teacher-to-student feedback and peer feedback among students (e.g. Carswell et al., 2000; Honeycutt, 2001) and colleagues (Clayton, 2018b)
  • Also for student-to-instructor feedback (e.g. Bloch, 2002)

Learner Groups

List of
References

Chat Feedback

Disadvantages

&
Combinations

Advantages

&
Combinations

Contexts

of
Use

Definition

Chat feedback is a technology-enabled feedback method in which instructors or peers provide feedback in real-time via an instant-messaging software or app. It can include written, voice and video feedback.

(Arroyo & Yilmaz, 2018, p.944; Udeshinee et al., 2021, p.176)

Navigation:

Feedback Direction:

Peer Feedback

Mostly used platforms:

Local/ Global Feedback

Feedback Mode: Mainly Two

A-/synchronous Feedback

Skype

Telegram

Facebook

WhatsApp

Instagram

Twitter

WeChat

AbuSeileek, A. F., & Rabab’ah, G. (2013). Discourse functions and vocabulary use in English language learners’ synchronous computer-mediated communication. Teaching English with Technology, 13(1), 42–61.

Arroyo, D. C., & Yilmaz, Y. (2018). An open for replication study: The role of feedback timing in synchronous computer-mediated communication. Language Learning, 68(4), 942–972. doi:10.1111/lang.12300

Avval, S. F., Asadollahfam, H., & Behin, B. (2021). Effects of receiving corrective feedback through online chats and class discussions on Iranian EFL learners’ writing quality. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching & Research, 9(34), 203–214.

Bower, J., & Kawaguchi, S. (2011). Negotiation of meaning and corrective feedback in Japanese/ English eTandem. Language Learning & Technology, 15(1), 41–71.

Chang, C.-F. (2009). Peer review through synchronous and asynchronous CMC modes: A case study in a Taiwanese college English writing course. The JALT CALL Journal, 5(1), 45–64.

Dao, P., Duong, P.-T., & Nguyen, M. X. N. C. (2021). Effects of SCMC mode and learner familiarity on peer feedback in L2 interaction. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 15(1), 1–29. doi:10.1080/09588221.2021.1976212

Ene, E., & Upton, T. A. (2018). Synchronous and asynchronous teacher electronic feedback and learner uptake in ESL composition. Journal of Second Language Writing, 41(3), 1–13. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2018.05.005

Honeycutt, L. (2001). Comparing e-mail and synchronous conferencing in online peer response. Written Communication, 18(1), 26–60.

Lai, C., & Zhao, Y. (2006). Noticing and text-based chat. Language Learning & Technology, 10(3), 102–120.

Liu, J., & Sadler, R. W. (2003). The effect and affect of peer review in electronic versus traditional modes on L2 writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(3), 193–227. doi:10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00025-0

Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Corrective feedback in the chatroom: An experimental study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19(1), 1–14. doi:10.1080/09588220600803311

Razagifard, P., & Razzaghifard, V. (2011). Corrective feedback in a computer-mediated communicative context and the development of second language grammar. Teaching English with Technology, 11(2), 1–17.

Satar, H. M., & Özdener, N. (2008). The effects of synchronous CMC on speaking proficiency and anxiety: Text versus voice chat. The Modern Language Journal, 92(4), 595–613. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00789.x

Soria, S., Gutiérrez-Colón, M., & Frumuselu, A. D. (2020). Feedback and mobile instant messaging: Using WhatsApp as a feedback tool in EFL. International Journal of Instruction, 13(1), 797–812. doi:10.29333/iji.2020.13151a

Sotillo, S. (2010). Quality and type of corrective feedback, noticing, and learner uptake in synchronous computer-mediated text-based and voice chats. In M. Pütz & L. Sicola (Eds.). Cognitive processing in second language acquisition. Inside the learner’s mind (pp. 351–370). Converging Evidence in Language and Communication. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Udeshinee, W. A. P., Knutsson, O., Barbutiu, S. M., & Jayathilake, C. (2021). Text chat as a mediating tool in providing teachers’ corrective feedback in the ESL context: Social and cultural challenges. Asian EFL Journal Research Articles, 28(1), 171–195.

Chat fEEDBACK

Advantages

For Students

For Teachers

Slightly delayed nature of chats affords students more time for planning and formulating their messages, reflecting on them and understanding them (Chang, 2009, p. 57; Dao et al., 2021, p. 20; Razagifard & Razzaghifard, 2011, p. 13), thus particularly suitable for lower-proficiency students (Satar & Özdener, 2008, p. 606)

Students can contribute and reconsult any time and everywhere in the chat, they do not have to wait for teacher’s permission to speak (Chang, 2009, p. 57; Liu & Sadler, 2015, p. 146);

Chats appear more anonymous and less face-threatening than live interactions, which may encourage more participation (AbuSeileek & Rabab’ah, 2013, pp. 49, 55; Satar & Özdener, 2008, p. 606). Moreover, learners might be less afraid about pointing out mistakes and addressing problems (Chang, 2009, p. 57)

Multimodal and conversational, e.g. messages can contain multimedia attachments such as audio or video feedback, pictures, emojis (or emoticons) and hyperlinks (Bower & Kawaguchi, 2011, p. 43; Dao et al., 2021, p. 2; Soria et al., 2020, p. 797)

Quicker and more immediate feedback (Huett, 2004, p. 38)

Chats enable instantaneous corrections (Arroyo & Yilmaz, 2018, p. 967), which is valuable for learners’ in-process support

Quicker and more immediate feedback (Huett, 2004, p. 38)

Students are familiar with chats from their free-time and feel comfortable using them (Udeshinee, 2021, pp. 184–187)

Quicker and more immediate feedback (Huett, 2004, p. 38)

Might foster learners’ critical thinking (Avval et al., 2021, p. 212)

Through chats, the social presence of teachers and peers can be enhanced (Sotillo, 2010, p. 364; Udeshinee, 2021, p. 184) and they are typically perceived as interactive and conversational (Honeycutt, 2001, pp. 48, 50)

If used in combination with a videoconference, teachers can provide corrections and suggestions in the text chat without interrupting the flow of communication (Avval et al., 2021, p. 212)

Chats make incorrect forms or suggestions (visually) more salient as compared to oral interactions (Arroyo & Yilmaz, 2018, p. 944); thus focus-on-form activities are facilitated (Lai & Zhao, 2006, p. 104) and learners’ awareness of the mistakes is raised (Ene & Upton, 2018, p. 7)

Instructors may comment on a document with the reviewing features of their text editor and then schedule a chat appointment with the student (Ene & Upton, 2018, p. 4)

Suggested Combination:

Text Editor FB

Cloud Editor FB

AWE

chat fEEDBACK

Disadvantages

For Students

For Teachers

Typing is usually slower than speaking, which may negatively affect the flow of the exchange (Chang, 2009, pp. 57–59; Dao et al., 2021, pp. 18–21). Especially teachers and learners with “[l]imited typing skills” might feel discouraged and frustrated (Lai & Zhao, 2006, p. 115)

Chat mode might incline learners to engage in more off-task interactions (Chang, 2009, p. 58), e.g. social interaction rather than providing feedback and corrections (Bower & Kawaguchi, 2011, p. 59), thus teachers could have difficulties “in keeping the students on task” (Lai & Zhao, 2006, p. 10)

Due to personal or cultural reasons, teachers, students, or their parents could be against chatting if it is considered unethical or informal (Udeshinee, 2021, p. 185)

Interlocutors could feel pressured to engage in rapid turn-taking, while waiting for responses might be annoying as well (Dao et al., 2021, pp. 19, 21; Chang, 2009, p. 59)

Teachers may fear infringements of data protection rights if they share their personal phone number for educational purposes

Scheduling of specific chat meetings could be problematic (Chang, 2009, p. 57)

Compared to other methods, chat feedback may restrict the level of detail and the resultant clarity of the messages (Chang, 2009, p. 56; Ene & Upton, 2018, p. 8). It usually contains a significantly lower amount of feedback (Ene & Upton, 2018, pp. 7, 10)

References to specific passages of an assignment as well as cross-references to earlier chat sequences are problematic (Honeycutt, 2001, pp. 28-29)

Centers more on local aspects rather than higher-order concerns (Chang, 2009, p. 58), probably because longer explanations would be too time-consuming

Overlap of several interlocutors in a synchronous chat can lead to confusion (Loewen & Erlam, 2006, p. 10)

Prerequisite of stable internet availability and necessary hardware (Udeshinee, 2021, p. 185)

Lack of social cues, e.g. facial expressions, gestures, emotions (Dao et al., 2021, p. 16)

Prerequisite of stable internet availability and necessary hardware (Udeshinee, 2021, p. 185)

Suggested
Combination:

Video Conference Feedback

Suggested Combination:

Video Conference Feedback

During video conferences, corrections or feedforward advice could be typed into the chat window while learners talk to each other or present an assignment (cf. Guichon et al., 2012).

Contexts of Use

CHAT fEEDBACK

Assignment Types

Sample Tasks

Learning Environment

Subjects/ Disciplines

  • Mainly concerned with written assignments (Cotos, 2018, p. 2)
  • The scope of assignments also be widened to other file types in which text elements are found, such as in PowerPoint presentations or chat messages

  • Many subjects, but these AWE systems had been originally developed for writers in English-speaking countries (Jingxin & Razali, 2020, p. 8335)
  • Foreign language writing instruction (cf. Jingxin & Razali, 2020, p. 8335), mostly for EFL students, but for the learning of other languages, such as the Spanish Writing Mentor

  • Face-to-face Class

  • Hybrid Class

  • Online Class

Learning Objectives

  • Summative comments written at the end of an assignment
  • Formative purposes (e.g. Zhu, 2012), including progress feedback, e.g. in blended learning (see van Oldenbeek et al., 2019) or distance learning settings (cf. Huett, 2004, p. 35)

  • Often for teacher-to-student feedback and peer feedback among students (e.g. Carswell et al., 2000; Honeycutt, 2001) and colleagues (Clayton, 2018b)
  • Also for student-to-instructor feedback (e.g. Bloch, 2002)

Learner Groups

List of
References

Wiki Feedback

Disadvantages

&
Combinations

Advantages

&
Combinations

Contexts

of
Use

Definition

A wiki is an online platform that can be used to collaboratively create, upload, link and share texts as well as multimedia files. Through co-editing, feedback can be given in asynchronous and synchronous ways. It is thus suitable for intra-group (same group) and inter-group (other group) peer feedback.

(Demirbilek, 2015; Kemp et al., 2019)

Navigation:

Feedback Direction:

Peer Feedback

Mostly used platforms:

Local Feedback

Feedback Mode: Mainly Three

A-/synchronous Feedback

Wikipedia

Google Sites

Wiki Function of

Institutional LMS

Demirbilek, M. (2015). Social media and peer feedback: What do students really think about using Wiki and Facebook as platforms for peer feedback? Active Learning in Higher Education, 16(3), 211–224. doi:10.1177/1469787415589530

Gielen, M., & De Wever, B. (2012). Peer assessment in a wiki: Product improvement, students’ learning and perception regarding peer feedback. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69, 585–594. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.450

Lin, W.-C., & Yang, S. C. (2011). Exploring students’ perceptions of integrating Wiki technology and peer feedback into English writing courses. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 10(2), 88–103.

Kemp, C., Li, P., Li, Y., Ma, D., Ren, S., Tian, A., Di Wang, Xie, L., You, J., Zhang, J., Zhu, L., & Zhuang, H. (2019). Collaborative wiki writing gives language learners opportunities for personalised participatory peer-feedback. In S. Yu, H. Niemi, & J. Mason (Eds.). Perspectives on rethinking and reforming education. Shaping future schools with digital technology (pp. 147–163). Singapore: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-981-13-9439-3_9

Peled, Y., Bar-Shalom, O., & Sharon, R. (2014). Characterisation of pre-service teachers’ attitude to feedback in a wiki-environment framework. Interactive Learning Environments, 22(5), 578–593. doi:10.1080/10494820.2012.731002

Vahedipour, R., & Rezvani, E. (2017). Impact of wiki-based feedback on grammatical accuracy of Iranian EFL learners’ writing skill. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching & Research, 5(20), 111–124.

wiki fEEDBACK

Advantages

For Students

For Teachers

It promotes the development of a supportive student community by offering an environment of “feedback, reflection, and creativity” (Demirbilek, 2015, p. 212)

Provision of peer feedback via wikis can improve students’ critical thinking skills (Demirbilek, 2015, p. 218), communication skills (Kemp et al., 2019, p. 157), and problem-solving skills (Lin & Yang, 2011, p. 91), thus fosters student’s articulation and reflection upon “their own learning and understanding; eventually improving their project” (Demirbilek, 2015, p. 221)

Usually free of charge (Vahedipour & Rezvani, 2017, p. 120)

Multifunctionality and flexibility: students can edit the content, share class documents, fix errors, create their own pages, upload pictures and other class-related files (Demirbilek, 2015, p. 220)

Free from the limit of time and space (Kemp et al., 2019, p. 151), wikis enable students to work with their peers outside of the classroom (Demirbilek, 2015, p. 218), increasing and maintaining interaction and connection with their peers (Demirbilek, 2015, p. 219). In this process, students can learn from other people’s errors (Kemp et al., 2019, p. 158) as well as from their strengths (Lin & Yang, 2011, p. 94)

Using wikis’ “history” function, teachers can monitor the students’ contributions and the peer feedback at any time (Kemp et al., 2019, p. 152)

Teachers may set up their own wiki that includes links to their students’ wikis. This way, they can quickly access their students' work to provide formative feedback and encouragement during the writing process, as well as summative feedback and feedforward advice after their students have finished their writing (Kemp et al., 2019, p. 151)

May decrease a teacher’s workload (Kemp et al., 2019, p. 159)

Within a wiki, instructors can respond to their learners’ questions, which is especially helpful in larger classes where students might be hesitant to ask questions (Kemp et al., 2019, p. 151)

By using wikis, teachers can foster their students’ development of a broad skill set, i.e. idea creation; writing in the target language; information literacy; social, interpersonal, personal, cognitive, and metacognitive skills; and positive affect (Kemp et al., 2019, p. 159)

Suggested Combination:

Text Editor Feedback

Audio Feedback

Video Feedback

wiki fEEDBACK

Disadvantages

For Students

For Teachers

The students’ learning gain depends on the quality of the peer feedback, as it does not come from an expert (Gielen & Wever, 2012, p. 592); peer feedback comments might be vague and less helpful (Demirbilek, 2015, p. 219)

Using wikis might be challenging for some students, e.g. due to functional challenges, unfamiliarity with the wiki editing interface, absence of auto-saving feature, uploading difficulties, or formatting issues (Demirbilek, 2015, p. 219), thus leading to lots of time for editing and formatting (Demirbilek, 2015, p. 219)

Many students have not used the Wiki before and will need to be trained first, which can be time-consuming (Demirbilek, 2015, p. 220); some students may be resistant to using new technology (Lin & Yang, 2011, p. 97)

Not anonymous, so students may worry about giving negative feedback (Demirbilek, 2015, p. 219). In specific cultural environments, students might be afraid of providing and receiving negative feedback (Peled, Bar-Shalom & Sharon, 2014, p. 580) and to “lose face” in front of their peers (Lin & Yang, 2011, p. 97)

Wiki feedback is mostly used for peer feedback, which cannot fully replace instructor feedback. Moreover, students often find instructor feedback more helpful (Kemp et al., 2019)

“The mitigation of teacher authority caused by peer feedback and Wiki writing seems to deconstruct the traditional student-teacher power relationship” (Lin & Yang, 2011, p. 96). However, it should be seen positively.

Suggested Combination:

Video Conference Feedback

Contexts of Use

wIKI fEEDBACK

Assignment Types

Sample Tasks

Learning Environment

Subjects/ Disciplines

  • Mainly concerned with written assignments (Cotos, 2018, p. 2)
  • The scope of assignments also be widened to other file types in which text elements are found, such as in PowerPoint presentations or chat messages

  • Many subjects, but these AWE systems had been originally developed for writers in English-speaking countries (Jingxin & Razali, 2020, p. 8335)
  • Foreign language writing instruction (cf. Jingxin & Razali, 2020, p. 8335), mostly for EFL students, but for the learning of other languages, such as the Spanish Writing Mentor

  • Face-to-face Class

  • Hybrid Class

  • Online Class

Learning Objectives

  • Summative comments written at the end of an assignment
  • Formative purposes (e.g. Zhu, 2012), including progress feedback, e.g. in blended learning (see van Oldenbeek et al., 2019) or distance learning settings (cf. Huett, 2004, p. 35)

  • Often for teacher-to-student feedback and peer feedback among students (e.g. Carswell et al., 2000; Honeycutt, 2001) and colleagues (Clayton, 2018b)
  • Also for student-to-instructor feedback (e.g. Bloch, 2002)

Learner Groups

List of
References

Forum Feedback

Disadvantages

&
Combinations

Advantages

&
Combinations

Contexts

of
Use

Definition

Forum feedback is a computer-mediated, collaborative feedback method in which instructors or peers use an online discussion forum (ODF) to provide feedback (comments, likes). It is commonly used for written assignments.

(Pedrosa-de-Jesus & Moreira, 2012, p. 57; Rochera et al., 2021, p. 3)

Navigation:

Feedback Direction:

Peer Feedback

Mostly used platforms:

Global Feedback

Feedback Mode: Mainly Two

A-/synchronous Feedback

Moodle - Forum

Blackboard - Forum

Knowledge Forum

Ekahitanond, V. (2013). Promoting university students’ critical thinking skills through peer feedback activity in an online discussion forum. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 59(2), 247–265.

Pedrosa-de-Jesus, H., & Moreira, A. C. (2012). Promoting questioning skills by biology undergraduates: The role of assessment and feedback in an online discussion forum. Reflecting Education, 8(1), 57–77.

Rochera, M. J., Engel, A., & Coll, C. (2021). The effects of teacher’ feedback: A case study of an online discussion forum in Higher Education. Revista de Educación a Distancia (RED), 21(67), 1–25. doi:10.6018/red.476901

Vonderwell, S. (2003). An examination of asynchronous communication experiences and perspectives of students in an online course: A case study. The Internet and Higher Education, 6(1), 77–90. doi:10.1016/S1096-7516(02)00164-1

Forum fEEDBACK

Advantages

For Students

For Teachers

According to Ekahitanond (2013, p. 260), the process of peer feedback in ODFs can thus encourage students to engage in critical thinking and assists students in reflecting on, rethinking, and revising the content of their work.

The asynchronous nature gives students more time to reflect and search for further information before making a contribution (De Wever et al., 2006, cited in Pedrosa-de-Jesus & Moreira, 2012, p. 57). They can thus mindfully construct and phrase their ideas (Vonderwell, 2003, p. 86)

Forum feedback facilitates a sense of a learning community, promoting communication and exchange between students and teachers. It promotes a collaborative learning environment, encourages self-identification as well as listening to other points of view (Ekahitanond, 2013, p. 260), which makes the learning context social and interactive (Pedrosa-de-Jesus & Moreira, 2012, p. 57)

Compared with offline classes, the online environment encourages students (incl. shy students) to ask more questions or start a discussion (Vonderwell, 2003, p. 82)

Teachers can have more interaction with their students (Pedrosa-de-Jesus & Moreira, 2012, p. 73), especially in long-distance learning .

Forum feedback offers a systematic structure for student support, facilitates sustained interaction between teacher and students as well as the monitoring of participants’ contributions, i.e. the comments they post and their responses to the feedback (Ludwig-Hardman & Dunclap, 2003, cited in Rochera, Engel & Coll, 2021, p. 4)

It can be easily combined with other feedback methods, especially if the forum is part of a LMS and/ or allows for multimedia attachments.

Suggested Combination:

Text Editor Feedback

Audio Feedback

Video Feedback

Suggested Combination:

Video Conference Feedback

Forum fEEDBACK

Disadvantages

For Students

For Teachers

Requires a great deal of effort, resources, and time (Pedrosa-de-Jesus & Moreira, 2012, p. 57)

During a synchronous feedback process, students might hesitate to continue their assignment and wait for further feedback (Fuccio, 2014, p. 223)

Using Padlet, students may lose track of the comments pinned to their screen (Atwood, 2014, p. 12)

High number of remarks can confuse or overburden the feedback recipients, especially with multiple peer-reviewers

The cloud space might be insufficient if the application is used extensively (Firth & Mesureur, 2010, p. 3)

Synchronous tools require a stable internet connection (Aubrey, 2014, p. 53)

It is not always possible to provide appropriate feedback, especially with many forum posts being entered in a short period of time, which is usually the case shortly before a deadline is approaching (Pedrosa-de-Jesus & Moreira, 2012, p. 72)

Students may feel uncomfortable about interacting with other students who they do not know (e.g. students from other schools or fellow students in remote learning) (Vonderwell, 2003, p. 82)

Feedback can be difficult to structure and moderate (Pedrosa-de-Jesus & Moreira, 2012, p. 57)

Lack of visual communication cues (Hara, Bonk & Angeli, 2000, p. 116; Vonderwell, 2003, p. 79)

Depth of interaction between students and instructors is not comparable to face-to-face settings (Vonderwell, 2003, p. 83)

Feedback is usually not immediate (Vonderwell, 2003, p. 84) and questions might be left unanswered (Vonderwell, 2003, p. 83)

During a synchronous feedback process, students might hesitate to continue their assignment and wait for further feedback (Fuccio, 2014, p. 223)

High number of remarks can confuse or overburden the feedback recipients, especially with multiple peer-reviewers

The cloud space might be insufficient if the application is used extensively (Firth & Mesureur, 2010, p. 3)

“Communication in web-based environments requires clarity and careful construction of the message” (Vonderwell, 2003, p. 86), as it is easy to misunderstand or to be perceived incorrectly in an asynchronous online mode

Teachers may have difficulties in assessing the quality of student posts (Pedrosa-de-Jesus & Moreira, 2012, p. 72)

Less personal than face-to-face interactions (Vonderwell, 2003, p. 83)

Suggested Combination:

Video Conference Feedback

Suggested Combination:

Video Conference Feedback

Suggested Combination:

Video Feedback

Contexts of Use

Forum fEEDBACK

Assignment Types

Sample Tasks

Learning Environment

Subjects/ Disciplines

  • Mainly concerned with written assignments (Cotos, 2018, p. 2)
  • The scope of assignments also be widened to other file types in which text elements are found, such as in PowerPoint presentations or chat messages

  • Many subjects, but these AWE systems had been originally developed for writers in English-speaking countries (Jingxin & Razali, 2020, p. 8335)
  • Foreign language writing instruction (cf. Jingxin & Razali, 2020, p. 8335), mostly for EFL students, but for the learning of other languages, such as the Spanish Writing Mentor

  • Face-to-face Class

  • Hybrid Class

  • Online Class

Learning Objectives

  • Summative comments written at the end of an assignment
  • Formative purposes (e.g. Zhu, 2012), including progress feedback, e.g. in blended learning (see van Oldenbeek et al., 2019) or distance learning settings (cf. Huett, 2004, p. 35)

  • Often for teacher-to-student feedback and peer feedback among students (e.g. Carswell et al., 2000; Honeycutt, 2001) and colleagues (Clayton, 2018b)
  • Also for student-to-instructor feedback (e.g. Bloch, 2002)

Learner Groups

List of
References

Cloud Editor Feedback

Disadvantages

&
Combinations

Advantages

&
Combinations

Contexts

of
Use

Definition

This interactive feedback method is based on online cloud-editing applications and enables synchronous as well as asynchronous collaborative exchanges. It is particularly suitable for formative, in-process support and useful for instructor and peer feedback.

(Aydawati, 2019; Shintani & Aubrey, 2016, p. 296)

Navigation:

Feedback Direction:

Peer Feedback

Mostly used platforms:

Local/ Global Feedback

Feedback Mode: Mainly One

A-/synchronous Feedback

Miro

Zumpad

Google Docs

Padlet

Jamboard

Wakelet

Alharbi, M. A. (2020). Exploring the potential of Google Doc in facilitating innovative teaching and learning practices in an EFL writing course. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 14(3), 227–242. doi:10.1080/17501229.2019.1572157

Atwood, G. S. (2014). Padlet: Closing the student feedback loop. NAHRS Newsletter, 34(2), 11–13.

Aubrey, S. (2014). Students’ attitudes towards the use of an online editing program in an EAP course. Kwansei Gakuin University Repository, 17, 45‐55.

Aydawati, E. N. (2019). An analysis of the effects of the synchronous online peer review using Google Doc on student’s writing performance. In C. T. Murniati, H. Hartono, & A. D. Widiantoro (Eds.), Technology-enhanced language teaching. Current research and best practices (pp. 64–76). Semarang: Universitas Katolik Soegijapranata.

Damayanti, I. L., Abdurahman, N. H., & Wulandari, L. (2021). Collaborative writing and peer feedback practices using Google Docs. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Conference on Applied Linguistics (CONAPLIN 13) (pp. 225–232). Bandung, Indonesia. doi:10.2991/assehr.k.210427.034

Ebadi, S., & Rahimi, M. (2017). Exploring the impact of online peer-editing using Google Docs on EFL learners’ academic writing skills: A mixed methods study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(8), 787–815. doi:10.1080/09588221.2017.1363056

Firth, M., & Mesureur, G. (2010). Innovative uses for Google Docs in a university language program. The JALT CALL Journal, 6(1), 3–16. doi:10.29140/jaltcall.v6n1.88

Fuccio, D. S. (2014). Cloud power: Shifting L2 writing feedback paradigms via Google Docs. Journal of Global Literacies, Technologies, and Emerging Pedagogies, 2(4), 202–233.

Saeed, M. A., & Al Qunayeer, H. S. (2020). Exploring teacher interactive e-feedback on students’ writing through Google Docs: Factors promoting interactivity and potential for learning. The Language Learning Journal, 14(3), 1–18. doi:10.1080/09571736.2020.1786711

Shintani, N., & Aubrey, S. (2016). The effectiveness of synchronous and asynchronous written corrective feedback on grammatical accuracy in a computer-mediated environment. The Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 296–319. doi:10.1111/modl.12317

Sullivan, P. (2020). Using Google Apps as a tool to advance student learning via productive small group discussions and teacher feedback in an online environment. In R. E. Ferdig, E. Baumgartner, R. Hartshorne, R. Kaplan-Rakowski, & C. Mouza (Eds.), Teaching, technology, and teacher education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Stories from the field (pp. 667–671). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). https://www.learntechlib.org/p/216903/

Wood, J. M. (2019). A dialogic, technology-mediated approach to supporting feedback engagement in a higher education context: Perceived effects on learners’ feedback recipience. Dissertation submitted to the University College London, Institute of Education. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10090843/1/Wood_000_Thesis.pdf

cloud editor fEEDBACK

Advantages

For Students

For Teachers

Allows immediate, synchronous feedback from various assessors at the same time (Aubrey, 2014, p. 47), and they can respond to their comments quickly afterwards

Very interactive as learners can work together in real-time and engage with the comments by instructors and peers (Aubrey, 2014, p. 47; Alharbi, 2020, p. 10; Saeed & Al-Qunayeer, 2020). This can be augmented further by the integrated chat function of e.g. Google Docs

Reduces the logistical and emotional burden students might have with face-to-face scenarios

Positive perception and higher levels of engagement, especially in peer-reviewing tasks (Alharbi, 2019, p. 8), and positive effects on student’s learning gain (Aydawati, 2019)

Multimedia elements can be inserted (Saeed & Al-Qunayeer, 2020, p. 9) or directly accessed via hyperlinks

Hardly any data loss owing to the continuous automatic saving (Fuccio, 2014. pp. 224-5); external storage devices or the printing are not necessary (Aubrey, 2014, pp. 47, 52); no compatibility problems

Easy localization of feedback comments (Fuccio, 2014, p. 209)

Teachers and peer-reviewers have time to think deeply about the feedback aspects they want to address (Ebadi & Rahimi, 2017, p. 807)

Allows teachers to monitor their students while they are working on a task (i.e. drafting a text); they can provide immediate feedback (Aubrey, 2014, p. 47, Sullivan, 2020, p. 669); and they can trace the changes by using the version history feature of e.g. Google Docs (Alharbi, 2019, p. 9)

Multimodality of comment types: written comments, record and import voice or video feedback or integrate further useful resources through file uploads or insertion of hyperlinks (Saeed & Al-Qunayeer, 2020, p. 9)

Permits asynchronous editing and commenting; documents can be downloaded for further editing offline (Damayanti et al., 2021, p. 229; Fuccio, 2014, p. 220)

The chat option allows teachers to respond to the students’ , making the feedback more conversational (Aubrey, 2014, p. 52). It encourages several feedback cycles between the peers and/ or the instructor (Wood, 2019, pp. 79-80)

More time-efficient, as the synchronization allows faster turnaround of feedback (Aubrey, 2014, pp. 47, 52)

Advantage over text editor feedback

Similar to text editor feedback

Advantage over text editor feedback

It is still advisable to set deadlines, as a long time lapse may decrease motivation or disrupt interactions.

Suggested Combination:

Chat Feedback

Suggested Combination:

Video Feedback

Audio Feedback

Video Conference Feedback

Cloud editor fEEDBACK

Disadvantages

For Students

For Teachers

Depending on the application, students might need to set up an account (i.e. for Google Docs, students need a valid Google account) (Firth & Mesureur, 2010, p. 4)

Not all cloud applications allow in-process commenting and editing, some only allow the upload of documents created in a local text editor (Fuccio, 2014, pp. 222–223). After uploading, conversion problems might occur (i.e. font or formatting changes) (Firth & Mesureur, 2010, p. 4)

During a synchronous feedback process, students might hesitate to continue their assignment and wait for further feedback (Fuccio, 2014, p. 223)

Using Padlet, students may lose track of the comments pinned to their screen (Atwood, 2014, p. 12)

High number of remarks can confuse or overburden the feedback recipients, especially with multiple peer-reviewers

The cloud space might be insufficient if the application is used extensively (Firth & Mesureur, 2010, p. 3)

Synchronous tools require a stable internet connection (Aubrey, 2014, p. 53)

Teachers needs to spend time training themselves as well as their students before implementing feedback on e.g. Google Docs (Aubrey, 2014, p. 53)

Depending on the application, students might need to set up an account (i.e. for Google Docs, students need a valid Google account) (Firth & Mesureur, 2010, p. 4)

Not all cloud applications allow in-process commenting and editing, some only allow the upload of documents created in a local text editor (Fuccio, 2014, pp. 222–223). After uploading, conversion problems might occur (i.e. font or formatting changes) (Firth & Mesureur, 2010, p. 4)

Depending on the application, teachers might need to set up an account (Firth & Mesureur, 2010, p. 4), and these external providers possibly do not fully align with educational institutions’ policies (i.e. regarding data protection)

During a synchronous feedback process, students might hesitate to continue their assignment and wait for further feedback (Fuccio, 2014, p. 223)

Immediacy of commenting might lead to many unconnected and spontaneous remarks, decreasing the value and usability of the feedback

Using Padlet, students may lose track of the comments pinned to their screen (Atwood, 2014, p. 12)

Each user of the cloud document can edit or delete each other’s content, creating a possible danger of data loss

High number of remarks can confuse or overburden the feedback recipients, especially with multiple peer-reviewers

The available server space might be limited (Firth & Mesureur, 2010, p. 3)

The cloud space might be insufficient if the application is used extensively (Firth & Mesureur, 2010, p. 3)

Synchronous tools require a stable internet connection (Aubrey, 2014, p. 53)

Suggested Combination:

Automated Writing Evaluation

Suggested Combination:

Screencast Feedback

Contexts of Use

cloud editor fEEDBACK

Assignment Types

Sample Tasks

Learning Environment

Subjects/ Disciplines

  • Different apps can be used for different assignment types, e.g. Google Docs for written assignments; Google Slides for presentation slides; and online notice boards, such as Padlet for brainstorming (e.g. Atwood, 2014, p. 12) and categorization tasks.

  • The cloud editor can be used in a variety of different disciplines. Also, teachers can choose different Cloud Applications for feedback depending on the type of assignment.

  • Face-to-face Class

  • Hybrid Class

  • Online Class

Learning Objectives

  • Appear to be particularly suitable for supporting learners in the process of completing a task, for instance when drafting a text.

  • Very useful for peer feedback due to their collaborative functionalities (e.g. Aydawati, 2019; Ebadi & Rahimi, 2017)
  • Teacher feedback (e.g. Saeed & Al Qunayeer, 2020; Shintani & Aubrey, 2016; Yim, Zheng, & Warschauer, 2017).

Learner Groups

  • For the TESOL Research Colloquium in winter term 2022/2023, students utilized cloud editing applications to brainstorm their thesis topics and obtain feedback from their fellow students and instructor. We found that online notice boards, such as Padlet, were highly suitable to gather ideas and provide supportive peer feedback.

  • Click here and you can see an example Padlet board we created and how feedback works within Padlet.

List of
References

(Live) Poll Feedback (ARS)

Disadvantages

Advantages

&
Combinations

Contexts

of
Use

Definition

Through the use of audience response systems (ARS), instructors can collect immediate feedback from their students and make their lessons more interactive. They can use the voting results instantaneously to adjust their teaching and clarify potential non- or mis- understandings.

(Caldwell, 2007, as cited in Chavan et al., 2018, p. 464; Little, 2016)

Navigation:

Mostly used platforms:

Local Feedback

Socrative

Poll Everywhere

Mentimeter

Pingo

Feedback Direction:

Student to Instructor

Feedback Mode: Mainly One

Synchronous Feedback

Chavan, P., Gupta, S., & Mitra, R. (2018). A novel feedback system for pedagogy refinement in large lecture classrooms. In J. C. Yang, M. Chang, L.-H. Wong, & M. M. T. Rodrigo (Eds.), 26th International Conference on Computers in Education. Main Conference Proceedings (pp. 464–469). Philippines: Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education.

Evans, K. P. (2018). An overview of the Pingo audience response system in undergraduate Mathematics and Statistics teaching. MSOR Connections, 17(1), 25–31. doi:10.21100/msor.v17i1.828

Little, C. (2016). Technological review: Mentimeter smartphone student response system. Compass: Journal of Learning and Teaching, 9(13), 1–3.

Mork, C.-M. (2014). Benefits of using online student response systems in Japanese EFL classrooms. JALT CALL Journal, 10(2), 127–137.

Pichardo, J. I., López-Medina, E. F., Mancha-Cáceres, O., González-Enríquez, I., Hernández-Melián, A., Blázquez-Rodríguez, M., Jiménez, V., Logares, M., Carabantes-Alarcon, D., Ramos-Toro, M., Isorna, E., Cornejo-Valle, M., & Borrás-Gené, O. (2021). Students and teachers using Mentimeter: Technological innovation to face the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic and post-pandemic in higher education. Education Sciences, 11(Article 667), 1–18. doi:10.3390/educsci11110667

Skoyles, A., & Bloxsidge, E. (2017). Have you voted? Teaching OSCOLA with Mentimeter. Legal Information Management, 17(4), 232–238. doi:10.1017/S1472669617000457

Vallely, K. S. A., & Gibson, P. (2018). Engaging students on their devices with Mentimeter. Compass: Journal of Learning and Teaching, 11(2), 1–6. doi:10.21100/compass.v11i2.843

(live) poll fEEDBACK

Advantages

For Students

For Teachers

All students can participate at the same time, e.g. answering a question does not depend on the teacher selecting a particular person to respond, making it “democratic and inclusive” (Pichardo et al., 2021)

ARS facilitates a “teacher-student dialogue in relation to the teaching-learning process” and learners may thus feel “co-responsible” for the learning success (Pichardo et al., 2021, pp. 11, 13)

Can be highly motivating because students’ knowledge, interests and preferences are acknowledged (Mork, 2014, p. 132; Pichardo et al., 2021, pp. 11, 13), which can lead to higher engagement in the learning process and increased participation in the classes (Evans, 2018, p. 25)

Quicker and more immediate feedback (Huett, 2004, p. 38)

ARS may enhance self-assessment (Mork, 2014, p. 132), peer reflection and group discussions and thus a more critical engagement with the learning contents (Mork, 2014, p. 133; Pichardo et al., 2021, p. 11)

ARS typically operate anonymously, giving learners the freedom to express their ideas without being blamed or censored (Pichardo et al., 2021, p. 10), encouraging them to be less afraid of making mistakes in front of teachers and peers (Little, 2016, p. 3)

ARS enable an immediate collection of student feedback to particular questions (Chavan et al., 2018, p. 465; Little, 2016; Mork, 2014), which is particularly useful for large classes (Pichardo et al., 2021, p. 12).

Quicker and more immediate feedback (Huett, 2004, p. 38)

Compared to hand-held clickers, online ARS are cost- and time-saving because no devices need to be purchased and distributed to the students in class (Little, 2016, p. 1)

The results are displayed instantaneously (Pichardo et al., 2021, pp. 3, 10), which helps teachers gain an insight into students’ understanding (Mork, 2014, p. 134) and helps them adjust their further teaching accordingly (Evans, 2018, p. 29; Pichardo et al., 2021, p. 11)

ARS are user-friendly and practical (Mork, 2014, p. 132); they can be used in face-to-face, hybrid and distance learning contexts

The questions can be easily re-utilized in subsequent seminars and some systems even permit teachers to share their questions with colleagues (Mork, 2014, p. 135, regarding Socrative)

Suggested Combination:

Video Conference
Feedback

(Live) Poll fEEDBACK

Disadvantages

For Students

For Teachers

The quick nature of poll-responses can lead students to pressing the wrong button (Mork, 2014, p. 131). However, after submitting their answer, it can no longer be changed, which can be frustrating (Vallely & Gibson, 2018, p. 6)

Students can only give feedback when teachers allow them to do so (Chavan et al., 2018, p. 465) and the topics are usually determined by the instructor

Actual impact of ARS on students’ learning gain is unclear (Mork, 2014, p. 129)

ARS might not be suitable for students with visual impairments or other special needs

Because the feedback is anonymous, teachers cannot relate the responses to individual students (Valley & Gibson, 2018, p. 6), so they are unable to identify those who might need special support

The limited configuration options of the programs (Pichardo et al., 2021, p. 13) as well as the space limitations for open-ended questions (Pichardo et al., 2021, p. 15; Skoyles & Bloxsidge, 2017, p. 236).

Requirement for internet-compatible devices as well as internet access might still be a challenge in some regions of the world (Pichardo et al., 2021, p. 16; see also Vallely & Gibson, 2018)

As answers cannot be changed once pressed, the poll may not accurately reflect learners’ knowledge

ARS tools can also be used to provide peer feedback on other students’ presentations (Mork, 2014, p. 133).

Contexts of Use

Live Poll fEEDBACK

Assignment Types

Sample Tasks

Learning Environment

Subjects/ Disciplines

  • Mainly concerned with written assignments (Cotos, 2018, p. 2)
  • The scope of assignments also be widened to other file types in which text elements are found, such as in PowerPoint presentations or chat messages

  • Many subjects, but these AWE systems had been originally developed for writers in English-speaking countries (Jingxin & Razali, 2020, p. 8335)
  • Foreign language writing instruction (cf. Jingxin & Razali, 2020, p. 8335), mostly for EFL students, but for the learning of other languages, such as the Spanish Writing Mentor

  • Face-to-face Class

  • Hybrid Class

  • Online Class

Learning Objectives

  • Summative comments written at the end of an assignment
  • Formative purposes (e.g. Zhu, 2012), including progress feedback, e.g. in blended learning (see van Oldenbeek et al., 2019) or distance learning settings (cf. Huett, 2004, p. 35)

  • Often for teacher-to-student feedback and peer feedback among students (e.g. Carswell et al., 2000; Honeycutt, 2001) and colleagues (Clayton, 2018b)
  • Also for student-to-instructor feedback (e.g. Bloch, 2002)

Learner Groups

List of
References

Survey Feedback

Disadvantages

&
Combinations

Advantages


Contexts

of
Use

Definition

Survey feedback is commonly used by teachers to obtain feedback from their students about their course (e.g. contents, structure, course materials, teaching style, rapport and time management). The main purpose of survey feedback is to improve the quality of teaching.

(Bir, 2017; Haddad & Kaalani, 2014; Kember et al., 2002)

Navigation:

Feedback Direction:

Student to Instructor

Mostly used platforms:

Global Feedback

Feedback Mode: Mainly One

Asynchronous Feedback

Google Forms

Qualtrics

Survey Monkey

FeedbackSchule

Soscisurvey

Free Online Surveys

Smart Survey

Lime Survey

Bir, S. (2017). Strategies for conducting student feedback surveys. Center for Teaching and Learning. https://ctl.wiley.com/strategies-conducting-student-feedback-surveys/

Haddad, R. J., & Kalaani, Y. (2014). Google Forms: A real-time formative feedback process for adaptive Learning. In 2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings (pp. 24.649.1–24.649.14). Indianapolis, Indiana: ASEE Conferences. http://peer.asee.org/20540

Huxham, M., Laybourn, P., Cairncross, S., Gray, M., Brown, N., Goldfinch, J., & Earl, S. (2008). Collecting student feedback: A comparison of questionnaire and other methods. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(6), 675–686. doi:10.1080/02602930701773000

Kember, D., Leung, D. Y. P., & Kwan, K. P. (2002). Does the use of student feedback questionnaires improve the overall quality of teaching? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(5), 411–425. doi:10.1080/0260293022000009294

Lake, W., Boyd, W., Boyd, W., & Hellmundt, S. (2017). Just another student survey? – Point-of-contact survey feedback enhances the student experience and lets researchers gather data. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 57(1), 82–104.

Vasantha Raju, N. & Harinarayana, N. S. (2016). Online survey tools: A case study of Google Forms. Paper presented at the National Conference on Scientific, Computational & Information Research Trends in Engineering, GSSS-IETW, Mysore. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326831738_Online_survey_tools_A_case_study_of_Google_Forms

Winstone, N. E., & Boud, D. (2019). Developing assessment feedback: From occasional survey to everyday practice. In S. Lygo-Baker, I. M. Kinchin, & N. E. Winstone (Eds.), Engaging student voices in higher education (pp. 109–123). Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-20824-0_7

Survey fEEDBACK

Advantages

For Students

For Teachers

Survey questions may foster students’ metacognitive thinking and could help them take on more responsibility in shaping the learning environment (Haddad & Kalaani, 2014, p. 13)

Quicker and more immediate feedback (Huett, 2004, p. 38)

Web-based interface allows students to provide their answers from different mobile devices in a user-friendly manner (“anywhere-anytime-access”). Moreover, it gives students sufficient time for reflection (Vasantha Raju & Harinarayana, 2016, pp. 2, 5; cf. Haddad & Kalaani, 2014, p. 8) before sharing their thoughts about the course.

Improvement of teaching quality: Survey results can help teachers identify strengths and areas of improvement on a variety of dimensions (Bir, 2017; Kember et al., 2002, pp. 411-412)

Creation, administration, and analysis of the surveys is fairly fast and convenient (Vasantha Raju & Harinarayana, 2016, p. 2)

Supporting a wide range of question types: closed questions can be analyzed easily by the programs (Vasantha Raju & Harinarayana, 2016, p. 10), and open questions provide insight into what and how teachers could improve (Bir, 2017)

Enhances the learning experience for the students and thus caters for a student-centered teaching environment (Haddad & Kalaani, 2014, p. 9)

survey fEEDBACK

Disadvantages

For Students

For Teachers

Students could see themselves in surveys more as “passive receivers” instead of “active seekers” of feedback (Winstone & Boud, 2019, p. 115) if their opportunities for feedback are restricted to one-way evaluation surveys (Lake et al., 2017, p. 83)

Students may not take surveys seriously as they doubt if their responses will eventually improve teaching (Huxham et al., 2008, p. 676; Kember et al., 2002, pp. 416-417)

It usually takes a while until the results from institutionally administered surveys are communicated back to the teachers, thus leaving hardly any time to adjust their teaching (Winstone & Boud, 2019, p. 112)

Standardized evaluation surveys (e.g. for the entire university) lack flexibility and focus regarding the particularities of individual classrooms (Kember et al., 2002, pp. 421-422), e.g. for appreciating innovative teaching designs (Winstone & Boud, 2019, p. 114)

Long time lapses between survey completion and changes in teaching can aggravate this impression (Winstone & Boud, 2019, p. 112)

Concerns about the anonymity of the surveys, especially in small classes (Bir, 2017).

Teachers might feel controlled or have negative attitudes towards evaluation surveys if they are used as measures for quality control and tenure (Huxham et al., 2008, p. 676)

Ineffective survey designs, such as ambiguous wording (cf. Winstone & Boud, 2019, p. 113) and lacking of full capture of intended construct, can contribute to a “low response rate” (Vasantha Raju & Harinarayana, 2016, p. 11).

Teachers might set up a text pad with feedback questions to which every student can respond anonymously at any time as the course evolves.

Suggested Combination:

Cloud Editor Feedback

Contexts of Use

Survey fEEDBACK

Assignment Types

Sample Tasks

Learning Environment

Subjects/ Disciplines

  • Mainly concerned with written assignments (Cotos, 2018, p. 2)
  • The scope of assignments also be widened to other file types in which text elements are found, such as in PowerPoint presentations or chat messages

  • Many subjects, but these AWE systems had been originally developed for writers in English-speaking countries (Jingxin & Razali, 2020, p. 8335)
  • Foreign language writing instruction (cf. Jingxin & Razali, 2020, p. 8335), mostly for EFL students, but for the learning of other languages, such as the Spanish Writing Mentor

  • Face-to-face Class

  • Hybrid Class

  • Online Class

Learning Objectives

  • Summative comments written at the end of an assignment
  • Formative purposes (e.g. Zhu, 2012), including progress feedback, e.g. in blended learning (see van Oldenbeek et al., 2019) or distance learning settings (cf. Huett, 2004, p. 35)

  • Often for teacher-to-student feedback and peer feedback among students (e.g. Carswell et al., 2000; Honeycutt, 2001) and colleagues (Clayton, 2018b)
  • Also for student-to-instructor feedback (e.g. Bloch, 2002)

Learner Groups