Feedback modes matter: Comparing student perceptions of digital and non-digital feedback modes in higher education

Assessment feedback is increasingly being provided in digital modes, from electronic annotations to digital recordings. Digitally recorded feedback is generally considered to be more detailed than text‐based feedback. However, few studies have compared digital recordings with other common feedback modes, including non‐digital forms such as face‐to‐face conversations. It is also unclear whether providing multiple feedback modes is better than a single mode. To explore these possibilities, an online survey asked 4514 Australian university students to rate the level of detail, personalisation and usability of the feedback comments they had most recently received. Of the students who received a single feedback mode only, electronic annotations and digital recordings were rated most highly on the three quality indicators. Students who received multiple modes were more likely to agree with all three indicators than those who received a single mode. Finally, students who received multiple modes were more likely to agree that the comments were detailed and usable when one of those modes was a digital recording. These findings enhance our understanding of feedback design, indicating that it is important to consider the strengths and weaknesses of particular modes, and the value of offering multiple modes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

[1]  Naomi Winstone,et al.  ‘It'd be useful, but I wouldn't use it’: barriers to university students’ feedback seeking and recipience , 2017 .

[2]  Tracii Ryan,et al.  Feeling feedback: students’ emotional responses to educator feedback , 2018 .

[3]  K. Court.  Tutor feedback on draft essays: developing students’ academic writing and subject knowledge , 2014 .

[4]  J. Sawyer,et al.  Information About Migraine Disability Influences Physicians' Perceptions of Illness Severity and Treatment Needs , 2001, Headache.

[5]  C. Evans.  Making Sense of Assessment Feedback in Higher Education , 2013 .

[6]  David Nicol,et al.  From monologue to dialogue: improving written feedback processes in mass higher education , 2010 .

[7]  Ni Chang,et al.  Electronic feedback or handwritten feedback: What do undergraduate students prefer and why? , 2012 .

[8]  Julian Park,et al.  The use of video technology for providing feedback to students: Can it enhance the feedback experience for staff and students? , 2012, Comput. Educ..

[9]  Helen Knauf.  Reading, listening and feeling: audio feedback as a component of an inclusive learning culture at universities , 2016 .

[10]  Josh McCarthy,et al.  Evaluating written, audio and video feedback in higher education summative assessment tasks , 2015 .

[11]  David W. Denton.  Using screen capture feedback to improve academic performance , 2014 .

[12]  D. Laurillard.  A conversational framework for individual learning applied to the ‘Learning Organisation’ and the ‘Learning Society’ , 1999 .

[13]  J. Hattie,et al.  The Power of Feedback , 2007 .

[14]  John Orlando,et al.  A Comparison of Text, Voice, and Screencasting Feedback to Online Students , 2016 .

[15]  David Boud,et al.  The development of student feedback literacy: enabling uptake of feedback , 2018 .

[16]  Keithia Wilson,et al.  Feedback on assessment: students’ perceptions of quality and effectiveness , 2008 .

[17]  Gladson Chikwa,et al.  Audio versus written feedback: Exploring learners’ preference and the impact of feedback format on students’ academic performance , 2016 .

[18]  B. Lombard.  Revisiting the value of rubrics for student engagement in assessment and feedback in the South African university classroom , 2011 .

[19]  Ian G. Anson.  Assessment Feedback using Screencapture Technology in Political Science , 2015 .

[20]  A. Adcroft.  The mythology of feedback , 2011 .

[21]  P. Rowe,et al.  Using statement banks to return online feedback: limitations of the transmission approach in a credit-bearing assessment , 2015 .

[22]  D. Boud,et al.  Rethinking models of feedback for learning: the challenge of design , 2013 .

[23]  David Boud,et al.  What makes for effective feedback: staff and student perspectives , 2019 .

[24]  Phillip Dawson,et al.  Assessment rubrics: towards clearer and more replicable design, research and practice , 2017 .

[25]  Ana Oskoz,et al.  Supporting Second Language Writing Using Multimodal Feedback , 2016 .

[26]  R. Beach.  Uses of Digital Tools and Literacies in the English Language Arts Classroom. , 2012 .

[27]  Jennifer J. Vogel-Walcutt,et al.  Applying the modality principle to real-time feedback and the acquisition of higher-order cognitive skills , 2012 .

[28]  D. Boud.  Feedback: ensuring that it leads to enhanced learning , 2015, The clinical teacher.

[29]  David Boud,et al.  Does student engagement in self-assessment calibrate their judgement over time? , 2013 .

[30]  P. Marriott,et al.  Using Screencasts to Enhance Assessment Feedback: Students’ Perceptions and Preferences , 2012 .

[31]  Jered Borup,et al.  The impact of text versus video communication on instructor feedback in blended courses , 2015 .

[32]  C. Beaumont,et al.  Reconceptualising assessment feedback: a key to improving student learning? , 2011 .

[33]  David Carless,et al.  The feedback triangle and the enhancement of dialogic feedback processes , 2013 .

[34]  Michael Phillips,et al.  Video-based feedback on student assessment: scarily personal , 2015 .

[35]  Maria Assunção Flores,et al.  Effectiveness and relevance of feedback in Higher Education: A study of undergraduate students , 2016 .

[36]  Gordon Pask,et al.  CONVERSATIONAL TECHNIQUES IN THE STUDY AND PRACTICE OF EDUCATION , 1976 .

[37]  Evelyn Brown,et al.  Written Feedback for Students: too much, too detailed or too incomprehensible to be effective? , 2006 .

[38]  J. West,et al.  Enhancing the assessment experience: improving student perceptions, engagement and understanding using online video feedback , 2016 .