Self-regulation of learning and preference for written versus audio-recorded feedback by distance education students

Johnson, Genevieve Marie; Cooke, Audrey

doi:10.1080/01587919.2015.1081737

Cited by 32 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Internationally, Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education distinguishes feedback as a measure of teaching quality (Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, 2018). Evidence underscores that effective feedback on students' performance from assessments can be a front-runner to improve learning outcomes (Çakir et al, 2016a, Johnson andCooke, 2016). In particular, for health care students feedback is considered essential for maintaining professional standards and patient safety (Hayes, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What are students' needs and preferences for academic feedback in higher education? A systematic review

Paterson

Jackson

et al. 2020

Nurse Education Today

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Feedback is a fundamental factor within the learning process for students. However, it is widely known that students generally report that feedback is done suboptimally in higher education. Therefore, this systematic review aims to identify students' needs and preferences for academic feedback in higher education. Design, Data sources, review methods: A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA Statement Guidelines. Electronic databases were searched using a range of keywords and the findings were integrated in a narrative synthesis. Quality appraisal was undertaken. Results: 5884 articles were retrieved, and 36 papers included. Three themes emerged across a wide range of academic disciplines which included: 1) preferences for feedback, 2) multimodality feedback and 3) emotional impact. Overall, quality feedback was related to the timeliness of feedback; balance between positive and constructive comments; direct feedback on content; linguistic clarity and legibility; grade justification and feeding forward. Conclusion: This review has informed several important implications for practice uniquely from the students' perspectives. Educators are encouraged to implement the evidence-based preferences for student feedback in their daily practice. Students value multimodality feedback which is personalised to enable students to feed forward in their own individual learning journeys. Future research should explore whether demographic variables influence student feedback needs over time. We would recommend that future studies need to employ a rigorous methodology to avoid the shortcomings in the studies already conducted in this area.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What are students' needs and preferences for academic feedback in higher education? A systematic review

Paterson

Jackson

et al. 2020

Nurse Education Today

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hyland, , 2000K. Hyland & Hyland, 2006b;Johnson & Cooke, 2016;Katayama, 2007;Leki, 1991;Mayer & Moreno, 2003;Oladejo, 1993;Silva, 2012;Thompson & Lee, 2012).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some points had better be mentioned: (1) Overall, the steps Jones, et al, (2012) described in their paper about the Screen Capture Digital Video procedure were followed, yet with some modifications. (2) To satisfy the students' different learning styles (Johnson & Cooke, 2016) the feedback prepared was audio-visual in conjunction with the written one (i.e., the teacher typed and highlighted the necessary points while explaining them orally in video.). The teacher also opened and showed other relevant files and also inserted relevant links wherever it was needed in students' essays.…”

Section: Procedures In the Itmf Groupmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Individualized Technology-Mediated Feedback on EFL Learners’ Argumentative Essays

Soltanpour¹,

Valizadeh

2018

Int. J. Appl. Linguist. Engl. Lit.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This quantitative quasi-experimental study, which followed a pretest-posttest-delayed posttest design, was aimed at investigating the effect of individualized technology-mediated feedback (henceforth, ITMF) on the overall quality of Iranian EFL learners’ argumentative essays. The effect of ITMF, as the experimental treatment, was compared with the common written corrective feedback (henceforth, CWCF) strategies as the control treatment. 57 learners, studying at general EFL courses at upper-intermediate level, formed the participants. They were assigned to two groups: ITMF and CWCF, which, in this study, is meant as the pen-and-paper form of direct and indirect feedback. Each group received six sessions of treatment. The writing tasks and tests were all of argumentative type. First, whether there was any significant difference between the ITMF and CWCF in the overall quality of the essays was investigated. The ITMF group significantly outperformed the CWCF one. Then, whether the difference between the groups varied over time was explored, and it was revealed that the ITMF was still significantly superior over the CWCF. Next, whether there would be any significant change in the ITMF in the long term was examined, and no change was seen. The study supports the advocates of screencasting feedback, revision and teacher-learner negotiation following the feedback.

show abstract

“…The majority of research confirms that students feel positively towards receiving audio-visual recordings from educators, finding the content to be individualised (Carruthers et al, 2015;Knauf, 2016) and detailed (Gould & Day, 2013;Jonsson, 2013;Morris & Chikwa, 2016). In studies that have directly compared audio-visual recorded comments with text, students generally have a strong preference for the former (Chew, 2014;Johnson & Cooke, 2016;McCarthy, 2015;Moore & Wallace, 2012;West & Turner, 2016). They also perceive recorded comments to be more supportive (Borup et al, 2015;Gould & Day, 2013), personal (Gould & Day, 2013;Knauf, 2016;Mathieson, 2012;West & Turner, 2016), and easy to understand (Bourgault et al, 2013;Turner & West, 2013) than text.…”

Section: Digital Recordingsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Technology and Feedback Design

Henderson

Ryan

Mahoney

et al. 2018

Learning, Design, and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter provides a synthesis of recent research into how technology can support effective feedback. It begins by adopting a definition of feedback in line with recent advances in feedback research. Rather than viewing feedback as mere information provision, feedback is viewed as an active process that students undertake using information from a variety of sources. The results of a systematic literature search into technology and feedback are then presented, structured around the parties involved in feedback: students, their peers, educators, and computers. The specific feedback technologies focused on include digital recordings; bug in ear technologies; automated feedback; and intelligent tutoring systems. Based on this synthesis of the literature, benefits, challenges and design implications are presented for key feedback technologies. The chapter concludes with a discussion of improved feedback approaches that are likely to be enabled by technology in the future.

show abstract

Self-regulation of learning and preference for written versus audio-recorded feedback by distance education students

Cited by 32 publications

References 26 publications

What are students' needs and preferences for academic feedback in higher education? A systematic review

What are students' needs and preferences for academic feedback in higher education? A systematic review

The Effect of Individualized Technology-Mediated Feedback on EFL Learners’ Argumentative Essays

Technology and Feedback Design

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About