A case study on feedback

Pyke, J. G., & Sherlock, J. J. (2010). A closer look at instructor-student feedback online: A case study analysis of the types and frequency.  Merlot Journal of Online Teaching and Learning, 6(1), 110-121. Retrieved on 2 April, 2012, from http://jolt.merlot.org/vol6no1/pyke_0310.htm

  

This article describes the findings of a case study examining the types and frequency of feedback in an online university course (encompassing 1744 recorded instructor-student feedback interactions).  Students engaged in individual and group activities, asynchronous online discussions, synchronous online chat sessions, instructor-learner emailing, and were provided with assignment feedback online. The course was designed by a group of instructors, although delivered by a single instructor, and based on a constructivist approach.

In a distance learning context is used to help a student engage with learning and understand content.  Feedback is often individualised and ‘the instructor’s feedback helps to personalize the learning and assist the student in learning.’ (p.111)

The authors divided the feedback provided by the instructor into three types; corrective, motivational, and technology.  The authors also divided feedback into individualised or group feedback and when it occurred (during the semester).

Corrective feedback was described a feedback which focuses on the content of learning activities and aims to reinforce or correct learner performance through things such as acknowledging the correct actions or answers of learners, providing guidance to improve learner understanding, providing correct answers or explanations, or suggesting a leaner attempt an activity again.

Motivational feedback was described as feedback used to help motivate a learner to participate in learning and perform.  This feedback incentivise a learner to meet learning goals and face challenges, improving learner resilience, assist a learner to continue with their efforts, or help make learning personally relevant.  It can increase a learner’s motivation and their sense of control and ownership in learning.   

Technology feedback was described as dealing with technological support issues to do with software, hardware, and web-based learning.

The authors found that corrective feedback made up 69% of course feedback, 21% was motivational feedback and 10% was technology feedback.  Additional findings were:  

• Corrective feedback was more often provided to groups than individuals (2:1)
• Corrective feedback increased towards the end of a course 
• Motivational feedback was more often provided to individuals than groups (3:1)
• Motivational feedback was more likely to be provided through online synchronous chat sessions as this provided immediate feedback
• Motivational and technology feedback were higher at the beginning of a course
• Technology feedback was requested by individuals more frequently than teams (2:1)
• Email was the most frequent method of requesting and providing technology support
• Technology feedback, where advice is outside of an instructor’s area of expertise, may require much more time to prepare than is indicated by the proportion of feedback which results. 

While the authors were not looking to pass comment on whether these proportions or other findings reflected appropriate or good practice, they were interested in how instructors would view the results.  

As mentioned earlier, the course was based on a constructivist approach.  The instructor was surprised that such a high proportion of the feedback she provided was corrective, as she thought that ‘motivational feedback, prominent in the constructivist paradigm, would have played a much greater role than corrective feedback’ (p.118) in her teaching.

The constructivist paradigm emphasises the role of feedback as an aid to increase learner’s self-efficacy and to help a learner gain a sense of control over his learning (Jonassen, 1991). Corrective feedback is more aligned with a behaviourist approach where reinforcing correct answers and correcting errors is central to the task of information processing.

The results of this study are too small to be generalisable, however, it does suggest that instructors might want to gather more data on the type of feedback they provide as this may not be consistent with their philosophy of teaching or reflect their beliefs or perceptions about the type and frequency of feedback they provide.

As noted in my last blog, Tyler-Smith (2006) has identified the multiple learning tasks that a first-time eLearner must deal with in the early stages of an online course and which could lead to cognitive overload and drop-out or withdrawal rates in the first weeks of a course.  These tasks apply at any level of study, the tasks are relative to a learners ‘newness’ to online learning rather than their history of learning in other media.

Of the five learning tasks identified by Tyler-Smith, only one task is focused on content, negotiating the leaning content, and might warrant corrective feedback (depending on your teaching philosophy!).  The other four tasks require instructor support more aligned with motivation and technology feedback.  While this is consistent with the Pyke and Sherlock finding that the start of the course has more motivational and technology feedback than later on, the overall proportion of corrective feedback means it is likely that this played a dominating role throughout the course. (The authors do not mention whether any of the learners on the course were new to distance learning so this is not included in the analysis they provide.)

 

Jonassen, D. H. (1991).  Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm.  Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 4-14.