Advertisement

Journal of Computing in Higher Education

, Volume 29, Issue 3, pp 451–476 | Cite as

Feedback 2.0 in online writing instruction: Combining audio-visual and text-based commentary to enhance student revision and writing competency

  • Anna Grigoryan
Article
First Online:

Abstract

The continued increase in the number of students participating in online degree programs has led to an increase in the number of students taking online composition courses. Currently, most online writing programs replicate approaches used in face-to-face composition courses and simply transfer them to the online learning environment. However, there is a need to develop teaching practices and approaches to feedback designed specifically for online learning environments. This quasi-experimental study examined whether the use of a combination of audio-visual and text-based commentary in online writing courses was more effective in promoting substantive revision and improvement in students’ writing than the use of text-based commentary alone. The multimodal feedback group showed higher rates of improvement in areas of audience and purpose between first and final drafts than students in the text-only group. Results also indicated that receiving a combination of audio-visual and text-based feedback had a marginally statistically significant effect on categories of content (p = .08) and final draft quality (p = .06); the effect for both categories was considered medium, partial η2 = .07. While most previous studies on audio or video feedback have focused on student perceptions of the feedback, this study, by focusing on efficacy, has helped generate empirical data regarding the pedagogical usefulness of audiovisual feedback in online learning environments.

Keywords

Online learning Feedback Online writing instruction Audio-visual feedback Feedback in online learning environments Writing instruction 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The author declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beach, R. (1992). Experimental and descriptive research methods in composition. In G. Kirsch & P. A. Sullivan (Eds.), Methods and methodology in composition research (pp. 217–243). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Beach, R., & Friedrich, T. (2006). Response to writing. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (Vol. 1–Book, Section). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bridwell, L. S. (1980). Revising processes in twelfth grade students’ transactional writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 14, 197–222.Google Scholar
  5. Cavaleri, M., Di Biase, B., & Kawaguchi, S. (2014). Academic literacy development: Does video commentary feedback lead to greater engagement and response than conventional written feedback? The International Journal of Literacies, 20(3), 19–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. (2010). Student revision with peer and expert reviewing. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 328–338. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Connors, R. J., & Lunsford, A. (1993). Teachers’ rhetorical comments on student papers. College Composition and Communication, 44(2), 200–223. doi: 10.2307/358839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Faigley, L., & Witte, S. P. (1981). Analyzing revision. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 400–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fitzgerald, J. (1987). Research on revision in writing. Review of Educational Research, 57(4), 481–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fitzgerald, J. (1992). Towards knowledge in writing: Illustrations from revision studies. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.Google Scholar
  13. Hawisher, G. E. (1987). The effects of word processing the revision strategies of college freshmen. Research in the Teaching of English, 21, 145–160.Google Scholar
  14. Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. E. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 1–27). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  15. Hayes, J. R., Flower, L., Schriver, K. S., Stratman, J., & Carey, L. (1987). Cognitive processes in revision. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Advances in applied psycholinguistics: Vol. 2. Reading, writing, and language processing (pp. 176–240). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hewett, B. L. (2004). Asynchronous online instructional commentary: A study of student revision. Readerly/Writerly Texts: Essays in Literary, Composition, and Pedagogical Theory (Double Issue), 11 & 12(1 & 2), 47–67.Google Scholar
  17. Hewett, B. L. (2006). Synchronous online conference-based instruction: A study of whiteboard interactions and student writing. Computers and Composition, 23(1), 4–31. doi: 10.1016/j.compcom.2005.12.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hewett, B. L. (2010). The online writing conference a guide for teachers and tutors. Portsmouth: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  19. Hewett, B. L., Minter, D., Gibson, K., Meloncon, L., Oswal, S., Olsen, L., et al. (2011). The state-of-the-art of online writing instruction. Conference on College Composition and Communication. Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Groups/CCCC/Committees/OWI_State-of-Art_Report_April_2011.pdf.
  20. Hill, C. A., Wallace, C. L., & Haas, C. (1991). Revising on-line: Computer technologies and the revising process. Computers and Composition, 9(1), 83–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. MacArthur, C. A. (2007). Best practices in teaching evaluation and revision. In S. Graham, J. Fitzgerald, & C. A. MacArthur (Eds.), Best practices in writing instruction. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  23. MacArthur, C. A., Graham, S., & Schwartz, S. (1991). Knowledge of revision and revising behavior among students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 14, 61–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McCutchen, D., Hull, G. A., & Smith, W. A. (1987). Editing strategies and error correction in basic writing. Written Communication, 4, 139–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Moore, N., & Filling, M. (2012). iFeedback: Using video technology for improving student writing. Journal of College Literacy and Learning, 38, 3–14.Google Scholar
  26. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2002). Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning: When reading helps listening. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 156–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nystrand, M. (2006). The social and historical context for writing research. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (Vols. 1–Book, 1–Section). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  28. Pritchard, R. J., & Honeycutt, R. L. (2006). The process approach to writing instruction: Examining its effectiveness. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  29. Scrocco, D. L. A. (2012). Do you care to add something? Articulating the student interlocutor’s voice in writing response dialogue. Teaching English in the Two-Year College, 39(3), 274–292.Google Scholar
  30. Segran, E. (2014). The adjunct revolt: How poor professors are fighting back. The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/04/the-adjunct-professor-crisis/361336/.
  31. Sommers, J. (2012). Response rethought…again: Exploring recorded comments and the teacher-student bond. Journal of Writing Assessment, 5(1). Retrieved from http://www.journalofwritingassessment.org/article.php?article=59.
  32. Sommers, J. (2013). Response 2.0: Commentary on student writing for the new millennium. Journal of College Literacy and Learning, 39, 21–37.Google Scholar
  33. Sommers, N. (1980). Revision strategies of student writers and experienced adult writers. College Composition and Communication, 4, 378. doi: 10.2307/356588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stern, L. A., & Solomon, A. (2006). Effective faculty feedback: The road less travelled. Assessing Writing, 11(1), 22–41. doi: 10.1016/j.asw.2005.12.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Straub, R. (1996). Teacher response as conversation: More than casual talk, an exploration. Rhetoric Review, 2, 374–398. doi: 10.2307/465862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Straub, R. (2000a). The practice of response: Strategies for commenting on student writing. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  37. Straub, R. (2000b). The student, the text, and the classroom context: A case study of teacher response. Assessing Writing, 7(1), 23–55. doi: 10.1016/S1075-2935(00)00017-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sweller, J. (1999). Instructional design in technical areas. Camberwell, Australia: ACER Press. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED431763&login.asp?custid=s8480238&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
  39. van Merrienboer, J., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 147–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Warnock, S. (2008). Responding to student writing with audio-visual feedback. In T. Carter, M. A. Clayton, A. D. Smith, & T. G. Smith (Eds.), Writing and the iGeneration: Composition in the computer-mediated classroom (pp. 201–226). Southlake, TX: Fountainhead Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Abilene Christian UniversityAddisonUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options