Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The impact of text versus video communication on instructor feedback in blended courses

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this study we examined student and instructor perceptions of text and video feedback in technology integration courses that combined face-to-face with online instruction for teacher candidates. Items from the Feedback Environment Scale (Steelman et al. 2004) were used to measure student perceptions of feedback quality and delivery. Independent sample t tests found no significant difference in perceptions of feedback quality and delivery between students who received video feedback and those who received text. End-of-semester student and instructor interviews identified several differences in the instructors’ feedback methods when they were communicating with text as compared to video. In general, students and instructors found that the affordances of text enabled more efficient and organized feedback, while the affordances of video encouraged more supportive and conversational communication. Analysis of actual feedback comments found video comments were longer and more supportive, while text feedback contained more specific critiques. When rating types of feedback, both students and instructors valued the efficiency of text over the more affective benefits of video. The article concludes with possible implications for future research and recommendations for practice that draw on the potential benefits of both feedback forms.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, T. (2009). A rose by any other name: Still distance education—a response to D. R. Garrison : Implications of online and blended learning for the conceptual development and practice of distance education. Journal of Distance Education, 23(3), 111–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borup, J., Graham, C. R., & Velasquez, A. (2011). The use of asynchronous video communication to improve instructor immediacy and social presence in a blended learning environment. In A. Kitchenham (Ed.), Blended learning across disciplines: Models for implementation (pp. 38–57). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borup, J., West, R. E., & Graham, C. R. (2013). The influence of asynchronous video communication on learner social presence: A narrative analysis of four cases. Distance Education, 34(1), 48–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. E. (1994). Media and method. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(3), 7–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Draft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eraut, M. (2006). Feedback. Learning in Health and Social Care, 5, 111–118. doi:10.1111/j.1473-6861.2006.00129.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, C. (2013). Making sense of assessment feedback in higher education. Review of Educational Research, 83(1), 70–120. doi:10.3102/0034654312474350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallien, T., & Oomen-Early, J. (2008). Personalized versus collective instructor feedback in the online courseroom: Does type of feedback affect student satisfaction, academic performance and perceived connectedness with the instructor? International Journal on E-Learning, 7(3), 463–476.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, D. R. (2003). Self-directed learning and distance education. In M. G. Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (1st ed., pp. 161–168). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, R. (2009). Implications of online learning for the conceptual development and practice of distance education. Journal of Distance Education, 23(2), 93–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105. doi:10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Getzlaf, B., Perry, B., Toffner, G., Lamarche, K., & Edwards, M. (2009). Effective instructor feedback: Perceptions of online graduate students. The Journal of Educators Online, 6(2), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, A. S., & Rogers, P. C. (2009). The architecture of instructional theory. In C. M. Reigeluth & A. Carr-Chellman (Eds.), Instructional-design theories and models (Vol. III, pp. 305–326). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gikandi, J. W., Morrow, D., & Davis, N. E. (2011). Online formative assessment in higher education: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2333–2351. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.004

  • Gilbert, L., Whitelock, D., & Gale, V. (2011). Synthesis report on assessment and feedback with technology enhancement. Southampton, UK: Electronics and Computer Science EPrints. http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/273221/

  • Glaser, B. G. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 12(4), 436–445. http://www.jstor.org/stable/798843

  • Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, and future directions. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 3–21). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, C. R., Henrie, C. R., & Gibbons, A. S. (2014). Developing models and theory for blended learning research. In A. G. Picciano, C. D. Dziuban, & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Blended learning: Research perspectives (Vol. 2, pp. 13–33). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255–274. doi:10.3102/01623737011003255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths, M. E., & Graham, C. R. (2009a). Using asynchronous video in online classes: Results from a pilot study. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 6(3), 65–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths, M. E., & Graham, C. R. (2009b). The potential of asynchronous video in online education. Distance Learning, 6(2), 13–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths, M., & Graham, C. R. (2010). Using asynchronous video to achieve instructor immediacy and closeness in online classes: Experiences from three cases. International Journal on e-Learning, 9(3), 325–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harper, F., Green, H., & Fernandez-Toro, M. (2012). Evaluating the integration of Jing screencasts in feedback on written assignments. 2012 15th International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning (ICL) (pp. 1–7). doi:10.1109/ICL.2012.6402092.

  • Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2012). Audio-based versus text-based asynchronous online discussion: Two case studies. Instructional Science, 41(2), 365–380. doi:10.1007/s11251-012-9232-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, R., Hartley, P., & Skelton, A. (2002). The conscientious consumer: Reconsidering the role of assessment feedback in student learning. Studies in Higher Education, 27(1), 53–64. doi:10.1080/0307507012009936.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hynson, Y. T. A. (2012). An innovative alternative to providing writing feedback on students’ essays. Teaching English with Technology, 12(1), 53–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ice, P., Curtis, R., Phillips, P., & Wells, J. (2007). Using asynchronous audio feedback to enhance teaching presence and students’ sense of community. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(2), 3–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, L. (2004). Online technologies for teaching writing: Students react to teacher response in voice and written modalities. Research in the Teaching of English, 38(3), 304–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lizzio, A., & Wilson, K. (2008). Feedback on assessment: Students’ perceptions of quality and effectiveness. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(3), 263–275. doi:10.1080/02602930701292548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education: Revised and expanded from case study research in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, M. G. (1993). Three types of interaction. In K. Harry, M. John, & D. Keegan (Eds.), Distance education: New perspectives (pp. 19–24). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, N. S., & Filling, M. L. (2012). iFeedback: Using video technology for improving student writing. Journal of College Literacy & Learning, 38, 3–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, L. V., & Finnegan, C. L. (2009). Best practices in predicting and encouraging student persistence and achievement online. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 10(1), 55–64. doi:10.2190/CS.10.1.e.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mutch, A. (2003). Exploring the practice of feedback to students. Active Learning in Higher Education, 4(1), 24–38. doi:10.1177/1469787403004001003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Union of Students. (2008). NUS student experience report. London, UK: GfK Financial. http://www.nus.org.uk/PageFiles/4017/NUS_StudentExperienceReport.pdf

  • Nillas, L. A. (2008). Challenges in preparing preservice teachers to teach using technology. In K. McFerrin (Ed.), Society for information technology & teacher education international conference 2008 (pp. 4256–4261). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. http://www.editlib.org/p/27924

  • Norton, P., & Wiburg, K. M. (2003). Teaching with technology: Designing opportunities to learn (2nd ed.). Toronto, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oncu, S., & Cakir, H. (2011). Research in online learning environments: Priorities and methodologies. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1098–1108. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.12.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parsad, B., & Lewis, L. (2009). Distance education at degree-granting postsecondary institutions: 2006–07. World Wide Web Internet and Web Information Systems. http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009044.pdf

  • Price, M., Handley, K., Millar, J., & O’Donovan, B. (2010). Feedback: All that effort, but what is the effect? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(3), 277–289. doi:10.1080/02602930903541007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Research, 29(1), 4–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodway-Dyer, S., Knight, J., & Dunne, E. (2011). A case study on audio feedback with geography undergraduates. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 35(2), 217–231. doi:10.1080/03098265.2010.524197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stake, R. E. (2010). Qualitative research: Studying how things work. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steelman, L. A., Levy, P. E., & Snell, A. F. (2004). The feedback environment scale: Construct definition, measurement, and validation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(1), 165–184. doi:10.1177/0013164403258440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

  • Wiliam, D. (2011). What is assessment for learning? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(1), 3–14. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2011.03.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolsey, T. D. (2008). Efficacy of instructor feedback on written work in an online program. International Journal on E-Learning, 7(2), 311–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, K. A., Moskovitz, C., & Valiga, T. M. (2011). Audio feedback for student writing in online nursing courses: Exploring student and instructor reactions. The Journal of Nursing Education, 50(9), 540–543. doi:10.3928/01484834-20110616-04.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the feedback of Dr. Charles R. Graham on the research design and earlier drafts of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. George Mason University, Fairfax, USA

    Jered Borup

  2. Brigham Young University, Provo, USA

    Richard E. West & Rebecca Thomas

Authors
  1. Jered Borup
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Richard E. West
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rebecca Thomas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jered Borup.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Borup, J., West, R.E. & Thomas, R. The impact of text versus video communication on instructor feedback in blended courses. Education Tech Research Dev 63, 161–184 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9367-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9367-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation