Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Feedback in a Digital Badge Learning Experience: Considering the Instructor’s Perspective

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
TechTrends Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There is growing interest in how various technical tools can be used to leverage the instructional process for both teaching and learning. Digital badges are a visual representation of learning and skills. Digital badges have been used as a way to reduce gaps in knowledge (Bowen and Thomas Change, 46(1), 21-25, 2014; Guskey Journal of Advanced Academics, 19(1), 8–31, 2007), increase engagement (Abramovich et al. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61, 217–232, 2013; Glover and Latif 2013), and develop mastery in key concepts (Academic Medicine, 88(10), 1418–1423, 2013). One challenge for educators in using digital badge systems is in how to provide detailed and specific assessment and feedback to students. A potential solution is to pair digital badges with Mastery Learning strategies. In order to examine the types and ways in which instructors provide feedback, individual instructor case studies were developed. Each case was investigated and analyzed holistically as a single entity representing the distinct evaluation style of that instructor. The coding schema used a deductive process based on feedback and Mastery Learning research including the functions of feedback (e.g. task, cognitive, and functional validity information) (Balzer et al. Psychological Bulletin, 106(3), 410, 1989; Butler and Winne Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245–281, 1995), principles of feedback (e.g. principles supporting self-regulated learning) (Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218, 2006), framework of effective feedback (e.g. content, social and interpersonal negotiation, organization and management) (Yang and Carless Teaching in Higher Education, 18(3), 285–297, 2013), and essential elements of Mastery Learning (e.g. feedback, correctives, enrichment) (Guskey Journal of Advanced Academics, 19(1), 8–31, 2007). Instructors’ feedback fell within six categories: 1) Outcome Feedback; 2) Clarification; 3) Decreasing Gaps in Knowledge; 4) Motivation and Interaction; 5) Opportunities to Further Knowledge; 6) Promotes Overall Learning and Cognitive Development. Based on the results, specific categories of feedback are discussed.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abramovich, S., Schunn, C., & Higashi, R. M. (2013). Are badges useful in education?: It depends upon the type of badge and expertise of learner. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61, 217–232.

  • Balzer, W. K., Doherty, M. E., & O'Connor, R. (1989). Effects of cognitive feedback on performance. Psychological Bulletin, 106(3), 410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory: Prentice-hall, Inc.

  • Bangert, A. W. (2004). The seven principles of good practice: A framework for evaluating on-line teaching. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(3), 217–232.

  • Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, C.-L. C., Kulik, J. A., & Morgan, M. (1991). The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 213–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544–559.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.

  • Besser, E.D., & Newby, T.J. (2019). Exploring the role of feedback and its impact within a digital badge system from student perspectives. TechTrends, 1–11.

  • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7–74.

  • Bloom, B. S. (1968). Learning for mastery. Instruction and curriculum. Regional education Laboratory for the Carolinas and Virginia, topical papers and reprints, number 1. Evaluation Comment, 1(2), n2

  • Bloom, B. S. (1971a). Mastery learning. In J. H. Block (Ed.), Mastery learning: Theory and practice (pp. 47-63). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

  • Bloom, B. S. (1976). Human characteristics and school learning. New York. New York: McGraw-Hill.

  • Bowen, K., & Thomas, A. (2014). Badges: A common currency for learning. Change, 46(1), 21–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/000913832014.867206.

  • Brown, D., & Warschauer, M. (2006). From the university to the elementary classroom: Students' experiences in learning to integrate Technology in Instruction. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(3), 599–621 Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eft&AN=507862102&site=ehost-live.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cantillon, P., & Sargeant, J. (2008). Giving feedback in clinical settings (Vol. 337).

  • Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 3, 7.

  • Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Washinton, D.C.: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Washington, D.C.: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson-Shivers, G. V. (2009). Frequency and types of instructor interactions in online instruction. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8(1), 23–40.

  • Gamrat, C., Zimmerman, H. T., Dudek, J., & Peck, K. (2014). Personalized workplace learning: An exploratory study on digital badging within a teacher professional development program. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(6), 1136–1148.

  • Garrison, D. R. (2011). E-learning in the 21st century: a framework for research and practice 2nd ed: Routledge.

  • Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. The American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Getzlaf, B., Perry, B., Toffner, G., Lamarche, K., & Edwards, M. (2009). effective instructor feedback: perceptions of online graduate students. Journal of Educators Online, 6(2), n2.

  • Glover, I., & Latif, F. (2013). Investigating perceptions and potential of open badges in formal higher education. Paper presented at the world conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications.

  • Guskey, T. R. (2003). How classroom assessments improve learning. Educational leadership, 60(5), 6–11.

  • Guskey, T. R. (2007). Closing achievement gaps: Revisiting Benjamin S. Bloom's “learning for mastery”. Journal of Advanced Academics, 19(1), 8–31.

    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.

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Barrows, H. S. (2006). Goals and strategies of a problem-based learning facilitator. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(1), 4.

  • Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2012). Educational research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches (4th ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE Publilcations.

  • Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254.

  • Kramarski, B., & Michalsky, T. (2010). Preparing preservice teachers for self-regulated learning in the context of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 20(5), 434–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.05.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kulhavy, R. W. (1977). Feedback in written instruction. Review of Educational Research, 211–232.

  • Lambert, J., & Cuper, P. (2008). Multimedia technologies and familiar spaces: 21st century teaching for 21st century learners. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 8(3), 264–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambert, J., Gong, Y., & Cuper, P. (2008). Technology, transfer and teaching: the impact of a single technology course on preservice teachers’ computer attitudes and ability. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16(4), 385–410.

  • Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Larkin, K. C. (1984). Relation of self-efficacy expectations to academic achievement and persistence. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31(3), 356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1986). But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. New directions for program evaluation, 1986(30), 73–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, R., McNamara, P. M., & Seery, N. (2012). Promoting deep learning in a teacher education programme through self- and peer-assessment and feedback. European Journal of Teacher Education, 35(2), 179–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2011.643396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2008). Learning and instruction (2nd ed.. Ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.

  • Mehta, N. B., Hull, A. L., Young, J. B., & Stoller, J. K. (2013). Just imagine: New paradigms for medical education. Academic Medicine, 88(10), 1418–1423.

  • Mettler, E., Massey, C., & Kellman, P. J. (2011). Improving adaptive learning technology through the use of response times. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Boston, MA: Cognitive Science Society.

  • Michalsky, T., & Kramarski, B. (2015). Prompting reflections for integrating self-regulation into teacher technology education. Teachers College Record, 117, 050307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Washington, D.C.: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostashewski, N., & Reid, D. (2015). A history and frameworks of digital badges in education gamification in education and business (pp. 187-200): Springer International Publishing.

  • Pajares, F. (2002). Gender and perceived self-efficacy in self-regulated learning. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 116–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramaprasad, A. (1983). On the definition of feedback. Behavioral Science, 28(1), 4–13.

  • Reigeluth, C. M., & Karnopp, J. R. (2013). Reinventing schools: It’s time to break the mold. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Education.

  • Schunk, D. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and cognitive skill learning. In C. A. R. Ames (Ed.), Research on motivation in education (Vol. 3, pp. 13–44). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schunk, D. H., Meece, J. R., & Pintrich, P. R. (2012). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications: Pearson higher Ed.

  • Slavin, R. E., & Karweit, N. L. (1984). Mastery learning and student teams: A factorial experiment in urban general mathematics classes. American Educational Research Journal, 21(4), 725–736.

  • Tally, S. (2012). Digital badges show students' skills along with degree. Retrieved January 27, 2015, 2015, from http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2012/Q3/digital-badges-showstudentsskills-along-with-degree.html.

  • Tucker, S. A. (1993). Evaluation as feedback in instructional technology: The role of feedback in program evaluation. Interactive instruction and feedback (pp. 301–342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

  • Yang, M., & Carless, D. (2013). The feedback triangle and the enhancement of dialogic feedback processes. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(3), 285–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (applied social research methods) (4th ed.). Washington, D.C.: SAGE Publications, Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yorke, M. (2003). Formative assessment in higher education: Moves towards theory and the enhancement of pedagogic practice. Higher Education, 45(4), 477–501.

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2501_2.

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (1995). Self-regulation involves more than metacognition: A social cognitive perspective. Educational Psychologist, 30(4), 217–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. California State University, Fullerton, CA, USA

    Erin D. Besser

  2. Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA

    Timothy J. Newby

Authors
  1. Erin D. Besser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Timothy J. Newby
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Erin D. Besser.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare they have no conflict of interest.

All procedures performed in this study 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 was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Besser, E.D., Newby, T.J. Feedback in a Digital Badge Learning Experience: Considering the Instructor’s Perspective. TechTrends 64, 484–497 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-020-00485-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-020-00485-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation