Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Supporting the development of collaboration and feedback skills in instructional designers

  • Published:
Journal of Computing in Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Instructional designers (IDs) frequently collaborate with subject matter experts, peer IDs, and other professionals (Intentional Futures 2016). Such collaboration often requires an exchange of feedback on design plans and work completed with and for others, as well as self-assessment of one’s own skills and work during the design process (Falchikov 1996; Topping 1998). While there is significant research on peer feedback and its benefits, few research studies focus on scaffolds to help IDs develop these professional competencies. Novice IDs may not have innate collaboration and feedback skills. Therefore instructors may need to scaffold student ID’s collaboration and feedback skill development through the purposeful integration of scaffolds into a course curriculum. Integrating peer feedback skill development opportunities can be particularly challenging in online courses as students may need various types of scaffolding. This mixed methods study focuses on considerations and supports implemented to assist with the development of ID collaboration and peer feedback skills. In this paper, we examine the role of feedback and feedback activities on their professional growth through three areas: (1) student perceptions of peer feedback prior to peer feedback activities for course assignments and after completing the peer feedback activities for course assignments; (2) the relationship between student use of peer feedback scaffolds and student’s perceptions of giving and receiving feedback; and (3) the relationship between student perceptions of feedback received and perception of benefit of feedback received. Study results indicate that while initially students found it difficult to provide and accept in-depth peer feedback, they appreciated its value for improving their designs, learning, and overall professional growth. Many students responded to course activities by putting more effort into providing quality feedback and they explored feedback provided to their peers to continue learning and improve their own work. Students shared that the regular opportunities for feedback from the onset of the course and the feedback resources provided were conducive to improvement of their peer feedback skills. Recommendations for faculty and instructors on structuring peer feedback opportunities in an online environment are provided.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bannan-Ritland, B. (2001). Teaching instructional design: An action learning approach. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 14(2), 37–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beishuizen, J. (2008). Does a community of learners foster self-regulated learning? Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 17(3), 183–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bielaczyc, K., & Collins, A. (1999). Learning communities in classrooms: A reconceptualization of educational practice. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 269–292). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brill, J. (2016). Investigating peer review as a systemic pedagogy for developing the design knowledge, skills and dispositions of novice instructional design students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 4(64), 681–705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. H., & Green, T. G. (2015). The essentials of instructional design: Connecting fundamental principles with process and practice (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cantoni, V., Cellario, M., & Porta, M. (2004). Perspectives and challenges in e-learning: Towards natural interaction paradigms. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing, 15(5), 333–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casey, C., Branvold, D., & Cargille, B. (1996). A model for peer review in instructional design. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 9(3), 32–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, K. J., & van Auken, S. (2001). Creating positive group project experiences: An examination of the role of the instructor on students’ perceptions of group projects. Journal of Marketing Education, 22(2), 117–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, K., Schunn, C. D., & Wilson, R. (2006). Validity and reliability of scaffolded peer assessment of writing from instructor and student perspectives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 891–901.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corgan, R., Hammer, V., Margoliese, M., & Crossley, C. (2004). Making your online course successful. Business Education Forum, 58(3), 51–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P., & Schneider, D. (1995). Collaborative learning and the Internet. http://tecfa.unige.ch/tecfa/research/CMC/colla/iccai95_1.html.

  • Doan, L. (2013). Is feedback a waste of time? The students’ perspective. Journal of Perspective in Applied Academic Practice, 1(2), 3–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dooley, K., Lindner, J., Telg, R., Irani, T., Moore, L., & Lundy, L. (2007). Roadman to measuring distance education instructional design competencies. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(2), 151–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falchikov, N. (1996). Improving learning through critical peer feedback and reflection. Paper presented at HERDSA Conference: Different approaches: Theory and practice in Higher Education, Perth, Australia.

  • Fulton, K., & Riel, M. (1999). Professional development through learning communities. Edutopia, 6(2), 8–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2004). Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1, 3–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, M. J. (2006). Three steps to teaching abstract and critique writing. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 17(2), 136–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartley, R., Kinshuk, K. R., Okamoto, T., & Spector, J. M. (2010). The education and training of learning technologists: A competences approach. Educational Technology & Society, 13(2), 206–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hrastinski, S. (2009). A theory of online learning as online participation. Computers & Education, 52, 78–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Intentional Futures. (2016). Instructional design in higher education: A report on the role, workflow, and experience of instructional designers. Retrieved from: http://intentionalfutures.com/reports/instructional_design/.

  • International Board of Standards for Training, Performance and Instruction. (2012). Instructional designer competencies. Retrieved from http://www.ibstpi.org/.

  • International Society for Performance Improvement. (2016). Certified technologist performance standards. Retrieved from http://www.ispi.org/ISPI/Credentials/CRT_Cert/CPT_Standards.aspx.

  • Ioannou, A., & Artino, A. (2008). Incorporating Wikis in an educational technology course: Ideas, reflections and lessons learned. In K. McFerrin et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of society for information technology and teacher education international conference. Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

  • Jonassen, D., & Land, S. (2000). Theoretical foundations of learning environments. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahiigi, E., Vesisenaho, M., Hansson, H., Danielson, M., & Tusubira, F. (2012). Modelling a peer assignment review process for collaborative e-learning. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 11(2), 67–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ku, H., & Lohr, L. L. (2003). A case study of Chinese students’ attitudes toward their first online learning experience. Education Technology Research and Development, 51(3), 94–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lai, M., & Law, N. (2006). Peer scaffolding of knowledge building through collaborative groups with differential learning experiences. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 35(2), 123–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Law, V., Ge, X., & Eseryel, D. (2011). An investigation of the development of a reflective virtual learning community in an ill-structured domain of instructional design. Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal, 3(4), 513–533.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, N. F., & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: The learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 279–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowenthal, P., Wilson, B. G., & Dunlap, J. C. (2010). An analysis of what instructional designers need to know and be able to do to get a job. Presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Anaheim, CA, October, 2010.

  • Lynch, M. M. (2002). The online educator: A guide to creating the virtual classroom. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McMahon, T. (2010). Peer feedback in an undergraduate programme: Using action research to overcome students’ reluctance to criticise. Educational Action Research, 18(2), 273–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, G. (1988). The instructional designer- subject specialist relationship: Implications for professional training. Journal of Instructional Development, 11(2), 24–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulder, R., Pearce, J., & Baik, C. (2014). Peer review in higher education: Student perceptions before and after participation. Active Learning in Higher Education, 15(2), 157–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicol, D. (2012). Resituating feedback from the reactive to the proactive. In D. Boud & E. Molloy (Eds.), Feedback in higher and professional education: Understanding it and doing it well (pp. 34–49). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicol, D. (2014). Guiding principles of peer review: Unlocking learners’ evaluative skills. In C. Kreber, C. Anderson, N. Entwistle, & J. McArthur (Eds.), Advances and innovations in university assessment and feedback (pp. 195–258). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicol, D., Thomson, A., & Breslin, C. (2014). Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: A peer review perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(1), 102–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.795518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliveria, I., Tinoca, L., & Pereira, A. (2011). Online group work patterns: How to promote a successful collaboration. Computers & Education, 57, 1348–1357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozogul, G., & Sullivan, H. (2009). Student performance and attitudes under formative evaluation by teacher, self and peer evaluators. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57, 393–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Page, B., & Hulse-Killacky, D. (1999). Development and validation of the corrective feedback self-efficacy instrument. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 24(1), 37–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace effective strategies for the online classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2001). Lessons from the cyberspace classroom: The realities of online teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patchan, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2015). Understanding the benefits of providing peer feedback: How students respond to peers’ texts of varying quality. Instructional Science: An International Journal of the Learning Sciences, 43(5), 591–614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiser, R., & Dempsey, J. (2006). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (2nd ed., Vol. 2). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice-Hall, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, J. C., Ertmer, P. A., Lehman, J. D., & Newby, T. J. (2007, October). Using peer feedback in online discussions to improve critical thinking. In Proceedings of the annual meeting of the association for educational communications and technology: Anaheim, CA.

  • Ritzhaupt, A. D., & Kumar, S. (2015). Knowledge and skills needed by instructional designers in higher education. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 28(3), 51–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothwell, W., Benscooter, B., King, M., & King, S. (2016). Mastering the instructional design process: A systematic approach (5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothwell, W. J., & Kazanas, H. C. (2008). Mastering the instructional design process: A systematic approach (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rovai, A. P. (2002). Development of an instrument to measure classroom community. Internet and Higher Education, 5(3), 197–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rovai, A. (2005). Sense of community, perceived cognitive learning, and persistence in asynchronous learning networks. Internet and Higher Education, 5, 319–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowland, G. A., Fixl, A., & Yung, K. (1992). Educating the reflective designers. Educational Technology, 32(12), 36–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russ-Eft, D., Bober, M. J., de la Teja, I., Foxon, M. J., & Koszalka, T. A. (2008). Evaluator competencies standards for the practice of evaluation in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sahin, S. (2008). An application of peer assessment in higher education. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 7(2), 5–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saldana, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shea, P., Li, C., & Pickett, A. (2006). A study of teaching presence and student sense of learning community in fully online and web-enhanced college courses. Internet and Higher Education, 9, 175–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siddaiah-Subramanya, M., Nyandowe, M., & Zubair, O. (2017). Self-regulated learning: Why is it important compared to traditional learning in medical education? Advances in Medical Education and Practice, 8, 243–246. https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S131780.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • So, H. J., & Bonk, C. (2010). Examining the roles of blended learning approaches in computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL) environments: A Delphi study. Educational Technology & Society, 13(3), 189–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • So, H.-J., & Brush, T. (2008). Student perceptions of collaborative learning, social presence and satisfaction in a blended learning environment: Relationships and critical factors. Computers & Education, 51(1), 318–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sugar, W., Hoard, B., Brown, A., & Daniels, L. (2012). Identifying multimedia production competencies and skills of instructional design and technology professionals: An analysis of recent job postings. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 40(3), 227–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68, 249–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Popta, E., Kral, M., Camp, G., Martens, R., & Simons, R.-S. (2017). Exploring the value of peer feedback in online learning for provider. Educational Research Review, 20, 24–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, S., Hsieh, J., Lan, B., & Chung, J.-Y. (2006). Composition and evaluation of trustworthy web services. International Journal of Web and Grid Services, 2(1), 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJWGS.2006.008877.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wakefield, J., Warren, S. & Mills, L. (2012). Traits, skills, & competencies aligned with workplace demands: What today’s instructional designers need to master. In P. Resta (Ed.), Proceedings of society for information technology & teacher education international conference, pp. 3126–3132.

  • Wang, H., Gould, L. V., & King, D. (2009). Positioning faculty support as a strategy in assuring quality online education. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 5(6), 5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolf, N., & Quinn, J. (2001). Evaluating peer review in an introductory instructional design course. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 14(3), 20–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, C., Valcke, M., Schellens, T., & Li, Y. (2009). Chinese students’ perceptions of a collaborative e-learning environment and factors affecting their performance: Implementing a Flemish e-learning course in a Chinese educational context. Asia Pacific Education Review, 10(2), 225–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B., & Campillo, M. (2003). Motivating self-regulated problem solvers. In J. Davidson & R. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of problem solving (pp. 233–262). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA

    Victoria L. Lowell & Iryna V. Ashby

Authors
  1. Victoria L. Lowell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Iryna V. Ashby
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Victoria L. Lowell.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lowell, V.L., Ashby, I.V. Supporting the development of collaboration and feedback skills in instructional designers. J Comput High Educ 30, 72–92 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-018-9170-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-018-9170-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation