You are here:

Efficacy of Instructor Feedback on Written Work in an Online Program
Article

, Walden University, United States

International Journal on E-Learning, ISSN 1537-2456 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA

Full Text

Abstract

The author details a study of the feedback provided in four online courses and how adult students perceived and made use of that feedback. The relation of feedback to formative assessment is briefly considered. Students indicated a preference for feedback embedded in the document rather than summarized at the end of their work. Categories for types of feedback are established. A discussion of instructor presence as it relates to online courses and student written work submissions outside of threaded discussions is central to the findings in this study.

Citation

Wolsey, T. (2008). Efficacy of Instructor Feedback on Written Work in an Online Program. International Journal on E-Learning, 7(2), 311-329. Waynesville, NC USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 21, 2023 from .

© 2008 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. American Psychological Association. (2001). Manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed.). Washington, DC: APA.
  2. Anderson, R., & Puckett, J. (2005). The usefulness of an online platform for capturing literacy field experiences: Four lessons learned. [Electronic Version]. Reading Research and Instruction, 44(3), 22-46.
  3. Blanchard, K. & Johnson, S. (1982). The one minute manager. New York: Berkley Books. Burniske, R. (2000). Literacy in the cyberage: Composing ourselves online. Arlington Heights, IL: Skylight Professional Development.
  4. Carless, D. (2006). Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 219-233.
  5. Cresswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among the five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  6. Dennen, V. P. (2005). From message posting to learning dialogues: Factors affecting learner participation in asynchronous discussion. Distance Education, 26(1), 127-148.
  7. Dornan, R. W., Rosen, L. M., & Wilson, M. (2003). Within and beyond the writing process in the secondary English classroom. Boston: Pearson Education Group.
  8. Durrington, V. A., & Yu, C. (2004). It’s the same only different: The effect the discussion moderator has on student participation in online class discussions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 5(2), 89-100.
  9. Dye, J. F., Schatz, I. M., Rosenberg, B. A., & Coleman, S. T. (2000, January). Constant comparison method: A kaleidoscope of data [24 paragraphs]. The Qualitative Report [Online serial], 4(1/2). Retrieved December 11, 2007, from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR4-1/dye.html
  10. Elbow, P. (1973). Writing without teachers. London: Oxford University Press.
  11. Fearn, L., & Farnan, N. (2001). Interactions: Teaching writing and the language arts. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
  12. Goodfellow, R., & Lea, M. R. (2005). Supporting writing for assessment in online learning. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(3), 261-271.
  13. Goodman, J. S., Hendrickx, M., & Wood, R. E. (2004). Feedback specificity, exploration, and learning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(2), 248-262.
  14. Goodrich, H. (1997). Understanding rubrics. Educational Leadership, 54(4), 14–17. Grisham, D. L., & Wolsey, T. D. (2005). Improving writing: Comparing the responses of eighth graders, preservice teachers and experienced teachers. Reading and Writing Quarterly 21(4), 315-330.
  15. Hunt, E., & Pelligrino, J. W. (2002, Spring). Issues, examples and challenges in formative assessment. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 89, 73-85.
  16. Jackson, C. W., & Larkin, M. J. (2002). RUBRIC. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35(1), 40-46. Jago, C. (2005). Papers, papers, papers: An English teacher’s survival guide. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
  17. James, D. (2004). A need for humor in online classes. College Teaching, 52(3), 93-94. Johnston, P. H. (2004). Choice words: How our language affects children’s learning. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
  18. Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2005). Participatory action research: Comunicative action and the public sphere. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  19. Klinger, J. K., Scanlon, D., & Pressley, M. (2005). How to publish in scholarly journals. Educational Researcher, 34(8), 14-20.
  20. Kohn, A. (1993). Punished by rewards: The trouble with gold stars, incentive plans, A’s, praise and other bribes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
  21. Kuriloff, P. C. (2004). Rescuing writing instruction. Liberal Education, 90(4), 36-41. Land, R. (1997). Making paper marking matter. In C.B. Olson (Ed.), Practical ideas for teaching writing as a process at the high school and college levels (pp. 290-293). Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education.
  22. Lee, J., Carter-Wells, J., Glaeser, B., Ivers, K., & Street, C. (2006). Facilitating the development of a learning community in an online graduate program. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 7(1), 13-33.
  23. Lindemann, E. (1982). A rhetoric for writing teachers. New York: Oxford University Press. Maclellan, E. (2001). Assessment for learning: The differing perceptions of tutors and students. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(4), 307-318.
  24. Markham, A. N. (2005). The methods, politics, and ethics of representation in online ethnography. In N.K. Denzin, & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  25. Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  26. Melis, E., & Andres, E. (2005). Global feedback in ACTIVEMATH. [Electronic version]. The Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 24(2).
  27. Montgomery, K. (2000). Classroom rubrics: Systematizing what teachers do naturally. The Clearing House, 73(6), 324–328.
  28. 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.
  29. Nunan, D. (1999). A foot in the world of ideas: Graduate study through the Internet. Language, Learning, and Technology, 3(1), 52-74. Retrieved May 8, 2006, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol3num1/nunan/index.html
  30. Oosterhof, A. (2006, April). Strategies for increasing the efficiency of reviewing online learners’ written products. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Convention, San Francisco, CA.
  31. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon 9(5). [Electronic version]. Retrieved on April 20, 2006,
  32. Quinlan, L. (2000). Creating rubrics for electronic presentations. TechTrends, 44(5), 4-7. Rutz, C. A. (1999). What does my teacher want me to do? A response investigation of the teacher-student relationship in the writing classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Northfield.
  33. Spandel, V. (2005). The nine rights of every writer: A guide for teachers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Summerville, J., & Johnson, C. S. (2006). Rural creativity: A study of district mandated online professional development. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(2), 347-361. Wolsey, T. D. (2004, January/February). Literature discussion in cyberspace: Young adolescents using threaded discussion groups to talk about books. Reading Online, 7(4). Retrieved December 11, 2007,
  34. Yorke, M. (2003). Formative assessment in higher education: Moves towards theory and the enhancement of pedagogic practice. Higher Education, 45(4), 477-501.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Cited By

View References & Citations Map

These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact info@learntechlib.org.