You are here:

Personalized Versus Collective Instructor Feedback in the Online Courseroom: Does Type of Feedback Affect Student Satisfaction, Academic Performance and Perceived Connectedness With the Instructor?
Article

, Northwestern State University, United States ; , Texas Woman's 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 demand for online learning has never been greater. For faculty, teaching in the virtual classroom requires a new set of skills and practices. Online instructors must prepare for the increased written communication demands that accompany online education, such as the large amount of time needed to respond to student inquiries and to provide feedback on assignments. The purpose of this comparative study was to determine if there were significant differences in student satisfaction, performance, and perceived "connectedness" to the instructor when the instructor used collective versus personalized feedback. In addition, this study examined two other variables: the time required to deliver the type of feedback as well as students' prior experience with online learning. Four online health courses were randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups: personalized or collective. Students in the personalized group received individual feedback from the instructor on each assignment. Students in the collective group received a collective feedback document from the instructor that summarized overall class performance, ways to improve, and student perspectives. Data were collected using an online survey and course evaluations. The findings revealed that students who received personalized feedback were more satisfied and performed academically better than students who received only collective feedback. Furthermore, prior online experience moderately predicted student satisfaction and performance. However, no significant findings were found between treatment groups and the variable of perceived connectedness. This study serves as a springboard for future studies examining how instructor-student interaction affects student learning and satisfaction within the online classroom.

Citation

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. Waynesville, NC USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved May 29, 2023 from .

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

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Blignaut, S., & Trollip, S. (2003, June). A taxonomy for faculty participation in asynchronous online discussions [Electronic version]. Proceedings of the World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2003, (pp. 2043 – 2050), Honolulu, HI. Cashion, J., & Palmieri, P. (2002). The secret is the teacher: The learners’ view of online learning. Leabrook, Australia: National Centre for Vocational Education Research. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED475001)
  2. Clark, T. (1993). Attitudes of higher education faculty toward distance education: A national survey. The American Journal of Distance Education, 7, 19-33.
  3. DeBard, R., & Guidera, S. (2000). Adapting asynchronous communications to meet the seven principles. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 28, 219-230.
  4. DiBiase, D. (2004, April). The impact of increasing enrollment on faculty workload and student satisfaction [Electronic Version]. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8, 45-60. Hackman, M. Z., & Walker, K. B.
  5. Instructional communication in the televised (1990).
  6. Hara, N., & Kling, R. (2000). Student distress in a web-based distance education course [Electronic version]. Information, Communication & Society, 3, 557-579.
  7. Harris, R., & Muirhead, A. (2004, April 7). Online learning community research – Some influences of theory methods. Paper presented at the Networked Learning Conference 2004, Lancaster Un ivers ity, Lancaster, UK. Paper retr ieved
  8. Kulhavy, R. W., & Stock, W. A. (1989). Feedback in written instruction: The place of response certitude. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 279-308.
  9. Lazarus, B. D. (2003, September). Teaching courses online: How much time does it take? [Electronic version]. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 47-54.
  10. Mason, B. J., & Bruning, R. (1999). Providing feedback in computer-based instruction: What the research tells us. Retrieved March 5, 2005, from University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Center for Instructional Innovation Web Site: http://dwb.unl.edu/Edit/MB/MasonBruning.html McKenzie, B., Mims, N., Bennett, E., & Waugh, M. (2000, Winter). Needs, concerns, and practices of online instructors. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, III.
  11. Newberry, B. (2001). Raising student social presence in online classes. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED466611)
  12. Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace: Effective strategies for the online classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  13. Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2003). The virtual student: A profile and guide to working with online learners. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Picciano, A.
  14. Rovai, A. (2002). Development of an instrument to measure classroom community. The Internet and Higher Education, 5, 197-211.
  15. Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students’ perceived learning and satisfaction [Electronic version]. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7, 68-88.
  16. Schifter, C. C. (2000). Faculty participation in asynchronous learning networks: A case study of motivating and inhibiting factors [Electronic version]. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 4, 10-23.
  17. Sloan Consortium. (2002). The Sloan Consortium report to the nation: Five pillars of quality online education. Retrieved February 6, 2005, from http://www.sloan-C.org/effective/pillarreport1.pdf Vrasidas, C., & McIsaac, M. S. (1999). Factors influencing interaction in an online course. Journal of Distance Education, 13, 22-36.
  18. Woods, R. H. (2002). How much communication is enough in online courses? Exploring the relationship between frequency of instructor-initiated personal email and learners’ perceptions of and participation in online learning. International Journal of Instructional Media, 29, 377-394.
  19. Woods, R. H., & Baker, J. D. (2004). Interaction and immediacy in online learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5. Retrieved March 21, 2005, from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/186/801
  20. Woods, R., & Ebersole, S. (2003). Using non-subject-matter-specific discussion board to build connectedness in online learning. The American Journal of Distance Education, 17, 99-117.

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.