Exploring the Pedagogy of Online Feedback in Supporting Distance Learners

2.1. Terminology

At its most general level, feedback can be defined as the means by which learners are able to determine their progress towards an end goal [6]. However, there appears no widely accepted definition [5] with most definitions reflecting various cognitive, social, and affective perspectives. At a cognitive level, feedback has been defined as a means of controlling learning through the use of reinforcement, i.e. punishment or reward [26]. Such a behaviorist approach has been replaced by more constructivist thinking in which ‘knowledge of results’ (p. 310) emerges from an ongoing process of forming and testing hypotheses rather than a memorization of results [27]. Added to this is the recognition of social interaction in the formation of feedback as instructors respond to learners and check if the information is appropriate to a given task [28, 29]. The affective features of feedback are also recognized with feedback defined as any message which praises, encourages, and supports learners in reaching a specific learning goal [30]. It is also noteworthy that the term “feedback” has often been used synonymously with “formative assessment” and “formative feedback” to imply information about a student’s progress as distinct from formal results-based summative assessment [4]. Within the present study, online feedback is used to denote any messages intended to support students so that they can monitor their own performance in terms of learning goals and strategies. It also refers to any collective, personalized, detailed, written, and/or oral messages provided to distance learners in order to guide and support their learning.

2.2. Feedback types

The two most rudimentary types of feedback are “verification,” an evaluation of the learner’s work, and “elaboration,” the guided instructional cues given to direct the learner [31]. Additionally, feedback can be “norm-referenced” comparing the learner’s answers to others, as in comments such as “this is below average,” or it may be “criterion-referenced,” indicating what has been done and how the answer might be improved [32]. Other feedback typologies include “corrective,” “informative,” and “Socratic,” of which the latter involves asking questions to direct the learner [33]. Yet, other models identify feedback along a continuum ranging from “no feedback,” “error-flagging,” involving highlighting errors without correction and “informative tutoring,” involving providing elaborate feedback with strategies for revision [34].

2.3. Delivering online feedback

Apart from being online, there are several other considerations to take into account when delivering online feedback. In one study [35], weekly podcasts delivered to a whole class were rated positively by learners who also used the additional examples and advice as a supplementary resource for revision. This method was also perceived positively by instructors as a time-efficient way to provide feedback to all students at one time. However, this one-way method of communication fails to address individual learning needs, and other research [9] indicates that students who receive personalized feedback have higher levels of course satisfaction and perform academically better that those students who receive only collective feedback.

In addition, another issue regarding delivery of online feedback focuses on who initiates the feedback. One study [36] suggests that in most cases, learners are unwilling to participate in giving feedback to their peers, and that the reason most students give for logging-on is to read the contributions of other students and any accompanying feedback from the instructor. Even when learners do offer feedback, it tends to be in the form of “verification”, as in “I agree” rather than the more elaborative feedback offered by lectures regarding learning content, task, and social participation [37]. There is also evidence about online learning preferences that suggests that some students do not rate social interaction with peers as important or contributing to their learning [38].

This is not to say that learner engagement in the feedback process cannot be increased. One study [8] showed how teaching explicit metacognitive strategies such as offering support, eliciting information, asking questions, establishing a situation, offering a possible solution, etc., as well as monitoring and evaluating student participation, all have a positive impact on the feedback process. It is also shown that student interaction and feedback are also enhanced when participating in online discussion forums becomes mandatory [36, 39].

2.4. Characteristics of effective online feedback

What makes online feedback effective is determined by both educators and learners. According to educators, effective online feedback is time-consuming requiring detailed and “substantive” comments rather than “basic” ones such as “good answer” [40, 41]. It should promote higher order thinking skills and ask learners to reflect on their learning by asking questions which require learners to clarify, summarize, hypothesize, and link ideas to other areas of course content [42]. Ongoing analysis of online dialog suggests that effective online feedback requires instructor and students to play equal roles in the “assessment of process” [39]. Moreover, educators recognize that in the design of Web-based learning tools, specific principles are more effective, e.g., feedback should summarize learners’ performance, motivate, be relevant to assessment criteria, and be manageable and timely [11]. Added to this, it is recognized that effective online feedback should be clear and comprehensible, leaving no room for confusion or doubt [43].

Such characteristics of best practice are hardly contentious; however, research suggests that these criteria can be perceived differently by learners than by instructors. For instance, in one study [44] on feedback in general, instructors consider their feedback to be more useful than their students; they also believe their students are less interested in feedback than final grades; they also perceive their grading to be fairer in contrast to students who perceive bias toward more active class members. However, both students and instructors acknowledge difficulties for students in decoding feedback, and both groups acknowledge the emotional impact of feedback on student motivation. Similarly, in another study of feedback [13], feedback is linked to students’ individual learning styles with students identified as “deep” learners preferring feedback that encourages reflection, and students identified as “surface” learners preferring positive feedback that verifies an answer and does not require further participation [13]. Another study [23], comparing student satisfaction with distance learning and on-site learning, shows that distance learning students are less satisfied with feedback in relation to comprehensibility, emotional impact, and fairness. It is also been shown that similar to educators [39], online graduate students perceive effective feedback as mutually constructed with their instructors, and that it should also allow space for students to negotiate learning goals and mutually agreeable deadlines [10].

2.5. Challenges and concerns

The literature also highlights several areas of concern and challenge. Conceptually, feedback is considered an under-theorized area that focuses on informal and dialogic processes that are difficult to measure [7]. Moreover, it is claimed that the turn to constructivist pedagogy remains a challenge for online education, in general, and feedback, in particular [45]. On a practical level, multiple taxonomies and models of feedback indicate that it is generally not a well-understood area of online teaching, and, as such, it may possibly be delivered ineffectively, e.g., too little, too late, incomprehensible, demotivating, etc. [46]. This is supported by research which suggests that students cite feedback containing complaint or dissatisfaction as reasons for low participation [47]. This too is in line with research that indicates that instructors new to online teaching often underestimate the need for consistent support and presence in encouraging, motivating, and keeping students focused [20]. A final concern relates the contextual setting that either supports or discourages effective online teaching. Factors such as institutional recognition, promotion, compensation, technical support, and overall work-load are shown to directly influence the quality and quantity of faculty participation [48]. Overall, the extant literature highlights the complexities of the topic and the related challenges involved in delivering feedback in an online setting.

3.1. Purposes of study and research questions

The study was based on data collected over the course of one academic year (2015/2016). This descriptive study uses a mixed method approach to describe educational phenomenon, as it exists and compares it to what is desired [49]. Such research allows for description, explanation, and improvement of educational practices and does not attempt to draw conclusions based on cause and effect. Rather, the overall aim of this study is to uncover data that may not have previously been encountered using other research approaches. Thus, the research questions guiding this study are (1) what feedback was given to distance learning students?, and (2) how was it perceived by these students?

Emerging from these questions, the use of a mixed methods approach allowed for creative data collection, the collection of thick, rich data [50], and the possibility of uncovering contradictions [51]. Indeed, the use of content analysis in phase 1 of the study (see Section 3.2.1) allowed for a systematic and descriptive investigation of the types and frequency of feedback offered by the lecturer to her DL students. The coding of the textual features of this feedback provided inferences about the types of feedback provided, to whom and how often. Moreover, in phase 2 of the study (see Section 3.2.2), semistructured interviews provided opportunities for the researcher/instructor to uncover students’ beliefs, attitudes, and perceptions about the feedback they received, as well as follow themes and issues that may not have been previously considered [52].

3.2. Context

This study took place at a higher education institution in Cyprus, where degree programs are offered in a variety of modes, face-to-face, online, and distance learning courses, for undergraduate and graduate students. While online courses are an option for face-to-face students, distance learning students are geographically distant from the institution with most of them resident in other European countries. Most instructors in this institution have recently added online and distance learning courses to their teaching loads and, as such, are responsible for the design, management, and delivery of these courses. Against this background, the researcher/instructor sets out to explore the feedback given to distance learning (DL) students studying for a postgraduate degree Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL). The degree offers a combination of nine courses, each of which is delivered to students over the period of a 12 week semester. Course content consists of weekly prerecorded video lectures, audio presentations, and recommended readings and students are required to reflect on and discuss this material, critique ideas, ask questions, express opinions, and collaborate on individual and group tasks such as creating lessons and activities. Feedback is then provided in response to these tasks and any other specific academic, administrative, and technical issues that might arise.

3.3. Participants

At the time of the study, the researcher/instructor had more than 26 years teaching experience, of which only 2 years included teaching DL courses. Data were also collected from interviews with five DL students after completion of the course. The students, four female and one male, were all aged between 24 and 45 years. They were all English language teachers with teaching experience ranging from 5 and 22 years. They were based in different three European countries: Greece, Cyprus, and Germany. Before agreeing to participate in the study, all participants signed a consent form expressing their willingness to participate.

3.4. Procedures

4.1. Feedback given

Findings show that the researcher/instructor posted 93 messages in response to 108 messages posted by students, which equates to a response rate of 86.1%. Of these 93 messages posted by the course leader, 27 messages (29%) were addressed to the whole group as collective feedback, while 66 messages (71%) were addressed to individual students. The quantity of feedback given by the course leader amounted to 10.150 words, which is an average of 109 words per message. Moreover, the response time between students posting their messages and the course leader responding ranged from 0 to 15 days with a mean average response time of 1.7 days. So what type of feedback was given by the course leader (Table 2)? Content analysis shows that the most frequent type of feedback given was informative feedback that focused on content (23%), followed by procedural content addressing administrative and technical details related to the course (17%). Affective feedback dealing with the social, emotional, and motivational aspects of learning was the next most common type of feedback (11%) followed by corrective feedback (7%). The least common feedback was reflective feedback (asking questions that encourage students to reflect on their answers) (4%).

4.2. Feedback received

Findings show that distance learning students’ perceptions of feedback revolve around three main themes: the pedagogical, contextual, and relational dimensions of their learning.

5.1. What feedback was given?

The first part of this study offers a descriptive insight into the online feedback practices in this specific distance learning course in terms of ‘what happened’. The amount of feedback given was fairly extensive, with students receiving feedback to over 86% of all their online postings. Moreover, this feedback was mostly personalized (71%), and based on length of messages, it was substantive, with the average length of a message over 100 words. Findings also show that feedback was timely with most students receiving a response within 2 days. In relation to the types of feedback given, it was overwhelmingly informative, focused on providing information about course content and procedures (40%). Other types of feedback were also evident to a lesser extent including affective feedback that focused on motivating and supporting students (11%), corrective feedback (7%), and reflective feedback that asked questions (4%). Finally, it is also noteworthy that the flow of feedback was unidirectional originating from the researcher/instructor to the students. The data show little evidence of student participation in the feedback process other than superficial and infrequent instances of “I agree with …” or “[name] makes a good point.” Although students were encouraged to interact with each other and ask and answer questions addressed to each other, this did not occur in the public space of the course forum, although interview data suggest that students did message and support each other privately: “through the whole Master’s programme I have been in contact with two people but we have really, really interesting conversations about the lectures and about our experiences, I think it would be helpful if we had a way to connect to each other.” Many aspects of these findings are supported by the literature which advocates that effective online feedback is personalized [13], substantive [41], and timely [37, 40]. However, findings also show that the limited amount of reflective feedback—asking students questions about their learning—challenges the notion of best practice. Indeed, the importance of building reflection into a distance learning course is important in helping learners develop metacognitive skills that encourage self and peer evaluation [42]. Another finding that challenges best practice relates to the unidirectional flow of feedback from researcher/instructor to students and lack of mutually constructed feedback between students. This lack of participation may be due to numerous factors reported in the literature, such as course design not based on constructivist pedagogy [45] and lack of incentive and/or knowledge of feedback strategies [37]. In addition, DL students’ perceptions of who should give feedback, discussed below, may also offer insights into their lack of participation.

5.2. How was feedback received?

The second part of this study offers insights into students’ perceptions of online feedback practices and the extent to which it influenced their learning. Analysis of these findings shows how these students interpret feedback according to specific pedagogical, contextual, and relational dimensions of learning.

In relation to the pedagogical dimensions of feedback, students’ positive perceptions of this feedback are very much in line with concepts of best practice described in the literature. In line with the literature [36], students perceived feedback as being accessible, in that they could read their own and other students’ feedback at any point throughout the course: “before the exams and during the study period I am trying to read all the messages because I want to see if I am on the right path or not.” Similarly, as reported in the literature, students comment that feedback was focused [11], motivating [23, 43, 47], personalized [9], timely [37, 40], and useful [44] (see Table 3). Students’ more negative perceptions (see Table 4) are also documented in the literature with students making particular references to some of the feedback they received as being critical in tone [23, 43, 47], inconsistent, inconvenient, lacking [37, 40], and vague and confusing [44]. In addition, these DL students were aware of the different pedagogical functions of feedback and identified the value of affective, corrective, informative, and reflective feedback on their learning (see Table 5). This is also supported by the literature of best practice in asynchronous learning environments [33].

Next, in relation to the contextual dimensions of feedback (see Table 6), students perceived online feedback through the lens of their own cultural expectations with one student commenting that despite achieving a top grade “…maybe it’s a Greek thing but […] I wanted more explanation not just a grade.” The disappointment with the lack of feedback suggested by this comment is reinforced by findings in the literature which suggest that online learning can be a lonely place for learners whose cultural experiences and expectations may differ from the dominant educational culture [53]. Also, in relation to context, students perceived that the quality and quantity of feedback were dependent of class size and the perceived work load of their instructor with one student commenting “I don’t know if we can expect quick feedback if there are like 50 students and one professor.” While student numbers in this particular course may be low, one student perceived a demanding work load for instructors with another student commenting “because I had been a teacher at a university before […] I kind of just plodded on because I know how it is to get bugged by students.” The perception of overworked and unavailable faculty is echoed by research that reports that the massification of online education and the increasing workload means they are more likely to sacrifice formative feedback as part of their online teaching [48, 54]. Finally, some DL students perceive that the feedback they received lacked understanding of their particular work/home life situations with one student commenting “I sent a message, and I got no reply, saying that because of a family situation, I need a big extension because I am many hours in the clinic, I’m outside the home and I have everything going on in my head,” while another students said “I mean people have got their jobs and family obligations, whatever, and so forth, and professors will say they’re giving them plenty of time but they don’t understand what’s going on.” This lack of understanding for students’ lives outside their studies is cited in the literature as reasons for high student attrition and low online course completion [25, 55].

Finally, the findings also highlight students’ perceptions of feedback as constructed through their relationships with self and others. In the first instance, students comment on their intrapersonal dimensions of knowledge construction and the awareness of autonomous learning (see Table 7). One student comments on her growing confidence and the need for less guidance, as she gets older: “anyway when I was 24 I needed a lot of guidance, not that I don’t need it now, but I feel more confident about stuff that I have worked on extensively,” while another student turns to self-reliance rather than inconvenience the course leader: “I kind of just plodded on because I know how it is to get bugged by students.” A greater understanding of how students perceive their own learning in relation to guidance and support is important, since such perceptions are strongly associated their learning outcomes [13].

In relation to students’ perceptions of feedback as constructed interpersonally with their peers and course leader (see Table 8), findings suggest that feedback is an indication of teaching presence “To be honest my expectations were kind of different. I thought that I would not feel the presence of the lecturer and that she wouldn’t comment on my work. However, I was wrong, during the course I had the feeling that the lecturer was not distant but someone who was eager to support the students.” The implications of this are highlighted in the literature, which indicates that teaching presence is strongly associated with course satisfaction and learning outcomes [56, 57]. However within the research [58, 59], there is also a caveat that too much teaching presence may deter autonomous leaning and self-reliance, and this is echoed in this study: “I can see how too much involvement can create less motivation in students and less self-responsibility.”

The interpersonal dimension of feedback also includes students’ engagement with their peers. Findings indicate that although students value reading work posted by their peers, “I really adore… reading to work out what others have written because it opens a new door to things I haven’t thought before or things I have thought differently which is the thing I like and then I can see the feedback and see if that was a good direction I should have taken,” they did not participate in the feedback process. Indeed, this also borne out in research which suggests that most students enrolled in online or distance learning courses are lurking; with the main reason given for logging on is to look at questions and tasks, as well as read other students’ posts and instructor feedback. The same research suggests that only one in four are willing to contribute to discussion [36]. These findings are contrary to other research which suggests that students identify effective feedback as a mutual process [10], and it indicates an inconsistency between students’ perceptions and their actual practices. Indeed, findings suggest that these students perceive feedback as a top-down process with distinct roles assigned to students and educators. One student comments “but I just sense that from the students they are just a bit uneasy about criticizing, there’s more of a sense on the forum of trying to support each other instead of critiquing what they are writing.” While another student adds “when we write a question to a lecturer, other students do not answer the question, they are waiting for the lecturer to answer that even though the question is not addressed to the lecturer … its not to “dear lecturer” its addressed to “dear everyone”, well I think it was to do with showing respect to the lecturer and not commenting on what they are about to say.” It might also be that lack of collaborative learning in the feedback process is part of students’ preferred learning style, and there is evidence to suggest that successful online learners often exhibit a preference for an independent over a collaborative learning style [38].