Erhalten Sie Zugang zu diesem und mehr als 300000 Büchern ab EUR 5,99 monatlich.
- Herausgeber: Narr Francke Attempto Verlag
- Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
- Serie: narr STUDIENBÜCHER
- Sprache: Englisch
- Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2022
The crucial role of feedback in the learning process is undisputed. But how can feedback be exchanged in the digital age? This book equips teachers and learners with a research-based overview of Digital Feedback Methods. This includes, for instance, feedback in text editors, cloud documents, chats, forums, wikis, surveys, mails as well as multimodal feedback in video conferences and recorded audio, video and screencast feedback. The book discusses the advantages and limitations of each digital feedback method and offers suggestions for their practical application in the classroom. They can be utilized in online teaching as well as to enrich on-site teaching. The book also provides ideas for combining different feedback methods synergistically and closes with recommendations for developing dynamic digital feedback literacies among teachers and students.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 654
Das E-Book (TTS) können Sie hören im Abo „Legimi Premium” in Legimi-Apps auf:
Ähnliche
Jennifer Schluer
Digital Feedback Methods
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24053/9783823395324
© 2022 • Narr Francke Attempto Verlag GmbH + Co. KGDischingerweg 5 • D-72070 Tübingen
Das Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetztes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen.
Alle Informationen in diesem Buch wurden mit großer Sorgfalt erstellt. Fehler können dennoch nicht völlig ausgeschlossen werden. Weder Verlag noch Autor:innen oder Herausgeber:innen übernehmen deshalb eine Gewährleistung für die Korrektheit des Inhaltes und haften nicht für fehlerhafte Angaben und deren Folgen. Diese Publikation enthält gegebenenfalls Links zu externen Inhalten Dritter, auf die weder Verlag noch Autor:innen oder Herausgeber:innen Einfluss haben. Für die Inhalte der verlinkten Seiten sind stets die jeweiligen Anbieter oder Betreibenden der Seiten verantwortlich.
Internet: www.narr.deeMail: [email protected]
ISSN 0941-8105
ISBN 978-3-8233-8532-5 (Print)
ISBN 978-3-8233-0380-0 (ePub)
Contents
Foreword
When I started to incorporate digital feedback and assessment methods in my teacher education courses several years ago, my students (pre-service English language teachers) were definitely highly interested and engaged in trying out different digital methods. However, from the perspective of prospective teachers, some of them were less enthused. A student’s comment during the course evaluation in late January 2020 might be representative of such a conservative stance: “Well, this is definitely very interesting, but as teachers, all we need is pen and paper.” While not everybody agreed, this statement nevertheless reflects a frequent reservation that was echoed by many teachers and scholars in the pre-Covid-19 era. Three months later, when the first digital semester had begun due to the lockdown of educational institutions during Covid-19, the echo had changed. My pre-service teachers said, “it’s great that you have responded to the current requirements so quickly and offer such a highly relevant seminar about digital feedback methods.” In fact, I had done it for years already; it is the context that has changed and that has heightened the relevance of digital methods.
After two years of teaching under Covid-19 conditions, I felt the need to share important research findings and best practices about digital feedback methods in the book that is currently displayed on your screen, opened on your desk or held in your hands. The suggested digital feedback methods can be used in online and hybrid teaching settings, but also in technology-enriched face-to-face classrooms as well as in other blended learning contexts.
Definitely, this book is not meant to be fully exhaustive since digital developments are dynamic and ongoing. Rather, the book should serve as a source of inspiration and practical guidance for students and teaching staff at schools and universities. Teacher educators and other higher education staff can use it to widen their repertoire of digital feedback and assessment methods. Likewise, the book or its individual chapters can be utilized as a resource for seminars or training sessions about digital feedback. Students may consult it to practice new feedback methods themselves to improve their own learning (e.g. digital peer feedback) and teaching, e.g. during placements at schools or other educational institutions or even at companies. Students and educators can test and expand their knowledge and skills by solving the tasks in the individual chapters and by consulting the supplemental (online) materials.
As feedback is ideally understood as an ongoing dialogue about learning, the readers are invited to share their experiences with me by contacting me via e-mail or by contributing to the following electronic document:
https://padlet.com/JSchluer/DigiFeedBookSchluer22
At this point, I would like to thank my students for their contributions and constructive comments in my seminars. I hope that many further students will benefit from the ideas presented in this book. Special thanks go to the University of Kassel for some initial funding at the very start of my explorations in the field of screencast feedback as well as to the Saxon State Ministry for Higher Education, Research and the Arts (Sächsisches Staatsministerium für Wissenschaft, Kultur und Tourismus) for granting me a digital fellowship in 2021/22. Last but not least, I would like to thank my student assistants: Shanqing Gao for assisting me in up-dated literature searches, Jo-Luise Fröhlich for helping me in the process of creating the handouts for the online supplement, and Lucian Thom for contributing some first drafts of the sketches that illustrate the different digital feedback methods.
Questions/ Tasks before reading the book
Knowledge and reflection questions:
(1)
For pre-service teachers: In how far could this book help you prepare for your future job as a teacher? What are your wishes, needs and expectations?
(2)
For students in other degree programs: What role do feedback and digitalization play in your studies? What do you expect to learn from this book?
(3)
In-service teachers and higher-education staff: As a teacher/ educator, you have probably given and received feedback in multiple ways and you might also have some knowledge of digital methods due to your professional or free-time activities. What do you expect to learn from this book?
1Introduction
Feedback can help optimize learning and teaching processes if implemented effectively (Hattie, 2009; 2012; Wisniewski, Zierer, & Hattie, 2020). However, most of the research has concentrated on rather traditional feedback methods, such as oral feedback in the classroom or (hand-)written feedback for written assignments. Despite the ubiquity of digital technologies in our lives and the shift to digital teaching due to the Covid-19 pandemic, many teachers and lecturers only seize a small portion of its affordances, especially when it comes to digital feedback methods (for Germany see e.g. Forsa, 2020a; 2020b; Wildemann & Hosenfeld, 2020). The reasons for this can be various, such as lacking equipment or support, but also unwillingness and unawareness of the possibilities that exist. Therefore, the aim of this book is to introduce a variety of methods that teachers (and students!) can use to exchange feedback in digital ways. The focus is set on what teachers and learners can do and create themselves (technology-mediated feedback), not on what a pre-configured software such as a learning app or game may offer (technology-generated feedback).
Thus, the term “method” has been chosen deliberately, as the emphasis will be placed on the ways in which teachers and learners can actively engage in the digital feedback process. The stress will not be put on specific tools, software, apps or instruments, but rather on didactic design recommendations based on a thorough review of the empirical findings and best practices. Nevertheless, different software programs will be cited to give the readers an orientation or inspiration for selecting the apps that they find most suitable and convenient for their purposes. In fact, some learning management systems (LMS) already exist that incorporate tools for creating digital feedback in various ways (e.g. Canvas, Moodle, Blackboard) (cf. Winstone & Carless, 2020, p. 75). Since, however, not every school or university uses the same platform, several alternative tools will be suggested. In that respect, it needs to be borne in mind that software changes dynamically with technological innovations and market demands. Hence, on the one hand, some cited software could no longer be available at the time of reading this book (e.g. as a free software); on the other hand, software updates might now include additional functions that compensate for the shortcomings described in the book. The idea of continuous professional development is therefore not only integral to this book, but even more so to the teaching profession (Redecker & Punie, 2017). Ideas for experimenting with the different digital methods and discussing them in light of dynamically shifting learning environments will therefore be provided at numerous points in order to foster digital feedback literacies.
To reach this aim in a stepwise manner, the book will be structured as follows: After an introduction to the relevance of feedback in general and digital feedback in particular, an overview of different digital feedback methods will be provided. Each method will be described and defined before its advantages and challenges will be discussed. Based on existing studies and best practices, recommendations for their implementation will be derived. Different feedback directions and combinations will be suggested to create optimal learning conditions. Their exact use, however, will depend on the learning goal and the specific educational environments teachers and learners find themselves in. The book will consider both learners’ and teachers’ perspectives, since feedback will only be successful if it is understood and acted upon (Gibbs & Simpson, 2005, pp. 23–25; Hattie & Clarke, 2019, p. 121; Winstone & Carless, 2020, p. 28). Special emphasis will therefore be given to practical strategies for teachers and students during feedback provision and reception, respectively (cf. Hattie & Clarke, 2019, pp. 79, 169). Beyond that, the readers are invited to experiment with digital feedback in their own classrooms in pedagogically motivated and meaningful ways. Lastly, the book will conclude with suggestions for the development of digital feedback literacies in a dynamically changing world to expand the theoretical frame that is presented in the next chapter.
2Theoretical frameworks and foundations
The present chapter lays important theoretical and conceptual foundations for the discussion of the different digital feedback methods and their possible combinations in the subsequent chapters. First, it clarifies the understanding of feedback that builds the basis for the following argumentation. Section 2.1 addresses the role of feedback in the learning process and gives suggestions regarding the contents, language and style as well structures of feedback messages. Moreover, a summary of essential feedback characteristics is offered. All of them are relevant for engaging in learning-oriented feedback dialogues and require feedback literacies from teachers and learners alike. This key term will be explained in section 2.2 before the emphasis will be shifted to digital aspects. In that regard, section 2.3 discusses the notion of digital literacies and presents some popular frameworks for teachers. Finally, section 2.4 previews the contents of the ensuing chapter by categorizing different types of digital feedback. Readers who are already familiar with these theoretical constructs and frameworks may skip the next sections and move on to the digital implementation in chapter 3.
2.1Feedback
Questions/ Tasks before reading the chapter
Knowledge and reflection questions:
(1)
How would you define feedback?
(2)
Learners’ perspective:
How important is feedback for you as a learner (e.g. as a language learner or as a student at university)? Please explain.
In what ways has feedback been provided to you so far? Please distinguish between the following contexts: as a pupil at school; as a student at university; in life outside of school or university (e.g. feedback by parents or friends).
(3)
Teachers’ perspective:
How important is feedback for you as a (prospective) teacher? Please explain.
As a (prospective) teacher, in what ways have you provided feedback so far? Please give examples and explain.
What other ways of giving feedback would you like to try out?
2.1.3Feedback language and commenting style
For all the different assessment areas, error indication, correction and commentary can be done in more or less direct ways (e.g. Elola & Oskoz, 2016, p. 60; Thompson & Lee, 2012). On the one hand, an error could be pointed out explicitly by giving a direct correction (Bitchener, Young, & Cameron, 2005, p. 193; Ellis, 2009b, p. 99; Ferris & Roberts, 2001, p. 163; Porsch, 2010, p. 13; Sheen & Ellis, 2011, p. 593) and maybe even an additional metalinguistic explanation of the underlying rule (Sheen, 2007, p. 275; cf. the review by Ene & Upton, 2018, p. 2).
On the other hand, it might also be pointed out implicitly, e.g. by drawing on various input enhancement techniques (Ranta & Lyster, 2018, p. 43). For example, assessors may localize an error through gesturing, vocal (volume, modulation and tone of voice) or visual emphases (highlighting, underlining, coloring etc.), error codes or color codes or some other hint instead of supplying the correct solution directly (Ellis, 2009a, pp. 7, 9; 2009b, p. 100; cf. e.g. Grotjahn & Kleppin, 2017a, p. 269; Hyland & Hyland, 2006, p. 85). They might repeat the learner utterance and stress the faulty word or word part (Sheen & Ellis, 2011, p. 594). What is more, metalanguage could be used (Ellis, 2009b, p. 100; Sheen & Ellis, 2011, p. 594) to make the learners reflect on their performance, e.g. by saying “Watch out for tense use”. This is cognitively more demanding for the learners than the direct provision of the correct form (Ferris, 2004, p. 60, cited by Tanveer, Malghani, Khosa, & Khosa, 2018, p. 170), but it gives the learners the chance to discover the right solution themselves (Corder, 1967, p. 168; Porsch, 2010, pp. 13–14).
Proceeding on the idea of feedback as dialogue, i.e. as a social process and communicative act (Ajjawi & Boud, 2018, p. 1108), we note that a feedback message can be formulated in many different ways. For instance, Nurmukhamedov and Kim (2010, p. 272) distinguished between statements (of students’ problems), imperatives (requiring learners to change, delete or add something), questions (raising doubt, showing uncertainty, asking for further details) and hedged suggestions (implying or suggesting to avoid direct comments) (cf. McGarrell & Alvira, 2013, p. 53). The latter two options are often used to reduce a potentially negative uptake and save the learners’ face when problematic aspects are addressed (cf. Hyland & Hyland, 2001, pp. 200–201; Nelson & Schunn, 2009, p. 380).
To mitigate, i.e. tone down, the pragmatic force of the feedback message, the use of question forms (e.g. “What about adding further examples?”), hedges (“It might be a good idea to include more examples.”) and personal attribution (“I think that further examples might strengthen your argument.”) can be beneficial (cf. Hyland & Hyland, 2001, pp. 185, 198; Stannard & Mann, 2018, pp. 98–99; see also Watling & Lingard, 2019, for several useful language suggestions; cf. Kerr & McLaughlin, 2008, p. 12, for a sample script). They may encourage reflection without being too directive or imposing (cf. Nurmukhamedov & Kim, 2010, p. 273; Silva, 2012, p. 7). This way, the learners’ authority (e.g. as writers) is respected (cf. Dagen et al., 2008, cited in Vincelette & Bostic, 2013, p. 271; Hyland & Hyland, 2001, p. 194; see also Cunningham, 2017a, p. 478; 2017b, pp. 100–101, 147) and at the same time they are seen as active agents in the learning and revision process (Brookhart, 2008, cited in Campbell & Feldmann, 2017, p. 5; cf. Cunningham, 2019b, p. 97). In that respect, the use of strong action-oriented verbs in the feedback message can foster learners’ engagement with the contents (Watling & Lingard, 2019, p. 26), for instance by writing “What about adding/ changing/ omitting XY?” (cf. Rottermond & Gabrion, 2021, p. 42).
However, previous research has shown that students may find mitigated feedback confusing if the underlying pragmatic purpose remains unclear (Hyland & Hyland, 2001, pp. 206–208; 2006, p. 87; Nurmukhamedov & Kim, 2010, pp. 273, 280). This can have cultural and linguistic reasons, especially in second- or foreign-language learning settings (Ferris, Pezone, Tade, & Tinti, 1997, pp. 175–176; Hyland & Hyland, 2019). Therefore, it is important to make learners aware of the underlying pragmatic functions of the different comment types, i.e. that hedged statements or questions likewise constitute requests for revisions and thus have a similar function as imperatives (Ferris, 1997, pp. 331–332; Nurmukhamedov & Kim, 2010, p. 281). For teachers, this presupposes critical awareness of their own commenting style and comment types as well as their potential impact (cf. Hyland & Hyland, 2001, pp. 207–208). They need to strike a balance between managing social relations (Hyland & Hyland, 2001, pp. 194, 201; 2019) and communicating feedback effectively. In that regard, also the structural make-up of feedback messages should be considered, as will be done in the subsequent section.
2.1.4Feedback structures
The structure of feedback exchanges is partly conditioned by the modes and tools that are utilized. However, we may also identify some commonalities that might be relevant for any feedback message. Crucially, feedback is not only a transmission of contents, but also relational work (e.g. Ajjawi & Boud, 2018, p. 1106; Winstone & Carless, 2020, pp. 149–165). In that regard, several scholars have highlighted the importance of a personal address or greeting at the start of a feedback message, e.g. by saying the first name of the student (Bakla, 2017, pp. 326–327; Henderson & Phillips, 2014, p. 7; McLeod, Kim, & Resua, 2019, pp. 196–197; White, 2021). Beyond that, it might be a good idea to repeat the name a few times at different points of the feedback, especially if the message is relatively long (see e.g. Huett, 2004, p. 41, for email feedback).
After the greeting, assessors may continue with the relational work by outlining the progress a student has already made (if the student is familiar to the instructor; e.g. Alvira, 2016, p. 84; see progress feedback in section 2.1.1) or by emphasizing the effort the learner has put into the work (Henderson & Phillips, 2014, p. 7; cf. growth mindset in section 2.1.1). Moreover, the feedback provider may thank the student for submitting the assignment (Cavaleri, Kawaguchi, Di Biase, & Power, 2019, p. 14; Cranny, 2016, p. 29118; Henderson & Phillips, 2014, p. 7; Whitehurst, 2014). At that point, assessors could include a reminder of the learning goals that were targeted by the task (cf. Walker, 2017, p. 361). Related to that, they might explain the purpose and focus of the feedback message and provide an overall evaluative summary of the learners’ task performance (Henderson & Phillips, 2014, p. 7; Nelson & Schunn, 2009, pp. 397–399; Phillips, Ryan, & Henderson, 2017, p. 365; Schluer, 2021d, p. 166). This will help to lay a common foundation for the more specific positive feedback and constructive criticism that will follow subsequently. Assessors might already preview the ensuing contents by mentioning their structural sequencing, e.g. by pinpointing the assessment criteria that will be focused on in the main body of the feedback message (e.g. Edwards, Dujardin, & Williams, 2012, pp. 107, 109; cf. the “pre-training principle” by Mayer, 2002, p. 28; see section 2.1.2 on focused feedback). This is particularly useful for complex assessments.
In the main part, it is generally advisable to talk about positive aspects first before proceeding to the negative ones or areas for improvement (e.g. Bakla, 2017, p. 326; Glei, 2016; Henderson & Phillips, 2014, p. 7). In that regard, a frequently applied technique to structure a feedback message is the feedback sandwich (or feedback burger) shown in Figure 1.
Feedback sandwich
In the feedback sandwich, negative feedback is sandwiched between positive comments (LeBaron & Jernick, 2000, p. 14). Hence, the common structure is “make positive comments; provide critique; end with positive comments” (Parkes, Abercrombie, & McCarty, 2013, p. 397) or conclude with “a direction for growth” (LeBaron & Jernick, 2000, p. 14). Especially for negative feedback, it is important to “give reasons or evidence” to support their arguments (Clayton, 2018a, n.p.). This way, learners become aware of the consequences of the problem that needs to be overcome (Clayton, 2018a). In addition, assessors should “suggest a possible solution or recommendation” (Clayton, 2018a, n.p.) that is specific and actionable for the learners (Glei, 2016). In a more detailed manner, Nelson and Schunn (2009, pp. 397–399) recommended the following steps when talking about learners’ fulfillment of a particular assessment criterion or learning goal:
(1)
Summarize what you are going to talk about first (e.g. that you will be focusing on grammatical aspects).
(2)
Specify a concrete aspect (e.g. use of apostrophes in the reviewed paper).
(3)
Illustrate this aspect with concrete examples from the reviewed paper and localize them (e.g. by indicating them visually in the learner’s assignment).
(4)
Explain the point you are making (giving reasons, e.g. stating the rule for the use of apostrophes in English).
(5)
Suggest a solution (e.g. by giving hints to the recipient or offering concrete recommendations).
Both for the overall structure of a feedback message at the macro-level as well as for individual feedback sequences at the micro-level, some common patterns thus are “praise–criticism”, “criticism–suggestion” and “praise–criticism–suggestion” (Hyland & Hyland, 2001, p. 196).
However, as Parkes et al. (2013) explain, students who are familiar with this technique could perceive it as “clichéd” and “insincere” (p. 399, with reference to Schwenk & Whitman, 1987). Even worse, the learners might be anxiously awaiting the criticism that would follow after the first part of the feedback sandwich (Jug et al., 2019, p. 247). All too often, the negative part is introduced by the conjunction “but” (Jug et al., 2019, p. 247). The use of this word can be perceived as a negation of the positive feedback that has preceded it, calling attention to all the bad aspects that are in dire need of improvement (Jug et al., 2019, p. 247). Jug et al. (2019) therefore recommend using the conjunction “and” instead (p. 247). Still, care must be taken that the criticism is perceived as such, i.e. that the two positive slices do not dilute the negative part of the message (Jug et al., 2019, p. 247; Parkes et al., 2013, p. 398). Otherwise, learners might not be sure how they should interpret the feedback message (Parkes et al., 2013, p. 398), both regarding their current performance and the improvements they could make.
Therefore, learners’ cognitive involvement and assessors’ “constructive support” (Kulgemeyer, 2018, p. 130) are crucial for the success of any feedback message. This might be achieved through a conversational language and comments that encourage reflection (e.g. by activating prior knowledge and asking questions for reflection) and engagement (e.g. by giving prompts for further action, such as consulting additional resources for further information). Furthermore, transfer tasks (or follow-up learning tasks) give learners the chance to apply the newly gained information (cf. Martínez-Arboleda, 2018). Quite often, assessors ask learners for a revision (Marshall, Love, & Scott, 2020, p. 6), but the learning gain could also be shown in a (similar) subsequent assignment. To ease the implementation for the learners, it might be useful to summarize the most important points towards the end of the feedback message (Henderson & Phillips, 2014, p. 7) and to highlight further sources of support (White, 2021). This may help the learners to create an action plan that is conducive for reaching the learning goals (McLeod et al., 2019, pp. 196–197). To verify learners’ understanding and uptake, learners might also be requested to write a reflective booklet in which they keep track of their changes or development (Soltanpour & Valizadeh, 2018, pp. 129–130; cf. section 3.15). However, feedback replies can be done in many other ways, as shown in section 2.2.4.
The closing comments may consequently contain a reminder to revise and resubmit the draft (Ali, 2016, p. 112). In more general terms, the assessors can state that they look forward to the progress the learner will be making in the future or in subsequent assignments (cf. Henderson & Phillips, 2014, p. 7, as cited by Phillips et al., 2017, p. 365) and that reconsulting the feedback might be helpful in that respect (Kerr & McLaughlin, 2008, p. 4). In line with this future-orientation (see section 2.1.1), they may also invite learners to engage in follow-up discussions and feedback interactions with the teacher or peers (Harding, 2018, p. 14; Henderson & Phillips, 2014, p. 7; Phillips et al., 2017, p. 365). This could be done as part of the next class meeting (McLeod et al., 2019, pp. 196–197), either face-to-face or in a video conference, or else via phone or mail (Yu & Yu, 2002, p. 120), or in any other way that seems suitable for a particular learning context (see the suggestions in chapter 3).
Finally, the assessors should once again thank the learners for sharing their work and for the effort they have put in it (Bakla, 2017, p. 326; McLeod et al., 2019, p. 197; Whitehurst, 2014), so to end the feedback on a positive note. The final point is thus again mainly relational work, including an invitation to engage in further dialogue and to implement the feedback (Henderson & Phillips, 2014, p. 7; 2015, p. 56).
The structural suggestions are summarized in Figure 2 (adapted from Clayton, 2018b; Henderson & Phillips, 2014, p. 7; McLeod et al., 2019, p. 197; Olsen, 2022; Phillips et al., 2017, p. 365; Schluer, 2021d, p. 166).
Example of feedback structure
However, these structures may vary with the error type and feedback mode as well as many further factors. Overall, it becomes clear that “feedback […] is a common yet complicated practice” (Cunningham, 2017b, p. 31). Its effectiveness results from and depends on a complex interplay between individual variables pertaining to the feedback provider and to the feedback recipient(s), their interpersonal relationship as well as several contextual factors (cf. Chong, 2021; Jug et al., 2019, p. 244). Some important characteristics will be summarized in the next section, though.
2.1.5Characteristics of effective feedback
The criteria for effective feedback are contested due to the many factors that shape learning environments (cf. Hattie, 2012, p. 134; Hattie & Timperley, 2007, p. 81). Notably, learners need to be actively involved in the entire feedback process and have the skills, will and opportunities to act upon the feedback (Carless & Boud, 2018; Nash & Winstone, 2017; Winstone & Carless, 2020; see section 2.2.4). Otherwise, even the most carefully crafted feedback will be futile (Nash & Winstone, 2017, p. 3). The following checklist should therefore be read with this caveat in mind. It is based on a review of relevant prior literature (including Gibbs & Simpson, 2005; Green, 2018; Hattie, 2012; Hattie & Clarke, 2019; Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Nicol, 2010; Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006; Nicol, Thomson, & Breslin, 2014; Ryan, Henderson, & Phillips, 2016; Sheen & Ellis, 2011; Shute, 2008; Vogt & Froehlich, 2018).
Effective feedback should …
be clear and comprehensible to the learners,
be based on assessment criteria that are transparent to the learners,
be specific and contain concrete examples,
be structured and easy to follow,
be balanced between positive comments and areas that need improvement,
be communicated in a constructive, encouraging and emotionally sensitive manner,
concentrate on task-related observable behavior or actions that can be changed instead of the learners’ personal characteristics,
give reasons and explain why something is correct or incorrect and suggest how it could be improved,
be future-oriented and help the learner to move forward (feed forward), for instance by encouraging reflection as well as by giving hints and suggestions as scaffolds to support self-regulated learning,
involve students actively in the processing and application of the feedback, for instance by incorporating concrete tasks for knowledge transfer or by encouraging the creation of an action plan,
be personal and individualized by making concrete references to the present work, but also by “referring to what is already known about the student and her or his previous work” (Nicol, 2010, p. 513),
be provided in a timely manner and on a regular basis,
vary in its degree of explicitness or implicitness, depending on the learners’ prior knowledge (e.g. recurring errors might indicate a need for more thorough explanations and direct instructions than small lapses),
set a focus, as “‘more’ feedback does not always equal ‘more’ learning” (Price, Handley, Millar, & O’Donovan, 2010, p. 278),
create a relationship with the learner. In that respect, credibility of the feedback provider and mutual trust as well as respect are decisive,
encourage further dialogue (e.g. with the teacher or peers). This is in line with the central idea of feedback as dialogue,
be communicated through different modes and media that suit the particular learner and learning goal.
The last aspect is of primary importance for the present book and will therefore be explained next.
2.1.6Feedback modes, methods and media
In the previous sections, the contents and structures of feedback messages were surveyed, while the impact of the presentation mode (Narciss, 2013, p. 15; 2018, pp. 18–19) has so far been discussed very generally only. This final and – for the present book – most important facet, i.e. its digital realization, will be addressed in the remainder of this book.
Modes are different semiotic resources, such as writing, speech, images, colors, sounds or gestures (Kress, 2004, pp. 22, 35–36), that can be utilized to communicate meaning. Different media make use of these modes to varying extents. For example, a medium such as a book typically contains writing and pictures, whereas a video is usually based on animated pictures, sounds or music and spoken language (Kress, 2004, p. 22). If several modes are drawn on, a medium can be called multimodal (Kress, 2004, p. 46). Due to technological advancements, there are various multimodal possibilities, insofar that also texts can be enriched by means of sounds, speech, animations and so on (Kress, 2004, p. 46). Likewise, feedback can be presented in one mode only (unimodal feedback) or in several modes (multimodal feedback) (Narciss, 2008, p. 139).
Different modes have specific advantages but also limitations since they realize meaning in different ways (Kress, 2004, p. 107). Awareness of these affordances is the prerequisite for making informed “design decisions” to express meanings (Kress, 2004, p. 49), but also for interpreting and understanding the messages (cf. Kress, 2004, p. 169). Hence, awareness and training is not only important for teachers, but also for learners as active participants in the feedback process (Wood, 2021, p. 13; see sections 2.2 and 4.2). However, research about feedback “as a dynamic multimodal activity” (Silva, 2017, pp. 327, 342) in digital environments hardly exists (see also Chang, Cunningham, Satar, & Strobl, 2018, p. 405), even though it has gained in relevance in the past years.
For this reason, the present book will bring together research findings as well as practical advice for making informed decisions about the use of digital feedback. The term method will foreground the didactic perspective. It is generally defined as a “way of doing something” (Dictionary.com, 2021), usually to realize a plan or to fulfill a certain goal, in our case to support learning by means of feedback. “Method” is often associated with an organized or systematic procedure that may lead to the completion of the goal (Dictionary.com, 2021; Merriam-Webster Online, 2021a). To reach this goal, several strategies and techniques can be applied and different tools and instruments might be used. Hence, we note that method is an overarching term for these systematic (sets of) procedures that are deemed beneficial for particular purposes. Figure 3 illustrates these interrelationships (adapted from Dotse, 2017).
Techniques, strategies, methods and approaches
In the innermost circle, we find techniques. As the word implies, this term often refers to technical procedures, especially in the current context of digital feedback. For instance, opening a website while recording the screen could be called a “technique” that is applied during the production of screencast feedback. Techniques are often subservient to strategies. Continuing with the aforementioned example, the chosen technique would showcase the strategy of utilizing external resources to a student. Overall, strategies may comprise several techniques in the “art of combining” certain actions in a goal-oriented manner (Merriam-Webster Online, 2021b). Similarly, assessors may use different modes strategically in order to cater for learners’ needs in the best possible way (see Fonseca et al., 2015, p. 62, based on Brookhart, 2008, regarding mode as part of a feedback strategy). In that regard, also the tools (e.g. software programs or apps) need to be selected in a meaningful manner. Some of them might have advantages over others so that awareness of the functions and limitations of different tools is crucial. The section “required equipment” in chapter 3 will be devoted to this issue.
Commonly, several strategies and techniques are combined systematically in order to reach a specific objective, e.g. to provide feedback on an aspect of performance. Such a purposeful combination is called a (feedback) method, i.e. a particular “way of doing something” (Dictionary.com, 2021). The methods usually instantiate different approaches or paradigms, e.g. an objectivist or (socio-)constructivist view of the world or perspective on a certain phenomenon (cf. Dotse, 2017). From today’s viewpoint, feedback processes should be guided by the socio-constructivist conceptualization; however, much of the literature about feedback, in particular digital feedback, has been driven by a cognitivist paradigm of unidirectional information transmission from teachers to students (Winstone & Carless, 2020).
Especially since most digital methods are still relatively new and because digital developments are highly dynamic (e.g. new soft- and hardware), the situated, contextually embedded nature of feedback processes needs to be acknowledged sufficiently (cf. Chong, 2021). Consequently, the strategies and tools should be purposefully chosen according to the learning objective, the learning environment and learners’ needs (e.g. Harris & Hofer, 2011, p. 214; Kultusministerkonferenz [KMK], 2016, p. 51). This may even give rise to new methods or combinations of methods (see section 4.1) that are deemed valuable for a particular purpose. Many of the digital feedback methods suggested in this book should therefore be regarded as fluid, as they can be drawn on and combined flexibly to seize their affordances or overcome the limitations of others. This conscious choice is a crucial component of learners’ and teachers’ feedback literacies and digital literacies (sections 2.2 and 2.3). Indeed, learners and teachers can participate in feedback exchanges in many directions, as the next subsection will demonstrate.
2.1.7Feedback directions and dialogues
Feedback can take place in multiple directions. Often, feedback is provided by a teacher to a student (teacher feedback) or from a peer to a peer (peer feedback among learners or teachers), but it can also come from another person, such as a parent, friend or tutor, or even from a digital tool (such as a software program or learning app) or another medium (e.g. a textbook with an answer key) or from oneself (self-feedback) (cf. Biber et al., 2011, pp. 9, 13; Carless & Boud, 2018, p. 1316; Hartung, 2017, p. 205; Hattie, 2009, p. 174; Hattie & Timperley, 2007, p. 81; Johnson & Johnson, 1993, pp. 135, 154; Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006, pp. 200, 207–208; Voerman et al., 2012, p. 1108). In more general terms, Narciss (2008, p. 127) differentiated between external and internal feedback, i.e. feedback deriving from an external (peer, parent, teacher etc.) or internal source of information (self-feedback).
Several directions thus suggest themselves, as shown in Figure 4.
Feedback directions
Further, it should be pointed out that feedback can be directed at an individual person or a group (Evans, 2013, p. 85). The latter is sometimes called collective feedback (Zourou, 2011, p. 231) or generic feedback (cf. e.g. Kay, 2020, p. 5; O’Malley, 2011, p. 30; Stannard, 2007).
As feedback is a form of social interaction, every feedback exchange is shaped by the individuals partaking in them and by further contextual conditions (Chong, 2021; Evans, 2013, p. 100; cf. Canale, 2013, p. 4). This comprises e.g. situational variables and task factors but also personal learning motivations (Bitchener et al., 2005, p. 202). Quite often, however, the complexity and manifold relations that have an impact on the success of such feedback dialogues are not fully considered or a shared commitment of all parties is lacking (Nash & Winstone, 2017). Therefore, Nicol (2010) argued that students’ dissatisfaction with the feedback they receive and lecturers’ complaints about the low responsiveness to the feedback they provide “are all symptoms of impoverished dialogue” (p. 501) between learners and teachers (see also p. 503). Critics even fear that the outdated transmission view (see section 2.1.1
