Online Feedback Platforms: Effective, Fast and Easy

Saida Radjabzade, Uzbekistan

Saida Radjabzade works as a lecturer at Westminster International University in Tashkent. She holds Master’s degree in Applied Linguistics from Montclair State University in USA. Her research interests include Second Language Acquisition, Sociolinguistics and Psycholinguistics. E-mail: saida.radjabzade@gmail.com

Menu

Introduction
Literature review
Discussion
Conclusion
References

Introduction

The idea of this paper comes from my last year experience of giving feedback to sixty 1500 word essays. The process was exhausting because I had to give feedback on hard copies and sometimes through email. At the same time, students were asked to improve their drafts based on the received feedback throughout the semester. After their final submission, I realized that not all of the students had used the given feedback to improve their work and thus had submitted their original pieces of writings. It was indeed frustrating, and I spent hours, days and months investigating the ways to make feedback giving process easier for me as their instructor and more effective for students. Finally, I decided to try online platforms in feedback giving process because it reflects students’ interest in technology, and also most of the papers I read about e-feedback had a positive outcome. In this paper, I will elaborate on the reason why technology can be very helpful in giving feedback and then discuss a few online platforms in terms of several features which play an important role in the teachers’ decision to select them and provide effective feedback.

Literature review

Writing is a challenging process, which requires much practice regardless of being a native or non-native language speaker, because it is connected with the domain specific knowledge about a particular topic (Kellogg, 2001) and the ability to put that knowledge on the paper (McCutchen, 1984). The best ways to improve writing are believed to be deliberate practice and teacher feedback (Kellogg and Raulerson, 2007). Therefore, most often writing courses consist of several writing tasks and drafting which are supposed to assist student in the development of their writing. However, if students are not given feedback on those drafts, they will not be able to improve their writing. It is also confirmed in several research studies that feedback is a very important tool in the process of non-verbal learning because students could reflect on their mistakes and enhance their writing skills (Ferris and Roberts, 2001; Tuzi, 2004; Chang, 2011). Although instructors view feedback essential in the writing process, they cannot avoid the problem associated with time. It is truly hard to give timely and effective feedback on several copies of drafts or separate papers, particularly in large classes in a short period of time. At the same time, some students may complain about the instructors taking much time to give feedback on their papers (Turnitin LLC, 2016), and others neglect late received feedback (Winter and Dye, 2004).

In order to deal with the issues related to traditional feedback giving process and assisting students to improve their essays, forward-looking instructors may want to consider involving technology in providing feedback so that modern students can better benefit from writing courses and eventually teachers would be more satisfied. Advancement of technology has positively influenced both language learning process and overall education in the last few decades (Christensen, 2002; Project Tomorrow, 2008; Stanley, 2013). The feedback involving technology is called electronic feedback given through emails, blogs and online platforms. Chang et al. (2012) conducted a study, asking 250 undergraduate students about their preference between handwritten feedback and e-feedback and found that 68% of the participants favoured e-feedback stressing mainly on the features of accessibility and timeliness. Those students commented that organizing, working with and keeping a record of e-feedback is easier and more comfortable than carrying piles of papers. (Chang et al., 2012). Additionally, students state that e-feedback is effective because it is immediate that relying on fresh memory of class discussions they can improve the given feedback (Chang et al., 2012) and progress in their writings.

Discussion

Now the question might be how electronic feedback can exactly be put into practice. The main option for the development of e-feedback is through using special online platforms. They can make the process much easier and more effective. Some of the well-known platforms are Edmodo, Quip, Canvas and Feedback Studio. They all serve almost the same purpose and are quite efficient; however, when teachers decide to take advantage of them, they still need to consider several factors. One major point to consider is whether the students have permission to upload a document for submission and if they are able to see it after feedback has been provided by the instructor. Another positive aspect of some of the platforms is that they check for the originality of the report. Some automatically check grammar. With some of these platforms teachers may upload, create and work with rubrics. Again with a few the assessor can highlight and delete while checking. And yet another option that some of these platforms offer is leaving audio feedback on the submitted work. These factors have been stressed upon in a number of studies conducted on improving the quality of feedback giving progress (Attali, 2004; Lunt and Curran, 2010; Batane, 2010; Chang et al., 2012; Graham-Matheson and Starr, 2013; Douarin and Vogel, 2016). For instance, the importance of originality report can be seen in detecting plagiarism and assisting students to work on paraphrasing and citation. Otherwise, students would not understand the importance of originality and giving credit to the work of others. Automatic grammar checker can make the job of the instructors easier in terms of holistic grading such as checking spelling, grammar and vocabulary; so they can focus more on analytical grading such as content, structure, arguments and evidence instead. The other four features such as creating a rubric, highlighting and crossing out sentences, uploading a document and leaving audio feedback are significant in the sense that they can make the feedback giving process easy, effective and time saving. Table 1 below illustrates the analysis of these four platforms.

As can be seen in table 1 the platform that lacks in viewing originality report, automatic grammar check, creating a rubric, uploading a document and leaving voice comments is Quip. In this platform an instructor can only highlight and cross out sentences in the essay. Edmodo provides more opportunities for feedback giving, as there is the possibility to highlight and cross out sentences, and also upload documents. The next, Canvas platform offers almost all the features mentioned above, but for a certain fee; creating and working with rubric, and uploading documents though, are only accessible free of charge. The most complete feedback giving program among the four seems to be Feedback studio. This system is free only for those who pay for Turnitin platform for plagiarism-prevention service. Krishnan (2016) believes that Feedback studio saves the time of instructors in checking the papers and students in improving their work. While teachers benefit from typing their quality feedback, students have the opportunity to read the comments easily on-state and work on them. Feedback studio has all the required features, including audio feedback which was not observed in any other mentioned platforms. Krishnan (2016) is certain that having the feature of voice comment in the platform assists instructors to comment on the “strengths and weaknesses of the paper” in a short period (p.40). The majority of the students in a survey about the quality of audio feedback in Feedback studio also confirmed its effectiveness. One of the respondents wrote “more detail could be given and more content covered than currently received by handwritten comments” (Turnitin LLC, 2016). They believe an instructor can provide more feedback when talking about it, and it also connects people the same way as talking in person (Lunt and Curran, 2010; Neghavati, 2016). Another important feature of Feedback studio is considered Quick Marks (preloaded comments), which can be dragged and dropped wherever the instructor wants and needs (Krishnan, 2016). For example, if the instructor wants to comment on the quality of in-text citation, she/he can drag “incorrect citation” mark, where a detailed explanation is already provided for students to work on. In 2015 annual report of Turnitin, Summer Dittmer who is an English teacher in Bishop O’Dowd High School in California in United States stated, “Students tend to be more receptive to the Quick Mark comments than they are to my handwritten comments” (Turn it in LLC, 2015). It means students are interested more in e-feedback than the hand written one.

After careful analysis of these platforms, I decided to use Feedback studio last fall semester. Personally, I spent less than 15 minutes on each paper by dragging Quick marks, and typing my comments about the strength and weakness of the papers. I also provided some website links for students to work on paraphrasing, usage of linking words, and in-text citations when they had serious problems with those topics. I especially liked to work with rubric while giving e-feedback because I think it helps students to understand where they stand on the current stage and what they should work on in order to pass the module successfully. However, there are some problems associated with this platform such as system may stop working unexpectedly and as a result all typed comments may be erased automatically, or some features of the platform do not respond that it may take more than 30 minutes to give e-feedback on one student paper. Although the introduction of this platform in giving e-feedback was a challenge for me, eventually there can be seen an improvement in the content, evidence, argumentation and the level of originality report in student papers. In short, taking into consideration students’ preferences and the opportunities provided by technology to make the teaching process more effective, fun and easy, it seems helpful to move from traditional method of feedback giving to the modern e-feedback using platforms.

Conclusion

Electronic feedback is among the most important recent developments in education and can make teaching and learning effective, fast, easy and even fun. Therefore, instructors should carefully analyse special online platforms such as Edmodo, Quip, Canvas and Feedback Studio based on certain important factors connected with time and effectiveness of e-feedback, and only then they should decide on using one. Hence, the chosen platform should serve to ease the pressure of time for teachers on giving quality feedback and assist students to progress in their writing performance.

References

Attali, Y. (2004). Exploring the feedback and revision features of Criterion. National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME), Educational Testing Service. Princeton, NJ.

Batane, T. (2010). Turning to Turnitin to fight plagiarism among university students. Educational Technology & Society, 13(2), 1-12.

Chang, N. (2011). Pre-Service Teachers' Views: How Did E-Feedback through Assessment Facilitate Their Learning?. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 11(2), 16-33.

Chang, N., Watson, A. B., Bakerson, M. A., Williams, E. E., McGoron, F. X. and Spitzer, B. (2012). Electronic feedback or handwritten feedback: What do undergraduate students prefer and why?. Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, 1(1), 1-23.

Christensen, R. (2002). Effects of technology integration education on the attitudes of teachers and students. Journal of Research on technology in Education, 34(4), 411-433.

Douarin, E. and Vogel, M. (2016). How we can use online feedback to maximise engagement with the assessment criteria? UCL E-Learning Development Grant project report, August 2016.

Ferris, D. and Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of second language writing, 10(3), 161-184.

Graham-Matheson, L. and Starr, S. (2013). Is it cheating–or learning the craft of writing? Using Turnitin to help students avoid plagiarism. Research in learning technology, 21.

Kellogg, R. T. (2001). Long-term working memory in text production. Memory & cognition, 29(1), 43-52.

Kellogg, R. T., and Raulerson, B. A. (2007). Improving the writing skills of college students. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 14(2), 237-242.

Krishnan, R. (2016). Students Dread the “P” Word: Is Turnitin® Good for Plagiarism Detection and Feedback?. Editorial Reviewers, 39.

Lunt, T. and Curran, J. (2010). ‘Are you listening please?’The advantages of electronic audio feedback compared to written feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(7), 759-769.

McCutchen, D. (1984). Writing as a linguistic problem. Educational Psychologist, 19(4), 226-238.

Neghavati, A. (2016). Digital Tools for Giving Feedback. British Council.
https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/blogs/amin-neghavati/digital-tools-giving-feedback

Project Tomorrow. (2008). 21st century learners deserve a 21st century education. Selected National Findings of the Speak Up 2007 Survey. Retrieved from http:// www.tomorrow.org/speakup/speakup_congress_2007.html

Stanley, G. (2013). Language learning with technology: Ideas for integrating technology in the classroom. Cambridge University Press.

Turnitin.com. (2015). Instructor Feedback Writ Large: Student Perceptions on Effective Feedback. Retrieved from http://turnitin.com

Turnitin.com. (2015). From the Margins: What Instructors Say on Student Papers. Retrieved from http://turnitin.com

Turnitin.com. (2016). Closing the Gap: What Students Say About Instructor Feedback. Retrieved from http://turnitin.com/assets/en_us/media/closing_the_gap/

Tuzi, F. (2004). The impact of e-feedback on the revisions of L2 writers in an academic writing course. Computers and Composition, 21(2), 217-235.

Winter, C. and Dye, V. L. (2004). An investigation into the reasons why students do not collect marked assignments and the accompanying feedback. University of Wolverhampton.

Please check the How to be a Teacher Trainer course at Pilgrims website.
Please check the Teaching Advanced Students course at Pilgrims website.
Please check the Practical Uses of Technology in the Classroom course at Pilgrims website.