Technology-enabled higher education academic writing feedback: Practices, needs and preferences

A. Ducasse, Carmen López Ferrero, María Teresa, Mateo Girona
{"title":"Technology-enabled higher education academic writing feedback: Practices, needs and preferences","authors":"A. Ducasse, Carmen López Ferrero, María Teresa, Mateo Girona","doi":"10.14742/ajet.8557","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Student and teacher perceptions of feedback practices, preferences and awareness of feedback needs may differ and detract from learning. This article explores alignment or misalignment in higher education to argue alignment suggests needs are being met on these issues via technology-enabled feedback on writing. Within the context of academic training, we take a broad view of writing supervision along a continuum that comprises digital feedback on writing assessments at an Australian university. We used a survey comparison of teachers’ and students’ self-reported data to answer the following questions: (1) What digital feedback and assessment practices are reported by teachers and students in Australian higher education? (2) What e-feedback needs are self-declared through teachers’ and students’ self-awareness of assessment practices in that context? (3) What e-feedback preferences are reported by teachers and students? Students and teachers from different academic programmes and levels from social science self-reported their experiences of digital feedback on writing assessments. The quantitative and open-ended responses covered technology-enabled feedback experiences up to PhD supervision. The results on alignment and misalignment of participants’ needs and preferences suggest a need to increase dialogue and incorporate student agency into feedback processes. We discuss further implications for feedback experiences in this context. Implications for practice or policy Programme assessment designers might reconsider policies requiring online collaborative work since teachers and students prefer individual assignments. Assessors might improve digital assessment tools, to increase teacher and student interaction and expediency, without losing individual feedback, in line with unanimous claims that such tools support feedback processes on writing. Course leaders could implement practices buffering the effect of negative feedback because teachers perceive few complaints, but students react badly to negative comments through digital channels.","PeriodicalId":502572,"journal":{"name":"Australasian Journal of Educational Technology","volume":"52 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australasian Journal of Educational Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.8557","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Student and teacher perceptions of feedback practices, preferences and awareness of feedback needs may differ and detract from learning. This article explores alignment or misalignment in higher education to argue alignment suggests needs are being met on these issues via technology-enabled feedback on writing. Within the context of academic training, we take a broad view of writing supervision along a continuum that comprises digital feedback on writing assessments at an Australian university. We used a survey comparison of teachers’ and students’ self-reported data to answer the following questions: (1) What digital feedback and assessment practices are reported by teachers and students in Australian higher education? (2) What e-feedback needs are self-declared through teachers’ and students’ self-awareness of assessment practices in that context? (3) What e-feedback preferences are reported by teachers and students? Students and teachers from different academic programmes and levels from social science self-reported their experiences of digital feedback on writing assessments. The quantitative and open-ended responses covered technology-enabled feedback experiences up to PhD supervision. The results on alignment and misalignment of participants’ needs and preferences suggest a need to increase dialogue and incorporate student agency into feedback processes. We discuss further implications for feedback experiences in this context. Implications for practice or policy Programme assessment designers might reconsider policies requiring online collaborative work since teachers and students prefer individual assignments. Assessors might improve digital assessment tools, to increase teacher and student interaction and expediency, without losing individual feedback, in line with unanimous claims that such tools support feedback processes on writing. Course leaders could implement practices buffering the effect of negative feedback because teachers perceive few complaints, but students react badly to negative comments through digital channels.
高等教育学术写作反馈技术:实践、需求和偏好
学生和教师对反馈实践、反馈偏好和反馈需求意识的看法可能不同,从而影响学习效果。本文探讨了高等教育中的对齐或错位问题,认为对齐表明在这些问题上的需求通过技术驱动的写作反馈得到了满足。在学术培训的背景下,我们对澳大利亚一所大学的写作指导进行了广泛的观察,其中包括对写作评估的数字反馈。我们通过对教师和学生自我报告数据的调查比较,回答了以下问题:(1) 在澳大利亚高等教育中,教师和学生报告了哪些数字反馈和评估实践?(2) 通过教师和学生对评估实践的自我认知,他们自我声明了哪些电子反馈需求?(3) 教师和学生对电子反馈有哪些偏好?来自社会科学不同学科和年级的学生和教师自我报告了他们在写作评估中使用数字反馈的经验。定量和开放式回答涵盖了从技术反馈到博士指导的经历。关于参与者需求和偏好的一致性和不一致性的结果表明,有必要增加对话,并将学生机构纳入反馈过程。在此背景下,我们将进一步讨论反馈体验的意义。对实践或政策的影响 方案评估设计者可能会重新考虑要求在线协作作业的政策,因为教师和学生更喜欢个人作业。评估人员可以改进数字评估工具,以增加教师和学生之间的互动和便捷性,同时又不失去个别反馈,这与此类工具支持写作反馈过程的一致说法是一致的。课程负责人可以采取一些措施来缓冲负面反馈的影响,因为教师认为学生的抱怨很少,但学生通过数字渠道对负面评论的反应却很糟糕。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信