Abstract
The continued increase in the number of students participating in online degree programs has led to an increase in the number of students taking online composition courses. Currently, most online writing programs replicate approaches used in face-to-face composition courses and simply transfer them to the online learning environment. However, there is a need to develop teaching practices and approaches to feedback designed specifically for online learning environments. This quasi-experimental study examined whether the use of a combination of audio-visual and text-based commentary in online writing courses was more effective in promoting substantive revision and improvement in students’ writing than the use of text-based commentary alone. The multimodal feedback group showed higher rates of improvement in areas of audience and purpose between first and final drafts than students in the text-only group. Results also indicated that receiving a combination of audio-visual and text-based feedback had a marginally statistically significant effect on categories of content (p = .08) and final draft quality (p = .06); the effect for both categories was considered medium, partial η2 = .07. While most previous studies on audio or video feedback have focused on student perceptions of the feedback, this study, by focusing on efficacy, has helped generate empirical data regarding the pedagogical usefulness of audiovisual feedback in online learning environments.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anson, C. M., Dannels, D. P., Laboy, J. I., & Carneiro, L. (2016). Students’ perceptions of oral screencast responses to their writing exploring digitally mediated identities. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 30(3), 378–411. doi:10.1177/1050651916636424.
Beach, R. (1992). Experimental and descriptive research methods in composition. In G. Kirsch & P. A. Sullivan (Eds.), Methods and methodology in composition research (pp. 217–243). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Beach, R., & Friedrich, T. (2006). Response to writing. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (Vol. 1–Book, Section). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Bridwell, L. S. (1980). Revising processes in twelfth grade students’ transactional writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 14, 197–222.
Cavaleri, M., Di Biase, B., & Kawaguchi, S. (2014). Academic literacy development: Does video commentary feedback lead to greater engagement and response than conventional written feedback? The International Journal of Literacies, 20(3), 19–38.
Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. (2010). Student revision with peer and expert reviewing. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 328–338. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.006.
Connors, R. J., & Lunsford, A. (1993). Teachers’ rhetorical comments on student papers. College Composition and Communication, 44(2), 200–223. doi:10.2307/358839.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Faigley, L., & Witte, S. P. (1981). Analyzing revision. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 400–414.
Fitzgerald, J. (1987). Research on revision in writing. Review of Educational Research, 57(4), 481–506.
Fitzgerald, J. (1992). Towards knowledge in writing: Illustrations from revision studies. New York, NY: Springer.
Grigoryan, A. (2017). Audiovisual commentary as a way to reduce transactional distance and increase teaching presence in online writing instruction: Student perceptions and preferences. Journal of Response to Writing, 3(1), 83–128.
Hawisher, G. E. (1987). The effects of word processing the revision strategies of college freshmen. Research in the Teaching of English, 21, 145–160.
Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. E. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 1–27). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hayes, J. R., Flower, L., Schriver, K. S., Stratman, J., & Carey, L. (1987). Cognitive processes in revision. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Advances in applied psycholinguistics: Vol. 2. Reading, writing, and language processing (pp. 176–240). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Hewett, B. L. (2004). Asynchronous online instructional commentary: A study of student revision. Readerly/Writerly Texts: Essays in Literary, Composition, and Pedagogical Theory (Double Issue), 11 & 12(1 & 2), 47–67.
Hewett, B. L. (2006). Synchronous online conference-based instruction: A study of whiteboard interactions and student writing. Computers and Composition, 23(1), 4–31. doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2005.12.004.
Hewett, B. L. (2010). The online writing conference a guide for teachers and tutors. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
Hewett, B. L., Minter, D., Gibson, K., Meloncon, L., Oswal, S., Olsen, L., et al. (2011). The state-of-the-art of online writing instruction. Conference on College Composition and Communication. Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Groups/CCCC/Committees/OWI_State-of-Art_Report_April_2011.pdf.
Hill, C. A., Wallace, C. L., & Haas, C. (1991). Revising on-line: Computer technologies and the revising process. Computers and Composition, 9(1), 83–109.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174.
MacArthur, C. A. (2007). Best practices in teaching evaluation and revision. In S. Graham, J. Fitzgerald, & C. A. MacArthur (Eds.), Best practices in writing instruction. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
MacArthur, C. A., Graham, S., & Schwartz, S. (1991). Knowledge of revision and revising behavior among students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 14, 61–73.
McCutchen, D., Hull, G. A., & Smith, W. A. (1987). Editing strategies and error correction in basic writing. Written Communication, 4, 139–154.
Moore, N., & Filling, M. (2012). iFeedback: Using video technology for improving student writing. Journal of College Literacy and Learning, 38, 3–14.
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2002). Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning: When reading helps listening. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 156–163.
Nystrand, M. (2006). The social and historical context for writing research. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (Vols. 1–Book, 1–Section). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Pritchard, R. J., & Honeycutt, R. L. (2006). The process approach to writing instruction: Examining its effectiveness. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Scrocco, D. L. A. (2012). Do you care to add something? Articulating the student interlocutor’s voice in writing response dialogue. Teaching English in the Two-Year College, 39(3), 274–292.
Segran, E. (2014). The adjunct revolt: How poor professors are fighting back. The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/04/the-adjunct-professor-crisis/361336/.
Sommers, J. (2012). Response rethought…again: Exploring recorded comments and the teacher-student bond. Journal of Writing Assessment, 5(1). Retrieved from http://www.journalofwritingassessment.org/article.php?article=59.
Sommers, J. (2013). Response 2.0: Commentary on student writing for the new millennium. Journal of College Literacy and Learning, 39, 21–37.
Sommers, N. (1980). Revision strategies of student writers and experienced adult writers. College Composition and Communication, 4, 378. doi:10.2307/356588.
Stern, L. A., & Solomon, A. (2006). Effective faculty feedback: The road less travelled. Assessing Writing, 11(1), 22–41. doi:10.1016/j.asw.2005.12.001.
Straub, R. (1996). Teacher response as conversation: More than casual talk, an exploration. Rhetoric Review, 2, 374–398. doi:10.2307/465862.
Straub, R. (2000a). The practice of response: Strategies for commenting on student writing. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Straub, R. (2000b). The student, the text, and the classroom context: A case study of teacher response. Assessing Writing, 7(1), 23–55. doi:10.1016/S1075-2935(00)00017-9.
Sweller, J. (1999). Instructional design in technical areas. Camberwell, Australia: ACER Press. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED431763&login.asp?custid=s8480238&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
van Merrienboer, J., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 147–177.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Warnock, S. (2008). Responding to student writing with audio-visual feedback. In T. Carter, M. A. Clayton, A. D. Smith, & T. G. Smith (Eds.), Writing and the iGeneration: Composition in the computer-mediated classroom (pp. 201–226). Southlake, TX: Fountainhead Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author declares that she has no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Appendices
Appendix 1: Student view of audio-visual feedback
Appendix 2: Revision type coding scheme
Appendix 3: Essay rating rubric
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Grigoryan, A. Feedback 2.0 in online writing instruction: Combining audio-visual and text-based commentary to enhance student revision and writing competency. J Comput High Educ 29, 451–476 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-017-9152-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-017-9152-2