Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Personalizing Feedback Using Voice Comments Cover

Personalizing Feedback Using Voice Comments

Open Access
|Dec 2018

References

  1. Aragon, S.R., Johnson, S.D., & Shaik, N. (2002). The influence of learning style preferences on student success in online versus face-to-face environments. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16(4), 227-243. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15389286AJDE1604_3
  2. Bastian, H. (2017). Student affective responses to ‘bringing the funk’ in the first-year writing classroom. College Composition and Communication, 69(1), 6-34. Retrieved from www.ncte.org/-library/NCTEFiles/Resources/Journals/CCC/0691_sept2017/CCC0691Student.pdf
  3. Beldarrain, Y. (2006). Distance education trends: Integrating new technologies to foster student interaction and collaboration. Distance Education, 27(2), 139-153. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910600789498
  4. Boling, E.C., Hough, M., Krinsky, H., Saleem, H., & Stevens, M. (2012). Cutting the distance in distance education: Perspectives on what promotes positive, online learning experiences. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(2), 118-126. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.11.006
  5. Campbell, C.M., & Cabrera, A.F. (2014). Making the mark: Are grades and deep learning related? Research in Higher Education, 55(5), 494-507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-013-9323-6
  6. Casey, D.M. (2008). A journey to legitimacy: The historical development of distance education through technology. TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 52(2), 45-51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-008-0135-z
  7. Chickering, A.W., & Ehrmann, S.C. (n.d.). Implementing the seven principles: Technology as lever. Boston University School of Public Health Office of Teaching, Learning and Technology Teaching Resources. Retrieved from sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/otlt/teachingLibrary/Technology/seven_principles.pdf
  8. Crews, T.B., Bordonada, T.M., & Wilkinson, K. (2017). Student feedback on quality matters standards for online course design. Educause Review, 5. Retrieved from er.educause.edu/articles/2017/6/student-feedback-on-quality-matters-standards-for-online-course-design
  9. Delante, N.L. (2017). Perceived impact of online written feedback on students’ writing and learning: A reflection. Reflective Practice, 18(6), 772-804. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2017.1351351
  10. Desai, M.S., Hart, J., & Richards, T.C. (2008). E-learning: Paradigm shift in education. Education, 129(2), 327-334.
  11. Driscoll, A., Jicha, K., Hunt, A.N., Tichavsky, L., & Thompson, G. (2012). Can online courses deliver in-class results? Teaching Sociology, 40(4), 312-331. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0092055X12446624
  12. Eom, S.B., & Ashill, N. (2016). The determinants of students’ perceived learning outcomes and satisfaction in university online education: An update. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 14(2), 85-116. https://doi.org/10.1111/dsji.12097
  13. Getzlaf, B., Perry, B., Toffner, G., Lamarche, K., & Edwards, M. (2009). Effective instructor feedback: Perceptions of online graduate students. Journal of Educators Online, 6(2). Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ904070.pdf
  14. Guion, L.A. (2002). Triangulation: establishing the validity of qualitative studies. University of Florida Extension: Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Sept. Retrieved from sites.duke.edu/niou/files/2014/07/W13-Guion-2002-Triangulation-Establishing-the-Validity-of-Qualitative-Research.pdf
  15. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F003465430298487
  16. Henderson, M., & Phillips, M. (2015). Video-based feedback on student assessment: Scarily personal. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(1), 2015, 51-66. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1878
  17. Ice, P., Curtis, R., Phillips, P., & Wells, J. (2007). Using asynchronous audio feedback to enhance teaching presence and students’ sense of community. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(2), 3-25.
  18. Ice, P., Swan, K., Diaz, S., Kupczynski, L. & Dagen, A. (2010). An analysis of students’ perceptions of the value and efficacy of instructors’ auditory and text-based feedback modalities across multiple conceptual levels. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 43(1), 113-134.
  19. Johanson, R. (1999). Rethinking the red ink: Audio-feedback in the ESL writing classroom. Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education, 4(1), 31-38. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED467865.pdf
  20. Khalil, S.M. (2013). From resistance to acceptance and use of technology in academia. Open Praxis, 5(2), 151-163. http://dx.doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.5.2.5
  21. King, A. (1993). From sage on the stage to guide on the side. College Teaching, 41(1), 30-35.
  22. King, D., McGugan, S., & Bunyan, N. (2008). Does it make a difference? Replacing text with audio feedback. Practice and Evidence of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 3(2), 145-163. Retrieved from dur.ac.uk/pestlhe.learning/index.php/pestlhe/article/viewFile/136/163
  23. Kirschner, P.A. (1991). Audiotape feedback for essays in distance education. Innovation in Higher Education, 15(2), 185-95.
  24. Klammer, E. (1973). Cassettes in the classroom. College English, 35(2), 179-189.
  25. Knowles, M.S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education. Association Press.
  26. Kohn, A. (2011). The case against grades. Educational Leadership, 69(3), 28-33.
  27. Kolowich, S. (2015, January 26). Could video feedback replace the red pen? The Chronicle of Higher Education, 26. Retrieved from www.chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/could-video-feedback-replace-the-red-pen/55587
  28. Kuh, G.D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J.A., Bridges, B.K., & Hayek, J.C. (2006). What matters to student success: A review of the literature. National Post-Secondary Education Cooperative (NPEC), 2. Retrieved from nces.ed.gov/npec/pdf/kuh_team_report.pdf
  29. Lunt, T., & Curran, J. (2010). Are you listening please? The advantages of electronic audio feedback compared to written feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(7), 759-69. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930902977772
  30. McCarthy, J. (2015). Evaluating written, audio and video feedback in higher education summative assessment tasks. Issues in Educational Research, 25(2), 153-169. Retrieved from http://www.iier.org.au/iier25/mccarthy.pdf
  31. Merry, S. & Orsmond, P. (2008). Students’ attitudes to and usage of academic feedback provided via audio files. Bioscience Education, 11(3). https://doi.org/10.3108/beej.11.3
  32. Miller, M.D. (2014). Minds online: Teaching effectively with technology. Harvard University Press.
  33. Moore, M.G. (1997). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education (pp. 23-38). Routledge.
  34. Olesova, L.A., Weasenforth, D., Richardson, J.C., Meloni, C. (2011). Using instructional audio feedback in online environments: A mixed methods study. MERLOT Journal of Online Teaching and Learning, 7(1), 30-42. Retrieved from http://jolt.merlot.org/vol7no1/olesova_0311.pdf
  35. Pearce, G.C., & Ackley, J.R. (1995). Audiotaped feedback in business writing: An exploratory study. Business Communication Quarterly, 58(3), 31-34.
  36. Puentedura, R.P. (2014). Building transformation: An introduction to the SAMR model. Retrieved from http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2014/08/22/BuildingTransformation_-AnIntroductionToSAMR.pdf
  37. Pulfrey, C., Buchs, C., & Butera, F. (2011). Why grades engender performance-avoidance goals: The mediating role of autonomous motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(3), 683-700.
  38. Short, J., Williams, E. , & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. Wiley.
  39. Shute, V.J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153-189.
  40. Skylar, A.A. (2009). A comparison of asynchronous online text-based lectures and asynchronous interactive web conferencing lectures. Issues in Teacher Education, 18(2), 69-84.
  41. Sloan, D., Stratford, J., & Gregor, P. (2006). Using multimedia to enhance the accessibility of the learning environment for disabled students: Reflections from the skills for access project. Research in Learning Technology, 14(1).
  42. Straub, C., &, Vasquez, III, E. (2015). Effects of synchronous online writing instruction for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 30(4), 213-222. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643415618929
  43. Tait, A. (2014). From place to virtual space: Reconfiguring student support for distance and e-learning in the digital age. Open Praxis, 6(1), 5-16. http://dx.doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.6.1.102
  44. Tcherepashenets, N. (2015). Globalizing on-line: Telecollaboration, internationalization, and social justice (4th ed.). Peter Lang.
  45. Trust, T. (2018). Assessment-centered Tools. Online tools for teaching and learning (Blog). Retrieved from https://blogs.umass.edu/onlinetools/assessment-centered-tools/
  46. Walther, J.B., Anderson, J.F., & Park, D.W. (1994). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A meta-analysis of social and antisocial communication. Communication Research, 21(4), 460.
  47. What is Social Presence? (n.d.). IGI Global (Idea Group Inc.) [US]. Retrieved from www.igi-global.com/dictionary/social-presence/27463
  48. Wolsey, T.D. (2008). Efficacy of instructor feedback on written work in an online program. International Journal on E-Learning, 7(2), 311-329.
  49. Young, S. (2006). Student views of effective online teaching in higher education. American Journal of Distance Education, 20(2), 65-77. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15389286ajde2002_2
Language: English
Page range: 309 - 324
Submitted on: Jul 25, 2018
Accepted on: Nov 30, 2018
Published on: Dec 31, 2018
Published by: International Council for Open and Distance Education (ICDE)
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

© 2018 Kjrsten Keane, Daniel McCrea, Miriam Russell, published by International Council for Open and Distance Education (ICDE)
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.