Learners’ perceptions of instructor feedback in e-learning courses – findings from HBMSU, United Arab Emirates

  • Niyi Awofeso
  • Moyosola Bamidele

Abstract

Instructor feedback is constructive and specific information provided by an instructor to a learner on his or her course work and/or class contributions in relation to the course objectives and expectations. Effective instructor feedback is particularly important in online learning as learners are more likely to withdraw from online learning environments due to delayed, or inadequate feedback, compared with students enrolled in physical classes. Not all learners are equally active, and there are indeed learners who hardly take an active part in online course activities -the so-called lurkers. Courteous instructor feedback to such learners on their limited participation has been shown to improve learners’ participation in online courses. Diligent learners engaged in online learning programs expect feedback to be contextual, supportive, constructive, timely, substantive, summative and formative.  This study examined the perceptions of 66 undergraduate and postgraduate learners on feedback provided in eight online courses facilitated by the same instructor at the School of Health and Environmental Studies, Hamdan Bin Mohammed Smart University, Dubai, UAE between August 2014 and December 2015. Data collection from learners was anonymized and participation was voluntary.


The survey sought to elicit learners’ perceptions on the extent to which feedback provided in specified courses were motivational, timely, frequent, supportive, and individualized. A polytomous Rasch model was utilized to analyze the data with Winsteps and STATA. Analysis of the 20 survey questions revealed a real person reliability of 0.82 and a Cronbach Alpha test reliability of 0.96, suggesting that the scale discriminates well between the persons. The real item separation reliability of 0.77 suggests that the questions are reliable in measuring the specified items.  Descriptive analyses revealed general agreement among the majority of learners on the effectiveness of feedback provided by the instructor, although Infit and Outfit Z-standard deviation statistics revealed two questions with unexpected rare (i.e. “mostly disagree” or “completely disagree”) extremes in several learners’ responses.  Unlike single questions related to learner feedback in most Student Perception of Teaching Surveys, this survey instrument comprehensively explores the dimensions of instructor feedback, aspects of which may not be previously known to learners or instructors. Our results indicate that systematic collection and analysis of learners’ feedback comments have a strong potential to enhance feedback competencies of course facilitators, as well as provide a common platform for both learners and course facilitators vis-à-vis the diverse objectives of instructor feedback.  

References

1. Shannon, C. E. and Weaver, W. (1964). The Mathematical Theory of Communication. University of Illinois Press, Illinois. 
2. Sales, G. C. (1993). Adapted and adaptive feedback in technology-based instruction. In J. V. Dempsey & G. C. Sales (Eds.), Interactive instruction and feedback (pp. 159-175), Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 
3. Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1999). Development and adaptations of the seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. New Directions for Teaching & Learning, 80, 75-81.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.8006
4. Allen, I. E. & Seaman, J. (2011). Going the Distance: Online Education in the United States, 2011. Babson Survey Research Group, Boston. 
5. Suen, H. (2014). Peer assessment for massive open online courses (MOOCs). The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(3). Retrieved on 13 December 2015 from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1680/2904
https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i3.1680
6. Dempsey, J. V., Driscoll, M. P., and Swindell, L. K. (1993). Text-based feedback. In J. V. Dempsey & G. C. Sales (Eds.), Interactive instruction and feedback (pp. 21-54), Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 
7. Lim, D. H., and Morris M. L. (2009). Learner and instructional factors influencing learning outcomes within a blended learning environment. Educational Technology & Society, 12 (4), 282–293. 
8. Mory, E. H. (2004). Feedback research revisited. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology: A project for the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (Second ed., pp. 745-783), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, New Jersey 
9. Hepplestone, S., Parkin, H., Irwin, B., Holden, G., and Thorpe, L. (2010). Using technology to help students engage with their feedback – technology, feedback, action! A short report. Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield. 
10. Schell, G. P. and Janicki T. J. (2013). Online Course Pedagogy and the Constructivist Learning Model. Journal of the Southern Association for Information Systems, 1, 26-36.
https://doi.org/10.3998/jsais.11880084.0001.104
11. Race, P. (2002) Using feedback to help students to learn. The higher education academy, UK. Retrieved on 13 December from; http://wap.rdg.ac.uk/web/FILES/EngageinFeedback/Race_using_feedback_to_help_students_learn.pdf. 
12. Richardson J, Swan K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students' perceived learning and satisfaction. JALN, 7, 68 – 88. 
13. Ladyshewsky, Richard K. (2013) Instructor Presence in Online Courses and Student Satisfaction. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: Vol. 7: No. 1, Article 13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2013.070113 
14. Palmer, S.R., & Holt, D.M. (2009). Examining student satisfaction with wholly online learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Leaning, 25(2).
15. Naaj, M. A., Nachouki, M., and Ankit A. Evaluating student satisfaction with blended learning in a gender-segregated environment. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 11, 185-200. 
16. Tudor, J., and Penlington, R. (2009). Perceptions and their influences on approaches to learning. The Higher Education Academy Engineering Subject Centre, UK. 
17. Entwistle N. Taking stock: teaching and learning research in higher education. Paper presented at the Ontario international symposium on teaching and learning in higher education, May 2008. Retrieved on 11 December 2015 from: http://www.research.ed.ac.uk/portal/files/14426330/ENTWISTLE_Taking_Stock.pdf 
18. Getztlaf, B., Perry, B., Toffner, G., Lamarche, K., and Edwards, M. (2009). Effective Instructor Feedback: Perceptions of Online Graduate Students. Journal of Educators Online, 6(2). Retrieved on 2 December 2015 from: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ZUFzmrHMo0QJ:www.thejeo.com/Archives/Volume6Number2/GetzlafetalPaper.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au 
19. Linacre, J.M. and Wright, B.D. (2000). A user's guide to WINSTEPS: Rasch Model Computer Program. Chicago: MESA Press. 
20. Wright, B. D., & Masters, G. N. (1982). Rating scale analysis. Chicago, IL: MESA Press. 
21. Smith, E., Jr. (2000). Rasch Measurement Models. Paper presented at An Introduction to Rasch Measurement: Theory and Applications, Chicago. 
22. Nicol, D. (2010). From monologue to dialogue: improving written feedback processes in mass higher education. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 35(5), 501–517.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602931003786559 
23. Eon, S. B., Wen, H. J., and Ashill, N. (2006). The determinants of students' perceived learning outcomes and satisfaction in university online education: an empirical investigation. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 4, 215-235.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4609.2006.00114.x 
24. Sher, A. (2009). Assessing the relationship of student-instructor and student-student interaction to student learning and satisfaction in web-based online learning environment. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8, 102-120. 
25. Nguyen, T. (2015). The effectiveness of online learning: beyond no significant difference and future horizons. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 11, 309-319. 
26. Bailey, R. (2009). Undergraduate students' perceptions of the role and utility of written assessment feedback. Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. Issue 1, February 2009. Retrieved on 15 January 2016 from http://www.aldinhe.ac.uk/ojs/index.php?journal=jldhe&page=article&op=view&path%5B%5D=29&path%5B%5D=13 
27. Scott, S. (2008). Improving Student satisfaction with Feedback: Report on a Project Undertaken in the Faculties of Arts & Social Sciences and of Law at UNSW. Retrieved on 15 January 2016 from https://teaching.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/upload-files/scottreport.pdf 
28. Shannon, C. E. and Weaver, W. (1964). The Mathematical Theory of Communication. University of Illinois Press, Illinois. 
29. Easton, S.S. (2003). Clarifying the instructor's role in online distance learning. Communication Education, 52(2), 87-105.


https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520302470

Published
2017-05-11
How to Cite
AWOFESO, Niyi; BAMIDELE, Moyosola. Learners’ perceptions of instructor feedback in e-learning courses – findings from HBMSU, United Arab Emirates. Application and Theory of Computer Technology, [S.l.], v. 2, n. 3, p. 35-47, may 2017. ISSN 2514-1694. Available at: <http://www.archyworld.com/journals/index.php/atct/article/view/74>. Date accessed: 23 july 2017. doi: https://doi.org/10.22496/atct.v2i3.74.
Section
Articles