A COMPARISON OF ONLINE AND ON-GROUND FEEDBACK
Kumari Lane, Sessional Lecturer Birkbeck College, Instructor University of
Liverpool/Laureate Education, PTVL Greenwich College of Management
Introduction
“Students need appropriate feedback on performance to benefit from courses.
When getting started, students need frequent opportunities to perform and receive
suggestions for improvement.i Students need feedback to know the extent to which
they have understood a topic.
Over many years the National Student Survey highlighted that law undergraduate
students in universities in the United Kingdom (following on-ground classes) are not
happy with feedback. The 2011 survey (in UniStats) indicated that the vast majority
of institutions showed poor recordings for the following questions:
Feedback on my work has been prompt.
I have received detailed comments on my work.
Feedback on my work has helped me clarify things I did not understand.
Only the universities of Bradford and York had reasonable ratings on these
questions.
The paper is based on the presenter’s extensive experience as an on-ground
lecturer and the new experience as an online instructor. The paper will commence
with a literature review and explaining the system of assessment and feedback in the
University of Liverpool/Laureate Education online LLM.
The study will then set out the questions and the responses in a questionnaire given
to online students in the LLM Conflict of Laws in Business and Commerce course
run by University of Liverpool/Laureate Education. The questionnaire will seek the
student experience and perception of feedback on the online course and also ask
them to compare it to their experience of their undergraduate on-ground experience.
It should be borne in mind that these students on the LLM course are from many
countries and their experience reflects student perception in many countries.
The author argues that while students are not very satisfied with on-ground feedback
in UK universities and in some foreign universities, on account of the delay in
receiving feedback and the quality of the feedback, on their on-ground assessments,
they are satisfied with the frequency, speed and quality of feedback on their on-line
assessments.
The presenter hopes to make recommendations to improve the feedback experience
of on-ground students. Suggestions for improvements will also be made as regards
the online experience.
1
Literature review
Students in UK universities are not happy with assessment and feedback in
comparison with other parts of their course.ii Williams and Kane found that students
were critical of the fact that they were expected to meet deadlines for handing in
assignments but the tutors were not. They felt that feedback should be given fairly
soon after the assignment.
Changiii reports that even in online feedback, the perception of the promptness of
feedback by students is not as high as that by the online instructors. She attributes
the difference to a ‘technology savvy’ generation who expect instant feedback.
Chang reports MacDonald and Twining who suggested that students not only expect
feedback to be prompt, but also that feedback should effectively promote their
learning and help them construct concepts.” Chang also found that students do not
appreciate lengthy feedback. She found that 85% of her online students appreciated
the online feedback.
As was stated by Thomas and Arnold,iv “feedback is formative, designed to improve
future performance, as opposed to assessment, which is summative and designed to
evaluate past performance.”v The writers also reported that in on-ground classes
there is a discrepancy in perception among faculty and students about the
immediacy and quality of feedback, with students having a poor perception than
faculty.
Hatziqpostolou and Paraskakisvi argue that online feedback by using email etc. is
more effective than the traditional methods such as commenting on student essays
or on coursework feedback sheets attached to students essays and that many
students do not even collect their feedback.
Getzlaf et alvii cited Arbaugh and Hornik (2006) who pointed out advantages of onground feedback such as “informal discussions after a classroom session, questions
asked and answered as an assignment is being explained and non-verbal
communication that complements verbal responses such as body language and
facial expressions” which cannot be achieved in asynchronous online environments.
Getzlaf et alviii in their study found that students varied in what they regarded as
prompt feedback. Some thought feedback should be given in a very short time such
as 24 hours or one or two days, whereas others thought that one or two weeks was
reasonable. They also thought the promptness of the feedback depended on the
type of assessment such as conference postings and written assignments. Students
also thought that instructor and students should agree on when to expect feedback
and that the instructor should abide by the agreed timeframe. Promptness was
regarded as important in that the feedback could be used to improve the next
assignment.
”Feedback that is typed, and in a clear and legible format has been shown to be
more acceptable to learners than other forms, for example hand written feedback
2
(Bridge & Appleyard, 2005; Denton et al, 2008).ix Barker found that students
expected online feedback even in on-ground learning and that online feedback
meant that feedback could be given more quickly after the assignment.
Online feedback generally goes hand-in-hand with e-assessment, which permits
feedback to be delivered instantaneously, so that students can take quick action to
remedy their shortcomings in learning. According to Jordan and Mitchell, for
feedback to be instantaneous, the assessment items have to be short answer or
multiple choice.x
Research studies have reportedxi that frequent assessment and feedback increase
motivation, as the practise and feedback increase learning and the students become
more engaged with the subject.
McCabe et alxii state that “high-quality and timely instructor feedback is one of the
most powerful tools in student learning” and that “learning outcomes can be
improved via multiple writing assignments.”
Students need to understand what is meant by “good” and “bad” performance and
why they have received a particular grade. They should be made aware of how they
could improve their performance.xiii Sendziuk asked his students to comment on their
previous on-ground experience on feedback and 7% reported receiving no feedback
from markers. Sendziuk suggests the following to improve feedback:
ng specific examples and language (and in handwriting) that
is intelligible to students;
s with annotated exemplars of quality assignments (Sadler, 2002);
some input into designing the assessment criteria or the nature of
the assessment tasks, and/or provide an opportunity for the students to feedback to
the teacher (about the nature of the task or the student’s own performance), so that
students gain a degree of ownership or control over the assessment process
(Orsmond, Merry and Reiling, 2002; Carless, 2007);
ate advice for improvement and justification for a grade that is
awarded in order to limit the possible emotional hurt of the student receiving a lowerthan-expected grade; and
portunity for student peer- or self-appraisal prior to receiving a grade
by the teacher, thus making it possible for students to draw conclusions, regrettable
or otherwise, for themselves.”
As Terri Le Clercqxiv says, feedback, to be effective, does not have to be lengthy. He
also states that although feedback should try to be positive, students do expect
negative feedback, so they can improve performance.
3
McVeyxv states that effective feedback is that which is given immediately and assists
students in improving performance.
The assessment and feedback system on the online LLM at the University of
Liverpool/Laureate Education
In the online LLM which I taught, the students had to post contributions to a
discussion question as well as a hand-in assignment, both in traditional essay style.
They had to write about 500 words for the discussion question and 500 – 1000
words for the hand-in assignment. The students also have to submit a final project
online of about 2000 words. They submit a proposal a few weeks earlier followed a
couple of weeks later by an outline of their project and a summary of the research.
The feedback was not instantaneous, but was delivered within a week. In the first 3
weeks the marks and feedback were released to students only after the Director of
Online Studies (who was also my mentor) had checked the marks and grades
against the student written work. The fact that I had only 14 students assisted in the
delivery of prompt feedback. A concern of e-assessment is that it gives rise to
surface learning.xvi This was not, however, my experience of the online teaching I
did, and the students were encouraged not only to do the recommended reading, but
also cite references found through independent research, in order to be awarded the
higher grades. The University of Liverpool provided an online library.
Besides the feedback delivered within a week, with marks, I read student
contributions to the Discussion Board on a daily basis and when a student had made
a mistake or omitted a vital point, I immediately posted a response, which enabled
them to improve their learning. The follow on posts of the students were also
allocated a grade. It was interesting to note that students gained an in-depth
learning experience by reading, criticising and pointing the errors of their fellow
students and even referring to sources for their peers to read on particular points.
The feedback enabled students to understand their weaknesses, reflect on their
performance and improve. I was able to spot the weaker students from week 1 and
provide them with the support they needed, by my postings and/or sending them
private messages through the online messaging system.
After the first three weeks I was able to deliver the grades and feedback to the
students a couple of days before the deadline I was set, as I did not have to wait until
the Director of Online Studies approved the marks. However, the Director still
looked at the grades I awarded and my feedback and provided me with feedback on
my own performance. The University of Livepool/Laureate Education has
established an excellent system of assessment and feedback with a strict check on
the work done by their instructors.
4
Analysis of completed feedback questionnaires
Out of 14 students only 9 returned the questionnaires.
1. The on-ground universities were two in Canada, Singapore, Ghana , Nigeria ,
Bahamas , Bulgaria and Tanzania One student did not name the on-ground
university.
The lowest rating was 1 and the highest was 5.
Feedback on my work at my on-ground university was prompt.
The ratings were 4, 5, 3, 3, 1, 3, 4, 5, 4
Comments: Timeliness was ok, would not say prompt.
Feedback was prompt in the sense that we usually get feedbacks during or after
class, and our questions get answered on the spot.
The program structure was on lecture theatre and tutorial basis.
Whenever I received feedback it was usually prompt, most time by the next class.
On a daily-basis, as I was doing full-time studies at the 1st university.
Feedback was prompt.
I received detailed comments on my work at my on-ground university.
The ratings were 5, 5, 3, 1, 1, 3, 2, 5, 4
Comments: Not much feedback at all. Just marked assignments and tests with few
comments if any, and through discussion in class.
Feedbacks are mostly on marked scripts and at time on class addresses.
Comments were normally limited to a sentence or two, noted on the assignment
once it was returned to you.
I was on an individual program and was receiving feedback from my tutors during the
sessions prior to the exams.
I received detailed comments on my work.
Feedback on my work helped me clarify things I did not understand at my onground university.
The ratings were 5, 4, 3, 1, 1, 4, 2, 5, 4
Comments: Very little feedback, I guess some verbal in class discussions.
This is correct however with some limitations.
5
Lecturers at my on ground university were more concerned with getting through the
current class notes for that particular day and often only spent the last ten minutes of
class going through a previous assignment. Unlike online universities, on ground
universities are limited in their access to the students as they only see us twice a
week and try to cover so much in that short period of time.
The feedback on my work helped me clarify things I did not understand.
The ratings and comments on the online Conflict of Laws module which I taught
were as follows:
Feedback on my work in the Conflict of Laws has been prompt
The ratings were 5,4,5,5,4,5, 5, 5, 5
The comments were as follows:
It has been beneficial to receive feedback so quickly as the assignments are still
fresh in our minds and we can try to improve in the assignments for the following
week already.
Very prompt.
I have rated this section a 5 because I was very pleased with the timely manner in
which we received grades and our weekly feedback. It was always on or before the
assigned date, and it allowed sufficient time between assignments to address areas
of concern. Feedback was prompt and timely. I never had to wait on Kumari to
provide feedback it was always posted on time.
Has been excellent.
I did not feel the difference between feedback given during my on-ground and on-line
studies in Conflict of Laws, prompt feedback were received in the latter. However, in
another on-line module, the feedback has been less prompt and helpful.
Feedback on my work in the Conflict of Laws has been prompt
I have received detailed comments on my work on the Conflict of Laws module
The ratings were 5,5,5,5,4, 4.5, 4, 5, 5
The comments were as follows:
Personally I must state that I received detailed comments needed on my work.
I have also rated this section a 5 as I received weekly comments from Kumari with
respect to my weekly submissions. Additionally she gave positive feedback as well
as pointed out areas that needed improvement.
6
Detailed feedback is thorough and very good.
The comments received were detailed.
I have promptly received detailed comments on my work on the Conflict of Laws
module
Feedback on my work has helped me clarify things I did not understand on my
conflict of laws module
Feedback on my work has helped me clarify things I did not understand on my
conflict of laws module
The ratings were 5,5,5,4,4, 4, 4, 5, 5
The comments were as follows:
While the feedback has not been immediate (understandable since students are in
different time zones) personally for me it has been more effective as materials and
lectures are delivered in written form. I have the time to go over the documents more
than once, and any feedback from the lecturer is in the form of a written reply which
enables me to digest and analyse my train of thought better
It is correct that Kumari provided feedbacks which served as clarity to all grey areas
of the course. Kumari’s feedbacks have been greatly helpful throughout the module.
The feedback provided especially on the discussion board was extremely important
as there were times when persons did not fully understand a concept. I appreciate
Kumari style as she posed feedback questions that would cause us to probe deeper
into the matter as opposed to directly providing us with the response.
Receiving detailed feedback which have generally not received in previous modules,
which is great because this had been a disadvantage of on-line, since reading other
students discussion it was not possible to know if there were inaccuracies in their
discussions.
Feedback on my work has greatly helped me clarify things I have not understood
about the module.
Any other general comments related to feedback
My only concern about this program in general, and which is not specifically related
to this module, is that there is no face-to-face interaction with the teachers. I believe
that being able to clarify things in person would greatly assist in the learning process.
The only difference I feel with respect to an online environment and a on-ground one
is the level of recognition in my home country. Honestly I have learnt quite a bit from
7
the online format, as it allows me to work more or less at my own pace, and its
continual assessment mode makes it intellectually stimulating - more so than my
experience in a brick -and-mortar institution
Kumari is appreciatively a good Instructor so far encountered since the
commencement of my LLM course at my on-ground university and I trust she will
continue in like manner.
The Conflict of Laws class was a great learning experience; The assignments where
thought provoking, and the weekly notes were very helpful. The only problem was
sometimes being able to locate journals or cases, but Kumari assisted wherever
needed.
In general, the main difference that I felt with regard to on-ground and on-line studies
is that in the latter, I did not feel so free to ask questions and take the initiative to
seek clarification on issues but mainly relied on the uncertainties in my work as well
as my colleagues work, identified by the tutor.
Ms. Kumari has been very prompt at getting back to each of the students in the
Conflict of Law class, after one submits the DQ. It has been quite amazing that she
actually takes time to read each and every post and responds to each one of us
quickly.
In her feedback she has exhibited a lot of professionalism, in the manner in which
she steers back students onto the right track.
My Conflict of Laws textbook delayed in being delivered to me after I had made an
order. When I informed her she was really on top of everything and immediately sent
me the 1st 2 chapters of the book. I greatly commend her for this promptness.
Doing an online course has its challenges like being a virtual classroom; however,
Ms. Kumari’s prompt feedback has made it feel like a real classroom. It has enabled
me to stay active in class.
Recommendations for improvement of feedback in on-ground universities
Before improving feedback the system of assessment must be considered. The
current method of assessment in most universities is by coursework and
examination. Each script, which is usually in hard copy is first marked and
second marked, before marks are released to students. In some cases, the
marks may not be released until the external examiners have seen a sample of
the scripts and approved the marks. This usually means that students have to
wait many months before they receive their grades and feedback. By the time
they receive them they have forgotten what they wrote.
It is recommended that students are set frequent short essay style assessments
in a virtual learning environment such as Blackboard. If students are set tasks
8
which require responses up to a1000 words, the students should be able to cope
with the assessments and the markers should not take long to grade and write
the feedback. The second marking can take place soon after the first marking, as
there is no need for the physical delivery and collection of scripts, as is currently
the case. Even the external examiner could have access to the online
assessment environment.
As students are set assessments on the topics learnt each week, they will
develop in-depth learning about the entire taught syllabus, rather than the
coursework topic or a few selected topics likely to come up in the examination.
Unlike in the on-ground seminars when students may remain silent or even be
absent from the class, in the online environment, they are forced to engage in the
learning/assessment process to gain grades and their level of understanding is
easily detected and can be remedied.
If desired, a final summative assessment of an examination/coursework could be
set accounting for no more than 50 % of the final mark for the module.
Markers should be allocated more time to mark and give feedback. This could be
done by reducing the face to face contact time. There is no need of face to face
lectures, as lecture notes could be posted on the web. In the first year of an
undergraduate degree the students could have a two hour seminar, in the second
year a one and a half hour seminar and in the final year a one hour seminar. At
postgraduate level on-ground universities could experiment with a totally online
learning environment without face to face classes, but with face to face contact
with lecturers and tutors in office hours and by appointment. The students would
also have more time to read the basic texts, engage in research and write their
assessments.
One problem with the current assessment system is that as students generally
have to collect their coursework, in my experience of working at London
Metropolitan University, many students do not bother to collect the coursework
which contains the feedback. So the many hours spent in writing feedback is
wasted. If my recommendation is adopted, the feedback is given online, which
ensures that all students who submit assessment are given prompt feedback.
Recommendations for improvement if feedback in online environments
One of my online students stated: “My only concern about this program in
general, and which is not specifically related to this module, is that there is no faceto-face interaction with the teachers. I believe that being able to clarify things in
person would greatly assist in the learning process.” This I think is the weakest point
in a purely online course. It is recommended that the teacher and students meet on
a one to one basis, on Skype, once in 2/3 weeks, and more often in the case of
weaker students, so that the teacher could clarify points which the student is
struggling to understand.
9
The students in the online 8 week course I taught had assessments from the first
week. It is recommended that the in the first two weeks the assessments are of a
formative nature, so that students get used to the subject and understand the basic
concepts and principles, before undertaking assessments that count towards their
final grade.
Conclusion
As far as feedback is concerned, the online feedback is more prompt, more frequent
and better quality (if detailed feedback is given) than the current on-ground
feedback in most UK universities, leading to student dissatisfaction. The
online feedback reaches all students who undertake the assessments, unlike
on-ground feedback which is only received by the few students who collect
their coursework or ask to see the examination scripts. The online
environment is also a better learning environment in that students do not
waste time in attending face to face lectures (although they could read the
lecture notes posted on the web and listen to the audio files). Instead, they
are encouraged to spend their time in reading the materials themselves and
writing about what they have learnt in response to a question and receiving
feedback from their instructor informing them whether they are on the right
track. There is room for improvement in both on-ground and online systems
as outlined in the above paragraphs in the sections on recommendations.
Arthur W. Chickering and Zelda F. Gamson, “Seven Principles of Good Practice in
Undergraduate Education’, AAHE Bull. March 1987, at 3, 5
i
James Williams and David Kane, ‘Assessment and Feedback: Institutional
experiences of student feedback, 1996 to 2007 [2009] Higher education Quarterly
264
ii
Ni Chang, ‘Pre-service teachers’ views: How did e-feedback through assessment
facilitate their learning?’ [2009] British Journal of Educational Technology 16
iii
iv
Mary Ann Liebert, ‘Giving Feedback’ [2011] Journal of Palliative Medicine
See also Ende cited in Jane DeLima Thomas and Robert M. Arnold, ‘Giving
Feedback’ Journal of Palliative Medicine, Vo. 14, Number 2, 2011
v
Thanos Hatziapostolou and Iraklis Paraskakis, ‘Enhancing the Impact of Formative
Feedback on Student Learning through an online feedback system’, [2010] South
East European Research Centre 111
vi
vii
Beverley Getzkaf, Beth Perry, Greg Toffner, Kimberley Lamarche, Margaret
Edwards, ‘Effective Instructor Feedback: Perceptions of Online Graduate
10
viii
Ibid
Trevor Barker, ‘An automated individual feedback and marking system: An
empirical study’
ix
Sally Jordan and Tom Mitchell, ‘E-assessment for Learning? The potential of shortanswer free text questions with tailored feedback’, British Journal of Educational
Technology Vol 40 No 2 2009 371–385
x
Denise Whitelock,’ E-assessment is taking stress out of the exam process’
Optometry Today, 9/3/2010, Vol. 50 Issue 17, p26-26, 1p
xi
Jennifer McCabe, Alicia Doerflinger and Russell Fox, ‘Student and Faculty
Perceptions of E-Feedback,’ Teaching of Psychology 38(3) 173-179 2011
xii
Paul Sendziuk, ‘Sink or Swim? Improving Student Learning through Feedback and SelfAssessment’ International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 2010,
Volume 22, Number 3, 320-330
xiii
Terri LeClercq, ‘Principle 4: Good Practice gives Prompt Feedback’, Journal of Legal
Education, vol 49. No. 3 (September 1999)
xiv
Mary McVey, ‘Writing in an Online Environment. Students’ views of “Inked” Feedback’,
International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (2008 Vol 20 p. 39 - 50
xv
xvi
11
Ibid