You are here:

How to Provide Formative Feedback to Improve Online Learner Satisfaction and Learning?
PROCEEDINGS

, SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY EDWARDSVILLE, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in San Antonio, Texas, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-61-7 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA

Full Text

Abstract

Learner satisfaction and learning is currently a very important topic in online instruction and learning. This paper is designed to explore how the appropriate use of six response types for providing formative feedback affected learner satisfaction and online learning in an online graduate class at a Midwest university in the fall semester of 2006. Results indicated that all six response types are necessary to ensure maximum online learner satisfaction and effective online learning although each has its different focus. Findings have implications for all other online courses.

Citation

Liu, Y. (2007). How to Provide Formative Feedback to Improve Online Learner Satisfaction and Learning?. In R. Carlsen, K. McFerrin, J. Price, R. Weber & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2007--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 408-411). San Antonio, Texas, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 14, 2024 from .

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D.R., & Archer, W. (2001) Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2). Retrieved on November 27, 2006 from http://www.sloan-C.org/publications/jaln/v5n2/v5n2_anderson.asp.
  2. Blignaut, S. & Trollip, S. (2003). A taxonomy for faculty participation in asynchronous online discussions. Computers& Education, 41(2), 149-172.
  3. Liu, Y. (2005). Impact of online instruction on teachers’ learning and attitudes toward technology integration. The Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 6(4), Article 007. Retrieved October 27, 2005, from http://tojde.anadolu.edu.tr/tojde20/index.htm.
  4. Liu, Y. (2006). A comparison study of online versus traditional student evaluation of instruction. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 3(3), 15-29, Article 002. Retrieved on November 27, 2006 from http://www.itdl.org/Journal/April_06/April_06.pdf. Russell, T. (2000). The no significant difference phenomenon. Retrieved on November 27, 2006 from http://teleeducation.nb.ca/nosignificantdifference.
  5. Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (Eds.) (2006). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
  6. Trollip, S., & Blignaut, S. (2003). Measuring faculty participation in ALN as a basis for faculty development. Paper presented at the 19th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning. Madison, Wisconsin, USA. Retrieved on November 27, 2006 from http://www.uwex.edu/disted/conference/Resource_library/proceedings/03_53.pdf.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Cited By

View References & Citations Map

  • Hybrid Instruction 101: It’s in the Design

    Antonia D'Onofrio & Kathleen Bowes, Widener University, United States

    E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2007 (Oct 15, 2007) pp. 1500–1506

These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact info@learntechlib.org.

Also Read