**5. Development of the pedagogical-didactic intervention**

**3. Issues and objectives**

dren's environmental literacy?

defined for the pedagogical-didactic:

engaged citizenship.

**4. Methodology**

participants.

for teaching-learning.

In this investigation, we have considered the following research questions:

90 Advanced Learning and Teaching Environments - Innovation, Contents and Methods

beforehand in theoretical-demonstrative dialogue session with teachers.

environment under a scope of child's environmental literacy?

(a) Do the activities of outdoor learning itineraries constitute proper didactic resources for the transformation of scientific content based on the assumption of promotion of chil-

In this case, the topic "Water" the curricular area of "Environmental Studies" is explored

(b) Do have pedagogical-didactic possibilities within the scope of curricular interdisciplinarity?

(c) Do the itineraries of outdoor learning activities promote the articulation of science-child-

Thus, to provide answers to the questions we raised, the following learning objectives were

(i) To revisit of the scientific concepts related to the water molecule; (ii) To highlight the ecocentric vision of the natural water resource; (iii) To discover/highlight the potential of outdoor learning activities as a didactic resource of the teaching-learning process in the study field content, from an interdisciplinary perspective to contribute to environmental literacy; (iv) To construct an outdoor learning guide to teach the topic of "Water" based on a perspective of interdisciplinarity and student-centred active learning environment. The didactic resource should provide active, meaningful, diversified, integrated, socializing learning experiences. It must contribute to the appropriation of values and attitudes that promote practices of responsible environmental citizenship, it mean an active, critical and

This pedagogy research was carried out under a qualitative approach [27]. The interpretive

The following categories of analysis were considered: didactic transformation of study field

The data were obtained using the following instruments: observation (direct and participant), the construction of learning itineraries, and the collection of considerations raised by the

A group of 30 primary teachers participated. The pedagogical study was developed within an in-service training course (continuing education course) for teachers on new methodologies

nature of this research leaded the researcher to have a participant-observer role.

content; environmental literacy; articulation among science-child-environment.

The conceptual map followed in this pedagogical-didactic study is presented in **Figure 1**. A conceptual map is a strategy that could potentially facilitate meaningful learning [29].

This pedagogical-didactic study was structured in two phases (three sequential moments).

Phase I (Theoretical-demonstrative session lasting 3 hours): (1) transmission of articulated concepts to ecocentric perspective of the natural/humanized environment; demonstration of didactic activities in a non-formal context based on examples.

**Figure 1.** Conceptual map to approach the topic of "Water".

Phase II: (1) participative construction of didactic itineraries for outdoor learning activities; (2) After 2 weeks of autonomous work carried out in group, there was the delivery of the scripts and a written essay on the relevance of outdoor learning activities for children (exercising of decision-making capacities oriented to the resolution of environmental issues/problems based on ecocentric values and critical analysis of scientific knowledge).

**Table 1** presents the sequence followed in the theoretical-demonstrative dialogue session for the pedagogical-didactic approach about the topic of "Water" (Phase I of the pedagogicaldidactic activity). The PowerPoint tool was used as a pedagogical resource to illustrate concepts and environmental practices. It shows moments in classroom exposition, the valuation of believes in the learning of scientific knowledge as well as in the transmission of ecocentric values and attitudes of environmental citizenship.

**Table 2** presents the framing the content of the topic "Water", presented in the theoreticaldemonstrative dialogue session, in the programming the curricular area of "Environmental Studies" for primary education.

For the autonomous work of the group carried out outside the classroom (phase II), it was proposed to create didactic itineraries of the outdoor learning activity, a didactic resource for primary school children, according to what they should foster: (i) knowledge about the content of the water, whose content is part of the curricular area of "Environmental Studies" (terms/concepts); (ii) develop skills such as: observe, describe, record, interpret, evaluate, criticize and decide; (iii) develop ecocentric values and attitudes of environmental citizenship in relation to the natural resource water.

**6. Data analysis and discussion**

**Sequence Field content [11]**

expresses itself (p. 139)".

condensation) (p. 126)".

records.

trative session.

of scientific knowledge.

The instruments used to collect data in this research were: observation (direct and participant), the analysis of the itineraries of the outdoor learning activity and reflections in written

**Table 2.** Framing in the curricular area of "Environmental Studies" within the content explored in theoretical-demons-

1° "… experiencing the activities of plastic expression, contact with nature, knowledge of the region,

2° "Recognize the different forms water is found in nature (rivers, streams, wells…) (p. 115)";

3° "Identify and observe some factors that contribute to surrounding environment degradation

identify and participate in ways of promoting sound environment practices.

4° "Know and apply standards of:… importance of drinking water (p. 107)"; "recognize the

extinction of resources, extinction of animal and plant (p. 131)".

(…) are opportunities for enrich and broaden the students' experience and develop their sensitivity to aesthetics (p. 89). Collection of diverse human expression forms and forms on how nature

Outdoor Learning Activities as Facilitators in the Construction of Environmental Citizenship

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.70248

93

"recognize different environments where animals live (earth, water, air) (p. 116)"; "identify some environmental factors that condition life of plants and animals (water, air, light, temperature, soil) (p. 117)"; "identify some physical properties of water (colourless, odourless, tasteless) (p. 123)"; "observe the effects of temperature on water (boiling, evaporation, solidification, melting and

(dumps, polluting industries, historical heritage destruction…); enumerate possible solutions;

Water quality: recognize some forms of pollution of watercourses and oceans (sewers, industrial fluids, black tides…); identify some environmental imbalances caused by human activity:

importance and necessity of basic sanitation and water supply (p. 130)"; "recognize the importance of reserves and natural parks for preserving the balance between nature and society (p. 131)".

The analysis of results was conducted applying the categories: didactic transformation of the field content, environmental literacy and articulation science-child-environment. These categories were applied in the itineraries of the outdoor learning activity. They were means to verify the passage of a complex scientific language of the water field content to a simplified scientific language. The resulting didactic form fosters the interdisciplinary and articulated environmental literacy. The learning goal is the development of critical attitudes and participatory environmental citizenship. At the same time, the articulation science-child-environment was achieved. The environment should appear as one of the natural-humanized dimensions and the activity should be student-centered active learning environment. In short, the outdoor learning activity should be understood as a teaching-learning methodology in which scientific concepts are approached and articulated according to the couple scientific literacy-environmental literacy. In this context, the environmental literacy category was analysed in the scripts according to the development of decision-making capacities directed to the resolution of environmental issues/problems, based on ecocentric values and critical analysis

We chose to analyse the results by triangulating the three categories of analysis.


**Table 1.** Sequential development of the theoretical-demonstrative session.


**Table 2.** Framing in the curricular area of "Environmental Studies" within the content explored in theoretical-demonstrative session.

### **6. Data analysis and discussion**

Phase II: (1) participative construction of didactic itineraries for outdoor learning activities; (2) After 2 weeks of autonomous work carried out in group, there was the delivery of the scripts and a written essay on the relevance of outdoor learning activities for children (exercising of decision-making capacities oriented to the resolution of environmental issues/problems

**Table 1** presents the sequence followed in the theoretical-demonstrative dialogue session for the pedagogical-didactic approach about the topic of "Water" (Phase I of the pedagogicaldidactic activity). The PowerPoint tool was used as a pedagogical resource to illustrate concepts and environmental practices. It shows moments in classroom exposition, the valuation of believes in the learning of scientific knowledge as well as in the transmission of ecocentric

**Table 2** presents the framing the content of the topic "Water", presented in the theoreticaldemonstrative dialogue session, in the programming the curricular area of "Environmental

For the autonomous work of the group carried out outside the classroom (phase II), it was proposed to create didactic itineraries of the outdoor learning activity, a didactic resource for primary school children, according to what they should foster: (i) knowledge about the content of the water, whose content is part of the curricular area of "Environmental Studies" (terms/concepts); (ii) develop skills such as: observe, describe, record, interpret, evaluate, criticize and decide; (iii) develop ecocentric values and attitudes of environmental citizenship in

Believes, ecocentric values.

attitudes.

attitudes.

attitudes.

Believes, scientific knowledge, ecocentric values, environmental citizenship

Believes, scientific knowledge, ecocentric values, environmental citizenship

Believes, scientific knowledge, ecocentric values, environmental citizenship

Scientific knowledge, ecocentric values, environmental citizenship attitudes.

**Sequence Content Verify/Develop/Explore**

based on ecocentric values and critical analysis of scientific knowledge).

92 Advanced Learning and Teaching Environments - Innovation, Contents and Methods

values and attitudes of environmental citizenship.

Studies" for primary education.

relation to the natural resource water.

dance) and literature.

1° Recognition that water is a universal heritage. Extensive

2° Characterization of chemical and physical properties. Relation with living matter and existence of life. Understanding the role of water in natural ecosystems.

3° Discussion of the impact of water pollution on human populations and the biosphere.

4° Reflecting on practices and behaviours resulting from

water valorization and preservation.

humanized environment.

5° Understanding the potential of outdoor learning activities in teaching-learning contents in the context of natural/

**Table 1.** Sequential development of the theoretical-demonstrative session.

human cultural metabolism in water consumption. Discussion on practices and behaviours of preservation of

topic to be expressed through art (painting, music and

The instruments used to collect data in this research were: observation (direct and participant), the analysis of the itineraries of the outdoor learning activity and reflections in written records.

The analysis of results was conducted applying the categories: didactic transformation of the field content, environmental literacy and articulation science-child-environment. These categories were applied in the itineraries of the outdoor learning activity. They were means to verify the passage of a complex scientific language of the water field content to a simplified scientific language. The resulting didactic form fosters the interdisciplinary and articulated environmental literacy. The learning goal is the development of critical attitudes and participatory environmental citizenship. At the same time, the articulation science-child-environment was achieved. The environment should appear as one of the natural-humanized dimensions and the activity should be student-centered active learning environment. In short, the outdoor learning activity should be understood as a teaching-learning methodology in which scientific concepts are approached and articulated according to the couple scientific literacy-environmental literacy. In this context, the environmental literacy category was analysed in the scripts according to the development of decision-making capacities directed to the resolution of environmental issues/problems, based on ecocentric values and critical analysis of scientific knowledge.

We chose to analyse the results by triangulating the three categories of analysis.

Analysing the itineraries, we verified that all the groups chose to explore parks of urban leisure (natural-humanized environment) existing in the margins of a river that was object of requalification: river cleaning, tree planting, restoration of existing trees, training equipment equipping with, construction of recreational equipment (tables, wooden benches and children's playground) and catering infrastructures. It is concluded that these teachers responded positively to the challenge of discovering and valuing the natural/humanized environment near the place. They explored what was next to the school where they use to teach. Through the analysis of the resulting didactic scripts we realize that they prioritize the importance of developing the following skills: to observe, to describe, to register, to interpret and to evaluate.

all play/In the playground/And to finish/In the grass you should sit/To rest/And the activity to evaluate"; "You find on your left/A green space to play/It's what we ask of you/Jump to the

Outdoor Learning Activities as Facilitators in the Construction of Environmental Citizenship

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.70248

95

It is observed in the messages that appear in all the scripts, a prevalence of situations/ques-

We conclude that this pedagogical-didactic experiment mobilized the participation, raised the motivation and valorised outdoor learning activities. It was evident in the written reflections that the teachers presented like this: "… can and should be used as a resource as a teachinglearning element proper to the current requirements of the syllabus, since it allows a contextualized learning through which children can be formed Citizens capable of participating consciously and responsibly in society"; "These activities promote (…) the development of attitudes and values towards others individuals and the surrounding environment, they also promote motivation, interest and empathy for these subjects, stimulating the cooperation, the decision making and the spirit of leadership"; "It was good, we felt it would be a good thing

We found that the outdoor learning activity was considered by all stakeholders as a valuable strategy for the development of pro-environment skills. According to Ref. [22], *"There is also strong evidence that young children respond more positively to experiences in the outdoors than adults as they have not yet adapted to unnatural, manmade, indoor environments"*. Teachers concluded that children exposed to these activities can learn in a non-formal direct way, outside the classroom and free from the pressure associated with it. This is similar to Ref. [30]: *"When the child goes abroad, it is precisely the World, in its reality, that offers itself to his eyes. Instead of fabricating objects that represent ideas, and closing them in a closet, let the child out, showing them things in their authenticity"*. According to Ref. [31] *"Children in situations to act cooperatively are to lay the* 

The group of teachers was very participative, committed and dedicated. They expressed their satisfaction for the pedagogical-didactic practices carried on. They were sensitized and interested in continuing to deepen their knowledge about the benefits of outdoor learning activities because in this regard they said: "for us, this active methodology of teaching-learning

It was demonstrated that this pedagogical-didactic practice contributed to the appreciation, on the part of these participants, of teaching and learning methodology to develop children's environmental literacy. It is concluded, from the observations made throughout this study, that the approach taken in the theoretical-demonstrative session about the water field motivated this group of teachers to the challenge of implementing outdoor learning activities as teaching practices. They look for promoting attitudes of critical and participant environmental citizenship (environmental literacy). It was evident that there was an interdisciplinary relationship with the mother tongue and the field of mathematics. However, it was not evident in the pedagogical-didactic scripts the concern in articulation of science-child-environment, that is, the interconnection of the content of sciences – in this case the topic of "Water" – with the

tions that promote the achievement of social, relational and affective goals.

axis, without the colleague hurt".

to continue this line of training".

*foundations for their better insertion in future society"*.

promotion of children's environmental literacy.

effectively promotes learning, critical awareness and civic attitudes".

All the scripts showed a common characteristic: they did not emphasize the scientific content already examined in the theoretical-demonstrative session with regard to the properties and function of water. Only one script included a song to be sung by the children at the end of the activity and the lyrics read: "Come often and do not forget to snack/It is not only lunch and dinner time/water is essential and must be drunk/It is so important that without it there is no life". Perhaps the group of teachers had difficulty in the didactic transformation of the concepts explored in the theoretical-demonstrative dialogue session. According to Ref. [28], there are few teachers at this level of education who have had a good education in science, which will translate into their teaching practices. Then the tendency is to avoid these subjects. However, their preference and consequent adequate didactic transformation were evident in topics related to ecology (ecosystem-living beings, water quality, pollution). Here some examples of the messages in the didactic scripts: (a) "The little river/again you will cross/if you notice running water/do you know what animal to pass? These amphibians are indicators of river water quality. Know why? We must all preserve the environment! How can you contribute to the preservation of this park? "; (b) " We need to preserve the environment by saving water and avoiding waste. Write four ways to save water"; (c) "This site reminds me of the forests that existed on our planet, already dead. What do you think? ". It was identified the conviction of this group that activities of outdoor learning are preferred methodologies for the promotion of environmental literacy, since in all scripts there are messages that points this purpose. Examples: "You are in a public space/That you must preserve/Treat it with respect/ For all of us to use it"; "Would this Park exist without this natural resource?/We should therefore keep the space always clean"; "On our right side we find a waste basket. What is written there? Let's read and copy". Under the point of view of Bogner and Wiseman [22], this type of activity aims to promote conservation and environmental protection. The diversity of ecocentric messages demonstrated that the concepts we deal with in this study constitute the foundation of attitudes of environmental citizenship. There is also a concern for interdisciplinarity with the mother tongue (there is a constant call of attention to messages in the park to be transcribed in the script, and the existence of elements that appeal to the registers). The concern of interdisciplinarity with mathematics was evident in all didactic scripts. Here some examples: "It was about 2160 m/That you just walked/If you do it twice/How many Km would you walk?"; "If the volume of this lake/You could determine/Which unit to survey is the best?/ Which would you use?"

All didactic itineraries of the outdoor learning activity contain messages of leisure and encouragement of the practice of physical activity. For example: "When the teacher says/Let's all play/In the playground/And to finish/In the grass you should sit/To rest/And the activity to evaluate"; "You find on your left/A green space to play/It's what we ask of you/Jump to the axis, without the colleague hurt".

Analysing the itineraries, we verified that all the groups chose to explore parks of urban leisure (natural-humanized environment) existing in the margins of a river that was object of requalification: river cleaning, tree planting, restoration of existing trees, training equipment equipping with, construction of recreational equipment (tables, wooden benches and children's playground) and catering infrastructures. It is concluded that these teachers responded positively to the challenge of discovering and valuing the natural/humanized environment near the place. They explored what was next to the school where they use to teach. Through the analysis of the resulting didactic scripts we realize that they prioritize the importance of developing the following skills: to observe, to describe, to register, to interpret and to evaluate. All the scripts showed a common characteristic: they did not emphasize the scientific content already examined in the theoretical-demonstrative session with regard to the properties and function of water. Only one script included a song to be sung by the children at the end of the activity and the lyrics read: "Come often and do not forget to snack/It is not only lunch and dinner time/water is essential and must be drunk/It is so important that without it there is no life". Perhaps the group of teachers had difficulty in the didactic transformation of the concepts explored in the theoretical-demonstrative dialogue session. According to Ref. [28], there are few teachers at this level of education who have had a good education in science, which will translate into their teaching practices. Then the tendency is to avoid these subjects. However, their preference and consequent adequate didactic transformation were evident in topics related to ecology (ecosystem-living beings, water quality, pollution). Here some examples of the messages in the didactic scripts: (a) "The little river/again you will cross/if you notice running water/do you know what animal to pass? These amphibians are indicators of river water quality. Know why? We must all preserve the environment! How can you contribute to the preservation of this park? "; (b) " We need to preserve the environment by saving water and avoiding waste. Write four ways to save water"; (c) "This site reminds me of the forests that existed on our planet, already dead. What do you think? ". It was identified the conviction of this group that activities of outdoor learning are preferred methodologies for the promotion of environmental literacy, since in all scripts there are messages that points this purpose. Examples: "You are in a public space/That you must preserve/Treat it with respect/ For all of us to use it"; "Would this Park exist without this natural resource?/We should therefore keep the space always clean"; "On our right side we find a waste basket. What is written there? Let's read and copy". Under the point of view of Bogner and Wiseman [22], this type of activity aims to promote conservation and environmental protection. The diversity of ecocentric messages demonstrated that the concepts we deal with in this study constitute the foundation of attitudes of environmental citizenship. There is also a concern for interdisciplinarity with the mother tongue (there is a constant call of attention to messages in the park to be transcribed in the script, and the existence of elements that appeal to the registers). The concern of interdisciplinarity with mathematics was evident in all didactic scripts. Here some examples: "It was about 2160 m/That you just walked/If you do it twice/How many Km would you walk?"; "If the volume of this lake/You could determine/Which unit to survey is the best?/

94 Advanced Learning and Teaching Environments - Innovation, Contents and Methods

All didactic itineraries of the outdoor learning activity contain messages of leisure and encouragement of the practice of physical activity. For example: "When the teacher says/Let's

Which would you use?"

It is observed in the messages that appear in all the scripts, a prevalence of situations/questions that promote the achievement of social, relational and affective goals.

We conclude that this pedagogical-didactic experiment mobilized the participation, raised the motivation and valorised outdoor learning activities. It was evident in the written reflections that the teachers presented like this: "… can and should be used as a resource as a teachinglearning element proper to the current requirements of the syllabus, since it allows a contextualized learning through which children can be formed Citizens capable of participating consciously and responsibly in society"; "These activities promote (…) the development of attitudes and values towards others individuals and the surrounding environment, they also promote motivation, interest and empathy for these subjects, stimulating the cooperation, the decision making and the spirit of leadership"; "It was good, we felt it would be a good thing to continue this line of training".

We found that the outdoor learning activity was considered by all stakeholders as a valuable strategy for the development of pro-environment skills. According to Ref. [22], *"There is also strong evidence that young children respond more positively to experiences in the outdoors than adults as they have not yet adapted to unnatural, manmade, indoor environments"*. Teachers concluded that children exposed to these activities can learn in a non-formal direct way, outside the classroom and free from the pressure associated with it. This is similar to Ref. [30]: *"When the child goes abroad, it is precisely the World, in its reality, that offers itself to his eyes. Instead of fabricating objects that represent ideas, and closing them in a closet, let the child out, showing them things in their authenticity"*. According to Ref. [31] *"Children in situations to act cooperatively are to lay the foundations for their better insertion in future society"*.

The group of teachers was very participative, committed and dedicated. They expressed their satisfaction for the pedagogical-didactic practices carried on. They were sensitized and interested in continuing to deepen their knowledge about the benefits of outdoor learning activities because in this regard they said: "for us, this active methodology of teaching-learning effectively promotes learning, critical awareness and civic attitudes".

It was demonstrated that this pedagogical-didactic practice contributed to the appreciation, on the part of these participants, of teaching and learning methodology to develop children's environmental literacy. It is concluded, from the observations made throughout this study, that the approach taken in the theoretical-demonstrative session about the water field motivated this group of teachers to the challenge of implementing outdoor learning activities as teaching practices. They look for promoting attitudes of critical and participant environmental citizenship (environmental literacy). It was evident that there was an interdisciplinary relationship with the mother tongue and the field of mathematics. However, it was not evident in the pedagogical-didactic scripts the concern in articulation of science-child-environment, that is, the interconnection of the content of sciences – in this case the topic of "Water" – with the promotion of children's environmental literacy.

### **7. Concluding remarks**

The analysis of the results showed that this pedagogical-didactic practice of outdoor learning contributed with these teachers: (i) to (re) construct their conceptions about the pedagogicaldidactic potentialities of outdoor learning activities; (ii) to promote the predisposition to open the conventional classroom to Nature classroom, demonstrating the intention to implement this pedagogical teaching practices in the curricular area of "Environmental Studies"; (iii) to verified the valorisation of the local natural-humanized environment when transforming scientific concepts of sciences (only those of the area of ecology), in the theoretical-demonstrative session, according to the perspective of articulation scientific literacy-environmental literacy with critical attitude. This training course highlighted the acquisition by this group of skills that are fundamental to the development of a teaching and learning process that promotes a participatory, responsible and critical environmental citizenship through the discovery of the surrounding natural environment.

consolidation, evolution and construction of professional skills. According to Refs. [32, 33] teacher training must be demanding and continuous, *"capable of leading to changes in perspective and, later, to new practices to innovative practices, by the attitude and values they introduce, to create* 

Outdoor Learning Activities as Facilitators in the Construction of Environmental Citizenship

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.70248

97

It is hoped that this research developed as part of an ongoing course for primary teachers will contribute to the improvement of effective pedagogical practices in children's environmental

Research Unit for Inland Development (UDI) – Polytechnic Institute of Guarda (IPG),

[1] Roth CE. Environmental Literacy: Its Roots, Evolution, and Directions in the 1990s. Columbus/OH: ERIC Clearinghouse or Science, Mathematics and Environmental Edu-

[2] Barrett GW, Peles JD, Odum EP. Transcending processes and the level-of-organization

[3] OECD – Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The PISA 2003 Assessment Framework – Mathematics, Reading, Science and Problem Solving Knowledge and Skills. OCDE [Internet]. 2003. Available from: http://www.oecd.org/datao-

[4] Dunlap R. The new environmental paradigm scale: From marginality to worldwide use. The Journal of Environmental Education. 2008;**40**(1):3-18. DOI: 10.3200/JOEE.40.1.3-18

[5] Tenreiro-Vieira C. O Pensamento Crítico na Educação Científica. Lisboa: Instituto Piaget,

[6] Latorre A. La investigación-acción. Conocer y cambiar la práctica educativa. 4th ed.

[7] United Nations Development Program (UNDP), Human Development Report 2011. Sustainability and Equity: A Better Future for All [Internet]. 2011. Available from: http:// hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/reports/271/hdr\_2011\_en\_complete.pdf [Accessed: 10

concept. BioScience. 1997;**47**(8):531-535. DOI: 10.2307/1313121

ecd/46/14/33694881.pdf [Accessed: 20 January 2017]

*another culture of scientific education"*.

Maria Eduarda Ferreira\* and Rui Pitarma

\*Address all correspondence to: eroque©@ipg.pt

**Author details**

Guarda, Portugal

cation; 1992. 51 p

Divisão Editorial; 2000. 252 p

January 2017]

Barcelona: Editorial Graó; 2007. 138 p

**References**

literacy developed in the context of science education.

It is concluded that the activities of outdoor learning, which are part of study field curricular area of "Environmental Studies", considers *"the local environment as a lived space, and it should be the privileged object of a systematic and methodical first learning of the child since, at these ages, the thinking is directed towards concrete learning"* [11]. It is also considered, based on the analysis made to this pedagogical-didactic activity, that it should be applied to other study field contents of primary education sciences, in order to be able to identify limitations and potentials to make it more effective. It will contribute to the construction of scripts and didactic sequences of learning where the student-centred active learning environment is valued. Also, the articulation between the curricular contents of sciences (in a perspective of interdisciplinarity) and the development of attitudes of critical participation is operationalized. Besides the aspects already analysed in this article in relation to outdoor learning activities, there are other considerations that could jeopardize the implementation feasibility, specifically time factor. Time could be an obstacle for implementation of this type of activities (duration of the outdoor activity to explore the natural/humanized site and the subsequent exploration of the didactic routes after the activity) is a factor. In the Portuguese teaching-learning process, at the level of primary education, the management of the duration of the learner activities by study field is not flexible. This is the reason why this factor is considered a limitation if we admit that these teachers will apply the script that they have built and will replicate the outdoor learning activity to other curricular contents, as they also mentioned in their reflections. However, from our experience, since this line of research has been carried out for several years, we are convinced that there are obstacles to implement radical changes in the teaching-learning process. Pedagogical-didactic activities such as this will certainly contribute to changes, no matter its magnitude. They constitute pedagogical paths that give important contributions to an integrated scientific education based on values of respect, appreciation of natural/humanized resources and its interaction (behaviours). They foster critical and responsible citizenship with a view to the preservation and resolution of environmental issues.

Professional development is an on-going process in which the learning-teaching path is done throughout the professional life, and where the training courses constitute means of consolidation, evolution and construction of professional skills. According to Refs. [32, 33] teacher training must be demanding and continuous, *"capable of leading to changes in perspective and, later, to new practices to innovative practices, by the attitude and values they introduce, to create another culture of scientific education"*.

It is hoped that this research developed as part of an ongoing course for primary teachers will contribute to the improvement of effective pedagogical practices in children's environmental literacy developed in the context of science education.

### **Author details**

**7. Concluding remarks**

96 Advanced Learning and Teaching Environments - Innovation, Contents and Methods

surrounding natural environment.

The analysis of the results showed that this pedagogical-didactic practice of outdoor learning contributed with these teachers: (i) to (re) construct their conceptions about the pedagogicaldidactic potentialities of outdoor learning activities; (ii) to promote the predisposition to open the conventional classroom to Nature classroom, demonstrating the intention to implement this pedagogical teaching practices in the curricular area of "Environmental Studies"; (iii) to verified the valorisation of the local natural-humanized environment when transforming scientific concepts of sciences (only those of the area of ecology), in the theoretical-demonstrative session, according to the perspective of articulation scientific literacy-environmental literacy with critical attitude. This training course highlighted the acquisition by this group of skills that are fundamental to the development of a teaching and learning process that promotes a participatory, responsible and critical environmental citizenship through the discovery of the

It is concluded that the activities of outdoor learning, which are part of study field curricular area of "Environmental Studies", considers *"the local environment as a lived space, and it should be the privileged object of a systematic and methodical first learning of the child since, at these ages, the thinking is directed towards concrete learning"* [11]. It is also considered, based on the analysis made to this pedagogical-didactic activity, that it should be applied to other study field contents of primary education sciences, in order to be able to identify limitations and potentials to make it more effective. It will contribute to the construction of scripts and didactic sequences of learning where the student-centred active learning environment is valued. Also, the articulation between the curricular contents of sciences (in a perspective of interdisciplinarity) and the development of attitudes of critical participation is operationalized. Besides the aspects already analysed in this article in relation to outdoor learning activities, there are other considerations that could jeopardize the implementation feasibility, specifically time factor. Time could be an obstacle for implementation of this type of activities (duration of the outdoor activity to explore the natural/humanized site and the subsequent exploration of the didactic routes after the activity) is a factor. In the Portuguese teaching-learning process, at the level of primary education, the management of the duration of the learner activities by study field is not flexible. This is the reason why this factor is considered a limitation if we admit that these teachers will apply the script that they have built and will replicate the outdoor learning activity to other curricular contents, as they also mentioned in their reflections. However, from our experience, since this line of research has been carried out for several years, we are convinced that there are obstacles to implement radical changes in the teaching-learning process. Pedagogical-didactic activities such as this will certainly contribute to changes, no matter its magnitude. They constitute pedagogical paths that give important contributions to an integrated scientific education based on values of respect, appreciation of natural/humanized resources and its interaction (behaviours). They foster critical and responsible citizenship

with a view to the preservation and resolution of environmental issues.

Professional development is an on-going process in which the learning-teaching path is done throughout the professional life, and where the training courses constitute means of Maria Eduarda Ferreira\* and Rui Pitarma

\*Address all correspondence to: eroque©@ipg.pt

Research Unit for Inland Development (UDI) – Polytechnic Institute of Guarda (IPG), Guarda, Portugal

### **References**


[8] Departamento de Educação Básica – Ministério da Educação [ME]. Currículo Nacional do Ensino Básico – Competências essenciais. Lisboa: ME; 2001. 227 p

[24] Clément P. Representations, conceptions, connaissances. In Giordan A, Girault Y, Clément P, editors. Conceptions et Connaissances. Berne: Peter Lang; 1994. pp. 15-45

Outdoor Learning Activities as Facilitators in the Construction of Environmental Citizenship

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.70248

99

[25] Ferreira ME, Porteiro AC, Pitarma R. Enhancing Children's success in science learning: An experience of science teaching in teacher primary school training. Journal of

[26] Ferreira ME, Cruz C, Pitarma R. Teaching ecology to children of preschool education to instill environmentally friendly behaviour. International Journal of Environmental &

[27] Bogdan R, Biklen S. Investigação Qualitativa em Educação: Uma Introdução à Teoria e

[28] Lunn S. What we think we can safely say…: Primary teachers' views of the nature of science. British Educational Research Journal. 2002;**28**(5):649-672. DOI: 10.1080/0141

[29] Moreira MA. Mapas conceituais e aprendizagem significativa. São Paulo: Centauro

[30] White R, Stoecklin V. Children's Outdoor Play & Learning Environments: Returning to Nature. [Internet]. 2011. Available from: http://www.whitehutchinson.com/children/

[31] Montessori M. Da infância à adolescência. Queluz de Baixo: Portugália Editora; 1980.

[33] Cachapuz A, et al. Uma visão sobre o ensino das ciências no pós-mudança conceptual –

[32] Pereira A. Educação para a Ciência. Lisboa: Universidade Aberta; 2002. 228 p

Contributos para a formação de professores. Inovação. 2000;**13**(2-3):117-137

Education and Practice. 2015;**6**(8):24-31

Science Education. 2016;**11**(12):5619-5632

192022000015525

Editora; 2010. 80 p

101 p

aos Métodos. Porto: Porto Editora; 2013. 336 p

articles/outdoor.shtml [Accessed: 12 October 2016]


[24] Clément P. Representations, conceptions, connaissances. In Giordan A, Girault Y, Clément P, editors. Conceptions et Connaissances. Berne: Peter Lang; 1994. pp. 15-45

[8] Departamento de Educação Básica – Ministério da Educação [ME]. Currículo Nacional

[9] Inácio M. Manual do Formador – O Processo de Aprendizagem. Lisboa: DeltaConsultures

[10] Portugal, Lei n° 46, de 14 de outubro 1986. Lei de Bases do Sistema Educativo. Lisboa:

[11] Departamento de Educação Básica – Ministério da Educação [ME]. Organização Curricular e Programas: Ensino Básico – 1° Ciclo. 4th ed. Lisboa: ME; 2004. 284 p [12] Palmer J. Geography in the early years. London/New York: Routledge; 1994. 187 p

[13] Jordet A. Outdoor schooling in Norway – Research and experiences. In: Proceedings of the Conference Healthier, Wiser and Happier Children; 24-25 January, 2008, Outdoor Education – learning with Mind, Heart and Body Conference; Jelling: Branbjerg

[14] Dias GF. Educação ambiental: princípios e práticas. São Paulo: Editora Gaia; 2005. 550 p

[16] Dillon JS, et al. Engaging and Learning with the Outdoors: The Final Report of the Outdoor Classroom in a Rural Context Action Research Project, Reading, NFER [Internet]. 2005. Available from: www.bath.ac.uk/cree/resources/OCR.pdf [Accessed: 10

[17] Louv R. Last Child in the Woods: Saving our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder.

[18] Alarcão I. Escola Reflexiva. Nova racionalidade. Porto Alegre: Artes Médicas; 2001. 144 p [19] Zacharia Z, Barton AC. Urban middle-school students' attitudes toward a defined sci-

[20] Sears J. Children's attitudes to science and their choices post – 16. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, 11-14 September. Education-line University of York; 1997. Available from: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/

[21] Curriculum For Excellence Through Outdoor Learning. [Internet]. 2010. Available from: http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/images/cfeoutdoorlearningfinal\_tcm4-596061.

[22] Bogner FX, Wiseman M. Outdoor ecology education and pupils' environmental perception in preservation and utilization. Science Education International. 2004;**15**(1):27-48 [23] Martins IP, et al. Educação em ciências e ensino experimental. Formação de professores.

ence. Science Education. 2004;**88**:197-222. DOI: 10.1002/sce.10110

documents/000000386.htm [Accessed: 14 December 2016]

[15] Balancho MJ, Coelho MF. Motivar os alunos. Lisboa: Texto Editores; 1994. 96 p

do Ensino Básico – Competências essenciais. Lisboa: ME; 2001. 227 p

e Perfil; 2007. 54 p

University College

December 2016]

London: Atlantic Books; 2009. 400 p

pdf [Accessed: 14 November 2016]

Lisboa: Ministério da Educação; 2006. 68 p

Diário da República. 1986; n. 237, I Série A

98 Advanced Learning and Teaching Environments - Innovation, Contents and Methods


**Section 2**

**E-Learning and New Methods of Teaching and**

**Learning**

**E-Learning and New Methods of Teaching and Learning**

**Chapter 7**

**Provisional chapter**

**Exploring the Pedagogy of Online Feedback in**

**Exploring the Pedagogy of Online Feedback in** 

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.74028

While feedback is recognized as an important part of the pedagogical process in supporting student learning, it is a relatively a new area of online education research. The purpose of this mixed-methods study was to examine online feedback processes from the vantage points of the course instructor and a cohort of students. Based on data collected from the online forums and student interviews, the researcher/instructor sets out to determine what feedback was given and how it was perceived by students. Evidence suggests that the feedback given was largely aligned with research definitions of "best practice" in terms of being timely, accessible and substantial. In terms feedback type, it was informative, supportive, corrective, and, to a lesser extent, reflective. However, evidence suggests that the scope of students' perceptions of effective feedback was broader than suggested in the research literature with feedback viewed in relation to specific pedagogical, contextual, and relational dimensions. It is suggested that analysis of feedback from these two vantage points is important for instructors wishing to enhance their online teaching. It is also suggested that a frame for understanding the effect of online feedback on student learning should be broadened to consider its wider pedagogical, contextual, and relational dimensions. **Keywords:** feedback, online education, distance learning, pedagogy, perceptions

Giving and receiving feedback represent a type of dialog between educators and learners that supports learners in modifying their academic performance going forward. As such, the value of this pedagogical practice is well recognized in the literature (for example, see [1–6]). As a formative process, feedback does not attempt to formally evaluate the standard of work, rather it is designed to point students in the right direction through commenting,

> © 2016 The Author(s). Licensee InTech. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

© 2018 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use,

distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

**Supporting Distance Learners**

**Supporting Distance Learners**

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.74028

Christine Savvidou

Christine Savvidou

**Abstract**

**1. Introduction**

#### **Exploring the Pedagogy of Online Feedback in Supporting Distance Learners Exploring the Pedagogy of Online Feedback in Supporting Distance Learners**

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.74028

#### Christine Savvidou Christine Savvidou

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.74028

#### **Abstract**

While feedback is recognized as an important part of the pedagogical process in supporting student learning, it is a relatively a new area of online education research. The purpose of this mixed-methods study was to examine online feedback processes from the vantage points of the course instructor and a cohort of students. Based on data collected from the online forums and student interviews, the researcher/instructor sets out to determine what feedback was given and how it was perceived by students. Evidence suggests that the feedback given was largely aligned with research definitions of "best practice" in terms of being timely, accessible and substantial. In terms feedback type, it was informative, supportive, corrective, and, to a lesser extent, reflective. However, evidence suggests that the scope of students' perceptions of effective feedback was broader than suggested in the research literature with feedback viewed in relation to specific pedagogical, contextual, and relational dimensions. It is suggested that analysis of feedback from these two vantage points is important for instructors wishing to enhance their online teaching. It is also suggested that a frame for understanding the effect of online feedback on student learning should be broadened to consider its wider pedagogical, contextual, and relational dimensions.

**Keywords:** feedback, online education, distance learning, pedagogy, perceptions

### **1. Introduction**

Giving and receiving feedback represent a type of dialog between educators and learners that supports learners in modifying their academic performance going forward. As such, the value of this pedagogical practice is well recognized in the literature (for example, see [1–6]). As a formative process, feedback does not attempt to formally evaluate the standard of work, rather it is designed to point students in the right direction through commenting,

© 2016 The Author(s). Licensee InTech. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. © 2018 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

questioning, scaffolding, reminding, and offering models and examples. However, in contrast to the more summative process of formal assessment, it is claimed [7] that theory of feedback, in general, is lacking; moreover, research into online feedback is still in its infancy (for example, see [8–13]). However, it is more important than ever to research this area, as increasing numbers of students enroll in online courses [14] and, with this increase, faculty are required to spend more time responding to distance learners and adopting new skills and practices [15–18]. Indeed, the literature shows that for many faculty, the transition from providing immediate verbal feedback in a classroom to delayed written feedback in an online forum is not a seamless one [19]. This is compounded when institutional service goals specifying the roles and responsibilities of the instructor are not explicit [20]. Overcoming these challenges is critical, since it is shown that effective feedback is not only linked to higher university ratings [13], but more specifically, it is linked to student satisfaction with online learning [4, 9, 21–24]. Considering the attrition rate of online and distance learning students is considerably higher than on-site courses [12, 25], the need to improve the quality on online feedback cannot be underestimated. Thus, the aim of this paper is to explore the interrelational nature of online feedback by examining what and how feedback was given to distance learners by their instructor and how it was perceived by the students. This dual perspective attempts to redress traditional hierarchies by making the 'evaluator' the 'evaluated' and, in so doing, offer insights into established feedback practices and suggestions for how they might be improved.

**2.2. Feedback types**

revision [34].

collective feedback.

learning [38].

**2.3. Delivering online feedback**

The two most rudimentary types of feedback are "verification," an evaluation of the learner's work, and "elaboration," the guided instructional cues given to direct the learner [31]. Additionally, feedback can be "norm-referenced" comparing the learner's answers to others, as in comments such as "this is below average," or it may be "criterion-referenced," indicating what has been done and how the answer might be improved [32]. Other feedback typologies include "corrective," "informative," and "Socratic," of which the latter involves asking questions to direct the learner [33]. Yet, other models identify feedback along a continuum ranging from "no feedback," "error-flagging," involving highlighting errors without correction and "informative tutoring," involving providing elaborate feedback with strategies for

Exploring the Pedagogy of Online Feedback in Supporting Distance Learners

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.74028

105

Apart from being online, there are several other considerations to take into account when delivering online feedback. In one study [35], weekly podcasts delivered to a whole class were rated positively by learners who also used the additional examples and advice as a supplementary resource for revision. This method was also perceived positively by instructors as a time-efficient way to provide feedback to all students at one time. However, this one-way method of communication fails to address individual learning needs, and other research [9] indicates that students who receive personalized feedback have higher levels of course satisfaction and perform academically better that those students who receive only

In addition, another issue regarding delivery of online feedback focuses on who initiates the feedback. One study [36] suggests that in most cases, learners are unwilling to participate in giving feedback to their peers, and that the reason most students give for logging-on is to read the contributions of other students and any accompanying feedback from the instructor. Even when learners do offer feedback, it tends to be in the form of "verification", as in "*I agree*" rather than the more elaborative feedback offered by lectures regarding learning content, task, and social participation [37]. There is also evidence about online learning preferences that suggests that some students do not rate social interaction with peers as important or contributing to their

This is not to say that learner engagement in the feedback process cannot be increased. One study [8] showed how teaching explicit metacognitive strategies such as offering support, eliciting information, asking questions, establishing a situation, offering a possible solution, etc., as well as monitoring and evaluating student participation, all have a positive impact on the feedback process. It is also shown that student interaction and feedback are also enhanced

What makes online feedback effective is determined by both educators and learners. According to educators, effective online feedback is time-consuming requiring detailed and

when participating in online discussion forums becomes mandatory [36, 39].

**2.4. Characteristics of effective online feedback**

#### **2. Background**

#### **2.1. Terminology**

At its most general level, feedback can be defined as the means by which learners are able to determine their progress towards an end goal [6]. However, there appears no widely accepted definition [5] with most definitions reflecting various cognitive, social, and affective perspectives. At a cognitive level, feedback has been defined as a means of controlling learning through the use of reinforcement, i.e. punishment or reward [26]. Such a behaviorist approach has been replaced by more constructivist thinking in which 'knowledge of results' (p. 310) emerges from an ongoing process of forming and testing hypotheses rather than a memorization of results [27]. Added to this is the recognition of social interaction in the formation of feedback as instructors respond to learners and check if the information is appropriate to a given task [28, 29]. The affective features of feedback are also recognized with feedback defined as any message which praises, encourages, and supports learners in reaching a specific learning goal [30]. It is also noteworthy that the term "feedback" has often been used synonymously with "formative assessment" and "formative feedback" to imply information about a student's progress as distinct from formal results-based summative assessment [4]. Within the present study, online feedback is used to denote any messages intended to support students so that they can monitor their own performance in terms of learning goals and strategies. It also refers to any collective, personalized, detailed, written, and/or oral messages provided to distance learners in order to guide and support their learning.

#### **2.2. Feedback types**

questioning, scaffolding, reminding, and offering models and examples. However, in contrast to the more summative process of formal assessment, it is claimed [7] that theory of feedback, in general, is lacking; moreover, research into online feedback is still in its infancy (for example, see [8–13]). However, it is more important than ever to research this area, as increasing numbers of students enroll in online courses [14] and, with this increase, faculty are required to spend more time responding to distance learners and adopting new skills and practices [15–18]. Indeed, the literature shows that for many faculty, the transition from providing immediate verbal feedback in a classroom to delayed written feedback in an online forum is not a seamless one [19]. This is compounded when institutional service goals specifying the roles and responsibilities of the instructor are not explicit [20]. Overcoming these challenges is critical, since it is shown that effective feedback is not only linked to higher university ratings [13], but more specifically, it is linked to student satisfaction with online learning [4, 9, 21–24]. Considering the attrition rate of online and distance learning students is considerably higher than on-site courses [12, 25], the need to improve the quality on online feedback cannot be underestimated. Thus, the aim of this paper is to explore the interrelational nature of online feedback by examining what and how feedback was given to distance learners by their instructor and how it was perceived by the students. This dual perspective attempts to redress traditional hierarchies by making the 'evaluator' the 'evaluated' and, in so doing, offer insights into established feedback practices and suggestions for

104 Advanced Learning and Teaching Environments - Innovation, Contents and Methods

At its most general level, feedback can be defined as the means by which learners are able to determine their progress towards an end goal [6]. However, there appears no widely accepted definition [5] with most definitions reflecting various cognitive, social, and affective perspectives. At a cognitive level, feedback has been defined as a means of controlling learning through the use of reinforcement, i.e. punishment or reward [26]. Such a behaviorist approach has been replaced by more constructivist thinking in which 'knowledge of results' (p. 310) emerges from an ongoing process of forming and testing hypotheses rather than a memorization of results [27]. Added to this is the recognition of social interaction in the formation of feedback as instructors respond to learners and check if the information is appropriate to a given task [28, 29]. The affective features of feedback are also recognized with feedback defined as any message which praises, encourages, and supports learners in reaching a specific learning goal [30]. It is also noteworthy that the term "feedback" has often been used synonymously with "formative assessment" and "formative feedback" to imply information about a student's progress as distinct from formal results-based summative assessment [4]. Within the present study, online feedback is used to denote any messages intended to support students so that they can monitor their own performance in terms of learning goals and strategies. It also refers to any collective, personalized, detailed, written, and/or oral messages provided to distance learners in order to

how they might be improved.

guide and support their learning.

**2. Background**

**2.1. Terminology**

The two most rudimentary types of feedback are "verification," an evaluation of the learner's work, and "elaboration," the guided instructional cues given to direct the learner [31]. Additionally, feedback can be "norm-referenced" comparing the learner's answers to others, as in comments such as "this is below average," or it may be "criterion-referenced," indicating what has been done and how the answer might be improved [32]. Other feedback typologies include "corrective," "informative," and "Socratic," of which the latter involves asking questions to direct the learner [33]. Yet, other models identify feedback along a continuum ranging from "no feedback," "error-flagging," involving highlighting errors without correction and "informative tutoring," involving providing elaborate feedback with strategies for revision [34].

### **2.3. Delivering online feedback**

Apart from being online, there are several other considerations to take into account when delivering online feedback. In one study [35], weekly podcasts delivered to a whole class were rated positively by learners who also used the additional examples and advice as a supplementary resource for revision. This method was also perceived positively by instructors as a time-efficient way to provide feedback to all students at one time. However, this one-way method of communication fails to address individual learning needs, and other research [9] indicates that students who receive personalized feedback have higher levels of course satisfaction and perform academically better that those students who receive only collective feedback.

In addition, another issue regarding delivery of online feedback focuses on who initiates the feedback. One study [36] suggests that in most cases, learners are unwilling to participate in giving feedback to their peers, and that the reason most students give for logging-on is to read the contributions of other students and any accompanying feedback from the instructor. Even when learners do offer feedback, it tends to be in the form of "verification", as in "*I agree*" rather than the more elaborative feedback offered by lectures regarding learning content, task, and social participation [37]. There is also evidence about online learning preferences that suggests that some students do not rate social interaction with peers as important or contributing to their learning [38].

This is not to say that learner engagement in the feedback process cannot be increased. One study [8] showed how teaching explicit metacognitive strategies such as offering support, eliciting information, asking questions, establishing a situation, offering a possible solution, etc., as well as monitoring and evaluating student participation, all have a positive impact on the feedback process. It is also shown that student interaction and feedback are also enhanced when participating in online discussion forums becomes mandatory [36, 39].

#### **2.4. Characteristics of effective online feedback**

What makes online feedback effective is determined by both educators and learners. According to educators, effective online feedback is time-consuming requiring detailed and "substantive" comments rather than "basic" ones such as "*good answer*" [40, 41]. It should promote higher order thinking skills and ask learners to reflect on their learning by asking questions which require learners to clarify, summarize, hypothesize, and link ideas to other areas of course content [42]. Ongoing analysis of online dialog suggests that effective online feedback requires instructor and students to play equal roles in the "assessment of process" [39]. Moreover, educators recognize that in the design of Web-based learning tools, specific principles are more effective, e.g., feedback should summarize learners' performance, motivate, be relevant to assessment criteria, and be manageable and timely [11]. Added to this, it is recognized that effective online feedback should be clear and comprehensible, leaving no room for confusion or doubt [43].

influence the quality and quantity of faculty participation [48]. Overall, the extant literature highlights the complexities of the topic and the related challenges involved in delivering feed-

Exploring the Pedagogy of Online Feedback in Supporting Distance Learners

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.74028

107

The study was based on data collected over the course of one academic year (2015/2016). This descriptive study uses a mixed method approach to describe educational phenomenon, as it exists and compares it to what is desired [49]. Such research allows for description, explanation, and improvement of educational practices and does not attempt to draw conclusions based on cause and effect. Rather, the overall aim of this study is to uncover data that may not have previously been encountered using other research approaches. Thus, the research questions guiding this study are (1) what feedback was given to distance learning students?,

Emerging from these questions, the use of a mixed methods approach allowed for creative data collection, the collection of thick, rich data [50], and the possibility of uncovering contradictions [51]. Indeed, the use of content analysis in phase 1 of the study (see Section 3.2.1) allowed for a systematic and descriptive investigation of the types and frequency of feedback offered by the lecturer to her DL students. The coding of the textual features of this feedback provided inferences about the types of feedback provided, to whom and how often. Moreover, in phase 2 of the study (see Section 3.2.2), semistructured interviews provided opportunities for the researcher/instructor to uncover students' beliefs, attitudes, and perceptions about the feedback they received, as well as follow themes and issues that may not

This study took place at a higher education institution in Cyprus, where degree programs are offered in a variety of modes, face-to-face, online, and distance learning courses, for undergraduate and graduate students. While online courses are an option for face-to-face students, distance learning students are geographically distant from the institution with most of them resident in other European countries. Most instructors in this institution have recently added online and distance learning courses to their teaching loads and, as such, are responsible for the design, management, and delivery of these courses. Against this background, the researcher/instructor sets out to explore the feedback given to distance learning (DL) students studying for a postgraduate degree Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL). The degree offers a combination of nine courses, each of which is delivered to students over the period of a 12 week semester. Course content consists of weekly prerecorded video lectures, audio presentations, and recommended readings and students are required to reflect on and discuss this material, critique ideas, ask questions, express

back in an online setting.

**3.1. Purposes of study and research questions**

and (2) how was it perceived by these students?

have been previously considered [52].

**3.2. Context**

**3. Methodology**

Such characteristics of best practice are hardly contentious; however, research suggests that these criteria can be perceived differently by learners than by instructors. For instance, in one study [44] on feedback in general, instructors consider their feedback to be more useful than their students; they also believe their students are less interested in feedback than final grades; they also perceive their grading to be fairer in contrast to students who perceive bias toward more active class members. However, both students and instructors acknowledge difficulties for students in decoding feedback, and both groups acknowledge the emotional impact of feedback on student motivation. Similarly, in another study of feedback [13], feedback is linked to students' individual learning styles with students identified as "deep" learners preferring feedback that encourages reflection, and students identified as "surface" learners preferring positive feedback that verifies an answer and does not require further participation [13]. Another study [23], comparing student satisfaction with distance learning and on-site learning, shows that distance learning students are less satisfied with feedback in relation to comprehensibility, emotional impact, and fairness. It is also been shown that similar to educators [39], online graduate students perceive effective feedback as mutually constructed with their instructors, and that it should also allow space for students to negotiate learning goals and mutually agreeable deadlines [10].

#### **2.5. Challenges and concerns**

The literature also highlights several areas of concern and challenge. Conceptually, feedback is considered an under-theorized area that focuses on informal and dialogic processes that are difficult to measure [7]. Moreover, it is claimed that the turn to constructivist pedagogy remains a challenge for online education, in general, and feedback, in particular [45]. On a practical level, multiple taxonomies and models of feedback indicate that it is generally not a well-understood area of online teaching, and, as such, it may possibly be delivered ineffectively, e.g., too little, too late, incomprehensible, demotivating, etc. [46]. This is supported by research which suggests that students cite feedback containing complaint or dissatisfaction as reasons for low participation [47]. This too is in line with research that indicates that instructors new to online teaching often underestimate the need for consistent support and presence in encouraging, motivating, and keeping students focused [20]. A final concern relates the contextual setting that either supports or discourages effective online teaching. Factors such as institutional recognition, promotion, compensation, technical support, and overall work-load are shown to directly influence the quality and quantity of faculty participation [48]. Overall, the extant literature highlights the complexities of the topic and the related challenges involved in delivering feedback in an online setting.

### **3. Methodology**

"substantive" comments rather than "basic" ones such as "*good answer*" [40, 41]. It should promote higher order thinking skills and ask learners to reflect on their learning by asking questions which require learners to clarify, summarize, hypothesize, and link ideas to other areas of course content [42]. Ongoing analysis of online dialog suggests that effective online feedback requires instructor and students to play equal roles in the "assessment of process" [39]. Moreover, educators recognize that in the design of Web-based learning tools, specific principles are more effective, e.g., feedback should summarize learners' performance, motivate, be relevant to assessment criteria, and be manageable and timely [11]. Added to this, it is recognized that effective online feedback should be clear and comprehensible, leaving no

106 Advanced Learning and Teaching Environments - Innovation, Contents and Methods

Such characteristics of best practice are hardly contentious; however, research suggests that these criteria can be perceived differently by learners than by instructors. For instance, in one study [44] on feedback in general, instructors consider their feedback to be more useful than their students; they also believe their students are less interested in feedback than final grades; they also perceive their grading to be fairer in contrast to students who perceive bias toward more active class members. However, both students and instructors acknowledge difficulties for students in decoding feedback, and both groups acknowledge the emotional impact of feedback on student motivation. Similarly, in another study of feedback [13], feedback is linked to students' individual learning styles with students identified as "deep" learners preferring feedback that encourages reflection, and students identified as "surface" learners preferring positive feedback that verifies an answer and does not require further participation [13]. Another study [23], comparing student satisfaction with distance learning and on-site learning, shows that distance learning students are less satisfied with feedback in relation to comprehensibility, emotional impact, and fairness. It is also been shown that similar to educators [39], online graduate students perceive effective feedback as mutually constructed with their instructors, and that it should also allow space for students to negotiate learning goals

The literature also highlights several areas of concern and challenge. Conceptually, feedback is considered an under-theorized area that focuses on informal and dialogic processes that are difficult to measure [7]. Moreover, it is claimed that the turn to constructivist pedagogy remains a challenge for online education, in general, and feedback, in particular [45]. On a practical level, multiple taxonomies and models of feedback indicate that it is generally not a well-understood area of online teaching, and, as such, it may possibly be delivered ineffectively, e.g., too little, too late, incomprehensible, demotivating, etc. [46]. This is supported by research which suggests that students cite feedback containing complaint or dissatisfaction as reasons for low participation [47]. This too is in line with research that indicates that instructors new to online teaching often underestimate the need for consistent support and presence in encouraging, motivating, and keeping students focused [20]. A final concern relates the contextual setting that either supports or discourages effective online teaching. Factors such as institutional recognition, promotion, compensation, technical support, and overall work-load are shown to directly

room for confusion or doubt [43].

and mutually agreeable deadlines [10].

**2.5. Challenges and concerns**

### **3.1. Purposes of study and research questions**

The study was based on data collected over the course of one academic year (2015/2016). This descriptive study uses a mixed method approach to describe educational phenomenon, as it exists and compares it to what is desired [49]. Such research allows for description, explanation, and improvement of educational practices and does not attempt to draw conclusions based on cause and effect. Rather, the overall aim of this study is to uncover data that may not have previously been encountered using other research approaches. Thus, the research questions guiding this study are (1) what feedback was given to distance learning students?, and (2) how was it perceived by these students?

Emerging from these questions, the use of a mixed methods approach allowed for creative data collection, the collection of thick, rich data [50], and the possibility of uncovering contradictions [51]. Indeed, the use of content analysis in phase 1 of the study (see Section 3.2.1) allowed for a systematic and descriptive investigation of the types and frequency of feedback offered by the lecturer to her DL students. The coding of the textual features of this feedback provided inferences about the types of feedback provided, to whom and how often. Moreover, in phase 2 of the study (see Section 3.2.2), semistructured interviews provided opportunities for the researcher/instructor to uncover students' beliefs, attitudes, and perceptions about the feedback they received, as well as follow themes and issues that may not have been previously considered [52].

#### **3.2. Context**

This study took place at a higher education institution in Cyprus, where degree programs are offered in a variety of modes, face-to-face, online, and distance learning courses, for undergraduate and graduate students. While online courses are an option for face-to-face students, distance learning students are geographically distant from the institution with most of them resident in other European countries. Most instructors in this institution have recently added online and distance learning courses to their teaching loads and, as such, are responsible for the design, management, and delivery of these courses. Against this background, the researcher/instructor sets out to explore the feedback given to distance learning (DL) students studying for a postgraduate degree Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL). The degree offers a combination of nine courses, each of which is delivered to students over the period of a 12 week semester. Course content consists of weekly prerecorded video lectures, audio presentations, and recommended readings and students are required to reflect on and discuss this material, critique ideas, ask questions, express opinions, and collaborate on individual and group tasks such as creating lessons and activities. Feedback is then provided in response to these tasks and any other specific academic, administrative, and technical issues that might arise.

#### **3.3. Participants**

At the time of the study, the researcher/instructor had more than 26 years teaching experience, of which only 2 years included teaching DL courses. Data were also collected from interviews with five DL students after completion of the course. The students, four female and one male, were all aged between 24 and 45 years. They were all English language teachers with teaching experience ranging from 5 and 22 years. They were based in different three European countries: Greece, Cyprus, and Germany. Before agreeing to participate in the study, all participants signed a consent form expressing their willingness to participate.

#### **3.4. Procedures**

#### *3.4.1. Phase 1*

After completion of the course, all messages written and posted to distance learning students over the duration of one semester (Fall 2015) were collected from course forums. The total data set comprises 93 messages posted by the course leader in response to students' questions, online tasks, and discussions. Content analysis was then conducted based on an established taxonomy of feedback: corrective, informative, and Socratic feedback [33]. The analytic tool was adapted to include corrective, affective, informative, and reflective feedback (**Table 1**).

The software package, NVivo, was used to highlight coded segments of text and produce summaries of findings. Because of the elaborate nature of feedback, single messages may contain multiple codes, so to ensure reliability, an independent rater also coded 10% of the data. A Cohen's Kappa established interrater reliability as 0.6, which indicates a good possibility of agreement occurring other than by chance. In addition, the percentage of agreement between

the course and may include references to theory

the course (technical, dates, assignments) and directs the learners to do something specific

Asks students to reflect on their understanding of various elements of the course and relates their learning to their professional experience

*Savignon defines this as communicative competence. Humanist theories give prominence to the affective (emotional) aspects of* 

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.74028

109

*Please use this forum to ask questions, make comments and answer questions from your* 

*You can find the book at www.*

*Could it be used effectively in combination with other methods—* 

*what do you think?*

*Do any of these ideas resonate with your own experience of language* 

*language learning*

*colleagues*

Exploring the Pedagogy of Online Feedback in Supporting Distance Learners

*library…*

*teaching?*

**Category Indicator Definition Example**

Procedural Gives procedural details of

Informative Content Comments on the content of

In the following semester (Spring 2016), semi-structured interviews lasting between 60 and 80 min were conducted with five students who had completed the course the previous semester. All interviews were recorded, and full orthographic and verbatim transcripts were produced. NVivo was used again to identify and code segments of text. Themes and subthemes were then identified and aggregated into hierarchies. This phase of analysis focused on identifying "thick rich descriptions" rather than descrip-

The following sections consider what feedback was given by the researcher/instructor and

the two raters was shown to be 91.63%.

**Table 1.** Analytic model of online teacher feedback.

Reflective Direct and indirect questions

how it was perceived by the distance learning students.

*3.4.2. Phase 2*

tive statistics.

**4. Findings**



**Table 1.** Analytic model of online teacher feedback.

The software package, NVivo, was used to highlight coded segments of text and produce summaries of findings. Because of the elaborate nature of feedback, single messages may contain multiple codes, so to ensure reliability, an independent rater also coded 10% of the data. A Cohen's Kappa established interrater reliability as 0.6, which indicates a good possibility of agreement occurring other than by chance. In addition, the percentage of agreement between the two raters was shown to be 91.63%.

#### *3.4.2. Phase 2*

opinions, and collaborate on individual and group tasks such as creating lessons and activities. Feedback is then provided in response to these tasks and any other specific academic,

At the time of the study, the researcher/instructor had more than 26 years teaching experience, of which only 2 years included teaching DL courses. Data were also collected from interviews with five DL students after completion of the course. The students, four female and one male, were all aged between 24 and 45 years. They were all English language teachers with teaching experience ranging from 5 and 22 years. They were based in different three European countries: Greece, Cyprus, and Germany. Before agreeing to participate in the study, all partici-

After completion of the course, all messages written and posted to distance learning students over the duration of one semester (Fall 2015) were collected from course forums. The total data set comprises 93 messages posted by the course leader in response to students' questions, online tasks, and discussions. Content analysis was then conducted based on an established taxonomy of feedback: corrective, informative, and Socratic feedback [33]. The analytic tool was adapted to include corrective, affective, informative, and reflective feedback (**Table 1**).

for social purposes

messages

Self-disclosure Reveals details of life outside the course

Vocatives Addressing participants by name *Thanks* [student name]

Complimenting contents of

Empathetic Shows empathy *As we draw towards Christmas, there* 

Supportive Offers support *Good luck and please get in touch* 

Positively or negatively evaluates the content of a student's answer

*Dear students, good morning wishing you all a great week*

*and ideas about …*

*find time*

*questions.*

*very nicely Great answer*

*for …*

*I really enjoy reading your thoughts* 

*are more and more things to do and I understand that it is difficult to* 

*with me immediately if you have any* 

*I am from* …*and I have been teaching* 

*You have encapsulated Borg's ideas* 

pants signed a consent form expressing their willingness to participate.

**Category Indicator Definition Example**

Affective Salutations, phatics Greetings & expressions purely

Complimenting, expressing appreciation

Corrective Knowledge-of-response

(with or without elaboration)

administrative, and technical issues that might arise.

108 Advanced Learning and Teaching Environments - Innovation, Contents and Methods

**3.3. Participants**

**3.4. Procedures**

*3.4.1. Phase 1*

In the following semester (Spring 2016), semi-structured interviews lasting between 60 and 80 min were conducted with five students who had completed the course the previous semester. All interviews were recorded, and full orthographic and verbatim transcripts were produced. NVivo was used again to identify and code segments of text. Themes and subthemes were then identified and aggregated into hierarchies. This phase of analysis focused on identifying "thick rich descriptions" rather than descriptive statistics.

### **4. Findings**

The following sections consider what feedback was given by the researcher/instructor and how it was perceived by the distance learning students.

#### **4.1. Feedback given**

Findings show that the researcher/instructor posted 93 messages in response to 108 messages posted by students, which equates to a response rate of 86.1%. Of these 93 messages posted by the course leader, 27 messages (29%) were addressed to the whole group as collective feedback, while 66 messages (71%) were addressed to individual students. The quantity of feedback given by the course leader amounted to 10.150 words, which is an average of 109 words per message. Moreover, the response time between students posting their messages and the course leader responding ranged from 0 to 15 days with a mean average response time of 1.7 days. So what type of feedback was given by the course leader (**Table 2**)? Content analysis shows that the most frequent type of feedback given was informative feedback that focused on content (23%), followed by procedural content addressing administrative and technical details related to the course (17%). Affective feedback dealing with the social, emotional, and motivational aspects of learning was the next most common type of feedback (11%) followed by corrective feedback (7%). The least common feedback was reflective feedback (asking questions that encourage students to reflect on their answers) (4%).

**Theme Subtheme Student comments: examples**

**Table 3.** Pedagogical dimensions of feedback: positive features.

**Theme Subthemes Student comments: examples**

**Table 4.** Pedagogical dimensions of feedback: negative features.

part

Positive Accessible T: before the exams and during the study period I am trying to read all the messages because I want to see if I am on the right path or not

it also adds to confidence obviously

Focused M: I liked the fact that she always highlighted the part where she had to make

Personalized S: but for me you know, maybe this is because I don't have the face-to-face

Negative Critical T: for instance, when I ask about references, how to cite something, I am asking

feedback right away and quite detailed…

not the kind of answer I have been waiting for… Inconsistent A: the more the students, the less the feedback or the lateness of the feedback

Inconvenient A: all WebEx sessions are at times that I have work so I have never been to a

Lack of M: but well I kept posting on the forum and no reply, no nothing, even when I

yes I got no feedback, I felt like I was in the dark… Vague & confusing E: for this course I am trying to finish today, it's basically, try and answer this

readings and giving a little bit about my own views

Timely C: I think a couple of days is reasonable because when I ask something I need to have the answer to that in order to move on with my studying Useful T: of course and since I have started this master's programme I now give my own

Motivating A: to me, feedback is the motivation, I get really motivated even with bad feedback,

comments and she explained very clearly what she expected of me in this particular

Exploring the Pedagogy of Online Feedback in Supporting Distance Learners

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.74028

111

you know what I mean by bad…it helps me understand what I did and what I was supposed to do, it's like a clear guidance… I can closely relate it to achievement, yes

opportunity… but for me it's very important for you to know who I am… you know

students the same opportunity to contact me every Saturday at specific hours on the phone, in email or Viber messages to ask and talk about any thoughts they have…

because I really don't know, I have a slight idea but I am not sure if it's the correct way…so an answer like "you have to do it like masters students do" is

but no this has not proven so, like for example as I told you previously in the independent course there were 2 people and I didn't get any feedback, either in the forums or the assignments, just nothing, whereas in other courses I got

WebEx session, so this is my first one actually, so come on guys please talk to us

said "Hello, this is (student's name) at the beginning of the course, I didn't even receive an "ok, welcome" so it was a bit strange like you don't want me around,

question give your own views and I am a bit confused …like, what do you mean, give my own views? A couple of other students did ask the lecturer but to be honest I was still not sure so I'm just kind of giving support by what I find in the

when I write (student's name) you know it's me (student's name) talking

#### **4.2. Feedback received**

Findings show that distance learning students' perceptions of feedback revolve around three main themes: the pedagogical, contextual, and relational dimensions of their learning.

#### *4.2.1. Pedagogical dimensions*

In relation to the pedagogical dimensions of learning, students identified three subthemes. The first subtheme highlights the positive aspects of feedback as being accessible to all, focused, motivating, personalized, and timely (**Table 3**).

Conversely, DL students also identified the negative aspects of feedback on their learning as the following: being critical in tone, inconsistent, inconvenient, lacking, and vague and confusing (**Table 4**).

In the third subtheme, students identify and distinguish between the different functions of feedback in relation to their learning. These functions include affective, corrective, informative, and reflective feedback (**Table 5**).


**Table 2.** Content analysis of feedback.


**Table 3.** Pedagogical dimensions of feedback: positive features.

**4.1. Feedback given**

**4.2. Feedback received**

*4.2.1. Pedagogical dimensions*

tive, and reflective feedback (**Table 5**).

**Table 2.** Content analysis of feedback.

Findings show that the researcher/instructor posted 93 messages in response to 108 messages posted by students, which equates to a response rate of 86.1%. Of these 93 messages posted by the course leader, 27 messages (29%) were addressed to the whole group as collective feedback, while 66 messages (71%) were addressed to individual students. The quantity of feedback given by the course leader amounted to 10.150 words, which is an average of 109 words per message. Moreover, the response time between students posting their messages and the course leader responding ranged from 0 to 15 days with a mean average response time of 1.7 days. So what type of feedback was given by the course leader (**Table 2**)? Content analysis shows that the most frequent type of feedback given was informative feedback that focused on content (23%), followed by procedural content addressing administrative and technical details related to the course (17%). Affective feedback dealing with the social, emotional, and motivational aspects of learning was the next most common type of feedback (11%) followed by corrective feedback (7%). The least common feedback was reflective feedback (asking

Findings show that distance learning students' perceptions of feedback revolve around three

In relation to the pedagogical dimensions of learning, students identified three subthemes. The first subtheme highlights the positive aspects of feedback as being accessible to all,

Conversely, DL students also identified the negative aspects of feedback on their learning as the following: being critical in tone, inconsistent, inconvenient, lacking, and vague and confusing (**Table 4**). In the third subtheme, students identify and distinguish between the different functions of feedback in relation to their learning. These functions include affective, corrective, informa-

**Node Density by % coverage Density by word number**

Informative-content 23.25 2347 Informative-procedural 16.62 1804 Affective 11.21 1248 Corrective 07.28 737 Reflective 04.01 425

main themes: the pedagogical, contextual, and relational dimensions of their learning.

questions that encourage students to reflect on their answers) (4%).

110 Advanced Learning and Teaching Environments - Innovation, Contents and Methods

focused, motivating, personalized, and timely (**Table 3**).


**Table 4.** Pedagogical dimensions of feedback: negative features.


**Table 5.** Pedagogical dimensions of feedback: different functions.

#### *4.2.2. Contextual dimensions*

In relation to the contextual dimensions of learning, students identified how the cultural context, teaching context, and their work and home life contexts played a role in their perception of feedback given (**Table 6**).

#### *4.2.3. Relational dimensions*

The third theme identified in the data, focuses on the relational dimensions of feedback. Within this theme, two subthemes emerge, showing the intrapersonal dimensions of feedback based on how students relate it to their personal experiences (**Table 7**).


The other subtheme highlights the interpersonal dimension of feedback which shows how students construct knowledge through their interactions with their peers and the researcher/

Intrapersonal A: anyway when I was 24 I needed a lot of guidance not that I don't need it now but I feel more

Interpersonal Instructor M: To be honest my expectations were kind of different. I thought that I would

not distant but someone who was eager to support the students

Peers A: I really adore reading to work out what others have written because it opens a

direction I should have taken, yes I do so, very often

E: I guess because I had been a teacher at a university before I was kind of timid about following up on my confusion and not wanting to be annoying so I kind of just plodded on because I know how it is to get bugged by students when I am expecting them to understand and they're not understanding and you know, you know what I mean…its challenging but it's my fault in a way, maybe I should be interacting with the professor more and asking questions and even for extensions

Exploring the Pedagogy of Online Feedback in Supporting Distance Learners

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.74028

113

not feel the presence of the lecturer and that she wouldn't comment on my work. However, I was wrong. … during the course I had the feeling that the lecturer was

E: I can see how too much involvement can create less motivation in students and less self-responsibility. So yeah, it would be good to have umm bit of involvement but then students should know… should be understanding that this is a matter of

E: but I think for the first two or three weeks things are not very clear about the course and about how we ought to study, about the assignments and all the online activities which are our main worry, I think, so yes, I think we should have more interaction I

new door to things I haven't thought before or things I have thought differently which is the thing I like and then I can see the feedback and see if that was a good

E: but I just sense that from the students they are just a bit uneasy about criticizing, there's more of a sense on the forum of trying to support each other instead of

T: I have been in contact with only two people but we have really, really interesting conversations about the lectures and about our experiences … other students do not answer the questions, even though the question is not addressed to the lecturer, it's not to "dear lecturer" its addressed to "dear everyone", well I think it was to do with showing respect to the lecturer and not commenting on what they are about to say

confident about stuff that I have worked on extensively.

self-responsibility

think in the first couple of weeks

critiquing what they are writing.

This study sets out to explore two research questions on the inter-relational nature of online feedback by examining what feedback was given by a course leader during a DL course and

instructor (**Table 8**).

**Table 8.** Interpersonal dimensions of feedback.

**Subthemes Student comments**

**Table 7.** Intrapersonal dimensions of feedback.

**Subthemes Student comments**

**5. Discussion**

how this feedback was perceived by students.

**Table 6.** Contextual dimensions of feedback.


**Table 7.** Intrapersonal dimensions of feedback.

*4.2.2. Contextual dimensions*

**Subthemes Student comments: examples**

**Table 5.** Pedagogical dimensions of feedback: different functions.

**Theme Sub-themes Student comments: examples**

professor…

understanding…

what's going on.

**Table 6.** Contextual dimensions of feedback.

answer…

112 Advanced Learning and Teaching Environments - Innovation, Contents and Methods

of feedback given (**Table 6**).

*4.2.3. Relational dimensions*

In relation to the contextual dimensions of learning, students identified how the cultural context, teaching context, and their work and home life contexts played a role in their perception

Functions Affective A: … and it was after midnight and I thought oh my god, she is not sleeping,

Corrective T: and also as a student I need to know why you are giving me this specific

Reflective T: I like the comments "well done" or "nice thoughts but I also like it when lecturers ask us questions like "how about this?"

Informative M: The lecturer also referred us to other links for extra information.

there, let's see what we can do'.

honestly, so that was amazing really because when I asked for an extension I was really stressed, but it's nice to have somebody saying 'alright, calm down, I am

feedback, to explain to me why that was wrong and where can I find the correct

The third theme identified in the data, focuses on the relational dimensions of feedback. Within this theme, two subthemes emerge, showing the intrapersonal dimensions of feedback

Context Cultural A: maybe it's a Greek thing but I wouldn't expect a student of mine to say alright I

Teaching M: I don't know if we can expect quick feedback if there are like 50 students and one

Work/home life C: I sent a message, and I got no reply, saying that because of a family situation, I

it's not the lecturer's problem, its mine…

and I have everything going on in my head

have 99% what went wrong? I would say what the hell are you talking about, this is magnificent but yes, I wanted more explanation and not just a grade but obviously

E: the response was kind of vague and I guess because I had been a teacher at a university before I was kind of timid about following up on my confusion and not wanting to be annoying so I kind of just plodded on because I know how it is to get bugged by students when I am expecting them to understand and they're not

need a big extension because I am many hours in the clinic, I'm outside the home

E: I mean people have got their jobs and family obligations, whatever, and so forth, and professors will say they're giving them plenty of time but they don't understand

based on how students relate it to their personal experiences (**Table 7**).


**Table 8.** Interpersonal dimensions of feedback.

The other subtheme highlights the interpersonal dimension of feedback which shows how students construct knowledge through their interactions with their peers and the researcher/ instructor (**Table 8**).

#### **5. Discussion**

This study sets out to explore two research questions on the inter-relational nature of online feedback by examining what feedback was given by a course leader during a DL course and how this feedback was perceived by students.

#### **5.1. What feedback was given?**

The first part of this study offers a descriptive insight into the online feedback practices in this specific distance learning course in terms of 'what happened'. The amount of feedback given was fairly extensive, with students receiving feedback to over 86% of all their online postings. Moreover, this feedback was mostly personalized (71%), and based on length of messages, it was substantive, with the average length of a message over 100 words. Findings also show that feedback was timely with most students receiving a response within 2 days. In relation to the types of feedback given, it was overwhelmingly informative, focused on providing information about course content and procedures (40%). Other types of feedback were also evident to a lesser extent including affective feedback that focused on motivating and supporting students (11%), corrective feedback (7%), and reflective feedback that asked questions (4%). Finally, it is also noteworthy that the flow of feedback was unidirectional originating from the researcher/ instructor to the students. The data show little evidence of student participation in the feedback process other than superficial and infrequent instances of "I *agree with* …" or "[name] *makes a good point*." Although students were encouraged to interact with each other and ask and answer questions addressed to each other, this did not occur in the public space of the course forum, although interview data suggest that students did message and support each other privately: "*through the whole Master's programme I have been in contact with two people but we have really, really interesting conversations about the lectures and about our experiences, I think it would be helpful if we had a way to connect to each other."* Many aspects of these findings are supported by the literature which advocates that effective online feedback is personalized [13], substantive [41], and timely [37, 40]. However, findings also show that the limited amount of reflective feedback—asking students questions about their learning—challenges the notion of best practice. Indeed, the importance of building reflection into a distance learning course is important in helping learners develop metacognitive skills that encourage self and peer evaluation [42]. Another finding that challenges best practice relates to the unidirectional flow of feedback from researcher/instructor to students and lack of mutually constructed feedback between students. This lack of participation may be due to numerous factors reported in the literature, such as course design not based on constructivist pedagogy [45] and lack of incentive and/or knowledge of feedback strategies [37]. In addition, DL students' perceptions of who should give feedback, discussed below, may also offer insights into their lack of participation.

Similarly, as reported in the literature, students comment that feedback was focused [11], motivating [23, 43, 47], personalized [9], timely [37, 40], and useful [44] (see **Table 3**). Students' more negative perceptions (see **Table 4**) are also documented in the literature with students making particular references to some of the feedback they received as being critical in tone [23, 43, 47], inconsistent, inconvenient, lacking [37, 40], and vague and confusing [44]. In addition, these DL students were aware of the different pedagogical functions of feedback and identified the value of affective, corrective, informative, and reflective feedback on their learning (see **Table 5**). This is also supported by the literature of best practice in asynchronous learning environments [33]. Next, in relation to the contextual dimensions of feedback (see **Table 6**), students perceived online feedback through the lens of their own cultural expectations with one student commenting that despite achieving a top grade "…*maybe it's a Greek thing but* [*…*] *I wanted more explanation not just a grade*." The disappointment with the lack of feedback suggested by this comment is reinforced by findings in the literature which suggest that online learning can be a lonely place for learners whose cultural experiences and expectations may differ from the dominant educational culture [53]. Also, in relation to context, students perceived that the quality and quantity of feedback were dependent of class size and the perceived work load of their instructor with one student commenting "*I don't know if we can expect quick feedback if there are like 50 students and one professor*." While student numbers in this particular course may be low, one student perceived a demanding work load for instructors with another student commenting "*because I had been a teacher at a university before* [*…*] *I kind of just plodded on because I know how it is to get bugged by students*." The perception of overworked and unavailable faculty is echoed by research that reports that the massification of online education and the increasing workload means they are more likely to sacrifice formative feedback as part of their online teaching [48, 54]. Finally, some DL students perceive that the feedback they received lacked understanding of their particular work/home life situations with one student commenting "*I sent a message, and I got no reply, saying that because of a family situation, I need a big extension because I am many hours in the clinic, I'm outside the home and I have everything going on in my head*," while another students said "*I mean people have got their jobs and family obligations, whatever, and so forth, and professors will say they're giving them plenty of time but they don't understand what's going on*." This lack of understanding for students' lives outside their studies is cited in the literature as reasons for high student attrition and low online course completion [25, 55]. Finally, the findings also highlight students' perceptions of feedback as constructed through their relationships with self and others. In the first instance, students comment on their intrapersonal dimensions of knowledge construction and the awareness of autonomous learning (see **Table 7**). One student comments on her growing confidence and the need for less guidance, as she gets older: "*anyway when I was 24 I needed a lot of guidance, not that I don't need it now, but I feel more confident about stuff that I have worked on extensively*," while another student turns to self-reliance rather than inconvenience the course leader: "*I kind of just plodded on because I know how it is to get bugged by students*." A greater understanding of how students perceive their own learning in relation to guidance and support is important, since such per-

Exploring the Pedagogy of Online Feedback in Supporting Distance Learners

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.74028

115

ceptions are strongly associated their learning outcomes [13].

In relation to students' perceptions of feedback as constructed interpersonally with their peers and course leader (see **Table 8**), findings suggest that feedback is an indication of

#### **5.2. How was feedback received?**

The second part of this study offers insights into students' perceptions of online feedback practices and the extent to which it influenced their learning. Analysis of these findings shows how these students interpret feedback according to specific pedagogical, contextual, and relational dimensions of learning.

In relation to the pedagogical dimensions of feedback, students' positive perceptions of this feedback are very much in line with concepts of best practice described in the literature. In line with the literature [36], students perceived feedback as being accessible, in that they could read their own and other students' feedback at any point throughout the course: "*before the exams and during the study period I am trying to read all the messages because I want to see if I am on the right path or not*." Similarly, as reported in the literature, students comment that feedback was focused [11], motivating [23, 43, 47], personalized [9], timely [37, 40], and useful [44] (see **Table 3**). Students' more negative perceptions (see **Table 4**) are also documented in the literature with students making particular references to some of the feedback they received as being critical in tone [23, 43, 47], inconsistent, inconvenient, lacking [37, 40], and vague and confusing [44]. In addition, these DL students were aware of the different pedagogical functions of feedback and identified the value of affective, corrective, informative, and reflective feedback on their learning (see **Table 5**). This is also supported by the literature of best practice in asynchronous learning environments [33].

**5.1. What feedback was given?**

114 Advanced Learning and Teaching Environments - Innovation, Contents and Methods

**5.2. How was feedback received?**

tional dimensions of learning.

The first part of this study offers a descriptive insight into the online feedback practices in this specific distance learning course in terms of 'what happened'. The amount of feedback given was fairly extensive, with students receiving feedback to over 86% of all their online postings. Moreover, this feedback was mostly personalized (71%), and based on length of messages, it was substantive, with the average length of a message over 100 words. Findings also show that feedback was timely with most students receiving a response within 2 days. In relation to the types of feedback given, it was overwhelmingly informative, focused on providing information about course content and procedures (40%). Other types of feedback were also evident to a lesser extent including affective feedback that focused on motivating and supporting students (11%), corrective feedback (7%), and reflective feedback that asked questions (4%). Finally, it is also noteworthy that the flow of feedback was unidirectional originating from the researcher/ instructor to the students. The data show little evidence of student participation in the feedback process other than superficial and infrequent instances of "I *agree with* …" or "[name] *makes a good point*." Although students were encouraged to interact with each other and ask and answer questions addressed to each other, this did not occur in the public space of the course forum, although interview data suggest that students did message and support each other privately: "*through the whole Master's programme I have been in contact with two people but we have really, really interesting conversations about the lectures and about our experiences, I think it would be helpful if we had a way to connect to each other."* Many aspects of these findings are supported by the literature which advocates that effective online feedback is personalized [13], substantive [41], and timely [37, 40]. However, findings also show that the limited amount of reflective feedback—asking students questions about their learning—challenges the notion of best practice. Indeed, the importance of building reflection into a distance learning course is important in helping learners develop metacognitive skills that encourage self and peer evaluation [42]. Another finding that challenges best practice relates to the unidirectional flow of feedback from researcher/instructor to students and lack of mutually constructed feedback between students. This lack of participation may be due to numerous factors reported in the literature, such as course design not based on constructivist pedagogy [45] and lack of incentive and/or knowledge of feedback strategies [37]. In addition, DL students' perceptions of who should give feedback, discussed below, may also offer insights into their lack of participation.

The second part of this study offers insights into students' perceptions of online feedback practices and the extent to which it influenced their learning. Analysis of these findings shows how these students interpret feedback according to specific pedagogical, contextual, and rela-

In relation to the pedagogical dimensions of feedback, students' positive perceptions of this feedback are very much in line with concepts of best practice described in the literature. In line with the literature [36], students perceived feedback as being accessible, in that they could read their own and other students' feedback at any point throughout the course: "*before the exams and during the study period I am trying to read all the messages because I want to see if I am on the right path or not*." Next, in relation to the contextual dimensions of feedback (see **Table 6**), students perceived online feedback through the lens of their own cultural expectations with one student commenting that despite achieving a top grade "…*maybe it's a Greek thing but* [*…*] *I wanted more explanation not just a grade*." The disappointment with the lack of feedback suggested by this comment is reinforced by findings in the literature which suggest that online learning can be a lonely place for learners whose cultural experiences and expectations may differ from the dominant educational culture [53]. Also, in relation to context, students perceived that the quality and quantity of feedback were dependent of class size and the perceived work load of their instructor with one student commenting "*I don't know if we can expect quick feedback if there are like 50 students and one professor*." While student numbers in this particular course may be low, one student perceived a demanding work load for instructors with another student commenting "*because I had been a teacher at a university before* [*…*] *I kind of just plodded on because I know how it is to get bugged by students*." The perception of overworked and unavailable faculty is echoed by research that reports that the massification of online education and the increasing workload means they are more likely to sacrifice formative feedback as part of their online teaching [48, 54]. Finally, some DL students perceive that the feedback they received lacked understanding of their particular work/home life situations with one student commenting "*I sent a message, and I got no reply, saying that because of a family situation, I need a big extension because I am many hours in the clinic, I'm outside the home and I have everything going on in my head*," while another students said "*I mean people have got their jobs and family obligations, whatever, and so forth, and professors will say they're giving them plenty of time but they don't understand what's going on*." This lack of understanding for students' lives outside their studies is cited in the literature as reasons for high student attrition and low online course completion [25, 55].

Finally, the findings also highlight students' perceptions of feedback as constructed through their relationships with self and others. In the first instance, students comment on their intrapersonal dimensions of knowledge construction and the awareness of autonomous learning (see **Table 7**). One student comments on her growing confidence and the need for less guidance, as she gets older: "*anyway when I was 24 I needed a lot of guidance, not that I don't need it now, but I feel more confident about stuff that I have worked on extensively*," while another student turns to self-reliance rather than inconvenience the course leader: "*I kind of just plodded on because I know how it is to get bugged by students*." A greater understanding of how students perceive their own learning in relation to guidance and support is important, since such perceptions are strongly associated their learning outcomes [13].

In relation to students' perceptions of feedback as constructed interpersonally with their peers and course leader (see **Table 8**), findings suggest that feedback is an indication of teaching presence "*To be honest my expectations were kind of different. I thought that I would not feel the presence of the lecturer and that she wouldn't comment on my work. However, I was wrong, during the course I had the feeling that the lecturer was not distant but someone who was eager to support the students*." The implications of this are highlighted in the literature, which indicates that teaching presence is strongly associated with course satisfaction and learning outcomes [56, 57]. However within the research [58, 59], there is also a caveat that too much teaching presence may deter autonomous leaning and self-reliance, and this is echoed in this study: "*I can see how too much involvement can create less motivation in students and less self-responsibility*."

nature of the feedback given, the course leader has the opportunity to reflect on her feedback

Exploring the Pedagogy of Online Feedback in Supporting Distance Learners

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.74028

117

Second, this study also shows the extent to which students' perceptions of feedback align with notions of best practice. These perceptions offer a variety of experiences and understandings of feedback that express both positive and negative points. In themselves, these perceptions cannot offer a complete and unbiased picture of the quality of feedback; however, they offer valuable insights into how feedback is perceived by students and why it is perceived in such a way. This is especially important in DL Education courses, when some students may be practicing teachers with their own feedback practices and beliefs. In such cases, it is important for course leaders to be aware of how these practices and beliefs align or differ from their own. Third, the use of an analytic frame to consider the pedagogical, contextual, and relational dimensions of feedback broadens the scope by which feedback is typically discussed. Findings show how these three dimensions act as a lens through which students are able to mediate and understand their feedback experience. Such a frame can also be used as a developmental tool to help educators consider how their online feedback practices may support or inhibit student learning. Questions such as the following can guide educators to examine their own online feedback practices:

**1.** Pedagogically: Is online feedback accessible to all, focused, motivating, personalized, timely, and useful? What type of feedback is offered and how does it support student learning? E.g., To what extent does it provide information about course content and/or procedures? To what extent does it emotionally support and motivate students? To what extent does it positively and/or negatively evaluate student work? To what extent does it ask questions

**2.** Contextually: To what extent does the online feedback reflect the values of a specific educational culture? Does feedback take into account the experiences and expectations of learners from other educational cultures? To what extent is the quality and quantity of feedback shaped by the specific demands of teaching context? To what extent does feed-

**3.** Relationally: How do students feel about the online feedback they receive? To what extent is your teaching presence established through feedback? What kind of presence is it? What is the role of other students in the feedback process? Is feedback mutually constructed by

It is important to acknowledge some of the limitations of this study, so that they may encourage further research. First, the role of the instructor as researcher and instructor may raise concerns about objectivity of data. However, efforts made to minimize bias ensure a standard of rigor with the use of retrospective data collection and an independent rater. Interviews were also held with participants after course completion, when students would have no further contact with the particular instructor. Second, the focus on perceptions can only represent the views of a small sample of DL students. Similarly, findings can only represent the feedback practices of one particular instructor on one particular DL course. As such, the idiosyncratic nature of the data does not provide a basis for transferability and generalizability to other courses or other instructors teaching on the same or a similar program. In spite of these concerns, this choice of

back consider the external work/home life pressures face DL students?

instructor and students and between students? Why/why not?

practices, which are typically intuitive and spontaneous.

and encourage students to reflect on their learning?

The interpersonal dimension of feedback also includes students' engagement with their peers. Findings indicate that although students value reading work posted by their peers, "*I really adore… reading to work out what others have written because it opens a new door to things I haven't thought before or things I have thought differently which is the thing I like and then I can see the feedback and see if that was a good direction I should have taken*," they did not participate in the feedback process. Indeed, this also borne out in research which suggests that most students enrolled in online or distance learning courses are lurking; with the main reason given for logging on is to look at questions and tasks, as well as read other students' posts and instructor feedback. The same research suggests that only one in four are willing to contribute to discussion [36]. These findings are contrary to other research which suggests that students identify effective feedback as a mutual process [10], and it indicates an inconsistency between students' perceptions and their actual practices. Indeed, findings suggest that these students perceive feedback as a top-down process with distinct roles assigned to students and educators. One student comments "*but I just sense that from the students they are just a bit uneasy about criticizing, there's more of a sense on the forum of trying to support each other instead of critiquing what they are writing*." While another student adds "*when we write a question to a lecturer, other students do not answer the question, they are waiting for the lecturer to answer that even though the question is not addressed to the lecturer … its not to "dear lecturer" its addressed to "dear everyone", well I think it was to do with showing respect to the lecturer and not commenting on what they are about to say*." It might also be that lack of collaborative learning in the feedback process is part of students' preferred learning style, and there is evidence to suggest that successful online learners often exhibit a preference for an independent over a collaborative learning style [38].

### **6. Conclusions**

This study set out to explore the practices and perceptions of feedback given during a DL course for postgraduate students with the aim of offering insights and making suggestions for improving teaching. There are several conclusions which can be drawn from this study.

First, from an evaluative perspective, findings show that in terms of the frequency, length, and types of feedback given, it is largely in line with notions of best practice as outlined in the literature. However, findings also reveal some shortcomings in the type of feedback given, namely that there was limited reflective feedback that asked students direct and indirect questions so as to reflect on their understandings of the course. It should be stressed, however, that the main purpose of this study was not to evaluate the performance of the researcher/ instructor but rather to offer a professional development perspective. By making explicit the nature of the feedback given, the course leader has the opportunity to reflect on her feedback practices, which are typically intuitive and spontaneous.

teaching presence "*To be honest my expectations were kind of different. I thought that I would not feel the presence of the lecturer and that she wouldn't comment on my work. However, I was wrong, during the course I had the feeling that the lecturer was not distant but someone who was eager to support the students*." The implications of this are highlighted in the literature, which indicates that teaching presence is strongly associated with course satisfaction and learning outcomes [56, 57]. However within the research [58, 59], there is also a caveat that too much teaching presence may deter autonomous leaning and self-reliance, and this is echoed in this study: "*I can see how too much involvement can create less motivation in students and less self-responsibility*." The interpersonal dimension of feedback also includes students' engagement with their peers. Findings indicate that although students value reading work posted by their peers, "*I really adore… reading to work out what others have written because it opens a new door to things I haven't thought before or things I have thought differently which is the thing I like and then I can see the feedback and see if that was a good direction I should have taken*," they did not participate in the feedback process. Indeed, this also borne out in research which suggests that most students enrolled in online or distance learning courses are lurking; with the main reason given for logging on is to look at questions and tasks, as well as read other students' posts and instructor feedback. The same research suggests that only one in four are willing to contribute to discussion [36]. These findings are contrary to other research which suggests that students identify effective feedback as a mutual process [10], and it indicates an inconsistency between students' perceptions and their actual practices. Indeed, findings suggest that these students perceive feedback as a top-down process with distinct roles assigned to students and educators. One student comments "*but I just sense that from the students they are just a bit uneasy about criticizing, there's more of a sense on the forum of trying to support each other instead of critiquing what they are writing*." While another student adds "*when we write a question to a lecturer, other students do not answer the question, they are waiting for the lecturer to answer that even though the question is not addressed to the lecturer … its not to "dear lecturer" its addressed to "dear everyone", well I think it was to do with showing respect to the lecturer and not commenting on what they are about to say*." It might also be that lack of collaborative learning in the feedback process is part of students' preferred learning style, and there is evidence to suggest that successful online learners often exhibit a preference for an independent over a collaborative learning style [38].

116 Advanced Learning and Teaching Environments - Innovation, Contents and Methods

This study set out to explore the practices and perceptions of feedback given during a DL course for postgraduate students with the aim of offering insights and making suggestions for improving teaching. There are several conclusions which can be drawn from this study. First, from an evaluative perspective, findings show that in terms of the frequency, length, and types of feedback given, it is largely in line with notions of best practice as outlined in the literature. However, findings also reveal some shortcomings in the type of feedback given, namely that there was limited reflective feedback that asked students direct and indirect questions so as to reflect on their understandings of the course. It should be stressed, however, that the main purpose of this study was not to evaluate the performance of the researcher/ instructor but rather to offer a professional development perspective. By making explicit the

**6. Conclusions**

Second, this study also shows the extent to which students' perceptions of feedback align with notions of best practice. These perceptions offer a variety of experiences and understandings of feedback that express both positive and negative points. In themselves, these perceptions cannot offer a complete and unbiased picture of the quality of feedback; however, they offer valuable insights into how feedback is perceived by students and why it is perceived in such a way. This is especially important in DL Education courses, when some students may be practicing teachers with their own feedback practices and beliefs. In such cases, it is important for course leaders to be aware of how these practices and beliefs align or differ from their own.

Third, the use of an analytic frame to consider the pedagogical, contextual, and relational dimensions of feedback broadens the scope by which feedback is typically discussed. Findings show how these three dimensions act as a lens through which students are able to mediate and understand their feedback experience. Such a frame can also be used as a developmental tool to help educators consider how their online feedback practices may support or inhibit student learning. Questions such as the following can guide educators to examine their own online feedback practices:


It is important to acknowledge some of the limitations of this study, so that they may encourage further research. First, the role of the instructor as researcher and instructor may raise concerns about objectivity of data. However, efforts made to minimize bias ensure a standard of rigor with the use of retrospective data collection and an independent rater. Interviews were also held with participants after course completion, when students would have no further contact with the particular instructor. Second, the focus on perceptions can only represent the views of a small sample of DL students. Similarly, findings can only represent the feedback practices of one particular instructor on one particular DL course. As such, the idiosyncratic nature of the data does not provide a basis for transferability and generalizability to other courses or other instructors teaching on the same or a similar program. In spite of these concerns, this choice of research methods offered the researcher/instructor the opportunity to analyze her own online teaching and gain insights into the practices and processes of giving feedback and how these might be perceived by DL students to support or inhibit their learning.

[10] Getzlaf B, Perry B, Toffner G, Lamarche K, Edwards M. Effective instructor feedback: Perceptions of online graduate students. Journal of Educators Online. 2009 Jul;**6**(2):n2 [11] Hatziapostolou T, Paraskakis I. Enhancing the impact of formative feedback on student learning through an online feedback system. Electronic Journal of e-Learning.

Exploring the Pedagogy of Online Feedback in Supporting Distance Learners

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.74028

119

[12] Hixon E, Ralston-Berg P, Buckenmeyer J, Barczyk C. The impact of previous online course experience on students' perceptions of quality. Online Learning. 2016;**20**(1):25-40

[13] Rowe AD, Wood LN. Student perceptions and preferences for feedback. Asian Social

[14] Allen IE, Seaman J. Changing Course: Ten Years of Tracking Online Education in the

[15] Sellani RJ, Harrington W. Addressing administrator/faculty conflict in an academic online environment. The Internet and Higher Education. 2002 Aug;**5**(2):131-145

[16] Lao T, Gonzales C. Understanding online learning through a qualitative description of professors and students' experiences. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education.

[17] Wegmann S, McCauley J. Shouting through the fingertips: Computer-mediated discourse in an asynchronous environment. In: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference. Association for the Advancement of Computing in

[18] Keengwe J, Kidd TT. Towards best practices in online learning and teaching in higher

[19] Levy S. Six factors to consider when planning online distance learning programs in higher education. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration [Internet]. Spring 2003;**6**(1):1-19. [cited 2018 Feb 12]. Available from: http://aris.teluq.uquebec.ca/

[20] Anderson T, editor. The Theory and Practice of Online Learning. Athabasca: University

[21] Anagnostopoulou E, Mavroidis I, Giossos Y, Koutsouba M. Student satisfaction in the context of a postgraduate programme of the Hellenic Open University. Turkish Online

[22] Dziuban C, Moskal P, Thompson J, Kramer L, DeCantis G, Hermsdorfer A. Student satisfaction with online learning: Is it a psychological contract? Online Learning. 2015 Mar;**19**(2):n2

[23] Mahmood A, Mahmood ST, Malik ABA. Comparative study of student satisfaction level in distance learning and live classroom at higher education level. Turkish Online Journal

[24] Mentkowski M, Rogers G, Doherty A, Loacker G, Hart JR, Rickards W, O'Brien K, RiordanT, Sharkey S, Cromwell L, Diez M. Learning that Lasts: Integrating Learning, Development,

and Performance in College and Beyond. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2000

education. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching. 2010;**6**(2):533

United States. Sloan Consortium; Newburyport, MA. 2013 Jan

Education (AACE); 2008 March. pp. 805-808

Journal of Distance Education. 2015;**16**(2):40-55

of Distance Education. 2012;**13**(1):128-136

2010;**8**(2):111-122

2005 Jul;**13**(3):459

Portals/598/t3\_levy2003.pdf

Press; 2008

Science. 2009 Feb 10;**4**(3):78

In educational institutions around the world, the challenges of online teaching have become a reality for many instructors, and as such, it is hoped that by sharing these results, other instructors will take the opportunity to inquire into their online feedback practices. It is also hoped that the issues raised in this study will also pose questions for further research in this area to enhance online teaching.

### **Author details**

Christine Savvidou

Address all correspondence to: savvidou.c@unic.ac.cy

University of Nicosia, Nicosia, Cyprus

### **References**


[10] Getzlaf B, Perry B, Toffner G, Lamarche K, Edwards M. Effective instructor feedback: Perceptions of online graduate students. Journal of Educators Online. 2009 Jul;**6**(2):n2

research methods offered the researcher/instructor the opportunity to analyze her own online teaching and gain insights into the practices and processes of giving feedback and how these

In educational institutions around the world, the challenges of online teaching have become a reality for many instructors, and as such, it is hoped that by sharing these results, other instructors will take the opportunity to inquire into their online feedback practices. It is also hoped that the issues raised in this study will also pose questions for further research in this area to enhance online teaching.

might be perceived by DL students to support or inhibit their learning.

118 Advanced Learning and Teaching Environments - Innovation, Contents and Methods

[1] Askew S, editor. Feedback for Learning. London: Psychology Press; 2000

Askew S, editor. Feedback for Learning. London: Routledge; 2000:1-17

Feb 12]. Available from: https://principlesoflearning.wordpress.com/

ment of pedagogic practice. Higher Education. 2003 Jun 1;**45**(4):477-501

Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. 2005;**1**:3-1

learning through effective formative feedback

Teaching in Higher Education. 2014 Jan;**19**(1):49-57

[2] Askew S, Lodge C. Gifts, ping-pong and loops – linking feedback and learning. In:

[3] Gibbs G, Simpson C. Conditions under which assessment supports students' learning.

[4] Juwah C, Macfarlane-Dick D, Matthew B, Nicol D, Ross D, Smith B. Enhancing student

[5] Scott SV. Practising what we preach: Towards a student-centred definition of feedback.

[6] Weibell CJ. Principles of learning: 7 principles to guide personalized, student-centered learning in the technology-enhanced, blended learning environment. 2011 [cited 2018

[7] Formative YM. Assessment in higher education: Moves towards theory and the enhance-

[8] Caballé S, Daradoumis T, Xhafa F, Juan A. Providing effective feedback, monitoring and evaluation to on-line collaborative learning discussions. Computers in Human Behavior.

[9] Gallien T, Oomen-Early J. Personalized versus collective instructor feedback in the online courseroom: Does type of feedback affect student satisfaction, academic performance and perceived connectedness with the instructor? International Journal on ELearning.

Address all correspondence to: savvidou.c@unic.ac.cy

University of Nicosia, Nicosia, Cyprus

2011 Jul;**27**(4):1372-1381

2008 Jul;**7**(3):463

**Author details**

Christine Savvidou

**References**


[25] Fetzner M. What do unsuccessful online students want us to know? Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks. 2013 Jan;**17**(1):13-27

[43] Cavanaugh C, Blomeyer RL, editors. What Works in K-12 Online Learning. Eugene, OR:

Exploring the Pedagogy of Online Feedback in Supporting Distance Learners

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.74028

121

[44] Carless D. Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in Higher Education.

[45] Garrison R. Implications of online and blended learning for the conceptual development and practice of distance education. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance

[46] Hara N. Student distress in a web-based distance education course. Information,

[47] Roper AR. How students develop online learning skills. Educause Quarterly. 2007

[48] Betts K. Why do faculty participate in distance education. The Technology Source. Oct 1998. [cited 2018 Feb 13]. Available from: http://technologysource.org/article/429/ [49] Knupfer NN, McLellan H. Descriptive research methodologies. Handbook of research

[51] Johnson RB, Onwuegbuzie AJ, Turner LA. Toward a definition of mixed methods

[52] Cohen D, Crabtree B. Qualitative Research Guidelines Project. 2006 July [cited 2018 Feb

[53] Shattuck K. Glimpses of the global coral gardens: Insights of international adult learners on the interactions of cultures in online distance education. PhD [dissertation].

[54] Nagel L, Kotzé TG. Supersizing e-learning: What a CoI survey reveals about teaching presence in a large online class. The Internet and Higher Education. 2010 Jan;**13**(1):45-51

[55] Kahu ER, Stephens C, Zepke N, Leach L. Space and time to engage: Mature-aged distance students learn to fit study into their lives. International Journal of Lifelong Education.

[56] Shea P, Li CS, Swan K, Pickett A. Developing learning community in online asynchronous college courses: The role of teaching presence. Journal of Asynchronous Learning

[57] Baker C. The impact of instructor immediacy and presence for online student affective learning, cognition, and motivation. Journal of Educators Online. 2010 Jan;**7**(1):n1 [58] Mazzolini M, Maddison S. Sage, guide or ghost? The effect of instructor intervention on student participation in online discussion forums. Computers & Education. 2003 Apr

[59] Sahu C. An evaluation of selected pedagogical attributes of online discussion boards.

for educational communications and technology. 1996:1196-1212

[50] Lincoln YS. Guba EG. Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; 1985 Apr

research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 2007 Apr;**1**(2):112-133

13]. Available from: http://www.qualres.org/HomeEval-3664.html

University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University; 2005

International Society for Technology in Education; 2007

Communication & Society. 2000 Jan;**3**(4):557-579

2006 Apr;**31**(2):219-233

Nov;**30**(1):62

2014 Jul;**33**(4):523-540

30;**40**(3):237-253

Networks. 2005 Dec;**9**(4):59-82

Proceedings ascilite Melbourne. 2008:861-865

Education. 2009 Jul;**23**(2):93-104


[43] Cavanaugh C, Blomeyer RL, editors. What Works in K-12 Online Learning. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education; 2007

[25] Fetzner M. What do unsuccessful online students want us to know? Journal of Asynchro-

[26] Skinner BF.Why we need teaching machines. Harvard Educational Review. 1961;**31**:377-398 [27] Ausubel DP. A cognitive view. Educational Psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and

[28] Bruner JS. The Process of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2009 Jun 30 [29] Mason BJ, Bruning R. Providing feedback in computer-based instruction: What the research tells us. Center for Instructional Innovation, University of Nebraska–Lincoln; 2001:14. [cited 2018 Feb 12].Available from: http://dwb.unl.edu/Edit/MB/MasonBruning.html

[31] Kulhavy RW, Stock WA. Feedback in written instruction: The place of response certi-

[32] Biggs JB. Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the Student Does. UK:

[33] Blignaut S, Trollip SR. Developing a taxonomy of faculty participation in asynchronous learning environments—An exploratory investigation. Computers & Education. 2003

[34] Shute VJ. Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research. 2008 Mar;**78**(1):

[35] Brookes M. An evaluation of the impact of formative feedback podcasts on the student learning experience. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sports and Tourism Education (Pre-

[36] Owens JD, Price L. Is e-learning replacing the traditional lecture? Education+ Training.

[37] Coll C, Rochera MJ, de Gispert I. Supporting online collaborative learning in small groups: Teacher feedback on learning content, academic task and social participation.

[38] Beyth-Marom R, Saporta K, Caspi A. Synchronous vs. asynchronous tutorials: Factors affecting students' preferences and choices. Journal of Research on Technology in

[39] Sorensen EK, Takle ES. Investigating knowledge building dialogues in networked communities of practice. A collaborative learning endeavor across cultures. Interactive

[40] De Gagne JC, Walters KJ. The lived experience of online educators: Hermeneutic phe-

[41] Mokoena S. Engagement with and participation in online discussion forums. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology. 2013 Apr 1;**12**(2):97-105 [42] Akin L, Neal D. CREST+ model: Writing effective online discussion questions. Journal of

nomenology. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching. 2010 Jun;**6**(2):357

[30] Wiggins G. Seven keys to effective feedback. Feedback. 2012 Sep;**70**(1):10-16

tude. Educational Psychology Review. 1989 Dec;**1**(4):279-308

nous Learning Networks. 2013 Jan;**17**(1):13-27

120 Advanced Learning and Teaching Environments - Innovation, Contents and Methods

McGraw-Hill Education; 2011 Sep 1

Winston; 1968

Sep;**41**(2):149-172

2012). 2010 Apr;**9**(1):53

2010 Mar 16;**52**(2):128-139

Computers & Education. 2014 Jun;**75**:53-64

Educational Multimedia: IEM. 2005;**10**:50-60

Online Learning and Teaching. 2007 Jun;**3**(2):191-202

Education. 2005 Mar;**37**(3):245-262

153-189


**Chapter 8**

**Provisional chapter**

**Practical Usage of OER Material in the EFL Classroom**

In this research work, we want to follow the idea of using open educational resources (OER) in a classroom to gather practical experiences. The topic of our choice is English as a foreign language (EFL), because in our opinion a lot of teaching content should be available. The preparation of the lectures, as well as the final lecturing, is described to understand how OER can be used in the EFL classroom. The feedback of the pupils and the lessons learned point out that there are more obstacles than expected, mainly because

**Keywords:** EFL, language learning, open education, open educational resources

Despite the fact that open educational resources (OER) movement has been around for 15 years, little attention has been paid with regard to practical usage in secondary education. Instead, the focus has been on tertiary education as well as education for developing countries. Geser [1] points out his benefits of using open educational resources in education (p. 21):

• OER offer a broader range of subjects and topics to choose from and allow for more flex-

• OER leverage the educational value of resources through providing teacher's personal

• OER provide learning communities, such as groups of teachers and learners, with easy-to-

• OER promote user-centered approaches in education and lifelong learning. Users are not only consumers of educational content but also create own materials, develop e-portfolios,

**Practical Usage of OER Material in the EFL Classroom**

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.72452

© 2016 The Author(s). Licensee InTech. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution,

© 2018 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use,

distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Maria Haas, Martin Ebner and Sandra Schön

Maria Haas, Martin Ebner and Sandra Schön

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

of the strict copyright law in German-speaking Europe.

ibility in choosing material for teaching and learning.

use tools to set up collaborative learning environments.

and share study results and experiences with peers.

feedback, lessons learned, and suggestions for improvements.

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.72452

**Abstract**

**1. Introduction**

**Provisional chapter**
