“It’s like fifty-fifty”: Using the Student Voice towards Enhancing Undergraduates’ Engagement with Online Feedback Provision

Main Article Content

Michael Hast
Caroline Healy


Reflecting the continuing change in higher education student experiences in light of the electronic age it is crucial to examine whether digital feedback provision approaches are seen as helpful in promoting self-regulated learning. In the present study students (N = 99) completed a survey examining preferences and gathering initial qualitative data. A sub-set (N = 18) took part in focus groups. In line with trends observed in previous research, a high proportion of students preferred submitting work and accessing feedback online. Attitudes towards the shift from hard copy to online feedback provision were largely positive, focusing on improved aspects of spatial and temporal distance. However, the student insight also highlighted concerns around communication and motivation to engage with feedback, indicating there is a need for appropriate training to support the access to feedback and how to engage in post-feedback communication beyond the computer screen.


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Hast, M., & Healy, C. (2018). “It’s like fifty-fifty”: Using the Student Voice towards Enhancing Undergraduates’ Engagement with Online Feedback Provision. Journal of Teaching and Learning With Technology, 7(1), 139–151. https://doi.org/10.14434/jotlt.v7i1.23806
Case Study


Abrahams, D. A. (2010). Technology adoption in higher education: A framework for identifying and prioritising issues and barriers to adoption of instructional technology. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 2 (2), 34-49.

Altbach, P. G., Reisberg, L. and Rumbley, L. E. (2009). Trends in global higher education: Tracking an academic revolution. Paris: UNESCO.

Ambler, T., Breyer, Y. and Young, S. (2014). Piloting online submission and online assessment with Grademark. In S. Kennedy-Clark, K. Everett and P. Wheeler (Eds.), Cases on the assessment of scenario and game-based virtual worlds in higher education (pp. 125-151). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.

Andrade, H. L. (2010). Students as the definitive source of formative assessment. In H. L. Andrade and G. J. Cizek (Eds.), Handbook of formative assessment (pp. 90-105). New York, NY: Routledge.

Baker, R. K., Thornton, B. and Adams, M. (2011). An evaluation of the effectiveness of Turnitin.com as a tool for reducing plagiarism in graduate student term papers. College Teaching Methods & Styles Journal, 4 (9), 1-4.

Batane, T. (2010). Turning to Turnitin to fight plagiarism among university students. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 13 (2), 1-12.

Bradwell, P. (2009). The edgeless university: Why higher education must embrace technology. London: Demos.

Bridge, P. and Appleyard, R. (2005). System failure: A comparison of electronic and paperbased assignment submission, marking, and feedback. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36 (4), 669-671.

Bridge, P. and Appleyard, R. (2008). A comparison of electronic and paper-based assignment submission and feedback. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39 (4), 644-650.

Brown, G. T. L., Peterson, E. R. and Irving, S. E. (2009). Beliefs that make a difference: Adaptive and maladaptive self-regulation in students’ conceptions of assessment. In D. M. McInerney, G. T. L. Brown and G. A. D. Liem (Eds.), Student perspectives on assessment: What students can tell us about assessment for learning (pp. 159-186). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Brown, G. T., Peterson, E. R. and Yao, E. S. (2016). Student conceptions of feedback: Impact on self-regulation, self-efficacy, and academic achievement. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 86 (4), 606-629.

Buckley, E. and Cowap, L. (2013). An evaluation of the use of Turnitin for electronic submission and marking and as a formative feedback tool from an educator’s perspective. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44 (4), 562-570.

Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory. London: SAGE.

Chew, E. and Price, T. (2010). Online originality checking and online assessment – an extension of academics or disruption for academics. In S. L. Wong, S. C. Kong and F.-Y. Yun (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Computers in Education (pp. 683687). Putrajaya, Malaysia: Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education.

Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. (2014). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (4th ed.). London: SAGE.

Creswell, J. W. (2015). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. London: SAGE.

Dunne, E. and Zandstra, R. (2011). Students as change agents: New ways of engaging with learning and teaching in higher education. Exeter: University of Exeter.

Ellis, A. and Byrnes, R. (2006). The prevalence and characteristics of online assessment in Australian universities. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 22 (1), 104-125.

Ferguson, P. (2011). Student perceptions of quality feedback in teacher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36 (1), 51-62.

Gale, T. and Parker, S. (2014). Navigating change: A typology of student transition in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 39 (5), 734-753.

Gosper, M., Malfroy, J. and McKenzie, J. (2013). Students’ experiences and expectations of technologies: An Australian study designed to inform planning and development decisions. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29 (2), 268-282.

Grieve, R., Padgett, C. R. and Moffitt, R. L. (2016). Assignments 2.0: The role of social presence and computer attitudes in student preferences for online versus offline marking. Internet and Higher Education, 28, 8-16.

Hast, M. (2015). From research methods to methodical researcher: Making use of the student voice towards a more comprehensive module evaluation. Journal of Education and Training, 2 (1), 81-94.

Hast, M. (2017). Supporting student transition to higher education feedback: An evaluation of an online feedback training approach. Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, Issue 12, Article 2.

Hattie, J. and Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77 (1), 81-112.

Healy, C. (2015). Reciprocity and mutuality: The extent to which tutorial experiences reflect the integrity of one university’s mission. Paper presented at St Mary’s Teaching and Learning Conference: Innovative Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, Twickenham, UK.

Heinrich, E., Milne, J. and Granshaw, B. (2012). Pathways for improving support for the electronic management and marking of assignments. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28 (2), 279-294.

Hepplestone, S., Holden, G., Irwin, B., Parkin, H. J. and Thorpe, L. (2011). Using technology to encourage student engagement with feedback: A literature review. Research in Learning Technology, 19 (2), 117-127.

Herrington, A. and Herrington, J. (2006). Authentic learning environments in higher education. Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.

Kay, J., Dunne, E. and Hutchinson, J. (2010). Rethinking the values of higher education – students as change agents? Bristol: The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.

Kift, S. M., Nelson, K. J. and Clarke, J. A. (2010). Transition pedagogy: A third generation approach to FYE – a case study of policy and practice for the higher education sector. The International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education, 1 (1), 1-20.

Kim, K.-J. and Bonk, C. J. (2006). The future of online teaching and learning in higher education: The survey says … Educause Quarterly, 29 (4), 22-30.

Krueger, R. A. and Casey, M. A. (2014). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. London: SAGE.

Lai, K. W. (2011). Digital technology and the culture of teaching and learning in higher education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27 (8), 1263-1275.

Laurillard, D. (2006). E-learning in higher education. In P. Ashwin (Ed.), Changing higher education: The development of learning and teaching (pp. 71-84). London: Routledge.

López-Pérez, M. V., Pérez-López, M. C. and Rodríguez-Ariza, L. (2011). Blended learning in higher education: Students’ perceptions and their relation to outcomes. Computers & Education, 56 (3), 818-826.

López-Pérez, M. V., Pérez-López, M. C., Rodríguez-Ariza, L. and Argente-Linares, E. (2013). The influence of the use of technology on student outcomes in a blended learning context. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61 (4), 625-638.

Manuguerra, M. and Petocz, P. (2011). Promoting student engagement by integrating new technology into tertiary education: The role of the iPad. Asian Social Science, 7 (11), 61-65.

Marshall, S. (2010). Change, technology and higher education: Are universities capable of organisational change? ALT-J Research in Learning Technology, 18 (3), 179-192.

McCabe, J., Doerflinger, A. and Fox, R. (2011). Student and faculty perceptions of e-feedback. Teaching of Psychology, 38 (3), 173-179.

McCulloch, A. (2009). The student as co-producer: Learning from public administration about the student-university relationship. Studies in Higher Education, 34 (2), 171-183.

McLoughlin, C. and Luca, J. (2006). Beyond marks and measurement: Developing dynamic and authentic forms of e-assessment. Paper presented at the 23rd annual Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education conference, Sydney, Australia.

Newman, F. and Scurry, J. E. (2015). Higher education and the digital rapids. International Higher Education, 26, 13-14.

O’Neill, G. and McMahon, S. (2012). Giving student groups a stronger voice: Using participatory research and action (PRA) to initiate change to a curriculum. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 49 (2), 161-171.

Parkin, H. J., Hepplestone, S., Holden, G., Irwin, B. and Thorpe, L. (2012). A role for technology in enhancing students’ engagement with feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37 (8), 963-973.

Pellegrino, J. W. and Quellmalz, E. S. (2010). Perspectives on the integration of technology and assessment. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43 (2), 119-134.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9 (5), 1-6.

Robinson, C. (2012). Student engagement: What does this mean in practice in the context of higher education institutions? Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 4 (2), 94-108.

Säljö, R. (2010). Digital tools and challenges to institutional traditions of learning: Technologies, social memory and the performative nature of learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26 (1), 53-64.

Sandover, S., Partridge, L., Dunne, E. and Burkill, S. (2012). Undergraduate researchers change learning and teaching: A case study in Australia and the United Kingdom. CUR Quarterly, 33 (1), 33-39.

Sarkar, S. (2012). The role of information and communication technology (ICT) in higher education for the 21st century. The Science Probe, 1 (1), 30-41.

Shaw, S. (2008). Essay marking on-screen: Implications for assessment validity. E-Learning and Digital Media, 5 (3), 256-274.

Timmis, S., Broadfoot, P., Sutherland, R. and Oldfield, A. (2015). Rethinking assessment in a digital age: Opportunities, challenges and risks. British Educational Research Journal, 42 (3), 454-476.

Turney, C. S. M., Robinson, D., Lee, M. and Soutar, A. (2009). Using technology to direct learning in higher education: The way forward? Active Learning in Higher Education, 10(1), 71-83.

UCAS (2016). Mature students’ guide. Retrieved December 7, 2016, from https://www.ucas.com/file/35436/download?token=2Q6wiw-L.

Walker, R., Voce, J. and Ahmed, J. (2012). 2012 survey of technology enhanced learning for higher education in the UK. Oxford: UCISA.