Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Effects of Digital Written Feedback on Paper-based Tests for College Students

  • Regular Article
  • Published:
The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Feedback is beneficial to students’ learning process and overall achievement, but one of the common complaints from students about college education is regarding feedback. So, this study aimed to examine whether digital written feedback positively influences students’ learning experience and attitude toward learning. Digital written feedback refers to feedback provided through a learning management system as handwritten feedback added to a scanned copy of the student’s paper-based assessment using a smart pad and smart pencil. The study surveyed a diverse set of college students’ (n = 175) perceptions regarding feedback satisfaction, learning satisfaction, the usefulness of digital written feedback, and perceived achievement via an online survey. A one-way analysis of variance found a significant difference between feedback satisfaction and learning satisfaction according to the feedback method. A multiple regression analysis indicated the satisfaction and perceived usefulness of digital written feedback predicted perceived achievement. From the students’ open responses regarding the benefits of digital written feedback, five themes emerged, namely usability, psychological relief, accessibility, self-regulation, and acceptance. The implications for digital written feedback are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  • Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, C. C., Kulik, J. A., & Morgan, M. T. (1991). The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 213–238. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543061002213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barzilai, S., & Blau, I. (2014). Scaffolding game-based learning: Impact on learning achievements, perceived learning, and game experiences. Computers & Education, 70, 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.08.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blau, I., & Caspi, A. (2008). Do media richness and visual anonymity influence learning? A comparative study using skype. In Y. Eshet-Alkalai, A. Caspi, & N. Geri (Eds.), Learning in the technological era: Proceedings of the third chais conference on instructional technologies research (pp. 18–25). The Open University of Israel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandon, D. P., & Hollingshead, A. B. (1999). Collaborative learning and computer-supported groups. Communication Education, 48(2), 109–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529909379159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, V., & Clarke. V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brodie, L., & Loch, B. (2009). Annotations with a Tablet PC or typed feedback: does it make a difference? In Proceedings of the 20th Australasian Association for Engineering Education conference (pp. 756–770). Adelaide: University of Adelaide.

  • Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245–281. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543065003245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, B., & Dwyer, F. (2005). The effect of online gaming, cognition, and feedback type in facilitating delayed achievement of different learning objectives. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 16(3), 243–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caspi, A., & Blau, I. (2011). Collaboration and psychological ownership: How does the tension between the two influence perceived learning? Social Psychology of Education, 14(2), 283–298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-010-9141-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, N., Watson, A. B., Bakerson, M. A., Williams, E. E., McGoron, F. X., & Spitzer, B. (2012). Electronic feedback or handwritten feedback: What do undergraduate students prefer and why? Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, 1(1), 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark-Gordon, C. V., Bowman, N. D., Hadden, A. A., & Frisby, B. N. (2019). College instructors and the digital red pen: An exploratory study of factors influencing the adoption and non-adoption of digital written feedback technologies. Computers & Education, 128, 414–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.10.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elliott, M. K., & Healy, M. A. (2001). Key factors influencing student satisfaction related to recruitment and retention. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 10(4), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1300/J050v10n04_01

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fife, J. M., & O’Neill, P. (2001). Moving beyond the written comment: Narrowing the gap between response practice and research. College Composition and Communication, 53(2), 300–321. https://doi.org/10.2307/359079

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, W. (2008). Digital Ink Technology for e-assessment. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Education and Information Systems, Technologies and Applications (EISTA 2008), 29 June–2 July 2008, Orlando, Florida, USA.

  • Glaser, B. G. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 12, 436–445. https://doi.org/10.2307/798843

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/2F003465430298487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ji, H. (2017). Present and future of ICT-based writing feedback system. The Korean Journal of Literacy Research, 22, 175–195. https://doi.org/10.37736/kjlr.2017.12.22.175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazarus, B. D. (2003). Teaching courses online: How much time does it take. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 47–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, B., & Sohn, W. (2018). Meta-analysis of feedback effects: Differences by feedback, learning tasks, and learner characteristics. Journal of Educational Evaluation, 31(3), 501–529. https://doi.org/10.31158/JEEV.2018.31.3.501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, H. W., & Lim, K. Y. (2013). Does digital handwriting of instructors using the iPad enhance student learning? The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 22(3), 241–245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-012-0016-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Y., & Ryu, K. (2012). A study of changes in self-directedness among young adults. Interdisciplinary Journal of Adult & Continuing Education (IJACE), 15(3), 173–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMillan, J. H. (2013). Sage Handbook of Research on Classroom Assessment. Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Molloy, E. K., & Boud, D. (2014). Feedback models for learning, teaching, and performance. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 413–424). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Narciss, S., & Huth, K. (2004). How to design informative tutoring feedback for multimedia learning. In H. M. Niegemann, D. Leutner, & R. Brunken (Eds.), Instructional design for multimedia learning (pp. 181–195). Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noh, H., & Sohn, W. (2015). The role of teacher-provided feedback on homework in student engagement and academic achievement. Journal of Educational Evaluation, 28(3), 879–902.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, E., & Lee, H. (2013). The effects of learners’ self-regulated learning skills and instructor’s feedback on the learners’ achievement and participation in Facebook®-based discussion of a higher education setting. Journal of Educational Information and Media, 19(2), 229–251. https://doi.org/10.15833/KAFEIAM.24.4.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. (1999). Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health Services Research, 34, 1189–1208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451–502). Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M., & Frick, T. W. (1999). Formative research: A methodology for creating and improving design theories. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 633–651). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saldaña, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schunk, D. H. (2000). Learning theories. Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shin, N. (2003). Transactional presence as a critical predictor of success in distance learning. Distance Education, 24(1), 69–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910303048

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sim, H. (2017). The effect of mentor feedback on self-regulated learning, self-directed learning, and academic. The Journal of Yeolin Education, 25(1), 169–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veletsianos, G., Kimmons, R., & French, K. D. (2013). Instructor experiences with a social networking site in a higher education setting: Expectations, frustrations, appropriation, and compartmentalization. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(2), 255–278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-012-9284-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, B., Brown, T., & Benson, R. (2013). Feedback in the digital environment. In D. Boud & E. Malloy (Eds.), Feedback in higher and professional education: Understanding it and doing it well (pp. 125–139). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wisdom, J., & Creswell, J. W. (2013). Mixed methods: Integrating quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis while studying patient-centered medical home models. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality AHRQ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning: Relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 51–59. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.51

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research was funded by a 2019 research grant from the corresponding author’s University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Education, Sangmyung University, Hongjimun-2gil, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 110-743, Korea

    Hyeon Woo Lee

  2. Sangmyung University, Seoul, Korea

    Yoon Mi Cha

Authors
  1. Hyeon Woo Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yoon Mi Cha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The research idea and design were finalized by HWL and YMC by mutual consultation. Survey, coding, and analysis were carried by YMC. Results, findings, and discussion were drafted mutually by HWL and YMC. The authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hyeon Woo Lee.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lee, H.W., Cha, Y.M. The Effects of Digital Written Feedback on Paper-based Tests for College Students. Asia-Pacific Edu Res 31, 489–497 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00592-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00592-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation