




















































1205Chang


Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 1, No. 1, June 2012, pp. 1 – 23. 

Electronic feedback or handwritten feedback: What do 
undergraduate students prefer and why? 

 
Ni Chang1, A. Bruce Watson2, Michelle A. Bakerson3, Emily E. Williams4,  

Frank X. McGoron5, and Bruce Spitzer6 
 

Abstract: Giving feedback on students’ assignment is, by no means, new to 
faculty. Yet, when it comes to handwritten feedback delivered in person and typed 
feedback delivered electronically to students, faculty may not know what 
undergraduate students prefer and reasons behind their preferences. The present 
study explored which form of feedback, i.e., electronic or handwritten feedback, 
undergraduate students preferred and rationale behind their preferences. Two 
hundred fifty respondents completed an online survey, which consisted of three 
closed-ended questions and two open-ended questions. Nonparametric tests were 
used to analyze the quantitative data. Qualitative responses were read and 
analyzed by four researchers and six themes were identified. The qualitative data 
were rechecked against the six themes independently first and then collectively. 
Discrepancies were discussed before complete consensus was made. The study 
found that nearly 70% of the participants preferred e-feedback for its 
accessibility, timeliness, and legibility. Yet, with respect to the quality of feedback, 
the majority of handwritten supporters chose handwritten feedback, as they 
perceived this type of feedback as more personal. The article discusses the 
marked discrepancies between the two groups and ends with educational 
implications and suggestions for future research. 
 
Keywords: feedback, electronic feedback, handwritten feedback, teaching and 
learning, instructors, students 

	
  
I. Introduction. 

Feedback is important to student learning (Case, 2007; Ferguson, 2011; Krause & Stark, 2010) 
and a basis for supporting and regulating the learning process (Ifenthaler, 2010) regardless of 
who students are and where they are from and regardless of what form instructors choose to 
provide feedback on students’ assignments, be it electronic feedback or handwritten. Quality 
feedback should work as a guiding light, promoting student learning (Chang, 2011). Krause and 

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
1	
  Department of Elementary Education, Indiana University South Bend, 1700 Mishawaka Ave. South Bend, IN 46634, 
nchang@iusb.edu	
  
2	
  Department of Professional Educational Services, Indiana University South Bend, 1700 Mishawaka Ave. South Bend, IN 
46634, watsonbr@iusb.edu	
  
3	
  Department of Secondary Education and Foundations of Education, Indiana University South Bend, 1700 Mishawaka Ave. 
South Bend, IN 46634, mbakerso@iusb.edu	
  
4	
  Department of Professional Educational Services, Indiana University South Bend, 1700 Mishawaka Ave. South Bend, IN 
46634, williaee@iusb.edu	
  
5	
  Department of Elementary Education, Indiana University South Bend, 1700 Mishawaka Ave. South Bend, IN 46634, 
fmcgoron@iusb.edu	
  
6	
  Department of Secondary Education and Foundations of Education, Indiana University South Bend, 1700 Mishawaka Ave. 
South Bend, IN 46634, baspitze@iusb.edu	
  



Chang, N., Watson, A. B., Bakerson, M. A., Williams, E. E., McGoron, F. X., and Spitzer, B. 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 1, No. 1, June 2012. 
jotlt.indiana.edu 

2 

Stark sampled 2,137 university students and found that individual learning with feedback had 
significant effects on student learning. Increasingly students are demanding feedback from their 
instructors (Siew, 2003). Yet, students’ perceptions of different forms of feedback are some 
times inconsistent and contradictory (Krause & Stark, 2010). The main objective of this study, 
therefore, was to examine which undergraduate students preferred; handwritten or electronic 
feedback and to understand the underlying reasons for these preferences. 
 
II. Theoretical Framework. 

A. Indifference to Feedback. 

Some instructors do spend time providing feedback directly onto hardcopies of students’ 
assignments (handwritten feedback) while others use a keyboard and send feedback 
electronically to students (electronic feedback). The National Union of Students (NUS) Survey 
(2008) reported that	
   85% of respondents did receive written comments.	
   However, Winter and 
Dye (2004) found that despite time and work exerted by instructors to offer students feedback, 
some students did not even collect their feedback (Wojtas, 1998 in Higgins, Hartley, & Skelton, 
2001). Sinclair and Cleland (2007) concurred, as a result of a survey study with undergraduate 
medical students, that fewer than half of the students did not want to be bothered to collect 
feedback when given a choice. Other students simply gave a quick glance to grades before 
slipping their assignments into backpacks (Wojtas, 1998 in Higgins, Hartley, & Skelton, 2001). 
Wojtas (1998) furthered, “Some students threw away the feedback if they disliked the grade, 
while others seemed concerned only with the final result and did not collect their marked work” 
(in Higgins, Hartley, & Skelton, 2001, p. 270). Still others justify that they do not appreciate 
feedback returned to them late (Winter & Dye, 2004).   
 
B. Discontent with Feedback. 

Discontent among students with the quality of instructor’s feedback was commonly noted in the 
NUS Survey (2008) and Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (2007). After 
surveying 465 graduate students and 101 undergraduate students at a major Australian 
university, Ferguson (2011) substantiated that feedback failed to play the role as it was expected. 
Price, Handley, Millar & O’Donovan (2010) had a similar observation. Students felt feedback 
given on assignments was often vague and ambiguous, making it hard to follow. Additionally, 
students complained that feedback was overly negative and not useful to them. It might be a 
reason that students were less likely to act on feedback to improve their subsequent work. All 
seemed to think that instructors were not willing to spend time writing helpful feedback and did 
not seem to care about student learning (Price et al., 2010). In all, 90% of students at fourteen 
Australian universities (Scott, 2006) described feedback they were getting as insufficient. 
 
C. Expected Feedback. 

To improve their learning, students want useful and high quality feedback. With the promise of 
feedback, students would be happy to wait, even if it would be a little longer (Ferguson, 2011). 
Research indicates that students attach greater importance to quality and detail than to timing in 
regard to feedback, even though timeliness is continually described as an important component 



Chang, N., Watson, A. B., Bakerson, M. A., Williams, E. E., McGoron, F. X., and Spitzer, B. 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 1, No. 1, June 2012. 
jotlt.indiana.edu 

3 

of effective feedback in any form (Bai &Smith, 2010;	
   Bridge &	
   Appleyard, 2008;	
   Denton, 
Madden, Roberts, & Rowe, 2008; Price et al., 2010; Scott, 2006).  
 With the growing demand for online course delivery, more instructors are offering 
electronic feedback. Timeliness of electronic feedback has been found helpful to students’ 
learning (Dickinson, 1992; Seliem & Ahmed, 2009). Electronic feedback also encourages 
students to be responsible for their own assignments, facilitates collaboration, and increases 
student participation (Seliem & Ahmed, 2009). It also allows an instructor to review, clarify 
(Chang, 2011), and “tone down criticism” on feedback (Dickinson, 1992, p. 6). Feedback is one 
of the imperative factors affecting students' perceptions of course quality (Yang & Durrington, 
2010). Yet, some students distrust the receipt system if feedback is delivered electronically 
(Bridge & Appleyard, 2008). Studies have reported some students’ antipathy toward electronic 
feedback (Ferguson, 2011; Scott, 2006). One of the disadvantages of e-submission is a lack of 
social interaction, as it lacks personal touch. Since learning remains a profoundly social 
experience (Scott, 2006), students expressed their hunger for more opportunities to have a 
dialogue with instructors (Price et al., 2010). 
 Some research has found that handwritten feedback is personal (Morgan & Toledo, 2006).  
Others (Denton et al., 2008; Ferguson, 2011; Price, et al., 2010) have reported that handwritten 
feedback is difficult for students to read, due to illegible writing. Students may not perceive that 
handwritten feedback is part of the process that would help them improve their performances 
(Dickinson, 1992). As such, it is felt that the interactive face-to-face communication would help 
clear up students’ concerns and offer reassurance. Nonetheless, NUS (2008) found that only 25% 
of the respondents set up individual meetings with instructors, because setting up face-to-face 
meetings “was dependent on a good relationship with the tutor; such good relationships where 
they felt comfortable to go and ask for verbal feedback” (NUS, 2008, p 31). This may indicate 
that it was not because those students would want to intentionally avoid individual meetings, but 
it was because they might not feel they had good relationships with instructors.  

One overlooked aspect in defining feedback is a feed-forward component (Price, 2010), 
the opportunity for students to use the information to affect future work. It is a cyclic and 
ongoing in the process of longitudinal development (Denton et al. 2008), stemming from 
dialogues between instructors and students (Price et al., 2010). Students may inappropriately 
view each assignment as a discrete final project and regard feedback as simply justification for a 
given grade without this feed-forward opportunity. If feedback is considered a finished product, 
merely to correct errors on assignments, or if it is not delivered in time for student action, it is 
ineffective and more than likely ignored (Dickinson, 1992; Gibbs & Simpson, 2004; Price et al., 
2010). Evaluative feedback can become useful and meaningful when there is a consensus on 
shared understanding between instructor and student about the purpose of feedback (Case, 2007; 
Price et al., 2010; Seliem & Ahmed, 2009). When give-and-take opportunities exist throughout 
the ongoing, cyclical process, instructors can offer additional explanations or elaborations on 
feedback (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Price et al., 2010). This practice can clarify the information 
instructors have disseminated to students about their work and thereby help improve learning 
outcomes (Denton et al., 2008). In an assessment continuum between student and teacher, 
feedback and instruction are intertwined (Hattie & Timperley, 2007) as a component of an 
ongoing dialogue between the stakeholders, increasingly desired by students (Price et al., 2010). 
Hence, feedback is most effective when it is understandable to the extent that learners are able 
and willing to use it and when instructors focus on “how to improve” subsequent learning 
(Ferguson, 2011, p. 56, author added emphasis). The assessment process should not be a “bolt-on 



Chang, N., Watson, A. B., Bakerson, M. A., Williams, E. E., McGoron, F. X., and Spitzer, B. 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 1, No. 1, June 2012. 
jotlt.indiana.edu 

4 

addition at the end” of the curriculum, but “an integral part of the educational process” (National 
Curriculum TGAT Report, 1987, p. 6).  Both feedback and feed-forward should be an ongoing 
part of the educational process in a forward-looking relational process, allowing students to use 
the information to improve subsequent assignments (Dickinson, 1992; Gibbs & Simpson, 2004; 
Price et al., 2010). 
 
III. Methods. 

A. Participants. 

This study invited 664 undergraduate students from the School of Education at a Mid-western 
university to take part in an investigation of students’ preference for either handwritten or 
electronic feedback and their rationale for this preference. Two hundred seventy nine students 
responded, making the return rate 42%. Out of 279 respondents, 29 respondents did not complete 
all of the survey questions. As these surveys were incomplete, they were discarded from the 
sample, leaving the total sample of 250 with a response rate of 38%.  

Except for seven students (3%) who did not report their gender, among 250 participants, 
80% were female, while 17% were male. Except for two who did not report their age, there were 
147 participants (59%) ranging from 18 to over 45 years of age. Except for 19 students 8% failed 
to report their GPA, most participants 65% indicated that their GPA was 3.01-4.00.  Over half of 
all respondents 66%, described their major as elementary, while 33% self-identified as secondary 
education majors (see Table 1 and Table 2).  

 
Table 1. Gender and age. 

Variable n % 
   
Gender   

Female 200 80 
Male 43 17 

Missing 7 3 
Age   

18-24 147 59 
25-34 61 24 
35-44 27 11 

45 & Over 13 5 
Missing 2 1 

Note. All percentages add up to 100% 

 

 

 

 



Chang, N., Watson, A. B., Bakerson, M. A., Williams, E. E., McGoron, F. X., and Spitzer, B. 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 1, No. 1, June 2012. 
jotlt.indiana.edu 

5 

Table 2. Class Standing, GPA and major. 

Variable n % 
Class Standing 

Freshman 
 

47 
 

19 
Sophomore 58 23 

Junior 58 23 
Senior 82 33 

Missing 5 2 
GPA   

3.01-4.00 164 65 
2.01-3.00 62 25 

2.00 & Below 5 2 
Missing 19 8 

Major   
Elementary 165 66 
Secondary 70 28 

Special Ed.  14 5.6 
Missing 1 0.4 

Note. All percentages add up to 100% 

B. Research Design. 

To best understand the research problem, a mixed methodology approach was used in the study, 
which obtained different but complementary data on student perceptions pertaining to 
handwritten or electronic feedback. It also combined the differing strengths and weaknesses of 
quantitative methods (large sample size, trends, generalization) with those of qualitative methods 
in the form of a questionnaire.  
 
C. Instrument. 

An online application of Lime Survey was used to collect data. The survey questions were 
developed by the four researchers and reviewed by a faculty member with expertise in 
instructional technology. In light of his suggestions, the questions were revised and refined until 
consensus was reached. The survey instrument consisted of three closed-ended questions: 1) 
Which kind of feedback do undergraduate School of Education students prefer – handwritten or 
electronic, 2) To what extent do School of Education undergraduate students prefer either 
handwritten feedback or electronic feedback, and 3) How useful was your instructor’s feedback?  
In addition to questions of demographic information including: gender, age, class standing, GPA 
(grade point average), and major; there were also two open-ended questions: 1) I prefer 
handwritten feedback because . . . (this question was answered by handwritten supporters) or I 
prefer electronic feedback because . . . (this question was answered by e-feedback supporters), 
and 2) Do you have any other comments to make about assessment feedback that may help 
faculty better facilitate your learning? (This was asked of both groups of supporters). In the 
survey, handwritten feedback was defined as feedback that is written by hand on students’ 
assignments and physically delivered to students.” The definition of electronic feedback was 
“feedback that is typed and shared electronically with students via emails, forums, Facebook, etc.  
D. Procedure. 



Chang, N., Watson, A. B., Bakerson, M. A., Williams, E. E., McGoron, F. X., and Spitzer, B. 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 1, No. 1, June 2012. 
jotlt.indiana.edu 

6 

 
Two weeks after the spring semester of 2012 started, all undergraduates admitted into the teacher 
preparation program were invited to participate in the study via an email. The potential 
participants were then redirected to the online site where they were first prompted with a consent 
letter, which informed them of the purpose of the study, ensured confidentiality and also made it 
clear that participation was voluntary. If potential respondents agreed to participate, they 
continued on to complete the questionnaire. Students could stop or quit answering the questions 
at any point they liked. All potential participants received a first follow-up letter electronically 
three weeks after the initial invitation letter was sent out. A second follow-up letter was emailed 
to all potential participants three weeks later. 
 
E. Data Analysis. 

To answer the first research question of whether the undergraduate students of the School of 
Education preferred electronic or handwritten feedback, nonparametric tests were utilized. SPSS 
19 was used to answer part of the second research question of why either of these options was 
preferred over the other. A crosstabs procedure, using the Chi-square Test of Independence was 
used to analyze the nominal variables. A Chi-square Test of Independence measures the degree 
to which a sample of data comes from a population with a specific distribution (Bakerson, 2009; 
Mertler &Vanatta, 2005 Rosenberg, 2007; Stevenson, 2007). It tests whether the observed 
frequency count of a distribution of scores fits the theoretical distribution of scores. This issue 
was addressed through the use of the Pearson's Chi-square procedure (Bakerson, 2009; Mertler 
& Vanatta, 2005 Rosenberg, 2007).  
 The rest of the second research question was answered thorough the analysis of 
qualitative responses,	
   which consisted of coding the survey responses and of aggregating the 
codes to identify themes (Charmaz, 2000; Creswell, 2002). Four researchers read and analyzed 
the respondents’ responses with respect to their justifications of preferences for handwritten or 
electronic feedback, and their responses to the last survey question: “Do you have any other 
comments to make about assessment feedback that may help faculty better facilitate your 
learning?” Six themes were identified, which include: accessibility (A), timeliness (T), legibility 
(L), quality of feedback (Q), personal (P), and miscellaneous (M) (see Table 3 and Table 4). In 
light of the themes, the researchers went back to check the codes and then discussed the 
discrepancies of the coding through two meetings. The inter-rater reliability was 0.82 for 
electronic feedback preference, 0.84 for handwritten feedback preference, and 0.72 for the last 
question. The qualitative responses under each theme were then calculated to answer the second 
question of why the respondents preferred one form of feedback over the other and what they 
valued the most in terms of those six themes.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



Chang, N., Watson, A. B., Bakerson, M. A., Williams, E. E., McGoron, F. X., and Spitzer, B. 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 1, No. 1, June 2012. 
jotlt.indiana.edu 

7 

Table 3. Coding with themes and examples for accessibility and timeliness. 
 
Codes Themes  Example Quotes 
A • Able to get information easily 

• Convenience 
• Able to ask questions 
• Secure 

 

• I spend the majority of my time on the computer.  
• I am able to access the information needed without having 

the hard- printed paper(s). Can access information 
anytime I have wireless connection through 
phone/laptop/or computer. 

• I check my email several times a day so that is what is 
convenient for me. Also, getting electronic feedback 
means that I will always be able to go back to it without 
losing it, whereas a handwritten feedback you can lose or 
misplace.  

• I can ask the professors in class what they mean if I have 
questions about it. 

T • Readability 
• Understanding 

• I also appreciate that electronic feedback is a faster way 
to receive constructive feedback. 

Note.  Accessibility (A), timeliness (T) 

Table 4. Coding with themes and examples for legibility, quality, personal and 
miscellaneous. 
 
Codes Themes  Example Quotes 
L • Quick return • [Y]ou don't have to wonder what a comment says due to 

poor penmanship, 
• Sometimes it is harder to read hand written feedback. 

Q • Constructiveness 
• Usefulness 
• Helpfulness 
• Understanding the content  
• Revise and improve 
• Summary vs. In-Text comments 

(location) 
• More detail is better 
• Canned responses 
• Physical touch 

• I like handwritten feedback on tests because they can point 
out exactly where I messed up and explain it right on the 
test. 

• I can see what my answers were and see what was wrong, 
why it was wrong and what the instructor thought. I also 
like to be able to touch the actually feedback because for 
some reason I feel like I understand it better when I can 
touch it. 

P • Close rapport between 
student/professor 

• Feeling obligated to read 
• Appreciation 
• Caring about students 

 

• When I receive handwritten feedback I feel that my 
professor entered into a dialogue that required reflection, 
interpretation, and evaluation on my performance as a 
student. By providing me with handwritten feedback, I feel 
that the professor took the time to personalize their 
thoughts on my performance as a student and pre-service 
teacher. 

• Handwritten feedback is something I usually feel more 
obligated to read as it is all on my returned assignment. 

M • Wish 
• Use of Oncourse, gradebooks 
• Use of Word Review features 
• Save paper 

 

• [T]he feedback has to be precise not just "good work" 
• [I]t saves paper, 
• I believe in going paperless to many extents, but when it 

comes to engaging with comments or feedback, having a 
marked up paper with comments and input is the most 
helpful. 

Note. legibility (L), quality of feedback (Q)personal (P), and miscellaneous (M) 



Chang, N., Watson, A. B., Bakerson, M. A., Williams, E. E., McGoron, F. X., and Spitzer, B. 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 1, No. 1, June 2012. 
jotlt.indiana.edu 

8 

IV. Results and Discussion. 

A. Preference. 

The majority of SOE participating undergraduate students (68%) preferred electronic feedback/e-
feedback to handwritten feedback (34%). The primary reason for those who supported e-
feedback was accessibility, which accounted for 38% of the comments made by the e-feedback 
supporters (see Figure 1). In the following, along with the quantitative results, discussed are six 
identified themes, including: accessibility, timeliness, legibility, quality, personable, and 
miscellaneous.  

 

Figure 1. Qualitative responses by electronic and handwritten feedback supporters by six 
themes. 
 
B. Accessibility.  

The respondents most commonly noted that they were able to receive feedback effortlessly and 
found it convenient for their professors to provide electronic feedback. In addition, given that the 
Internet is omnipresent, it is also easy for students to check feedback, as they have laptops, 
smartphones, iPads, and other mobile devices: “I prefer electronic feedback because you get to 
check your emails.” “I am able to see the feedback right away through my phone, and anywhere 
else I have [I]nternet access.” “. . . I am generally always available to get to my laptop. I'm on 
my laptop so much that it just makes it easier for me.” Chang (2011) confirmed that instructor’s 
responses could conveniently be received electronically and entirely independent of location and 

38% 

16% 

30% 

1% 

10% 

5% 

25% 

3% 
0% 

32% 

40% 

0% 0% 

5% 

10% 

15% 

20% 

25% 

30% 

35% 

40% 

45% 

Electronic 

Handwritten 



Chang, N., Watson, A. B., Bakerson, M. A., Williams, E. E., McGoron, F. X., and Spitzer, B. 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 1, No. 1, June 2012. 
jotlt.indiana.edu 

9 

time. Those who supported electronic feedback also felt that e-feedback could be easily 
organized. The possibility of misplacing papers would be unlikely, so was carrying around 
papers. One student commented, “I prefer the electronic feedback because it is easier to keep a 
record of and less likely to become misplaced.” In this sense, they also noted that they felt 
secure. 

In contrast, 25% of the comments made by the respondents supporting handwritten 
feedback were on accessibility (see Figure 1). The respondents rationalized that handwritten 
feedback was independent of the Internet, which was convenient for their learning: “I like to read 
the handouts in my own time anywhere I want without having to get on a computer and see it.” 
“Currently, [m]y life is very busy, the feedback written on my papers is sufficient.” “I am able to 
take it home with me and really look at it. I can also make extra notes on the handwritten 
feedback that I get.” These comments were supported by Chang (2011) that those who did not 
own computers and/or who did not have easy access to the Internet did not support e-feedback.  
 
B. Timeliness. 
 
Timeliness is the second reason for those who favored e-feedback (30%) (see Figure 1).  
Students explained, “It can get back to the student quicker especially if they are in a once a week 
class.” “[I]t is usually a much faster turn-around; the feedback comes back much quicker.” “I . . . 
appreciate that electronic feedback is a faster way to receive constructive feedback.” Some 
respondents associated timeliness with the ownership of learning: “It is faster! I am more likely 
to respond!” “I can also respond quickly from any location.” Immediate feedback was helpful to 
students’ learning, as the content just discussed in classes is still kept fresh in their minds 
(Chang, 2011; Dickinson, 1992; Ferguson, 2011, Seliem & Ahmed, 2009; Winter & Dye, 2004). 
It could be the very reason that students were likely to respond to e-feedback. Electronic 
feedback encouraged students to be responsible for their own assignments and active 
participation (Chang, 2011; Dickinson, 1992; Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006; Seliem & 
Ahmed, 2009). In comparison, those who preferred handwritten feedback did not make any 
comments on timeliness (see Figure 1).  

With handwritten feedback, timing is one of the major reasons for students’ 
dissatisfaction (Ferguson, 2011; Winter & Dye, 2004). Mostly, when instructors are able to 
return students’ assignments with feedback, it is when there are class meetings on campuses. If 
feedback is returned to students rather late and if students have already moved onto the next 
assignments or tasks, feedback would become useless to student learning. Students explained,  
“A lot of time I get this feedback before the next class and before I have started the next 
homework. I have another class where the teacher does it all by hand and it takes forever to get 
the feedback and the next homework is due before the feedback gets back to me.” “I think that 
instructors should allow time to provide feedback on all assignments before an exam or written 
assignment is given over that material. I have taken exams without feedback from prior 
assignments that covered material that was on the exam. This seems that instructors are simply 
going through the motions of handing out assignments then testing on the material. How am I 
supposed to know what I need to study, if I do not know what I misunderstood on the assignment 
portion?”  These comments imply feedback after all is essential to student learning if students are 
able to benefit from it (Chang, 2011; Dickinson, 1992; Ferguson, 2011, Seliem & Ahmed, 2009; 
Winter & Dye, 2004). 
 



Chang, N., Watson, A. B., Bakerson, M. A., Williams, E. E., McGoron, F. X., and Spitzer, B. 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 1, No. 1, June 2012. 
jotlt.indiana.edu 

10 

C. Legibility. 
 
Legibility (16%) is the third reason given by those who supported e-feedback (see Figure 1). The 
respondents explained that typed messages allowed them to read without much difficulty; they 
did not have to guess what comments were intended to say to them. At least, students did not 
have to make a special visit to professors just decipher what was written, as commented by some 
students: “[D]on't have to track down a professor to help read what [he] wrote.” “[W]hen their 
responses are typed[,] I can clearly read  . . . their input. . .” This is supported by prior research 
which found that handwritten feedback was difficult for students to read, due to illegible writing 
(Denton, 2008; Ferguson, 2011; Price et al., 2010). In other words, if students are able to read 
comments, they can “hopefully use their (professors’) input.” This signifies that students care 
about their learning and want feedback to better their work (Ferguson, 2011). Yet, when it comes 
to the quality of e-feedback, surprisingly, only 10% of the respondents supporting e-feedback 
made comments on this topic (see Figure 1).  
 
D. Quality. 
 
This section reports and discusses the data with respect to quality of feedback. In order to help 
the reader follow the results and discussion with ease, there are two sub-sections with one 
focusing on the views of e-feedback supporters while the other on views of handwritten 
supporters.  

Perceptions of electronic feedback supporters. Ten percent of the comments made by the 
e-feedback supporters were largely about how feedback helped them learn. That is, the 
respondents recognized that instructors were able to explain their thoughts completely. Feedback 
was specific and detailed, as some wrote, “I . . . feel that electronic feedback gives instructors a 
chance to fully explain their thoughts and consideration.” “I find comments are more thorough.” 
A student also acknowledged that instructors took time, reading students’ submitted work: 
“Professors take more time to respond to what I wrote, the comments written about my work 
seem to be more thought out and I can read them with an understanding of where the professor is 
coming from . . .” A clear expression of wanting to improve their performance can also be 
observed from the respondents’ comments: “Electronic feedback gives a student a chance to 
read, then review the written feedback later. This is important because student[s] can improve 
and learn from feedback.” Chang’s (2011) study confirmed that students appreciated the time 
instructors spent in providing detailed feedback on their assignments. The feedback was helpful 
and useful to their learning.  

Some respondents underscored the role technology plays in providing quality feedback, 
as technology allows for easy typing, which could lead to more detailed feedback. Students said, 
“. . . I find electronic feedback is more specific and detailed (perhaps because typing is faster?)” 
“I feel electronic feedback tends to be more detailed because typing is faster for most than 
handwriting.” “It also is more in depth because the professor is not trying to condense it into the 
margin of my work.” From some students’ viewpoints, if feedback was sent to them 
electronically, they seemed able to receive more from professors: “[P]rofessors tend to give more 
comments when feedback is given electronically.” In addition, technology enables instructors to 
place feedback near areas where students are able to understand specifically what was done well 
and what they need to improve. A respondent wrote, “On a paper, professors can provide 
feedback in certain spots in Microsoft word, indicating exactly where they agree or think could 



Chang, N., Watson, A. B., Bakerson, M. A., Williams, E. E., McGoron, F. X., and Spitzer, B. 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 1, No. 1, June 2012. 
jotlt.indiana.edu 

11 

use some work.” This finding echoes the report by Chang (2011) that students wanted feedback 
that was specific and that enabled them to know what needed their attention. Moreover, students 
felt that using technology to offer feedback could turn sharp criticism into something easier for 
them to accept, as a student said, “[E-feedback] is more like constructive criticism than just 
criticism.” This is in line with the findings of Chang (2011) and Dickinson (1992) that using 
technology to compose feedback allows an instructor to review, clarify and tone down criticism. 
However, taking advantage of technology does not seem widely used with all instructors, which 
seems a cause for concerns. Some respondents pointed out, “There is a feature in [M]icrosoft 
[W]ord where as a professor you can highlight words of phrases and sections and add specific 
feedback for that word or phrase. . .” “We live in a world full of technology and so many of us 
get online frequently throughout the day . . . ” 

Inconsistent with Chang’s (2011) study are the priorities the present study respondents 
ranked. The e-feedback supporters preferred e-feedback predominantly due to accessibility 
(28%) and timeliness (20%) (see Figure 1). Quality of feedback fell in the distance third, 
whereas the participants in Chang’s study enjoyed the feedback due to the quality of feedback. 
The students placed the accessibility in the distance second and timeliness the third. The low 
percentage of comments (10%) on the quality of feedback in the present study could indicate that 
at the time when the survey was administered, e-feedback might still be something new to most 
students, considering nearly 60% of the respondents were between ages 18-24. Although 
technology is by no means novel to this generation, receiving e-feedback from instructors might 
not be something familiar to them; they are much more conversant with handwritten feedback 
than e-feedback. 

Perceptions of handwritten feedback supporters. In comparison with the percentage of 
comments on the quality of feedback made by those preferring handwritten feedback (40%) (see 
Figure 1).  A number of comments were four times more than those made by the respondents 
with a preference for e-feedback (10%). The handwritten feedback supporters appeared to have 
attached much greater importance to the quality of feedback than the e-feedback group, rating 
this category as a key ingredient for success.  Like those who preferred e-feedback, the 
qualitative responses made by handwritten feedback supporters conveyed a similar justification; 
the feedback was placed in proximity to what needed to be worked on and what was done well, 
“I enjoy having handwritten feedback because usually handwritten feedback is placed on papers 
in the areas that need to be fixed.” “I can . . . look at exactly where and what the feedback is 
about and can improve off of that, where as if it is electronic I can not necessarily see exactly 
what the feedback is talking about or how to improve.” Like e-feedback supporters, handwritten 
feedback supporters also pointed out that when professors wrote feedback by hand on their 
assignments, the feedback tended to be more detailed and specific than when given 
electronically. The respondents said, “I felt that my professors actually took the time to read and 
evaluate my performance and in doing so allowing each of us to get to know each other on a 
better level by being able to discuss the comments right then and there.” “[I] feel like the 
instructor will say more with handwritten feedback rather than with electronic. With electronic 
they tend to be short with comments and few.” Yet, what is different from the responses made by 
the e-feedback group is that feedback written by hand is more tailored to an individual learning 
level: “. . . it is ni[c]e to see that your teacher is taking the time to look over the assignments that 
you spent your time on and individualizing your comments.” Feedback is shaped by individual 
student assignments as a means of individualized instruction (Chang & Petersen, 2006). An 
additional difference is that professors allowed students to revise their work if the feedback was 



Chang, N., Watson, A. B., Bakerson, M. A., Williams, E. E., McGoron, F. X., and Spitzer, B. 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 1, No. 1, June 2012. 
jotlt.indiana.edu 

12 

written on their assignments: “Also with handwritten feedback, most professors will allow you to 
fix the paper and resubmit it.” The findings of the present study mirror Chang’s study (2011) in 
that students felt making revisions to their assignments promoted their learning. Yet, the findings 
were incongruent with Dickinson’s (1992) notion that handwritten feedback does not help 
students improve their performances. The respondents’ expressions clearly indicated that they 
found handwritten feedback was advantageous to their learning and that they would rather take 
extra time decoding professors’ handwriting than receive assignments without feedback. What 
also differed from the view of e-feedback supporters was that handwritten feedback supporters 
were able to physically touch the feedback, which they perceived had an effect on their learning: 
“I also like to be able to touch the actually feedback because for some reason I feel like I 
understand it better when I can touch it.” 
 
E. Personal. 
 
Supporters of handwritten feedback seemed to tie the quality of feedback to personal attributes 
(32%) (see Figure 1). Handwritten feedback seemed to allow for establishing a closer rapport 
with instructors than e-feedback. Some students noted, “The feedback that is rece[i]ved from the 
instructor is more [personal] than the electronic issued feedback . . .” “[I]t makes the feedback 
feel more personal and shows an interest in all students, whereas electronic could be set up to 
give the same feedback to multiple people. . . It makes . . . me feel as if my professor really 
knows who I am.” The findings were supported by the reports of Ferguson (2011) and Scott 
(2006), both of which found that some students still felt a strong dislike toward e-feedback. 
Asking professors questions in person, from the perspectives of the handwritten feedback 
supporters, was an avenue to establish a relationship with professors. In contrast, there was only 
1% of e-feedback respondents (see Figure 1) making comments on the same topic. The 
comments principally pointed to e-feedback being impersonal: “It's more impersonal [than 
handwritten feedback].” “ . . . sometimes electronic feedback feels generic and impersonal.” “. . . 
When receiving all feedback from a computer, it becomes easy for the student to feel like a 
number.” Scott (2006) had a similar concern and identified that e-communication lacked social 
interaction and personal touch. 

An explanation of rating quality of feedback and personal by handwritten supporters as 
the first and second is that most of the respondents are Millennial Generation or Generation Y 
(59%), who were born between 1980-1999 and who may be extremely comfortable with 
technology and have no real memory of life without computers, cell phones, and digital music 
(Rockler-Gladen, 2006 in Chang, 2011). Therefore, typing is natural and ordinary. As such, the 
participants might answer the survey questions based on their past experiences. From their 
perspectives, if instructors were willing to sit down and write on students’ submitted 
assignments, it shows that instructors would read their work carefully and give thoughts to 
students’ work. This seems to imply, what was also highly valued by the handwritten supporters, 
which was the time spent by instructors reading their assignments and the time on writing 
feedback. That is, time spent by instructors writing by hand represented a level of care that 
instructors had about them, as noted by a student, “It . . . shows that the professor actually cares 
about the student's work and doesn't just gloss over it . . .” The care given by professors who 
wrote feedback by hand also seemed encouraging; students felt a sense of obligation to read the 
feedback: “Handwritten feedback is something I usually feel more obligated to read as it is all on 
my returned assignments.”  



Chang, N., Watson, A. B., Bakerson, M. A., Williams, E. E., McGoron, F. X., and Spitzer, B. 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 1, No. 1, June 2012. 
jotlt.indiana.edu 

13 

F. Longing for Feedback. 
 
The last survey question, “Do you have any other comments to make about assessment feedback 
that may help faculty better facilitate your learning?” invited all respondents to respond, 
irrespective of handwritten feedback supporters or e-feedback supporters. The findings revealed 
that 57% of the responses were about the quality of feedback (see Figure 2). It is evident that the 
respondents generally were interested in receiving feedback in order to improve their learning. 
Some students commented, “I don't have a preference on electronic or handwritten, I just prefer 
to receive feedback.” “Professors don't tend to give a lot of feedback so whatever we get is 
helpful.” “I love timely feedback that is specific instead of just a general grade. I really want to 
know what I did great on and what I need to improve on and the reasons behind them.”  “. . . I 
like to see the RED ink on my page...there is always room for improvement.” “. . . when it comes 
to engaging with comments or feedback, having a marked up paper with comments and input is 
the most helpful.” This is consistent with Chang’s (2011) findings that students expect to receive 
feedback that is useful, helpful, constructive, specific, detailed, in-depth, and thorough. The 
findings, however, differ from those by Winter and Dye (2004) that students were careless about 
feedback as they had no intention to pick up graded assignments with instructors’ feedback. 
Discrepant with the present study’s findings is also the notion by Wojtas (1998 in Higgins, 
Hartley, & Skelton, 2001) that students only glanced over their grades, but they did not read 
feedback. “Feedback in any form is greatly appreciated. . . [.] We do so many assignments in the 
School of Education and receive relatively small amounts of feedback from certain teachers. Not 
all of the teachers are lacking in the feedback department, but when being asked about which 
kind of feedback I prefer all I can think of is how much I would just like feedback regardless of 
the chosen delivery method.” Students’ strong desire for feedback also led them to offer 
suggestions: “I would appreciate all instructors familiarizing themselves with Oncourse, using it, 
and entering grades and communication in a timely and consistent manner.” (Note, Oncourse is a 
course management system developed by Indiana University along with a few other major 
universities, which is similar to Blackboard).  
 

 

Figure 2. Qualitative responses to final open-ended question in light of six themes. 

14% 
3% 

16% 
10% 

57% 

0% 
0% 

10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 



Chang, N., Watson, A. B., Bakerson, M. A., Williams, E. E., McGoron, F. X., and Spitzer, B. 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 1, No. 1, June 2012. 
jotlt.indiana.edu 

14 

All this data illuminates that there is extensive work to be done, which is in a sense 
concurred with Ferguson’s (2011) and Price et al.’s (2010) assertion that feedback has not yet 
fully played its expected role in facilitating student learning. Feedback needs to be unambiguous 
and detailed enough for students to understand with ease. Instructors also need to write feedback 
in a way that learners are willing to act on and that shows instructors care about student learning. 
Taken into account that 57% of the comments were about quality of feedback and that timeliness 
was in the distance second (16%), these findings do confirm with Ferguson’s (2011) report that if 
students expect to receive quality feedback, waiting a bit longer would not cause a huge issue. 
Even though there is a 41% difference between the quality of feedback (57%) and timeliness 
(16%), these two categories, being next to one another, are a good indication that students not 
only expect quality feedback, but also want it in a timely fashion in order to benefit their learning 
(Bai &Smith, 2010; Bridge & Appleyard, 2008; Chang, 2011; Denton et al., 2008; Price et al., 
2010; Scott, 2006). The practices of the quick delivery of quality feedback with computer 
technology coupled with communication/dialogue between instructors and students have been 
termed as feed-forward (Duncan, 2007; Murtagh & Baker, 2009; Price et al., 2010). That is, 
feedback should not be seen as simply as justification for a given grade without an opportunity 
for students to use the information to better future work. The findings echo Hattie and 
Timperly’s (2007) report that feedback is an assessment continuum between instructors and 
students where feedback and instruction are intertwined. Price et al. also supported that feedback 
was a component of an ongoing dialogue between the stakeholders. It becomes most effective 
when learners are able and willing to use it and when instructors provide information of “how to 
improve” subsequent learning (Ferguson, 2011). 
 
G. Miscellaneous. 

With respect to miscellaneous, there is a difference between handwritten feedback supporters 
and electronic feedback supporters. Handwritten feedback supporters did not make any 
comments at all under this theme, whereas the e-feedback supporters did (5%) (see Figure 1). 
Students rationalized three reasons for supporting e-feedback, including saving trees, having less 
paper to deal with, and potentiality of e-feedback. Some respondents noted, “[It] saves trees and 
money.” “I … prefer to use as little paper as possible for environmental reasons.” Some found it 
easier to receive e-feedback, because students would have “less paper to deal with.” Chang’s 
(2011) study supported these findings. Some respondents might not have direct experience of 
interacting with e-feedback, but imagined that the feedback could offer more to student learning, 
“I feel that electronic feedback has the potential to be more thoughtful as well.”  
 
H. Degree of Preferences. 

Although the majority of students were interested in e-feedback, more respondents who preferred 
handwritten feedback (88%) favored the feedback to a moderate or large extent more so than 
those with a preference for e-feedback (81%) (see Figure 3). 



Chang, N., Watson, A. B., Bakerson, M. A., Williams, E. E., McGoron, F. X., and Spitzer, B. 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 1, No. 1, June 2012. 
jotlt.indiana.edu 

15 

 

Figure 3. The degree of preferences for feedback. 

I. Usefulness to Learning. 

The same pattern is observed when it comes to the usefulness of feedback to learning. Eleven 
percent more respondents were in favor of handwritten feedback (99%) than were in favor of e-
feedback (88%). Students felt feedback was somewhat to very useful to their learning (see Figure 
4).  

 

Figure 4. The degree of usefulness of feedback. 

J. Gender, Age, Class Standing, GPA, and Major. 

Table 5 reports the frequency analysis of gender, age, class standing, GPA, and major 
corresponding to handwritten feedback and e-feedback. There are twice as many female 
respondents and male respondents preferring electronic feedback than handwritten feedback. The 

76% 

78% 

80% 

82% 

84% 

86% 

88% 

Handwritten Electronic 

88% 

81% 

80% 

90% 

100% 

Handwritten Electronic 

99% 

88% 



Chang, N., Watson, A. B., Bakerson, M. A., Williams, E. E., McGoron, F. X., and Spitzer, B. 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 1, No. 1, June 2012. 
jotlt.indiana.edu 

16 

same is true for majors. Except for juniors, twice as many seniors, freshmen, and sophomores 
preferred electronic feedback than handwritten feedback.  
 
Table 5. Handwritten or electronic feedback data. 
 

 Handwritten Feedback Electronic Feedback Total 
Variables n % n % n % 

Gender        
Female 62 0.3 138 0.69 200 100 

Male 14 0.33 29 0.67 43 100 
Age       

18-24 59 40.1 88 59.9 147 100 

25-34 13 21.3 48 78.7 61 100 
35-44 2 7.4 25 92.6 27 100 
45-54 3 23.1 10 76.9 13 100 

Class       
Freshman 13 27.7 34 72.3 47 100 

Sophomore 19 32.8 39 67.2 58 100 
Junior 24 41.4 34 58.6 58 100 
Senior 23 28 59 72 82 100 

GPA       

4.00-3.01 49 29.9 115 70.1 164 100 
3.00-2.01 28 45.2 34 54.8 62 100 
2.00-1.01 0 0 5 100 5 100 

Major       
Elementary 51 30.9 114 69.1 165 100 
Secondary 24 34.3 46 47.8 70 100 

Special Education 4  10 71.4 14 100 
Note.  Percent ranges refer to the partitioned group or n. 

 
A crosstabs procedure, using the Chi-square Test of Independence, revealed there were 

no statistically significant differences between the observed and expected frequencies on the 
variables of interest. The results failed to reveal a statistically significant difference in terms of 
gender, χ2(1, 243) = 0.040,  p=0.842 between handwritten and electronic feedback. A crosstabs 
procedure, Chi-square Test of Independence, also failed to reveal a statistically significant 
difference χ2(3, 245) = 3.335, p=0.343 regarding class standing between handwritten and 
electronic feedback. Lastly, there was no statistically significant difference χ2(6, 249) = 3.876, 
p=0.693 among majors. This means that regardless of gender, class standing, or major, there was 
no preference between handwritten or electronic feedback. No other crosstabs procedures, using 
Chi-square Test of Independence, revealed any statistically significant differences in terms of 
gender, class standing, or major.  



Chang, N., Watson, A. B., Bakerson, M. A., Williams, E. E., McGoron, F. X., and Spitzer, B. 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 1, No. 1, June 2012. 
jotlt.indiana.edu 

17 

Yet, the Chi-square Test of Independence indicates a statistically significant difference, 
χ2(3, 248) = 15.807, p=0.001, among age group respondents. In the 35-44 age group, 93% 
preferred electronic feedback while only 60% of the 18-24 age group preferred electronic 
feedback (see Table 6). 
 
Table 6. Age and feedback preferences. 

  
Feedback 

                       Total      Handwritten         Electronic 
Age 18-24 Count 59 88 147.0 

Expected Count 45.6 101.4 147.0 
% within Age 40.1% 59.9% 100.0% 
% within Feedback 76.6% 51.5% 59.3% 
% of Total 23.8% 35.5% 59.3% 

25-34 Count 13 48 61.0 
Expected Count 18.9 42.1 61.0 
% within Age 21.3% 78.7% 100.0% 
% within Feedback 16.9% 28.1% 24.6% 
% of Total 5.2% 19.4% 24.6% 

35-44 
Count 2 25 27.0 
Expected Count 8.4 18.6 27.0 
% within Age 7.4% 92.6% 100.0% 
% within Feedback 2.6% 14.6% 10.9% 
% of Total 0.8% 10.1% 10.9% 

45-54 Count 3 10 13.0 
Expected Count 4.0 9.0 13.0 
% within Age 23.1% 76.9% 100.0% 
% within Feedback 3.9% 5.8% 5.2% 
% of Total 1.2% 4.0% 5.2% 

Total Count 77 171 248.0 
Expected Count 77.0 171.0 248.0 
% within Age 31.0% 69.0% 100.0% 
% within Feedback 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 
% of Total 31.0% 69.0% 100.0% 

 

A Chi-square Test of Independence also revealed a statistically significant difference, 
χ2(2, 248) = 7.284, p=0.026, among GPA respondents. In the 2.00 or lower GPA group, 100% 
preferred electronic feedback while in the 3.00-2.01 only 54.8% preferred electronic feedback 
(see Table 7). 

 

 

 

 



Chang, N., Watson, A. B., Bakerson, M. A., Williams, E. E., McGoron, F. X., and Spitzer, B. 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 1, No. 1, June 2012. 
jotlt.indiana.edu 

18 

Table 7. GPA and feedback preferences. 

 
Feedback 

           Total        Handwritten        
GPA 3.01-4.00 Count 49 115 164 

Expected Count 54.7 109.3 164.0 
% within GPA 29.9% 70.1% 100.0% 
% within Feedback 63.6% 74.7% 71.0% 
% of Total 21.2% 49.8% 71.0% 

2.01-3.00 Count 28 34 62 
Expected Count 20.7 41.3 62.0 
% within GPA 45.2% 54.8% 100.0% 
% within Feedback 36.4% 22.1% 26.8% 
% of Total 12.1% 14.7% 26.8% 

1.01-2.00 Count 0 5 5 
Expected Count 1.7 3.3 5.0 
% within GPA .0% 100.0% 100.0% 
% within Feedback .0% 3.2% 2.2% 
% of Total .0% 2.2% 2.2% 

Total Count 77 154 231 
Expected Count 77.0 154.0 231.0 
% within GPA 33.3% 66.7% 100.0% 
% within Feedback 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 
% of Total 33.3% 66.7% 100.0% 

 
Perhaps younger students still need quite a lot of encouragement and appropriate 

assistance from professors in order to increase their awareness of the importance of feedback in 
their learning and of how to act on it. With respect to the difference between students’ 
preferences for either form of feedback and GPA, an explanation of this may be that the students 
in the mid-range might feel satisfied with their mediocre grades and thereby cease to make extra 
effort to achieve better grades. The findings are inconsistent with those by Chang (2011), as she 
did not find any statistically significant differences among preference of e-feedback, and age or 
GPA.  
 
K. Limitations. 

This study was only focused on the SOE undergraduate participants’ perceptions of e-feedback 
and handwritten feedback. The data from this survey study were the respondents’ subjective 
reports, which mostly rest on the respondents’ mood, feelings, degree of carefulness and 
attentiveness in reading questions and writing answers, and the effect of the surroundings when 
the responses were being composed. It also depended on the various levels of experiences that 
the respondents had had with e-feedback and handwritten feedback. In addition, the responses 
might be affected by how the respondents understood a certain definition, such as that of e-
feedback. In the survey, e-feedback was defined as feedback that is typed and delivered 
electronically to students via emails, forums, etc.  Based on the responses received, this 
definition did not seem to suffice, as it resulted in various interpretations or misunderstandings: 
Some understood that e-grades were e-feedback. Some others referred it to general feedback 



Chang, N., Watson, A. B., Bakerson, M. A., Williams, E. E., McGoron, F. X., and Spitzer, B. 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 1, No. 1, June 2012. 
jotlt.indiana.edu 

19 

received via email while some might think that e-feedback meant canned responses preset by 
professors or automatically generated by computers after an exam or a quiz was taken. Some 
interpretations could be that e-feedback was identical and sent to multiple students in the class 
using some application, e.g. Turnitin-GrademMark ®. Others might have defined feedback as 
detailed and individualized, especially tailored to each student’s assignments. Furthermore, 
owing to these distinct variations, even though no responses were read indicating students had 
never received any feedback from faculty, the report issued by the National Union of Students 
(NUS) Survey (2008) that 85% of respondents did receive written comments could not be 
addressed. Perhaps those students excluded themselves from the survey altogether. 

Nonetheless, the study provides preliminary insights into the preference of the form of 
feedback undergraduate students preferred and an explanation of why. The threshold will begin 
the path of continual investigation about how feedback is provided to better facilitate students’ 
learning. 

 
L. Educational Implications. 

Even though nearly 70% of the SOE undergraduate participants claimed that they preferred e-
feedback, the comments made by this group on the quality of feedback were not nearly 
equivalent to those by handwritten feedback supporters. In terms of the degree of preferences, 
there were fewer e-feedback supporters than handwritten supporters who felt that the feedback 
was somewhat to very useful. However, there were an alarming number of responses made by 
both of the groups on the quality of feedback, when they answered the last survey question: “Do 
you have any other comments to make about assessment feedback that may help faculty better 
facilitate your learning?” Many responses were of their longing for feedback, “I prefer feedback 
in general which is greatly lacking in some classes.” In light of this, it would be wise for 
instructors to take some action to offer feedback useful and beneficial to student learning. In 
addition, instructors need to enhance or strengthen their capabilities to provide feedback on 
students’ assignments with computer technology, as we are in a technology era; technology is 
omnipresent. With computer technology, instructors are able to place comments on places where 
students are better able to determine where they need to revise and how their work can be 
improved. Typing on computers also allows for more words and clearer messages. Students want 
more specific and detailed feedback rather than a few brief notes on their assignments: “I think 
that feedback needs to be more specific and to the point. Not just a 'good job' or a check mark. I 
want to know what I did [well] and what I did wrong. I also think that the more detail the 
professor can give the better.” “I feel that electronic feedback has the potential to be more 
thoughtful as well.” Typing should eliminate illegible writing, thereby reducing unnecessary 
frustration.  
 Before writing feedback, instructors should read students’ work carefully so that 
feedback is especially tailored to a student’s learning level. Instructors also need to give 
feedback plenty of thought and try to find out, by trial and error, how to provide constructive, 
thorough, specific, clear, unambiguous, and friendly feedback so that students are encouraged to 
read and act on it for the amelioration of their performances. With computer technology, 
instructors may also consider writing a general summary at the end of a paper or exam in 
addition to specific feedback.  

In providing feedback on students’ assignments, instructors also need to bear in mind that 
they ought to make every effort to steer clear of e-feedback that has potential to be misconstrued 



Chang, N., Watson, A. B., Bakerson, M. A., Williams, E. E., McGoron, F. X., and Spitzer, B. 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 1, No. 1, June 2012. 
jotlt.indiana.edu 

20 

by students, as a student commented, “I think that miscommunications can often happen with 
electronic feedback that can cause rifts in the teacher/student communication.” Even though 
some professors still intend to maintain writing feedback by hand, they also need to keep in mind 
to consistently offer quality feedback, as pointed out by a student: “However, handwritten 
feedback does not always equal quality in terms of being helpful and constructive.” By and large, 
students, irrespective of e-feedback or handwritten feedback supporters, yearn for useful and 
helpful feedback. Yet this study demonstrates that providing quality feedback has not been a 
widely acceptable practice, thereby a need for effective faculty training to facilitate students’ 
learning with quality feedback feed-forward. 
 To affect student learning, instructors should pay particular attention to those in the 18-24 
age category and with those whose GPA falls 2.01-3.00. Particular attention to “double dip” 
students, those who are young and have an average GPA, should prove especially beneficial.  
 
M. Suggestions for future research. 
 
Future research may involve the replication and expansion of the present study and examine 
preferences of undergraduate students and graduate students alike. Since the issue of feedback 
being personal seemed to surface as one of the principal reasons behind students’ preference, 
research questions could also include: “How could instructors compose e-feedback that is 
personal and appreciative?” Students expressed frustration and disappointment when feedback is 
too unclear or brief to help their future learning and the findings seem to have indicated that 
more feedback is better. One student remarked, “Professors tend to give more comments when 
feedback is given electronically.” Future research could delve deeper into how much feedback is 
enough for students to feel a benefit. Information overload can easily discourage students to 
enhance learning, as a student pointed out, “Ridiculously little font sizes are almost as annoying 
as bad handwriting and information saturation leads to the type of visual clutter that frustrates me 
as I look for the spec[i]fic area I need.” On the other hand, students wanted specific and detailed 
feedback: “On the feedback please be specific and tell us how we should have answered.” 
“[M]ore detail makes things much more clear.” Research focus could also be placed on what an 
explicit definition of e-feedback is and how to feed-forward so that students are helped to 
genuinely gain knowledge and skills.  
 
N. Conclusion. 
 
The vast majority of SOE undergraduate participants preferred feedback that is sent to them 
electronically because this form of feedback was said to be easy to access, considering many 
students have cell phones, laptop computers, and other mobile devices. Feedback sent to them 
electronically is faster than handwritten feedback returned back to them during face-to-face 
meetings. Typed feedback is more readable than most handwritten feedback. Although the 
groups did not virtually provide an equal number of comments on the quality of feedback, both 
clearly indicated that undergraduate students in general not only welcomed but also wanted 
feedback that is detailed, tailored, specific, in-depth, and thorough. Timeliness was an additional 
reason for undergraduates supporting e-feedback. Even though there was a polarized view on 
feedback being personal between the two groups, a close rapport with instructors was what most 
students would appreciate. The students also urged instructors to familiarize themselves with 
technology in order to efficiently provide them with helpful feedback. When working with 



Chang, N., Watson, A. B., Bakerson, M. A., Williams, E. E., McGoron, F. X., and Spitzer, B. 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 1, No. 1, June 2012. 
jotlt.indiana.edu 

21 

students who are at ages 18-24 and whose GPA is between 2.01 and 3.00, instructors should 
make the effort to encourage these students to use feedback to advance their learning.  
 

References 
 

Bai, X., & Smith, M. B. (2010). Promoting hybrid learning through a sharable elearning 
approach, Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 14(3),13-24. 
 
Bakerson, M., (2009). Persistence and success: A study of cognitive, social, and institutional 
factors related to retention of Kalamazoo Promise recipients at Western Michigan University. 
Ph.D. dissertation, Western Michigan University, United States -- Michigan. Retrieved from 
Proquest Dissertations & Theses Database: A&I (Publication No. AAT 3392137). 
 
Bjorkman, M. (1972). Feedforward and feedback as determiners of knowledge and policy: Notes 
on a neglected issue. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 13, 152–8. 
 
Bridge, P., & Appleyard, R. (2008). A comparison of electronic and paper-based assignment 
submission and feedback. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(4), 644-650.  
 
Brown, J. (2007). Feedback: The student perspective. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 
12(1), 33–51. 
 
Case, S. (2007). Reconfiguring and realigning the assessment feedback processes for an under- 
graduate criminology degree. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(3), 285–99. 
 
Chang, N. (2011). Pre-Service teachers’ views: How did e-feedback through assessment 
facilitate their learning? Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 11(2), 16-33. 
 
Chang, N., & Petersen, N. J. (2006). Cybercoaching: An emerging model of personalized online 
assessment. In D. D. Williams, S. L. Howell, & M. Hricko (Eds.), Online assessment, 
measurement, and evaluation: Emerging practices (pp. 110–130). Hershey, PA: the Idea Group. 
 
Charmaz, C. (2000) Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. Denzin, & 
Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. 2nd ed. London, Sage. 
 
Cobb, R. Jr., Graham T, Kapur A, Rhodes, C, & Blackwell E.  (2005, December). Give better 
feedback on engineering drawings.  Tech Directions, 19-21. 
 
Creswell, J. W. (2002). Research design. London, Sage. 
 
Denton, P., Madden, J., Roberts, M., & Rowe, P. (2008). Students’ response to traditional and 
computer-assisted formative feedback: A comparative case study, British Journal of Educational 
Technology, 39(3), 486-500.  
 
Dickinson, P. F. (1992, October). Feedback that works: Using the computer to respond.  Paper 
presented at the Annual National Basic Writing Conference. College Park, MD. (ERIC 



Chang, N., Watson, A. B., Bakerson, M. A., Williams, E. E., McGoron, F. X., and Spitzer, B. 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 1, No. 1, June 2012. 
jotlt.indiana.edu 

22 

Document Reproduction Service No. ED35649) 
 
Duncan, N. (2007). Feed forward: Improving students’ use of tutors’ comments. Assessment and 
Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(3), 271–283. 
 
Ferguson, P. (2011). Student perceptions of quality feedback in teacher education. Assessment & 
Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(1), 51–62. 
 
Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2004). Conditions under which assessment supports students’ 
learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1(1), 1–31. 
 
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 
77(1), 81-112. http://growthmindseteaz.org/files/Power_of_Feedback_JHattie.pdf 
 
Higgins, R., Hartley, P., & Skelton, A. (2001). Getting the message across: The problem of 
communicating assessment feedback, Teaching in Higher Education, 6(2), 269-274. 
 
Higher Education Funding Council for England. (2007). Annual national student survey. 
Retrieved from http://www.hefce.ac.uk/news/hefce/2007/nss.htm 
	
  
Ifenthaler, D. (2010). Bridging the gap between expert-novice differences: The model-based 
feedback approach. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(2), 103-117. 
 
Krause, U., & Stark, R. (2010). Reflection in example- and problem-based learning: Effects of 
reflection prompts, feedback and cooperative learning. Evaluation & Research in Education, 
23(4), 255-272. 
 
Limniou, M., & Smith, M. (2010). Teachers' and students' perspectives on teaching and learning 
through virtual learning environments. European Journal of Engineering Education, 35(6), 645-
653.  
 
Mertler, C. A., & Vanatta, R. A. (2005). Advanced and multivariate statistical methods (3rd ed.) 
Glendale, CA: Pyrzcak Publishing. 
 
Morgan P., & Toledo, C.  (2006).  Online feedback and student perceptions.  Journal of 
Interactive Online Learning, 5(3), 333-340. 
 
Murtagh, L., & Baker, N. (2009). Feedback to feedforward: Students’ response to tutors’ written 
comments on assignments. Practitioner Research in Higher Education, 3(1), 20-28. 
 
National Curriculum Task Group on Assessment and Testing: A Report. (1987). Department of 
Education and Science and the Welsh Office. Kings College, London. Retrieved from 
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/content/1/c6/01/54/36/TGATreport.pdf  
 
National Union of Students (NUS) (2008). Student Experience Report. Retrieved from 
http://aces.shu.ac.uk/employability/resources/NUSStudentExperienceReport.pdf  



Chang, N., Watson, A. B., Bakerson, M. A., Williams, E. E., McGoron, F. X., and Spitzer, B. 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 1, No. 1, June 2012. 
jotlt.indiana.edu 

23 

Nicol, D., & 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. 
 
Price, M., Handley, K., Millar, J., & O’Donovan, B. (2010). Feedback: All that effort, but what 
is the effect? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(3), 277–289. 
 
Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. (2007). Enhancing practice. Retrieved from 
http://www.enhancementthemes.ac.uk/documents/IntegrativeAssessment/IAManaging.pdf.  
 
Rosenberg, K. M. (2007). The Excel Statistics Companion. Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher 
Education. 
 
Sadler, D. R. (2010). Beyond feedback: Developing student capability in complex appraisal 
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 535–550. 
 
Scott, G. (2006). Accessing the Student Voice: A Higher Education Innovation Program Project. 
Canberra, Australia: Department of Education, Science and Training. 
 
Seliem, S., & Ahmed, A. (2009, March). Missing: Electronic Feedback in Egyptian EFL Essay 
Writing Classes. Online Submission, Paper presented at the Centre for Developing English 
Language Teaching (CDELT) Conference, Cairo, Egypt. 
 
Siew, P. F. (2003).  Flexible on-line assessment and feedback for teaching linear algebra. 
International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science & Technology, 34(1), 43-52. 
 
Sinclair, H., & Cleland, J. (2007). Undergraduate medical students: Who seeks formative 
feedback? Medical Education, 41, 580–582. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1111/j.1365-
2923.2007.02768.x/asset/j.1365-
2923.2007.02768.x.pdf?v=1&t=h1dxgkhr&s=98da8e0463e211288733384af16aa4a5be4c643a 
 
Stevenson, J. P. (2007). Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences (5th ed.). New 
York, NY: Routledge. 
 
Store, R. E., & Armstrong, J. D. (1981). Personalizing feedback between teacher and student in 
the context of a particular model of distance teaching. British Journal of Educational 
Technology, 12(2), 140-157. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.1981.tb00420.x 
 
Winter, C., & Dye, V. L. (2004). An investigation into the reasons why students do not collected 
marked assignments and the accompanying feedback. CELT Learning and Teaching Project. 
	
  
Yang, Y., & Durrington, V. (2010). Investigation of students' perceptions of online course 
quality. International Journal on E-Learning, 9(3), 341-361.  
 


