Title:

Introducing the Feedback File for Online Course Design in Technical and Professional

Communication

Meredith Singleton

Visiting Assistant Professor; Literature, Languages and Writing

Miami University

236 Rentschler Hall

Hamilton, OH 45011

513-785-3200

singlemn@MiamiOH.edu

Lisa Meloncon

Associate Professor, Technical Communication

Meloncon@tek-ritr.com

1

Introducing the Feedback File for Online Course Design

in Technical and Professional Communication

Providing individualized comments on student drafts has long been a hallmark of

writing pedagogy. Most instructors who teach the ubiquitous “service course” in technical

and professional communication (TPC) also incorporate this teaching strategy. The

problem, however, is that the use of individualized comments may not be effective. This

problem is exacerbated in online environments because instructors may feel these

individualized comments can serve as one-on-one teaching opportunities. However, limited

empirical research (e.g., Still and Koerber, 2011) and our own teaching practices suggest

that often students pay little attention to the meticulously written comments. Thus, we

asked the question: is there a more effective way to provide feedback to students?

In this essay, we explore a potential answer to this question by introducing an

alternate pedagogical practice for providing comments to students: the Feedback File. We

define the Feedback File as an assignment-specific document that contains three main

elements: (1) a compilation of the most common errors in student draft submissions; (2)

an explanation of why these examples are errors; and (3) an example of how to correct or

improve the error. We begin by surveying current scholarship that highlights the necessity

of rethinking the field’s reliance on individualized feedback. Then, we discuss how to create

the Feedback File and how to use it in an online TPC service course. Finally, we end with

highlighting the benefits of the Feedback File for online writing pedagogy.

 

2

Current TPC OWI Commenting Practice

Online learning continues to be a powerful force in higher education. According to

the National Center for Education Statistics’ Integrated Postsecondary Education Data

Systems (IPEDS) data, in 2014 (Allen & Seaman), 70.8% of higher education academic

leaders reported that online learning is critical to institutional long-term strategies, and

public, four-year institutions showed the greatest growth rate in online offerings of 7.2%.

This increased emphasis on online learning has spawned a need in not only fully online

degree programs, but also a diversification of course offerings. More and more,

departments seek opportunities to place certificate programs and individual courses

online. Currently, 11% of degree programs in TPC are offered fully online (Meloncon,

2012), and in a sample of 96 schools, 21% of service courses were being offered online or

in a hybrid format (Meloncon, 2009).

As the ‘“introductory courses for nonmajors delivered primarily as a service to other

departments and programs on campus” (Meloncon & England, 2011, p. 398), the service

course has long been a staple of TPC programs. Therefore, we focus our attention on the

service course because of its prevalence in TPC programs. Knievel (2007) writes that the

service course “remains a crucial curricular site, significant to the long-term health,

credibility, and viability of the field. This is, of course, because the service course touches so

many students it functions as a distillation and encapsulation of the field’s values” (p. 89).

Thus, because of its prevalence in our programs and the number of them being delivered

online, the online TPC service course provides an ideal location to explore pedagogical

3

practices in online educational spaces, which we use here as both fully online (no face-to-

face meetings) or hybrid (some face-to-face meetings).

Even though TPC has a growing body of scholarship around online course delivery

(e.g., Cook & Grant-Davie, 2005 and 2013), TPC instructors continue to rely on traditional

feedback practices that emerged out of composition studies—individualized comments

throughout student drafts focused on specific technical elements and theoretical concepts,

saving summary views for a final critical paragraph at the end of the essay. The implicit

expectation is that students will consider the comments’ meaning and apply the

suggestions to the particular assignment and future writing tasks.

Additionally, instructors have traditionally expected that “the end comment,” final

thoughts at the end of the paper, creates an opportunity for students to engage in a

conversation with the instructor. As reinforcement to this thinking, scholars have argued

that the content of these final comments can have significant impact on the student writer.

Comments that convey a negative message or are perceived as impersonal can have

dramatic, destructive effects on a student’s self-confidence in writing and willingness to

revise (Cho, Schunn & Charney, 2006). Additionally, Scrocco (2012) found that when

instructors use comments as a dialogic tool to generate thinking through open-ended

suggestive, discussion-like feedback, students engaged more frequently with such

comments. In the online space in particular, instructors tend to rely heavily on this view of

commenting and feedback as dialogic engagement tool because it serves to fill the void of

little one-to-one direct interaction with their students.

4

Instructors have become so reliant on this method of feedback that , in fact, that

Smith’s (1997) highly influential, and widely recognized work becomes a cautionary tale to

faculty in becoming too comfortable in this “genre of the end comment,” this formulaic

balance between supportive comments and constructive feedback. Smith urged faculty to

challenge themselves to vary responses to students. Ultimately, Smith warns, faculty who

rely on this genre of commenting confine themselves to finding elements within the writing

that fit the conventions of the end comment, rather than fully exploring and sharing truly

beneficial comments with students that may ultimately fall outside of the end comment

comfort zone. This brings to the fore that in the often time-constrained environment of

online writing courses, instructors fall back onto commenting habits that are both easier

and familiar for the instructor and the student—line-by-line editing or short, extremely

condensed comments that hopefully convey the issue in the space and time available.

While TPC instructors may relate to Smith’s “genre of the end comment,” the field

has little empirical research to the effectiveness of direct commenting efforts. One of the

only empirical studies (that we could locate) on commenting is Still and Koerber (2010).

Their work seeks to understand student engagement with TPC instructor feedback through

the lens of usability testing. In contrast with many studies before it, this particular study

framed the usefulness of comments from the student perspective, rather than from the

perceived usefulness from the instructor’s position. From this user-centered approach to

student-feedback engagement, the field can learn precisely how students view comments

and feedback and how they prioritize attending to instructor comments.

5

Specifically, Still and Koerber (2010) sought to understand the usefulness of

instructor comments in five areas: (1) whether or not students remember comments from

assignment to assignment; (2) the amount of feedback that is useful to students; (3) how

well students interpret feedback; (4) whether or not students transfer lessons learned

from feedback; and (5) whether or not students find feedback satisfactory to improving

their writing. To answer these questions, Still and Koerber surveyed 54 students from four

sections of a service TPC course taught by the same instructor. From this group, Still and

Koerber selected a sample of 12 students who submitted a memo assignment and received

written feedback from the instructor. The feedback included in-text notes addressing both

micro- and macro-level issues. In addition to the textual comments, the instructor also

provided a rubric with comments addressing each category within the rubric. The focus

group was asked to engage with the commentary within an environment that mimicked

how they would interact with the feedback if revising outside of the study. Students were

given two hours to review the comments electronically while attempting to revise their

assignment. During the study, students were asked to think aloud while moving through

the revision process. Their comments were recorded and evaluated later to determine

themes in usability.

The pre-study surveys indicated that students relied more on broader instructions

from lectures and readings to guide their writing than they did on more individualized

comments. Analysis of the commentary itself revealed that students struggled to

understand particular grammatical terminology that instructors commonly included in

feedback, such as “awk,” “verb tense,” and “tone.” Furthermore, students revealed that

6

particular symbols and shorthand that instructors used presented frustration, including

circled words, underlined phrases, and “=”. Most notably, post-test surveys revealed that

students sought feedback that helped them to improve their writing “as efficiently as

possible” (Still & Koerber, 2010, p. 220). Ultimately, this study tells us that while

instructors believe that students ignore comments on writing, students are actually not

ignoring comments; rather they are engaging with comments that they can use,

understand, and interpret as opposed to “wasting” time on comments they cannot. Still and

Koerber suggest that to create usable comments, instructors should avoid using unfamiliar

terminology for students, ensure comments are legible, avoid using ambiguous circles and

lines to highlight content, and distribute comments throughout papers (even on sections

that work well). Finally, and most importantly, Still and Koerber suggest that comments

offer solutions rather than simply pointing out problems. This study brings to bear the

disconnect between the kind of commenting time-constrained instructors are reliant on

providing with the kind of feedback students find useful. This may be why instructors are

consistently asking themselves, “Why aren’t my students reading my comments?”

Shifting Online Pedagogies: Feedback File

As we had wrestled with this question ourselves, ultimately, we wanted to know if

feedback could be re-contextualized as a learning activity within an online class that also

serves as an effective, meaningful, and efficient interaction between instructor and student.

In thinking of feedback in this pedagogical framework, we propose that a change to a more

usable form of feedback through collective feedback strategies that would assist students in

7

relying less on specific comments from one reader and more on their ability to assess their

own writing to apply concepts.

In the context of a TPC classroom, meaningful, usable feedback does not come in the

common form of the individualized feedback that emerged from composition studies. To

provide meaningful, we suggest that usable feedback in the TPC service course classroom

must be an adaptation of those long held feedback strategies. We base this suggestion on

initial research on commenting practices in industry – research that revealed practitioners

approach the commenting process as tool used to complete a task or document rather than

as a dialogue between writer and editor/reader. (Results of that study will be reported in a

separate article.) If feedback is viewed as a tool, one that helps students to complete a task

(revision), what does such a tool look like that addresses the limitations of current

feedback practices? For us, the new tool became the “Feedback File.”

First, we should clarify that in using the Feedback File, the emphasis on feedback in

placed at the draft stage only. Students are typically poised and ready to receive feedback

during the drafting stage more than in the final grading stage; therefore, it is logical that

instructors would provide the most comprehensive feedback at this stage, rather than in

the final reading stage. This shift in pedagogical approach still follows sound pedagogical

practice by providing feedback at the draft stage (e.g., Kramer Simpson, 2012) and further,

it specifically addresses the student concerns found in Still and Koerber’s study (2010).

Feedback Files also resolve many of the limitations of individualized feedback and provide

specific pedagogical benefits, which we will briefly explain before discussing how to create

and use the Feedback File.

8

One such limitation of individualized commenting is that of physical space in

marginal comments. Marginal comments, left either through tracking tools in word

processors or as hand-written comments, leave little room to provide usable comments

that are detailed and explicit. In response, instructors often rely on shorthand or

abbreviated comments, resulting in cryptic messages that students regularly simply ignore

rather than trying to decipher the comments and address them in the revision process

(Carless, 2006). Marginal comments can also lead to vague feedback, including comments

such as “?” or “awk”, that students find themselves unable to interpret and use (Higgins,

Hartley & Skelton, 2002; Hattie and Gan, 2011). Knowing that students prefer comments

that are clear and directive (Still and Koerber, 2009), individualized comments commonly

provided seem to contradict what students perceive as usable information that they can

and will apply to future drafts.

In contrast, the unlimited length, space and organization of a Feedback File offer the

flexibility that allows instructors to provide detailed examples and explanations of the

issues within student drafts. Students can be referred to the file to review the issue, read an

explanation of the error, and see a revision example. Because of space limitations, rather

than choosing to provide only certain comments to avoid cognitive student overload

(Moreno, 2004), instructors have the flexibility to determine their own length of a

Feedback File as it fits their needs for the course. Feedback Files can be as lengthy as an

instructor needs, as they are built based on the common revisions the instructor wishes to

share with the class as a whole. An additional benefit of the Feedback File as it relates to

space and detail is that the Feedback File allows for visuals to be included in the

9

explanation or examples provided. This is simply not possible if instructors provide

individual, marginal comments. Finally, Feedback Files remain available and easily

accessible throughout the course, so instructors can use it as another pedagogical tool for

students to reference.

An additional benefit of the Feedback File is that in some ways it is a collaborative

endeavor. It brings together multiple examples from student documents, and then engages

both the instructor and the students with these collective examples. Students, in turn, use

the Feedback File as a communal tool to guide their revisions. The Feedback File, thus,

extends collaboration into the feedback process. Through the lens of viewing feedback as a

collaborative learning activity, we believe that feedback can be used to meet the one of the

defined outcomes of the TPC service course (Henschel and Meloncon, 2014). In fact,

collective Feedback Files provide an opportunity for students to meet several of the

conceptual and practical outcomes outlined by the meta-analysis of Henschel and

Meloncon (2014): rhetorical proficiency, specifically user analysis, writing, and editing;

social proficiency, specifically collaboration and communication; experimentation,

specifically problem-solving thinking and self-evaluation; and system thinking, specifically

critical thinking. Feedback Files ask students to critically think through their own papers

and apply editing tactics after reviewing overall expectations. Conversely, individualized

feedback is perceived as presenting quick “fixes” to students without requiring critical

analysis of their own writing to determine problematic areas. As a collaborative writing

opportunity, Feedback Files engage students in the process of pulling together samples

from the class’s collective writing in order to apply each other’s strengths and weaknesses

10

to each student’s own document. In this way, writing becomes a much more collective,

collaborative effort, where students interact with their own document as well as that of

their peers. When instructors build Feedback Files through this method, students are able

to view writing as a collective process, which enables writer’s to tap into the experiences

and knowledge of their peers on their “team.” This collective approach to writing in the

classroom allows students to pool together resources and prepares them for writing as a

collaborative process rather than an individualized act.

Focusing on the learning outcomes of the TPC service course, Feedback Files can

also assist students in becoming more rhetorically proficient by requiring them to assess

their own writing to identify areas of improvement and highlight points of revision. If the

TPC service course aims to develop a literacy of document and contextual analysis in its

students, learning activities should ask students to perform such analyses of their own

work. Feedback Files ask instructors and students to consider the writing process outside

of the classroom, beyond being “concretely connected to academic communicative

practices” (Dannels, 2000). Feedback Files are thus used as a tool to prepare students to be

effective writers in the field. This shifts the usefulness of feedback toward a professional

training tool and away from a simply academic instrument.

Ultimately, the Feedback File answers Smith’s (1997) call for critical consideration

of usable and valuable feedback and further asks the TPC field to reconsider its long-

standing reliance on composition’s traditional use of feedback. Recent research (Singleton,

2016) indicates that the Feedback File does not negatively affect student writing, and may,

in fact, improve it. An initial pilot study assessing the performance of students in two

11

sections of the same TPC service course indicated that when students received collective

feedback, there were no noticeable negative differences on their final products from their

peers who received individualized commenting.

Similar results were found in a second larger study that compared the performance

of six online TPC service courses across three separate institutions, taught by three

separate instructors. Outside reviewers assessed 43 student writing submissions across

instructor assigned grade levels (A, B, etc.) and found that in all but one grade level with

one instructor, when students received collective feedback, they performed better than

their peers who received individualized comments. A larger study is currently in process.

Creating the Feedback FileWe now shift focus to the composition of Feedback Files. Feedback Files pull

together into one document the most common errors instructors see repeated in student

drafts. Feedback Files typically include anonymized examples from student work, detailed

explanations of the issue shown, and the corrections of such issues. Instructors are then

able to use Feedback Files for particular assignments as starting points for the revision

process. Following are the steps necessary to create a Feedback File. The way we have

described creating the file is from the perspective of someone who is relatively new to

teaching.

Step 1: Read student drafts and Identify common errors or issues Instructors building a Feedback File read through student rough drafts just as they

would when providing individualized comments. However, they do this quickly, without

making any comments. Instead, instructors make quick notes on common errors or issues

that appear frequently and are tied directly to the learning outcomes of the assignment. 12

The only points they note are errors and major issues that are directly relevant to the

assignment. With an open, blank document that will become the Feedback File, the

instructor makes notes of common errors or issues that highlight those that appear

frequently in the student drafts. As the instructors is making notes, he or she also captures

examples of these errors or issues from the student drafts. These will be used as examples

in the Feedback File.

Step 2: Create the Feedback File Using the rough list created in step 1, the instructor then uses the list to create

entries in the Feedback File. Each error or issue that was identified in Step 1 becomes an

entry in the Feedback File. For example, in an instructions or process assignment—a

common assignment in the TPC service course—the instructor may see the consistent

problem with failing to use the imperative or mixing instruction and explanation in the

same step. These common errors are noted, along with a reference to a student draft, and

these errors and issues will become the main points in the Feedback File.

The error or issue is identified by number. The student example of the error or issue

is then copied and pasted from the student draft into the Feedback File. Again, one of the

strengths of the Feedback File is that their limitless space and length allows instructors to

provide detailed examples of the common errors from the student submissions. These

anonymous examples serve to help student identify the common error in their own writing.

Using the example above and the use of the imperative when writing instructions,

an instructor would create an entry like that in Figure 1 in the Feedback File for the issues

of using the imperative.

13

Figure 1. Sample Feedback File entry regarding imperative writing in process/instructions assignment.

In Figure 1, the instructor has created an entry about using action words. #6 identifies the

error or issue, then provides an example from a student paper (anonymously), Then, the

“revision” shows the students how to correct the error or address the issue. This process

would be repeated for each entry in the Feedback File.

Feedback Files are incredibly flexible because they can include as many errors or

issues that the instructor finds within the student drafts. Unlike individualized comments

where the instructor may only have the time to address the most egregious issues, the

Feedback File method allows for addressing most every error or issue because the

instructor is only explaining it once. Figure 2 shows a larger example of a Feedback File for

process writing that displays several entries. The total number of entries in this particular

file is six.

14

Figure 2. Sample Feedback File reflecting multiple, detailed entries.

While this proposed process may seem no more efficient than individualized

commenting, we note that experienced instructors may be able to combine these first two

steps because they can start a Feedback File by knowing what the common errors and or

issues are in typical assignments. Additionally, after taking time to create an initial

Feedback File, experienced instructors may use Feedback Files from previous terms as a

starting point for future terms. Because the Feedback File includes common errors seen in

each assignment, instructors would need only to collect examples from the current term’s

15

student work to update the Feedback File term over term. If instructors see additional

errors they would like to include in the Feedback File, they can easily be adapted and

expanded.

However, because Feedback Files deliver the same comments to multiple students

only once, as opposed to repeating the same comment over multiple drafts, Feedback Files

may also save considerable time while still providing necessary feedback on drafts.

Step 3: Provide an explanation for the error or issueThe strength of a Feedback File as a usable tool comes from the detailed explanation

an instructor can provide in the common error entry. For example, the information

provided in the explanation can refer to course readings or exercises, which is a more

effective pedagogical approach that actually encourages student learning. Unlike the

limitation of marginal comments, the explanation in the Feedback File can be as involved

and as long as needed. We have found this to be the strongest feature of the Feedback File

approach. Their limitless spaces allows instructors to provide visuals, links to outside

resources, and full explanations of issues that are much more in-depth than marginal

comments.

16

Figure 3. Sample Feedback File displaying flexibility in length of entries.

Figure 3 shows the flexibility in length that instructors have of the entries in a

Feedback File. Notice in this example from a Feedback File for a memo/policy assignment

(a second common assignment in the TPC course) that the instructor is able to use a

lengthy student example, provide a detailed explanation, and include a revision. The

instructor is able to take a more conversational approach in the feedback because there is

adequate space to do so. Particularly in online classes where the course loses the

impromptu discussions about writing and writing approaches, the Feedback File provides

an opportunity for instructors to engage more deeply with students on where and how to

make revisions. Marginal, individualized comments cannot provide such opportunities

beyond providing a link or short entry.

Step 4: Show how to correct the error or issueIn this step, an instructor can provide an example of how to correct the error or issue. Or,

this step can also be completed using good examples from student papers. Using student

work in positive ways is important because it can serve as the balancing positive feedback

17

students appreciate when receiving instructor comments. In the example in Figure 2, we

see that an instructor has taken a screenshot of a student draft that exemplifies the concept

well executed. This figure also represents the true flexibility of the Feedback File in length,

adaptability, and media integration.

Figure 4. Sample of visual used in Feedback File entry.

Using the Feedback File Creating the Feedback File is only one aspect of the pedagogical process of collective

feedback. Unlike individualized comments, the use of the Feedback File requires an

additional pedagogical move where students are asked to engage with both their own work

and the Feedback File.

18

As we noted, Feedback Files are only used during the draft stage of the writing

process because this is the stage where students need to learn how to critically engage with

and make adjustments to their own writing to produce an effective text. To provide

students with such detailed information at the end of the writing process would not allow

them to apply the information or further engage with the content moving forward.

Following are ways to integrate and use the Feedback File in an online TPC course.

Statement on syllabus While not specific to the Feedback File itself, students need to be told that the course will

be using an alternate form of feedback. This announcement on the course syllabus/website

mitigates any potential for student complaints, and more importantly, it provides an

upfront notice for students. In our experience, students have not complained about this

change and course evaluations have remained strong. An example statement may read, “I

will provide feedback on drafts via one posting (the Feedback File) that lists multiple areas

that need attention. While I will not comment specifically on each draft individually, these

Feedback Files will provide helpful information that will be useful to everyone. It is

important that you reference the draft Feedback Files, in addition to those of your peers.”

Including such a statement prepares students for the reality that they will not receive

comments in the way they are accustomed to, and it serves as an entry point into a

discussion about how the instructors will provide feedback.

Post the full document to the course websiteThe Feedback File should be posted to the course website or content management system

for use during the revision stages of the writing process. Posting the files in a communal

area of the course essentially builds a repository of Feedback Files that, by the end of the 19

term, students may use for references on their final projects. Posting the information online

has a greater potential for the feedback to become part of a larger review process to be

used multiple times throughout the course, as opposed to as singular instance of feedback

in an individualized comment.

Create a contextual textUsing the affordances of online technologies, instructors can post Feedback Files

through a short video or audio file, providing additional context for the File. Instructors can

also share these documents through cloud-based collaborative tools like Google Docs or

Dropbox. Instructors can also reference prior Feedback Files easily when reoccurring

issues across assignment genres exist. Many instructors choose to use screencasting

software or other oral/visual based tools (e.g., audio inserts into PowerPoint) to create a

personal and contextual delivery of the Feedback File. No matter the format, a contextual

document needs to be included that provides additional information for students on how to

use and interpret the Feedback File. These videos, PPTs or other contextual documents

would then be posted to the content management system, notifying students that the

feedback is available and how to use it. For example, instructors may create course

announcements that notify students that the Feedback Files are available and where to

access them.

Students would then reference the Feedback File (and perhaps video) provided by

the instructor. Students then review the error example, the explanation, and the revision,

and apply this to their own writing.

20

References to the file in the student draftsThe way the Feedback File is integrated into the student drafts varies based on the

preference of the instructor (another benefit of the flexibility of the Feedback File!). Some

instructors have chosen to only review student drafts without leaving any comments.

Others choose to review student drafts while simply highlighting the errors and identifying

which entry on the Feedback File a student should reference. This method will be explained

further below. Regardless of approach, the key pedagogical move that must be made is that

students need to know that their individual work includes the common errors or issues

that are in the Feedback File, and that they need to review the Feedback File and apply the

concepts to their own writing.

The latter method described above includes noting the error entry number from the

Feedback File (i.e. “See Feedback File #1”) as a comment on the student draft. The

instructor can choose whether or not to highlight this issue in each appearance on the

draft, or highlight it only one time and explain to the student that the error should be

addressed and revised throughout the text. This method would be implemented by writing

on the student draft “see Feedback File numbers 2,6,7 when you revise.” Using our

previous example from process writing, Figure 6 below exemplifies how an instructor

would provide limited comments on student drafts directing students toward specific

entries in the Feedback File.

21

Figure 6. Sample student feedback using collective feedback method.

Another way is to have students use the Feedback File more generally. That is, the

instructor may direct students to revise using the Feedback File, and then have students

write a short memo explaining what errors they corrected that were represented in the

Feedback File.

No matter the specific approach the instructor takes, students need to incorporate

the information from the Feedback File into their final drafts, and if the errors presented in

the Feedback File remain in the final drafts, the instructors know where to focus further

discussion in other course assignments and Feedback Files.

We return to our question of whether or not the use of individualized commenting

in TPC service courses is the most effective pedagogical approach to help students learn

how to write for the workplace. Current TPC pedagogy asks students to engage in an

analysis of their peers’ texts, it often does not include such an analysis of the student’s own

texts. Feedback comes in the form of individual, yet sometimes cryptic, messages that

students can either “fix” or choose to ignore. By contrast, delivering collective feedback

through a Feedback File asks students to analyze their own documents while armed with

areas of revision that include descriptions, examples, and explanations. Revision through

22

this method becomes an individual act, asking students to develop their skills as their own

critics and as writers. Still and Koerber’s (2010) study found students wanted instructors

to

● avoid using unfamiliar terminology,

● ensure comments are legible,

● avoid using ambiguous circles and lines to highlight content,

● distribute comments throughout papers (even on sections that work well),

● suggest that comments offer solutions.

The Feedback File addresses each of these student preferences for feedback. Most

importantly, the Feedback File provides examples of problems with specific information on

solutions for those same problems.

Next StepsThe next steps for the use of the Feedback File include an expanded research study

with additional instructors at different institutions to replicate (or not) the initial results of

using the Feedback File in a TPC service course. This method of feedback is also being

piloted in different types of writing classes (such as composition).

We are also working on a student addendum to the study, which would follow the

same sort of pattern as Still and Koerber (2010) but would ask students their perceptions

of the Feedback File. This would also then follow some students into the workplace to

determine how well they are being prepared to write for the workplace.

Additionally, we are working with practitioners to get a better sense of the types

and processes of feedback in workplace settings. This information from practitioners will

23

be used to guide the next phases of the research study and hone the creation and use of the

Feedback File.

Conclusion

Even though TPC has begun to innovate in online writing instruction and move

beyond simply porting face-to-face practices into online environments, long standing

feedback methods from face-to-face classes are being used without much, if any critical

reflection. One of the most significant implications for using the Feedback File is that it

encourages alternative ways of providing comments for works-in-progress that are just as

effective, with more flexibility, than traditional individualized comments.

TPC would be well served for instructors to re-evaluate their traditional classroom

pedagogy and course design because “to teach online is not an easy or automated transfer

of face-to-face instructional strategies” (Grant-Davie & Cargile Cook, 2013, p.4). In some

ways, TPC instructors have wholeheartedly adopted long accepted feedback and

commenting practices without benefit of research into what are effective practices. Rather,

to teach well online means TPC instructors need to rethink and innovate their online

writing course design.

We need to be doing more than just “moving a course online,” which means we

should also not simply move current commenting practices without critical reflection. In

other words, the use of the Feedback File is modeling a reflective and innovative pedagogy

where TPC instructors critically assess current practices, try something new, conduct

empirical research on that practice, and then share those results.

24

While we await the findings of additional research studies on the Feedback File, we

are reminded that online writing instruction “thrives when instructors who experiment

with new approaches reflect upon and share what they learn with those who follow”

(Cargile Cook & Grant-Davie, 2013, p. 311). Our reflection on current feedback practices

led us to develop an alternative commenting strategy, and what we learned using the

Feedback File is that it has the potential to be an effective tool for student learning and can

positively impact instructors by creating efficiencies in time they can then transfer to other

pedagogical functions in the online course.

25

References

Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2014). Grade change. Tracking Online Education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group, LLC.

Ascough, R. S. (2002). Designing for online distance education: Putting pedagogy before technology. Teaching Theology & Religion, 5(1), 17-29.

Barnum, C. M. (1994). Collaborative Writing in Graduate Technical Communication: Is there a Difference?. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 24(4), 405-419.

Bazerman, C. (1991). The second stage in writing across the curriculum. College English, 53, 209-212.

Beason, L. (1993). Feedback and revision in writing across the curriculum classes. Research in the Teaching of English, 395-422.

Breuch, L. A. K. (2005). The idea (s) of an online writing center: In search of a conceptual model. The Writing Center Journal, 25(2), 21-38.

Caplan, D., & Graham, R. (2004). The development of online courses. Theory and practice of online learning, 175.

Carliner, S. (1992). What you should get from a professionally oriented master's degree program in technical communication. Technical communication, 189-199.

Carr‐Chellman, A., & Duchastel, P. (2000). The ideal online course. British Journal of Educational Technology, 31(3), 229-241.

Cho, K., Schunn, C. D., & Charney, D. (2006). Commenting on writing typology and perceived helpfulness of comments from novice peer reviewers and subject matter experts. Written Communication, 23(3), 260-294.

Connors, R. J., & Lunsford, A. A. (1993). Teachers' rhetorical comments on student papers. College composition and communication, 44(2), 200-223.

Cook, K. C. (2005). An argument for pedagogy-driven online education. Online education: Global questions, local answers, 49-66.

Cook, K. C. & Grant-Davie, Keith (Eds.). (2005). Online education: Global questions, local answers. Amityville, NY: Baywood.

26

Cook, K.,C. & Grant-Davie, K. (2013). Online education 2.0: Evolving, adapting, and reinventing online technical communication. Amityville, NY: Baywood.

Cunningham, D., & Stewart, J. (2012). Perceptions and Practices: A Survey of Professional Engineers and Architects. ISRN Education, 2012.

Dannels, D. P. (2000). Learning to be professional technical classroom discourse, practice, and professional identity construction. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 14(1), 5-37.

Dannels, D. P. (2010). Relational genre knowledge and the online design critique: Relational authenticity in preprofessional genre learning. Journal of business and technical communication.

Dohrer, G. (1991). Do teachers' comments on students' papers help?. College Teaching, 39(2), 48-54.

Duin, A. H. (1991). Computer-Supported Collaborative Writing The Workplace and the Writing Classroom. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 5(2), 123-150.

Duncan, N. (2007). ‘Feed‐forward’: improving students' use of tutors' comments. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(3), 271-283.

Gee, T. C. (1972). Students' responses to teacher comments. Research in the Teaching of English, 6(2), 212-221.

Hattie, J., & Gan, M. (2011). Instruction based on feedback. Handbook of research on learning and instruction, 249-271.

Hedden, C. (1992). Hypertext and collaboration: Observations on Edward Barrett's philosophy. Technical Communication Quarterly, 1(4), 27-41.

Henry, J. (1998). Documenting contributory expertise: The value added by technical communicators in collaborative writing situations. Technical communication, 45(2), 207-221.

27

Henschel, S. and Meloncon, L (2014). Of Horsemen and Layered Literacies: Assessment Instruments for Aligning Technical and Professional Communication Undergraduate Curricula with Professional Expectations. Programmatic Perspectives, 6(1).

Higgins, R., Hartley, P., & Skelton, A. (2002). The conscientious consumer: Reconsidering the role of assessment feedback in student learning. Studies in higher education, 27(1), 53-64.

Hillocks Jr, G. (1982). The interaction of instruction, teacher comment, and revision in teaching the composing process. Research in the Teaching of English, 261-278.

Jonsson, A. (2012). Facilitating productive use of feedback in higher education. Active learning in higher education, 1469787412467125.

Knievel, M. (2007, 11 Oct. -13 Oct ). Growing the Service Course: Anticipating Problems, Promise in the Technical Communication ‘Mini-Program’. Paper presented at the Council of Programs in Technical and Scientific Communication Program Greenville, SC.

Kramer-Simpson, E. A. (2012). Learning from feedback: How students read, interpret and use teacher written feedback in the composition classroom. UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE.

Latterell, Catherine G. (2003). Technical and Professional Communication Programs and the Small College Setting: Opportunities and Challenges. Journal of Technical Writing & Communication, 33(4), 319-335.

McLoughlin, C. (2002). Learner support in distance and networked learning environments: Ten dimensions for successful design. Distance Education, 23(2), 149-162.

Meloncon, L., & Arduser, L. (2013). Communities of practice approach: A new model for online course development and sustainability. Online education, 2, 73-90.

Meloncon, L., & England, P. (2011). The current status of contingent faculty in technical and professional communication. College English, 73(4), 396-408.

Meloncon, L., & Henschel, S. (2013). Current state of US undergraduate degree programs in technical and professional communication. Technical Communication, 60(1), 45-64.

Meloncon, Lisa. (2014). Curricular challenges of emphasis degrees in technical and professional communciation. In Tracy Bridgeford, Karla Saari Kitalong & Bill

28

Williamson (Eds.), Sharing Our Intellectual Traces: Narrative Reflections from Administrators of Professional, Technical, and Scientific, Communication Program (pp. 179-200). Amityville, NY: Baywood.

Meloncon, L. (2009). [State of online courses and programs in technical and professional

communication]. Unpublished raw data.

Meloncon, L. (2012). The rise of academic programs: A call for collaboration. Intercom,59, 13–15

Mioduser, D., Nachmias, R., Lahav, O., & Oren, A. (2000). Web-based learning environments: Current pedagogical and technological state. Journal of research on computing in education, 33(1), 55-76.

Olsen, Leslie A. "Computer-Based Writing and Communication: Some Implications forTechnical Communication Activities." Journal of Technical Writing and Communication19.2 (1989): 97-118.

Oswal, S. K., & Meloncon, L. (2014). Paying Attention to Accessibility and Disability in Technical and Professional Communication Online Course Design. Journal of Business and Technical Communication.

Palloff, R., & Pratt, K. (2005, August). Online learning communities revisited. In 21st annual conference on Distance Teaching and Learning.

Paretti, M. C. (2006). Audience awareness: leveraging problem-based learning to teach workplace communication practices. Professional Communication, IEEE Transactions on, 49(2), 189-198.

Paretti, M. C. (2008). Teaching communication in capstone design: The role of the instructor in situated learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(4), 491.

Richardson, J., & Swan, K. (2003). Examing social presence in online courses in relation to students' perceived learning and satisfaction.

Rickly, R., & Carter, L. (2005). Mind the gap (s): modeling space in online education. Online education: Global questions, local answers, 123-139.

Rubens, P., & Southard, S. (2005). Students’ technological difficulties in using web-based learning environments. Online education: Global questions, local answers, 193-206.

29

Scrocco, D. L. A. (2012). Do you care to add something? Articulating the student interlocutor's voice in writing response dialogue. Teaching English in the Two Year College, 39(3), 274.

Selzer, J. (1983). The composing processes of an engineer. College Composition and Communication, 34(2), 178-187.

Singleton, M. (2016). Smith, S. (1997). The genre of the end comment: Conventions in teacher responses to

student writing. College Composition and Communication, 48(2), 249-268.

Sommers, N. (1982). Responding to student writing. College composition and communication, 33(2), 148-156.

Spartz, John M., & Weber, Ryan P. (2015). Writing Entrepreneurs: A Survey of Attitudes, Habits, Skills, and Genres. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 29(4), 428-455.

St.Amant, K. and Meloncon, L. (2016). Reflections on Research: Examining Practitioner Perspectives on the State of Research in Technical Communication. Technical Communication.

Still, B., & Koerber, A. (2009). Listening to students: A usability evaluation of instructor commentary. Journal of Business and Technical Communication.

Straub, R. (1997). Students' reactions to teacher comments: An exploratory study. Research in the Teaching of English, 91-119.

Swan, K. (2002). Building learning communities in online courses: The importance of interaction. Education, Communication & Information, 2(1), 23-49.

Swan, K., Shea, P., Fredericksen, E., Pickett, A., Pelz, W., & Maher, G. (2000). Building knowledge building communities: Consistency, contact and communication in the virtual classroom. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23(4), 359-383.

Vonderwell, S. (2002). Experiences of students and instructor in an online technology in education course: A case study.

Winsor, Dorothy A. " An Engineer's Writing and the Corporate Construction of Knowledge." Written Communication 6.3 (1989): 270-85.

Winter, J. K., Neal, J. C., & Waner, K. K. (1996). Student and instructor use of comments on business communication papers. Business Communication Quarterly, 59(4), 56-68.

30