探索响应技术如何影响讲师反馈:Canvas Speedgrater、Google Docs和Turnitin GradeMark的比较

Q1 Arts and Humanities Computers and Composition Pub Date : 2023-06-01 DOI:10.1016/j.compcom.2023.102777
Angela Laflen
{"title":"探索响应技术如何影响讲师反馈:Canvas Speedgrater、Google Docs和Turnitin GradeMark的比较","authors":"Angela Laflen","doi":"10.1016/j.compcom.2023.102777","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>There have been few studies examining the variation that exists within modes of feedback: for example, comparing how electronic text feedback created using Google Docs differs from electronic text feedback created using Microsoft Word or how audiovisual feedback created using TechSmith Capture differs from audiovisual feedback created using Screencast-O-Matic. However, the programs that instructors use to create feedback have different affordances, meaning that even within a single mode, the feedback students receive on their writing can vary significantly. To better understand the variation that exists within a single mode, this study investigates how affordances of Canvas Speedgrader, Google Docs, and Turnitin GradeMark impacted electronic text feedback.Based on analysis of 131 feedback files created using the 3 programs, in conjunction with 5 student surveys, and 2 instructor interviews, the study provides insights into how instructor written commentary (location, form, type, focus, and mitigation) varied by program and how participants perceived of feedback provided through the 3 programs. The study...s primary finding is that the affordances of the programs used to create electronic text feedbackresulted in significant differences ininstructorcommentary and instructor and student perceptions of feedback.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":35773,"journal":{"name":"Computers and Composition","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring how response technologies shape instructor feedback: A comparison of Canvas Speedgrader, Google Docs, and Turnitin GradeMark\",\"authors\":\"Angela Laflen\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.compcom.2023.102777\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>There have been few studies examining the variation that exists within modes of feedback: for example, comparing how electronic text feedback created using Google Docs differs from electronic text feedback created using Microsoft Word or how audiovisual feedback created using TechSmith Capture differs from audiovisual feedback created using Screencast-O-Matic. However, the programs that instructors use to create feedback have different affordances, meaning that even within a single mode, the feedback students receive on their writing can vary significantly. To better understand the variation that exists within a single mode, this study investigates how affordances of Canvas Speedgrader, Google Docs, and Turnitin GradeMark impacted electronic text feedback.Based on analysis of 131 feedback files created using the 3 programs, in conjunction with 5 student surveys, and 2 instructor interviews, the study provides insights into how instructor written commentary (location, form, type, focus, and mitigation) varied by program and how participants perceived of feedback provided through the 3 programs. The study...s primary finding is that the affordances of the programs used to create electronic text feedbackresulted in significant differences ininstructorcommentary and instructor and student perceptions of feedback.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":35773,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Computers and Composition\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Computers and Composition\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S8755461523000282\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computers and Composition","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S8755461523000282","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

很少有研究考察反馈模式中存在的差异:例如,比较使用Google Docs创建的电子文本反馈与使用Microsoft Word创建的电子文字反馈的差异,或者使用TechSmith Capture创建的视听反馈与使用Screencast-O-Matic创建的视听回馈的差异。然而,教师用来创建反馈的程序具有不同的可供性,这意味着即使在单一模式下,学生在写作中收到的反馈也可能有很大差异。为了更好地理解单一模式中存在的差异,本研究调查了Canvas Speedgrater、Google Docs和Turnitin GradeMark的可供性如何影响电子文本反馈。基于对使用这3个项目创建的131份反馈文件的分析,结合5项学生调查和2次讲师访谈,该研究深入了解了讲师书面评论(位置、形式、类型、重点和缓解措施)如何因项目而异,以及参与者如何感知通过这3个计划提供的反馈。研究。。。其主要发现是,用于创建电子文本反馈的程序的可供性导致了结构评论以及教师和学生对反馈的看法的显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Exploring how response technologies shape instructor feedback: A comparison of Canvas Speedgrader, Google Docs, and Turnitin GradeMark

There have been few studies examining the variation that exists within modes of feedback: for example, comparing how electronic text feedback created using Google Docs differs from electronic text feedback created using Microsoft Word or how audiovisual feedback created using TechSmith Capture differs from audiovisual feedback created using Screencast-O-Matic. However, the programs that instructors use to create feedback have different affordances, meaning that even within a single mode, the feedback students receive on their writing can vary significantly. To better understand the variation that exists within a single mode, this study investigates how affordances of Canvas Speedgrader, Google Docs, and Turnitin GradeMark impacted electronic text feedback.Based on analysis of 131 feedback files created using the 3 programs, in conjunction with 5 student surveys, and 2 instructor interviews, the study provides insights into how instructor written commentary (location, form, type, focus, and mitigation) varied by program and how participants perceived of feedback provided through the 3 programs. The study...s primary finding is that the affordances of the programs used to create electronic text feedbackresulted in significant differences ininstructorcommentary and instructor and student perceptions of feedback.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Computers and Composition
Computers and Composition Arts and Humanities-Language and Linguistics
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
审稿时长
25 days
期刊介绍: Computers and Composition: An International Journal is devoted to exploring the use of computers in writing classes, writing programs, and writing research. It provides a forum for discussing issues connected with writing and computer use. It also offers information about integrating computers into writing programs on the basis of sound theoretical and pedagogical decisions, and empirical evidence. It welcomes articles, reviews, and letters to the Editors that may be of interest to readers, including descriptions of computer-aided writing and/or reading instruction, discussions of topics related to computer use of software development; explorations of controversial ethical, legal, or social issues related to the use of computers in writing programs.
期刊最新文献
“Wayfinding” through the AI wilderness: Mapping rhetorics of ChatGPT prompt writing on X (formerly Twitter) to promote critical AI literacies Exploring the interaction among writing fluency, writing processes, and external resource access in second language writing assessment Ecologies, bodies, and OWI teacher preparation: reflecting on a practicum for graduate instructors teaching writing online When generative artificial intelligence meets multimodal composition: Rethinking the composition process through an AI-assisted design project Multilingual English second language students’ voice in digital storytelling
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1