Audio Feedback

Context

In a group assignment titled, Learning Environments Evaluation Rubric, for a course in the Master of Educational Technology program, the instructor shared audio feedback, that is, recorded spoken feedback with students as an alternative to written comments to improve the quality of instructor feedback. Audio feedback was received favourably among students because they found it detailed, clear, and personal. The instructor drew the conclusion, based on students’ positive feedback, that the pedagogical advantages outweigh the disadvantages for both students and teachers.

Demonstration

The instructor provided audio feedback via Canvas’ audio resources to each group and invited students to have the assignment in front of them and move through the pages with the instructor’s audio feedback playing simultaneously. The instructor provided linear feedback from the beginning to the end of the assignment and made connections to the assignment rubric throughout. The instructor read the assignment once through to identify patterns that emerge before recording the audio response. The instructor also invited students to comment on their experience receiving audio feedback in place of written feedback to evaluate its effectiveness.

Pedagogical Pros and Cons

Providing feedback via Canvas’ audio resources can lessen students’ misinterpretations of instructor feedback by inviting students to hear inflection, intonation, and nuance in the instructor’s voice. Similarly, audio feedback is valuable to explain complicated concepts, and permits instructors to adjust their tones and volumes to highlight important points. Audio feedback can be more robust and detailed than written comments and because we typically speak faster than we type, more robust and detailed feedback does not necessarily equate to more time spent grading. Audio feedback adds a personal touch—the instructor’s voice—which is particularly beneficial in an online asynchronous course context where lack of communication can heighten students’ feelings of isolation. To illustrate the impact that audio feedback can have on students’ learning experiences, we have shared a students’ response to their instructor’s audio feedback:

“I really appreciated receiving feedback this way! Here are my thoughts:​ It was much more thorough and detailed than a written response would have been. It felt much more organic: you were talking to us (sometimes written feedback feels like we’re being talked at) challenging and extending our thoughts, offering lots of great constructive criticism. I enjoyed hearing you talk through the paper, it felt logical and chronological, had a flow and felt more like a stream of conscious / conversation rather than “dry” feedback. All of this helped me follow the feedback better and to nod along whenever you’ve asked a question that we have asked ourselves as a team (e.g. having fewer columns in the rubric, shortening the context, wondering whether something was an LMS requirement or a teaching requirement, etc.) Not being an auditory person I thought it would be harder for me to absorb audio feedback BUT I was pleasantly surprised when it was actually easier and more pleasant! So thank you for that experience! Annotation for peer review allows students to collaboratively and deeply engage with each other’s work. Having the ability to engage with video materials with timestamped comments provides an opportunity for depth of analysis unavailable in other online learning environments. Annotating collaboratively for peer review tasks can allow students to create in-depth feedback which can be expanded upon by other peer reviewers and the original author. CLAS provides students with a secure platform and has some instructions built-in to the interface to facilitate use and students can provide their feedback in a few different modalities (written, audio or video).”

Generating audio feedback, however, can prove to be more time consuming than written feedback, but as mentioned earlier, can be more efficient because instructors can produce more and higher quality feedback per unit of time. Audio feedback can be perceived as separate from students’ work instead of written in the margins or at the end so students may find it difficult to locate and revisit information they need in an audio file. It is also important to consider that audio-based feedback is difficult for students with a hearing disability and difficult for students with low-bandwidth to access. As with any technological alternative, teachers may encounter technical issues when trying to record and edit their audio feedback.