707615

research-article2017
ALH0010.1177/1469787417707615Active Learning in Higher EducationMcCarthy

Article

Active Learning in Higher Education

2017, Vol. 18(2) 127­–141
Enhancing feedback in higher © The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
education: Students’ attitudes sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1469787417707615
https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417707615
towards online and in-class formative journals.sagepub.com/home/alh

assessment feedback models

Josh McCarthy
The University of South Australia, Australia

Abstract
This article explores the efficacy of formative assessment feedback models in higher education. Over 1 year
and two courses, three feedback techniques were trialled: staff-to-student feedback in class, peer-to-peer
feedback in class and peer-to-peer feedback online, via the Café, an e-learning application hosted by Facebook.
Every 2 weeks, students were required to bring work-in-progress to tutorial classes and discuss their work
with their peers and tutors. In alternating weeks, students posted work-in-progress to a forum in the Café,
and critiqued their peers’ submissions. The three feedback measures were evaluated by the participating
students at the end of each semester, in the form of an online survey, which provided the opportunity
to critically reflect on the experience. The results of the student experience are discussed in light of the
growing use of online spaces for collaborative learning and peer feedback.

Keywords
blended learning, collaborative learning, e-learning, formative assessment feedback models, peer feedback,
social media, teacher feedback

Formative assessment and feedback

At its core, formative assessment is designed to monitor the development of student learning and
to provide feedback and support for such learning (Black and Wiliam, 1998). Formative assess-
ment can help students identify their strengths and weaknesses, and focus on areas that require
more consideration; concurrently, formative assessment can help teachers identify where students
are struggling with their learning, and address the problems immediately. Formative assessment
includes a range of assessment procedures which are utilised by teachers during the learning pro-
cess in order to enhance student achievements. It typically involves qualitative feedback, which
focuses on the details of the student’s work and performance, and provides an opportunity to fur-
ther develop and improve the submission (Huyta, 2010). Formative assessment is non-graded

Corresponding author:
Josh McCarthy, School of Communication, International Studies and Languages, The University of South Australia,
Magill Campus, B2-07, Adelaide, SA, 5072, Australia.
Email: josh.mccarthy@unisa.edu.au
128 Active Learning in Higher Education 18(2)

work, in contrast to summative assessment, which seeks to monitor educational outcomes, sum-
marises a student’s performance at a specific time and is graded (Shepard, 2005).
It is commonly acknowledged that assessment is crucial to student learning in higher education,
and that feedback is a core component of the assessment process, in terms of enhancing student
performance (Biggs, 2003; Gibbs and Simpson, 2004; Lunt and Curran, 2010; Nicol et al., 2014).
Furthermore, high-quality and timely feedback for formative assessment is a critical factor in both
improving student learning and also developing staff–student and student–student relationships
(Crook et al., 2012; Irons, 2008). As Gould and Day (2013) note, the use of effective feedback by
teachers provides the foundations for learner autonomy and a framework for high achievement – it
is the scaffolding that enhances learning. Quality feedback is reliant on clear language and explicit
assessment criteria. Merry and Orsmond (2008: 11) suggest the language of feedback can enable
students to achieve goals to a greater extent than they would without peers or tutors, while feed-
back should relate to performance in terms of objectives, criteria and expected standards (Nicol
and MacFarlane-Dick, 2006), and should also be timely, detailed and specific. Despite current lit-
erature outlining the importance of high-quality and timely feedback, it has been recognised glob-
ally that there are significant obstacles in terms of delivering such feedback, as well as engaging
students with the assessment-feedback process (Crook et al., 2012; Evans, 2013; Merry and
Orsmond, 2008). For many students, feedback can often be provided in a manner which they feel
is too late to be useful, too vague, unclear and inconsistent. Feedback can often be misunderstood,
particularly by international students – via illegible handwriting or language differences (Walker,
2009) – or simply ignored. While for staff, the provision of feedback can be a highly repetitive
process and is frequently time-consuming, particularly with large class sizes, making the delivery
of ‘timely’ feedback a hard task to achieve. In their 2004 paper discussing the conditions under
which assessment supports learning, Gibbs and Simpson outline six key drivers where feedback
positively influences student performance:

•• Feedback is sufficient in frequency and detail;

•• Feedback is focused on students’ performance, on their learning and on the actions under
students’ control, rather than on the students themselves;
•• Feedback is timely in that it is received while it still matters and in time for application;
•• Feedback is appropriate to the aim of the assessment and its criteria;
•• Feedback is appropriate in relation to students’ conception of learning, of knowledge and of
the discourse of the discipline;
•• Feedback is attended to and acted upon.

These factors align with the notions presented by Nicol et al. (2014) and Merry and Orsmond
(2008) and, when utilised, allow for the provision of high-quality feedback.

Peer feedback and peer assessment

Peer feedback is a process in which students provide comments and critiques on their peers’ sub-
missions; this differs considerably from peer assessment, which is a process in which students
evaluate the performance or achievements of their peers, and provide a grade (Topping et al.,
2000). Peer feedback is provided by ‘equal status learners’ and can be viewed both as a form of
formative assessment (Topping, 1998), and as a form of collaborative learning (Van Gennip et al.,
2010). In most formative peer feedback models, students act as both assessors and assessees. As
assessors, they appraise peers’ work and provide feedback. As assessees, students receive feed-
back and may make adjustments (Li et al., 2010). Through such processes, peer feedback becomes
McCarthy 129

a strategy for formative assessment and a tool for reflection by students (Cheng and Warren,
1999). Peer feedback supports the learning process by providing consistent checks of student
performance against assessment criteria. Previous studies have outlined many benefits of peer
feedback for student learning, including enhanced knowledge of subject matter, feedback from a
range of sources, constructive reflection, attention to detail, critical analysis, critical thought and
improved quality of work (Davies, 2000; Nicol et al., 2014; Pope, 2001; Topping, 1998; Venables
and Summit, 2003). Furthermore, peer feedback is an important addition to teacher feedback, as
both the production and receipt can enhance students’ learning without necessarily increasing
teacher workload (Nicol et al., 2014). Such learning benefits can rise from seeing other examples
or approaches to the assessment, from making judgements about what constitutes high-quality
work, as well as developing their written and oral communication skills (Nicol et al., 2014;
Topping, 1998).
As alluded to earlier, there can be weaknesses associated with any type of feedback, and peer
feedback is no different. Weaknesses can include a lack of quality or detailed feedback, lack of
constructive criticism, the potential for an inconsistent amount of feedback for students within a
cohort and a lack of a link between feedback and assessment criteria (Hanrahan and Isaacs, 2001;
Li et al., 2008; Orsmond and Merry, 1996). This last point is most prevalent. Research has shown
that when students have a poor understanding of assessment criteria, they are less likely to produce
quality work (MacLellan, 2001; Nicol et al., 2014). Concurrently, a lack of understanding of
assessment criteria can lead to poor peer feedback. For peer feedback to be beneficial, the teacher
must provide participants with explicit criteria related to the assessment task (Nicol et al., 2014).
With this in hand, students can consider a peer’s work set against such criteria, and construct a criti-
cal response.

Blended learning
The continuing growth of the Internet has led to the creation and integration of new learning spaces
in contemporary higher education. Incorporating online learning spaces into curriculum is now
commonplace. From formal, structured learning management systems (LMSs), such as Moodle or
Blackboard, through to informal social networking sites (SNSs), such as Facebook, Twitter and
Flickr, universities around the world are integrating online learning into their courses, utilising a
‘blended learning’ approach. Blended learning is a system within which students engage with
course material and interact with staff and their peers through both online and face-to-face environ-
ments (Graham, 2006). Blended learning has also been referred to as an evolutionary transforma-
tion (Garrison and Vaughan, 2008) as a result of the increased accessibility of online systems in
universities, and because it can offer stronger interaction with students in large classes through
more flexible learning environments (Gedik et al., 2013). Blended learning has become an indis-
pensable part of education across many fields (Pektas and Gurel, 2014); however, creating an
effective blended learning environment is not as easy as simply combining online and face-to-face
spaces within a course. It is crucial to consider what the learning objectives of the course are, and
to carefully select the most appropriate online space to complement both the traditional teaching
techniques being utilised, as well as considering the student cohort in question. LMSs and SNSs
offer quite different learning opportunities, and often a combination of the two is required to create
an effective online learning experience.
SNSs allow users to present themselves, articulate their social networks and develop or preserve
connections with peers. SNSs promote the creation of common interest groups that help users
organise collaborative action, and can be used in class to prompt regular interactions between
users, which can foster trust and acts of reciprocity, and in turn promote a sense of community
130 Active Learning in Higher Education 18(2)

engagement (Valenzuela et al., 2008). Since 2007, many SNSs have been formally and informally
utilised within tertiary education, and the successful integration of Facebook, Flickr, YouTube,
Twitter and Pinterest into curriculum has been reported in recent years (Irwin et al., 2012; Kurtz,
2013; McCarthy, 2010, 2012, 2013a; Rambe, 2012; Shih, 2011). One of the critical components in
devising new learning strategies is active student participation, with collaboration and co-operation
foremost to successful learning (Ferdig, 2007). Educators have acknowledged the value of com-
munity building and social interaction within student cohorts, in both face-to-face and online
classes (Duffy, 2011). With the emergence of SNSs, learners have developed a social world that is
parallel to and often interlinked with their everyday work and study activities. Many see Web 2.0
technologies in general as having the potential to transform e-learning and traditional teaching
methods (Duffy, 2011), while Facebook, in particular, can facilitate the development of communi-
ties of practice (Wenger, 1998) and communities of interest (Fischer, 2001). The primary benefits
of Facebook as a learning tool arise from its ability to enable students to share information, knowl-
edge and artefacts within a community (McCarthy, 2012). Facebook promotes the development of
preliminary relationships between first-year students, particularly between students of different
cultures, as it negates key pitfalls such as language barriers and social inhibitions (Rambe, 2012).
While Facebook has the potential to promote collaborative learning and student interaction,
LMSs, the most commonly used online learning environments within tertiary institutions, negate
such action through their closed-system format. Students can often find LMSs too impersonal and
prefer the social qualities of SNSs such as Facebook (Wang et al., 2012). Students must be enrolled
within the specific course in order to access the LMS, and while this structure is well suited to
housing course material, such as lecture notes and tutorials, and managing course related issues,
such as assignment submissions, extension requests and course evaluations, it does not accommo-
date the beneficial academic and social qualities found in Facebook. Students cannot use their
LMS to interact with their global peers, or receive feedback from industry mentors, as these poten-
tial partners are not authorised to access it (McCarthy, 2012). LMSs lack social connectivity and
the personal profile spaces which today’s students are familiar with (Mazman and Usluel, 2010).
In contrast, students see Facebook as a self-regulated space for individual expression and collabo-
rative learning (Rambe, 2012), and a more conducive environment for communication with staff
and peers (Wang et al., 2012).
There are, however, both pedagogical and technical deficiencies within learning environments
in Facebook. Such environments within Facebook are commonly created using the in-house group,
page or event applications. These applications have not been designed or created specifically to use
for e-learning; they have been created to facilitate interaction between social networks, and to act
as marketing tools for institutions and businesses. Furthermore, Facebook developers constantly
reshape these applications, in terms of their functionality and design, resulting in a complete lack
of control over the look and operation of any potential learning environment within the site
(McCarthy, 2013b). Facebook’s popularity, social qualities and intuitive interface make it a strong
host site for online learning, while its open accessibility ensures it has the capacity to accommodate
national and international collaborative learning partnerships. However, the inconsistent function-
ality and design of its default tools can negatively affect the quality of a learning environment, and
as a result can weaken the student experience (McCarthy, 2012). An analysis of previous case stud-
ies using Facebook as a learning environment has also indicated that there needs to be a separation
between students’ social and academic activities. Often, when students submit work to an aca-
demic forum in Facebook, these posts will appear on their friends’ regular news feeds, in turn
prompting social commentary from users outside of the student cohort (McCarthy, 2013b). This is
a significant problem in using Facebook as an educational tool, as it can impact on a student’s
willingness to participate (Wang et al., 2012).
McCarthy 131

Recently, a new online learning application in Facebook has been developed, called the Café:
the collaborative application for education. The Café aims to take advantage of the popularity of
host site Facebook, while also providing users with a structured, academic learning environment,
separated from their day-to-day social activities. The Café features a simple interface and allows
users to create a forum containing four different sections. A ‘pinboard’ acts as the forum’s home
page allowing participants to pin relevant content, including links, images and videos. A ‘gallery’
section allows users to create galleries which can be used for student submissions. A ‘QandA’ page
acts as a discussion board, and a ‘myCafe’ page provides all participants with a personal page, most
notably allowing them to add, collate and categorise posts within the forum.
There is need to evaluate different feedback techniques utilised for formative assessment tasks,
specifically the use of face-to-face staff to student feedback, face-to-face peer feedback and online
peer feedback with the aim of establishing the affordances and limitations of each feedback model.
Within this aim are several research questions:

•• Do students prefer providing peer feedback online or in class, and are there differences
between genders, or local and international student cohorts?
•• Do students prefer receiving peer feedback online or in class, and are there differences
between genders, or local and international student cohorts?
•• Is the Café an appropriate learning environment for facilitating online peer feedback?
•• How do students access and use the Café?
•• What are the workload implications on course staff, for providing each of the three feedback
models?

Methodology
The three feedback models were trialled for formative assessment tasks within two first-year
courses Design Language in Media Arts and Introduction to 3D Animation in the Bachelor of
Media Arts programme, during semester 1 and 2 in 2014. In total, 118 students, including 19 inter-
national students, took part in the learning experience. The two cohorts included students from
multi-disciplinary and multi-cultural backgrounds. Hong Kong (six), China (five), Malaysia (two),
Vietnam (two), Philippines (two), Norway (one) and Canada (one) were represented among the 19
international students. While the majority of students were enrolled in the Bachelor of Media Arts
programme, there were also students from alternate programmes, including Arts, Computing,
Information Technology, Communication, Public Relations, and Management. The formative
assessment tasks and subsequent feedback techniques within the two courses were based on the
feedback model generated by Gibbs and Simpson (2004) as well as key considerations from Merry
and Orsmond (2008), Nicol et al. (2014) and Biggs (2003). While designing the formative feed-
back models, it was established that to successfully support student learning within the courses,
formative feedback was required to be timely, frequent, ongoing and, most importantly, relevant to
graded assessment tasks. The key considerations for these principles are outlined in more detail in
Table 1.
The two courses involved in this pilot study are both first-year courses sitting within a 3-year
programme. Design Language in Media Arts runs in the first semester of first year, and as such,
students had little to no experience in peer assessment at a tertiary level during this course. Within
the two courses, students were required to participate in some form of formative assessment task
each week. Every 2 weeks, students submitted work-in-progress imagery to a gallery in the Café
learning environment, and provided critiques on their peers’ submissions. When critiquing their
peers, students were asked to address explicit assessment criteria related to the task, and to be
132 Active Learning in Higher Education 18(2)

Table 1.  Formative feedback principles established for the two courses in the case study.

Feedback principle Key considerations

Frequency Feedback should be provided frequently and within the timeframe of each task
Ongoing Feedback should be provided throughout the semester
Feedback should be provided by a range of sources, including peers and course
staff
Relevancy Feedback should be focused on the student’s academic performance
Feedback should be detailed, direct and address the specific assessment criteria
of the task at hand
Feedback should be provided in a timely manner, so it is received when it still
matters, and can be acted upon
Feedback should be constructive, and provided as an incentive to the student,
and to reinforce their design concepts and ideas
Feedback should be appropriate in terms of the student’s conception of
learning and knowledge

constructive in their commentary, focusing on design elements they considered to be successful,

as well as areas for improvement and further consideration. All critiques were required to be at
least 50 words in length, and it was mandatory for students to respond to critiques in order to
establish a dialogue between peers. Submissions and critiques in the Café were linked to major
assignments in the course, and timed so that students were able to address their peers’ critiques,
and consider making changes to their work. In alternating weeks, students brought work-in-pro-
gress to tutorials and discussed their work with both peers and staff (there were two tutors in each
course). During these sessions, the cohort broke into small groups of four or five students, dis-
cussed their work under the guidance of the tutor, and provided critiques, comments and sugges-
tions to their peers. These group discussions lasted approximately 20 minutes at the start of each
session, whereupon students then worked individually and had one-on-one sessions with the tutor,
enabling the provision of staff feedback. Participation within these formative assessment tasks
was worth 15% of the final grade for the course, and students were assessed on three key compo-
nents: (1) the quality of the submitted work to the Café, (2) the quality and consistency of their
peer critiques and conversations in the Café and (3) their attendance and participation in group
discussions during tutorial classes. Students were not required to grade their peers within the
online and in-class peer feedback models.
The student experience during the two courses was evaluated through an online survey at the
end of each semester. The questionnaire was designed and distributed under the approval from
the Human Research Ethics Committee at The University of South Australia. The questionnaire
included demographic topics, such as gender, age and student type, and allowed students to con-
sider and compare the three feedback models used for the formative assessment tasks during the
semester. This included evaluating the perceived effectiveness of the feedback models, estab-
lishing preferred feedback formats, evaluating feedback quality and quantity, discussing staff–
student interaction and student–student interaction, and providing suggestions for future
feedback techniques.

Results
A total of 85 students from the two cohorts participated in the survey, resulting in a response rate
of 72%. Participants were given the opportunity to assess the feedback models in the form of
McCarthy 133

Table 2.  Student demographics within the two courses. The survey yielded a response rate of 72%.

Demographic Number of Percentage Number of Percentage of

students in of cohort respondents respondents within
the courses each demographic
Number of respondents 118 100% 85 72%
Gender
 Male 72 56% 48 67%
 Female 46 44% 37 80%
Student type
  Local Student 99 84% 68 69%
  International Student 19 16% 17 90%
Age
 17–18 20 13% 12 60%
 19–24 80 70% 60 75%
 25–34 14 13% 10 71%
 35+ 4 4% 3 75%

Likert-type scale statements and open-ended questions. Within the group of respondents, there
were higher response rates from females (80% compared to 67% of male students) and internation-
als (90% compared to 69% of local students). Student demographic breakdowns are shown in
Table 2.
When asked which type of formative feedback model they preferred during the semester – feed-
back from staff in class, from peers in class, from peers online in the Café or from all three – the
majority of students (53%) indicated they preferred receiving feedback from a range of sources, as
one student noted:

It was very helpful to get feedback from different sources through different mediums of communication.
(Female, local, 25–34)

In all, 33% indicated they preferred feedback from staff in class, 12% preferred feedback from
peers in the Café and 2% preferred feedback from peers in class. Table 3 outlines all student
responses, broken down by gender and student type. Responses from male and female students
were generally consistent; however, there were some differences between local and international
students. Of the international students, 35% preferred receiving feedback from peers in the Café,
compared to just 4% of local students; whereas 41% of local students preferred receiving feedback
from staff in class, compared to just 6% of international students.
When evaluating the quality of feedback within each model, 100% of respondents indicated
they received beneficial feedback from staff during studio sessions, while 87% indicated they
received beneficial feedback from peers through the Café, and 55% from peers during studio ses-
sions. International students responded slightly more favourably to the feedback received via the
Café, than local students, and vice versa regarding feedback from peers in class. When asked which
type of formative feedback they would like to receive in future courses, 100% of respondents indi-
cated they wanted feedback from staff, 92% wanted feedback from peers online and 67% wanted
feedback from peers in class. Mean response and broad agreement data from local and interna-
tional students are outlined in Table 4.
Some students noted they preferred feedback from staff as they viewed them as experts in the
subject matter:
134 Active Learning in Higher Education 18(2)

Table 3.  Student responses to the three formative feedback models.

During the semester, I preferred receiving feedback …

Feedback options Male Female Local International All

students students students students students
From peers in the Café 10% 14% 4% 35% 12%
From peers in class studio sessions 4% 0% 3% 0% 2%
From staff in class studio sessions 33% 32% 41% 6% 33%
All of the above 53% 54% 52% 59% 53%
Total number of responses 48 37 68 17 85

Table 4.  Mean response and broad agreement data related to Likert-type scale statements in the
questionnaire. The survey used a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree), to 3 (undecided), to
5 (strongly agree).

Topic Local students International All students

students

Mean Broad Mean Broad Mean Broad

response agreement response agreement response agreement
I received beneficial feedback from 4.18 84% 4.50 100% 4.23 87%
peers through the Café galleries.
I received beneficial feedback from 3.48 57% 3.25 47% 3.43 55%
peers in class studio sessions.
I received beneficial feedback from 4.49 100% 4.80 100% 4.55 100%
staff in class studio sessions.
The Café galleries generated 4.22 82% 4.40 94% 4.26 85%
rewarding academic discussions.
The Café promoted interaction 4.19 81% 4.50 100% 4.23 85%
with peers.
I would like to receive feedback 4.20 88% 4.35 100% 4.23 92%
from peers in the Café again in
future courses.
I would like to receive in-class 3.45 69% 3.35 59% 3.43 67%
feedback from peers again in
future courses.
I would like to receive in-class 4.60 100% 4.40 100% 4.55 100%
feedback from staff again in future
courses.

I find myself cherishing feedback from staff, rather than my fellow classmates. This isn’t because I am
big-headed or don’t respect their opinions, it is more because the staff faculty have a much better
understanding of industry standards than the students. (Male, local, 19–24)

Others enjoyed receiving feedback from peers via the Café:

The Cafe gallery was a very valuable interaction tool in this course. It was a big help to get different
opinions on my designs. (Female, local, 19–24)
McCarthy 135

The feedback provided by peers online was generally excellent – there was good consideration of the
assessment tasks and what we were specifically marked on. (Female, local, 25–34)

While many students enjoyed receiving feedback from a range of sources, it was noted that
face-to-face peer feedback was often less critical than staff feedback and online peer feedback –
only 55% of students indicated they received beneficial feedback from peers in class:

The peer feedback in class was less aligned with the marking criteria, and more focussed on general
discussion. (Male, local, 19–24)

I got some great feedback from peers in the Cafe – very constructive. Feedback from staff in class was also
great, though feedback from peers in class was weaker – less critical, and more positive. (Female,
international, 19–24)

Many students indicated they enjoyed the opportunity to critique their peers and that it enabled
them to critically reflect on their own work:

A benefit of providing critiques to peers was that it made me think about the assessment task in more
detail. Thinking about how a peer could improve their work then made me return to my project and
consider the same aspects. (Female, local, 25–34)

It was fun to look at so many different design ideas and projects – critiquing others gave you ideas for your
own work as well as for theirs. (Female, international, 19–24)

The questionnaire also established the students’ varying attitudes towards online and in-class
interaction with peers and staff. Some students indicated they preferred in-class interaction as they
found it to be a more direct form of communication:

I personally prefer direct person-to-person contact and discussion, but others might prefer the online
method. (Male, local, 19–24)

Whereas others preferred to interact online, noting social inhibitions and language barriers as
factors:

I much prefer to do this sort of stuff online. I find it easier to discuss my work and my peers’ work online
(Female, local, 17–18)

I have difficulty interacting face-to-face, much easier for me to communicate via text. (Female, local,
25–34)

Online discussions are more preferable as I have more time to consider my discussion (Male, international,
19–24)

There were significant differences between the attitudes of local and international students. In
all, 79% of international students indicated they preferred asking questions online, compared to
39% of local students. Of the international students, 86% indicated they preferred engaging in
academic discussions online, compared to 57% of local students. Of both groups, 79% indicated
they preferred critiquing their peers’ work online, highlighting the importance of providing a strong
online learning environment for student engagement and interaction. A breakdown of local and
international student responses to online and in-class interaction is outlined in Table 5.
136 Active Learning in Higher Education 18(2)

Table 5.  Student responses regarding online and in-class interaction with peers and staff.

Topic Local students International All students

students

In class Online In class Online In class Online

I prefer asking questions … 61% 39% 21% 79% 57% 43%
I prefer critiquing my classmates’ work … 21% 79% 21% 79% 21% 79%
Engaging in academic discussions … 43% 57% 14% 86% 40% 60%

Table 6.  The Café usage statistics from the two student cohorts.

Topic Local students (99) International All students (118)

students (19)

Total Per student Total Per student Total Per student

Number of visits 4150 41.92 1197 63.00 5347 45.31
Number of pinboard posts 132 1.33 36 1.90 168 1.42
Number of gallery posts 456 4.61 105 5.53 561 4.75
Number of comments 1204 12.17 245 12.90 1449 12.28
provided
Number of MyCafe adds 168 1.03 95 5.00 263 2.23
Number of questions 8 0.08 17 0.90 25 0.22
Number of answers provided 20 0.20 15 0.79 35 0.30

During the two courses, 118 students visited the Café forums 5347 times at an average of 45.31
visits per student, or just under four visits per student per week. There were 132 posts to the pin-
board, including text-based comments, links to external websites, images and videos. 561 posts
were made to content galleries, which received a total of 1449 comments. A total of 25 questions
were raised within the Q and A page, which received a total of 35 responses. Finally, 263 posts
were added by students to their respective ‘myCafe’ pages. Across all usage categories, interna-
tional students engaged with the online learning environment more than local students, most nota-
bly in the number of visits to the site (63.00 per student compared to 41.92 for local students), and
in the number of posts added to myCafe (5.00 per student, compared to 1.03 for local students).
The majority of students involved in the two courses enjoyed using the online learning environ-
ment, with 85% of students indicating it promoted interaction with peers and generated rewarding
academic discussions, and 92% indicated they wanted to use it again in future courses:

The Café was very good for new students from overseas like me. (Female, international, 19–24)

Very good, easy to use, convenient having it connected through Facebook. (Male, local, 19–24)

I think the layout of the Cafe works well for a collaborative student environment. (Female, local, 19–24)

The Café was a useful tool to receive feedback and discuss work; myCafe was a good tool to store work
and group resources, such as images and videos from the pinboard. (Female, international, 19–24)

A breakdown of usage statistics from local and international students within the two cohorts is
shown in Table 6.
McCarthy 137

Discussion
The post-semester questionnaire provided insight into the students’ attitudes towards the three
formative assessment feedback models, particularly their thoughts regarding online and in-class
peer feedback. Each format featured affordances and limitations, and provided different learning
experiences to the students as a result. Several students found this in itself to be a key positive
outcome of the course, appreciating the variety of the feedback. A summary of key affordances
and limitations of each formative assessment feedback model utilised in this study is outlined in
Table 7.
The majority of students responded positively to the opportunity to critique their peers, as well
as receiving feedback from a range of sources. The provision and receipt of such feedback allowed
for greater interaction within the student cohort, and gave students the opportunity to critically
reflect on the assessment tasks at hand. Not surprisingly, staff feedback was the most popular
formative feedback model utilised within the two courses. Students viewed staff members as
experts in the field, as well as recognising they would assess their submissions, and, as a result,
valued their opinions more highly. In regards to peer feedback, most students preferred both pro-
viding and receiving feedback via the Café. The feedback provided by students online was gener-
ally more in-depth and critical than feedback provided in class, and was also more aligned to
assessment criteria. Many students clearly felt uncomfortable critiquing their peers face-to-face,
and, as a result, these sessions tended to focus more on general discussions about design work
rather than astutely analysing a peer’s performance. Students however were happier to be critical
about their peers’ work in an online environment, emphasising Rambe’s (2010) notion that online
peer interaction can overcome learning hurdles such as language barriers or social inhibitions.
An interesting finding within the pilot study was the varying attitudes towards the feedback
models within local and international student cohorts. International students responded more
favourably than local students to providing and receiving feedback via the Café, and also utilised
the online learning environment to a far greater degree. This highlights the importance of blended
learning in contemporary tertiary education. Providing students, particularly first-year students
coming from multi-disciplinary and multi-cultural backgrounds, with both in-class and online
learning environments is essential when integrating them into university culture. It is vital for stu-
dents to develop their communication skills, both online and in person, and furthermore, students
enjoy interacting within different learning environments. Some students relish face-to-face aca-
demic discussions, while others simply do not, and prefer engaging with their peers and staff
online. Moreover, some students, particularly international students, encounter significant barriers
when it comes to critically discussing a topic in class, and benefit greatly from an online environ-
ment where they can consider their ideas and critiques more thoroughly before providing them.
The Café proved to be a strong host for the online activities, with students appreciating the interac-
tivity and accessibility of the forum – simply the ability to access the forum via Facebook was
considered a major benefit. This supports the notion that providing flexible learning environments
allows for stronger interaction between students in large classes by accommodating the broad
range of student attitudes (Gedik et al., 2013).
Another perception drawn from the study was that students also seemed to benefit from the
opportunity to provide their peers with feedback, rather than simply receiving feedback them-
selves. By critically considering a peer’s submission, students often returned to their own work
with new ideas for revision, leading to the production of stronger work. This was a similar outcome
to the research conducted by Nicol et al. (2014).
There are some limitations within this study that need to be acknowledged, most notably the
sample size of participants – the study included 118 students from two cohorts at one university. The
138 Active Learning in Higher Education 18(2)

Table 7.  A summary of affordances and limitations of each formative feedback model.

Feedback format Affordances Limitations

Staff feedback in •• Promotes engagement with course
class material
•• Students appreciate one-on-one time
with their tutor
•• Students perceive staff as experts in the
field
•• Potentially more critical/directed
feedback
•• Ensures all students are receiving
feedback
•• Face-to-face interaction between staff and
students
•• Allows for relevant, frequent and ongoing
feedback
Peer feedback in •• Promotes engagement with course
class material
•• Promotes interaction between peers
•• Ensures all students are receiving
feedback
•• Face-to-face interaction between peers
•• Provides students with the opportunity
to develop their oral communication
skills
•• The provision of feedback to peers,
allows for a deeper consideration of the
student’s own work
•• Allows for frequent and ongoing feedback
Peer feedback •• Promotes engagement with course
online material
•• Promotes interaction between peers
•• Provides an environment for students
with social inhibitions or language
barriers to interact within
•• More critical feedback provided by peers
than in class
•• Allows for feedback to be provided and
received at any time
•• Provides students with the opportunity
to develop their written communication
skills
•• The provision of feedback to peers,
allows for a deeper consideration of the
student’s own work
•• Allows for frequent and ongoing feedback
•• Limited amount of time with
each student
•• One-on-one feedback limits the
amount of interaction the tutor
can spend with the entire class
(self-directed learning tasks need
to be set up for the class, while
individual students spend time
with the tutor)
•• Feedback is limited to class time
•• Students must attend class to
receive feedback
•• Less critical feedback than
staff feedback, and online peer
feedback
•• Feedback is limited to class time
•• The provision of in-depth and
critical feedback in a face-to-face
environment can be challenging
to some students
•• Students must attend class to
provide and receive feedback
•• No guarantee that all students
receive feedback from peers
•• Less critical feedback than staff
feedback
•• Significant workload implications
on course staff to monitor
the online environment and
subsequent discussions between
students

study would benefit from both a larger and broader sample size, and future research in this area
should include student cohorts within different disciplines from universities around the world. By
increasing the number of participants, from a broader range of disciplines and institutions, the effec-
tiveness of the Café as an online learning environment for peer feedback and interaction could be
McCarthy 139

more clearly established. This study provided insight into the learning experience; however, it could
be expanded in the future to include measurements related to student academic performance.
While concerns have been raised in the past regarding both the effectiveness and means of
delivery of some peer feedback models, most of these can be circumvented by providing students
with multiple means of communication, and by creating well-designed peer feedback tasks that are
linked to explicit assessment criteria. Given the potential learning benefits this practice can offer
– specifically increased interaction within a student cohort, and greater engagement with course
material, it is vital that peer feedback is encouraged and used in the future, where possible.
Furthermore, the online platform utilised in this study enabled students from diverse cultural, per-
sonal and disciplinary backgrounds to interact with each other in meaningful ways, enhancing the
overall learning experience within the student cohorts.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

References
Biggs JB (2003) Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the Student Does. Maidenhead: Society
for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
Black P and Wiliam D (1998) Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles,
Policy and Practice 5(1): 7–74.
Cheng W and Warren M (1999) Peer and teacher assessment of the oral and written tasks of a group project.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 24(3): 301–14.
Crook A, Mauchline A, Maw S, et al. (2012) The use of video technology for providing feedback to students:
Can it enhance the feedback experience for staff and students? Computers & Education 58(1): 386–96.
Davies P (2000) Computerized peer assessment. Innovations in Education and Training International 37(4):
346–54.
Duffy P (2011) Facebook or Faceblock: Cautionary tales exploring the rise of social networking within tertiary
education. In: McLoughlin C and Lee M (eds) Web 2.0 based e-learning: Applying Social Informatics
for Tertiary Teaching. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, pp. 284–300.
Evans C (2013) Making sense of assessment feedback in higher education. Review of Educational Research
83(1): 70–120.
Ferdig RE (2007) Editorial: Examining social software in teacher education. Journal of Technology and
Teacher Education 15(1): 5–10.
Fischer G (2001) Communities of interest: Learning through the interaction of multiple knowledge systems.
In: Proceedings of the 24th information systems research seminar, Bergen, 11–14 August 2001.
Garrison R and Vaughan H (2008) Blended Learning in Higher Education: Framework, Principles and
Guidelines. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gedik N, Kiraz E and Ozden MY (2013) Design of a blended learning environment: Considerations and
implementation issues. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 29(1): 1–19.
Gibbs G and Simpson C (2004) Conditions under which assessment supports learning. Learning and Teaching
in Higher Education 1(1): 3–31.
Gould J and Day P (2013) Hearing you loud and clear: Student perspectives of audio feedback in higher edu-
cation. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 38(5): 554–66.
Graham C (2006) Blended learning systems: Definitions, current trends and future directions. In: Bonk C
and Graham C (eds) The Handbook of Blended Learning: Global Perspectives, Local Designs. San
Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 3–21.
Hanrahan SJ and Isaacs G (2001) Assessing self- and peer-assessment: The students’ views. Higher Education
Research and Development 20(1): 53–70.
Huyta A (2010) Diagnostic and formative assessment. In: Spolsky B and Hult F (eds) The Handbook of
Educational Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 469–82.
140 Active Learning in Higher Education 18(2)

Irons A (2008) Enhancing Learning through Formative Assessment and Feedback: Key Guides for Effective
Teaching in Higher Education. Abingdon: Routledge.
Irwin C, Ball L, Desbrow B, et al. (2012) Students’ perceptions of using Facebook as an interactive learning
resource at university. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 27(8): 1221–32.
Kurtz G (2013) Facebook group as a space for interactive and collaborative learning. International Journal of
Social Media and Interactive Learning Environments 1(4): 406–18.
Li L, Liu X and Steckelberg A (2010) Assessor or assessee: How student learning improves by giving and
receiving peer feedback. British Journal of Educational Technology 41(3): 525–36.
Li L, Steckelberg AL and Srinivasan S (2008) Utilizing peer interactions to promote learning through a com-
puter-assisted peer assessment system. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology 34(2). Available
at: http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/497/228
Lunt T and Curran J (2010) ‘Are you listening please?’ The advantages of electronic audio feedback com-
pared to written feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 35(7): 759–69.
McCarthy J (2010) Blended learning environments: Using social networking sites to enhance the first year
experience. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 26(6): 729–40.
McCarthy J (2012) International design collaboration and mentoring for tertiary students through Facebook.
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 28(5): 755–75.
McCarthy J (2013a) Learning in Facebook: First year tertiary student reflections from 2008 to 2011.
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 29(3): 337–56.
McCarthy J (2013b) The Café: Creating the ‘collaborative application for education’; a dedicated e-learning
environment in Facebook. International Journal of Social Media and Interactive Learning Environments
1(4): 419–38.
MacLellan E (2001) Assessment for learning: The differing perceptions of tutors and students. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education 26(4): 307–18.
Mazman SG and Usluel YK (2010) Modeling educational usage of Facebook. Computers and Education
55(2): 444–53.
Merry S and Orsmond P (2008) Students’ attitudes to and usage of academic feedback provided via audio
files. Bioscience Education 11: 1–11.
Nicol D and 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.
Nicol D, Thomson A and Breslin C (2014) Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: A peer review
perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 39(1): 102–22.
Orsmond P and Merry S (1996) The importance of marking criteria in the use of peer assessment. Assessment
& Evaluation in Higher Education 21(3): 239–50.
Pektas S and Gurel M (2014) Blended learning in design education: An analysis of students’ experiences
within the disciplinary differences framework. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 30(1):
31–44.
Pope N (2001) An examination of the use of peer rating for formative assessment in the context of the theory
of consumption values. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 26(3): 235–46.
Rambe P (2012) Critical discourse analysis of collaborative engagement in Facebook postings. Australasian
Journal of Educational Technology 28(2): 295–314.
Shepard L (2005) Formative assessment: Caveat emptor. In: Proceedings of the ETS invitational conference,
the future of assessment: shaping teaching and learning, New York, 10–11 October 2005.
Shih RC (2011) Can Web 2.0 technology assist college students in learning English writing? Integrating
Facebook and peer assessment with blended learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology
27(5): 829–45.
Topping K (1998) Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational
Research 68(3): 249–76.
Topping KJ, Smith EF, Swanson I, et al. (2000) Formative peer assessment of academic writing between
postgraduate students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 25(2): 149–169.
McCarthy 141

Valenzuela S, Park N and Kee KF (2008) Lessons from Facebook: The effect of social network sites on
college students’ social capital. Submitted to the 9th International Symposium on Online Journalism,
Austin, TX, 4–5 April 2008.
Van Gennip NAE, Segers MSR and Tillema HH (2010) Peer assessment as a collaborative learning activity:
The role of interpersonal variables and conceptions. Learning and Instruction 20(4): 280–90.
Venables A and Summit R (2003) Enhancing scientific essay writing using peer assessment. Innovations in
Education and Teaching International 40(3): 281–90.
Walker M (2009) An investigation into written comments on assignments: Do students find them usable?
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 34(1): 67–78.
Wang QY, Woo HL, Quek CL, et al. (2012) Using the Facebook group as a learning management system: An
exploratory study. British Journal of Educational Technology 43(3): 428–38.
Wenger E (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Author biography
Josh McCarthy is a Lecturer in digital media with specific interests in animation, graphic design, photography
and digital art. He teaches within the Bachelor of Media Arts programme in the School of Communication,
International Studies and Languages. His research focuses on exploring emerging technologies in learning
and teaching, specifically related to new forms of feedback for formative and summative assessment. Address:
School of Communication, International Studies and Languages, The University of South Australia, Magill
Campus, B2-07, Adelaide, SA, 5072, Australia. [email: josh.mccarthy@unisa.edu.au]