In her recent Computers and Composition article on teaching writing using Learning Management Systems (LMSs), Allison Hutchison unpacked the “wicked problem” faculty face when using an institutionally-required system. Hutchison’s literature review outlines how faculty in the field of rhetoric and composition have critiqued the technologies that mediate writing instruction; indeed, this type of scholarship has become increasingly prevalent, as digital platforms for composing seem to be ever increasing (and thus ever more frequently appearing in our classrooms).

I’ve attempted to apply Hutchison’s framework for identifying the problem, the needs, and the potential solutions (albeit in a much simpler format) to a particular strand of practice in the writing classroom: providing feedback on assignments. DePaul recently adopted two technologies that can be used for this purpose, and both contain affordances and limitations that instructors should consider when adopting. The descriptions below are perhaps more utilitarian and less of a critique, but given that this is a blog post, and not an academic article, that framing seemed more…well, useful. 

Problem/Need: 

Providing feedback in the various document types that students can upload to D2L submissions can have a couple of extra layers of friction (downloading documents, accounting for many document types and varied feedback options) that hinder the process. Microsoft Word’s track changes feature has long been the digital default, but two new options provide variations on the digital document feedback interchange. 

D2L’s Built-in Annotations

Summary: D2L recently released a feature that allows instructors to give feedback when they open up a student’s document within a submission folder. It’s almost like D2L is automatically creating a PDF of the document and then providing a toolbar for comments and other types of feedback. 

Pedagogically-aligned features (👍 for the solution):

• Commenting consistency: Even if you ask students to submit a particular type of document, you’ll often end up receiving a few different doc types. Using the built-in D2L Annotations creates one interface for evaluating all student files.
• Invitation for student revision: I’ve previously used Microsoft Word track changes to provide students with feedback, and while it can be more efficient for me to just add in missing commas, if students merely “accept” those changes in their document, they aren’t likely to develop a deeper understanding of their usage error.
• Reduction of file management: In order to provide Word track changes, you have to download, save, and re-upload student files. With built-in annotations, that annoying process is eliminated. 

Limitations (👎 for the solution)

• Loss of track changes: Seen from another perspective, the loss of track changes could have a detrimental impact for faculty who have a high level of facility with those features. Additionally, typing in longform feedback for many usage errors can be more time-consuming than just putting on corrections. 
• Limits on annotating: With built-in annotations, there are two main ways to provide feedback:

Comments, which allow for you to customize the comment box shape and color

 

 

Pen/Highlighter, which allows you to underline or highlight particular passages

Some readers may prefer the additional options Word’s track changes tool provides. 

Note: The Center for Teaching and Learning has been testing this feature for a few months and plans to “soft launch” it in Spring 2020. Why the delay? While we were really excited to test this tool out, if something were to go wrong with it — and, say, a faculty member lost all of the comments given to a student — that would be a pretty high-stress loss. So, we wanted to test extensively before releasing it, and we also wanted to reach out to faculty who were already using a similar feature built in to Turnitin (which was useful but difficult for students to access). If you’re interested in trying it out, you can email FITS@depaul.edu to request access.

Google Drive (and in particular, Google Docs)

Summary: DePaul also recently adopted Google G Suite. DePaul students, faculty and staff can log in using their Campus Connect credentials, 

Pedagogically-aligned features (👍 for the solution):

• Version control: If students are working on an assignment collaboratively, or if multiple people are giving a student feedback (say, if you’re doing both a peer review and looking at the student’s work yourself), Google Docs is helpful because the live link to the document ensures that everyone is viewing the most updated version. 
• Invitation to “talk back”: When you give comments in Google Docs, it’s easy to start a threaded conversation.

When students reply to one of your comments, you’ll receive an email notifying you of that reply. 

• Comment Resolution and Version History: When students resolve comments, they don’t disappear completely. They remain stored in the commenting area so that students can review them later. Additionally, Google Docs retains a fairly robust version history of work completed in a document. 

Limitations (👎 for the solution)

• Commenting overload: If students are all working on their Google Docs at a common time – say, the night the assignment is due – you could wake up to an inbox full of notifications that students have resolved your comments. 
• Student “submission”: If you ask students to submit their Google Doc link to the D2L submission folder, you’ll see a timestamp for the link submission, but students would still be able to make changes to the document. 

I account for this by advising students that I will review the “last updated” timestamp on their Google Doc. Another way to address this is to ask students to download their Google Doc as a Word doc or PDF, which would give them a “frozen” version to upload to D2L. 

To return to Hutchison: These two “feedback tools” are examples of the institutionally-provided platforms that can and should be subjected to a critical lens. I’ve attempted to do so, accounting for both the affordances and limitations of these two spaces, and I hope that I’ve foregrounded both options with an important focus: on best practices for engaging students in writing and revising processes. 

Hutchison, A. (2019). Technological efficiency in the learning management system: A wicked problem with sustainability for online writing instruction. Computers and Composition(54), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2019.102510