Research Article
Audio Feedback Project: A
Project to Increase Social Presence in a Virtual Library and Knowledge Service
Matt Holland
Library Manager
Library and Knowledge
Service for NHS Ambulance Services in England (LKS ASE)
Bolton, United Kingdom
Email: Matt.Holland@nwas.nhs.uk
Received: 4 July 2021 Accepted: 23 Feb. 2022
2022 Holland.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 4.0
International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial
purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the
same or similar license to this one.
DOI: 10.18438/eblip30006
Abstract
Objective – This research project sought to determine if audio feedback in
literature searches can increase the social presence of the library and create
a positive view of the library service. It also explored the process of
recording and sending audio feedback; tested its practicality, sustainability,
and accessibility; and ascertained whether audio feedback enhanced the
library’s communication, thereby creating a positive attitude toward the
library and its services.
Methods – The research
was conducted in a small virtual library and information service. The research
sample consisted of all library users and clinicians who requested a mediated
literature search between July 2019 and July 2020. All participants were sent
an audio commentary on their search results, recorded by the librarian, and
were asked to respond to an online questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted
of five statements. The study participants indicated their agreement or
disagreement with each statement on a five-point Likert scale.
Results – The researcher
sent out 96 audio commentaries, generating 31 responses to the questionnaire.
The results indicated that users felt the audio feedback improved their
understanding of the results of their inquiry, made them feel more comfortable
about using the library, enhanced their experience of communicating with the
library and provided a better experience than just receiving an email. The
responses broadly supported the contention that audio commentaries created
social presence and generated a positive view of the library.
Conclusion – The researcher
found that delivering audio feedback was both practical and sustainable. Some
consideration was given to individual learning styles and how these made audio
or text feedback more or less effective. Specifically, audio feedback enhanced
communications better than an email alone.
Introduction
During the recent COVID-19 pandemic, requirements for social distancing
and home working have accelerated a trend toward virtual communication between
users and librarians. This was
underpinned by improved meeting software and its wide availability on smartphones,
tablets, and laptop computers. However, these forms of networked communication
are synchronous, requiring both users and librarians to be present at the same
time. This may be the preferred channel for some users, but there are factors
that mitigate the simultaneous availability of users and librarians. These
could include time pressures caused by increased workload, shifts in flexible
and home working patterns, and the systemic pressures caused by unplanned
events such as COVID-19. For these reasons, some users may prefer asynchronous
forms of communication, which is not time dependent, and both sender and
receiver do not have to be present simultaneously. Examples of asynchronous
communication include email and web-forms for search requests.
Social Presence
In this project, the author drew on the theory of social presence.
Originally proposed in the 1970s to apply to what were then new forms of
computer-mediated communication (Short et al., 1976), Calefato
and Lanubile (2010) defined social presence as:
the degree to which one perceives the presence of participants
in the communication. Social Presence theory argues that media differ in the
ability to convey the psychological perception that other people are physically
present, due to the different ability of media to transmit visual and verbal
cues (e.g., physical distance, gaze, postures, facial expressions, voice
intonation, and so on). (p. 287)
Different technologies have different capacities for enhancing social
presence. Video conferencing, with a rich range of cues, conveys a higher
degree of social presence than a telephone call. Synchronous communications,
with the capacity to immediately interact, interrogate, and clarify meaning,
convey a greater degree of social presence than asynchronous communications,
such as email.
Digital Audio
The author’s objective in initiating the Audio Feedback Project, described in this paper, was to explore
a simple and effective way to increase the library’s social presence in a way
that was sympathetic to asynchronous communication between the library and its
users. Digital audio was selected because it is a widely used and understood
technology that exists in all modern smartphones, tablets, and computers. Audio
is also low cost, as potential creators and users already have the technology
they need. In addition, audio files are generally small and easy to play or stream
on Internet-connected devices.
Audio Feedback
The researcher used audio feedback on mediated search results, emailed
to users. This was an area where complex information was conveyed to users.
Enhanced delivery was an added benefit. No literature exists on audio feedback
in a library context. However, audio feedback given to students on assignments
was used in higher education and has generated a small body of research
literature that has informed this project. There were broad practical similarities
in the process of giving feedback on a search versus an assignment. However,
there were also pedagogical differences which were explored briefly in the
literature review. In the case of the library, feedback was typically delivered
through a digital audio file (.wav), either sent via email, or by sending a
unique link to a file available in the cloud.
Library and Knowledge Service for NHS Ambulance Services in England (LKS ASE)
The Audio Feedback Project was conducted by the librarian, who is the
only member of staff. LKS ASE is a virtual service operated via a website,
email, social media, and phone. LKS ASE has a national footprint that covers
eight of the ten ambulance services. LKS ASE users typically do not engage in
synchronous communication with the library, for example, arranging to meet in
person or talk on the phone, because of the challenges of distance and working
busy shifts on ambulances or in emergency call centers. Most communication is
asynchronous, via email. The origin of this project was a desire to provide
better service than can be achieved by email alone.
Review of the Literature
This project was mainly informed by research in the educational
literature that focused on audio feedback to students. These were mostly
small-scale studies, in which researchers looked at student and instructor
attitudes to audio feedback, its effectiveness when compared to written
feedback, and its role in delivering formative and summative assessment. While
the pedagogical discussions of assessment were not applicable to this project,
the educational studies provided both practical examples of implementation of
audio feedback and valuable theoretical insights. It is noted that the majority
of studies included here were published between 2002 and 2017, with fewer
recent studies, possibly indicative of the integration of these technologies
into virtual learning environments.
Time and Efficiencies of Audio Feedback
The majority of researchers found that delivering audio feedback did not
take more time than delivering feedback as text
(Brearley & Cullen, 2012; Cann, 2014; Rotheram,
2009; Sarcona et al., 2020). There were some qualifications. Rotheram (2009) noted that speed of delivery of feedback increased
with experience in using the technology and recording audio feedback. One group
of researchers found that delivering feedback through virtual learning
environments (VLE) added more time and complexity to the procedure than sending
a file or a link to an audio file (Carruthers et al., 2015). However, other researchers using a different software found no effect,
finding that VLE were highly efficient and especially suited to dispersed
student communities (Lunt & Curran, 2010). In three studies, researchers compared audio feedback to written
feedback. They found that in one case, one minute of audio feedback equated to
six minutes spent on written feedback (Lunt & Curran, 2010). In another study (Cann, 2014), the researcher estimated that it took five minutes to record a 500
word report. Ice et al. (2007) found that written feedback took 13.43 minutes and
audio feedback took 3.81 minutes, a 75% time savings. The broad implication of
these studies was that audio feedback delivered more content in less time than
written feedback.
Audio Feedback and Learning Styles
Researchers in two studies make a connection between learning style and
audio feedback. Learning styles describe individual preferences for receiving
information based on cognitive strengths and weaknesses. Typically, learners
are grouped in four categories: visual learners, auditory learners, reading and
writing learners, and kinesthetic learners (University of Kansas, 2021). Students who had a preference for an auditory style of learning
preferred audio feedback, while students who had a predominantly visual style
preferred written feedback. According to Sarcona et
al. (2020): “Consideration of students perceived predominant learning styles
was reported in this study and found a significant association between
students’ perceived learning style and type of feedback preference” (p. 57).
In another study, a student aware of their learning styles reported this
as a reason for a preference written feedback: “I am a visual learner and
prefer the written word” (Morris & Chikwa, 2016, p. 6). Wolstencroft and de Main (2021) looked at the way students engage with written
feedback. They found that many students failed to engage with feedback in a
written form. In their study, audio feedback significantly increased the number
of students who engaged with feedback.
Higher Information Content of Audio Feedback
A number of researchers reported that audio feedback provided a greater
level of detail than written feedback (Carruthers et al., 2015; Gould & Day, 2013;
Parkes & Fletcher, 2017, 2019; Rawle et al., 2018; Rodway-Dyer et al., 2011). This was a quality recognised by students and instructors. Students
recognized this as a strength, attributing a greater depth of understanding to
audio feedback. Instructors reported that they were able to provide “more
detailed and bespoke feedback to students” (Lunt & Curran, 2010, p. 764).
Personal Nature of Audio Feedback
Researchers who used students as subjects reported that audio feedback
felt more personal to the recipient (Carruthers et al., 2015; Lunt & Curran, 2010;
Merry & Orsmond, 2008; Munro & Hollingworth, 2014; Parkes &
Fletcher, 2019; Rasi & Vuojärvi, 2018; Rawle et al., 2018; Rotheram, 2009).) Wolstencroft and de Main (2021) argued that
audio feedback created emotional engagement and personal connectivity between
instructors and students. Students reported that hearing the voice of a tutor
or instructor was a positive experience, and felt comforting, reducing feelings
of isolation in an online environment (Parkes & Fletcher, 2017). In one study, students reported that they felt instructors who used
audio feedback were more caring (Ice et al., 2007). Students felt the feedback was less generic and more tailored to their
individual piece of work (Hennessy & Forrester, 2014). Researchers also noted that the human voice is more nuanced than
written feedback, conveying greater meaning and emphasis (Hennessy & Forrester, 2014; Ice et al., 2007) Students, in turn, reported that audio feedback provided greater
clarity than written feedback (Parkes & Fletcher, 2019; Rawle et al., 2018).
Social Presence and Audio Feedback
Several researchers make specific reference to the idea of presence in
audio feedback. In their study, Moore and Wallace (2012) found that 30% of the
students they surveyed identified the presence of the tutor’s voice as a
benefit of audio feedback. Ice at al. (2007), in their study,
argued that enhanced social presence increased student satisfaction with
the course or programme: “We believe that audio feedback should be considered a
means by which to increase positive perceptions of the quality of instructor
interactions and, by extension, social presence in ALN [Asynchronous Learning
Network]” (p. 19). Parkes and Fletcher (2019) also argued that social presence created by audio
feedback provides instructors with “the opportunity to engender a greater sense
of connectedness with their students” (p. 452).
Although library-based studies were absent, it might be reasonable to
assume that audio feedback to users would create both a sense of social
presence and greater user satisfaction in encounters with the library service.
The Library Literature
Research on asynchronous communication with library users’ centers on
the delivery of asynchronous instruction. In higher education, this research
responded to the demands of increasing student numbers and the challenges of
reaching students through face-to-face instruction. Recent studies in
healthcare have cited similar changes in working practice relating to service
delivery during COVID-19, as physical libraries closed to users. There was no
substantial literature on asynchronous audio feedback in libraries. However,
one researcher, taking a similar approach to the Audio Feedback Project, used
screen casting to provide answers to user inquiries (Bailey, 2012). Similarly, social presence in virtual communication with users
represents a gap in the library literature.
Aims
In this project, the researcher aimed to explore the
process of recording and sending audio feedback to test its practicality
sustainability, and accessibility. The researcher also sought to understand
whether audio feedback enhanced a library’s communications, creating a positive
attitude toward the library and its services where the alternative was just
receiving an email.
In this small study, the researcher asked two
questions: Does audio feedback in library consultations improve user
understanding of the results of their search? Does audio feedback in library
consultations increase users' impressions of social presence better than email
feedback alone?
Methods
The research was conducted by the author who is the sole member of
professional staff for LKS ASE. The researcher was entirely responsible for all
stages of the project. Prior to the project all communication about search
results was delivered via email.
The research sample is a convenience sample, defined as “nonprobability
sampling in which people are sampled simply because they are ‘convenient’
sources of data for researchers” (Battaglia, 2008, p. 149). In this survey, the convenience sample was all library users who
requested a mediated literature search from LKS ASE between July 2019 and July
2020. Library users in this instance are
ambulance staff and researchers employed by eight ambulance services in
England. No demographic data was collected. It was not recorded whether users
had used the library prior to the project. Typically, inquiries were from users
who were working and also studying, undertaking continuing professional
development, or clinical inquiries. Two of the ten ambulance services, South Western Ambulance Service and London Ambulance Service, were
excluded because they were not part of the LKS ASE project. The sample
generated 96 audio feedback commentaries sent to users with links to a
questionnaire. Of those 96 users who received a commentary, 31 returned the
questionnaire, giving a response rate of 30%. Non-respondents may not have
listened to the commentary, or listened to the commentary and chosen not to
complete the questionnaire. The results of this project were particular to LKS
ASE and were not generalizable.
Data Collection Methods
Inquirers received an email
reply from LKS ASE containing a Word document with results of their search as
an enclosure, and a brief textual commentary. Inquirers also received a unique
link to a .wav file with a spoken audio commentary on their search. The spoken
audio commentary was recorded on a work-supplied Android smartphone using a
free voice recording application. Commentaries varied between one and a half to
three minutes depending on the search complexity. They shared a basic format:
an introduction, a description of the search, an analysis of the search
results, an offer to supply full text copies of documents, and a request to
complete the online questionnaire. Some discretion was used in the format to
make it appropriate to the inquirer and the search. The .wav files were shared
with inquirers from a public space on the Microsoft OneDrive Cloud platform. In
addition, the email contained a request for feedback with a link to an online
questionnaire.
The online questionnaire was
a simplified adaptation of the Satisfaction Scale (Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997). The questionnaire had five statements in which audio commentary
recipients were asked to rate their level of agreement on a five-point Likert
Scale from Strongly agree to Strongly disagree. The questionnaire was
created, delivered, and analyzed using the web based LibGuides survey tool.
Results
Most respondents strongly
agreed or agreed with the statement “Listening to the audio feedback improved
my understanding of the results of my search or enquiry,” with a small neutral
response. The three questions that addressed social presence, asking if users
were more comfortable in using the library, felt their experience had been
enhanced by audio feedback, and was better than email alone, also elicited
mostly strongly agreed or agreed.
However, a slightly higher number of respondents chose neutral on
these questions.
Of the 96 questionnaires
sent out, 31 were returned. It is unknown why the remaining 65 questionnaires
were not returned. A limitation of the study is that non-return may have
introduced a bias in the results if, for example, non-returners tended to
disagree with the five statements. Two respondents indicated they experienced
technical difficulties in accessing the audio files. Several respondents
contacted LKS ASE directly. However, as the questionnaire was anonymous it is
not known if they were these respondents.
Learning points from the
author, as a participant in the project, are summarised in the Good Practice in Audio Feedback section.
From the perspective of lessons learned during the execution of the project,
the time taken to record and send audio files reduced significantly with
practice; the first recording took longer than the 50th. Reflection
during the course of the project, in particular on the key points covered in
the recording, enabled improvements that simplified the check list, leaving
more time to focus on a personalized individual feedback on the search.
The results of the survey
are summarised in Table 1.
Table 1
Summary of Responses to
Audio Feedback Questionnaire a
|
Statement |
Strongly
agree Respondents
/ Percentage |
Agree Respondents
/ Percentage |
Neutral Respondents
/ Percentage |
Disagree Respondents
/ Percentage |
Strongly
disagree Respondents
/ Percentage |
|
Listening to the audio feedback improved my
understanding of the results of my search or enquiry. |
10 /
32.26% |
18 /
58.06% |
3 /
9.68% |
0 /
0% |
0 /
0% |
|
Hearing the librarians voice made me feel more
comfortable about using the library in the future. |
17 /
58.04% |
10 /
32.26% |
5 /
16.13% |
0 /
0% |
0 /
0% |
|
Listening to the audio feedback enhanced my experience
of using the library. |
15 /
48.39% |
12 /
28.71% |
4 /
12.90% |
0 /
0% |
0 /
0% |
|
Overall receiving audio feedback gave me a better
experience than communicating via email alone. |
16 /
51.61% |
10 /
32.26% |
5 /
16.13% |
0 /
0% |
0 /
0% |
|
I was able to listen to the audio file without
difficulty. |
21 /
67.74% |
7 /
22.58% |
1 /
3.23% |
2 /
6.45% |
0 /
0% |
n = 31. a
These statistics were collected between July 2019 and July 2020.
Discussion
Practical, Sustainable, and Accessible
The audio commentaries were
recorded with no additional cost to the library service as the hardware and
software were already available. The average time taken to record a commentary,
transfer to the cloud, copy the unique link to the recording, and to prepare
and send an email with the search results, was about ten minutes. The
recordings were made in a private office space, but any space with low ambient
sound would be practical. The process required no additional training, as the
skills required were essentially those required to operate a smartphone. With
the exception of the studies that used specialized VLE software, most higher
education studies cited in the literature review used a .wav audio file either
distributed via email or the cloud. The iteration of these studies over the
course of an academic program, and this project sustained over a year, were
evidence that audio feedback is both practical and sustainable.
Audio is the most accessible
form of electronic media. Many people listen to podcasts and stream music. The
skills, software, and hardware required to listen to audio files are
ubiquitous. No studies reported significant problems in end users listening to
audio. Problems may be a result of issues beyond the end users’ control, such
as corrupt files or hardware and software problems. In any communication with
users, it is important to offer assistance with accessing files in the rare
instances where this is an issue.
Better Than Email Alone
The research took place within a specific context of a virtual library
and knowledge service trying to create a stronger connection with users where
communications are asynchronous via email. The studies cited in the literature
review indicated several benefits that accrue from audio feedback. These included
the higher information content of audio and a personal connection when hearing
a human voice, which gives a perception of presence in communication, thereby
creating a more positive experience of the library.
The statements in the questionnaire were intended to test whether
library users felt a greater sense of presence once they had listened to the
feedback. The majority of those who responded indicated they strongly agreed or
agreed with statements in the questionnaire. Of the respondents, 27 (90%)
agreed that “hearing the librarian’s voice made me feel more comfortable
about using the library.” Without overstating this single piece of evidence,
the addition of audio added a different and personal dimension to the library
experience because the librarian was more present through his or her voice. In
addition, 27 respondents (90%) felt they had a better experience using the
library after listening to the audio feedback.
Underpinning the project was the challenge of how to enhance
communication where the alternative format is email. For physical libraries
providing virtual services, email does not reflect the richness of a physical
environment. For virtual libraries, email does not project the full character
of virtual services. Technology already offers audio and video, not covered in
this research. We may look forward to future technologies and software to
enhance our communication toolkit. Proactively exploring these response mediums
will broaden our repertoire and accommodate the preferences of more users.
Of all respondents, 84% agreed that audio feedback was better than email
alone. In addition, their understanding of their search results was improved by
listening to the audio.
Learning Styles
Communicating with users face-to-face in person, or even face-to-face
online, provides a rich set of cues for users to gather information that can be
supported by signposting guides and support materials that typically populate a
library website. Where synchronous communication is not possible, there is a
risk of an email monoculture which may suit many, but not all, users. This is
reflected in two unsolicited free text comments received from participants in
the project that highlight the varying effects of feedback delivery on
recipients with different learning styles. One respondent said, “I like the
addition of the voice debrief, helps for those of us that struggle with
reading.” Another respondent said, “I would still very much need the
accompanying email to support the message – I’m very much a visual and
read/write person.”
Learning styles have the potential to affect how library users receive
information. The predominance of one form of communication, text, may favour
certain styles. The inclusion of multiple forms, text and audio, favors a
larger community of library users than either text or audio alone. The
unsolicited feedback received in the Audio
Feedback Project reflected that some prefer to hear rather than read
information. It should be noted that speech to text technology is available with
Microsoft and Google word processors. This was not explored in the Audio
Feedback Project but provides a quick solution to providing speech and text.
Good Practice in Audio Feedback
Some studies provided
summaries of good practice. While many recommendations address pedagogical
issues relating to summative and formative feedback, some practical
recommendations apply to all audio feedback. These include having a rubric,
criteria, or script to guide feedback and ensure consistency (Gould & Day, 2013; Lunt & Curran, 2010). Another researcher advised keeping recordings short (Cann, 2014) to keep file sizes small, although the length should also be guided by
the task in hand. Keeping a reflective record of the experiences of using audio
feedback was suggested to guide improvements and modifications later (Carruthers et al., 2015). The following guidelines for good practice reflect suggestions from
the literature and direct experiences from the Audio Feedback Project:
1. A simple check list that picks up the main headings of
your feedback is useful. These act as an aide-memoire to ensure that you cover
the main points. The checklist should be designed to fit the specific situation
in your library and its users. It should probably be reviewed after repeated
use.
2. Make notes of any specific points you want to address
in your feedback to prompt you when you make a recording.
3. Keep your recordings short. Try not to exceed three
minutes.
4. Operate at the minimum level of technical
complication, typically a smartphone and recording app generating a .wav file.
This saves you time and ensures that your users can access your files easily.
5. The tone of your recording should be that of an
intelligent conversation between adults. A natural and straightforward approach
to your recording is best. Avoid humour, long words, and jargon, if you can.
6. Do not edit recordings, record in one take. As the
recordings are short it is easy to stop and start again if you make a mistake.
This is something that becomes easier the more recordings you do. The first
recoding is more challenging than the 96th recording.
7. Listen back to a few seconds of each recording to
check volume levels and any interference from background noise that you may not
have noticed the first time. Recordings do not need to be perfect, but they
must be audible to the user.
8. You may choose to store your recordings so that you
can refer to them later. Use a naming convention that makes files easy to
retrieve for future reference.
9. Offer an opportunity for users to give your feedback
on your recordings. This is generally good practice when evaluating a new
service and may generate useful comment and feedback.
10. In your email to users, offer to support any user who
experiences technical problems.
Limitations
This study was a small-scale convenience
sample and cannot be generalized to cover all healthcare library and knowledge
services. However, the conclusions fit in with similar studies on audio
feedback in higher education supporting their general conclusions. There is no
information from non-respondents to the questionnaire who may have experienced
unreported technical problems or simply not listened to the audio feedback. A
further larger scale study looking specifically at a healthcare library and
knowledge service context would provide a useful validation of this approach.
Studies that include an examination of the impact of learning style or the way
information is received would be useful.
Conclusion
The shift to being a virtual library service, whether caused by short
term factors, such as COVID-19, or longer-term effects of changing working
patterns, presents both a challenge and an opportunity to rethink how we
communicate with our users. While synchronous communication using video
conferencing software provides part of the answer, for asynchronous
communication many will use email. The challenge for virtual services is to
think creatively about how to use email to build better communication with our
users. In this small project, using audio feedback for literature searches
enhanced communication with users and delivered richer content that projects
the librarian’s presence in a novel but accessible way at very low cost. Audio
feedback also provided a choice to users who may prefer audio to text.
Acknowledgment
The author would like to thank the Reviewers, the Editor and Copyeditor,
and Anne Norman who read and commented on a version of this paper.
References
Bailey, J. (2012). Informal screencasting: Results of a
customer‐satisfaction survey with a convenience sample. New Library World, 113(1/2),
7-26. https://doi.org/10.1108/03074801211199013
Battaglia, M. (2008). Convenience sampling. In P. J.
Lavrakas (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Survey
Research Methods (pp. 149). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412963947
Brearley, F. Q., & Cullen, W. R. (2012). Providing
students with formative audio feedback. Bioscience
Education, 20(1), 22-36. https://doi.org/10.11120/beej.2012.20000022
Calefato, F., & Lanubile, F. (2010). Communication
media selection for remote interaction of ad hoc groups. In Advances in Computers: Improving the Web
(pp. 271-313). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2458(10)78006-2
Cann, A. (2014). Engaging students with audio
feedback. Bioscience Education, 22(1), 31-41. https://doi.org/10.11120/beej.2014.00027
Carruthers, C., McCarron, B., Bolan, P., Devine, A.,
McMahon-Beattie, U., & Burns, A. (2015). "I like the sound of
that"--An evaluation of providing audio feedback via the virtual learning
environment for summative assessment. Assessment
& Evaluation in Higher Education,
40(3), 352-370. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.917145
Gould, J., & Day, P. (2013). Hearing you loud and
clear: Student perspectives of audio feedback in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education, 38(5), 554-566. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2012.660131
Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social
presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer‐mediated conferencing
environment. American Journal of Distance
Education, 11(3), 8-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923649709526970
Hennessy, C., & Forrester, G. (2014). Developing a
framework for effective audio feedback: A case study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(7), 777-789. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.870530
Ice, P., Curtis, R., Phillips, P., & Wells, J.
(2007). Using asynchronous audio feedback to enhance teaching presence and
students' sense of community. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(2),
3-25. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/104047/
Lunt, T., & Curran, J. (2010). ‘Are you listening
please?’ The advantages of electronic audio feedback compared to written
feedback. Evaluation in Higher Education, 35, 759-769. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930902977772
Merry, S., & Orsmond, P. (2008). Students’
attitudes to and usage of academic feedback provided via audio files. Bioscience Education, 11(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.3108/beej.11.3
Moore, C., & Wallace, I. P. H. (2012). Personalizing
feedback for feed-forward opportunities utilizing audio feedback technologies
for online students. International
Journal of e-Education, e-Business, e-Management and e-Learning, 2(1), 6-10. http://www.ijeeee.org/Papers/072-Z00055F00014.pdf
Morris, C., & Chikwa, G. (2016). Audio versus
written feedback: Exploring learners' preference and the impact of feedback
format on students' academic performance. Active
Learning in Higher Education, 17(2),
125-137. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787416637482
Munro, W., & Hollingworth, L. (2014). Audio
feedback to physiotherapy students for viva voce: How effective is "the
living voice"? Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(7),
865-878. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.873387
Parkes, M., & Fletcher, P. (2017). A longitudinal,
quantitative study of student attitudes towards audio feedback for assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education, 42(7), 1046-1053. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2016.1224810
Parkes, M., & Fletcher, P. (2019). Let's talk
assessment: An exploration of student perceptions of audio feedback for
assessment. International Journal on
E-learning: Corporate, Government, Healthcare & Higher Education, 18(4), 441-460. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/181292/
Rasi, P., & Vuojärvi, H. (2018). Toward personal
and emotional connectivity in mobile higher education through asynchronous
formative audio feedback. British Journal
of Educational Technology, 49(2),
292-304. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12587
Rawle, F., Thuna, M., Zhao, T., & Kaler, M.
(2018). Audio feedback: Student and teaching assistant perspectives on an
alternative mode of feedback for written assignments. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2018.2.2
Rodway-Dyer, S., Knight, J., & Dunne, E. (2011). A
case study on audio feedback with geography undergraduates. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 35(2), 217-231. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2010.524197
Rotheram, B. (2009). Sounds good: Using digital audio
for evaluation feedback. World of Learning, 2, 176-179. https://doi.org/10.22329/celt.v2i0.3224
Sarcona, A., Dirhan, D., & Davidson, P. (2020). An
overview of audio and written feedback from students' and instructors'
perspective. Educational Media
International, 57(1), 47-60. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2020.1744853
Short, J. A., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976).
The social psychology of
telecommunications. Wiley.
University of Kansas. (2021, June 28). Different learning styles - What teachers
need to know [blog post]. https://educationonline.ku.edu/community/4-different-learning-styles-to-know
Wolstencroft, P., & de Main, L. (2021). ‘Why
didn’t you tell me that before?’ Engaging undergraduate students in feedback
and feedforward within UK higher education. Journal
of Further and Higher Education, 45(3),
312-323. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2020.1759517
Appendix
Copy of Questionnaire
The questionnaire asked respondents to respond to five statements
recording their level of agreement.
- Listening to the audio feedback improved my
understanding of the results of my search or enquiry.
Strongly agree / Agree / Neutral / Disagree / Strongly
disagree
- Hearing the librarians voice made me feel more
comfortable about using the library in the future.
Strongly agree / Agree / Neutral / Disagree / Strongly
disagree
- Listening to the audio feedback enhanced my
experience of using the library.
Strongly agree /
Agree / Neutral / Disagree / Strongly disagree
- Overall receiving audio feedback gave me a better
experience than communicating via email alone.
Strongly agree /
Agree / Neutral / Disagree / Strongly disagree
- I was able to listen to the audio file without
difficulty.
Strongly agree / Agree / Neutral / Disagree / Strongly disagree