Student and Instructor Approaches and Preferences to Audio and Written Comments on Written Compositions in an Online Class

Abstract: This study was conducted on the use of both written commentary and audio commentary in nine sections of an online 100-level composition class.  Audio and written feedback was given to first drafts of two different essays.  Forty-nine students were surveyed and 10 students were interviewed on their experiences in receiving the feedback on global-, middle-, and micro-level issues in their papers.  Five instructors also were surveyed and interviewed.   The results showed that, for global- and middle-level items, students felt that they understood their instructors’ feedback more effectively when receiving audio comments than when receiving written comments.  However, their impressions on the comprehensibility of audio and written comments at the micro level were mixed.  In terms of time investment in providing feedback, instructors showed a preference for audio comments over written comments.  Instructor commenting styles as well as the medium used influenced the time invested in providing feedback.

Introduction

An important component of any composition class includes the formative feedback instructors give to students on their writing.  Students in writing classes are taken through a writing process in which drafting and revision takes place.  It is the formative feedback on drafts and the revision of those drafts that often represents the most important learning experience students receive in writing classes.  
Traditionally, instructors in composition classes have given students handwritten commentary on their papers.  As word processing applications became more common for both instructors and students, typed comments became more and more popular.  Occasionally, instructors have provided audio comments to their students using cassette tapes.  The instructor would record his or her comments on a cassette tape and provide the cassette tape to the student in class (e.g., (e.g., Anson, 1997; Huang, 2000; Pearce & Ackley, 1995; Sommers, 1989). 
The emergence of online education has influenced the feedback process in composition classes significantly.  Online writing classes typically feature feedback to students in text form (Gallien & Oomen-Early, 2008; Wolsey, 2008).  However, digital technology has provided the means through which an instructor can provide audio comments to a student in an online class.  Technology to create audio .mp3 files and other forms of embedded audio comments is now available for use by instructors, some of whom have begun taking advantage of such strategies (Dagen, Mader, Rinehart, & Ice, 2008; Ice, Curtis, Phillips, & Wells, 2007; Ice, Swan, Diaz, Kupczynski, & Swan-Dagen, 2010;  Merry & Orsmond, 2007; Oomen-Early, Bold, Gallien, Wiginton, & Anderson 2008; Sipple, 2007).  Online instructors can now post audio comments to their students through the use of digital audio files in the same way that face-to-face instructors gave audio comments to their students with a cassette tape in the past.    
Research shows that written feedback on papers in composition classes is often unclear and confusing to students (Niven & Meyer, 2007; Norton & Norton, 2001).  Furthermore, in many cases, written comments contain jargon that is unfamiliar or unclear to the student, and the student is left to determine what the teacher means by the comment (Anson, 1997; Bardine, Bardine, & Deegan, 2000; Glover & Brown, 2006; Straub, 1997).  
	Studies on audio feedback have shown that audio commentary may have the potential to help students overcome the challenges students experience in understanding feedback from instructors.  However, some studies have shown that audio feedback also presents unique challenges to students.  Kirschner, van den Brink, and Meester (1991), in their study of the Open University of the Netherlands (OuN), maintained that students who received audiotape feedback noted advantages to it over written feedback, including the impression that the intonation of the instructor was more appealing, the ability to hear the comments while reading the essay more attractive, and the feedback itself was clearer.  Olesova, Richardson, Weasenforth, and Meloni (2011) found that, for ESL/EFL students, audio comments “made them more involved in the course than written comments did” (p. 39).  Wood, Moskovitz, and Valiga (2011) found, in their study of 48 students in two sections of online nursing classes, that, with audio comments, students understood the commentary more, felt more involved with the instruction, and experienced a more personal tone than with written comments (p. 541).  However, some studies have found that students find audio comments challenging when they try to target the comment to the problem in the paper, while written commentary makes it easier for students to locate the problem in the paper to which the comment is directed (Brearley & Cullen, 2013; Olesova, Richardson, Weasenforth, & Meloni, 2011; Wood, Moskovitz, & Valiga, 2011).
Moreover, one particular study conducted by Ice et al. (2010) analyzed student responses to both audio and written commentary on various levels of writing.  In their study, 196 graduate students in the field of education were surveyed to investigate their perceptions of the relevance of the three types of feedback that Stern and Solomon (2006) had outlined (global, middle, and micro) and the preferred modality (audio or written) of the feedback.  Their survey results showed that “student felt stand-alone written feedback was more effective than stand-alone audio feedback, and that the combination of written and audio feedback was the most effective of all” (p. 122).     Specifically, the study showed a student preference for audio feedback for global comments but written feedback for micro-level comments.   In addition, 
…the results clearly suggest an inverse relationship between the utility of written feedback and the feedback level; that is, the perceived efficacy of written feedback was greater for mid-level feedback than for global level feedback, and greater still for micro-level feedback than for mid-level feedback.  On the other hand, both audio feedback alone and combined audio and written feedback were seen as much more effective at the global level and mid-levels than at the micro feedback level. (p. 124)
One aspect to the research on audio and written feedback that informs the need for more research is whether revisions of drafts are involved in the feedback and whether students are able to dialogue with the instructor in a face-to-face setting for clarification of comments during the semester.  While a number of studies have been conducted on the use of audio feedback, such studies have often been conducted in non-writing classes, in which it has not been clear whether revisions to the papers were involved (Dagen, Mader, Rinehart, & Ice, 2008; Ice, Curtis, Phillips, & Wells, 2007; Olesova, Richardson, Weasenforth, & Meloni, 2011) and in face-to-face classes, in which face-to-face dialogue with the instructor can help clarify comments (Huang, 2000; Sipple, 2007; Still, 2006).  More research is needed on the use of audio commentary and written commentary in online classes in which student have no opportunity to dialogue with the instructor for clarification and in classes that involve revising the papers on which the commentary is being provided.
Moreover, studies and anecdotal reports have shown mixed results on the issue of whether, for instructors, audio comments save time over written comments.  Some research and practitioner reports indicate that audio commentary saves time and is more efficient than written commentary is (Anson,1997; Huang, 2000; Johanson, 1999; Sommers, 2002; Still, 2006).  However, Kirschner, van den Brink, and Meester (1991) found no significant difference in the amount of time instructors took to provide audio and written feedback, while Dagen Mader, Rinehart, and Ice (2008) found audio commentary to take more time for the instructor than written feedback did.
The purpose of this study was to examine both the instructors’ and students’ perspectives on audio and written feedback in several sections of an online writing class in which comments are given to first drafts of essays and revisions of those drafts are required.  The study was designed to add to the present literature by investigating whether one medium offers students improved comprehension of comments.  It also sought to explore whether improved comprehension occurs for certain types of comments for one medium but perhaps for other types of comments for another medium.  The study also explored instructors’ experiences in providing audio commentary and written commentary, particularly in the area of whether audio comments are a scalable time investment for a whole class of students. 

The Study
Participants 

Twelve instructors who had been assigned to teach online sections of an entry-level undergraduate composition course at a large accredited university on the east coast of the United States were invited to participate in the study.   Of these, eleven volunteered to participate.  Of these eleven, two instructors did not follow certain procedures in the study.  As a result, data from their classes were eliminated from the study.  Of the remaining nine instructors, five instructors completed all steps in the study, while the other four overlooked a final step, the posting of a feedback template.  As a result, the five instructors who completed all steps of the study filled out a survey and were interviewed.  
Students in all nine sections were invited to participate through completing an online survey.  Their completion of the survey was voluntary.  They were also given the opportunity to participate in a follow-up interview. In all, 49 students in the nine sections completed the survey.  Ten students participated in the interview. All 49 of the survey responses were analyzed through quantitative analysis. The interviews from these 10 students were transcribed, and the transcripts were then coded and categorized, and themes were concluded as a result of the qualitative analysis. 

Audio Feedback and Written Feedback

This study was conducted on the first two assignments in the composition class.  The first assignment (writing assignment 1) in the class was a narrative essay.  In order to ensure consistency across sections, the writing assignment instructions were given to the instructor to assign to the class.  The second assignment (writing assignment 2) was a comparison-contrast essay.  Again, in order to ensure consistency across sections, the writing assignment instructions were given to the instructor to assign to the class.  
The five instructors provided audio feedback to one of the writing assignments and written feedback to the other writing assignment.  Among the five instructors, the style of response to the first draft differed.  Three instructors provided audio feedback to writing assignment 1 and two instructors provided written feedback to writing assignment 1. Those three instructors who provided audio feedback to writing assignment 1 then provided written feedback to writing assignment 2. Similarly, those two instructors who provided written feedback to writing assignment 1 then provided audio feedback to writing assignment 2. In other words, all students in the five sections of this composition class received audio feedback for one assignment and written feedback for another assignment.   The written comments were typed into the essay itself.  The essay with the embedded written comments was then posted to the student in the online class platform.   The audio comments were posted in .mp3 file form.  The instructor created an .mp3 file in which he or she talked to the student about the paper.    The audio comment file was then posted to the student in the online class platform.   All of the students across all five sections wrote final drafts of both assignments, using the comments to guide them.  The final drafts were posted into a designated folder in the online class platform. 

Consistency in Technology Use and Feedback Content

Two steps were taken to ensure consistency in technology use among instructors in providing feedback to their students.   First, when instructors gave written feedback, they all used MicrosoftWord TrackChanges.  Second, before the semester began, the five faculty members used the same type of Sony digital voice recorder.  In addition, before the study began, they were sent a sample paragraph with errors and weaknesses in it.  They were required to produce a short .mp3 file of their voice commenting on the paragraph.  The faculty member then sent the .mp3 file to the researcher.  In this way, each instructor developed a level of familiarity with the creation of an .mp3 audio file with the digital voice recorder.  This step reduced the chance that a degree of unfamiliarity and discomfort with the technology among the faculty members would affect the results gathered in the study.  
In order to ensure that all instructors provided reasonably comparable types of feedback in both written and audio form, and in order to ensure that a level of consistency in commenting was maintained across all five instructors, guidelines were provided for them on the types of issues on which to comment.  The study used Stern and Solomon’s (2006) categorization of comments into micro-level, middle-level, global-level, and other issues.  Stern and Solomon, after having examined 598 papers from 30 different portfolios within the university, found these four areas to be representative of the full range of individual instructor comments on student papers.  Furthermore, Ice et al. (2010) used the same classification scheme for their study, noting the soundness of the feedback hierarchy presented by Stern and Solomon. 
Following this pattern, each instructor was asked to provide commentary on at least one global-level issue, one middle-level issue, and two micro-level issues.  This arrangement did not mean that instructors were allowed to give only four comments to the paper.   It meant that they were directed to comment on at least one global-level issue (e.g., selection of topic,  strength of thesis statement, etc.), at least one middle-level issue (e.g., paragraph unity, paragraph coherence, details and support given to arguments, etc.), and at least two micro-level issues (e.g., subject-verb agreement, pronoun-antecedent agreement, parallel structure problems, run-on sentences, sentence fragments, etc.).  In commenting on these issues, they could choose to comment on more than one instance of an issue.  For example, they might have chosen to comment on more than one sentence fragment, more than one paragraph that lacks unity, etc.  
This strategy helped ensure that comments to a particular draft were not dominated by, for example, only grammatical issues and that other global- or middle-level problems were not addressed.  It also helped ensure that comments were not exclusively at the global and middle level and that no micro-level issues on grammar and mechanics were addressed.

Research Questions and Research Design

	The purpose of this research was to examine both instructors and students’ perspectives on audio and written feedback in an online class.  Specifically, the research investigated the following questions: 1)What are the students’ perspectives on audio and written feedback in an online class? and 2) What are the instructors’ perspectives on audio and written feedback in an online class? To answer these research questions, the study adopted a mixed method design with a primary focus on qualitative design. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected to help answer the research questions.

Data Collection and Analysis

The five instructors filled out a survey on their experience in providing written commentary and audio commentary.  In addition, all five instructors were interviewed and given the opportunity to expand on their answers to the survey questions.  The interviews were transcribed and coded through an open coding process.  Codes, categories, and themes were gleaned from the interviews with instructors.  Moreover, as noted above, 10 students who had taken the student survey were interviewed.  The 10 student interviews were transcribed and coded through an open coding process.  Codes, categories, and themes were acquired from the interviews with the 10 students.  Finally, the answers to the online survey taken by the 49 students were gathered and analyzed quantitatively by conducting both McNemar's Test and the test of marginal homogeneity.  

Findings

The results showed that students found that they understood their instructors’ comments more effectively when given audio comments than when given written comments for global- and middle-level areas. For comments at the micro level area, student preferences were mixed.  The qualitative data from the student interviews and the quantitative data from the student surveys corroborated with each other in demonstrating these findings.  In addition, students found both audio and written comments helpful in improving their writing from the first to the second draft.  However, the number of students who indicated that audio comments had helped them improve their writing more than written comments had was not statistically significantly higher than the number of students who indicated that audio comments helped them improve their writing more than written comments had.  
The results also showed that instructors found audio comments to be a scalable option for them in providing feedback and that they preferred audio comments for their time-saving features.

Student Perspectives on Audio and Written Comments
Findings from the Qualitative Data

The overall findings were that the students found audio comments to be more understandable than written comments for the global level and middle levels because of both the nature of explanation given in audio comments and the tone communicated in audio comments.   Students found both audio and written comments navigable and reasonably easy to follow for the global level and middle levels, but they indicated a slight preference for written comments for navigability at the micro level.  
In coding the interviews, the following themes emerged when students described their experiences in receiving written comments and audio comments from their instructors: comprehension of comments, navigability of comments, and tone of comments.  In the description below, the 10 students are referred to as S1 through S10.

Comprehension of Comments  

Overall, students’ perceptions were that their ability to understand teachers’ meanings on global-level and middle-level items was higher when they receive audio comments than when they receive written comments.  However, the analysis indicates that students’ perceptions were mixed with regard to their ability to understand teachers’ meaning on micro-level items.  Some students preferred audio comments for micro-level items, while others preferred written comments for micro-level items. 
At the global- and middle-level areas, students tended to note audio comments as more understandable than written comments when discerning their instructors’ meanings.  Two students mentioned the tone of the audio comments helping them understand the instructor’s meaning.  S3 noted that “in the audio you definitely understand the implied tone and whether or not you’re actually doing a good job of what you are trying to express.”  S7 said:
I like the verbal because you actually got to hear the comment of a positive note, I guess. So it's kind of like, you know, I mean, he made a statement on like, what you were writing about, he appreciated it or like he understands the reason for it. So I felt like he was interested in what I said. So it made it more personable than writing down versus the written, where he didn't start off writing, “Well, I'm glad I wrote this and let's talk about what happened throughout.”   So the verbal was more personable.
Two other students, S4 and S6, commented on different aspects of audio.  S6 noted that online classes have much reading already, so the audio feedback provided a different way of receiving input: “…if you go to a regular college, you take in a lecture...so you hear it, and you’re not necessarily reading it.”  S4 mentioned that, with audio, he could detect what the instructor was emphasizing and that audio was simply easier to understand: “I just find it easier to understand when somebody explains it to me…I could pick up where she was emphasizing what needed fixed, what was good, what needed work.”   
	Eight out of ten students (S1, S2, S4, S5, S7, S8, S9, and S10) talked about their ability to comprehend the written comments on micro-level areas.   Of the eight students, two students, S1 and S5, said that they had no preference.  Of the other six students, three indicated a preference for audio comments.  S4 mentioned that he could hear run-on sentences more effectively.  “I heard it better than I seen it written.”  S6 mentioned that he “respond[s] better to the audio” than the written.  S8 mentioned one instance in which “when she responded through the audio, she was able to be a little bit more clear.”  However, three students (S7, S9, and S10) indicated a preference for written comments. It should be noted that one of the students who noted a preference for written comments, S10, did so because she did not remember having received audio comments on micro-level issues.    Nonetheless, the other two students mentioned specific reasons why they preferred written comments.  S7 said that written comments were “clear-cut and to the point,” while audio was less clear.  She noted that, when giving audio comments, her instructor “said…just go back and look though this paragraph,” while the written comments seemed to indicate more specifically certain micro-level issues that the student needed to address.  
Overall, while students tended to prefer audio comments over written comments at the global and middle levels, they had mixed responses to audio and written comments at the micro level.

Navigability of Comments

The qualitative data on global-level items showed that students found navigability of comments more challenging when they were given audio comments than when they were given written comments.  Five out of ten students mentioned their ability to navigate and follow along with the commentary from the teacher when given audio comments and when given written comments on global-level issues.    Of the five who mentioned the ability to navigate the comments with the paper, three students (S1, S5, and S8) showed no preference for one medium over the other.  Of the two remaining students (S3 and S9) both preferred written comments for ease of navigation.  S3 pointed out that with written comments “it’s pretty easily laid out” while with audio, “it’s a little more challenging.”  He gave an example: “Okay, this is good feedback, but in this case she is actually talking about the thesis, right?”  S9 noted that with written comments “you…have your paper displayed…the instructor will have boxes where you need to make changes…”  He did not mention the navigability of audio comments.  While he specifically mentioned the ease of navigation of written comments, he did not specify any related ease of navigation of audio comments.
Two out of ten students mentioned their ability to navigate and follow along with the commentary from the teacher when given written comments on middle-level issues.  The two students both found written comments to be accessible and easy to follow, noting that the comments were “literal” and “pretty good” in directing them to areas that needed to be addressed.  One of them mentioned that audio comments were at times problematic to follow and navigate.  The audio “bounced around,” she said, while the other noted that she “didn’t know where to focus” if the comment was in a long paragraph.
Six out of ten students mentioned their ability to navigate and follow along with the commentary from the teacher when given comments on micro-level issues.  Four of the six students found written comments to be easier to navigate than audio comments were.  Three of the four students were very clear on their preference for written.  S2 said, “Written is better because you have the physical paper in front of you,” while with audio, “there is no physical example to help you with the correction.”  S3 pointed out that with written comments “you highlight and call out the error,” while in audio “you almost have to try to correlate yourself exactly what part she is speaking about.”  S9, as noted above, mentioned that, with written comments, “it’s right there.”  
One student out of the six, S6, preferred audio comments for navigability.  “I guess maybe I respond better to the audio you know because he was saying you know, third paragraph, second sentence, you know, that needs some work or you don't run-on or that.”  Another student, S4, who preferred audio comments overall, said that, with written commentary, “It does show you where the mistake is.”  He also, however, stated a positive aspect about audio comments in terms of their navigability:  
I can follow right along as I am listening.  I don’t have to be following along scrolling up and down the screen to find out where you’re talking about the issue is. I just find it [audio comments] to be much easier for me.
Overall, students had positive feedback on the navigability of written comments because of their precise location on the page next to the error or issue that needed to be addressed, while some students had negative feedback on the navigability of audio comments because the audio comments were not tied to a particular part of the paper and, therefore, necessitated that the student understand where in the paper the audio comment as referring to.  On the other hand, S4 and S6 seemed to find the navigability of audio comments easier than that for written comments.  
It is worth noting that several students, S1, S5, S8, and S10, were entirely neutral on the issue of navigability.  For example, S1 stated, “I thought in both [written and audio comments] because it flowed with the paper.  The comments both written and oral flowed with the paper.”  

Tone of Comments

Students overall found audio comments more personable than written comments and felt that audio comments delivered a better tone than written comments did.  In addition, some students commented on the tone of the instructor’s audio comments and connected it to their understanding of the comments.
Three of the ten students commented on tone when responding to questions in their interviews about the global level.  All three found audio comments to exhibit a clearer tone, allowing them to understand the instructor’s meaning more effectively than the written comments did.  S4 elaborated on how tone affects comprehensibility:
I find it just much easier to understand when somebody explains it to me. Rather than, you know trying to read what somebody has written to me, and sometimes that's hard to figure out. You don't get a tone of voice included with it. You don't get facial expressions. At least with the audio you can hear the tone of the voice and go ummm. Professor ____.  I could pick up where she was emphasizing what needed fixed, what was good, what needed work.
S3 mentioned that with audio “you definitely understand the implied tone and whether or not you're actually doing a good job of which are trying to express.”   S7, as quoted earlier, pointed out that with audio comments the level of appreciation the instructor had for the paper was communicated, while this was not the case with written comments.  

Findings from the Quantitative Data

McNemar’s Test and the marginal homogeneity test were both conducted on the student survey data.  For two out of three global-level issues (organization of the paper and topic of the paper), the number of students who gave audio comments a rating of 5 (excellent) was significantly higher than the number of students who gave written comments a rating of 5.  For one global-level area, thesis statement, the number of students who gave audio comments a rating of 5 was not significantly different from the number of students who gave written comments a rating of 5.
For three out of four middle-level issues (use of topic sentences, quality of arguments, and support or evidence), the number of students who gave audio comments a rating of 5 was significantly higher than the number of students who gave written comments a rating of 5.  For one out of four middle-level issues, overall paragraph-level issues, the number of students who gave audio comments a rating of 5 was not significantly different from the number of students who gave written comments a rating of 5.
However, the results for the micro level were quite different from those at the global and middle levels.  For two out of three micro-level issues (grammar and punctuation and formatting, references, and citations), the number of students who gave audio comments a rating of 5 was not significantly higher than the number of students who gave written comments a rating of 5.  For one out of three micro-level issues (word choice or phrasing), the number of students who gave audio comments a rating of 5 was significantly different from the number of students who gave written comments a rating of 5.
Overall, the quantitative data corroborated with the qualitative data.  Students seemed to prefer audio comments at the global and middle levels, but their preference for either medium was not clear at the micro level.  The qualitative data showed mixed results at the micro-level with regard to the use of audio comments, and the quantitative data showed statistically insignificant levels of preference for audio comments for two out of three areas at the micro level.  
	However, when asked to rate both audio and written comments on how the comments had helped them improve their writing, students did not rate audio commentary higher at a statistically significant level for any of the areas among the global-, middle-, or micro-level categories.  In rating how comments improved their writing, the number of students who gave audio comments a rating of 5 was not significantly higher than students who gave written comments a rating of 5 for any of the three levels.   

Overall Results from Student Surveys

In understanding comments for global- and middle-level items, a significantly higher number of students gave audio comments a rating of 5 (excellent) than students who gave written comments a rating of 5.  However, for the micro levels, the number of students who gave audio comments a rating of 5 was not significantly higher than students who gave written comments a rating of 5.  
However, in rating how comments improved their writing, students did not rate audio commentary higher than written commentary at a statistically significant level.

Instructor Perspectives on Audio and Written Comments
Findings from the Quantitative Data from Instructor Surveys

One question on the instructor survey asked the instructors to provide information regarding the amount of time that they had spent on providing audio and written feedback. The answers showed that neither medium, written or audio, took more than 45 minutes per student.  In addition, no instructor spent more than 30 minutes per student on audio comments.  Instructors took either slightly less time providing audio comments, the same amount of time providing audio comments, or slightly more time providing audio comments. But in all five cases, no instructor spent more than 30 minutes per student in giving audio comments, while in two out of the five cases, the instructor spent up to 45 minutes in providing written comments.  Overall, for no instructors did the practice of providing audio comments represent a practice that was not scalable practice compared with providing written comments.  The practice of providing written comments and the practice of providing audio comments both represent tasks that an instructor could perform for a whole class and for which the time commitment involved would be scalable for the instructor.
In addition, on another question in the survey, instructors were asked, “How would you compare the use of audio comments with the use of written comments in your ability to accomplish the following tasks?”  The third item listed under this question was save time in commenting on papers.  All five instructors marked “I prefer giving audio comments” for this item.   These data reinforced the findings from those of the previous question in the survey.  Instructors found that providing audio comments to all students was a scalable option in terms of the time commitment involved. 

Findings from the Qualitative Data from Interviews and Open-Ended Answers on Surveys

In analyzing the data from interviews with instructors and from the open-ended answers that instructors gave on their surveys, one theme emerged: The medium that an instructor uses to comment on a student draft impacts the way the instructor comments and, therefore, affects the amount of time each teacher spends on a particular medium.  The data from the instructor interviews as well as from the open-ended questions from the instructor surveys showed that, when an instructor comments on a student in audio form, he or she often changes his or her pattern of thinking.  T4 and T5 mentioned that they think up more examples when giving audio comments, thus resulting in audio comments taking more time.  However, T2 said that she did not want to be seen as a “blatherer” in her audio comments, thus resulting in her audio comments taking less time.  T3 noted that he has given both audio and written commentary to students in the past.  As a result, for him, using just audio saved time.  T1 pointed out that she tends to think before she writes but that she speaks off the top of her head when she verbalizes, thus resulting in written comments taking more time.   Overall, the medium used affects the thinking and commenting patterns, thus affecting the time spent on the commenting.  Nonetheless, T2 and T4 said that audio would probably save time in the long run, while T5 explained that she “didn’t see a marked difference in time spent between the two.”  
Overall, the quantitative data and the qualitative data showed that providing audio comments represents a scalable option for instructors when providing feedback to student papers.  Some instructors invested more time into producing audio comments than they did in producing written comments, some instructors invested the same amount of time for both audio and written comments, and some instructors invested more time into producing written comments than they did in producing audio comments.  No individual instructor spent more time on one medium than another by a factor of more than 15 minutes per file.  In addition, only one instructor spent more time uploading one type of file over the other by a factor or more than three minutes, and this instructor noted that providing audio comments saved her time overall.  The fact that all five instructors noted in their surveys that they preferred audio comment over written comments for saving time indicates that they all found the use of audio comments to be a scalable option when providing feedback to students. 

Discussion and Conclusion
The findings show that students indicate a preference for audio comments at the global and middle levels.  However, students were not clear about which medium gave them more effective feedback at the micro level.  With regard to general comprehension of comments, these findings corroborate with those of previous studies (Ice, 2007; Huang, 2000; Merry & Orsmond, 2007; Sipple, 2007).  
The specific findings regarding global-, middle-, and micro-level comments in this study are consistent with those of Ice et al. (2010), who found that students prefer audio feedback for global comments but written feedback for micro-level comments.  It should be noted, however, that there are different types of micro-level problems, some of which might be more effectively pointed out in audio form.  For example, in this study, one student, S4, noted that a run-on sentence read aloud to him in audio form proved more effective for him than written feedback did.  Micro-level errors that can be pointed out with the spoken word may allow for enhanced understanding of the problem.  Further research is needed on the different types of micro-level problems and whether written commentary is more effective for the entire range of micro-level errors or whether audio comments might be more effective in pointing out some types of errors at the micro-level.
On the issue of navigability of comments, the findings corroborate with those of Brearley and Cullen (2013), Olesova, Richardson, Weasenforth, and Meloni (2011), and Wood, Moskovitz, and Valiga (2011) in that audio comments present a unique challenge to students for some types of commentary because they are not always easily “mapped” to the problem in the paper to which they speak.  This might present an issue for teacher training when providing audio comments with regard to strategies in explaining to a student what part of the paper is being commented on when giving audio feedback.  In this study, S4 and S6 mentioned that audio comments were easy for them to navigate.  For this reason, instructor style in commenting may be as significant of an issue in determining the navigability of comments as the media used.
Moreover, in this study, students did not indicate that their ability to improve their writing was enhanced through receiving audio commentary more than it was through receiving written commentary.  Additional research is needed in the area of what medium of commentary helps students revise papers more effectively.  Future studies that examine actual drafts of student papers might present an optimal methodology for determining whether one medium results in more student improvement over another.    
Finally, this study confirms the findings of previous researchers on the potential time-saving characteristics of audio commentary for instructors. All instructors in this study found audio commentary to take 30 minutes or less per student comment, while two instructors reported written commentary taking up to 45 minutes.  In addition, in their surveys, all instructors noted that they preferred audio feedback for its time-saving features.  The findings corroborate with those of Anson (1997), Huang (2000), and Johansen (1999) on the time-saving potential of feedback through the spoken word over that through typed text.  Moreover, this study demonstrates that instructor commenting style in providing feedback may have as much of an impact on the time spent in commenting on student drafts as the medium used.

References
Anson, C. (1997). In our own voices: Using recorded commentary to respond to writing. Writing to learn: Strategies for Assigning and Responding to Writing Across the Disciplines. Eds. Mary Deane Sorcinelli and Peter Elbow. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1997. 105-113.  
Bardine, B. A., & Bardine, M. S., & Deegan, E.F. (2000). Beyond the red pen: Clarifying our role in the response process. English Journal, 90(1), 94. Retrieved from http://www.englishjournal.colostate.edu/
Brearley, F.Q. & Cullen, W.R. (2012). Providing students with formative audio feedback.  Bioscience Education, 20. 22-36.  Doi:10.11120/beej.2012.20000022
Dagen, A., Mader, C., Rinehart, S., & Ice, P. (2008). Can you hear me now? Providing feedback using audio commenting technology.. College Reading Association Yearbook, (29), 152-166.

Gallien, T. & Oomen-Early, J. (2008). Personalized versus collective instructor feedback in the online courseroom: Does type of feedback affect student satisfaction, academic performance and perceived connectedness with the instructor? International Journal on E-Learning, 7(3), 463-476. Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Glover, C, & Brown, E. (2006). Written feedback for students: too much, too detailed or 	too comprehensible to be effective? Bioscience Education E-Journal (7). Retrieved from http://www.bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk/journal/vol7/beej-7-3.aspx

Huang, S. (2000). A quantitative analysis of audiotaped and written feedback produced for students' writing and students' perceptions of the two feedback methods. Tunghai Journal, 41, 199-232. 

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.  Retrieved from http://jaln.sloanconsortium.org/index.php/jaln
Ice, P., Swan, K., Kupczynski, L., & Richardson, J. (2008). The impact of asynchronous audio feedback on teaching and social presence: A survey of current research., 5646-5649. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/29162
Ice, P., Swan, K., Diaz, S., Kupczynski, L., & Swan-Dagen, A. (2010). An analysis of students' perceptions of the value and efficacy of instructors' auditory and text-based feedback modalities across multiple conceptual levels. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 43(1), 113-134. Retrieved from http://www.baywood.com/journals/previewjournals.asp?id=0735-6331
Johanson, R. (1999). Rethinking the red ink: Audio-feedback in the ESL writing classroom. Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education, 4(1), 31-38. Retrieved from http://studentorgs.utexas.edu/flesa/tpfle/tpfle.htm

Kirschner, P.A., van den Brink, H,. & Meester, M. (1991). Audio tape feedback for essays in distance education. Innovative Higher Education 15(2), 185-195.   Retrieved from http://www.uga.edu/ihe/ihe.html
Merry, S., & Orsmond, P. (2007). Students’ attitudes to and usage of academic feedback provided via audio files. Bioscience Education Journal (11).  Retrieved from http://www.bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk/journal/vol11/beej-11-3.aspx
Niven, P., & Meyer, B. (2007). Understanding the impact that principled formative feedback has on first year students’ writing: Is it useable or not?: An action research project. International Journal of Learning, 14(8), 13-22. Retrieved from http://ijl.cgpublisher.com/
Norton, L., & Norton, J. (2001). Essay Feedback: How Can It Help Students Improve Their Academic Writing? Paper presented at the International Conference of the European Association for the Teaching of Academic Writing Across Europe, Groningen, Netherlands.

Olesova, L., Richardson, J., Weasenforth, D., & Meloni, C. (2011). Using asynchronous instructional audio feedback in online environments: A mixed methods study. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7(1), 30-42.  Retrieved from http://jolt.merlot.org
Oomen-Early, J. , Bold, M., Wiginton, K.L., Gallien, T.L., & Anderson, N. (2008). Using asynchronous audio communication (AAC) in the online classroom: A comparative study. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching (4)3.  Retrieved December 10, 2008 from http://jolt.merlot.org/vol4no3/oomen-early_0908.pdf
Pearce, C.G. & Ackley, R.J. (1995). Audiotaped feedback in business writing: An exploratory study. Business Communication Quarterly, 58(3), 31-34.  Retrieved from http://bcq.sagepub.com/

Sipple, S. (2007). Ideas in practice: Developmental writers' attitudes toward audio and written feedback. Journal of Developmental Education, 30(3), 22-31.  Retrieved from http://www.ncde.appstate.edu/publications/jde/

Sommers, J. (1989). The effects of tape-recorded commentary on student revision: A case study. Journal Of Teaching Writing, 8(2), 49-75.

Sommers, J. (2002).  Spoken response: Space, time, and movies of the mind.  In P. Belanoff, M. Dickson, S. I. Fontaine, & C. Moran (Eds.), Writing with Elbow (172-186). Logan: Utah State Press.

Stern, L., & Solomon, A. (2006, April). Effective faculty feedback: The road less traveled.  Assessing Writing, 11(1), 22-41. doi:10.1016/j.asw.2005.12.001
Still, B. (2006). Talking to students: Embedded voice commenting as a tool for critiquing student writing. Journal of Business and Technical Communication 20(4), 460-475. Retrieved from http://jbt.sagepub.com/
Straub, R. (1997, February). Students' reactions to teacher comments: an exploratory study. Research in the Teaching of English, 31, 91-119. Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/journals/rte/issues 
Wolsey, T. (2008). Efficacy of instructor feedback on written work in an online program. International Journal on E-Learning, 7(2), 311-329. Chesapeake, VA: AACE. 
Wood., K.A., Moskovitz, C., & Valiga, T. (2011). Audio feedback for student writing in online nursing courses: Exploring student and instructor reactions. The Journal of Nursing Education, 50(9), 540-543. doi: 10.3928/01484834-20110616-04.