This study aims to explore the use of online interaction platforms and web-based tools to provide multimodal electronic feedback in an online English course. Additionally, the current study has examined how Japanese learners of English perceive the feedback they have received on their online writing and speaking tasks. The perceived usefulness of the provided feedback was also investigated in relation to learner collaboration and sense of presence in the online course.

1. Under the project title of Osaka University
Global English Online (OUGEO), a blended
course of English for General Academic
Purposes (EGAP) was designed and developed
at Osaka University targeting second-year
undergraduate students for a period of 15
weeks, of which 10 sessions were purely online
and five sessions were face-to-face.
#OsakaUniversityGlobalEnglishOnline
#OUGEO
Multimodal e-Feedback, Social Presence, and Collaboration
in an Online Course for Japanese Learners of English
References
Osaka University Global English Online (OUGEO)
e-Feedback
Collaboration
Social Presence
Parisa Mehran Mehrasa Alizadeh
OUGEO: Behind the Scenes
Diary of A Technophile
As online English courses are growing in
popularity, providing e-feedback is also gaining
currency, as students might feel disconnected,
unengaged, and unsupported if they are not
provided with effective feedback. The provision
of e-feedback can be enhanced through
multimodality, particularly in asynchronous
online environments (Olesova & de Oliveira,
2017). There are also a number of factors such as
social presence and collaboration which are
related to feedback effectiveness (Thurlings,
Vermeulen, Bastiaens, & Stijnen, 2014).
Online Interaction Platforms on CLE
• Email
• Course Messages
• Discussion Boards
• My Grades/Grade Center
e-Feedback
(van der Hulst et al., 2014; Parton et al., 2011; Gould & Day, 2013; Lunt & Curran, 2010)
Collaboration
(Smith et al., 2011)
Social Presence
(Picciano, 2002)
N=75
40 (53.3%) males
35 (46.7%) females
N=73
41 (56.2%) males
32 (43.8%) females
N=75
40 (53.3%) males
35 (46.7%) females
I found the feedback given on my assignments clear and
constructive. Special thanks for your encouraging comments :)
I was able to see the grammar mistakes I made, which helped
me recognize the gaps I have in my knowledge of English.
I’m very satisfied with this course, as it gave me the ability to
improve my English in an interactive and productive way.
Unlike feedback on paper, we can look back on the feedback
whenever we want and we do not have to worry about
misplacing the feedback paper. We can review our mistakes at
any time. But it took so long time.
Items SD
%
D
%
A
%
SA
%
Mean
1. I enjoyed the online course.  0.0 10.7 72.0 17.3 3.06
2. Even though we were not physically
together in a traditional classroom, I still
felt like I was part of a group in the
online course.
9.3 30.7 54.7 5.3 2.56
3. The online course stimulated my
desire to learn.
2.7 21.3 61.3 14.7 2.88
4. The online course provided a personal
experience similar to the classroom.
6.7 52.0 36.0 5.3 2.40
5. The online course allowed for social
interaction.
5.3 24.0 62.7 8.0 2.73
6. The online course allowed me to
express my feelings. 
2.7 25.3 60.0 12.0 2.81
7. The online course allowed me to learn
the feelings of others.
8.0 44.0 42.7 5.3 2.45
8. The online course provided a reliable
means of communication.
2.7 20.0 57.3 20.0 2.94
9. The online course was an efficient
means of communicating with others.
8.0 29.3 50.7 12.0 2.66
10. I did not find the online course
threatening to me. 
1.3 9.3 60.0 29.3 3.17
11. I felt I got to learn a great deal about
the instructor in the online course.
2.7 34.7 54.7 8.0 2.68
12. I felt I got to learn a great deal about
the other students in the online course.
6.7 38.7 48.0 6.7 2.54
Items SD
%
D
%
A
%
SA
%
Mean
1. When collaborating, it is important
to know, before the start, each group
members’ skills and work habits. 
0.0% 9.3% 68.0% 22.7% 3.13
2. We were able to resolve all the
logistical issues in our group—
scheduling, location, time allocation
and other related issues. 
2.7 16.0 60.0 21.3 3.00
3. I like working in groups. 5.3 29.3 49.3 16.0 2.76
4. I think group work is beneficial.  1.3 5.3 72.0 21.3 3.13
5. I think collaborating online is great,
as there are many synchronous and
asynchronous tools to work with and
to use to communicate. 
1.3 9.3 66.7 22.7 3.10
Items SD
%
D
%
A
%
SA
%
Mean
1. I found the e-feedback on my writing
assignments easy to understand. 
1.4 2.7 69.9 26.0 3.20
2. I found the e-feedback on my
speaking assignments easy to
understand. 
2.7 11.0 64.4 21.9 3.05
3. I found it easy to access the e-
feedback on my writing assignments. 
2.7 12.3 58.9 26.0 3.08
4. I found it easy to access the e-
feedback on my speaking assignments.
9.6 20.5 46.6 23.3 2.83
5. I found the e-feedback useful in
terms of improving my writing skills. 
0.0 12.3 67.1 20.5 3.08
6. I found the e-feedback useful in
terms of improving my speaking skills.
5.5 17.8 61.6 15.1 2.86
7. The e-feedback was detailed on my
writing assignments. 
0.0 11.0 63.0 26.0 3.15
8. The e-feedback was detailed on my
speaking assignments.
2.7 20.5 57.5 19.2 2.93
9. I prefer e-feedback to written
feedback on my writing assignments.
8.2 23.3 45.2 23.3 2.83
10. I prefer e-feedback to face-to-face
feedback on my speaking assignments.
9.6 24.7 47.9 17.8 2.73
11. The rubrics made clear on which
aspects my work was being assessed.
4.1 19.2 64.4 12.3 2.84
12. In general, did you find e-feedback useful? Yes 89.0%  No 11.0%
• 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.
• Lunt, T., & Curran, J. (2010) ‘Are you listening please?’ The advantages of electronic
audio feedback compared to written feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education, 35(7), 759-769.
• Olesova, L., & de Oliveira, L. C. (2017). Using feedback in ESL and EFL asynchronous
online environments. In J. Perren, K. Kelch, J-S Byun, S. Cervantes, & S. Safavi (Eds.),
Applications of CALL theory in ESL and EFL environments (pp. 206-222). Hershey, PA: IGI
Global.
• Parton, B. S., Crain-Dorough, M., & Hancock, R. (2010). Using flip camcorders to create
video feedback: Is it realistic for professors and beneficial to students? International
Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning, 7(1), 15-23.
• Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and performance in an
online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 21-40.
• Smith, G., Sorensen, C., Gump, A., Heindel, A. J., Caris, M., & Martinez, C. D. (2011). Overcoming student
resistance to group work: Online versus face-to-face. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(2), 121-128.
• Thurlings, M., Vermeulen, M., Bastiaens, T., & Stijnen, S. (2014). The role of feedback and social presence in
an online peer coaching program for student teachers. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology,
30(3), 326-341.
• van der Hulst J., van Boxel, P., & Meeder, S. (2014). Digitalizing feedback: Reducing teachers’ time investment
while maintaining feedback quality. In R. Ørngreen & K. Tweddell Levinsen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th
European conference on e-learning (pp. 243-250). Copenhagen: Denmark.