Literacy Matters - Vol 21 - Winter 2021

received a single code. This process led to the development of 38 codes within four main categories: (1) overall satisfaction , (2) peer feedback , (3) technology , and (4) instructional design . All of these codes were then merged into sub-categories that included benefits , challenges , supports , and three levels of satisfaction (see Table 1). Each author individually coded the data using the developed codes, which led to an inter-rater agreement of slightly over 80%. Results Likert-Scale Responses Participants answered closed-ended questions about their levels of satisfaction across six main components of the cross-institutional partnership: (1) live class session, (2) feedback template, (3) feedback from partner, (4) involvement of instructors, (5) requirements of project, and (6) clarity of project. On a scale of 1-5, with 1 being very satisfied and 5 being very dissatisfied , participants reported, on average, being satisfied with the involvement of the instructors ( M = 1.76, SD = .69) and the requirements of the digital literacies project ( M = 2.14, SD = .99). The ability to use the feedback template was also viewed favorably ( M = 2.10, SD = .82). On average, the preservice teachers reported being satisfied with the feedback provided by their partner from another institution ( M = 2.31, SD = 1.14). The clarity of directions and expectations was again, on average, rated positively ( M = 2.38, SD = 1.18). The live class session was somewhat problematic due to technical difficulties, so the average rating for that itemwas not surprising ( M = 2.69, SD = 1.00). Open-Ended Responses The most frequently occurring category of codes was peer feedback . Data were identified in this category when the preservice teachers identified benefits or challenges related to the feedback process, or content included in the feedback from partners about their digital literacies projects. Results revealed preservice teachers appreciated their peer’s diverse perspectives, differing interpretations of the digital literacies project requirements, and how they utilized technology. One preservice teacher wrote,“It was nice to have feedback from someone who is in college full time and learning about the most up-to-date technologies and ideas.”Another shared,“I enjoyed getting to see another individual’s creativity in this project. It’s neat seeing how different people interpret directions differently.”The preservice teachers valued the ability to receive what one phrased as“non-biased”feedback prior to instructor grading and/or sharing the project with young children. The lack of participation and high-quality, constructive feedback from some partners contributed to dissatisfaction. One student shared,“She never replied back to me after sending several emails.” Another one noted,“I hate to say it that my partner has not given me any feedback to my project. I also hate to say that they have not sent me their project.”The instructors worked to improve these communication issues as they emerged. Also, partners varied in their depth of feedback. For instance, one preservice teacher noted, “By the end, the feedback given did not have much depth. It was mainly things that I already knew I needed to change.”Interestingly, one peer found it to be advantageous when their peer pointed out areas of improvement that were already suspected. For instance, as this preservice teacher wrote,“It helped me to clarify what I

needed to adjust on my project and validated some of the concerns I already had.”Some feedback form sections were incomplete or missing substance, impacting the preservice teachers’perceptions of the effectiveness of the process (Barrett-Tatum & Caudle, 2018). Instructional Design Over one-fourth of coded data related to benefits, challenges, or supports in instructional design. Data excerpts were categorized as instructional design when preservice teachers referred to benefits or challenges related to the design of the partnership, or support they received during the peer review process. The instructor supports included providing directions, clarifying expectations, and being responsive to student needs. One student wrote, “Thankfully my instructor was willing to call me on the phone and answer any questions I had as well as give me some great advice about specifics of my project.”Another student appreciated the instructor’s responsiveness to her emails, and shared,“Anytime I had a question or concern she [instructor] responded to my email in a very timely manner which made it easier to move on through the project.”There were mixed perceptions about the expectations of the project and partnership. Some preservice teachers found the directions confusing, as one student wrote,“What was expected of us was not clearly stated.”One participant mentioned, while the directions were unclear, the instructor was able to clarify the expectations and the student was able to move forward with the project. Other preservice teachers found the expectations to be clear, and, as one student mentioned,“There were not any confusing components.”However, many of the preservice teachers that were initially confused reached out to the instructors for guidance. Preservice teachers found value in learning about other local cultures and teacher preparation programs. A student shared, “I really liked finding out more about people from a different area of the United States. I’ve lived in my hometown all my life, and it was interesting for me to learn more about another place.”Another commented,“I liked being able to have a look into another college’s education program. I know howmy institution has shaped its program, but I have never known how other colleges have shaped their programs.”The lack of being colleagues with their partner was beneficial to some preservice teachers, as one remarked,“It was a way of having someone other than your peers reflect on your work and you get to meet new people in the process and see how other schools work!” Overall Satisfaction In this study, overall satisfaction included general comments provided by the preservice teachers that demonstrated how satisfied they were with the partnership. This category had three sub-categories that included satisfied, mixed feelings, and dissatisfied. One preservice teacher shared,“I think overall this project, and everything involved in it, was awesome.”Another stated,“I was very satisfied with the whole project.”Some had mixed feelings, such as“Although this is an amazing task to be able to do, it is sometimes frustrating.”Others were dissatisfied, although this was rare. One preservice teacher shared, ‘I was very frustrated during this project.”The overall satisfaction comments were general in nature, and none were directed at identifiable parts of the process, such as peer feedback or instructional design.

Reading Matters Writing Matters

Literacy Matters | Volume 21 • Winter 2021 | 61 |

CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS