Abstract

Previous studies compare quantitative feedback ratings of student peers and instructors, but new presentation-feedback technologies enable qualitative-feedback comparison. This study extends previous research by comparing qualitative feedback and business professionals’ feedback. Compared to the professionals, the instructors provided similar feedback types and sentiment; students, however, de-emphasized message delivery and made fewer suggestions for improvement. The results suggest that students may need additional practice in critiquing message delivery and in suggesting needed improvements in their peers’ oral presentations. The study also provides a methodology using the new technologies for instructors to calibrate their own and their students’ feedback with professionals’ feedback.

Journal
Business and Professional Communication Quarterly
Published
2023-03-01
DOI
10.1177/23294906221120015
CompPile
Search in CompPile ↗

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (2)

  1. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly
  2. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly

Cites in this index (10)

  1. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly
  2. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly
  3. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly
  4. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly
  5. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly
Show all 10 →
  1. Journal of Business and Technical Communication
  2. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly
  3. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly
  4. Journal of Business and Technical Communication
  5. Written Communication
Also cites 31 works outside this index ↓
  1. 10.1177/1080569904672009
  2. 10.1177/108056990106400303
  3. 10.1080/13691060802151945
  4. 10.1177/001316446002000104.
  5. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.983
  6. 10.1177/1469787412441284
  7. 10.1177/108056999806100306
  8. 10.1080/0260293950200305
  9. 10.1177/1080569909356350.
  10. 10.1080/09639284.2011.560763
  11. 10.3102/003465430298487
  12. 10.1177/1049732305276687
  13. 10.1177/1080569913493460
  14. 10.1177/0021943612474990
  15. 10.1177/1080569904268084
  16. 10.2307/2529310
  17. 10.22682/bcrp.2020.3.1.53
  18. 10.19030/ctms.v3i4.5583
  19. 10.1080/15358593.2016.1187454
  20. 10.3905/jpe.2003.320037
  21. 10.1080/0260293032000066218
  22. 10.1023/b:truc.0000021811.66966.1d
  23. 10.31274/etd-180810-5203
  24. 10.4135/9781071802878
  25. 10.1080/02602938.2013.860077
  26. 10.20429/ijsotl.2011.050106
  27. 10.1109/TPC.2019.2893464
  28. 10.1177/1080569909349524
  29. 10.1109/TPC.2014.2342354
  30. 10.1177/002194368802500204
  31. 10.1080/03075079.2015.1117064
CrossRef global citation count: 7 View in citation network →