Experimental evidence on a “light-touch” personalized email intervention in an online, undergraduate physiology course

• Published in: Advances in physiology education Vol. 47; no. 4; pp. 865 - 870
• Main Authors: Leary, Brian K., Bryner, Randy W., Leary, Miriam E.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Bethesda American Physiological Society 01.12.2023
• Subjects: Academic Achievement; Academic Support Services; College students; Experimental Groups; Feedback; Internet; Learner Engagement; Medical education; Medical students; Perceptions; Physiology; Student Improvement; Student Participation
• ISSN: 1043-4046; 1522-1229
• DOI: 10.1152/advan.00124.2023

Personalized performance feedback from light-touch emails did not improve student perceptions of faculty engagement, self-reported participation in academic resources, or academic performance compared with a standardized email in a junior-level, online physiology course. In large physiology classes, there is a demand for low-effort, or “light touch,” strategies that faculty can use to connect with students and promote increased academic performance and student engagement. The purpose of this study was to compare personalized versus standardized emails following unit quizzes on student perceptions of faculty engagement, participation in academic resources, and academic performance in a junior-level, online physiology course. Students completed the online unit quiz and received a subsequent feedback email from the course director. Students were randomized into the Control ( n = 101) or the Experimental ( n = 104) group for general or personalized performance feedback emails, respectively. Students completed start and end of semester surveys capturing demographics, course expectations, self-reported use of resources, and impressions of the faculty. Final exam and course grades were collected. Perceptions of faculty were similar between groups, and receiving professor feedback after quizzes did not make the Experimental group more likely to use any of the available academic support services. There was no difference in final exam grades (Control: 73.9 ± 14.1%; Experimental: 73.4 ± 15.3%) or final course grades between groups (Control: 79.2 ± 13.1%; Experimental: 78.7 ± 13.3; P > 0.05). Personalized performance feedback from light-touch emails did not improve student perceptions of faculty engagement, self-reported participation in academic resources, or academic performance compared with a standardized email in a junior-level, online physiology course. Overall, this study does not support the use of personalized emails regarding quiz performance in an online physiology course. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Personalized performance feedback from light-touch emails did not improve student perceptions of faculty engagement, self-reported participation in academic resources, or academic performance compared with a standardized email in a junior-level, online physiology course.