Using Screencasts to Provide Feedback on Student Writing

By Margaret Poncin Reeves

Many instructors are familiar with screencasting as a lecture tool; they use it record videos that show their lecture slides on the screen while they deliver the content orally. However, screencasting software can be used as a feedback tool as well. In particular, I have found screencasting to be useful in my college-level writing courses for multilingual students. The tool allows me to speak through my comments—reactions to what they’ve written, suggestions for revision, etc.—and students are able to see their papers projected on my screen.

While much research has been done on video feedback for L1 students, less focus has been given to this medium for L2 contexts. However, I have found that the benefits of video feedback are similar for multilingual students as they are for the L1 students that I teach.

It is versatile to different levels of feedback. I began using video feedback because of its potential for global-level feedback. For instance, I can help students restructure their writing by moving passages around while the changes are recorded on my screen, I can pull up sources to help them identify evidence for their arguments, or I can suggest additional directions for their projects.

However, in my years using this medium, I’ve been surprised to find how useful it is for teaching language and grammar. I am able to edit students’ work on camera, providing different possibilities for structuring sentences. I am able to provide quick lessons on grammatical points, pointing to specific moments in their paper but also pulling up relevant sections of their e-textbook on my screen and typing out examples to illustrate my point.

Students understand it better and are more successful at implementing the feedback (Cunningham, 2019; Sprague, 2016; Thompson and Lee, 2012). Hyde (2013) showed that instructors provide more feedback when doing videos, and I’ve found this to be true as well. I can say multitudes more in 5 minutes of speaking than 5 minutes of writing. Much of this additional content is additional explanation—for why I’ve made the comment as well as how to revise the paper.

It increases rapport between students and teachers (Harper et al., 2018). Particularly with courses moving online during the pandemic, the importance of finding ways to connect with students is even more apparent. Video feedback allows students to hear the instructor’s voice, creating a more personal connection (Anson et al., 2016).

It allows for more positive feedback. Harper et al. (2018) found that tutors who use video feedback provide more positive comments than those who use written feedback. Additionally, even when providing critiques, video feedback allows me to more easily convey tone though my voice—especially for multilingual students who may have more trouble interpreting tone in writing.

Process

Immediately after reading through a student’s submission and jotting brief notes, I launch my screencasting software (I typically use Screencastomatic) and hit “record.” The computer records my voice and the screen, including movements of the mouse, typing in the paper, and new windows that I may open on the screen. My comments are unscripted—I speak as I would were the student sitting across from me—and I almost never edit the recording, so it often contains “ums” and “ers.” However, I do pause the recording frequently to collect my thoughts, something which is mostly imperceptible in the finished video.

When I’m done, I save the recording online using the screencasting program’s website or a free video hosting service like YouTube, using privacy settings to ensure it is not accessible to anyone else. Alternatively, I can upload the video file to my institution’s learning management system or cloud storage. Then, when I assign grades, I include a link to each student’s video in the “comments” section next to their grade. Each student simply clicks the link they received to view the feedback.

Potential Concerns

Will this take more time?

While research on this question has found mixed results (McCarthy, 2015), some studies have found that it is quicker (Cunningham, 2019; Edwards et al., 2012). There are a few considerations to keep in mind to minimize your time commitment: First, the videos should be short—a few minutes only—and they don’t need to be polished. In fact, if I make a mistake, rather than spending time editing, I delete and start over. After all, a 5-minute video only takes 5 minutes to rerecord, much less time than it would take to edit out a jumbled phrase or an unsilenced cell phone.

Will students understand oral feedback?

A major concern for video feedback with multilingual students is that some may have more trouble understanding the comments when delivered orally. However, the benefit of a video is that students can rewatch it. Further, many screencasting and video hosting platforms will create automatic captions and allow viewers to slow down the pace of the video.

Will I have access to the tools I need?

To record and post a screencast, you just need a computer, internet access, and a microphone. I find the one built into my laptop works pretty well, but iPhone headphones (with their built-in microphone) work even better. As for the screencasting program, your institution may own licenses to a screencasting program through your learning management system. However, I typically use a free application, and there are many available (for example, Screencastomatic, Descript, and Panopto Express).

One concern is having a relatively private space with few interruptions—particularly if you use a shared office or are working from home with other household members nearby.

What about accessibility?

Two potential concerns surrounding accessibility include access for students with disabilities and technology access. While students with some types of disabilities find that video feedback is easier for them, others will not. Additionally, there are some students who do not have access to high-speed internet to allow them to easily stream videos. For this reason, I always offer students an opt-out option before the first round of feedback, allowing them to choose written comments instead.

Final Thoughts

With many instructors becoming increasingly familiar with screencasting software for lecturing in the past year, this is a useful moment to consider additional uses for this tool. Screencast feedback combines many of the affordances of written, audio, and face-to-face meetings. While instructors should be aware of the limitations that students may encounter in accessing videos, screencasting is an easy-to-use and versatile tool for many types of feedback—from clarifying instructions to research help to corrective feedback—on any project that can projected on your computer screen.

References

Anson, C. M., Dannels, D. P., Laboy, J. I., & Carneiro, L. (2016). Students’ perceptions of oral screencast responses to their writing. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 30(3), 378-411. doi:10.1177/1050651916636424.

Cunningham, K. J. (2019). Student Perceptions and Use of Technology-Mediated Text and Screencast Feedback in ESL Writing. Computers & Composition, 52, 222–241. https://doi-org.ezproxy.depaul.edu/10.1016/j.compcom.2019.02.003.

Edwards, K., et al. (2012). Screencast Feedback for Essays on a Distance Learning MA in Professional Communication: An Action Research Project. Journal of Academic Writing, 2(1), 95-126.

Harper, F., Green, H., & Fernandez-Toro, M. (2018). Using screencasts in the teaching of modern Languages: Investigating the use of JING® in feedback on written assignments. The Language Learning Journal, 46(3), 277-292. doi:10.1080/09571736.2015.1061586.

Hyde, E. (2013). Talking Results-trialing an audio-visual feedback method for e-submissions. Innovative Practice in Higher Education, 1(3).

McCarthy, J. (2015), “Evaluating written, audio and video feedback in higher education summative assessment tasks”, Issues in Educational Research, 25(2), 153-169.

Sprague, A. (2016). Restoring Student Interest in Reading Teacher Feedback through the Use of Video Feedback in the ESL Writing Classroom. Ohio Journal of English Language Arts, 56(1), 23–27.

Thompson, R., & Lee, M. J. (2012). Talking with Students through Screencasting: Experimentations with Video Feedback to Improve Student Learning. Journal of Interactive Technology and Pedagogy, 1(1), 1-16.

Margaret Poncin Reeves is a Professional Lecturer in the Writing, Rhetoric, and Discourse department at DePaul University, where she teaches first-year writing and business writing for both L1 and multilingual students.


Using Screencasts to Provide Feedback on Student Writing By Margaret Poncin Reeves Many instructors are familiar with screencasting as a lecture tool; they use it record videos that show their lecture slides on the screen while they deliver the content orally. However, screencasting software can be used as a feedback tool as well. In particular, I have found screencasting to be useful in my college-level writing courses for multilingual students. The tool allows me to speak through my comments—reactions to what they’ve written, suggestions for revision, etc.—and students are able to see their papers projected on my screen. While much research has been done on video feedback for L1 students, less focus has been given to this medium for L2 contexts. However, I have found that the benefits of video feedback are similar for multilingual students as they are for the L1 students that I teach. It is versatile to different levels of feedback. I began using video feedback because of its potential for global-level feedback. For instance, I can help students restructure their writing by moving passages around while the changes are recorded on my screen, I can pull up sources to help them identify evidence for their arguments, or I can suggest additional directions for their projects. However, in my years using this medium, I’ve been surprised to find how useful it is for teaching language and grammar. I am able to edit students’ work on camera, providing different possibilities for structuring sentences. I am able to provide quick lessons on grammatical points, pointing to specific moments in their paper but also pulling up relevant sections of their e-textbook on my screen and typing out examples to illustrate my point. Students understand it better and are more successful at implementing the feedback (Cunningham, 2019; Sprague, 2016; Thompson and Lee, 2012). Hyde (2013) showed that instructors provide more feedback when doing videos, and I’ve found this to be true as well. I can say multitudes more in 5 minutes of speaking than 5 minutes of writing. Much of this additional content is additional explanation—for why I’ve made the comment as well as how to revise the paper. It increases rapport between students and teachers (Harper et al., 2018). Particularly with courses moving online during the pandemic, the importance of finding ways to connect with students is even more apparent. Video feedback allows students to hear the instructor’s voice, creating a more personal connection (Anson et al., 2016). It allows for more positive feedback. Harper et al. (2018) found that tutors who use video feedback provide more positive comments than those who use written feedback. Additionally, even when providing critiques, video feedback allows me to more easily convey tone though my voice—especially for multilingual students who may have more trouble interpreting tone in writing. Process Immediately after reading through a student’s submission and jotting brief notes, I launch my screencasting software (I typically use Screencastomatic) and hit “record.” The computer records my voice and the screen, including movements of the mouse, typing in the paper, and new windows that I may open on the screen. My comments are unscripted—I speak as I would were the student sitting across from me—and I almost never edit the recording, so it often contains “ums” and “ers.” However, I do pause the recording frequently to collect my thoughts, something which is mostly imperceptible in the finished video. When I’m done, I save the recording online using the screencasting program’s website or a free video hosting service like YouTube, using privacy settings to ensure it is not accessible to anyone else. Alternatively, I can upload the video file to my institution’s learning management system or cloud storage. Then, when I assign grades, I include a link to each student’s video in the “comments” section next to their grade. Each student simply clicks the link they received to view the feedback. Potential Concerns Will this take more time? While research on this question has found mixed results (McCarthy, 2015), some studies have found that it is quicker (Cunningham, 2019; Edwards et al., 2012). There are a few considerations to keep in mind to minimize your time commitment: First, the videos should be short—a few minutes only—and they don’t need to be polished. In fact, if I make a mistake, rather than spending time editing, I delete and start over. After all, a 5-minute video only takes 5 minutes to rerecord, much less time than it would take to edit out a jumbled phrase or an unsilenced cell phone. Will students understand oral feedback? A major concern for video feedback with multilingual students is that some may have more trouble understanding the comments when delivered orally. However, the benefit of a video is that students can rewatch it. Further, many screencasting and video hosting platforms will create automatic captions and allow viewers to slow down the pace of the video. Will I have access to the tools I need? To record and post a screencast, you just need a computer, internet access, and a microphone. I find the one built into my laptop works pretty well, but iPhone headphones (with their built-in microphone) work even better. As for the screencasting program, your institution may own licenses to a screencasting program through your learning management system. However, I typically use a free application, and there are many available (for example, Screencastomatic, Descript, and Panopto Express). One concern is having a relatively private space with few interruptions—particularly if you use a shared office or are working from home with other household members nearby. What about accessibility? Two potential concerns surrounding accessibility include access for students with disabilities and technology access. While students with some types of disabilities find that video feedback is easier for them, others will not. Additionally, there are some students who do not have access to high-speed internet to allow them to easily stream videos. For this reason, I always offer students an opt-out option before the first round of feedback, allowing them to choose written comments instead. Final Thoughts With many instructors becoming increasingly familiar with screencasting software for lecturing in the past year, this is a useful moment to consider additional uses for this tool. Screencast feedback combines many of the affordances of written, audio, and face-to-face meetings. While instructors should be aware of the limitations that students may encounter in accessing videos, screencasting is an easy-to-use and versatile tool for many types of feedback—from clarifying instructions to research help to corrective feedback—on any project that can projected on your computer screen. References Anson, C. M., Dannels, D. P., Laboy, J. I., & Carneiro, L. (2016). Students’ perceptions of oral screencast responses to their writing. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 30(3), 378-411. doi:10.1177/1050651916636424. Cunningham, K. J. (2019). Student Perceptions and Use of Technology-Mediated Text and Screencast Feedback in ESL Writing. Computers & Composition, 52, 222–241. https://doi-org.ezproxy.depaul.edu/10.1016/j.compcom.2019.02.003. Edwards, K., et al. (2012). Screencast Feedback for Essays on a Distance Learning MA in Professional Communication: An Action Research Project. Journal of Academic Writing, 2(1), 95-126. Harper, F., Green, H., & Fernandez-Toro, M. (2018). Using screencasts in the teaching of modern Languages: Investigating the use of JING® in feedback on written assignments. The Language Learning Journal, 46(3), 277-292. doi:10.1080/09571736.2015.1061586. Hyde, E. (2013). Talking Results-trialing an audio-visual feedback method for e-submissions. Innovative Practice in Higher Education, 1(3). McCarthy, J. (2015), “Evaluating written, audio and video feedback in higher education summative assessment tasks”, Issues in Educational Research, 25(2), 153-169. Sprague, A. (2016). Restoring Student Interest in Reading Teacher Feedback through the Use of Video Feedback in the ESL Writing Classroom. Ohio Journal of English Language Arts, 56(1), 23–27. Thompson, R., & Lee, M. J. (2012). Talking with Students through Screencasting: Experimentations with Video Feedback to Improve Student Learning. Journal of Interactive Technology and Pedagogy, 1(1), 1-16. Margaret Poncin Reeves is a Professional Lecturer in the Writing, Rhetoric, and Discourse department at DePaul University, where she teaches first-year writing and business writing for both L1 and multilingual students.
Spring 2021 - Spring 2021