Show and tell: Student and instructor perceptions of screencast assessment

Abstract This study addresses students’ and instructors’ perceptions of screencast assessment and compares this feedback method to traditional paper or digital text-based comments. Screencast assessment allows for asynchronous audio and visual commenting on student papers using screencast software. A pilot study using surveys of 39 students enrolled in lower-level composition classes and surveys of five composition instructors have indicated that screencast assessment promotes detailed and effective feedback on student writing. This feedback method reveals instructor's thought process while grading, and this transparency fosters student–teacher communication about writing. Screencast assessment changes the detail and types of comments, fostering an increased use of macro-level comments over micro-level concerns. The method does not necessarily save time grading but allows for feedback in the same amount of time. Because of the suggestion that students and instructors value screencast assessment, this study warrants a larger scale project in order to investigate the student preference for this feedback and whether the method leads to improvement in student performance.

[1]  Matthew Roberts,et al.  Students' response to traditional and computer-assisted formative feedback: A comparative case study , 2008, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[2]  Karen Swan,et al.  An Analysis of Students' Perceptions of the Value and Efficacy of Instructors' Auditory and Text-Based Feedback Modalities across Multiple Conceptual Levels , 2010 .

[3]  Billy Brick,et al.  Using Screen Capture Software for Student Feedback , 2008 .

[4]  G. Kress,et al.  Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication , 2002 .

[5]  Ewa McGrail,et al.  “Proof‐Revising” With Podcasting: Keeping Readers in Mind as Students Listen To and Rethink Their Writing , 2009 .

[6]  B. Glaser.  Doing grounded theory : issues and discussions , 1998 .

[7]  Aidan Curzon-Hobson,et al.  A Pedagogy of Trust in Higher Learning , 2002 .

[8]  Richard Straub.  The student, the text, and the classroom context: A case study of teacher response , 2000 .

[9]  K. Charmaz,et al.  Constructing Grounded Theory , 2014 .

[10]  M. L. Silva.  Camtasia in the Classroom: Student Attitudes and Preferences for Video Commentary or Microsoft Word Comments During the Revision Process , 2012 .

[11]  G. Hillocks,et al.  The Interaction of Instruction, Teacher Comment, and Revision in Teaching the Composing Process. , 1982 .

[12]  Riki Thompson,et al.  Talking with Students Through Screencasting: Experimentations with Video Feedback to Improve Student Learning , 2012 .

[13]  Russell Stannard.  Using screen capture software in student feedback , 2007 .

[14]  C. Thaiss,et al.  Engaged Writers and Dynamic Disciplines: Research on the Academic Writing Life , 2006 .

[15]  Marilyn K. Gillespie.  EFF Research Principle: A Contextualized Approach to Curriculum and Instruction. EFF Research to Practice Note. , 2002 .

[16]  Bryan A. Bardine,et al.  Beyond the Red Pen: Clarifying Our Role in the Response Process , 2000 .

[17]  Andrew D. Cohen,et al.  The language used to perform cognitive operations during full- immersion maths tasks , 1994 .

[18]  Jill V. Jeffery.  Subjectivity, Intentionality, and Manufactured Moves: Teachers’ Perceptions of Voice in the Evaluation of Secondary Students’ Writing , 2011, Research in the Teaching of English.

[19]  I. Dey.  Grounding grounded theory , 1999 .

[20]  Lynn McAlpine.  The think‐aloud protocol: A description of its use in the formative evaluation of learning materials , 1987 .

[21]  A. Strauss,et al.  The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research aldine de gruyter , 1968 .

[22]  B. Glaser.  The Grounded Theory Perspective: Conceptualization Contrasted With Description , 2001 .

[23]  Khaled Barkaoui,et al.  Think-aloud protocols in research on essay rating: An empirical study of their veridicality and reactivity , 2011 .

[24]  Clete Bulach.  A Measure of Openness and Trust. , 1993 .

[25]  C. Frank.  “What New Things these Words Can Do for You”: A Focus on One Writing-Project Teacher and Writing Instruction , 2001 .

[26]  Sara Cushing Weigle,et al.  Effects of training on raters of ESL compositions , 1994 .

[27]  Laurence Anthony,et al.  AntConc: A Learner and Classroom Friendly, Multi-Platform Corpus Analysis Toolkit , 2004 .

[28]  David Bargeron,et al.  Asynchronous Collaboration Around Multimedia Applied to On-Demand Education , 2002, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[29]  Elizabeth Jackson Vincelette.  Video Capture for Grading: Multimodal Feedback and the Millennial Student , 2013 .

[30]  Ken Bain,et al.  What the Best College Teachers Do , 2004 .

[31]  A. Clarke.  Situational Analysis: Grounded Theory After the Postmodern Turn , 2005 .

[32]  S. Brookfield.  The Skillful Teacher: On Technique, Trust, and Responsiveness in the Classroom 2nd Edition , 1990 .

[33]  Lesa A. Stern,et al.  Effective faculty feedback: The road less traveled , 2006 .

[34]  Marilyn Ruth Sweeney,et al.  Relating Revision Skills to Teacher Commentary. , 1999 .

[35]  Tena B. Crews,et al.  Students’ Perceived Preference for Visual and Auditory Assessment With E-Handwritten Feedback , 2010 .

[36]  Jody Oomen-Early,et al.  Using Asynchronous Audio Communication (AAC) in the Online Classroom: A Comparative Study , 2008 .

[37]  Randall B. Wisehart.  Nurturing Passionate Teachers: Making Our Work Transparent , 2004 .

[38]  Dc Washington,et al.  National Institute for Literacy. , 2008 .

[39]  Dana R. Ferris,et al.  Response To Student Writing: Implications for Second Language Students , 2003 .

[40]  N. Lerner.  The Teacher-Student Writing Conference and the Desire for Intimacy , 2005, College English.