Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Method Overview
Data Analysis
Results and Discussion
Summary and Practical Implications
References
All Topics
Education
Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Research

Exploring Instructor Perceptions of Using Video-Based Feedback

Profile image of Robin KayRobin Kay

2022, Journal of Educational Informatics

https://doi.org/10.51357/JEI.V3I1.181
visibility

…

description

18 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

The use of video feedback in face-to-face, blended, and online learning classes has increased markedly since 2014. However, the use of this form of feedback is not well understood. In this study, we conducted a systematic literature review of how higher education instructors perceive video-based feedback. We analyzed 39 peer-reviewed articles from 2009 to 2019 and identified four themes related to creating videos, the quality of feedback, connecting with students, and sustaining the practice of offering video-based feedback. Overall, most instructors claimed that creating video feedback was relatively easy and time-efficient to create. However, some instructors faced specific challenges related to recording, unwieldy software tools, and feeling anxious when creating videos. Instructors also noted that videos provided more detailed, higher-quality feedback. Additionally, instructors remarked that video feedback increased personal connections with their students. Finally, research on ...

Related papers

Video Feedback in Higher Education – A Contribution to Improving the Quality of Written Feedback
Petter Mathisen

Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 2012

The purpose of this article is to promote the significance of feedback regarding students' working with written texts in higher education and to point out how technology can develop the quality and form of teachers' feedback. The results of studies and tests completed in eight separate subject areas demonstrate that video feedback simplifies and increases the efficiency of responding to students' work, as it allows the opportunity to achieve increased levels of precision and quality in the feedback process. Students emphasize their learning dividend and the inspiration they experience from working with this format. They actively use their teacher's comments and acquire a stronger emotional bond with him/ her as well.

View PDFchevron_right
Is Video Feedback in Higher Education Worth a Byte
Phillip Tretten

2015

Feedback can be given in various situations, like after examinations, project work, and course completion. It is widely accepted that feedback is important for students’ learning, and it can be used in various ways, such as, written, face-to-face, and with the assistance of video recordings. This study focuses on the use of video recorded feedback to gather knowledge on how video recorded feedback can enhance the students learning. Since feedback in the study was given in video recordings, an alternate way was introduced, which add further insights for teaching and learning at university levels. The results showed that 94% preferred video recorded feedback over written feedback and they, in general, preferred face to face feedback (59%). Although, follow-up questions showed that the students found the recorded option beneficial since they could review the video several times in order to see and hear exactly what was stated and what part of their work it related to. In conclusion, vi...

View PDFchevron_right
A comparison of preservice teacher perceptions of instructor video and text-based feedback
Erik Kormos

SN Social Sciences

This experimental quantitative study investigated 48 preservice teachers from a Midwestern state and their perceptions of instructor feedback on a common assessment. Instructor feedback was provided on a program-wide lesson plan in traditional text-based format (N = 26) or digital video-based feedback (N = 22). Feedback competence was assessed using four categories: (1) student perceptions of instructor; (2) student perceptions of knowledge acquisition and learning; (3) student perceptions of personal involvement in the course; and (4) student perceptions of personal motivation. An independent samples t test found participants who received video-based feedback reported higher levels of perceived instructor effectiveness, skill development, intrinsic motivation, and preparedness to enter the profession. The findings moved the literature forward through the significant differences of effectiveness based upon type. Results can help demonstrate the continued need for more personalized feedback for preservice educators to meet course outcomes and improve teaching practices.

View PDFchevron_right
Investigating Students' Perceptions of Screencasting Style of Video Feedback in Online Courses
Patrick Lowenthal

TechTrends, 2022

Feedback is an essential part of the learning process. Asynchronous online courses are marked by an abundance of text-based feedback. Yet, video feedback in asynchronous online courses is a nascent field of inquiry. This study investigated student perceptions of screencasting style of video feedback in online courses. During this course, students received video feedback from their instructor, and provided and received video feedback to their peers. A total of 84 graduate students completed an end-of-course survey between 2018 and 2020 that focused in part on student satisfaction and perceived learning with video feedback and overall perceptions of social presence. Results indicate students were satisfied with receiving video feedback, that video feedback contributed to their perceived learning, and that perceptions of social presence were comparable to previous research. Limitations and implications for practice are discussed.

View PDFchevron_right
A Closer Look at Instructor-Student Feedback Online: A Case Study Analysis of the Types and Frequency
John Sherlock

2010

It is widely recognized that good teaching includes instructor-student feedback, and in online courses, feedback takes a variety of forms, including both synchronous and asynchronous interactions. To understand better the types and frequency of instructorstudent feedback interactions, this case study used document analysis to examine feedback in an online course over a full semester. Feedback interactions were coded as either individual or team feedback and also then coded as either corrective, motivational, or technology-related. With 1,744 recorded instructor-student feedback interactions, corrective feedback accounted for nearly 70% of all feedback (given more often to teams than individuals); motivational feedback was 20% (given more often to individuals than teams); and technology feedback was 10% (given more often to individuals than teams). Additionally, feedback differed over the duration of the semester, with motivational feedback being the greatest at the beginning of the term. An examination of individual versus team differences revealed that teams tended to receive a greater amount of corrective feedback, whereas individuals required greater motivational feedback.

View PDFchevron_right
Examining the impact of video feedback on instructor social presence in blended courses
Charles R. Graham

The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 2014

This mixed method research examined instructors’ use of video feedback and its impact on instructor social presence in 12 blended sections of three preservice educational technology courses. An independent samples t-test was conducted and found no significant difference in perceptions of instructor social presence between students who received video feedback (M = 5.77, SD = 0.85) and those who received text (M = 5.62, SD = 0.75); t(178) = 1.23, p = 0.22. The analysis of 22 student and nine teacher interviews found that participants generally viewed video feedback to be more effective at establishing instructor social presence because instructors could better speak with emotions, talk in a conversational manner, and create a sense of closeness with students. Students also explained that the blended learning format lessened the impact of video feedback on instructor social presence, which may help to explain why statistical differences were not found.

View PDFchevron_right
Using Video-Enhanced Performance Feedback for Student and Instructor Reflection and Evaluation
Andrew Hashey

2020

Reflection is an essential component of experiential learning. Traditional means of reflection rely on memory of experiences, which can be incomplete or even faulty. Video-enhanced performance feedback (VPF)—the use of video to as supporting evidence in the reflective process—has the potential to transform reflective practice. In this chapter, the authors describe how VPF has been utilized by 13 instructors across two higher education institutions for the purposes of noticing, self-reflection, and evaluation/ feedback. Results of an exploratory case study on perceptions of using VPF to support reflection indicate approximately 90% of students found Vosaic, the technology used at these institutions for VPF, easy to use and helpful to notice strengths and areas for improvement in their professional practice. Implications and considerations for incorporating VPF across disciplines are also addressed.

View PDFchevron_right
The use of video technology for providing feedback to students: Can it enhance the feedback experience for staff and students?
Karsten O Lundqvist

Computers & Education, 2012

View PDFchevron_right
The Student Experience of Video-Enhanced Learning, Assessment, and Feedback
James McDowell

Technology-Enhanced Formative Assessment Practices in Higher Education, 2020

Evaluating the impact on the student experience of the integrated model of video-enhanced learning, assessment, and feedback discussed in the previous chapter, qualitative data collection employed anonymous online questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, and dialogic interviewing techniques, drawing on summative results data to inform methodological triangulation of the findings. Data analysis combined thematic analysis, constant comparison, and direct interpretation within a grounded theory framework. Illustrative cases present the findings as thick descriptions of the influence of video-based interventions on the experience of six purposively and representatively selected participants. The chapter concludes that an integrated model of asynchronous video-enhanced learning, assessment, and feedback can promote increased reflexivity, enhance learner autonomy, and encourage meta-cognitive self-awareness, while affording greater inclusivity for students affected by dyslexia or Asper...

View PDFchevron_right
Student Self-Generated Feedback and Video
Leah LeFebvre

Academic Exchange Quarterly, 2012

This primary focus of this paper explores the impact of video feedback on subsequent performances and student feedback in public speaking courses. The paper provides a review of video as an instructional tool in the introductory course. Practical suggestions and future directions are offered for establishing more effective results using video with communicative performances.

View PDFchevron_right

References (64)

  1. Ali, A. D. (2016). Effectiveness of using screencast feedback on EFL students' writing and perception. English Language Teaching, 9(8), 106-121. https://doi.org/10/gg57f4
  2. Alvira, R. (2016). The impact of oral and written feedback on EFL writers with the use of screencasts. Profile: Issues in Teachers' Professional Development, 18(2), 79-92. https://doi.org/10/gg57jb
  3. Anson, I. G. (2015). Assessment feedback using screencapture technology in political science. Journal of Political Science Education, 11(4), 375-390. https://doi.org/10/gg57fw
  4. Armağan, S., Bozoğlu, O., Güven, E., & Çelik, K. (2016). Usage of video feedback in the course of writing in EFL: Challenges and advantages. International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research, 30(2), 95-102. https://gssrr.org/index.php/JournalOfBasicAndApplied/article/view/6459
  5. Bissell, L. C. (2017). Screen-casting as a technology-enhanced feedback mode. Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice, 5(1), 4-12. https://doi.org/10/gg57fz
  6. Borup, J., West, R. E., & Thomas, R. A. (2015). The impact of text versus video communication on instructor feedback in blended courses. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(2), 161-184. https://doi.org/10/f65vp5
  7. Borup, J., West, R. E., Thomas, R. A., & Graham, C. R. (2014). Examining the impact of video feedback on instructor social presence in blended courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(3), 232-256. https://doi.org/10/gg57h2
  8. Carless, D. (2006). Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 219-233. https://doi.org/10/cktfdf
  9. Chang, C., Cunningham, K. J., Satar, H. M., & Strobl, C. (2018). Electronic feedback on second language writing: A retrospective and prospective essay on multimodality. Writing & Pedagogy, 9(3), 405-428. https://doi.org/10/gg57h5
  10. Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. L. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.
  11. Crook, A., Mauchline, A., Maw, S., Lawson, C., Drinkwater, R., Lundqvist, K., Orsmond, P., Gomez, S., & Park, J. (2012). The use of video technology for providing feedback to students: Can it enhance the feedback experience for staff and students? Computers & Education, 58(1), 386-396. https://doi.org/10/bfz77t
  12. Cunningham, K. J. (2019). Student perceptions and use of technology-mediated text and screencast feedback in ESL writing. Computers and Composition, 52, 222-241. https://doi.org/10/gg57fv
  13. Denton, D. W. (2014). Using screen capture feedback to improve academic performance. TechTrends, 58(6), 51-56. https://doi.org/10/gg57ft
  14. Edwards, K., Dujardin, A.-F., & Williams, N. (2012). Screencast feedback for essays on a distance learning MA in professional communication. Journal of Academic Writing, 2(1), 95-126. https://doi.org/10/gg57hp
  15. Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2016). Supporting second language writing using multimodal feedback. Foreign Language Annals, 49(1), 58-74. https://doi.org/10/gg57f5
  16. Ghosn-Chelala, M., & Al-Chibani, W. (2018). Screencasting: Supportive feedback for EFL remedial writing students. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 35(3), 146-159. https://doi.org/10/gg57hb
  17. Glover, C., & Brown, E. (2006). Written feedback for students: Too much, too detailed or too incomprehensible to be effective? Bioscience Education, 7(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10/gg57bp
  18. Glover, I., Parkin, H. J., Hepplestone, S., Irwin, B., & Rodger, H. (2015). Making connections: Technological interventions to support students in using, and tutors in creating, assessment feedback. Research in Learning Technology, 23(1), 27078. https://doi.org/10/ghsgdz
  19. Gonzalez, M., & Moore, N. S. (2018). Supporting graduate student writers with VoiceThread. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 46(4), 485-504. https://doi.org/10/gg57hf
  20. Gough, D., & Thomas, J. (2016). Systematic reviews of research in education: Aims, myths and multiple methods. Review of Education, 4(1), 84-102. https://doi.org/10/gg57hx
  21. Greenhalgh, T., & Peacock, R. (2005). Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: Audit of primary sources. BMJ, 331, 1064-1065. https://doi.org/10/dcxh5h
  22. Griffiths, M. E., & Graham, C. R. (2009). Using asynchronous video in online classes: Results from a pilot study. International Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning, 6(3), 65-76. http://itdl.org/Journal/Mar_09/article06.htm
  23. Griffiths, M. E., & Graham, C. R. (2010). Using asynchronous video to achieve instructor immediacy and closeness in online classes: Experiences from three cases. International Journal on E-Learning, 9(3), 325-340. https://learntechlib.org/primary/p/30315/
  24. Hall, T., Tracy, D., & Lamey, A. (2016). Exploring video feedback in philosophy: Benefits for instructors and students. Teaching Philosophy, 39(2), 137-162. https://doi.org/10/f3p8fc
  25. Harper, F., Green, H., & Fernandez-Toro, M. (2015). 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. https://doi.org/10/gg57f2
  26. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112. https://doi.org/10/bf4d36
  27. Henderson, M., & Phillips, M. (2015). Video-based feedback on student assessment: Scarily personal. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(1), 51-66. https://doi.org/10/ghsgd2
  28. Hepplestone, S., Holden, G., Irwin, B., Parkin, H. J., & Thorpe, L. (2011). Using technology to encourage student engagement with feedback: A literature review. Research in Learning Technology, 19(2), 117-127. https://doi.org/10/fx6rbz
  29. Hope, S. A. (2011). Making movies: The next big thing in feedback? Bioscience Education, 18(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10/crrfhv
  30. Hyde, E. (2013). Talking results: Trialing an audiovisual feedback method for e-submissions. Innovative Practice in Higher Education, 1(3). http://journals.staffs.ac.uk/index.php/ipihe/article/view/37
  31. Jones, N., Georghiades, P., & Gunson, J. (2012). Student feedback via screen capture digital video: Stimulating student's modified action. Higher Education, 64(5), 593-607. https://doi.org/10/gg57f8
  32. Lamey, A. (2015). Video feedback in philosophy. Metaphilosophy, 46(4-5), 691-702. https://doi.org/10/gg57f6
  33. Letón, E., Molanes-López, E. M., Luque, M., & Conejo, R. (2018). Video podcast and illustrated text feedback in a web-based formative assessment environment. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 26(2), 187-202. https://doi.org/10/gg57hw
  34. Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. PLOS Medicine, 6(7), 1-28. https://doi.org/10/cw592j
  35. Mahoney, P., Macfarlane, S., & Ajjawi, R. (2018). A qualitative synthesis of video feedback in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 24(2), 1-23. https://doi.org/10/gg57h6
  36. Mathieson, K. (2012). Exploring student perceptions of audiovisual feedback via screencasting in online courses. American Journal of Distance Education, 26(3), 143-156. https://doi.org/10/gg57f7
  37. Mathisen, P. (2012). Video feedback in higher education: A contribution to improving the quality of written feedback. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 7(2), 97-113. https://doi.org/10/gm4vw7
  38. Mayhew, E. (2017). Playback feedback: The impact of screen-captured video feedback on student satisfaction, learning and attainment. European Political Science, 16(2), 179-192. https://doi.org/10/gg57hk
  39. McCarthy, J. (2015). Evaluating written, audio and video feedback in higher education summative assessment tasks. Issues in Educational Research, 25(2), 153-169. http://www.learntechlib.org/p/161352
  40. Moore, N. S., & Filling, M. (2012). iFeedback: Using video technology for improving student writing. Journal of College Literacy & Learning, 38, 3-14. https://j-cll.org/volume-38-2012
  41. O'Malley, P. J. (2011). Combining screencasting and a tablet PC to deliver personalised student feedback. New Directions in the Teaching of Physical Sciences, 7, 27-30. https://doi.org/10/gg57fx
  42. Orlando, J. (2016). A comparison of text, voice, and screencasting feedback to online students. American Journal of Distance Education, 30(3), 156-166. https://doi.org/10/gg57hn
  43. Özkul, S., & Ortaçtepe, D. (2017). The use of video feedback in teaching process-approach EFL writing. TESOL Journal, 8(4), 862-877. https://doi.org/10/ghfcrq
  44. Parkin, H. J., Hepplestone, S., Holden, G., Irwin, B., & Thorpe, L. (2012). A role for technology in enhancing students' engagement with feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(8), 963-973. https://doi.org/10/d8njhq
  45. Parton, B. S., Crain-Dorough, M., & Hancock, R. (2010). Using flip camcorders to create video feedback: Is it realistic for professors and beneficial to students. International Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning, 7(1), 15-23. http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Jan_10/article02.htm
  46. Pitt, E., & Norton, L. (2017). 'Now that's the feedback I want!' Students' reactions to feedback on graded work and what they do with it. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(4), 499-516. https://doi.org/10/gdqbvq
  47. Price, M., Handley, K., Millar, J., & O'Donovan, B. (2010). Feedback: All that effort, but what is the effect? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(3), 277-289. https://doi.org/10/drrnc3
  48. Richards, K., Bell, T., & Dwyer, A. (2017). Training sessional academic staff to provide quality feedback on university students' assessment: Lessons from a faculty of law learning and teaching project. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 65(1), 25-34. https://doi.org/10/gg57fr
  49. Robinson, S., Centifanti, L., Brewer, G., & Holyoak, L. (2015). The benefits of delivering formative feedback via video-casts. UCLan Journal of Pedagogic Research, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.5420/ujpr.6.
  50. Ryan, T., Henderson, M., & Phillips, M. (2019). Feedback modes matter: Comparing student perceptions of digital and non-digital feedback modes in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 1507-1523. https://doi.org/10/gg57hg
  51. Schilling, W., & Estell, J. K. (2014). Enhancing student comprehension with video grading. Computers in Education Journal, 5(1), 28-39. http://asee-coed.org/index.php/coed/article/view/Schilling_Enhancing
  52. Semke, H. D. (1984). Effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17(3), 195-202. https://doi.org/10/fnqggc
  53. Séror, J. (2012). Show me! Enhanced feedback through screencasting technology. TESL Canada Journal, 30(1), 104-116. https://doi.org/10/gg57hs
  54. Shields, S. (2015). 'My work is bleeding': Exploring students' emotional responses to first-year assignment feedback. Teaching in Higher Education, 20(6), 614-624. https://doi.org/10/gf9k57
  55. Silva, M. L. (2012). Camtasia in the classroom: Student attitudes and preferences for video commentary or Microsoft Word comments during the revision process. Computers and Composition, 29(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10/gcpgt7
  56. Soden, B. (2016). Combining screencast and written feedback to improve the assignment writing of TESOL taught master's students. The European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL, 5(1), 213-236. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A520582481/AONE?u=anon~3f13c1da&sid=googleScholar&xid
  57. Soden, B. (2017). The case of screencast feedback: Barriers to the use of learning technology. Innovative Practice in Higher Education, 3(1), 1-21. http://journals.staffs.ac.uk/index.php/ipihe/article/view/109
  58. Sommers, J. (1989). The effects of tape-recorded commentary on student revision: A case study. Journal of Teaching Writing, 8(2), 49-76. https://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/teachingwriting/article/view/1012
  59. Sommers, J. (2013). Response 2.0: Commentary on student writing for the new millennium. Journal of College Literacy & Learning, 39, 21-37. https://j-cll.org/volume-39-2013
  60. Thomas, R. A., West, R. E., & Borup, J. (2017). An analysis of instructor social presence in online text and asynchronous video feedback comments. The Internet and Higher Education, 33, 61-73. https://doi.org/10/f96nbn
  61. Thompson, R., & Lee, M. J. (2012). Talking with students through screencasting: Experimentations with video feedback to improve student learning. The Journal of Interactive Technology and Pedagogy, 1(1). https://jitp.commons.gc.cuny.edu/2012/02/17/
  62. Turner, W., & West, J. (2013). Assessment for "digital first language" speakers: Online video assessment and feedback in higher education. International Journal of Teaching & Learning in Higher Education, 25(3), 288-296. http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/past2.cfm?v=25&i=3
  63. Vincelette, E. J., & Bostic, T. (2013). Show and tell: Student and instructor perceptions of screencast assessment. Assessing Writing, 18(4), 257-277. https://doi.org/10/gcpgkz
  64. Weaver, M. R. (2006). Do students value feedback? Student perceptions of tutors' written responses. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(3), 379-394. https://doi.org/10/cjknpn

Related papers

A Systematic Review of the Literature on Video Feedback Used in Higher Education
Robin Kay, Tim Bahula

Proceedings of EDULEARN20 Conference, 2020

Effective, timely feedback is a critical part of learning and can increase understanding and future learning performance. The standard format of feedback in digital environments is text-based, however, the use of video-based feedback has risen recently, particularly in online environments. The viability, sustainability and effectiveness of video feedback are not well understood. The purpose of the current study, then, was to conduct a systematic literature review of research on the use of video-based feedback in higher education from 2009-2019. Sixty-seven peer-reviewed articles, selected from a systematic search of electronic databases, were organized and examined through the lenses of Diffusion of Innovation and Community of Inquiry theory. Three key themes emerged: instructor perspective, student perceptive, and learning outcomes. Instructors reported that video feedback was easy to use and efficient, resulting in better quality feedback and increased social and cognitive presence. It is worthwhile noting that even though instructors preferred giving video feedback, a significant number did not use it again. Students preferred video over text-based feedback, noting that it was more detailed, more precise, richer and increased higher-order thinking and future improvement. They also reported that this type of feedback increased social and cognitive presence. Students cited accessibility, the linear nature of feedback, and the evocation of negative emotions as adverse effects of receiving video feedback. Learning outcomes of using video-based feedback were positive, leading to increases in the quality of thesis statements, structure, and supporting evidence provided by students. Finally, the educational implications of this study and future research opportunities are discussed.

View PDFchevron_right
Exploring Student Perceptions of Video Feedback: A Review of The Literature
Robin Kay, Tim Bahula

Proceedings of ICERI2020 Conference, 2020

Feedback is an integral component of learning and attempts to provide students with information about a perceived gap between their performance and desired outcomes. The standard format, particularly in higher education, is text-based feedback, despite significant advances in the ease of recording and distributing video-based feedback in digital learning environments. While recent studies have investigated the experimental use of video-based feedback, the perceptions of students who have received video-based feedback are not well understood. The purpose of the current study, then, was to conduct a systematic literature review of research on the use of video-based feedback in higher education from 2009-2019. Sixty-seven peer-reviewed articles, selected from a systematic search of electronic databases, were organized and examined through the lenses of Diffusion of Innovation and Community of Inquiry theory. An area of research that emerged as common to many studies was how students perceived the video feedback they received and video feedback in general. Analysis of the literature revealed that students preferred this form of feedback over text-based feedback. Students perceived video-based feedback positively, seeing it as more detailed, clearer, and richer, noting that it improved higher-order thinking skills and prepared them for future work. Video-based feedback also had a positive influence on their perceptions of cognitive and social presence. When students perceived video-based feedback negatively, they cited accessibility problems, the linear nature of feedback, and the evocation of negative emotions as adverse effects of receiving video feedback. This paper concludes with some educational implications arising from the perceptions of students and a discussion of research opportunities.

View PDFchevron_right
A qualitative synthesis of video feedback in higher education
Rola Ajjawi

Teaching in Higher Education

While written and audio feedback have been well-examined by researchers, video feedback has received less attention. This review establishes the current state of research into video feedback encompassing three formats: talking head, screencast and combination screencast. Existing research shows that video feedback has a high level of acceptability amongst both staff and students and may help strengthen student-marker relationships; however, the impact of video feedback on student learning outcomes is yet to be determined. In addition, current evidence is drawn largely from small-scale studies and self-reported data susceptible to the novelty effect. While video feedback appears to be a promising alternative to traditional written feedback for its relative relational richness, the medium continues to be primarily used for information transmission rather than dialogue. Further research is needed to establish how the medium of video influences the feedback process, its potential to facilitate dialogue and its effects on student learning.

View PDFchevron_right
The Impact of Text Versus Video Communication on Instructor Feedback in Blended Courses
Jered Borup

In this study we examined student and instructor perceptions of text and video feedback in technology integration courses that combined face-to-face with online instruction for teacher candidates. Items from the Feedback Environment Scale (Steelman, Levy, & Snell, 2004) were used to measure student perceptions of feedback quality and delivery. Independent sample t-tests found no significant difference in perceptions of feedback quality and delivery between students who received video feedback and those who received text. End-of-semester student and instructor interviews identified several differences in the instructors’ feedback methods when they were communicating with text as compared to video. In general, students and instructors found that the affordances of text enabled more efficient and organized feedback, while the affordances of video encouraged more supportive and conversational communication. Analysis of actual feedback comments found video comments were longer and more supportive, while text feedback contained more specific critiques. When rating types of feedback, both students and instructors valued the efficiency of text over the more affective benefits of video. The article concludes with possible implications for future research and recommendations for practice that draw on the potential benefits of both feedback forms.

View PDFchevron_right
Video-based Feedback on Student Work: An Investigation into the Instructor Experience, Workload, and Student Evaluations
Daria LaFave

Online Learning

This exploratory study critically analyzes instructor perceptions of leaving video feedback and its impact on workload. Using qualitative and quantitative data, it discusses instructor experiences in adding video feedback to written notes in online courses. Specifically, this study asks if instructors will feel more "connected" in video feedback courses, if instructors will report increased workloads, and if they see an improvement in their performance evaluations in video feedback courses. The results reveal that video feedback requires more time than written feedback (i.e., non-video feedback), generates varied instructor experiences concerning social presence, and has little to no impact on instructor performance evaluations. The article concludes that more research is needed to fully understand the instructor experience when using videos, especially in environments where part-time, adjunct instruction is the norm.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Computer Science
  • Perception
  • Educational Informatics
  • Online Video
  • Video Feedback
  • Peer Feedback
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved