Assessment Feedback using Screencapture Technology in Political Science

Transforming Feedback: An Application Framework for Group Feedback Videos in Design

“…Students also reported preferring GFVs to written feedback for the clarity they provided and for how they explained requirements through multiple visual examples. Similar student responses regarding audio‐visual feedback were referenced from other studies (for examples see Anson ; Orlando ) and could be linked to Daft & Lengel's () Media Richness Theory suggesting that the richest feedback was a face‐to‐face conversation. In design education, face‐to‐face feedback commonly occurred around designed artefacts that acted as reference material, and often in the presence of other people – that is, students, educators, designers… etc.…”

“…Similar findings have been reported in other studies where students felt that video feedback was more constructive and engaging, therefore, making it more formative (Jones et al . ; Anson ; Mathieson ). Educators in the present study also reported being more engaged with the format as it was more enjoyable than writing individual comments.…”

“…By comparison, written feedback in previous years equated to an average of 55 words per student and was accompanied only by a marking rubric – not visual references. A number of other studies have made similar word‐based comparisons favouring verbal over written feedback (for example see Anson ; Henderson & Phillips ). These simple comparisons and the video analytics supported survey results for why students preferred GFVs.…”

“…; Henderson & Phillips ). Students noticed and appreciated this factor, reporting that it seemed that educators cared about their learning outcomes when adopting video feedback techniques (Anson ). Students also reported video feedback being more engaging overall as they could see their teacher's face or hear their voice (Henderson & Phillips ; Mathieson ; Orlando ).…”

“…Henderson & Phillips (, 52) recommends that educators should be timely, be clear (unambiguous), be educative (and not just evaluative), be proportionate to criteria/goals, locate student performance, emphasise task performance, be phrased as an ongoing dialogue rather than an endpoint, and be sensitive to the individual. Anson (, 380) recommends that educators review student submissions first, jot down notes, and consider overarching themes. Orlando (, 162–4) suggests that educators train up on the technology, think in terms of visual medium, avoid editing, and consider people with disabilities.…”