Effectiveness of Using Screencast Feedback on EFL Students’ Writing and Perception

Abstract

This mixed-methods research was carried out to investigate the effect of screencast video feedback on the writing of freshmen, studying academic writing course at a university in Egypt, and explore their perception towards receiving screencast feedback. Two classes of 63 students were chosen to participate in this study and were assigned into two groups; an experimental group (33 students) and a control one (30 students). While the control group received written comments, the experimental group received video feedback to the higher order concerns of writing (content, organization and structure) and written feedback to the lower order concerns (accuracy) of their writings. Two writing tests were administered to the two groups before and after the experiment. To investigate the perception towards screencast feedback, an online questionnaire was applied to the experimental group after the experiment. Results showed that the experimental group outperformed the control group in the higher order concerns of writing as well as the overall writing skill in the writing posttest. Findings also revealed that the majority of students in the experimental group perceived screencast feedback positively for being clear, personal, specific, supportive, multimodal, constructive, and engaging. However, they reported few challenges such as slow loading time and inability to download videos to their computers. The research concludes with implications for practitioners and researchers.

Modes of feedback in ESL writing: Implications of shifting from text to screencast

“…Students experiencing such vague feedback have stated preferences for written feedback when the written feedback offered more precise local correction. However, other uses of screencasting that were more specific and explanatory have led to students citing a preference for such grammar feedback to be provided in screencasts rather than written form (Ali, 2016). This seems in line with the general problems often cited in studies of text feedback such as issues with lack of understanding (e.g., Ferris, 1995;Mahfoodh & Pandian, 2011;Sullivan, 1986), perhaps stemming from a lack of rationale for feedback (N. Sommers, 1982) and feedback being vague (e.g., Busse, 2013;Chanock, 2000;N.…”

“…In feedback given with screencasting software, the student paper is recorded on screen. The paper may be accompanied by written comments (Ali, 2016;Harper, Green, & Fernandez-Toro, 2015) or coded feedback (Ducate & Arnold, 2012), or it may be free of written annotation (Elola & Oskoz, 2016). For most instructors, the burden of creating feedback twice, once with written and a second time with screencast or audio commentary, would take too much time to be feasible.…”

“…Instructors have seen screencast feedback as beneficial and less overwhelming for students with many grammatical issues (Harper et al, 2015) and particularly useful for addressing higher order concerns (Ali, 2016;Ducate & Arnold, 2012). The provision of audio comments in the screencast environment has been suggested to be especially promising for students with dyslexia (Harper et al, 2015) and as a way to appeal to auditory and visual learners (Ali, 2016) while providing all students with the opportunity to practice their listening skills alongside writing (Ali, 2016;Harper et al, 2015). After overcoming initial apprehensions, students tend to respond very positively to screencast feedback and its audiovisual provisions (Ali, 2016;Elola & Oskoz, 2016).…”

“…Studies of screencast feedback in SLW contexts have highlighted many positive aspects of the mode. Screencast feedback has been found to be clear (Ali, 2016;Elola & Oskoz, 2016;Harper et al, 2015), personal (Ali, 2016;Harper et al, 2015), specific (Ali, 2016;Harper et al, 2015), motivating (Ali, 2016), engaging (Harper et al, 2015), encouraging (Ali, 2016), memorable (Harper et al, 2015) and preferred by students (Ducate & Arnold, 2012;Harper et al, 2015). It leads to instructors giving more explanation (Ali, 2016;Ducate & Arnold, 2012;Elola & Oskoz, 2016;Harper et al, 2015) and praise (Ali, 2016;Elola & Oskoz, 2016), while enhancing instructor presence (Harper et al, 2015) and offering affective benefits (Ducate & Arnold, 2012;Harper et al, 2015).…”

“…Such improvements to feedback overcome many of the issues associated with written feedback while maintaining success in revision. Students tend to successfully revise at the similar or better rates with screencast than with written MS Word feedback (Ducate & Arnold, 2012;Elola & Oskoz, 2016) and improve more than those with written feedback on follow-up writing exams (Ali, 2016).…”