Outcomes and perceptions of annotated video feedback following psychomotor skill laboratories

Abstract

This study sought to explore the effectiveness of annotated video technology for providing feedback to occupational therapy students learning transfers, range of motion and manual muscle testing. Fifty-seven first-year occupational therapy students were split into two groups. One received annotated video feedback during a transfer lab and traditional feedback during an upper extremity assessment lab. The second group received the opposite forms of feedback during the same labs. Students completed an online survey regarding their perceptions of learning based on the type of feedback received, including both numerical and open-ended questions. Students receiving annotated feedback scored significantly higher on the transfer practical. There was no statistically significant difference in the outcomes of the upper extremity practical. Annotated video feedback appears to significantly improve student learning when video content and feedback matches the skill to be assessed. Despite these findings, students have mixed perceptions of this form of feedback.

Exploration of CoachEye Application Features to Improve Feedback During Physical Education

“…The full version application was very useful as it provides the user with the chance to: (1) create analysis video (e.g., freehand arrow, line, circle, square), (2) video comparison, (3) precision measurement tools (e.g., angle, timer), and (4) share the videos via email, text messages, and social media. Many authors suggested the use of such applications to improve both teacher's feedback and students' learning experience (Truskowski & VanderMolen 2016;Mahoney, Macfarlane, & Ajjawi, 2018). Before the study, the researcher downloaded and practiced using the mobile application in various physical activities (e.g., football, badminton, brisk walking) to increase competency and experience in using the application.…”

Feedback on video skill: A concept analysis

“…A significant difference in the performance of the skills (p < .001) by group 2 (videoassisted feedback) compared to group 1 (Ruesseler et al, 2017). Similarly, Truskowski and VanderMolen (2017) compared occupational therapy students (n = 57) performing range of motion and manual muscle testing skills receiving traditional (face-to-face/didactic) feedback with students receiving video-annotated delayed feedback. The video-annotated delayed feedback group showed significant difference in students' skill performance when compared to the traditional feedback group.…”

“…Feedback on students' video skills should include an opportunity for them to express the relational and emotional aspects they experienced while performing the skills. The literature review did not indicate an ideal feedback method, yet using various forms of feedback for students on their video skills resulted in increased student satisfaction and improved performance (Harrison et al, 2015;Ice et al, 2007;Labrusse et al, 2016;Myung et al, 2010;Ruesseler et al, 2017;Truskowski & VanderMolen, 2017).…”

“…Therefore, recording video skills and/or receiving feedback create an element of anxiety and additional supports may be required to reduce the occurrence of such experiences. Forbes et al, 2016;Molnar & Kearney, 2017;Naik et al, 2018;Nesbitt et al, 2015;Noordman et al, 2014;Ruesseler et al, 2017;Sainsbury et al, 2016;Seckman, 2018;Truskowski & VanderMolen, 2017;Vaughn et al, 2016). Bowden et al, 2012;Forbes et al, 2016;Hulsman & Vloodt, 2015;Kneebone et al, 2002;Myung et al, 2010;Nesbitt et al, 2015;Noordman et al, 2014;Ruesseler et al, 2017;Truskowski & VanderMolen, 2017).…”

A second pair of eyes: Remediating formative assessment in a clinical optometry module using a video annotation tool

“…These applications enable students to record themselves and analyse, reflect on and discuss their recordings, using video annotation tools to write time-stamped comments (Evi-Colombo et al, 2020). Although some recent studies have explored the use of video annotation for procedural clinical skills training (Evi-Colombo et al, 2020;Cattaneo et al, 2020;Truskowski and VanderMolen, 2017), they have mainly employed experimental or quasi-experimental designs which do not capture the nuances of the impact of the technology on student learning.…”