Abstract
A new technique of providing assessment feedback to students is demonstrated via a case study of MBA and undergraduate students. The feedback method uses inexpensive and widely available screen capture digital video technology; it gives the student an impression of being present during the marking process. In addition it enables the tutor to provide a richer range of feedback. For example the tutor can annotate and correct as with traditional methods; demonstrate step-by-step answer formulation; algorithms; show the solution, alternative answers, etc. Primary data was collected from target groups of students and from tutor reflection on using the new feedback medium. Results from a mixed qualitative and quantitative approach in this descriptive-exploratory study suggest that (a) this medium has advantages over traditional methods of communicating feedback, (b) that students enjoy this new form of feedback, and (c) that this encourages them to engage with and learn from the tutor assessment of answers, rather than concentrating only on obtaining marks. It seems that this generation of students find the medium a close fit with other forms of communication they are used to in their technology enriched lives. Feedback via screen capture digital video takes engagement of the two parties, tutor and student, to a higher level of effective communication and helps stimulate students to continually improve and modify action. We have found that the formative assessment feedback mechanism in this case study, even though it is not a dialogue and is asynchronous, does encourage greater student engagement with feedback than prior methods of annotation on student submitted work.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ala-Mutka, K. (2005). A survey of automated assessment approaches for programming assignments. Computer Science Education, 15(2), 83–102.
Astin, A. W. (2002). Assessment for excellence : The philosophy and practice of assessment and evaluation in higher education. Westport: American Council on Education: Oryx Press.
Bamber, V. (2009). Enhancing learning, teaching, assessment and curriculum in higher education : Theory, cases, practices. Maidenhead, England; New York: Open University Press.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74.
Campbell, A., & Norton, L. (2007). Learning, teaching and assessing in higher education : Developing reflective practice (teaching in higher education). Exeter: Learning Matters.
Charmaz, K. (2005). Grounded Theory in the 21st Century: applocations for advancing social justice studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research/editors, Norman K. Denzin, Yvonna S. Lincoln (pp. 509–520). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Chickering, A., & Gamson, Z. (Eds.). (1991). Applying the seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education (47th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Davis, C., & Ryder, A. (2009). Using an old technology in a new way or using a new technology in an old way?—exploring the use of audio feedback post-teaching observation. Paper presented at the A Word In Your Ear, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK, 18 December 2009.
Gipps, C. (2005). What is the role for ICT-based assessment in universities. Studies in Higher Education, 30(2), 171–180.
Hartley, J., & Chesworth, K. (2000). Qualitative and quantitative methods in research on essay writing: No one way. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 24(1), 15–24.
Hepplestone, S., & Parkin, H. (2009). Technology, feedback, action!: The impact of learning `technology upon students’ engagement with their feedback. Paper presented at the A Word In Your Ear, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK, 18 December 2009.
Higgins, R., Hartley, P., & Skelton, A. (2002). The conscientious consumer: Reconsidering the role of assessment feedback in student learning. Studies in Higher Education, 27(1), 53–64.
Hyland, P. (2000). Learning from feedback on assessment. In A. Booth & P. Hyland (Eds.), The practice of university history teaching. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39(02), 83–101. doi:10.1017/S0261444806003399.
Kahu, E. (2008). Feedback: The heart of good pedagogy. New Zealand Annual Review of Education, 17, 187–197.
Kulhavy, R., & Stock, W. (1989). Feedback in written instruction: The place of response certitude. Educational Psychology Review, 1(4), 279–308. doi:10.1007/bf01320096.
Lamaster, K., & Knop, N. (2004). Improving web based instruction: Using action research to enhance distance learning instruction. Educational Action Research, 12(3), 387–412.
Laurillard, D. (2009a). Rethinking University Teaching in the Digital Age. Proceedings of the ALT-C Conference 2009. http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ffp0205s.pdf. Accessed 15th December 2011.
Laurillard, D. (2009b). Evaluating learning designs through the formal representation of learning patterns. Invited guest speaker to ALT-C Conference September 9th 2009 http://www.alt.ac.uk/altc2009/keynotes.html#laurillard. Accessed December 14th 2011.
Lin, S. S. J., Liu, E. Z. F., & Yuan, S. M. (2001). Web-based peer assessment: Feedback for students with various thinking styles. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17(4), 420–432.
Matsumura, A., & Hann, G. (2004). Computer anxiety and students’ preferred feedback methods in EFL writing. The Modern Language Journal, 88(3), 403–415.
Microsoft. (2010). About the Windows Media Codecs. MSDN Library. Retrieved October 2, 2010 from http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg153556(v=VS.85).aspx#windows_media_video_9_screen
Mutch, A. (2003). Exploring the practice of feedback to students. Active Learning in Higher Education, 4(1), 24–38. doi:10.1177/1469787403004001003.
Nicol, D., & MacFarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218.
Olsen, W. (2004). Triangulation in social research: Qualitative and quantitative methods can really be mixed. In M. Hoborn (Ed.), Developments in sociology (Vol. 20, pp. 103–118): Causeway Press.
Orrell, J. (2006). Feedback on learning achievement: Rhetoric and reality. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(4), 441–456.
Race, P. (2007). The lecturer’s toolkit : A practical guide to assessment, learning and teaching. London; New York: Routledge.
Race, P. (2010). Making learning happen : A guide for post-compulsory education. London; Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education. RoutledgeFalmer: London; New York.
Richardson, J. T. E., Eysenck, M. W., & Piper, D. W. (1987). Student learning: Research in education and cognitive psychology. In Society for Research into Higher Education & British Psychological Society. Cognitive Psychology, Section, Milton Keynes, England; Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1987: Society for Research into Higher Education : Open University Press
Rodway-Dyer, S., Dunne, E., & Newcombe, M. (2009). Audio and screen visual feedback to support student learning. Paper presented at the ALT-C 2009 “In dreams begins responsibility”—choice, evidence and change, Manchester., 8–10 September 2009
Rotheram, R. (2009). Sounds Good:reflections, challenges. Keynote Addres at the A Word In Your Ear, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK, 18 December 2009
Rowe, A. D., & Wood, L. N. (2008). What feedback do students want? Paper presented at the International Education Research Conference., Freemantle, Australia, January 18, 2008
Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research/editors, Norman K. Denzin, Yvonna S. Lincoln (pp. 443–466). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Weaver, M. (2006). Do students value feedback? Student perceptions of tutors’ written responses. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(3), 379–395.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Web site support: http://teacher.studentpages.org.uk.
Appendix 1
Appendix 1
Technology
Our experience shows that file size and time to upload/download is within acceptable parameters, both from tutor and student viewpoints. The average video feedback file size was 6 MB, for about 6 min of recording. The largest file produced so far was 9 MB. An equivalent DVD file for 6 min would be about 240 MB.
Our choice of this encoding software was influenced by the fact that it was free, easily available and was fit for purpose. This method requires a standard Windows-based computer and a microphone. What makes this possible is the Windows Media Video 9 Screen codec (Coder-Decoder) which is optimised for compressing sequential screenshots and highly static video captured from the computer display. This makes it ideal for this kind of application. The codec takes advantage of the typical image simplicity and relative lack of motion to achieve a very high compression ratio.
During the encoding process, the codec automatically switches between lossy and lossless modes, depending on the complexity of the screen content. For complex data, the lossless mode preserves an exact copy of the screen image content. For less complex data, the lossy mode discards some data to achieve a smaller file size (Microsoft 2010).
Overall, the Windows Media Video 9 Screen codec delivers better handling of bitmap images and screen motion, even on relatively low power computers. It is about 50–100 times more efficient than the commonly-used run length codecs (as used in other similar programs) or MPEG-2 video as delivered on DVD.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jones, N., Georghiades, P. & Gunson, J. Student feedback via screen capture digital video: stimulating student’s modified action. High Educ 64, 593–607 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-012-9514-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-012-9514-7