Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Web-based video training & feedback in oral production classes
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.


Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Web-based video training & feedback in oral production classes


Published on

Presentation at 2008 EuroCALL - associated video clips can be found at

Presentation at 2008 EuroCALL - associated video clips can be found at

Published in: Economy & Finance, Education

1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1. Web-based video training & feedback in oral production classes Robert Gettings Hokusei Gakuen University, Sapporo, Japan Euro CALL 2008.09.04 14:30 – 15:15 (A-0036)
  • 2. Online guided analysis of conver-sation & presentation videos (2005)
    • In a continuing action research project (Nishihara, A. & Presenter, 2006), freshman college English majors in Japan record their EFL conversations or presentations, and using Moodle, a course management system, upload the files to the web, view the videos, target areas for improvement, design an improvement practice plan, evaluate the results, and continue by repeating the process.
  • 3. We investigated three questions.
    • How do students conceptualize good and bad practices for improving oral EFL skills?
    • To what extent can teachers be non-directive in facilitating student awareness of good and bad practices?
    • Is it possible to create scaffolding (video & online) that will guide but not intrude into students’ sense of autonomy in reflection, allowing them to independently decide an area to improve and a plan for practicing for improvement?
  • 4.
    • We explored these questions through direct observation and coaching of students, reading and reacting to student logs and a formal evaluation (online questionnaire).
  • 5. Tasks:
    • Five minute free conversation with a student and also a tutor
      • Challenge: all English
    • Interview on a topic with five or more questions
    • Presentation
      • Evaluation: “Is it interesting?”
  • 6. Students’ concepts of good and bad practices
    • Focus on broad categories
      • Bad pronunciation
      • More vocabulary
      • Better English
    • Visual – body language, etc.
  • 7. Very little focus on communication strategies or presentation skills
    • Some strategies had been taught
      • Giving longer answers
      • Asking follow-up questions
      • Asking for clarification
    • Either present or not
    • Not selected as a way to practice to improve
  • 8. To what extent can teachers be non-directive?
    • Students needed coaching to be specific in analysis
    • Some pre-teaching or consciousness raising about practices for improvement
    • Students have only vague concepts, especially about communication strategies
  • 9. Why video based analysis?
    • Video has often been used to record students and give them feedback on oral production activities such as conversations (Murphy & Woo, 1999).
    • Students often don’t have a concrete image of their own oral production strengths and weaknesses
  • 10. Analysis of presentations
    • Web based video systems, such as DiViDU, are also being integrated into foreign language teaching (Corda & Goedemans, 2007).
    • Streamed video
      • Feedback attached to any part of video
  • 11. Video training for good practices in making presentations
    • Misumi, M. & Sasao, T. (2007 & 2008)
    • Short video clips illustrating good presentation practices for high school EFL curriculum
    • Ppt presentations and picture show and tell
    • Best presentation from each class competes at a whole-school assembly for prizes
    • Gestures, eye contact, clarity of voice, not reading, etc.
  • 12. Many of the approaches, however,
    • Rely on the teacher or technical staff to undertake many of the difficult technical tasks involved
      • Set up of equipment & recording
      • Processing video (digitizing)
      • Uploading to the web
      • Specialized software for analysis
  • 13. This project?
    • Practice rather than production
    • Low tech/high tech balance
    • Focus on a cycle of peer evaluation, goal setting and support
    • Digital video format, recent cameras and open-source software make individualized CALL technology affordable and user friendly.
  • 14. Practice rather than production
    • Students make a before and after video with the requirement that they spend several weeks trying to attain their goals.
    • Presentations are given to small groups five to seven times.
    • Identifying new goals and continuing new practices is stressed.
  • 15. Low tech/high tech balance
    • Software and hardware chosen so that students can record, upload, analyze and reflect on the videos themselves, in or out of class.
    • The teacher and IT staff are coaches but not indispensable elements in the production process.
    • Paper & CALL
  • 16. Low – high tech
    • Xacti & SD card
    • Lowest setting
      • Web – 1.5 MB/min.
      • Up to ?? minutes
    • Moodle upload (under 8 MG)
    • Not streamed
  • 17. Focus on cycle of peer evaluation, goal setting and support
    • Evaluation is carried out by students, coaching by teachers.
    • Students share their own goals before practice with a conversation partner or presentation audience
    • They receive feedback on those goals immediately after the activity is completed.
    Peer evaluation Practice (Re)design
  • 18. Action research: 2005
    • 2005
    • Evaluated highly by students. They also seemed fascinated with making and viewing the videos.
    • BUT:
      • Guided analysis took too much time
      • Students confused about the task
      • Need for consciousness raising concerning good and bad practices
      • Students lost focus on the area that they wanted to improve during the four to six week practice.
  • 19. Action research: 2006 - 2007
    • Used video for analysis of presentation skills
      • First year conversation class
      • Second year content-based History class
    • Simplified guided analysis
      • From six questions & a long written answer
      • To questionnaire format with short written answers
    • More teacher modeling of good and bad practices
    • More guidance during the four week practice period
  • 20. Action research: 2008
    • Presentation Good & Bad Practices Video (Spring)
      • Class that viewed the video seemed to include more good practices than the class that only had teacher modeling
    • Develop and test more good practices videos
  • 21. Good & bad practices for EFL
    • Task introduction
    • Global variables
      • Is it interesting and informative?
      • Does it help you to improve your EFL skills?
    • Specific study & communication strategies
  • 22.
    • Thanks!
  • 23. References
    • Corda, A. & Goedemans, R. 2007. Streaming video as a tool for. reflection. Eurocall Conference . Coleraine.
    • Misumi, M. & Sasao, T. 2007. One Year Instruction of Presentations Develops Balanced Language Skills. JALT Hokkaido 24th Annual Language Teaching Conference
    • Misumi, M., & Sasao, T. (2008). Building confidence with picture show-and-tell. In K. Bradford-Watts (Ed.), JALT2007 Conference Proceedings . Tokyo: JALT
    • Murphy, T. & Woo, L. 1998. Videoing conversation for student evaluation: Educational video's diamond in the rough. The Language Teacher, 22 (8), 21-24.
    • Nishihara, A. & Gettings, R. 2006. A CALL- Based Student Action Research Project for Developing a Reflective Approach to Improving English Conversation Skills, Hokusei Review, 4 : 1-22.