Will Video kill the manuscript scrawl? The impact of video feedback on students’ perceptions of feedback <ul><li>Simon Sneddon </li></ul><ul><li>Division of Law </li></ul><ul><li>University of Northampton </li></ul>Paper delivered at Learning in Law Annual Conference 2011 University of Warwick 28 January 2011
BACKGROUND National Student Survey (NSS): Overall Student Satisfaction: 82% (2010) 81% (2009) Feedback (Q9, NSS) 58% (2010) 57% (2009) Students valued feedback least when they felt it wasn’t comprehensive or “effective in a formative sense,” (Hodgson and Bermingham, 2004) “ The [NSS] has highlighted that feedback is a key area of importance for both staff and students and is a key factor underpinning successful learning.” (HEA, 2010)
BACKGROUND “ There is a growing body of evidence which suggests that there is a growing concern about the quality of feedback to students and how it impacts on learning.” (Adcroft, 2010:251) 76% view feedback as “an absolutely crucial element of my whole student experience” (Adcroft 2010:260) Improving student perception of feedback is an important tool in improving the student experience.
BACKGROUND Some students find difficulty with handwritten feedback (Ivanič, et al, 2000) Many call “it ‘scribbles’, which are ‘difficult to read; ‘circles without explanations.’” (Handley et al, 2007) Some students, however, prefer handwritten feedback to typewritten feedback, and believe the former to suggest “increased level of personal connection to the instructor.” (Morgan & Toledo, 2006)
BACKGROUND Early results from a pilot study (October 2010 – July 2011) Pilot study group is a mixture of 22 LLB, BSc Environmental Science, BSc Applied Conservation Biology and FdSc Land Management students on a Level 5 designated module. Start point – Rotherham’s 2008, JISC-funded “Sounds Good: Quicker, better assessment using audio feedback” project “ students were overwhelmingly positive about receiving audio feedback on their coursework. They frequently remarked approvingly about its personal nature and the detail provided, evidence that the lecturer had carefully considered their work,” (Rotherham, 2009:2)
BACKGROUND Students responded well to the use of screen capture software in marking draft coursework (Stannard, 2007) Additional podcasting of lectures was widely welcomed by students (Watkins, 2010) The vast majority of students felt that the use of podcasts, wikis or blogs by their tutors was helpful to their learning (Bone, 2009) Student scoring of feedback improved using video feedback (Chapman and Busch, 2009)
THE FEEDBACK <ul><li>Module assessed with 2 x 2,000 word essays, 1 x group presentation </li></ul><ul><li>ES1 submitted 18/11/10 </li></ul><ul><li>Prior to submission part of a session was devoted to discussing the different styles of feedback that the students could choose. The students were then asked to elect to receive their feedback in one of three ways: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Traditional” written feedback ( “TG Students”); </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Face” style video-feedback (recorded on an HD Flip video camcorder TM ) (“FG Students”); or </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Screen Capture” style feedback (using Jing ® ) (“SCG Students”) </li></ul></ul><ul><li> </li></ul>
THE FEEDBACK The essays were submitted in paper form. FG and SCG also submitted identical e-version Marking / moderation process completed, and essays ready for return in the seminar session on 16/12/10 Grade distribution was within expected range (cohort not exceptionally good or exceptionally poor) Selection of Feedback Type by Students TG 7 FG 4 SCG 11
THE FEEDBACK 7 TG essays returned with comments written-up by hand. These students were able to see at a glance their grade, and the comments of the first marker and moderator. 15 FG & SCG essays – grade given at end of feedback. “ sometimes students do not value the feedback that they receive, preferring instead to concentrate on marks rather than advice that may help them to improve future work.” (Nichol, 2007) Initial plan – put feedback on VLE), on individual blog **FILE SIZE** Revised plan – 4 smaller files on VLE, 7 larger ones burned to CD
THE QUESTIONNAIRE 1: Which type of feedback did you receive for your essay? TG FG SCG 2: How did you receive this feedback? Paper copy CD VLE 3.* Feedback on my assignment has helped me to clarify things I did not understand. 4.* Feedback on my assignment was prompt. 5.* I have received detailed comments on my work. 6.† How have you listened to the audio feedback so far? 7.† About how long was the feedback? 8.† How easy was it to listen to the audio feedback? 9. Have you had written feedback for previous pieces of coursework in other modules? (Y/N) 10. If YES, how does the video feedback compare with written feedback? 11. Do you have any other comments about receiving video feedback? *NSS Question † SoundsGood Question
RESPONSES TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE Average Student Responses to Q3-5 Column A – average score (1 = Definitely Agree, 5 = Definitely Disagree) Column B – % who agreed / mostly agreed with statement. Type of Feedback NSS TG FG SCG A B A B A B B Q3 1.8 80 1.5 100 2.0 85 Q4 1.6 100 1.5 100 1.3 85 Q5 1.8 100 2.5 50 1.9 85 Average 1.7 93 1.8 83 1.7 85 57
RESPONSES TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE Student Responses to Q10 “How does video feedback compare with written feedback?” Comments: “ it's like you're actually there, so better interaction” “ understood it more” Type of Feedback FG SCG Better 100 33 About the Same 0 50 Worse 0 17
INITIAL CONCLUSIONS, FUTURE WORK <ul><li>MODERATION </li></ul><ul><li>Three possible courses of action: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Moderating tutor records a separate video file, which is also available to the student; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Moderating tutor’s comments are agreed between both tutors before a single video file is recorded, or </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Marking tutor records the video feedback, passes the file and a hard copy of the assignment to the moderating tutor, who makes their comments by hand. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Each methods comes with its own set of additional problems in terms of timescales and workload, and each needs to be considered in light of other Learning and Teaching initiatives (the move towards electronic submission of assignments, for example). </li></ul>
INITIAL CONCLUSIONS, FUTURE WORK <ul><li>FILE SIZE </li></ul><ul><li>Use of HD Flip video camcorder TM for FG produced average file size of c140Mb – can’t be compressed with PowerArchiver </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Use different equipment? Webcam? How low-definition can we go without affecting quality? </li></ul></ul><ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li>SCG files recorded using Jing ® were smaller (freeware Jing ® limits recordings to 5mins) – still 3Mb+ </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Small enough to be uploaded onto the VLE, but may cause problems if distributed via email. </li></ul></ul>
INITIAL CONCLUSIONS, FUTURE WORK SOFTWARE COMPATIBILITY “ [Apple] do not allow Flash on iPhones, iPods and iPads” (Jobs, 2010) This issue is likely to affect only a very small number of students, and that it can be overcome by those students accessing the feedback on a desktop pc. One student had problem installing Flash onto pc.
INITIAL CONCLUSIONS, FUTURE WORK TECHNOPHOBIA Potential reluctance by some colleagues to use technology – but “technophobia is no longer a major consideration” (Armstrong and Lonsdale, 2003) TIMESCALE Some problems were user-related (i.e. Me) – solved by more practice. “ written comment on conventional coursework... is one of the most time-consuming methods” (Hodgson and Bermingham 2004) For a small module, the extra time is not great (+ see earlier – 93% of students thought feedback was “prompt”). Could be a problem for a larger module.
CLOSING THOUGHTS… Several questions this pilot has thrown up. Is video a viable option? Probably as part of a range of techniques that can be accessed by tutors Better suited to some subjects, courses or modules than others Further exploration perhaps on links to equality strands Next... Larger, longitudinal, inter-disciplinary study