10.1080@09588221.2019.1677721

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ncal20
Computer Assisted Language Learning
ISSN: 0958-8221 (Print) 1744-3210 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ncal20
Exploring the effect of video feedback from
unknown peers on e-learners’ English-Chinese
translation performance
Zi-Gang Ge
To cite this article: Zi-Gang Ge (2019): Exploring the effect of video feedback from unknown peers
on e-learners’ English-Chinese translation performance, Computer Assisted Language Learning,
DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2019.1677721
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1677721
Published online: 24 Oct 2019.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 10
View related articles
View Crossmark data

Exploring the effect of video feedback from unknown
peers on e-learners’ English-Chinese translation
performance
Zi-Gang Gea,b
a
school of Network Education, Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Beijing,
China; b
Research Center of China’s Ministry of Education for Development Strategies of High-
level Specialized Universities, Beijing, China
ABSTRACT
This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of peer
video feedback on adult e-learners’ language learning. The
participants were 60 first-year e-learning students majoring
in telecommunications at an e-learning college in Beijing
and participating in a 19-week English course. They were
divided evenly into two groups with two peer feedback
methods, namely video feedback and written feedback. The
feedback process was anonymous to some extent, since
the feedback was provided by unknown peers with the
instructor as the intermediator. A pretest, a posttest, an
online questionnaire, and a semi-structured interview were
employed as research instruments. The results indicated
that peer video feedback was more effective in improving
e-learners’ translation performance than written feedback.
The questionnaire survey and the interview administered to
the video group also showed that the video feedback
method was generally welcomed and was advantageous in
that it was easier to use than written feedback, saved time,
and fostered a sense of belonging.
KEYWORDS
Peer feedback; video
feedback; e-learning;
language learning
1. Introduction
With the great advancement of educational technologies, computer-
supported collaborative learning has gained increasing attention in higher
education. Various forms of peer cooperation and interaction have been
studied in the literature, such as the effect of peer collaboration on stu-
dents’ writing skills (Ge, 2011; Smith & MacGregor, 1992; Tuzi, 2004).
According to some scholars, the most important advantage of peer col-
laboration is a common learning goal among peers (Yang, Badger, & Yu,
CONTACT Zi-Gang Ge shouzhou11@126.com School of Network Education, Beijing University of Posts
and Telecommunications, Room 408, No. 28 Xinjiekou Outer Street, Xicheng District, Beijing 100088, China.
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/ncal.
ß 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING
https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1677721

2006). To achieve shared learning goals, peers must work together and
communicate their ideas, thus producing peer feedback.
Many scholars have asserted that, among various forms of peer collab-
oration, peer feedback is helpful for students’ learning because such feed-
back can provide help, motivation, and stimulation to peers (Hung,
2016; Panitz, 1997; Tsui & Ng, 2000; Yang, 2016; Zhang, 2008). Within
this area of interest, some studies have examined the effect of different
forms of feedback media on learning. For example, Chiau, Ali, Bakry,
Azmi, and Paraidathatu (2016) studied video feedback in communication
and counselling among pharmacy students and concluded that video
feedback was effective in improving students’ communication. Yang’s
study (2016) also demonstrated that video feedback could promote inter-
action among students and personalized learning. Finally, McCarthy
(2015) even carried out an experiment to evaluate three different sum-
mative feedback models, namely written feedback, audio feedback, and
video feedback. He found that students favored audio feedback and video
feedback more than written feedback.
Despite the proliferation of research on peer feedback, most of these
studies were limited to the face-to-face learning environment, and peer
feedback in the e-learning environment has remained underexplored. As
e-learning has been accepted as one of the mainstream education modes,
there is a need to probe the problem from this perspective to come up
with strategies and methods to maximize the value of peer feedback in
different educational settings. To meet this need, the present study exam-
ines two forms of peer feedback in e-learning, namely video feedback
and traditional written feedback. With the popularity of smartphones
and various video-editing applications, video shooting and editing is no
longer a hard-to-accomplish task. From this perspective, there is a
greater need to examine the application of video feedback under the new
technological circumstances. Additionally, some scholars (Lin, 2018;
Scott, 2004) have stressed that online communication technology makes
anonymity easy to implement in e-learning settings, but empirical studies
concerning the impact of anonymity or unknown identity on peer feed-
back outcomes are still quite rare. How to achieve anonymity or at least
unknown identity of peers in the process of providing video feedback in
the e-learning environment is still an underexplored topic. The findings
of the present study may provide insights concerning these issues.
2. Literature review
This section provides a detailed review of the literature concerning the
two foci of the present study, namely peer feedback and video feedback.
2 Z.-G. GE

2.1. Peer feedback
Peer feedback is often compared with teacher feedback, and different
studies often draw different conclusions as to which is better. On the
one hand, some studies have shown that students normally give priority
to peer feedback over teacher comments (Elbow, 1973; Liu & Carless,
2006), because peers will form an “immediate, socially appropriate audi-
ence” (Clifford, 1981). According to these studies, students tend to think
that peer feedback provides more social support, while teacher comments
are often insensitive and compelling with the intention to force them to
accommodate the teachers’ objectives (Brannon & Knoblauch, 1982;
Purves, 1984). On the other hand, scholars such as Zhang (1995) have
expressed an opposite claim that peer feedback is not always favored by
students. In his study, Zhang found that the affective advantage of peer
feedback in one’s native language did not apply to ESL (English as a
Second Language) writing. Zhang’s claim was echoed by Yang et al.
(2006) and Ge (2011), who made a similar argument by claiming that
EFL (English as a Foreign Language) learners generally deemed teacher
feedback as more authoritative and mostly adopted teacher feedback but
not peer feedback to improve their writing. In sum, peer and teacher
feedback both have advantages, which can be implemented by embed-
ding them in appropriate educational settings and teaching designs.
Peer feedback has been shown to offer various benefits, including
developing learner confidence (Smith, Cooper, & Lancaster, 2002) and
subject matter knowledge (Ertmer et al., 2007), increasing learning inter-
est and motivation (Shih, 2011), and improving fun and enjoyment in
the learning process (Ge, 2011). While receivers of feedback obviously
benefit in terms of suggestions to improve their text, many studies have
indicated that it is the feedback givers who actually benefit more from
the process. For example, Smith et al. (2002) found that providing feed-
back to peers could increase givers’ confidence and thus improve their
learning, because the feedback givers would assume the role of an
authority figure (such as a teacher) in the process of commenting on the
work of others and gradually build up their confidence. Ertmer et al.
(2007) echoed this idea by stating that giving feedback could improve
givers’ understanding of the subject matter, because they must acquire,
or refer to, the relevant knowledge of the subject matter before they can
evaluate the work of their peers. Popta, Kral, Camp, Martens, and
Simons (2017) also found through a systematic review that providing
feedback to peers involved various cognitive processes and could benefit
givers. Just as what is found in the study by Shih (2011), both feedback
givers and receivers showed increased interest and motivation in the
peer feedback process. This cooperative relationship between peers is
COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 3

also adopted by Yang (2011, 2016) to explain the text improvement
found in an English writing training experiment. The study reports the
application of a reciprocal peer review system for students to carry out
peer review activities which include modeling, coaching, scaffolding,
articulation, reflection and exploration. The system was shown to be
effective in helping students externalize and visualize their internal writing
processes so that they could support their peers in making text revision.
While the above studies found many benefits in the non-anonymous peer
feedback process, Ge’s study (2011) found that anonymized peer assess-
ment also had some benefits. This study divided the participants into 3
groups according to their English writing levels, and the instructor, acted
as the intermediator (also to achieve the anonymity among the peers of
the 3 groups), would submit writings of each group for peer review by
another group. The study found that the anonymous feedback process
could provide fun and enjoyment to feedback givers, because students
often enjoyed finding errors and mistakes in their peers’ work. However,
it was found that participants with higher writing ability did not improve
as much as those with lower writing ability, because they thought they
almost learned nothing from the writings of the latter. From the above
analysis, we can see that peer feedback can generally produce a win-win
outcome for both givers and receivers. The reason might lie in the
cooperative relationship on both sides in the process.
2.2. Video feedback
The existing literature has generally acknowledged that multimedia learn-
ing materials (including video feedback) are very helpful for learning
(Chen & Sun, 2012; Lin & Atkinson, 2011). For example, video-based
multimedia could generate the best learning performance and the most
positive emotion for learners (Chen & Sun, 2012). In their study, Chen
and Sun (ibid.) compared the impact of three multimedia materials,
namely static text and image-based material, video-based material, and
animated interactive material, on learning performance and the emotional
states of verbalizers (learners who think more in words) and visualizers
(learners who think more in pictures). They found that video-based mate-
rials were more suitable for verbalizers while dynamic materials containing
video and animation were more appropriate for visualizers. In addition,
multimedia materials were also found to be better at enhancing learners’
retention of concepts than static pictures or texts (Lin & Atkinson, 2011).
Feedback can be realized in various forms, such as text, audio, and
video. Feedback media are crucial to the success of the feedback, as some
researchers have noted that the failure of some feedback usually lies in
4 Z.-G. GE

the way the feedback is provided, which is often too late to be useful or
is unclear or inconsistent (Duncan, 2007; Weaver, 2006). Some studies
have explored students’ attitudes toward different feedback media, and
many of them have conclusions that video feedback is favored by the
majority of learners because of various advantages of video feedback. For
example, Thompson and Lee’s (2012) experiment showed that most of
the students thought video feedback was more meaningful than written
feedback, which might be explained by West and Turner’s research
(2015), in which 61% of the participants preferred video feedback to
written feedback, and in which most of the learners claimed that video
feedback was clearer and less ambiguous than other forms of feedback
and was better in quality and more efficient in feedback generation.
Another advantage of video feedback is that video-based feedback can be
made more individualized and personalized than text-based feedback
(Henderson & Phillips, 2015). Still other advantages of video feedback
are that video feedback could convey more information and was easier
to understand than written feedback, and could provide a permanent
record, which could be stored online and easily retrieved from the
Internet for later use, as opposed to paper-written feedback, which lacked
such advantages (Ice, Curtis, Phillips, & Wells, 2007; McCarthy, 2015;
Orsmond & Merry, 2011). As summarized by some scholars, the use of
video feedback in teaching and learning provides advantages by stimulat-
ing interest and memory, realizing more accurate verbalizations, indi-
vidualizing instructions, being easier to comprehend and act on, and
providing a permanent learning record (Ashaver & Igyuve, 2013; Gaier,
1954; Gass & Mackey, 2000; McCarthy, 2015).
In various language teaching and learning scenarios, many language
educators have examined the effectiveness of using video feedback in
teaching and learning. Tedick and Walker (1995) found that video feed-
back was useful in relating theory to practice and preparing language
teachers for teaching. Shih (2010) reported the success of using a blended
teaching mode, which involves video feedback, to teach ESL learners,
and found that video-based feedback combined with blogs could enhance
students’ learning motivation and satisfaction. Maione and Mirenda
(2006) applied video feedback in teaching social language skills to chil-
dren with autism and demonstrated the method to be successful. They
found that video feedback was particularly effective for teaching children
with autism to initiate in social communications. Armagan, Bozoglu,
G€uven, and C¸elik (2016) did an experiment on the application of video
feedback in teaching writing skills to EFL learners. Their study found
that giving video feedback to learners would benefit both teachers and
learners, although learners’ requests for instant video feedback might be

a great challenge for teachers. Furthermore, Tochon (2008) reviewed his
25 years of experiences with video feedback and concluded that foreign
language learners and teachers could understand their own actions better
through video feedback, because the video feedback process could stimu-
late learners’ recall of their interactive thoughts, provoke their metacog-
nitions and share their prospective reflections on action. Indeed, the
advantages of video feedback have been found in language educa-
tion scenarios.
2.3. The present study
Existing literature shows that video feedback has been mostly applied in
the traditional face-to-face teaching environment, and it has been rarely
adopted in the e-learning environment. There are great differences
between the two environments. One major difference lies in the learning
material distributing methods. In the face-to-face environment materials
can be distributed in many ways, while learning materials are mostly
transmitted through the Internet in the e-learning environment. Because
video files often have high technical requirements, e-learners might lose
patience when downloading the videos. An easy and time-saving learning
process is needed for e-learners, which is also a consideration in the pre-
sent study. The present study carried out a teaching experiment on the
topic of video peer feedback in the e-learning environment.
Furthermore, by searching various scholarly databases on the topics of
“anonymous feedback” and “video feedback”, it is found that although
previous studies have explored video feedback, in most cases, superiors
(including teachers, parents, caregivers, etc.) were the feedback givers
(Henderson Phillips, 2015; Pitt Winstone, 2018; Poslawsky, et al.,
2015), and the video feedback process was usually non-anonymized
(McCarthy, 2015; Poslawsky, et al., 2015; Ypsilandis, 2002). There is a
dearth of research exploring anonymous video feedback between peers
(or at least feedback from unknown peers). With these considerations,
the present study tries to examine the effect of video feedback from
unknown peers on e-learners’ language learning performance.
3. Research questions
The present study attempts to answer the following research questions:
1. Which of the two media (peer video feedback and traditional peer
written feedback) produces the better effect on learning?
6 Z.-G. GE

2. What perceptions do the video feedback givers and receivers have of
the video feedback process?
4. Methodology
4.1. Participants
The participants for this study were 60 Chinese e-learners newly enrolled
in a first semester English course at an e-learning college in Beijing.
They were all working adult students majoring in telecommunications
with no experience in e-learning and ranging in age from 23 to 45 years
old (28 females, 32 males). They were all told via emails about the design
of the experiment (providing feedback to their peers either in videos or
in MS words without showing their identity) to obtain their consent to
participate in the experiment. They were also told in the emails that their
feedback would not be graded or considered in the final score of the
course, and this experiment was solely intended to help them improve
their English through the peer feedback process. To achieve anonymity
or unknown identity at the beginning of the experiment, all the partici-
pants were selected from different areas in China. In this way, we could
safely infer that they did not know each other. The participants were
evenly assigned to two groups with gender as the stratifying variable.
Group-written-feedback served as the control group, where the trad-
itional written feedback mode was adopted, and Group-video-feedback
was designated the treatment group, where the video feedback mode was
used. There were 14 females and 16 males in each group.
4.2. Instruments
The present study was conducted in the field setting of a 19-week com-
pulsory English translation course carried out online through an online
teaching platform for two hours every three weeks. During the two
hours, the teacher generally explained three or four translation techni-
ques to the students. After each online class meeting, the students were
required to watch the videos related to what had been explained in the
meetings. The teacher of the course produced 19 units of detailed video
lectures on English-Chinese translation techniques, and these 19 videos
were used as the major learning materials for both groups. After each
video was learned, an online translation quiz was assigned to all the par-
ticipants, which means that altogether there would be 19 quizzes in the
whole experimental process. Each quiz included 10 English-Chinese sen-
tence translation questions, and each sentence contained no more than
20 words.

Prior to the experiment, an online pretest containing 20 English-
Chinese sentence translation questions (20 points in total, one point for
each question) was administered to the two groups through the teaching
platform. The total point for each sentence would be lost if any word of
the sentence was incorrectly translated. At the end of the experiment an
online posttest was assigned to the participants. The posttest also consisted
of 20 translation questions (20 points in total) and was of the same diffi-
culty level as the pretest but with different questions. As all the questions
in the pretest and the posttest were subjective in nature, the inter-rater
reliability was calculated for the two tests, and the results showed that
both had a high reliability (Spearman’s rho of the pretest was .851 and
that of the posttest was .848). The descriptive analysis of the pretest is
shown in Table 1.
Table 1 shows that there were no significant differences in the two
groups’ initial English-Chinese translation levels (P ¼ .307 .05).
Therefore, if there were significant differences in the posttest scores of
the two groups, we could conclude that the differences were caused by
the two different types of peer feedback. The total possible points on the
test was 20, and the author found that the means of both groups were
below 12 points (the passing score). Judging by their scores on the pre-
test, the learners were assessed as being at a low level of English-Chinese
translation proficiency.
At the end of the experiment, an online questionnaire survey regarding
the peer video feedback process was administered to Group-video-feedback
participants, with the aim to obtain their perceptions of the video feed-
back process.
4.3. Procedure
During the experiment, all the learning materials (including the e-textbook
and the 19 video lectures) were assigned to the participants according to
the teaching schedule via the teaching platform of the institution. All the
participants were required to complete an online quiz of English-Chinese
translation exercises after they finished each video lecture.
The steps of the peer review process were the same for both groups.
Upon finishing each quiz, the participants submitted their answers to the
instructor through an email. The instructor then anonymized these
answer sheets and emailed them to randomly chosen students in the
Table 1. Analysis of the pretest.
Group N Mean Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Group-written-feedback 30 10.867 1.833 6.000 13.000 1.031 58 .307
Group-video-feedback 30 10.367 1.921 8.000 16.000
8 Z.-G. GE

same group for peer review. The instructor made sure that the answer
sheets were not sent to their owners. The e-learners were presumed not
to know each other, since all of them were from different parts of the
country, which means that even when the video feedback givers appeared
physically in the videos, the receivers in Group-video-feedback knew
nothing about the comment makers. Personal information, such as
names and email addresses of the participants, was known only to the
instructor. To keep the peers unknown to each other, the feedback was
first sent to the instructor, who uploaded the feedback to a video-storing
website and emailed the URL of the feedback to the owner of the transla-
tion work. The feedback receiver could watch the video feedback online or
download it for future use. The purpose of maintaining unknown identi-
ties was to ensure that students would express the truth about their peers’
work, which was a great necessity for the success of peer feedback (Ge,
2011). During the process, all the online quizzes and the learning materials
were the same for both groups, with the only difference being the two
feedback media forms, namely video feedback for Group-video-feedback
and written feedback (in MS words) for Group-written-feedback.
The feedback givers in both groups should provide feedback for both
correct and wrong answers. The video and written feedback both should
talk about: 1) whether the English sentence had been correctly and com-
pletely translated in the semantic sense (if not, what’s wrong), and 2)
whether the translation could be improved (if yes, how to improve it).
There was no requirement about the length or word limit of the video
and written feedback. On the other hand, since there were 10 sentence
questions in each quiz, it was advised that the feedback should be con-
cise for the sake of saving time for both feedback givers and receivers.
Since the vast majority of the participants were low in the English profi-
ciency level, it was required that both video feedback and written feed-
back should primarily be in Chinese. Because the English sentences were
very simple (simple words and not exceeding 20 words), the written
feedback was provided in short comments rather than using the track-
changes function in the word-processing software. The content require-
ments for the feedback were to help the feedback receivers know what
they did wrong and why (Sheerin, 1987). In addition, in order to ensure
the quality of the feedback, the teacher showed some examples of how to
make video or written feedback to the participants in the first online
meeting. During the 19-week experiment, each participant in both
groups was assigned 19 pieces of quiz work for review, as there were
altogether 19 quizzes. When receiving the quiz work for review, feedback
givers were to return their feedback to the instructor through email
within 2 days.

When preparing the video feedback, Group-video-feedback partici-
pants could choose whether to appear physically in the videos according
to the video design. There was no requirement for the video length or
tools to make the videos, but the videos were required to be produced in
common formats such as avi, Mp4, rmvb or flv.
Before the next quiz, the instructor would publish suggested transla-
tions on the teaching platform, so that every participant would know
whether the suggestions provided by their peers were accurate or not.
Figure. 1 shows the feedback cycle of Group-video-feedback (Group-
written-feedback had the same process but with written feedback).
5. Results
The following data were collected from the posttest and the online sur-
vey. Table 2 shows a descriptive analysis of the posttest.
Compared with the means in Table 1, the mean scores of the two
groups increased, which shows that both groups improved their translation
performance through the learning process, although Group-video-feedback
outperformed Group-written-feedback. On the other hand, the standard
deviation of both groups in the posttest were smaller than those in the
pretest, which indicates that the difference in performance reduced among
participants within each group.
An ANCOVA analysis was conducted with the pretest as a covariate
(The assumptions for the ANCOVA analysis were tested and the data
were shown to be suitable for the analysis. The results are shown in
Table 3).
Figure 1. Feedback cycle of Group-video-feedback.
10 Z.-G. GE

The interaction between the covariate (pretest) and the independent
variable (group) was not significant (p ¼ .061), showing that there was
no differential effect of the pretest score on each group. This interaction
was thus removed and a second ANCOVA analysis was conducted with
only the main effect of group and the covariate pretest (Table 4). In this
reduced model, there was a significant effect of group (p ¼ .000 .05,
g2 ¼ .447), but no significant effect of pretest (P ¼ .064 .05). These
results indicate that the two formats of peer feedback led to differences
in the e-learners’ translation performance. Since the mean of Group-
video-feedback (14.000) was higher than that of Group-written-feedback
(11.833), this might indicate that the peer video feedback produced a
better learning outcome than the written feedback.
Although we have confirmed the advantages of video peer feedback
over written peer feedback, we do not know the participants’ perceptions
of the video feedback learning process. To obtain such perceptions, the
present study administered an online questionnaire survey to Group-
video-feedback participants. The survey included 5 multiple-choice ques-
tions and 2 open-ended questions. The multiple-choice questions were
based on a five-point Likert-scale (with scores of 1 to 5 denoting a range
from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree). The internal consistency
(Cronbach’s a) of the five multiple-choice questions was .633, which is
acceptable for the reliability test according to Loewenthal (2004). Out of
the 30 participants in Group-video-feedback, 26 students replied to the
survey, but only 25 were valid. Table 5 is a summary of the sur-
vey result.
The mean of Question 5 shows that the peer video feedback process
was enjoyed by the t The means。 video group participants, because
most of the participants in this group showed willingness to use the
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of the posttest.
Group N Mean Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum
Group-written-feedback 30 11.833 1.440 9.000 15.000
Group-video-feedback 30 14.000 1.145 12.000 16.000
Table 3. Tests of between-subjects effects.
Dependent Variable: Posttest
Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta Squared
Corrected Model 81.826a
3 27.275 17.606 .000 .485
Intercept 212.399 1 212.399 137.099 .000 .710
Group 14.665 1 14.665 9.466 .003 .145
Pretest 6.295 1 6.295 4.064 .049 .068
Group Ã Pretest 5.643 1 5.643 3.643 .061 .061
Error 86.757 56 1.549
Total 10179.000 60
Corrected Total 168.583 59
a. R Squared ¼ .485 (Adjusted R Squared ¼ .458).

video feedback mode in the future. The reason for the popularity of
video feedback can be found in the participants’ attitudes toward
Questions 1 to 3. The means of these 3 questions were quite high, which
shows that the video feedback mode was deemed easier and more
informative than the traditional written feedback mode. The easy-to-use
characteristic of the video feedback mode has to be attributed to the
technical development of digital devices. In the past, people tended to
think that video materials were not easy to use (Annada, 2008), because
they had to be played on video players, which were not portable to be
taken everywhere. However, from the answers to Question 7, we can see
that 22 participants thought that the videos could be used anytime and
Table 4. Analysis of covariance of the posttest.
Dependent Variable: Posttest
Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta Squared
Corrected Model 76.183a
2 38.091 23.498 .000 .452
Intercept 218.232 1 218.232 134.623 .000 .703
Group 74.612 1 74.612 46.027 .000 .447
Pretest 5.766 1 5.766 3.557 .064 .059
Error 92.401 57 1.621
Total 10179.000 60
Corrected Total 168.583 59
a. R Squared ¼ .452 (Adjusted R Squared ¼ .433)
Table 5. Questionnaire survey on participants’ attitudes toward peer video feedback.
Survey questions N Mean Minimum Maximum
Question 1: video feedback is
easier to use than
written feedback.
25 4.520 3 5
Question 2: video feedback is
easier to understand than
written feedback.
25 4.680 4 5
Question 3: video feedback
provides more information
than written feedback.
25 4.720 3 5
Question 4: I would also learn
more things like
pronunciation, new
vocabulary other than the
translation keys in the
video feedback.
25 4.600 3 5
Question 5: I am willing to
continue to use video
feedback in future study.
25 4.720 4 5
Question 6: As a feedback giver, what’s the best thing in producing the videos? (open-ended question)
1. It saves much time and energy, because I don’t need to type. (18)
2. I can express my meanings better by talking in videos. (25)
3. I can record the videos with my mobile phone. It’s much handier than writing with a computer. (23)
Question 7: As a feedback receiver, what’s the best thing in watching the videos? (open-ended question)
1. It saves time, because I sometimes listen to the talk in the videos while doing something else. (17)
2. I can remember the video feedback longer than the traditional written one. (18)
3. While watching the videos and listening to the voices of others, I feel I am in a community, though we
don’t know each other. Some of my peers even appeared in the videos. (20)
4. I can play the videos on my mobile phones, so I can watch them anytime and anywhere I like. (22)
12 Z.-G. GE

anywhere because they could play the videos on mobile phones. Mobile
phones are small and light and can be taken everywhere as we wish.
The mean of Question 3 shows most of the participants thought the
video feedback was more informative than the written one. However,
compared with the mean of Questions 3, the mean of Question 4 was
lower, which might indicate that although video feedback could provide
more information than written feedback, not all of the learners were will-
ing to take the extra information provided in the videos (such as pro-
nunciation of words and new words). This may be explained by what
some participants told the researcher in the follow-up online interview:
Due to their low level of English proficiency, many of the participants
felt incapable of following the extra information provided in the videos.
According to the answers to Question 6, most of the participants (18)
thought that producing video feedback to their peers could save more
time and energy than writing the feedback, because they did not need to
type their feedback but could record the videos with their mobile phones
(23). All of the participants (25) thought that they could express what
they wanted to say to peers more clearly in videos than in written feed-
back. With the responses to Question 7, we can summarize four advan-
tages of video feedback as follows: video feedback can save more time
(17), enables a longer retention span (18), fosters a sense of belonging
(20), and is readily available for use (22).
Interesting results were also found with an analysis of the data from
the follow-up semi-structured online synchronous video interview, which
was conducted with 10 randomly selected participants from Group-
video-feedback within one week after the questionnaire answers had
been collected. The interview aimed to elicit e-learners’ spontaneous
thoughts about Questions 6 and 7 from the abovementioned question-
naire. Since each participant acted as a feedback giver and receiver at the
same time, the findings of the interview can help to explain the experien-
ces of the participants in the role-shifting learning process. Eight out of
10 of the interviewees reported that they preferred the role of a feedback
giver to that of a receiver. The reasons for this were varied. Some said
that they were acting like a teacher when giving comments on peers’
work. This implied the transfer of authority from the teacher to the stu-
dents, which was absent in student-teacher interaction. Others said that
they felt brave in making comments on peers’ work due to the fact that
their identities were kept unknown to each other during the feedback
process. When asked about their role as feedback receivers, all of the
interviewees said that they felt no pressure to view the video comments
on their work, because the comments were made by their peers who
were unknown to them. They thought that some of the comments might

be wrong. When they got the suggested translations from the instructor,
they compared these suggestions with their own quiz answers, and with
those of their peers, which deepened their understanding of the quiz
questions. They believed that the process of comparing answers from dif-
ferent sources contributed to their improvement in the posttest.
6. Discussion
6.1. Theoretical implications
The findings of this research offer insight into the application of video
feedback to EFL or ESL teaching and learning. It contributes to the
debate on feedback forms or models in language education. The signifi-
cant improvement in the test scores of the video-feedback group suggests
that video feedback can exert a positive influence on language learning.
This assertion is consistent with previous studies carried out by Tochon
(2008) and Shih (2010), both of which have reported the success of
applying video feedback in language education. The most prominent the-
oretical contribution to the literature is that this study provides evidence
of the effectiveness of video feedback in language teaching and learning
in the e-learning environment, which is of great value to the understand-
ing of the e-learning process.
The results of the present study indicate that video feedback as one
form of multimedia learning has many advantages over written feedback,
which is clearly shown in the answers to the questionnaire. This research
shows that video feedback is advantageous in that it is easier to use and
understand, provides more information than written feedback, saves
time, builds long-term memory, and establishes a learning community.
These findings echo the claims of many previous studies (Ashaver
Igyuve, 2013; Gaier, 1954; Gass Mackey, 2000; McCarthy, 2015).
The dual-coding theory could explain the success of some video feed-
back demonstrated in the experiment. Advocates of the dual-coding the-
ory assume that second or foreign language learners have two separate
verbal systems, the mother tongue (L1) and the target language (L2), but
they have only one imagery system, which is common across the two
languages. Therefore, in language learning the imagery system will natur-
ally link the two verbal systems if the learners receive visual input
(Paivio Desrochers, 1980). Separate verbal and visual representations
are created in the learning process, but the two representations will com-
plement each other, thus leading to a better learning outcome. This the-
ory holds the view that the combined verbal and visual information is
more likely to be retained and retrieved from long-term memory than
just verbal information. In the present experiment, some feedback givers
14 Z.-G. GE

used subtitles or callouts in their videos, and therefore used a combin-
ation of verbal and visual information, which may have contributed to
much of the perceived learning of the feedback receivers.
The cognitive load theory (Sweller, 2005) may also explain the positive
impact of video feedback on learning performance. According to this
theory, the audio-visual presentation (such as movie clips) of the feed-
back produces less extraneous cognitive load than the visual-only materi-
als (such as texts or pictures), because the audio-visual information will
be processed in one’s audio and visual subsystems of memory while the
visual-only information can only be processed in the visual subsystem
and will naturally place a high cognitive load on the system. While
watching videos, learners tend to follow the talking speed and explana-
tions of the presenter and thus will reduce their cognitive load in the
learning process. From the feedback to Questions 1 and 2 in the ques-
tionnaire survey, we can see that most feedback receivers thought video
feedback was easier to understand, and the reason may be the fact that
the audio-visual presentation of the feedback had reduced the cognitive
load. The first answer to Question 7 also indicates the same idea.
However, the effectiveness of video feedback does not mean that stu-
dents can improve their knowledge by watching the videos passively,
although some scholars believe that such passive viewing can still benefit
learning because “well-designed multimedia instructional messages can
promote active cognitive processing in students, even when learners
seem to be behaviorally inactive” (Mayer, 2001). The quality of peer-
made videos usually cannot be guaranteed, so learners need to be always
on alert to the quality of the feedback. They still need to be actively
involved in the learning process.
Although the present study has demonstrated that video feedback can
have a better impact on e-learners’ language learning than written feed-
back, it cannot be denied that traditional written feedback also has its
own advantages. The advantages of written feedback include ease-of-use,
portability, dependability, and low technical requirements (Annanda,
2008; Woody, Daniel, Baker, 2010). We may conclude that different
feedback media should be chosen according to the subject matter and
proficiency levels of the learners (Ge, 2014).
6.2. Pedagogical implications
In addition to the theoretical implications, this study also offers some
pedagogical implications. The most important pedagogical implication is
that the peer feedback process with unknown peers may support lan-
guage learning. This implication coincides with the findings of other

researchers that unknown peer review is better at eliciting the learning
potentials of learners than identifiable peer review (Lu Bol, 2007). In
addition, according to the survey results, most of the participants in the
video group thought that they could learn more from the video feedback
than the traditional written feedback. Video is a richer medium than
written text, as is discussed in the literature review section of this paper.
A second pedagogical implication is that the benefits of the feedback
process are not confined to language development, but also include
many other positive effects, such as students’ knowledge sharing behav-
iors and a sense of learning community. E-learners are usually separated
from each other by geographical distances, but videos, even anonymous
videos, can be used to see each other (which cannot be realized with
written feedback) and learn from each other. The knowledge sharing
behaviors of feedback givers and the sense of learning community
formed in feedback receivers together contribute to the success of the
learning activities (Yilmaz, 2016).
Another pedagogical implication is that peer feedback may elicit the
transfer of authority from the teacher to the students themselves, which
is reflected in the follow-up interview of this study. This kind of author-
ity transfer is often seen as a way of giving more control and autonomy
to learners, since it requires them to actively participate in the feedback
process (Hyland Hyland, 2006). The control and autonomy brought
about by this transfer of authority is particularly crucial for e-learners, as
e-learning is a highly autonomous learning process (Ge, 2012). With
control and autonomy, one will take responsibility for one’s own learn-
ing (Benson, 2012; Kim, 2014).
7. Conclusions
The present experiment demonstrated the effectiveness of peer video
feedback for language learning in the e-learning environment. The most
prominent feature of the study is that the video feedback givers’ identi-
ties were kept unknown in the whole feedback process and the instructor
acted as an intermediator between the feedback givers and receivers.
Combined with occasional support from the instructor over the Internet,
peer video feedback has been shown to elicit a better learning outcome
than written feedback. This study also showed that video feedback was
generally welcomed. The results confirm the claim that unknown peer
feedback can benefit both feedback givers and receivers (Ge, 2011). As
we can see from the survey at the end of the experiment and the follow-
up interview, feedback givers felt relaxed and confident in giving com-
ments on the work of their peers and found the process convenient and
16 Z.-G. GE

efficient. The feedback receivers thought they could receive information
other than what they did wrong and why, and they developed the sense
of a learning community, which was of great importance for these e-
learners since they were separated from each other in geographical and
temporal distance. The study’s theoretical and pedagogical implications
mentioned in the previous section provide further insight into the appli-
cation of peer feedback in teaching and learning.
Some limitations of the present research need to be acknowledged.
First, the present study only claims that video feedback is more efficient
than written feedback in translation technique learning, but this result
cannot guarantee the success of this type of feedback in other aspects of
language learning. Second, the study did not consider the participants’
specific learning processes. For example, the study did not provide infor-
mation about how much time the participants spent watching the videos
or reading the written feedback. Third, the sample size of the two classes
is not large, and thus the present study is modest. Another possible limi-
tation is that the present research did not consider the impact of the two
types of feedback on the same group of participants. What if the video
feedback group had been given the written feedback at the end of the
experiment and the written feedback group had been given the videos?
How would the participants in each group respond to the different types
of feedback? All these questions need to be considered in
future research.
Disclosure statement
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Funding
This work was supported by Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications 2018
Education and Teaching Reform Project [grant number 2018JY-E11]; and the
Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [grant number 500419221].
Notes on contributor
Zi-Gang Ge is an associate professor at the School of Network Education of Beijing
University of Posts and Telecommunications. His research interests include distance
teaching methodologies, problem-based learning, and online course design.
ORCID
Zi-Gang Ge http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1733-2429

References
Annand, D. (2008). Learning efficacy and cost-effectiveness of print versus e-book
instructional material in an introductory financial accounting course. Journal of
Interactive Online Learning, 7(2), 152–164.
Armagan, S., Bozoglu, O., G€uven, E., C¸elik, K. (2016). Usage of video feedback in the
course of writing in efl: Challenges and advantages. International Journal of Sciences:
Basic and Applied Research, 30(2), 95–102.
Ashaver, D., Igyuve, S. M. (2013). The use of audio-visual materials in the teaching
and learning processes in colleges of education in Benue State-Nigeria. IOSR Journal
of Research Method in Education (Iosrjrme), 1(6), 44–55. doi:10.9790/7388-0164455
Benson, P. (2012). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning. Beijing:
Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Brannon, L., Knoblauch, C. H. (1982). On students’ rights to their own texts: A model
of teacher response. College Composition and Communication, 33(2), 157–166. doi:10.
2307/357623
Chen, C.-M., Sun, Y.-C. (2012). Assessing the effects of different multimedia materials
on emotions and learning performance for visual and verbal style learners. Computers
Education, 59(4), 1273–1285. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.006
Chiau, T. P., Ali, A. M., Bakry, M. M., Azmi, N., Paraidathatu, T. (2016). Video
recording feedback in communication and counselling among pharmacy students. Is
it better than verbal feedback?. Indian Journal of Pharmaceutical Education and
Research, 50(2), 246–250.
Clifford, J. (1981). Composing in stages: Effects of feedback on revision. Research in the
Teaching of English, 15, 37–53.
Duncan, N. (2007). Feed-forward”: Improving students’ use of tutors’ comments.
Assessment Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(3), 271–283. doi:10.1080/
02602930600896498
Elbow, P. (1973). Writing without teachers. London: Oxford University Press.
Ertmer, P. A., Richardson, J. C., Belland, B. R., Camin, D., Connolly, P., Coulthard, G.,
… Mong, C. J. (2007). Using peer feedback to enhance the quality of student online
postings: An exploratory study. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(2),
412–433. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00331.x
Gaier, E. L. (1954). A study of memory under conditions of stimulated recall. The
Journal of General Psychology, 50(1), 147–153. doi:10.1080/00221309.1954.9710111
Gass, S. M., Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language
research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ge, Z.-G. (2011). Exploring e-learners’ perceptions of net-based peer-reviewed English
writing. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(1),
75–91. doi:10.1007/s11412-010-9103-7
Ge, Z.-G. (2012). Cyber asynchronous versus blended cyber approach in distance
English learning. Journal of Educational Technology Society, 15(2), 286–297.
Ge, Z.-G. (2014). The application of Camtasia Studio in the development of English
online courseware. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Intelligent
Environments, 341–345.
Henderson, M., Phillips, M. (2015). Video-based feedback on student assessment:
Scarily personal. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(1), 51–66. doi:10.
14742/ajet.1878
18 Z.-G. GE

Hung, S.-T. A. (2016). Enhancing feedback provision through multimodal video technol-
ogy. Computers Education, 98(3), 90–101. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2016.03.009
Hyland, K., Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing.
Language Teaching, 39(2), 83–101. doi:10.1017/S0261444806003399
Ice, P., Curtis, R., Phillips, P., Wells, J. (2007). Using asynchronous audio feedback to
enhance teaching presence and students’ sense of community. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(2), 3–25.
Kim, S. H. (2014). Developing autonomous learning for oral proficiency using digital
storytelling. Language Learning Technology, 18(2), 20–35.
Lin, G.-Y. (2018). Anonymous versus identified peer assessment via a Facebook-based
learning application: Effects on quality of peer feedback, perceived learning, perceived
fairness, and attitude toward the system. Computers Education, 116, 81–92. doi:10.
1016/j.compedu.2017.08.010
Lin, L., Atkinson, R. K. (2011). Using animations and visual cueing to support learn-
ing of scientific concepts and processes. Computers Education, 56(3), 650–658. doi:
10.1016/j.compedu.2010.10.007
Liu, N.-F., Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: The learning element of peer assessment.
Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 279–290. doi:10.1080/13562510600680582
Loewenthal, K. M. (2004). An introduction to psychological tests and scales (2nd ed.).
Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
Lu, R., Bol, L. (2007). A comparison of anonymous versus identifiable e-peer review
on college student writing performance and the extent of critical feedback. Journal of
Interactive Online Learning, 6(2), 100–115.
McCarthy, J. (2015). Evaluating written, audio and video feedback in higher education
summative assessment tasks. Issues in Educational Research, 25(2), 153–169.
Maione, L., Mirenda, P. (2006). Effects of video modeling and video feedback on
peer-directed social language skills of a child with autism. Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions, 8(2), 106–118. doi:10.1177/10983007060080020201
Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Orsmond, P., Merry, S. (2011). Feedback alignment: Effective and ineffective links
between tutors’ and students’ understanding of coursework feedback. Assessment
Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(2), 125–136. doi:10.1080/02602930903201651
Paivio, A., Desrochers, A. (1980). A Dual-coding Approach to Building Memory.
Canadian Journal of Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie, 34(4), 388–899. doi:
10.1037/h0081101
Panitz, T. (1997). Collaborative versus cooperative learning: A comparison of the two
concepts which will help us understand the underlying nature of interactive learning.
[Online]. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED448443.pdf.
Pitt, E., Winstone, N. (2018). The impact of anonymous marking on students’ percep-
tions of fairness, feedback and relationships with lecturers. Assessment Evaluation
in Higher Education, 43(7), 1183–1193. doi:10.1080/02602938.2018.1437594
Popta, E. V., Kral, M., Camp, G., Martens, R., Simons, P. R.-J. (2017). Exploring the
value of peer feedback in online learning for the provider. Educational Research
Review, 20, 24–34. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2016.10.003
Poslawsky, I. E., Naber, F. B., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., van Daalen, E., van
Engeland, H., van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2015). Video-feedback intervention to pro-
mote Positive Parenting adapted to Autism (VIPP-AUTI): A randomized controlled
trial. Autism, 19(5), 588–603. doi:10.1177/1362361314537124

Purves, A. (1984). The teacher as reader: An anatomy. College English, 46(3), 259–265.
doi:10.2307/377036
Scott, C. R. (2004). Benefits and drawbacks of anonymous online communication: Legal
challenges and communicative recommendations. Free Speech Yearbook, 41(1),
127–141. doi:10.1080/08997225.2004.10556309
Sheerin, S. (1987). Listening comprehension: Teaching or testing?. ELT Journal, 41(2),
126–131. doi:10.1093/elt/41.2.126
Shih, R.-C. (2010). Blended learning using video-based blogs: Public speaking for
English as a second language students. Australasian Journal of Educational
Technology, 26(6), 883–897. doi:10.14742/ajet.1048
Shih, R.-C. (2011). Can Web 2.0 technology assist college students in learning English
writing? Integrating Facebook and peer assessment with blended learning.
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(5), 829–845. doi:10.14742/ajet.934
Smith, B. L., MacGregor, J. T. (1992). What is collaborative learning?. In A. S.
Goodsell, M. R. Maher,V. Tinto, B. L. Smith, J. MacGregor (Eds.), Collaborative
learning: A sourcebook for higher education (pp. 9–22). University Park, PA: National
Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment, Pennsylvania State
University.
Smith, H., Cooper, A., Lancaster, L. (2002). Improving the quality of undergraduate
peer assessment: A case study from psychology. Innovations in Education and
Teaching International, 39(1), 71–81. doi:10.1080/13558000110102904
Sweller, J. (2005). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In R. E.
Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 19–29).
Cambridge New York: Cambridge University Press.
Tedick, D., Walker, C. L. (1995). From theory to practice: How do we prepare teach-
ers for second language classrooms?. Foreign Language Annals, 28(4), 499–517. doi:10.
1111/j.1944-9720.1995.tb00823.x
Thompson, R., Lee, M. J. (2012). Talking with students through screencasting:
Experimentations with video feedback to improve student learning. Journal of
Interactive Technology and Pedagogy, 1[Online] Retrieved from https://jitp.commons.
gc.cuny.edu/files/2012/03/Talking-with-Students-through-Screencasting_-
Experimentations-with-Video-Feedback-to-Improve-Student-Learning.pdf
Tochon, F. (2008). A brief history of video feedback and its role in foreign language
education. CALICO Journal, 25(3), 420–435. doi:10.1558/cj.v25i3.420-435
Tsui, A. B. M., Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments?.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2), 147–170. doi:10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00022-
9
Tuzi, F. (2004). The impact of e-feedback on the revisions of L2 writers in an academic
writing course. Computers and Composition, 21(2), 217–235. doi:10.1016/j.compcom.
2004.02.003
Weaver, M. R. (2006). Do students value feedback? Student perceptions of tutors’ writ-
ten responses. Assessment Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(3), 379–394. doi:10.
1080/02602930500353061
West, J., Turner, W. (2015). Enhancing the assessment experience: Improving student
perceptions, engagement and understanding using online video feedback. Innovations
in Education and Teaching International, 53(4), 1–11. doi:10.1080/14703297.2014.
1003954
Woody, W., Daniel, D., Baker, C. (2010). E-books or textbooks: Students prefer text-
books. Computers Education, 55(3), 945–948. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.04.005
20 Z.-G. GE

Yang, M., Badger, R., Yu, Z. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feed-
back in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(3),
179–200. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2006.09.004
Yang, Y. F. (2011). A reciprocal peer review system to support college students’ writing.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(4), 687–700. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.
2010.01059.x
Yang, Y. F. (2016). Transforming and constructing academic knowledge through online
peer feedback in summary writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(4),
683–620. doi:10.1080/09588221.2015.1016440
Yilmaz, R. (2016). Knowledge sharing behaviors in e-learning community: Exploring the
role of academic self-efficacy and sense of community. Computers in Human
Behavior, 63, 373–382. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.055
Ypsilandis, G. S. (2002). Feedback in distance education. Computer Assisted Language
Learning, 15(2), 167–181. doi:10.1076/call.15.2.167.8191
Zhang, S. (1995). Reexamining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writ-
ing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(3), 209–222. doi:10.1016/1060-
3743(95)90010-1
Zhang, S. (2008). Assessing the impact of peer revision on English on English writing of
tertiary EFL learners. Teaching English in China, 31(2), 47–54.

10.1080@09588221.2019.1677721

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Similar to 10.1080@09588221.2019.1677721

Similar to 10.1080@09588221.2019.1677721 (20)

More from Sisercom SAC

More from Sisercom SAC (19)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

10.1080@09588221.2019.1677721