This document summarizes research on using screencast feedback versus traditional grammar codes for providing feedback on students' writing in Spanish. A study was conducted with 18 students in a SPA 201 course and 13 students in a SPA 404 course. Students preferred screencast feedback over codes by a margin of 55% to 16% and found screencasts to be more clear, personal, and useful. Both methods improved writing, but screencasts led students to correct more errors. However, screencasts have limitations such as audio quality issues and difficulty for non-native Spanish speakers. Further research is recommended with more participants and language levels.
1. Screencast feedback on students'
writing: Benefits and challenges
Corianne Blackman (cmb369@nau.edu)
& Dr. Yuly Asención-Delaney
(yuly.asencion@nau.edu)
Northern Arizona University
AATSP 2014
2. Introduction
• Problem: Typical grammar codes are used
to provide feedback on students’ L2 written
work.
• This feedback is not effective for all
students; it can be confusing and not
helpful.
• Can technology provide a better option for
providing feedback?
9. Research Questions:
• What are student perceptions toward
screencast feedback in comparison with
traditional grammar codes feedback?
• Which method of feedback is more
effective in terms of error correction in a
rewritten version: screencasts or
traditional grammar codes?
11. Participants
SPA 201 SPA 404
Female: 16
Male: 2
Female: 12
Male: 1
Average age: 18-19 Average age: 20-21
First language:
English-17 Spanish-1
First language:
English-9 Spanish-4
12. SPA 201 SPA 404
WRITING TASKS:
• Ad looking for a
roommate
• Letter of complaint
• Summary of an article
• Argumentative essay
based on readings
SURVEYS:
• Initial survey
• Post-composition #1
• Post-composition #2
FEEDBACK:
• Codes
• Screencast
Materials & Instruments
13. Procedures
Steps SPA 201 SPA 404
Step 1: Initial survey Initial survey
Step 2: Composition #1:
Feedback with codes
Composition #1:
Feedback with
screencasts in the L2
Step 3: Survey about feedback
received on
Composition #1
Survey about feedback
received on
Composition #1
Step 4: Composition #2:
Feedback with
screencasts in the L1
Composition #2:
Feedback with codes
Step 5: Survey about feedback
received on
Composition #2
Survey about feedback
received on
Composition #2
16. Perceptions: Grammar Codes
ADVANTAGES
• Codes allowed students
to work more
independently to correct
their own errors.
DISADVANTAGES
• There were no comments
about organization or
content of the
composition.
• It was confusing.
• Codes showed students
that an error was made
but didn’t explain why or
how to correct the error.
• If a student didn’t
understand the code, he
or she simply guessed
how to correct the error.
17. Perceptions: Screencasts
ADVANTAGES
• More personal.
• A new and unique type of
feedback to receive.
• Students paid more attention
to errors committed.
• It was like having a personal
meeting with the teacher.
• Gave more clarification about
the errors that were made
(more detailed explanations).
• SPA 404: Students could
practice their listening skills in
the L2.
DISADVANTAGES
• Too explicit.
• There were problems with
audio quality.
• SPA 404: It was difficult
to understand the
feedback in the L2
(Spanish).
20. CONCLUSIONS
• Students showed a strong preference
toward screencast feedback.
• Students found screencast feedback to be
more clear, personal, detailed, and useful.
• Students felt that screencasts provided
feedback on more abstract aspects of
compositions such as content and
organization of ideas.
21. CONCLUSIONS
• Both methods of feedback were effective.
• Students from both language levels
tended to correct more errors when they
received screencast feedback.
22. SCREENCASTS: LIMITATIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
• Camtasia: $99
• Explain
Everything: $2.99
• Free versions:
limit of 5 minutes
per video
• Record in a
silent place.
• Use a
microphone.
• Have students write
on computer initially.
• Use this feedback for
specific assignments.
• Use this feedback
with students who
struggle most with
writing.
23. FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Larger group of participants/
more levels of Spanish
Improvement of writing
skills over time
Teacher perceptions
Compare with face-to-face
conferences
24. REFERENCES
Ducate, L. & Arnold, N. (2012). Computer-mediated feedback:
Effectiveness and student perceptions of screen-casting
software versus the comment function. In G. Kessler, A.
Oskoz & I. Elola (Eds.), Technology across writing
contexts and tasks (pp. 31-56). San Marcos, TX:
CALICO Publications.
Ferris, D. R. (2012). Technology and corrective feedback for L2
writers: Principles, practices, and problems. In G.
Kessler, A. Oskoz, & I. Elola (Eds.), Technology across
writing contexts and tasks. (pp. 7-29). San Marcos,TX:
CALICO Monograph Series.
Gleaves, A., & Walker, C. (2013). Richness, redundancy or
relational salience? A comparison of the effect of textual
and aural feedback modes on knowledge elaboration in
higher education students' work.Computers &
Education, 62(0), 249-261.
25. Hynson, Y. T. A. (2012). An Innovative Alternative To Providing
Writing Feedback On Students' Essays. Teaching English
with Technology. 12 (1) : 53-57.
Seror, J. (2012). Show me! Enhanced feedback through
Screencasting technology. TESL Canada Journal, 30(1),
104-116.
Silva, M. L. (2012). Camtasia in the classroom: Student
attitudes and preferences for video commentary or Microsoft
Word comments during the revision process. Computers
and Composition, 29(1), 1-22.
Vincelette, E. J., & Bostic, T. (2013). Show and tell: Student and
instructor perceptions of screencast assessment. Assessing
Writing, 18(4), 257-277.
Weigle, S. C. (2013). English language learners and automated
scoring of essays: Critical considerations. Assessing
Writing, 18(1), 85-99.
REFERENCES
