Literature Review

Screencasting may provide a quicker alternative to other digital feedback methods.  Digital feedback includes suggested edits, comments in the margins, final score and overall commentary through a learning management system (LMS).  Instead of employing these methods, all commentary, suggestions and score can be embedded in one screencast recording, hosting the feedback all in one location.  If assessment is conducted simultaneously while reading, watching or listening to the student’s production by way of screencast, the actual time spent on scoring could be reduced.  Creating screencasts has been proven to be faster than providing traditional, written feedback, even if provided digitally through typing (Cunningham, 2019; Ali, 2016).  

In one study it was found that instead of generating one full-page of double-spaced written commentary (at 250 words), the subject could speak the same feedback for 90-120 seconds (Sommers, 2013) and screencasting requires approximately 30% less time than the traditional written approach per student paper (Cunningham, 2019; Warnock, 2008 as cited in Sommers, 2013). Screencasts also have more depth in words provided when compared with written feedback averaging 109 written words to recordings that averaged 745 spoken words per assessment (Anson et. al, 2016).  

Furthermore, screencasting allows for feedback to be more timely and relevant for the students, as the work process is still fresh, cognitively retrievable and constructive suggestions towards revisions can be more readily applied (Cavaleri et al., 2019).  Screencasting provides a potential solution to the length of time required to return feedback on student work, because students do not need to be present when feedback is provided.  

Written feedback can be lost, illegible, limited in scope or difficult to comprehend.  By providing both audio and visual modes, screencast feedback is not dependent on text, it can be more comprehensive and meaningful and will not get lost as it is housed online. When using the webcam feature, often referred to as “talking head”, students can also see the teacher’s facial expressions and gestures that can further convey meaning to support the learning process (Anson et. al, 2016). By making use of both visual and audio modes, greater understanding of what is being communicated by the teacher is easier to process, which is beneficial for all students (Mahoney et. al, 2018).

In addition, screencasting gives the teacher an opportunity to offer praise, which may lead to improved student self-efficacy and learner confidence (Grigoryan, 2017).  Teachers can offer support and encouragement through vocal tone and inflection using screencasting.  The audio component can capture tone in a teacher’s voice and express emotion, placing emphasis, concern and praise into the feedback (Anson et. al, 2016; Henderson & Phillips, 2015).  Face-to-face interaction provided by video webcam can increase the learner’s ability to both self-regulate and generate a much needed social presence with their instructor, aiding the students socially and emotionally (Starr-Glass, 2020).  Anxiety can affect the recall of the feedback from the in-person meeting of which screencasts could mitigate (Henderson & Phillips, 2015).

An additional benefit to screencasting for student feedback is that it supports students with specific learning disabilities such as dyslexia, attention deficit disorders and cognitive processing issues, as well as students learning the English language (Cavaleri et al., 2019; Bissell, 2017).  In providing feedback that can be listened to and viewed simultaneously, English Language Learners (ELL) or specific learning needs such as dyslexia, will benefit by providing audio and visual modalities that are not dependent on reading text (Cavaleri et al., 2019; Bissell, 2017).  Screencasts can also be replayed by students to gain further understanding, providing a solution for students who struggle with attention, mitigating learner distractions as the technology allows students to go back and forth between their work to encourage the revision process (Cavaleri et al., 2019; Bissell, 2017; Grigoryan, 2017).  The audio from the instructor that the video provides, such as intonation and pauses aid in comprehension of the specific points teachers are trying to convey while visual cues such as gestures and the option of closed-captioning can assist students with auditory processing or hearing disorders (Fang & Wickersham-Fish, 2021; Cavaleri et al., 2019; Lamey, 2015).  Providing students with multimodal feedback via screencasting technology provides students with visual or audio reaffirmation, and can assist in overcoming specific learning disorders, including dyslexia and ELL students because it is not reliant on text (Fang & Wickersham-Fish, 2021; Cavaleri et al., 2019; Cunningham, 2019; Bissell, 2017; Ali, 2016). 

One significant finding from a published meta-analysis includes that video feedback was found to be more elaborative, with “almost double or more” words than using the traditional written method and provides more conceptual depth, going beyond basic syntax errors (Mahoney et al., 2019; Lamey, 2015).   Traditional written feedback may result in “fix-oriented” actions, where the students are directed to fix specific areas rather than focus on the larger task at hand (Fang & Wickersham-Fish, 2021; Bissell, 2017).  a study comparing 1,040 written and video feedback comments, the difference between the types of feedback were explored (Cavaleri et al., 2019). Results showed 49% directive-driven feedback with the written approach whereas the video feedback had only 17% directives, leaving more room for depth in the feedback to include instructor modeling, suggestions, interpersonal connections and praise (Cavaleri et al., 2019).  It has been found that when video feedback is provided, students receive more detailed comments, rising above just the mechanics.  Students can then delve into deeper conceptual meaning such as argumentation, analysis of material and considerations for synthesis as well as opportunities for reflection and self-evaluation (Mahoney et al., 2018).  An explanatory mixed-methods study found that through screencasting feedback, students directed their own learning, taking ownership of their growth (Inan-Karagul & Seker, 2021). 

Multiple studies show the efficacy of video feedback in meeting the needs of learners and students have expressed preference of having feedback provided through video format over the traditional method (Cavaleri et al., 2019; Ali, 2016; Anson et. al, 2016).  When 299 students were surveyed, researchers found that 91% of respondents considered video feedback “to be of equal or greater value” when compared with the traditional written methods (West & Turner, 2016).