Video can be used to provide rich, descriptive feedback to students on both formative and summative work. This presentation will focus on two specific examples from the University of York of how these resources have been created, distributed through the Blackboard VLE, augmented with other types of feedback and the impact that they have had on student learning and skills development.

1. Developing and delivering video feedback
Simon Davis – University of York, UK
Simon.davis@york.ac.uk

2. Outline
• Feedback; written vs video
• Case study 1 – student presentations
• Case study 2 – student work
• Learning points

3. (Assessment &) feedback in HE
• Key to learning – constructive alignment (Biggs)
• Weakest area for student satisfaction (NSS)
• Feedback = “Any part of the learning process
which is designed to guide student progress”
– Adequacy, timeliness, usefulness, fairness*
• Significant issues around timeliness,
individualisation, engagement, impact, staff
workload…
* University of York guide to Assessment, Standards, Marking and Feedback

4. Written feedback : the problem
Lack of engagement with written feedback is related to
its limitations:
• Discourse of wfb - tacit knowledge making criteria
explicit (Chanock, 2000)
• Lack of shared understanding of criteria (Sadler,
1989, 2010)
• Reinforces the distance between tutor expert and
novice student
• (Mis) interpretation of feedback
• Disconnect between commentary and subject
• Lack of depth

5. Enhanced feedback
• Audio – “soundsgood” project
• Screencast feedback (McLaughlin 2009,
Stannard 2007)
• Video feedback (Thiissen 2012, Lightfoot 2010)

6. Case study 1: Video feedback to develop
student presentation skills (Physics)
• Students n=125
• Students give a presentation in term 1
• These are recorded and uploaded onto the VLE
• Feedback is given by staff, self reflection and peers
• Students give a 2nd presentation in term 3 which
builds on comments

7. Case study: Video feedback

8. 2010/11– Learning objects blog
• Students record presentations > batch converted
• Batch allocate students to groups (*16)
• Folders restricted to groups containing LO blogs
• Multiple videos embedded within the blogs
– Individual tutor feedback
– Peer feedback
– Personal reflection

9. 2011/12 – Blackboard blog
• Blogs restricted to groups with Adaptive Release
– Could use the My Groups area
• Multiple videos embedded within the blogs
– Peer feedback
– Personal reflection
– Staff feedback provided later

10. Impact: comparing marks 2009 - 2010

11. Impact: student evaluation (n=40)
Select from the list below, anything that you feel helped you
to develop your presentation skills:
• Watching own presentation (94%)
• Feedback from staff (83%)
• Feedback from peers (83%)
• Reflecting on my own presentation performance (76%)
• Assessing the performance of other students against a
provided set of criteria (64%)

12. Impact: student comments
• “Watching the video was most useful. Several things I felt went wrong
during the talk weren't noticeable at all, while some things I didn't notice
were”.
• “The videos are especially good, and the fact that you can watch as many
times as you like is very good. The ability to provide/ receive instant
feedback is very helpful”.
• “Highlighted my weaknesses more effectively”.
• “It was useful having to analyse my own presentation rather than just
forgetting about it. I was able to find faults myself which is more likely to
help me improve next time. This wouldn’t have been possible without the
talks being recorded”.
• “The VLE provided an interactive source of feedback which helped me
improve my speaking skills. The videos also helped me to see where I was
going wrong with my presentation”.

13. Case study 2: Screencast feedback on
Academic Writing (Dept Education)
• Masters ESOL classroom practice
• ~20 international students
• Mid term formative task – short academic essay
• Written feedback after 1 week
• Screencast feedback 1 week later
– Via e-mail, VLE “too clunky”

14. Designing and delivering feedback /
feedforward
• Review work and make notes / highlighting
• Prepare positive and development bullet points
• Prepare workspace and deliver feedback
– Greet student by name and introduce yourself
– State what feedback is on and how it is structured
– Comment on positive aspects
– Expand in detail on highlighted points
– Give brief summary with feedforward
(adapted from Cullen
http://www.bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk/ftp/events/roehampton/screencast.pdf)

15. Impact: Student Survey (n=15/20 )
1)attention to both types of fb
2) evaluating wfb versus sfb
Students read wfb three times+ 9/15
Students viewed sfb three times+ 12/ 15
Q:If you were only able to receive one form of
feedback, either written feedback comments or
screen cast feedback, which of these two forms of
feedback would you choose?
9 chose sfb 4 chose wfb
(Kerr & McLaughlin study- three quarters chose sfb)

16. Impact: Student responses, strengths of
screencast fb (12)
• “I think the most obvious advantage is that
students can feel engaged as if their tutor is
talking to them face to face”
• “More straightforward and personal. It's like the
tutor is talking to you in person. And the
comments are directed to the parts of your
article clearly.”
• “More memorable because it‟s like the teacher is
talking to you and giving instructions to you.
Sometimes I can't recognize teachers' writing
in the written feedback.”

17. Learning from written feedback(12)
• Strengths of written feedback
• “I think the written feedback is more clear and specific about
some small mistakes that I made (like some printing mistakes)
while the screen cast tends to be focused mainly on the
structure or some other macro aspects.
• “You can read it anywhere you like (3) and it's easy to go
back to check whereas the screen cast can only be read on
your computer. Also, the information is more memorable to
visual learners.”
• Meeting this with screencast feedback
• Ask students to respond to feedback with action points
• Provide bullet pointed scripts along with

18. Use of screencasts - reflections
• Benefits – “over the shoulder intimacy”
– „quick and dirty‟ helps develop trust and authenticity
– personal style / nuance
– any innovation that shows tutor commitment engenders
positive attitude towards tutors (France & Ribchester, 2008)
– Sfb has all the benefits of audio fb -depth of explanation,
personalisation etc. but with added visual element
– Most appropriate for formative feedback
• Challenges
– Production workload (rendering, distribution to students
through VLE)
– Getting “best of both” (written / screencast)

19. vGuidance Pilot project: online
screencast creation & access control
• Bespoke system for (non-technical) careers
advisers creating rich feedback (efficient, easy...)
• Respond to student CV submissions (username)
• Record feedback online (server side production)
– Screencast-o-matic
• Generic E-mail with advice and link to students
• Students log in to access all feedback provided
• Opportunity for face to face follow up

20. Impact: student survey (n=12)
• vGuidance is:
– Convenient: 5
– Easy to use: 4.8
– Personal: 4.5
– Easy to understand feedback: 4.4
– Saves me time: 4.3
– Is engaging: 4.4
– Want future vGuidance feedback: 4.8

21. Impact: student comments
• “…the video was much more engaging”
• “I think it is good that I will be able to keep viewing it
whilst I update my CV with the suggestions that
were made rather than leaving an appointment and
maybe not remembering what was said.”
• “Going through the CV in a visual manner helps to
understand not only where to modify it, but also how
in terms of spacial and lay-out aspects”
• “It is easier to apply to the document you are
working on. It creates extensive feedback so you
are not confused by notes made.”

22. Impact: staff response
• Careers advisers:
– Saves time (10-15 mins cf.30-60 for text equivalent)
– Less fear of getting tone right / misinterpretation
• Bill Soden
– Removes production overheads
– Removes access control issues

23. Potential for integration with Blackboard
Opportunities
• Single sign on potential for simpler integration with
VLE
• Feedback could be organised by course,
assignment etc.
Challenges
• Concerns over 3rd party API – funding
• Scalability
• Integration with Gradecentre
• Room for human error (username)

24. Final questions / comments
• How can the ability to create and provide
feedback through Blackboard be improved?

25. References
• Biggs, J.B. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham: Open University
Press/Society for Research into Higher Education. (Second edition)
• Channock, K, (2000) Comments on Essays: do students understand what tutors write?
Teaching in Higher Education, 5: 1, 95-105.
• Cullen, R. Screencast feedback. Last accessed 2nd June 2011 from
http://www.bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk/ftp/events/roehampton/screencast.pdf
• France, D., & Ribchester, C. (2008). Podcasts and feedback. In G. Salmon & P.
Edirisingha, (Eds.), Podcasting for learning in universities (pp 70-79). Berkshire: Open
University Press.
• Kerr, W., & McLaughlin, P. (2009). The benefit of screen recorded summaries in feedback
for work submitted electronically. Last accessed 15th May 2011 from
http://ebookbrowse.com/kerr-w-mclaughlin-p-formatted-b1-pdf-d116387872
• Lunt, T, & Curran, J. (2010) „Are you listening please?‟ The advantages of electronic audio
feedback compared to written feedback. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education,
35: 7, 759-769.
• Sadler, R. (2010) Beyond Feedback: developing student capability in complex appraisal.
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 35: 5, 535-550.
• Stannard (2007) Using screen capture software in student feedback: A case study from the
HEA English Subject Centre. Last accessed 15th May, 2011
http://www.english.heacademy.ac.uk/explore/publications/casestudies/technology/camtasia
.php)