VDMIS Newsletter - August 2016 (Plain Text Version)
|
|||||
|
In this issue: |
VIDEO KILLED THE ESL TEACHER: IS SCREENCASTING FEEDBACK WORTH IT?
Interested in CALL and drawing inspiration from second-language research and presentations on screencasting (Baertlein & Nott, 2015; Séror, 2012; McGarrell & Alvira, 2013), as well as from research on first-language online instruction (Thompson & Lee, 2012; Mathisen, 2012), we started screencasting to provide feedback on student writing. In the screencasts, we commented on format, content, organization, grammar, mechanics, and we suggested repair strategies. Initially, we each used different screencast feedback approaches of varying time commitments, meeting regularly to share our experiences. Based on reflections and survey data from students, we adapted and improved our methods throughout an academic year. We agreed it was best to avoid spending more time on veedback (video feedback) than we would on other methods (i.e., handwritten/typed comments or conferencing). In order to be efficient evaluators while still offering effective commentary, we found screencasting directly over digital copies of students’ essays to be the best practice. Our end protocol became reading student essays out loud while pausing where necessary to provide corrections and alternatives. Throughout this action research process, a consistent grading strategy evolved. Our experiments with this feedback medium have led us to become more effective evaluators and improved our ability to · offer better and more consistent positive feedback, · inspire more learner autonomy by providing alternative sentence options, · give more individualized grammar instruction, · build more rapport with students without face-to-face conferencing, · and become more cognizant of our own feedback styles and develop our metacognitive awareness. Our major take-away is that yes, screencasting is worth the time and effort. With this technology, teachers can provide valuable feedback to students that is more beneficial than written feedback and logistically simpler than individual conferencing. References Baertlein, E., & Nott, D. (2015). Improving and simplifying feedback on student writing using screencasting [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/mgebljf Mathisen, P. (2012). Video feedback in higher education: A
contribution to improving the quality of written feedback. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 7(2), 97–113.
Retrieved from http://www.pmathisen.no/4file/filer/artikler/videofeedback%20in%20higher%20education McGarrell, H. M., & Alvira, R. (2013). Innovation in techniques for teacher commentary on ESL writers’ drafts. Official Languages and Bilingualism Institute OLBI Working Papers, 5, 37–55. Séror, J. (2012). Show me! Enhanced feedback through screencasting technology. TESL Canada Journal, 30(1), 104–116. Thompson, R., & Lee, M. J. (2012). Talking with
students through screencasting: Experimentations with video feedback to
improve student learning. The Journal of Interactive Technology
and Pedagogy, 1(1) 1–16. Retrieved from http://jitp.commons.gc.cuny.edu/talking-with- Samantha Parkes, MA, is a faculty lecturer with interests in second language composition, pronunciation, and CALL. Mariah Schuemann, MA, serves as a faculty lecturer with interests in curriculum development, CALL, and academic writing. Matt Kaeiser is a lecturer and ITA coordinator with interests in active learning, music to enhance learning, and brain research. |
||||