Cycle 8 – Video Feedback for First Draft Writing: 22 Respondents ACTION TAKEN: The students were asked to write

an artist statement for their photography portfolios. Screencasting was used to provide feedback for the rough drafts of their artist statements in conjunction with Adobe Illustrator to mark the grammatical errors. Since this was a rough draft, no rubric was used to assess the quality writing. RESEARCH QUESTION: How will video feedback without a rubric and showing corrections, apply to written work and affect student-learning outcomes, as evaluated by the students? PREDICTED OUTCOME: This method should work better for first-drafts because the feedback provided will be more relevant when students can still correct their work. I was concerned that writing corrections on the paper would be distracting and that the students would feel uncomfortable pausing the videos to make the necessary changes. My challenges in the previous cycle of placing feedback on the school’s server made me concerned about continued challenges in this area, but the file sizes left few options. EVIDENCE USED TO EVALUATE THE ACTION: The evidence used to evaluate the actions in this cycle was a survey with the following questions: 1. How useful was the video in providing feedback on your writing? 2. What was the worst part of video feedback? 3. What aspects of video feedback are different than what you would receive from written feedback? 4. Were the written notes on your artist statement helpful or distracting when presented in a video with a voiceover? 5. Would having a rubric or another type of scoring tool be helpful in understanding how you performed? 6. Did you find video feedback helpful in any way that you did not mention earlier? (Please describe in detail.) 7. Will having this opportunity to provide your opinion affect your learning in photography? EVALUATION: The first question of this cycle asked how useful video feedback was to writing (Figure 8.1.) The responses to the question were not as positive as in previous cycles. 46% of the students responded positively, with 23% providing the highest rating. 32% of the students believed that video feedback provided the same level of effectiveness as written feedback. For the first time, it was indicated that video feedback was less useful than written feedback, with 22% of the students indicating that screencasting was detrimental to their learning. It was my belief that when this question is looked at in context with question 2 (Figure 8.2) issue will be that the video did not present static corrections, and the students were unable to

make the changes without pausing the video. Thus far, they have displayed an inability to work in this method and I hope that this second exposure will increase their likelihood of pausing the video while working.

How Useful was Video Feedback on Writing
4% 18% 23%

Much more useful More useful The Same Less Useful
23%

Much Less Useful

32%

Figure 8.1. How Useful was Video Feedback on your Writing? The second question (Figure 8.2) asked students to identify the worst part of video feedback. The majority (59%) said that that there was no worst part. The next highest response was 18% of the students indicating that this method made it difficult to look back upon their work. Students may not have thought of, or liked the method of pausing the video to look at the suggested corrections. This could be corrected by presenting the paper with the corrections on it as well as the video feedback. The inability to access the feedback at home was also mentioned again in this cycle (8%.) File sizes continue to be a challenge because students do not download the video before leaving for home. A new delivery method could be created if screencasting continues to be used.

What was the Worst Part of Video Feedback?
No Worst Part
5% 9% 5%

Speech Mistakes Difficult to Look Back on Work

18% 59%

Could not Ask Questions Could not get at Home
4%

Went to Quickly

Figure 8.2. What was the Worst Part of Video Feedback? The next question asked what the differences between video and written feedback were (Figure 8.3.) The most common answers suggested that the information was clearer in video (32%.) The next highest category contained 23% of the responses, and suggested that this form of feedback was more personal than a written version. Both the clarity of information and personal nature of the responses are the primary reasons why video feedback shows promise, suggesting that its benefits apply to both written work and the larger sample size. Along with “none” at 9%, other answers included a variety of personal views that either did not directly answer the question or were only mentioned by one respondent.

What Were the Differences Between Video and Written Feedback?
Clarity
18% 32% 5% 5% 4% 4% 9% 23%

Personal None Better Went To Quickly Cannot Ask for Clarification You Only Need to Listen N/A

Figure 8.3. What aspects of video feedback are different than what you would receive from written feedback? The students were asked if they found the written notes helpful while listening to the voiceover. The large majority of 82% found that the notes were in fact helpful. This suggested that my concerns about the hand written notes being a distraction when paired with a voiceover were unfounded, since the students responded that they benefited from the notes. The next question asked if including a scoring tool would be helpful in their understanding of how they performed (Figure 8.4) and 68% of the students indicated that they would find this helpful. These responses are somewhat surprising considering that this was a first draft of a paper. It was my belief that they would not be interested in a scoring metric because this was not their final product. Rather, it appears that they want to know how well they performed on this paper regardless of their need to make changes. The rubric may help clarify how the severity of my feedback or if they should restructure larger sections of their papers, both of which would suggest a motivation for these responses.

Would a Scoring Tool be Helpful in Understanding Performance?
5%

27%

Helpful
Not Helpful
68%

Figure 8.4. Would having a rubric or another type of scoring tool be helpful in understanding how you performed? Question six gave the students an opportunity to provide any other feedback that they did not have a chance to mention earlier. One response stated that video being colorful and visual is more helpful than voices alone, and another response suggested that video feedback was not that helpful, the remainder of the responses indicated that they had nothing else to add. The final question was in regards to the action research process. It asked the students if having an opportunity to voice their opinions would be beneficial to their learning. Surprisingly 50% of the respondents did not think that this would help their experience learning photography. I changed the wording of this question from the previous cycle because it might have been too leading, and these results may have existed because the question was not as clearly stated. Since there is no way of knowing which students have responded in each cycle, it may be that this group of respondents did not feel a chance for feedback would be as beneficial as the previous group. Finally it may be that they did not feel as though providing feedback for this assignment was beneficial. REFLECTION: When asked how useful video feedback was for written responses varied a great deal (Figure 8.1.) 46% of the responses were positive and 32% were neutral, but for the first time I received negative response (22%.) This cycle of feedback on written work was different than the last cycle, and some of the changes that were made in this cycle may have resulted in negative responses. First, this cycle was used for a rough draft of a paper, which meant the students needed to use the feedback to make changes. A number of the students did not follow directions

correctly and needed to rework large sections of their writing. My critical feedback may be part of the reason they did not prefer the use of screencasting. Of the 33 students who turn in their artist statements for proofreading only 22 responded to the survey questions. Out of the original 33 students there were 6 (18%) who did not follow directions or wrote an artist statement that needed many corrections. This aligns with the 22% who did not respond positively to screencasting. However since the questions were anonymous there is no way of knowing which students answered the questions. This makes these results untestable and this was only an attempt to look at possible testing biases as a cause for both the positive and negative responses. A second possibility for the negative results is that for the first time I made markings on the written work that the students needed to incorporate into their final drafts. I did not however provide them with a non-video copy of my markings because I wanted to test if they would adapt to pausing the video and then make corrections. In looking at these results along with the questions “what was the worst part” (Figure 8.2) and “what were the main differences” (Figure 8.3) it appears that only some of the students struggled while working from a guiding video. This could be due to the students’ level of experience with previous screencasts as feedback, or their level of comfort with a computer. When asked about the worst part of video feedback the results were varied. The majority response indicated there was no worst part (Figure 8.2.) The next highest response was the challenge of being unable to look back on their work. This challenge has appeared in previous cycles and continues to a problem. Photography is the only class that requires students to use the school’s servers to store and retrieve work. This being the case, students are unsure to downloading work from the server and working with it at home. Due to the file size of the videos, this is the only option available to give students the feedback and it may continue to present a challenge moving forward. In the suggested differences between written and video feedback, the 32% of the respondents indicated that the information was more clearly presented in video form and 23% stated that it was a more personal approach. This continues to reinforce the reasons I believe video feedback is preferable to written feedback. These findings have been consistent throughout my research and they are encouraging signs that video feedback may be an improved method of assessment for students. This must be balanced with the extra time and complications that it takes for educators to learn this method, but I believe that there is a strong potential for this system. Once a level of comfort is obtained with the programs, the process does not take much longer than other methods of feedback, yet the benefits of a personal approach, clarity, control of sequencing and the modeling art-oriented speech, are much grater than the extra efforts needed to create the feedback. The written notes on the students’ papers were found to be helpful. I was concerned that it would be too much to ask the students to follow my voice and read through the comments. However, it may be that because I was discussing the

comments on their paper the redundancy allowed for a clearer message. It appears that the corrections were greatly preferred and should be continued. There was an overwhelming response that having a quantifying assessment tool would be beneficial on a rough draft (Figure 8.4.) I had not included a scoring metric in this cycle for two reasons: first, one was used on the last writing cycle and I wanted to test this cycle without a rubric, and secondly, I did not think that providing a grade would be necessary for a rough draft. It may be that middle school English and Social Studies teachers provide rubrics to students rough drafts and so they are used to having that grade as a way of marking their progress. This could help to explain the students’ interest in a rubric for the rough draft. When asked if providing an opinion would benefit their learning, 50% of the students indicated that it would make no difference. This was surprising because in the previous cycle 74% of the students indicated that they would benefit from this opportunity to share their views. I purposefully changed the wording of this question because I found it too leading in the previous cycle, however I now wonder if now this question was too vague and the students didn’t understand the meaning. It may also be the I provided much more negative feedback in this cycle that the students then had to incorporate into their work and that may have directly affected their feelings towards this process. Average length of recording 1:42

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful