1

A Literature Review of Text, Audio, and Video Feedback in Online Writing Courses

Holly E. McGowan-Romero

University of Houston

CUIN 7347: Seminar in Learning Design and Technology

Dr. Dogan

November 9, 2020
 2

Abstract

This literature review examines research regarding electronic feedback for student writing.

Research on text, audio, and video feedback was examined. Much of the research contained

student and instructor perspectives on different types of feedback. Efficacy of feedback to

improve the quality of student writing was the main concern, with consideration also given to

providing quality feedback within the time constraints inherit in large class sizes. Text, audio,

and video feedback were found to each provide unique benefits, supporting the conclusion that a

combination of feedback methods would be the best choice in an online writing course.
 3

A Literature Review of Text, Audio, and Video Feedback in Online Writing Courses

Providing instructor feedback to learners is a crucial part of writing instruction. In

composition courses in particular, students need feedback that will help them to improve their

writing over the course of several essay assignments. How to provide this feedback most

effectively in a way that is beneficial to students is a point of concern for most instructors of

writing intensive courses. When the face to face component is removed, and feedback is entirely

electronic, that concern is further amplified. There are many options for providing feedback, but

three of the most common are written (text), audio, and screencast or video feedback. While all

of these have benefits and drawback, it is important to explore each to discover what type would

be most effective for a given assignment. Each type of electronic feedback provides unique

advantages, and a combination of text, audio, and screencast feedback should be used throughout

a writing course.

Discussion of the efficacy of different types of teacher feedback is predicated on the idea

that feedback is necessary and impactful. Ferris (1997) sought to establish the role of teacher

feedback and study whether it had a meaningful impact on student improvement. For this study,

Ferris reviewed the writing assignments of ESL students, including drafts that had received

teacher commentary. The researcher then compared the subsequent revision of these drafts,

noting, “a significant proportion of the comments appeared to lead to substantive student

revision” (p. 315). Ferris gives brief acknowledgement to different methods of feedback,

including peers, conferences, audio, and computer-based commentary, but makes clear that

written response from the teacher is considered most common. Ferris is seeking to establish that

feedback in general has a substantive effect on student revision, though the researcher only used

written commentary in this study. Ferris found that comments that were requests for information,
 4

summary comments on grammar, and comments that were considered long and specific led to

the most substantive revisions. These findings indicate that detailed commentary is more likely

to lead to improvement in student writing. A comparison of the methods of feedback was outside

the scope of Ferris’s 1997 study; however, it is clear that specific feedback from the instructor is

more effective in motivating students to revise. Different methods to offer this type of feedback

should be considered.

When thinking about written feedback, it is important to recognize that this may be

focused on different areas of the writing assignments, such as grammar and mechanics or content

and rhetoric. The differences in these focuses make up a portion of the conflict in how to best

provide feedback on student writing. Additionally, written feedback may come in various forms,

such as in-text or rubric form. Nordrum et al. (2013) studied student experiences with written

feedback in relation to in-text commentary or rubric based feedback. The researchers focused on

a first-year writing course at a Swedish university which focused on proficiency skills in

academic English. While the study sought to understand the differences between rubric and in-

text feedback, it also considered effectiveness of feedback in terms of student understanding and

integration. While students indicated overall understanding of both types of feedback, an

interesting finding was that they perceived them differently and used them for different purposes.

Rubrics were more often seen as a general overview of achievement with in-text commentary

more focused on specific grammar corrections. Nordrum et al. found that while in-text

commentary included more developed feedback, students interpreted them as being only focused

on errors. While students identified the in-text commentary as the most important feedback, they

also indicated a preference for both. These results indicate that while students may view in-text
 5

written feedback as necessary, they do acknowledge benefits from having more than one type of

feedback.

Written corrective feedback (WCF) is a very common form of feedback, particularly in

writing and language courses, and focuses on correcting grammatical errors. Evans et al. (2010)

discuss the ubiquitous use of written corrective feedback in second language writing and point

out that its use doesn’t have a solid basis in research, as teachers’ perspectives on the utilization

of WCF aren’t often included in research examining WCF and writing pedagogy. Evans et al.

(2010) state, “practitioner perspectives have been fundamentally absent in the published

literature” (p. 48). As teachers are required to make decisions regarding the learning

environment, their perspective is integral to understanding the use of written feedback. The

researchers note that inconsistencies and contradictions in research have made understanding the

use of written corrective feedback difficult, and that the research has led to no clear conclusions

about its use. Evans et al. sought to examine the use of WCF by gathering input from writing

teachers. They found that teachers do correct errors by giving written feedback; moreover, they

spend a significant amount of time doing so. When asked why they provide WCF, the most

common response was that it helps students, followed by students expect it. A small minority of

respondents indicated they did not provide WCF largely because they expected students to make

those corrections on their own and the teachers wanted to focus on content. However, when

asked to rank the areas in which students had the most difficulty, problems with grammar ranked

highest, while content problems ranked lowest. Identifying the extensive teaching experience and

educational backgrounds of the respondents, along with the respondents’ belief that WCF helps

students, the researchers established a solid basis for the use of WCF.
 6

After establishing the use of WCF, Evans et al. then asked respondents how effective

they found the use of WCF, noting that on average, the respondents only found WCF

“somewhat” effective. This indicates that different methods may need to be used in combination

with WCF to form more effective feedback. Kang and Han (2015) conducted research to

investigate the efficacy of written corrective feedback. By conducting a meta-analysis of

research studies on written corrective feedback, Kang and Han sought to find not only if WCF

was effective, but if so, what type is most effective, and what factors may mitigate efficacy.

Kang and Han (2015) found that, “based on sample of 22 studies, written corrective

feedback appear to have a moderate to large effect on grammatical accuracy of L2 [second

language learners] students’ writing” (p. 7). Their findings were based on posttests of students

who had received written corrective feedback. Kang and Han’s research supports the use of

WCF in writing instruction; however, due to the small sample size, it should be viewed with

caution. The researchers’ second question regarding what type of written feedback was most

effective focused on direct or indirect feedback, where direct feedback identifies the error and

provides its correction and indirect feedback only identifies the error. The researchers found no

statistical difference in the types of feedback. When reviewing factors that could influence

efficacy of WCF, proficiency was found to be the biggest factor impacting the benefit of WCF,

specifically beginners did not benefit as much from written corrective feedback as students who

had higher proficiency. While Kang and Han specifically state, “written corrective feedback can

improve the grammatical accuracy of writing students” (p. 12), they also encourage further

research into areas affected the efficacy of feedback. In particular, they recommend research

examining both oral and written feedback. While research into written corrective feedback does
 7

show the potential for it to have positive effects on student writing, its overall effectiveness

should be compared to other types of feedback, including oral or audio feedback.

Bauer (2011) found that talking about student papers in audio commentary made the

feedback feel more conversational. While the instructor offered students other methods of

feedback, such as handwritten notes or electronic comments, she found the use of audio feedback

to be very effective in motivating students to make improvements to drafts. Students reported

feeling more personally engaged with the audio commentary over text commentary.

Additionally, students appreciated comments that were detailed and specific. Bauer reports that

the use of audio feedback allowed for more specific and individual feedback on student papers.

The researcher also notes an increase in understanding reported by students when using audio

commentary, as well as the tendency to listen to the comments more than once. It is worth

analyzing, however, that the Bauer indicated that the use of audio commentary is to guide

students through the process of creating another draft, and that less focus is on the mechanics of

writing. This may lead one to consider if and how audio commentary might be used for grammar

as well, or if it should be used more holistically. FitzPatrick and McKeown (2020) looked at the

use of audio commentary to improve overall quality of writing.

While their research focused on younger students with special needs, like Bauer,

FitzPatrick and McKeown found that audio commentary helped students primarily in the revision

process. The researchers recommend audio commentary to be used when reviewing the first draft

of student writing. Additionally, they recommend a checklist and/or rubric for the assignment to

guide teacher feedback when recording the commentary and to allow students to understand the

comments more easily. Furthermore, FitzPatrick and McKeown recommend the creation of

example essays containing common errors and the recording of example audio comments. This is
 8

an interesting practice where the example essays and audio commentary would be used to teach

students how to interpret and use the audio feedback. Modeling is also discussed, where the

teacher would demonstrate how to pause and replay feedback. The use of examples and

modeling may be due to the student population on which FitzPatrick and McKeown were

focused, but they could be used to support instruction with audio feedback in any setting. Also of

use in any education setting is the use of small groups or peers to assist in the first round of

understanding audio feedback before moving on the individual use. The researchers provide a

thorough, step-by-step process for how to integrate the use of audio commentary in a writing

course. FitzPatrick and McKeown note that, “audio feedback is flexible, and the teacher can

make it their own” (p. 21), alluding to the potential of audio feedback to be used in many

different ways. However, the use of audio commentary as holistic draft revision tool is still

heavily relied upon as the primary benefit of audio commentary. If an instructor is seeking to

address more aspects of student writing, it may be prudent to consider adding more elements to

the feedback, such as video or screencast.

Denton (2014) found that, “screen capture feedback is effective for guiding corrections

on a writing assignment” (p. 51). Denton includes a discussion of the overall effectiveness and

use of instructor feedback, noting that it is an important part of a system of evaluation and

assessment. After briefly mentioning written and audio feedback, the researcher draws the

conclusion that video feedback is the next logical step in the development of teacher feedback.

Using a case study of thirty-six undergraduate students in a teacher education class, Denton finds

that screen capture feedback has a positive effect on student performance. As part of the

feedback, the instructor used a rubric to score the student writing. The screen capture was then

used as an intervention to explain an assessment of the student’s writing performance when

 9

compared to the scoring rubric. The feedback video, “scrolled across an assignment while

identifying strengths and weaknesses, along with suggesting specific steps for improvement”

(Denton p. 54). In a survey administered to students after receiving the screen capture feedback,

students indicated they would recommend video feedback. Denton concludes that the use of

screen capture feedback positively influences student perception and performance. While the

overall strengths and weakness of the student writing were discussed in the video feedback, the

research mentions that spelling, grammar, and formatting could also be addressed. This addition

indicates a possible broader scope of video commentary when compared to audio feedback. The

findings of Jones, Georghiades, and Gunson (2012) support the broader scope of screen capture

feedback, indicating that it can provide a “richer range of feedback” (p. 593).

Based on a case study of MBA and undergraduate students, Jones et al. (2012) found that

students engaged more with screen capture feedback. One interesting aspect of this study is that

the researchers looked at the use of screen capture video being used between students and tutors,

rather than students and instructors, which suggests a wider range of use. They highlight that the

use of screen capture to review the marking of an assignment can make the student feel present

at the session even when the feedback is given asynchronously. Similarities to in person

meetings are noted in the use of screen capture, primarily the ability to point out a section of

student works as it is discussed. Of additional interest in this study, the researchers also consider

the current decline in in-person meeting time for tutors and instructors, as student numbers

increase. This serves to emphasize the realities of modern education and explain why the use of

screen capture feedback may be most effective. The researchers also included the perspectives of

tutors, not just students, in their findings on this method of feedback. Respondents were

interviewed and surveyed regarding the use of screen capture video feedback, allowing for both
 10

qualitative and quantitative data. Findings from students indicated that the feedback was

positively received and that students appreciated the personal quality. Findings from tutors

emphasized a shift from a negative expectation that giving the feedback would be time

consuming to a positive experience with the medium. Tutors noted that the time was much the

same as that to mark papers, but that they were able to provide more explanation in that time.

Overall, Jones et al. found that the use of screen capture video feedback could help in the

achievement of student learning outcomes and was superior to text feedback which lacks detail.

The researchers’ mention of text feedback raises the direct comparison of text and screen capture

feedback. Borup et al. (2015) specifically reviewed the differences in impact between text and

video communication in instructor feedback.

Interestingly, Borup et al. (2015) found that student perceptions regarding text versus

video feedback were not significantly different. They did not prefer one over the other but found

benefits in both methods. While students in this study did find video feedback to be more

conversational, they also valued the efficiency of text comments. The researchers present some

concerns regarding feedback in modern education, including the ability to provide personalized

feedback with increasingly large class sizes. They discuss how distance education has evolved

and in particular, how asynchronous feedback has been used. The researchers posit that the use

of asynchronous video feedback is an attempt in increase the richness of feedback and provide

non-verbal cues. In addition to the delivery method, the researchers highlight that content and

timing are important features of feedback and affect the efficacy of the feedback in any medium.

Video feedback may provide a way to address these issues simultaneously. Borup et al.

ultimately find that, “the use of audio and video communication tools can positively impact

feedback timing, content, and delivery” (p. 166). However, surprisingly, at the end of the study
 11

survey, the researchers found some students expressed a strong preference for text feedback.

This leads to the conclusion that the benefits of text feedback cannot be overlooked and should

not be entirely replaced with video feedback.

Qualitative findings in Borup et al. (2015) indicated that video feedback contained more

general commentary, while text feedback includes more specific comments. It is this specificity

that was appreciated by students, along with ease of access and more efficient viewing methods.

Likewise, instructors reported finding text feedback more convenient. Despite these preferences

for text feedback, both students and instructors also reported finding some advantages to video

feedback. Generally, students felt that video commentary was more positive and highlighted

more praise for the students, as well as being easier to understand. Instructors also expressed

feeling that they were more conversational and supportive when giving video feedback. These

findings support the conclusion that including different types of feedback in a course may be

wise. In order to maintain the positive benefits of text feedback while still utilizing the

advantages of video feedback, instructors can consider the use of different feedback methods for

different assignment in the same course. This is particularly important when those courses are

entirely asynchronous. Gausch et. al (2013) highlighted the importance of feedback particularly

in online classroom environments.

Gausch et. al (2013) sought to investigate the effects of feedback in classes based on

asynchronous written communication. While the researchers examined both instructor and peer

feedback, they found that the source of the feedback was less important than the type of feedback

in order to be effective. Feedback that was epistemic or epistemic and suggestive was found to

be the most useful. Epistemic feedback focused on asking questions and requesting clarifications,

while suggestive feedback offered suggestions for improvements. Epistemic and suggestive
 12

feedback asked questions and offered suggestions of how to clarify the answers. Gausch et al.

found that feedback significantly affected the writing performance of students in an entirely

online, asynchronous course, highlighting the importance of feedback in this type of course.

While this research examined the effects of types of feedback rather than the method of

feedback, the focus on an entirely asynchronous course is valuable when examining electronic

feedback. Instructors should seek to include epistemic and suggestive feedback in text, audio,

and video feedback for online courses. Gausch et al. highlights that more research is needed on

feedback for fully asynchronous courses.

When considering how to improve student writing performance in an online course,

examination of how best to provide feedback is critical. This is an even more important concern

when feedback will be electronic and asynchronous with no opportunity for face to face

explanations. While much of the research can be applied to fully asynchronous courses, more

research on feedback specifically for asynchronous courses is recommended. When considering

text, audio, and video feedback for online courses, each is found to have distinct benefits and

may be fitting for different types of assignments or different focuses in feedback. Text feedback

is a valuable tool in written corrective feedback and for offering specific corrections or

suggestions; it is particularly useful in grammar corrections. Audio feedback allows the

instructor to add a more conversational aspect to the feedback while still giving specific

suggestions. Finally video feedback allows the instructor to make the feedback more personal

and positive but may lead to students perceiving the feedback as more general. In addition to

considering the benefits of each type of feedback, instructors must also weigh concerns of time

and class size when choosing whether to give text, audio, or video feedback. In order to

maximize the benefits of each type of feedback, while recognizing the limitations inherit in
 13

giving feedback to large classes of students, it makes the most sense for instructors to use a

combination of text, audio, and video feedback in online writing courses.

 14

References

Bauer, S. (2011). When I Stopped Writing on Their Papers: Accommodating the Needs of

Student Writers with Audio Comments. The English Journal, 101(2), 64-67. Retrieved

September 30, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41415428

Borup, J., West, R., & Thomas, R. (2015). The impact of text versus video communication on

instructor feedback in blended courses. Educational Technology Research and

Development, 63(2), 161-184. Retrieved September 30, 2020, from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/24546598

Denton, D. (2014). Using screen capture feedback to improve academic

performance. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 58(6), 51–

56. https://doi-org.dcccd.idm.oclc.org/10.1007/s11528-014-0803-0

Evans, N. W., Hartshorn, K. J., & Tuoiti, E. A. (2010). Written Corrective Feedback:

Practitioners’ Perspectives. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 47–77.

https://doi-org.dcccd.idm.oclc.org/10.6018/ijes/2010/2/119191

Ferris, D. (1997). The Influence of Teacher Commentary on Student Revision. TESOL

Quarterly, 31(2), 315-339. doi:10.2307/3588049

FitzPatrick, E., & McKeown, D. (2020). How to Use Audio Feedback to Improve Students’

Writing Quality. Teaching Exceptional Children, 53(1), 12–22. https://doi-

org.dcccd.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/0040059920908901

Guasch, T., Espasa, A., Alvarez, I. M., & Kirschner, P. A. (2013). Effects of feedback on

collaborative writing in an online learning environment. Distance Education, 34(3), 324–

338. https://doi-org.dcccd.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/01587919.2013.835772
 15

Jones, N., Georghiades, P., & Gunson, J. (2012). Student feedback via screen capture digital

video: Stimulating student's modified action. Higher Education, 64(5), 593-607.

Retrieved September 30, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23275715

Kang, E., & Han, Z. (2015). The Efficacy of Written Corrective Feedback in Improving L2

Written Accuracy: A Meta-Analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 1-18.

Retrieved September 30, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/43651875

Nordrum, L., Evans, K., & Gustafsson, M. (2013). Comparing student learning experiences of

in-text commentary and rubric-articulated feedback: strategies for formative

assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(8), 919–940. https://doi-

org.dcccd.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/02602938.2012.758229