Back to Basics: the theory behind Screencast feedback

Why is screencast such an effective method for feedback to students? In the first episode I introduced the idea that screencast is ‘dialogic’. And last time I offered you some quick wins to help you start using it. But now let’s take a step back and discuss the research that underpins screencast as an effective dialogic approach.

Why this matters

If you can appreciate that screencast is a form of dialogic feedback, you’ll be able to better integrate it into your wider ‘learning conversations’ with students. And you’ll feel more confident that this approach is grounded in both theory and field research. 

What does effective feedback look like?

Research has shown that feedback through formative assessments can enhance students’ learning. But to help them improve their current and future work, feedback needs to be acted upon. And to achieve that, feedback needs to be well-designed. 

Traditionally, feedback on students’ work has been provided as written comments. But this does not always translate into improved learning outcomes. Students find feedback more ‘actionable’ if it is detailed, specific, personalised, and thorough; in contrast, written comments are often cryptic, complex, impersonal, or vague.

But even when written feedback is detailed or extensive, students may not be able to make good use of it. They can misinterpret what the teacher is suggesting; or they can become confused, at odds with what the teacher intended. Such divergent ‘understandings’ of the feedback are more likely if it is disconnected from an ongoing process that engages the student in their learning – in other words, a dialogue. 

Dialogic feedback: engaging in learning conversations: 

Research suggests that feedback is more effective if it is part of an ongoing ‘conversation’ that engages and motivates. This suggests a more personalised approach, building a relationship between student and teacher, rather than a series of feedback ‘transactions’. In this vein, Yang and Carless (2013) offer their ‘feedback triangle’. This model describes optimal feedback as having three inter-related dimensions: 

• The cognitive focuses on the subject or discipline of the work to be assessed, where the teacher should explaintheir critique of students’ work, showing why improvement is needed and how it might be achieved. For example, illustrating an alternative answer, not just pointing out errors or making ‘corrections’. 
• The social-affective emphasises the need for interactive exchanges that build trustful relationships to build student engagement with and understanding of the cognitive dimension, enabled by the structural. For example, using humour or motivational language tailored to the specific needs of a student.
• The structural relates to the time, place, and modes of feedback delivery that support social-affect and enhance the cognitive. For example, being attuned to the individual needs of students by using the most effective technologies. 

Looked at through this dialogic ‘lens’, traditional written feedback has largely focused on the cognitive dimension. Its intermittent ‘monologues’ pay little attention to the social-effective, limited by whatever nuance or personality the writer is willing and able to convey. But could written feedback be dialogic? Yes, but it is challenging to nurture a learning conversation in writing alone – it involves more time and effort and is ripe for misinterpretation (just think how often our emails can be misconstrued!). Limiting feedback to writing alone hinders the use of empathy, motivation, and comprehension that a dialogic approach aims for.

Here comes screencast

Technology has been used for many years to overcome deficiencies in written feedback. I remember taking a correspondence course in professional photography back in the 1990’s; tutors provided rich feedback on my portfolio via an audio cassette tape that they sent to me through the post! I could listen at my leisure, take notes, and not feel embarrassed by their critique. Today, it’s even easier to provide feedback in both sound and vision using technologies that are readily available on our desktops. So the ability to screencast is at your fingertips!

Studies have revealed the benefits that both teachers and students see in screencast feedback. For example:

• students find the quality and quantity of comments to be improved, 
• rapport with tutors increased, 
• and insights into the assessment process itself are generated. 

As a result, students are more likely to actively engage with and make use of the feedback to improve their work. And while a single video may not qualify as dialogic, students can perceive screencasts as conversational even so. (I’ll illustrate this in the next episode, when I share the findings from my own research study.)

For teachers, the benefits of using screencast include: 

• the flexibility to use both voice and visuals to convey complex meanings; 
• scope for providing more expansive comments; 
• and feeling more able to take a student’s perspective as ‘user’ of the feedback. 

While tutors may worry that screencasting is more time consuming than writing, studies find that on average there is little difference (e.g., Ross and Lancastle 2020). In fact, a screencast can produce more words per minute than writing: we generally talk much faster than we can type! In any case, we could argue that any extra effort pays off if both parties find screencasts more constructive, enjoyable, and personal than writing alone.  

So, screencast feedback can cater to all three dimensions of the feedback triangle, both in theory and in practice. But, how can you translate this into action in your teaching? How can you make screencast part of this learning conversation that the dialogic ideal calls for? I’ll offer some ideas on that in a future episode. Meanwhile, if you’ve been persuaded by this quick tour through some scholarly reasoning and evidence, do take a look at the How to screencast — good practice guide v1.2 and consider how screencast could fit into your teaching practice. As a dialogic method, it offers significant potential benefits to students’ learning.

Further reading

• Dawson, P., Henderson, M., Mahoney, P., Phillips, M., Ryan, T., Boud, D., Molloy, E., 2019. What makes for effective feedback: staff and student perspectives. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 44, 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1467877
• Gibbs, G., Simpson, C., 2005. Conditions Under Which Assessment Supports Students’ Learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education 3–31.
• Ross, J., Lancastle, S., 2020. Encouraging student engagement with formative assessment by providing screencast video feedback – a case study in Engineering, in: BILT Virtual Conference 2020: Tales from the Digital Classroom: Teaching in Uncertain Times, Bristol Institute for Learning & Teaching. Presented at the BILT Virtual Conference 2020: Tales from the Digital Classroom: Teaching in Uncertain Times, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
• Soden, B., 2017. The Case of Screencast Feedback: Barriers to the Use of Learning Technology. Innovative Practice in Higher Education 3(1).
• Yang, M., Carless, D., 2013. The feedback triangle and the enhancement of dialogic feedback processes. Teaching in Higher Education 18, 285–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2012.719154