DRAFT: This module has unpublished changes.

Overview

 

A prominent issue in assessing writing is not the assessment itself; it’s how to structure feedback. Common practice today is to participate in written feedback where reviewers use a combination of marginal and end comments to convey what could be improved in a draft; however, it has been found that the intended meaning of marginal comments is often lost by students (McGrath and Atkinson-Leadbeater 2). And even when feedback is not lost, students have expressed that they need further clarification about what comments meant (6). Yet students try to address these comments anyway (or delete them), so their writing is less likely to improve because of vague or ambiguous comments (Cho et al. 263).  Students also misinterpret comments by placing different emotions on the reviewer; in most cases, comments are read in a negative tone, which discourages writers.

 

To ensure effective feedback that promotes “good” revision, educational professionals need to provide commentary that is clear and informs writers of what they can improve. One, newer method to give feedback that would diminish these issues is screencasting. Screencasting allows is for reviewers to “shift the emphasis to feeding forward into a piece of work rather than simply feeding back” (as cited in McGrath and Atkinson-Leadbeater 3). Writers will see what they can do in to improve their drafts and will be encouraged to participate in a dialogue as students feel like they are not simply receiving information from reviewers through screencasted feedback but are in a conversation. (Arson et al. 22). Students also feel like the idea of talking to a reviewer is less intimidating (Arson et al. 20).

 

Screencasting will promote a better learning environment in different ways. It has been found that writers prefer spoken comments as they have more integrity and make the reviewer appear more likeable (Cho et al. 263).  Other scholars, like Chris Anson et al., agree with this notion and assert that screencasting “facilitates personal connections, creates transparency about the [reviewer’s] evaluative process and identity, revealing the teacher’s feelings, providing visual affirmation, and establishing a conversational tone” (1-2). All of these aspects come together to create a comfortable environment, especially when considering how audio feedback results in twice as many positive and rapport-building comments than written feedback (Arson et al. 5). Students should not misinterpret what a reviewer means, thus screencasting promotes their sense of autonomy and confidence in their writing.

 

Using screencasting will also help students receive more feedback. It has been found that written feedback averages 109 words per paper, but screencasts have a remarkable average of 745 words (Arson et al. 11). Reviewers are able to go more in depth with their feedback as well as spend less time on the feedback the more they practice.

DRAFT: This module has unpublished changes.