Effects of video feedback mode on students' academic writing

Abstract

Academic writing is a challenge for students undertaking a degree as they encounter new genres in reading and writing, a new academic register, and referencing. Many researchers have highlighted the importance of feedback for developing students' academic writing (e.g., K. Hyland, 2009; Poulos & Mahony, 2008), yet others have shown that feedback is often poor quality or not engaged with by students (Chanock, 2000; Wingate, 2010). Researchers have theorised that the mode of feedback may affect feedback provision and students' engagement with feedback (Crook et al., 2012; Kerr & McLaughlin, 2008; Stannard, 2008); however, there is little empirical research that investigates the effects of feedback mode. To address this research gap, this study examines the effect of two different feedback modes, written mode and audio-visual mode, with particular attention to the focus and form of the feedback, as well as students' revisions in response to the feedback. A mixed method case study design was employed with a purposeful sample of 20 first-year undergraduate students at an Australian higher education institution. Over the course of a term, each student submitted two draft assignments to an academic skills advisor for feedback. One paper received written feedback and the other paper received screen-capture audio-visual feedback, which incorporates spoken recorded feedback and simultaneous video of the advisor's computer screen. Using grounded theory methods, the analysis involved coding, classifying and organising the advisor's comments (n = 1040) and the students' corresponding revisions into an analytical framework to measure and describe the effects of mode on the provision and uptake of feedback. This inductive approach is in the tradition of feedback researchers such as Ferris (1997, 2006) and Merry and Orsmond (2008), but the current study's framework differs from others as it incorporates a sociocultural theoretical perspective and moves away from viewing comments as corrective feedback in response to language errors only. The student participants were also surveyed and interviewed to gain qualitative data about their perceptions and preferences to help explain the findings of the feedback analysis. The analysis revealed that 88% of the video comments led students to make a successful revision to their draft compared to 77% of the written comments. Results show further that written feedback was highly directive and largely focused on linguistic accuracy, whereas video feedback was more likely to address content and text structure issues and contain detailed explanations and praise. Most student stated they prefer video feedback because, in their opinion, it is easier to understand, feels more personal and includes explanations about why changes are necessary and how to improve their work. These findings indicate that the spoken nature of audio-visual feedback can help implement feedback good practice principles, such as those suggested by Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick (2006) and Straub (2000), and can also facilitate feedback that aligns with a Vygotskian theoretical orientation (Vygotsky, 1978) to academic language and learning support. The findings also support Mayer's (2009) claim that a multimodal (e.g. audio and visual) approach to learning is more effective than a mono-modal (e.g. only visual) approach. These insights contribute to the growing body of literature on feedback methods and can inform feedback practice in higher education to support students with the development of their academic writing skills.

Date of Award	2017
Original language	English