Evaluations: Projects using screencasting for feedback
Project:- Screencasting as a means of providing timely, general feedback on assessment (Dr Katherine Haxton, School of Physical and Geographical Sciences, Keele University).
Screencasting, also known as vodcasting, offers a means of providing mini-lectures working through answers to assessments that students can view at a time and place of their choosing, rather than being forced to listen in a timetabled class. Crucially, screencasts of model answers and problem solving allow teachers to reveal their problem solving strategy, something not easily conveyed with written answers.
We use a Toshiba tablet PC running Windows 7 and Camtasia Studio 7 and a digital voice recorder was used in place of the internal microphone to record high quality audio which was then edited into the screencast. The screencasts were edited before production of the video to remove any awkward pauses or stumbles. This enabled the screencasts to be recorded in one attempt. Custom production settings were used within Camatasia Studio 7 to enable a table of contents to be produced in the finished video. This allows students to navigate to a specific part of the screencast, for example a specific PowerPoint slide title, enabling them to revisit content easily. Screencasts were approximately 5 minutes in length (the maximum length for online production) and took around 20 minutes to prepare, record and edit each after the initial learning curve.
Screencasts were used to provide model answers to a number of class tests in the 2010/11 academic year including those involving spectroscopic data interpretation and main group inorganic chemistry. For first year Chemistry, screencast model answers and feedback were provided in addition to marked class test scripts, but the level of feedback offered on the marked scripts was reduced to only the key points and uncommon errors, and students were directed to consult the screencast model answer feedback.
Screencasts were well received by the students with most rating them equal to or better than written, individual feedback. In particular, the opportunity to watch and see the problem solving strategy was identified as particularly useful:
“I found the video feedback to be very helpful. It allowed me to look at my answers in the comfort of my own home, without using up valuable problem class / lecture time. [The] commentary highlighted some points that would not have been easily conveyed in writing alone.” – First Year Student
Please see below for links to the recordings
http://tinyurl.com/projectstaf-eval-Katherine
Project: – Providing feedback to students using Grademark and Screen capture. (Dr Jody Harlowe English Language Unit, Keele University)
In this project Dr Jody Harlowe used Jing (a free screen capture program) in conjunction with Grademark. This project looked to provide richer feedback to English Language students. Students submitted their work to turnitin where it was marked using the Grademark features, a specific quick mark set was developed based on previous paper rubrics. The marker would then use Jing to record audio whilst capturing the Grademarked paper on screen this allowed the marker to convey in more detail specific language errors and provide more directed feedback to the students.
Questions
1. In your project what technology and /or process did you use to provide feedback/ assess the students?
Audio Feedback using a digital voice recorder, Jing, Gradebook
2. Prior to the project how would you normally provide feedback/assess students?
Audio Feedback, comprehensive marking up of students’ written assignments ( guided error correction, checklist of strengths and weaknesses, comments on text, tutorial to discuss written work)
3. Did you find providing feedback was more or less efficient than the process normally used?
Using Jing was very time consuming – this was probably because I am still learning how to use it.
4. Did using the technology allow you to provide richer or more detailed feedback to students when compared with the ‘normal’ process used?
No, but this was for the reasons above (Q.3).
5. Do you think that the students benefited from the change in process? (Why? What is your data?)
Students commented that they ‘liked’ the oral feedback but preferred discussing their work face to face.
6. From your perspective, what were the main advantages of using this process?
I think that over time it could be efficient and would allow for better standardisation of marking.
7. From your perspective, were there any disadvantages to using this process?
I didn’t feel confident using Jing. I marked several pieces of work but had difficulty saving some of these and two students had difficulty retrieving the feedback Additionally, I found tthe students’ work was difficult to read if I was using Jing and Gradebook.
8. How do you think the process used could be improved to make it easier to use? I don’t know.
9. Will you continue to use the intervention in your teaching practice? If not, what would need to change for you to adopt the intervention as current practice?
Yes, I plan to practise using it so as to become a more confident user. I feel then I would be able to decide whether or not to utilise Jing in future .
Project:- Screencasting and Grademark as a means of providing timely feedback on assessment (Dr Shelia Hope, School of Life Sciences, Keele University).
In this recording Dr Shelia Hope outlines her experiences of providing feedback using Grademark and screen capture software Camtasia. More specifically she describes the practical issues faced and compares the use of jing (freely available screen capture software) with Camtasia a more complex programme, and details how else she has been using Camtasia to support student learning. In this project the general process followed was that students would submit their assignment to a Turnitin drop box in the VLE where the work would be marked and an audio commentary provided over the using Camtasia to record these comments and screen actions. Please see below for links to the recordings
