Using Screencasts for L2 Student Writing Feedback

1. Using screencasts to provide feedback on L2 student writing Mike Murphy TESL-Ottawa Winter PD Event Feb. 2, 2019 source for all images: : iStock

2. Learning objectives By the end of this session, you will have a better understanding of… • my frustration with lack of FB effectiveness • key findings in the literature • general FB on L2 writing • SCFB on writing • how screencast can be used to provide FB on student writing • preliminary results from my action research study

3. Demos of my MS Word and SC feedback

4. FB activity Please read and give FB on the short student text provided. Assume student is CLB 5. • FB should be related to helping S improve content, organization, grammar, vocabulary in a subsequent draft. • you can use error codes, marginal and between-line comments, end comments, and any other FB device you can think of • no need to give a mark

5. FB activity (con’d) Find a partner and explain to them the FB you provided. • Were there any tough choices to make about the kind of FB to provide? What ideas guided you in making them? • How would your FB be different if you delivered it via screencast? What do you think pros and cons might be vs. this written FB?

6. What brought me here? • frustration with and curiosity about cases where my FB does not lead to successful S revisions • are they simply unmotivated? or is it (sometimes at least) something else?

7. EXISTING RESEARCH ON L2 WRITING FEEDBACK

8. Bitchener’s 5 stages • attention to and noticing of FB input • comprehension • intake • integration • output (Bitchener, 2017) Food companies should not advertise junk food to small children, however, they should be allowed to sell junk food in grocery stores. CS

9. Principles of good FB on L2 writing • should be more than just a marking up of errors • should be focused/selective rather than unfocused/comprehensive • shouldn’t overwhelm or demoralize students • should be easy for students to understand • shouldn’t all be done by the teacher • should focus not just on fixing particular papers but on helping students develop into better writers in the long term • (Ferris, 2012)

10. Controversies in CF research Are we even sure that CF promotes learning? • Truscott’s challenge: “Grammar correction has no place in writing classes and should be abandoned.” (1996) • Mainstream consensus is empirical basis for CF is reasonably good and becoming stronger • time to move on from “if” to “how best” (Ferris, 2012)

11. Controversies in CF research Direct vs. indirect • not clear which is better (Ducate & Arnold, 2012) • direct gives faster accuracy gains but indirect promotes problem-solving and reflection • direct causes less confusion but indirect seems to have longer-lasting benefits (Elola & Oskoz, 2016) • likely depends on individual S and task-type • e.g., indirect works better with higher-level students (Elola & Oskoz, 2016)

12. EXISTING RESEARCH ON SCREENCASTED FEEDBACK

13. Elola & Oskoz (2016) • four L1 English Ss in an advanced Spanish writing class at a US university • SC: T gave more and longer FB items on content, structure, organization; MS Word: T gave more form-focused comments • Ss’ revisions equally good regardless of FB tool • Sspreferred SC for global writing issues and Word for local (form) issues • overall, Ss preferred SC – felt hearing T’s voice was more personal and motivational than written FB in Word

14. Ducate & Arnold (2012) • 22 Ss (18-22 YO) studying German at a US university • accuracy - mixed results • Ss correctly revised 68.8% of errors with SC to only 63.8% with Word • Ss significantly more likely to revise correctly with SC for case and wrong word but for verb problems it was opposite • Ss preferred SC – 20/22 felt they learned more • clearer and more detailed • made revisions faster • felt more personalized and caring

15. Silva (2011) • 19 Ss in a non-EAP composition course for undergrad engineers at UC Santa Barbara • 8/17 Ss preferred SC, 6/17 wanted both, 2/17 indifferent • what Ss liked about SC • conversational quality, greater clarification of expectations, more comments on global issues • what they liked about WFB • ‘indexical’ quality - quicker for revising – easier to locate problem sentences

16. Özkul & Ortaçtepe (2017) • 47 Ss (17-23 YO) in two B1-level pre-sessional EFL classes in Turkey • rate of accurate revisions was higher for SC group on all 5 assignments, with 3/5 having p < .05 • S perceptions • overall, S attitudes toward SC were positive • almost all Ss felt SC offered more info and indicated greater time investment by T • some Ss complained videos were too long (15 mins max)

17. Summary of research • possible but not clear that SCFB leads to better revision outcomes than WFB • Ss generally prefer SCFB for its personable quality, increased quantity of FB, and greater attention to global issues • Ss like WFB for ease of locating/fixing local issues

18. MY EXPERIENCE USING SCFB

19. My experience with SCFB • used it last term for the first time • two sections of ESLA 1300 • used SC app TechSmith Relay, under institutional license to Carleton • there are many free apps available too: e.g. Screencast-o-matic comes recommended (Séror, 2012) and allows you to make videos up to 15 minutes long and post to YouTube or SC-omatic hosting site

20. My initial impressions • I liked it! • it took me longer • 25-30 mins vs. 20 mins in MS Word • I provided a lot more FB • 2300 spoken words vs. 300 written words for the midterm • I felt more interpersonally connected to Ss • I think I offered more praise • sometimes hard to think quickly enough • no pause button on TechSmithRelay • useful to be able to show assignment instructions on screen

21. Methods • used WFB for one section of ESLA 1300 (~CLB 5) (n=19) and SCFB for the other (n=14) • for major writing assmt, analyzed successful revision rate from draft 1 to draft 2: • vocab: wrong word+ word form • grammar: verb + sentence structure • organization: missing or mis-sequenced content elements • IMRD report based on food diaries • 350-425 words • draft 1  10%; draft 2  12%; reflection  3%

22. Methods (con’d) • also collected • survey responses by experimental (SC) group • Ss’ written reflection on their revisions process

23. Preliminary results Aggregated totals: WW + VB + WF

24. Distribution of successful revision rates

25. Student feedback What did you like most about SCFB? • rapport • “It feels like that teacher helps to fix my problem face to face” • “I like it because it look like live feedback…” • “The video feedback can help me better. However, when I receiving the video and open it I heared the professor said my name, I felt scared to open it. Especially when I get bad mark.” • clarity • “Video feedback can clear show student’s mistake. Write feedback sometime can’t make student get teacher’s idea.” • listening practice • “I can hear teacher’s voice and repeat again and again.”

26. Student feedback What did you like least about SCFB? • technical problems • x3 • no FB document • “I don’t have a copy from the feedback word document. I suggest if you send it.”

27. Student feedback In future ESLA courses, which would you prefer? • SCFB: 15 / 19 (78.9%) • WFB: 3 / 19 (15.8%) • no preference: 1 / 19 (5.3%)

28. Reflection component • How much revising did you do in response to the teacher’s comments? • What is one valuable thing that you have learned about academic English from writing this report? Be as specific as possible. • What is one thing that still confuses or challenges you about academic English that you would like to better understand or be able to do in the future? Be as specific as possible.

29. QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER

30. Combining WFB and SCFB • “perhaps … the ideal type of FB would combine both tools.” (Elola & Oskoz, 2016) • PARALLEL: FB that incorporates both on one task • “an either/or approach to teacher FB is not necessary”(Silva, 2011) • SERIAL: SCFB and WFB can be used in different stages of assignment • allow Ss to choose their preferred medium?

31. Other questions to consider • in what situations do we want to shift emphasis from reading (WFB) to listening for Ss receiving FB? • some Ts have cited time/energy effort required to adopt SC technology as a barrier (e.g. Özkul & Ortaçtepe, 2017). Is SCFB worth the investment? • do I get microscopic with WFB and ‘line edit’ text that, in SCFB, I would recommend deleting or re-working in terms of content?

32. A final question • SCFB is more conversational than WFB but is still unidirectional. Should we be more concerned with providing dialogic FB on writing than tweaking our uni-directional methods? (Nassaji, 2017; Bitchener, Young, & Cameron, 2005)

33. Acknowledgements • The presenter wishes to thank Jane Stratton, research assistant, for her help with data analysis. • This research was made possible, in part, by a Teaching Development Grant from Carleton University Teaching and Learning Services.

34. References • Bitchener, J. (2017). Why Some L2 Learners Fail to Benefit from Written Corrective Feedback. In H. Nassaji & E. Kartchava (Eds.), Corrective Feedback in Second Language Teaching and Learning : Research, Theory, Applications, Implications (pp. 129–139). New York: Routledge. • Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 191–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.08.001 • Ducate, L., & Arnold, N. (2012). Computer-Mediated Feedback: Effectiveness and Student Perceptions of Screen-Casting Software Versus the Comment Function. In G. Kessler, A. Oskoz, & I. Elola (Eds.) (pp. 7–29). San Marcos, TX: Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium (CALICO). • Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2016). Supporting Second Language Writing Using Multimodal Feedback. Foreign Language Annals, 49(1), 58–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12183 • Ferris, D. (2012). Technology and Corrective Feedback for L2 Writers: Principles, Practices, and Problems. In G. Kessler, A. Oskoz, & I. Elola (Eds.) (pp. 7–29). San Marcos, TX: Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium (CALICO). • Lerner, N. (2005). The Teacher-Student Writing Conference and the Desire for Intimacy. College English; Urbana, 68(2), 186–208. • Nassaji, H. (2017). Negotiated Oral Feedback in Response to Written Errors. In H. Nassaji & E. Kartchava (Eds.), Corrective Feedback in Second Language Teaching and Learning: Research, Theory, Applications, Implications (pp. 114–128). New York: Routledge. • Özkul, S., & Ortaçtepe, D. (2017). The use of video feedback in teaching process-approach EFL writing. TESOL Journal, 8(4), 862–877. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.362 • Seror, J. (2012). Show me! Enhanced feedback through screencasting technology. TESL Canada Journal, 30(1), 104-. • Silva, M. L. (2012). Camtasia in the Classroom: Student Attitudes and Preferences for Video Commentary or Microsoft Word Comments During the Revision Process. Computers and Composition, 29(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2011.12.001 • Truscott, J. (1996). The Case Against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x

35. Thank you • mike.murphy@carleton.ca