The majority of responses focused on the need for more detailed feedback , revealing student perception that feedback is ‘ vague ’ or ‘ unclear ’. Responses demonstrated that students understand the pressures on tutors ’ time , as some students suggested that this feedback could focus on common mistakes made across the cohort ; this could very easily be provided in video form . Many of the responses highlighted the need for guidance earlier in the semester ; even feedback given on the first assignment was seen to come too late for some students . Though extensive guidance is provided within module handbooks across the English programme , it is clear this is not seen as sufficient . Videos released early in the semester potentially could alleviate many of these concerns .
After the release of the first two videos , we conducted two focus group interviews . Invitations were sent via email to all students ; ten students ( 18 % of the cohort ) accepted these invitations . The comments garnered from students in these interviews align with the previous research conducted on screencasts . Ali ( 2012 ) and Oud ( 2009 ) both note the advantage of video content over guidance provided in person ( either in class time or office hours ). Videos are available 24 / 7 and can be started , stopped , and re-watched . Our students , too , highlighted the benefits of control and accessibility , noting not only that videos were available whenever they want to watch them , but that they address a potential disability issue , as they allow students with mobility issues to get clarification on assignments without coming onto campus ( though , of course , email also allows guidance at a distance ). In line with the findings of Ali ( 2016 ) and Silva ( 2012 ), students praised the conversational tone of the video , which made it feel ‘ more one to one ’, according to one student . In general , students reported a preference for video over written guidance . They felt the spoken word was easier to comprehend and to digest ; the conversational tone made the guidance feel ‘ more practical ’ than that provided in the module handbook . They reported that they often used videos to aid revision at both GCSE and A-Level , and thus the format felt familiar and reliable . There was also a sense that watching a video ‘ makes it feel like you ’ re not doing work ’.
Perhaps most surprising , these students liked that the feedback provided in the video was not ‘ overly personal ’. Direct feedback ( i . e . about their individual work ) can be ‘ disheartening ’, and students reported , ‘ I don ’ t want to remember it and shove it to one side ’. The ‘ common mistakes ’ format of this first video felt more approachable because it could not be interpreted as a personal attack , even if the students found they had made many of the mistakes covered in the video . This suggests that students might engage more readily with feedback provided through videos which address the whole cohort . This is important because on average only 50 % ( as recorded by Turnitin ) of our English Literature students read the feedback provided on their submitted work . This is a waste of tutor time and prevents students from improving from assignment to assignment .
Students in the focus groups responded equally well to the seminar preparation video , which reviewed close reading practice ( applicable to all modules on the programme ) and set up the activity that would take place in that week ’ s seminar . This made the seminar more ‘ efficient ’, according to the students , and less daunting because they knew what to expect in class . Again , control was highlighted as a benefit of the format ; students felt they were able to get ‘ quite detailed notes ’ that ‘ you would never be able to get in lecture ’ because they had the ability to pause the video . The technology used ( Camtasia 9 ) allowed us to demonstrate textual annotations on screen ( circling , underlining , highlighting , etc ). As Oud ( 2009 ) notes , ‘ Teaching successfully with critical thinking in mind involves linking concrete skills and actions to a more conceptual framework ’ ( 170 ). Neither lectures nor seminars are formatted to allow tutors to demonstrate concrete skills like annotation ; videos may successfully fill that gap . The animations used to annotate also made the video more multimodal ( beyond what can be accomplished with more simplistic screencasting software like Snagit ), which was seen as a benefit . As one student reported , ‘ I wasn ’ t expecting it to be so engaging .’ Again , the conversational tone of the video was praised ; this suggests it is important to find a balance between the more academic tone usually adopted in lectures and the more relaxed tone often used in seminars . Hearing the voice of their own tutor seemed important to these students because it ‘ feels like we have a connection with you ’; ‘ we ’ ve built a
18