Effective teacher feedback, according to renowned educational researcher John Hattie, can double the “rate of learning” among students (Hattie, 2012). One of the challenges for educators, however, is to determine how best to deliver feedback to students. In other words, what is the most effective vehicle for relaying information to students? There is a growing body of literature that suggests digitally recorded feedback possesses considerable potential. In the sources surveyed for this review, the authors identified a number of advantages associated with digitally recorded feedback. These benefits include, overcoming some of the limitations of traditional handwritten feedback, the perception among students of greater depth to recorded feedback, and the potential that this type of commentary makes the thinking of teachers more visible.*
While some of the recent research finds that students prefer written over verbal or peer feedback (Francis, 2011), there are nonetheless limitations to written opinion that digitally recorded commentary may assist teachers in overcoming. For example, Merry and Orsmond found in their study that some students “did not read written feedback because they found tutors’ handwriting difficult to read.” Digitally recorded feedback, as Merry and Orsmond observe, overcomes the issue of “illegibility” (2012). In addition, digital feedback may reduce the likelihood of students misunderstanding written comments. Kerr and McLaughlin found that students tend to “misconstrue written feedback,” including reading “antipathy or sarcasm” where none was intended. Kerr and McLaughlin hypothesize that were students to receive information from a “human voice” they might be “less likely to misconstrue and to engage with the feedback better” (2008).
Recorded feedback may overcome the limitations of handwritten feedback identified by these authors; however, many of the same problems could potentially plague audio recorded commentary. For instance, Merry and Orsmond appear to assume that audio and visually recorded feedback is “legible” or clear. It is certainly possible that verbally recorded feedback might be equally as “illegible” or incomprehensible to the listener as written commentary apparently is to some readers. Likewise, Kerr and McLaughlin seem to assume that verbal feedback is not likely to be “misconstrued”. The basis for this notion is unclear. It seems equally plausible that a student might misunderstand verbal feedback and hear “antipathy or sarcasm” when none was intended.
Another important benefit of recorded audio feedback identified by the research is the perception by students that there is greater depth to this type of commentary. Writing about the use of video feedback in The Guardian, Russell Stannard, a lecturer at the University of Warwick, found that students believed that they “were getting more input form their teacher” and that instructors “tend to elaborate and develop points rather than leaving them as empty comments” (2012). Similarly, students in the study conducted by Kerr and McLaughlin also felt that verbal feedback “was helpful as it gave more in-depth feedback than the comments alone” (2008).
In addition to providing greater depth, the research also suggests and that audio and visually recorded commentary clarifies teacher thinking. For example, one student interviewed for Kerr and McLaughlin’s study commented that not only did the marker – who provided the student with an audio recording – “say more about how my essay could be improved” but it made easier for the student “to understand the marker’s suggestions” (2008). Another student interviewed by Merry and Orsmond echoed this sentiment observing that “hearing” the instructor speak to them allowed the receiver to “see where their thinking processes were, you could hear the thinking processes” (2008). If, as the research suggests, students feel that digitally recorded feedback makes the thinking of their teachers visible, this is a compelling argument for shifting to this type of commentary.
While the existing literature points to a number of benefits to recording feedback, it is not clear whether this type of feedback resulted in any tangible improvement in student learning. Kerr and McLaughlin conclude that recorded feedback was of benefit to students “even if it was only a reassurance that the marker had taken some care over the marking of their essay and had considered it individually” (2008). While this “reassurance” is undoubtedly significant, the absence of any empirical evidence to suggest an improvement in student learning is a significant gap, and one that must be addressed.
The literature on recorded feedback identifies a number of important benefits to this strategy. These include overcoming some of the problems inherent with handwritten comments, as well as greater depth and clarity in the commentary. Yet, what remains to be determined is whether digitally recorded feedback offers greater potential to improve student learning.
*For the most part the authors reviewed here focus on digitally recorded audio feedback, although there is some discussion of visual and audio recordings.
Bibliography
Francis, Melissa (2011). But will it improve their writing? The use of verbal, peer and written feedback as formative assessment. Journal of Classroom Research in Literacy, 4, 15-23.
Kerr, Wesley and Paul McLaughlin (2008). Paper presented at CAA Conference, 2008. The benefit of screen recorded summaries in feedback for work submitted electronically.
Merry, Stephen and Paul Orsmond (2008). Students’ attitudes to and usage of academic feedback provided via audio files. Bioscience Education eJournal, 11.
Stannard, R. (2012, January 10). Talking feedback: moving cursors and voice comments could revolutionise the way teachers correct learners’ work. The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/education/2012/jan/10/esl-video-feedback
While some of the recent research finds that students prefer written over verbal or peer feedback (Francis, 2011), there are nonetheless limitations to written opinion that digitally recorded commentary may assist teachers in overcoming. For example, Merry and Orsmond found in their study that some students “did not read written feedback because they found tutors’ handwriting difficult to read.” Digitally recorded feedback, as Merry and Orsmond observe, overcomes the issue of “illegibility” (2012). In addition, digital feedback may reduce the likelihood of students misunderstanding written comments. Kerr and McLaughlin found that students tend to “misconstrue written feedback,” including reading “antipathy or sarcasm” where none was intended. Kerr and McLaughlin hypothesize that were students to receive information from a “human voice” they might be “less likely to misconstrue and to engage with the feedback better” (2008).
Recorded feedback may overcome the limitations of handwritten feedback identified by these authors; however, many of the same problems could potentially plague audio recorded commentary. For instance, Merry and Orsmond appear to assume that audio and visually recorded feedback is “legible” or clear. It is certainly possible that verbally recorded feedback might be equally as “illegible” or incomprehensible to the listener as written commentary apparently is to some readers. Likewise, Kerr and McLaughlin seem to assume that verbal feedback is not likely to be “misconstrued”. The basis for this notion is unclear. It seems equally plausible that a student might misunderstand verbal feedback and hear “antipathy or sarcasm” when none was intended.
Another important benefit of recorded audio feedback identified by the research is the perception by students that there is greater depth to this type of commentary. Writing about the use of video feedback in The Guardian, Russell Stannard, a lecturer at the University of Warwick, found that students believed that they “were getting more input form their teacher” and that instructors “tend to elaborate and develop points rather than leaving them as empty comments” (2012). Similarly, students in the study conducted by Kerr and McLaughlin also felt that verbal feedback “was helpful as it gave more in-depth feedback than the comments alone” (2008).
In addition to providing greater depth, the research also suggests and that audio and visually recorded commentary clarifies teacher thinking. For example, one student interviewed for Kerr and McLaughlin’s study commented that not only did the marker – who provided the student with an audio recording – “say more about how my essay could be improved” but it made easier for the student “to understand the marker’s suggestions” (2008). Another student interviewed by Merry and Orsmond echoed this sentiment observing that “hearing” the instructor speak to them allowed the receiver to “see where their thinking processes were, you could hear the thinking processes” (2008). If, as the research suggests, students feel that digitally recorded feedback makes the thinking of their teachers visible, this is a compelling argument for shifting to this type of commentary.
While the existing literature points to a number of benefits to recording feedback, it is not clear whether this type of feedback resulted in any tangible improvement in student learning. Kerr and McLaughlin conclude that recorded feedback was of benefit to students “even if it was only a reassurance that the marker had taken some care over the marking of their essay and had considered it individually” (2008). While this “reassurance” is undoubtedly significant, the absence of any empirical evidence to suggest an improvement in student learning is a significant gap, and one that must be addressed.
The literature on recorded feedback identifies a number of important benefits to this strategy. These include overcoming some of the problems inherent with handwritten comments, as well as greater depth and clarity in the commentary. Yet, what remains to be determined is whether digitally recorded feedback offers greater potential to improve student learning.
*For the most part the authors reviewed here focus on digitally recorded audio feedback, although there is some discussion of visual and audio recordings.
Bibliography
Francis, Melissa (2011). But will it improve their writing? The use of verbal, peer and written feedback as formative assessment. Journal of Classroom Research in Literacy, 4, 15-23.
Kerr, Wesley and Paul McLaughlin (2008). Paper presented at CAA Conference, 2008. The benefit of screen recorded summaries in feedback for work submitted electronically.
Merry, Stephen and Paul Orsmond (2008). Students’ attitudes to and usage of academic feedback provided via audio files. Bioscience Education eJournal, 11.
Stannard, R. (2012, January 10). Talking feedback: moving cursors and voice comments could revolutionise the way teachers correct learners’ work. The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/education/2012/jan/10/esl-video-feedback