A qualitative synthesis of video feedback in higher education

Figures & data

Table 1. Advantages of video feedback.

Findings		Video Feedback Format(s)	References
More extensive	Markers can convey more feedback, addressing more areas, within allocated marking timeframes	Screencast Talking head	Anson et al. (2016); Borup, West, and Thomas (2015); Hall, Tracy, and Lamey (2016); Henderson and Phillips (2015); Jones, Georghiades, and Gunson (2012); Marriot and Teoh (2012); Mathisen (2012); Mayhew (2017); Moore and Filling (2012); Parton, Crain-Dorough, and Hancock (2010); Séror (2012); Thomas, West, and Borup (2017); Vincelette and Bostic (2013); West and Turner (2016)
Greater detail	Markers can comment at greater length on concerns, and can elaborate on positive aspects	Screencast Talking head	Borup, West, and Thomas (2015); Crook et al. (2012); Elola and Oskoz (2016); Henderson and Phillips (2015); Mayhew (2017); Moore and Filling (2012); Orlando (2016); Parton, Crain-Dorough, and Hancock (2010); Thompson and Lee (2012); Vincelette and Bostic (2013); Turner and West (2013)
Illustrative	Markers can demonstrate techniques, model responses, and include examples and resources	Screencast	Marriot and Teoh (2012); Mathieson (2012); Mathisen (2012); McCarthy (2015); Séror (2012); Thompson and Lee (2012)
Feedforward-oriented	Markers can offer suggestions for improving future assignments, rather than simply identifying errors	Talking head	Hall, Tracy, and Lamey (2016); Jones, Georghiades, and Gunson (2012); Lamey (2015)
Shifts focus from surface-level to substantive feedback	Markers comment on substantive areas of an assignment, with less emphasis on textual and referencing errors. Student revisions may also be more meaningful	Screencast Talking head	Henderson and Phillips (2015); Lamey (2015); Moore and Filling (2012); Orlando (2016); Thompson and Lee (2012)
Efficient marking times	Marking times for video feedback are typically less than or comparable to those for written feedback	Screencast Talking head	Crook et al. (2012); Elola and Oskoz (2016); Henderson and Phillips (2015); Jones, Georghiades, and Gunson (2012); Lamey (2015); Mathisen (2012); Moore and Filling (2012); Turner and West (2013)
Marker enthusiasm	Markers typically enjoy the use of video feedback, and may even regain enthusiasm for marking due to the format’s affordances	Screencast Talking head	Crook et al. (2012); Henderson and Phillips (2015); Parton, Crain-Dorough, and Hancock (2010); West and Turner (2016)
Improved student relationships with markers	Markers can offer conversational, natural feedback, express emotions, and use humour, thereby simulating a conversation, and fostering a personal connection	Screencast Talking head	Anson et al. (2016); Borup et al. (2014); Chiang (2009); Crook et al. (2012); Grigoryan (2017a); Hall, Tracy, and Lamey (2016); Harper, Green, and Fernandez-Toro (2012); Henderson and Phillips (2015); Lamey (2015); Mathieson (2012); Mathisen (2012); Moore and Filling (2012); Orlando (2016); Parton, Crain-Dorough, and Hancock (2010); Séror (2012); Thompson and Lee (2012); Vincelette and Bostic (2013); West and Turner (2016)
High level of acceptability to students	Student perceptions of video feedback are typically positive. Students often prefer video feedback to written feedback	Screencast Talking head	Ali (2016); Crook et al. (2012); Grigoryan (2017a); Hall, Tracy, and Lamey (2016); Henderson and Phillips (2015); Jones, Georghiades, and Gunson (2012); Lamey (2015); Marriot and Teoh (2012); Mayhew (2017); McCarthy (2015); Thompson and Lee (2012); Turner and West (2013); Vincelette and Bostic (2013); West and Turner (2016)
Flexible access	Students are able to save, pause, rewind and replay their feedback	Combination screencast Screencast Talking head	Ali (2016); Anson et al. (2016); Crook et al. (2012); Henderson and Phillips (2015); Jones, Georghiades, and Gunson (2012); Klappa (2015); Lamey (2015); Marriot and Teoh (2012); Mathieson (2012); Mathisen (2012); Moore and Filling (2012); Séror (2012)
Personal and individualised	Students feel valued as students and individuals, rather than a face in the crowd, and consider the video format more personalised than written feedback	Combination screencast Screencast Talking head	Ali (2016); Anson et al. (2016); Borup et al. (2014); Hall, Tracy, and Lamey (2016); Harper, Green, and Fernandez-Toro (2012); Henderson and Phillips (2015); Jones, Georghiades, and Gunson (2012); Klappa (2015); Lamey (2015); Marriot and Teoh (2012); Mathieson (2012); Moore and Filling (2012); Orlando (2016); Turner and West (2013)
Improved clarity	Students consider video feedback easier to understand and interpret than written feedback	Screencast Talking head	Ali (2016); Anson et al. (2016); Borup et al. (2014); Borup, West, and Thomas (2015); Crook et al. (2012); Edwards, Dujardin, and Williams (2012); Elola and Oskoz (2016); Hall, Tracy, and Lamey (2016); Harper, Green, and Fernandez-Toro (2012); Henderson and Phillips (2015); Lamey (2015); Marriot and Teoh (2012); Mathisen (2012); Mayhew (2017); McCarthy (2015); Moore and Filling (2012); Orlando (2016); Parton, Crain-Dorough, and Hancock (2010); Thompson and Lee (2012); Turner and West (2013); West and Turner (2016)
Constructive and informative	Feedback is more useful, provides improved suggestions, and prompts consideration of future learning	Screencast Talking head	Anson et al. (2016); Crook et al. (2012); Hall, Tracy, and Lamey (2016); Harper, Green, and Fernandez-Toro (2012); Henderson and Phillips (2015); Lamey (2015); Marriot and Teoh (2012); Moore and Filling (2012); Séror (2012); Thompson and Lee (2012); Turner and West (2013); West and Turner (2016)
Improved student engagement	Students spend longer reviewing and reflecting on their feedback, find feedback motivating, and may view feedback multiple times	Screencast Talking head	Ali (2016); Anson et al. (2016); Cann (2007); Chiang (2009); Crook et al. (2012); Harper, Green, and Fernandez-Toro (2012); Henderson and Phillips (2015); Grigoryan (2017a); Mayhew (2017); Moore and Filling (2012); Parton, Crain-Dorough, and Hancock (2010); Turner and West (2013); Vincelette and Bostic (2013); West and Turner (2016)

Table 2. Limitations of video feedback.

Findings		Video Feedback Format(s)	References
Recording process	A quiet location free from interruptions is generally required. Recordings often cannot be paused, or edited once completed. Markers may need to consider their setting (office/home) and personal appearance	Screencast Talking head	Borup et al. (2014); Hall, Tracy, and Lamey (2016); Lamey (2015); Marriot and Teoh (2012); Parton, Crain-Dorough, and Hancock (2010); Séror (2012); Thompson and Lee (2012); Vincelette and Bostic (2013)
Technical requirements	Video files can be large, leading to slow upload and download times. Video feedback cannot be produced without the appropriate software	Screencast Talking head	Lamey (2015); Marriot and Teoh (2012); Séror (2012); Thompson and Lee (2012)
Negative emotional reactions by markers	Markers may not be able to conceal unfavourable emotions (such as frustration) from students	Talking head	Borup et al. (2014)
Student preference for text	Some students may prefer text feedback to video feedback, finding it easier to access and refer to at a later date	Screencast Talking head	Borup, West, and Thomas (2015); Edwards, Dujardin, and Williams (2012); Orlando (2016)
Student anxiety	Some students may feel anxious before viewing their feedback, and uncomfortable during viewing	Screencast Talking head	Ali (2016); Borup et al. (2014); Edwards, Dujardin, and Williams (2012); Hall, Tracy, and Lamey (2016); Henderson and Phillips (2015); Lamey (2015); Mayhew (2017)
Confronting and dismissive	Seeing and hearing feedback may be confronting for students, while the conversational nature may feel one-sided and dismissive	Talking head	Grigoryan (2017a); Henderson and Phillips (2015); Lamey (2015)
Technical difficulties	Students can encounter difficulties downloading and watching video, such as file incompatibility and large file sizes. Staff can encounter difficulties recording feedback	Screencast Talking head	Ali (2016); Borup, West, and Thomas (2015); Crook et al. (2010); Hall, Tracy, and Lamey (2016); Henderson and Phillips (2015); Lamey (2015); McCarthy (2015); Thompson and Lee (2012); Vincelette and Bostic (2013)
Locating feedback within assignments	Students can find it difficult to match comments in talking head video feedback with the sections of assignment to which they refer	Talking head	Hall, Tracy, and Lamey (2016); Henderson and Phillips (2015); Lamey (2015)
Fewer textual corrections	Video feedback can lack the volume of textual corrections, such as spelling and grammar, more easily provided in written feedback	Talking head	Henderson and Phillips (2015)

Appendix A: Summary table of included literature.

				Sample
Reference	Video feedback format(s)	Assessment type (formative/summative)	Method	Students	Staff	Feedback level	Location
Ali (2016)	Screencast	Formative & summative	Quasi-experimental; mixed methods	n = 63 (writing tests) n = 33 (survey)	N/A	Individual	Egypt
Anson et al. (2016)	Screencast	Not stated	Qualitative	n = 17	N/A	Individual	US
Borup, West, and Thomas (2015)	Talking head	Not stated	Quasi-experimental; mixed methods	n = 190 (surveys) n = 22 (interview)	n = 9 (interview)	Individual	US
Borup et al. (2014)	Talking head	Formative & summative	Cross-case analysis	n = 190 (surveys) n = 22 (interview)	n = 9 (interview)	Individual	US
Borup, West, and Graham (2012)	Talking head	Summative	Mixed methods	n = 6	N/A	Individual	US
Cann (2007)	Talking head	Not stated	Mixed methods; personal reflection	n = 12	N/A	Generic	UK
Chiang (2009)	Screencast	Not stated	Mixed methods	n = 18 (survey) n = 5 (focus group)	n = 3 (interviews)	Individual	UK
Crook et al. (2010)	Talking head	Not stated	Project report	Pre-pilot n = 287 Post-pilot n = 105	Pre-pilot n = 27 Post-pilot n = N/A (survey) n = 13 (focus groups)	Generic	UK
Crook et al. (2012)	Talking head	Formative	Mixed methods	Pre-pilot n = 287 Post-pilot n = 105	Pre-pilot n = 27 Post-pilot n = 8	Generic	UK
Denton (2014)	Screencast	Formative	Case study	n = 36	N/A	Individual	US
Edwards, Dujardin, and Williams (2012)	Screencast	Summative	Action research	n = 14	N/A	Individual	UK
Elola and Oskoz (2016)	Screencast	Formative & summative	Case study – descriptive	n = 4	N/A	Individual	Spain
Gomez (2010)	Talking head	Not stated	Project report	N/A	N/A	Generic	UK
Grigoryan (2017a)	Screencast	Formative	Survey	n = 55	n = 3
Grigoryan (2017b)	Screencast	Formative	Quasi-experimental	n = 50	N/A	Individual	US
Hall, Tracy, and Lamey (2016)	Talking head	Formative	Qualitative; personal reflection	n = 40	N/A	Individual	US
Harper, Green, and Fernandez-Toro (2012)	Screencast	Not stated	Mixed methods	n = 7 (survey) n = 5 (interview)	n = 9	Individual and generic	UK
Henderson and Phillips (2015)	Talking head	Summative	Action research; mixed methods; personal reflection	n = 126	N/A	Individual	Australia
Henderson and Phillips (2014)	Talking head; screencast	Summative	Literature review; action research	N/A	N/A	Individual	Australia
Jones, Georghiades, and Gunson (2012)	Screencast	Formative	Mixed methods	Group 1 n = 75 Group 2 N/A	Group 1 n = 20 Group 2 N/A	Individual	Egypt; UK
Klappa (2015)	Combination; talking head; screencast	Formative & summative	Teaching resource based on action research and personal reflection	N/A	N/A	Individual	UK
Lamey (2015)	Talking head	Summative	Qualitative; personal reflection	n = 47	N/A	Individual	US
Marriot and Teoh (2012)	Screencast	Summative	Mixed methods	n = 124 (survey) n = 26 (focus groups)	N/A	Individual	UK
Mathieson (2012)	Screencast	Not stated	Action research	n = 15	N/A	Individual	US
Mathisen (2012)	Screencast	Formative & summative	Case study	Not stated	n = 6	Individual	Norway
Mayhew (2017)	Screencast	Summative	Survey; personal reflection	n = 50	N/A	Individual	UK
McCarthy (2015)	Screencast	Summative	Mixed methods; personal reflection	n = 58	N/A	Individual	Australia
Moore and Filling (2012)	Talking head	Formative	Qualitative	n = 45	N/A	Individual	US
Orlando (2016)	Screencast	Not stated	Survey	n = 30	n = 6	Individual	US
Parton, Crain-Dorough, and Hancock (2010)	Talking head	Formative & summative	Mixed methods	n = 12	n = 1	Individual	US
Ross (2015)	Talking head	N/A	Newspaper interview	N/A	N/A	Individual	Australia
Séror (2012)	Screencast	Not stated	Personal reflection	N/A	N/A	Individual	Canada
Thomas, West, and Borup (2017)	Talking head	Summative	Qualitative	n = 167	n = 6	Individual	US
Thompson and Lee (2012)	Screencast	Formative	Action research	n = 30	N/A	Individual	US
Turner and West (2013)	Screencast	Summative	Mixed methods	n = 90	N/A	Individual	Australia
Vincelette and Bostic (2013)	Screencast	Not stated	Mixed methods	n = 39	n = 5	Individual	US
West and Turner (2016)	Screencast	Summative	Mixed methods	n = 142	n = 8	Individual	Australia

Anson, C. M., D. P. Dannels, J. I. Laboy, and L. Carneiro. 2016. “Students’ Perceptions of Oral Screencast Responses to Their Writing: Exploring Digitally Mediated Identities.” Journal of Business and Technical Communication 30 (3): 378–411. doi:10.1177/1050651916636424.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Borup, J., R. E. West, and R. Thomas. 2015. “The Impact of Text Versus Video Communication on Instructor Feedback in Blended Courses.” Educational Technology Research and Development 63 (2): 161–184.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hall, T., D. Tracy, and A. Lamey. 2016. “Exploring Video Feedback in Philosophy: Benefits for Instructors and Students.” Teaching Philosophy 39 (2): 137–162. doi:105840/teachphil201651347.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Henderson, M., and M. Phillips. 2015. “Video-Based Feedback on Student Assessment: Scarily Personal.” Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 31 (1): 51–66. doi:10.14742/ajet.1878.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Jones, N., P. Georghiades, and J. Gunson. 2012. “Student Feedback via Screen Capture Digital Video: Stimulating Students’ Modified Action.” Higher Education 64: 593–607. doi:10.1007/s10734-012-9514-7.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Marriot, P., and L. K. Teoh. 2012. “Using Screencasts to Enhance Assessment Feedback: Students’ Perceptions and Preferences.” Accounting Education 21 (6): 583–598. doi:10.1080/08923647.2012.725637.

 Google Scholar

Mathisen, P. 2012. “Video Feedback in Higher Education – A Contribution to Improving the Quality of Written Feedback.” Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy 7 (2): 97–116. http://www.idunn.no/ts/dk/2012/02/video_feedback_in_higher_education_-_a_contribution_to_impr.

 Google Scholar

Mayhew, E. 2017. “Playback Feedback: The Impact of Screen-Captured Video Feedback on Student Satisfaction, Learning and Attainment.” European Political Science 16 (2): 179–192. doi:10.1057/eps.2015.102.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Moore, N. S., and M. L. Filling. 2012. “iFeedback: Using Video Technology for Improving Student Writing.” Journal of College Literacy and Learning 38: 3–14. Education Source (93708035).

 Google Scholar

Parton, B. S., M. Crain-Dorough, and R. Hancock. 2010. “Using Flip Camcorders to Create Video Feedback: Is It Realistic for Professors and Beneficial to Students?” International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning 7 (1): 15–21. http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Jan_10/Jan_10.pdf.

 Google Scholar

Séror, J. 2012. “Show Me! Enhanced Feedback Through Screencasting Technology.” TESL Canada Journal 30 (1): 104–116. http://www.teslcanadajournal.ca/index.php/tesl/article/view/1128/947.

 Google Scholar

Thomas, R. A., R. E. West, and J. Borup. 2017. “An Analysis of Instructor Social Presence in Online Text and Asynchronous Video Feedback Comments.” The Internet and Higher Education 33: 61–73. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.01.003.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Vincelette, E. J., and T. Bostic. 2013. “Show and Tell: Student and Instructor Perceptions of Screencast Assessment.” Assessing Writing 18: 257–277. doi:10.1016/j.asw.2013.08.001.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

West, J., and W. Turner. 2016. “Enhancing the Assessment Experience: Improving Student Perceptions, Engagement and Understanding Using Online Video Feedback.” Innovations in Education and Teaching International 53 (4): 400–410. doi:10.1080/14703297.2014.1003954.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Crook, A., C. Mauchline, S. Maw, C. Lawson, R. Drinkwater, K. Lundqvist, P. Orsmond, S. Gomez, and J. Park. 2012. “The Use of Video Technology for Providing Feedback to Students: Can It Enhance the Feedback Experience for Staff and Students?” Computers and Education 58: 386–396. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.025.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Elola, I., and A. Oskoz. 2016. “Supporting Second Language Writing Using Multimodal Feedback.” Foreign Language Annals 49 (1): 58–74. doi:10.1111/flan.12183.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Orlando, J. 2016. “A Comparison of Text, Voice, and Screencasting Feedback to Online Students.” American Journal of Distance Education 30 (3): 156–166. doi:10.1080/08923647.2016.1187472.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Thompson, R., and M. J. Lee. 2012. “Talking with Students Through Screencasting: Experimentations with Video Feedback to Improve Student Learning.” Journal of Interactive Technology 1. http://jitp.commons.gc.cuny.edu/talking-with-students-through-screencasting-experimentations-with-video-feedback-to-improve-student-learning/.

 Google Scholar

Turner, W., and J. West. 2013. “Assessment for ‘Digital First Language’ Speakers: Online Video Assessment and Feedback in Higher Education.” International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 25 (3): 288–296. http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/pdf/IJTLHE1626.pdf.

 Google Scholar

Mathieson, K. 2012. “Exploring Student Perceptions of Audiovisual Feedback via Screencasting in Online Courses.” American Journal of Distance Education 26: 143–156. doi:10.1080/08923647.2012.689166.

 Google Scholar

McCarthy, J. 2015. “Evaluating Written, Audio and Video Feedback in Higher Education Summative Assessment Tasks.” Issues in Educational Research 25 (2): 153–169.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lamey, A. 2015. “Video Feedback in Philosophy.” Metaphilosophy 46 (4-5): 691–702. doi:10.1111/meta.12155.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Borup, J., R. E. West, R. A. Thomas, and C. R. Graham. 2014. “Examining the Impact of Video Feedback on Instructor Social Presence in Blended Courses.” International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 15 (3): 232–256. http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1821/2909.

 Google Scholar

Chiang, I.-C. A. 2009. “Which Audio Feedback is Best? Optimising Audio Feedback to Maximise Student and Staff Experience.” Paper presented at the A Word in Your Ear conference, Sheffield, UK. http://research.shu.ac.uk/lti/awordinyourear2009/docs/Chiang-full-paper.pdf.

 Google Scholar

Grigoryan, A. 2017a. “Audiovisual Commentary as a Way to Reduce Transactional Distance and Increase Teaching Presence in Online Writing Instruction: Student Perceptions and Preferences.” Journal of Response to Writing 3 (1): 83–128.

 Google Scholar

Harper, F., H. Green and M. Fernandez-Toro. 2012. “Evaluating the Integration of Jing® Screencasts in Feedback on Written Assignments.” Paper presented at the 15th annual conference on interactive collaborative learning (ICL), Villach, Austria. doi:10.1109/ICL.2012.6402092.

 Google Scholar

Ali, A. D. 2016. “Effectiveness of Using Screencast Feedback on EFL Students” Writing and Perception.” English Language Teaching 9 (8): 106–121. doi:10.5539/elt.v9n8p106.

 Google Scholar

Klappa, P. 2015. Innovative Pedagogies Series: Videos for Learning and Teaching. York: Higher Education Academy. Higher Education Academy website, https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/peter_klappa_final2.pdf.

 Google Scholar

Edwards, K., A.-F. Dujardin, and N. Williams. 2012. “Screencast Feedback for Essays on a Distance Learning MA in Professional Communication: An Action Research Project.” Journal of Academic Writing 2 (1): 95–126. doi:10.18552/joaw.v2i1.62.

 Google Scholar

Cann, A. J. 2007. “Podcasting is Dead: Long Live Video!.” Bioscience Education 10: 1–4. doi:10.3108/beej.10.c1.

 Google Scholar

Crook, A. C., J. R. Park, C. S. Lawson, K. O. Lundqvist, R. Drinkwater, J. Walsh, S. Gomez, P. Orsmond, and S. J. Maw. 2010. ASSET: Moving Forward Through Feedback (Final Report). Reading: University of Reading. ASSET website, http://www.reading.ac.uk/web/FILES/asset/ASSET_final_report.pdf.

 Google Scholar

Borup, J., R. E. West, and C. R. Graham. 2012. “Improving Online Social Presence Through Asynchronous Video.” The Internet and Higher Education 15: 195–203. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.11.001.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Denton, D. W. 2014. “Using Screen Capture Feedback to Improve Academic Performance.” TechTrends 58 (6): 51–56. doi:10.1007/s11528-014-0803-0.

 Google Scholar

Gomez, S. 2010. ASSET: Benefits Realisation Phase (Final Report). Plymouth: University of Plymouth. ASSET website, http://www.reading.ac.uk/web/FILES/asset/ASSET_BR_final_report.pdf.

 Google Scholar

Grigoryan, A. 2017b. “Feedback 2.0 in Online Writing Instruction: Combining Audio-Visual and Text-Based Commentary to Enhance Student Revision and Writing Competency.” Journal of Computing in Higher Education 29: 451–476. doi:10.1007/s12528-017-9152-2.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Henderson, M., and M. Phillips. 2014. “Technology Enhanced Feedback on Assessment.” Paper presented at the Australian computers in education conference, Adelaide, Australia. http://acec2014.acce.edu.au/session/technology-enhanced-feedback-assessment.

 Google Scholar

Ross, J. 2015. “Monash’s Video Critiques Work for Tutors and Students.” The Australian (Higher Education supplement). January 14. Retrieved from http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/monashs-video-critiques-work-for-tutors-and-students/news-story/8337d215b3a62c30dd876a66def1df62.

 Google Scholar