CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 186Student Assessment and FeedbackEvaluation of Teaching PracticesOnline and Blended Learning

Video-based feedback on student assessment: scarily personal

Open access
Henderson, Michael, Phillips, Michael·2015·Australasian Journal of Educational Technology
DOI 10.14742/ajet.1878
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Assessment feedback is an important part of students’ learning experiences; however, text-based feedback has limitations. This article proposes an alternative in the form of individualised video recordings of the lecturer discussing each assignment. This research reports on 126 undergraduate and postgraduate students’ reactions to 5-minute videos recorded by their teachers. The findings confirm that the majority of students valued the video feedback over text-based forms. In particular, video-based feedback was reported by students as being individualised (specific) and personalised (valorising identity and effort); supportive, caring and motivating; clear, detailed and unambiguous; prompting reflection; and constructive, which led to future strategising. Several potential weaknesses were also identified, including an initial anxiety about watching the videos, and the difficulty in matching the comments in the video-based feedback to the text-based assignment. Like the students, the teachers also reported that they valued the video feedback process, particularly in terms of being more time-efficient, facilitating quality especially in the form of feed forward comments, and rejuvenating teacher enthusiasm. The article concludes with implications for future research.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.14742/ajet.1878

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Audio and video feedback is often perceived as more personal and dynamic, enhancing understanding and engagement compared with traditional written feedback.

    “Prior research indicates that audio and video feedback is often perceived as more personal and dynamic, enhancing understanding and engagement compared with traditional written feedback [49][50][51].”

    From Promises and challenges of generative artificial intelligence for human learning (2024) · cites this paper as [51]

    The ‘Individualised and personal’ section reports that students found video feedback more personal and clearer than written feedback, and describes it as more ‘alive’ and motivating. The Conclusion likewise identifies personalisation, clarity and motivation as perceived strengths. The study examines video feedback, however, and does not establish the same comparison for audio-only feedback. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 29

  1. Abrahamson, E. (2010). Enhancing students' understanding of formative assessment through video- feedback on an undergraduate sports rehabilitation programme. Oxford: The Higher Education Academy. Retrieved from http://www- new1.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/hlst/documents/case_studies/147_abrahamson_video-feedback.pdf
  2. Bailey, R., & Garner, M. (2010). Is the feedback in higher education assessment worth the paper it is written on? Teachers' reflections on their practices. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(2), 187-198. doi:10.1080/13562511003620019 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Bellini, S., & Akullian, J. (2007). A meta-analysis of video modeling and video self-modeling interventions for children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorders. Exceptional Children, 73(3), 264-287. doi:10.1177/001440290707300301 · DOI
  4. Biggs, J. B. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does. Maidenhead: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
  5. Boud, D. (2000). Sustainable assessment: Rethinking assessment for a learning society. Studies in Continuing Education, 22(2), 151-167. doi:10.1080/713695728 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Sampson, J. (1999). Peer learning and assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 24(4), 413-426. doi:10.1080/0260293990240405 · DOI
  7. Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013). Feedback in higher and professional education. New York, NY: Routledge.
  8. Brown, S., & Knight, P. (Eds.). (1994). Assessing learners in higher education. London: Kogan Page.
  9. Cann, A. J. (2007). Podcasting is dead. Long live video! Bioscience Education, 10. doi:10.3108/beej.10.c1j Costello, J., & Crane, D. (2010). Providing learner-centered feedback using a variety of technologies. Paper presented at the International Conference on the Liberal Arts, St. Thomas University, Fredericton, New Brunswick. Retrieved from http://w3.stu.ca/stu/academic/departments/social_work/pdfs/CostelloandCrane.pdf · DOI
  10. Crook, A., Mauchline, A., Mawc, S., Lawson, C., Drinkwater, R., Lundqvist, K., . . . Park, J. (2012). The use of video technology for providing feedback to students: Can it enhance the feedback experience for staff and students? Computers & Education, 58(1), 386-396. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.025 · DOI
  11. Crook, A., Park, J., Lawson, C., Lundqvist, K., Drinkwater, R., Walsh, J., . . . Maw, S. (2010). ASSET: Moving forward through feedback (pp. 1-20). Reading: Univeristy of Reading.
  12. Denton, P., Madden, J., Roberts, M., & Rowe, P. (2008). Students' response to traditional and computer- assisted formative feedback: A comparative case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(3), 486-500. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00745.x · DOI
  13. Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Sluijsmans, D. (1999). The use of self-, peer-and co-assessment in higher education: a review. Studies in Higher Education, 24(3), 331-350. doi:10.1080/03075079912331379935 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Duncan, N. (2007). 'Feed-forward': Improving students' use of tutors' comments. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(3), 271. doi:10.1080/02602930600896498 · DOI
  15. Evans, C. (2013). Making sense of assessment feedback in higher education. Review of Educational Research, 83(1), 70-120. doi:10.3102/0034654312474350 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Falchikov, N. (1995). Improving feedback to and from students. In P. Knight (Ed.), Assessment for learning in higher education (pp. 157-166). London: Kogan Page.
  17. Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2004). Conditions under which assessment supports students' learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1(1), 3-31. Retrieved from http://insight.glos.ac.uk/tli/resources/lathe/Pages/default.aspx
  18. Hase, S., & Saenger, H. (1997). Videomail-a personalised approach to providing feedback on assessment to distance learners. Distance Education, 18, 362-369. doi:10.1080/0158791970180211 · DOI
  19. Henderson, M., & Phillips, M. (2014). Technology enhanced feedback on assessment. Paper presented at the 26th Australian Computers in Eductional Conference 2014, Adelaide, South Australia. Retrieved from http://acec2014.acce.edu.au/session/technology-enhanced-feedback-assessment
  20. Hepplestone, S., Holden, G., Irwin, B., Parkin, H., & Thorpe, L. (2011). Using technology to encourage student engagement with feedback: A literature review. Research in Learning Technology, 19(2), 117- 127. doi:10.1080/21567069.2011.586677 · DOI
  21. Ives, J. C., Straub, W. F., & Shelley, G. A. (2002). Enhancing athletic performance using digital video in consulting. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14(3), 237-245. doi:10.1080/10413200290103527 Joint Information Systems Committee [JISC]. (2010). Effective assessment in a digital age: A guide to technlogy-enahanced assessment and feedback. Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council for England. Retrieved from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearning/digiassass_eada.pdf · DOI
  22. Lizzio, A., & Wilson, K. (2008). Feedback on assessment: students' perceptions of quality and effectiveness Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(3), 263-275. doi:10.1080/02602930701292548 · DOI
  23. Mathieson, K. (2012). Exploring student perceptions of audiovisual feedback via screencasting in online courses. American Journal of Distance Education, 26(3), 143-156. doi:10.1080/08923647.2012.689166 · DOI
  24. McConnell, D. (2006). Chapter four: Assessing learning in e-groups and communities. In D. McConnell (Ed.), E-learning groups and communities (pp. 90-123). Maidenhead: Open University Press.
  25. Orsmond, P., & Merry, S. (2011). Feedback alignment: effective and ineffective links between tutors' and students' understanding of coursework feedback Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(2), 125-136. doi:10.1080/02602930903201651 · DOI
  26. Parton, B. S., Crain-Dorough, M., & Hancock, R. (2010). Using flip camcorders to create video feedback: Is it realistic for professors and beneficial to students? International Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning, 7(1), 15-23. Retrieved from http://www.itdl.org/
  27. Race, P., Brown, S., & Smith, B. (2005). 500 tips on assessment (2nd ed.). Abingdon: RoutledgeFalmer.
  28. Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London: John Wiley and Sons.
  29. Stefani, L. A. J. (1994). Peer, self and tutor assessment: relative reliabilities. Studies in Higher Education, 19(1), 69-75. doi:10.1080/03075079412331382153 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Henderson, M., & Phillips, M.
Affiliations
Monash University (AU)
ORCID
Venue
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology
Publisher
Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education
Published
2015-02-12
Volume
31
Issue
1
ISSN
  • 1449-3098 (ISSN-L)
  • 1449-5554
DOI
10.14742/ajet.1878
OpenAlex
W2118869177
Cited by
186
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 2
FWCI
44.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • Australasian Journal of Educational Technology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Monash University Research Portal (Monash University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
  • Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
Keywords
video feedback, assessment feedback, student perceptions, personalized feedback, student anxiety, student motivation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review