Perceptions of Online Teacher Feedback Via Screencast among Indonesian Studentsin Online Writing Classes

Authors

  • Ratih Novita Sari Universitas Negeri Malang Universitas Muhammadiyah Prof. Dr. HAMKA, Indonesia
  • Bambang Yudi Cahyono Universitas Negeri Malang, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.33394/jollt.v12i3.11418

Keywords:

Online writing, Video feedback, Online feedback, Screencast, Students' perceptions,

Abstract

There have been several studies interested in combining Internet Computer Technology (ICT) in writing because it improves the writing performance of L2 students in a widespread link to instruction. However, an earlier study has concentrated on the specific writing technologies employed. Few research has examined students' impressions of Screencast's use as an online video-audio tool for delivering feedback. This study adds to the corpus of knowledge about Indonesian students' perspectives on feedback. Participation, revision incorporation, feedback performance, and student preferences are the four feedback components examined in this research. The acquisition of primary data used varied methods. Online perception surveys were sent to Indonesian second-year college students. Personal and quasi interviews were also employed to improve data and learn what may drive students to perceive more. To analyse the interview data, a descriptive analysis was performed. Students reported a high level of pleasure while using video feedback with a particular technology, Screencast, in an online writing course. The interview data provide support. The students believed that video feedback allows them to strengthen their writing skills more effectively than textual feedback provided by the teacher. In this study, the implications for language teaching and learning practice are examined further.

Author Biographies

Ratih Novita Sari, Universitas Negeri Malang Universitas Muhammadiyah Prof. Dr. HAMKA

1 Graduate Program in English Language Teaching, Universitas Negeri Malang

2.FKIP - Prodi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris , UHAMKA

Bambang Yudi Cahyono, Universitas Negeri Malang

Department of English, Faculty of Letters, Universitas Negeri Malang, Indonesia

References

Alghasab, M., Hardman, J., & Handley, Z. (2019). Teacher-student interaction on wikis: Fostering collaborative learning and writing. Learning, Culture, and Social Interaction, 21, 10–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2018.12.002

Ali, A. D. (2016). Effectiveness of using screencast feedback on EFL students' writing and perception. English Language Teaching, 9 (8), 106. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n8p106

American Psychological Association. (2012). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct

Andujar, A. (2016). Benefits of mobile instant messaging to develop ESL writing. System, 62, 63–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.07.004

Anson, C. M., Dannels, D. P., Laboy, J. I., & Carneiro, L. (2016). Students' perceptions of oral screencast responses to their writing: Exploring digitally mediated identities. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 30 (3), 378–411. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651916636424

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.

British Educational Research Association. (2018). Ethical guidelines for educational research.

Chang, C.-F. (2012). Peer review via three modes in an EFL writing course. Computers and Composition, 29 (1), 63–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2012.01.001

Cheng, D., & Li, M. (2020). Screencast video feedback in online TESOL classes. Computers and Composition, 58, 102612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2020.102612

Crook, A., Mauchline, A., Maw, S., Lawson, C., Drinkwater, R., Lundqvist, K., Orsmond, P., Gomez, S., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.025

Cunningham, K. J. (2019). Student perceptions and use of technology-mediated text and screencast feedback in ESL writing. Computers and Composition, 52, 222–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2019.02.003

Ene, E., & Upton, T. A. (2018). Synchronous and asynchronous teacher electronic feedback and learner uptake in ESL composition. Journal of Second Language Writing, 41, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2018.05.005

Gibson, L., & Musti-Rao, S. (2016). Using technology to enhance feedback to student teachers. Intervention in School and Clinic, 51 (5), 307–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451215606694

Grigoryan, A. (2017). Feedback 2.0 in online writing instruction: Combining video audio and text-based commentary to enhance student revision and writing competency. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 29 (3), 451–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-017-9152-2

Ice, P., Curtis, R., Phillips, P., & Wells, J. (2019). Using asynchronous audio feedback to enhance teaching presence and students' sense of community. Online Learning, 11 (2). https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v11i2.1724

Ishtaiwa, F. F., & Aburezeq, I. M. (2015). The impact of Google Docs on student collaboration: A UAE case study. Learning, Culture, and Social Interaction, 7, 85–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2015.07.004

Laflen, A., & Smith, M. (2017). Responding to student writing online: Tracking student interactions with instructor feedback in a Learning Management System. Assessing Writing, 31, 39–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2016.07.003

Machili, I., Papadopoulou, I., & Kantaridou, Z. (2020). Effect of strategy instruction on EFL students' video-mediated integrated writing performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 48, 100708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.100708

Mahoney, P., Macfarlane, S., & Ajjawi, R. (2019). A qualitative synthesis of video feedback in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 24 (2), 157–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2018.1471457

Mathieson, K. (2012). Exploring student perceptions of video feedback via screencasting in online courses. American Journal of Distance Education, 26 (3), 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2012.689166

Neumann, K. L., & Kopcha, T. J. (2019). Using Google Docs for Peer-then-Teacher Review on Middle School Students' Writing. Computers and Composition, 54, 102524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2019.102524

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

Pifarré, M., & Li, L. (2012). Teaching how to learn with a wiki in primary education: What classroom interaction can tell us. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1 (2), 102–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2012.05.004

Pritchard, R. J., & Morrow, D. (2017). Comparison of online and face-to-face peer review of writing. Computers and Composition, 46 , 87–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2017.09.006

Seidman, I. (2013). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. Teachers College Press.

Séror, J. (2013). Show me! Enhanced feedback through screencasting technology. TESL Canada Journal, 30 (1), 104. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v30i1.1128

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 , 1–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2011.12.001

Stewart, M. K. (2017). Communities of Inquiry: A Heuristic for Designing and Assessing Interactive Learning Activities in Technology-Mediated FYC. Computers and Composition, 45 , 67–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2017.06.004

Suh, S., & Michener, C. J. (2019). The preparation of linguistically responsive teachers through dialogic online discussion prompts. Teaching and Teacher Education, 84 , 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.04.015

Suci, D. N., Basthomi, Y., Mukminatien, N., Santihastuti, A., & Syamdianita. (2021). EFL students' responses on teacher's online written feedback: Interaction, revision, and perception. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11 (2), 292-306. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v11i2.28549

Turner, D. W. (2010). Qualitative interview design: A practical guide for novice investigators. The Qualitative Report, 15(3), 754-760

Tuzi, F. (2004). The impact of e-feedback on the revisions of L2 writers in an academic writing course. Computers and Composition, 21 (2), 217–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2004.02.003

Vincelette, E. J., & Bostic, T. (2013). Measuring the effects of video feedback on teacher development in higher education. Computers & Education, 60, 86-92

Yeh, H.-C., & Lai, W.-Y. (2019). Speaking progress and meaning negotiation processes in synchronous online tutoring. System, 81 , 179–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.01.001

Downloads

Published

2024-07-19

How to Cite

Sari, R. N., & Cahyono, B. Y. (2024). Perceptions of Online Teacher Feedback Via Screencast among Indonesian Studentsin Online Writing Classes. Journal of Languages and Language Teaching, 12(3), 1207–1222. https://doi.org/10.33394/jollt.v12i3.11418

Issue

Vol. 12 No. 3 (2024)

Section

Articles

Citation Check

License

License and Publishing Agreement
In submitting the manuscript to the journal, the authors certify that:

  1. They are authorized by their co-authors to enter into these arrangements.
  2. The work described has not been formally published before, except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture, review, thesis, or overlay journal.
  3. That it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere,
  4. That its publication has been approved by all the author(s) and by the responsible authorities – tacitly or explicitly – of the institutes where the work has been carried out.
  5. They secure the right to reproduce any material that has already been published or copyrighted elsewhere.
  6. They agree to the following license and publishing agreement.

Copyright
Authors who publish with JOLLT Journal of Languages and Language Teaching agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal. 
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.

Licensing for Data Publication

JOLLT Journal of Languages and Language Teaching uses a variety of waivers and licenses, that are specifically designed for and appropriate for the treatment of data:
Other data publishing licenses may be allowed as exceptions (subject to approval by the editor on a case-by-case basis) and should be justified with a written statement from the author, which will be published with the article.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.