1. Screencast feedback on students' writing: Benefits and challenges Corianne Blackman (cmb369@nau.edu) & Dr. Yuly Asencin-Delaney (yuly.asencion@nau.edu) Northern Arizona University AATSP 2014

2. Introduction Problem: Typical grammar codes are used to provide feedback on students L2 written work. This feedback is not effective for all students; it can be confusing and not helpful. Can technology provide a better option for providing feedback? 3. Feedback with technology 4. E-raters: Immediate computer- provided feedback Weigle (2013) 5. Comment function on Microsoft Word Ferris (2012) 6. Oral comments/feedback Gleaves & Walker (2013) 7. Screencasts 8. Screencast Feedback Ducate & Arnold (2012) Seror (2012) Vincelette & Bostic (2013) Silva (2012) Hynson (2012) 9. Research Questions: What are student perceptions toward screencast feedback in comparison with traditional grammar codes feedback? Which method of feedback is more effective in terms of error correction in a rewritten version: screencasts or traditional grammar codes? 10. METHODOLOGY 11. Participants SPA 201 SPA 404 Female: 16 Male: 2 Female: 12 Male: 1 Average age: 18-19 Average age: 20-21 First language: English-17 Spanish-1 First language: English-9 Spanish-4 12. SPA 201 SPA 404 WRITING TASKS: Ad looking for a roommate Letter of complaint Summary of an article Argumentative essay based on readings SURVEYS: Initial survey Post-composition #1 Post-composition #2 FEEDBACK: Codes Screencast Materials & Instruments 13. Procedures Steps SPA 201 SPA 404 Step 1: Initial survey Initial survey Step 2: Composition #1: Feedback with codes Composition #1: Feedback with screencasts in the L2 Step 3: Survey about feedback received on Composition #1 Survey about feedback received on Composition #1 Step 4: Composition #2: Feedback with screencasts in the L1 Composition #2: Feedback with codes Step 5: Survey about feedback received on Composition #2 Survey about feedback received on Composition #2 14. RESULTS 15. Codes 16% Screencasts 55% No preference 29% Student Preferences 16. Perceptions: Grammar Codes ADVANTAGES Codes allowed students to work more independently to correct their own errors. DISADVANTAGES There were no comments about organization or content of the composition. It was confusing. Codes showed students that an error was made but didnt explain why or how to correct the error. If a student didnt understand the code, he or she simply guessed how to correct the error. 17. Perceptions: Screencasts ADVANTAGES More personal. A new and unique type of feedback to receive. Students paid more attention to errors committed. It was like having a personal meeting with the teacher. Gave more clarification about the errors that were made (more detailed explanations). SPA 404: Students could practice their listening skills in the L2. DISADVANTAGES Too explicit. There were problems with audio quality. SPA 404: It was difficult to understand the feedback in the L2 (Spanish). 18. Effectiveness 19. Effectiveness 20. CONCLUSIONS Students showed a strong preference toward screencast feedback. Students found screencast feedback to be more clear, personal, detailed, and useful. Students felt that screencasts provided feedback on more abstract aspects of compositions such as content and organization of ideas. 21. CONCLUSIONS Both methods of feedback were effective. Students from both language levels tended to correct more errors when they received screencast feedback. 22. SCREENCASTS: LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Camtasia: $99 Explain Everything: $2.99 Free versions: limit of 5 minutes per video Record in a silent place. Use a microphone. Have students write on computer initially. Use this feedback for specific assignments. Use this feedback with students who struggle most with writing. 23. FUTURE DIRECTIONS Larger group of participants/ more levels of Spanish Improvement of writing skills over time Teacher perceptions Compare with face-to-face conferences 24. REFERENCES Ducate, L. & Arnold, N. (2012). Computer-mediated feedback: Effectiveness and student perceptions of screen-casting software versus the comment function. In G. Kessler, A. Oskoz & I. Elola (Eds.), Technology across writing contexts and tasks (pp. 31-56). San Marcos, TX: CALICO Publications. Ferris, D. R. (2012). Technology and corrective feedback for L2 writers: Principles, practices, and problems. In G. Kessler, A. Oskoz, & I. Elola (Eds.), Technology across writing contexts and tasks. (pp. 7-29). San Marcos,TX: CALICO Monograph Series. Gleaves, A., & Walker, C. (2013). Richness, redundancy or relational salience? A comparison of the effect of textual and aural feedback modes on knowledge elaboration in higher education students' work.Computers & Education, 62(0), 249-261. 25. Hynson, Y. T. A. (2012). An Innovative Alternative To Providing Writing Feedback On Students' Essays. Teaching English with Technology. 12 (1) : 53-57. Seror, J. (2012). Show me! Enhanced feedback through Screencasting technology. TESL Canada Journal, 30(1), 104-116. 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), 1-22. Vincelette, E. J., & Bostic, T. (2013). Show and tell: Student and instructor perceptions of screencast assessment. Assessing Writing, 18(4), 257-277. Weigle, S. C. (2013). English language learners and automated scoring of essays: Critical considerations. Assessing Writing, 18(1), 85-99. REFERENCES 26. Questions