EN
Beyond the red pen: Screencast-mediated feedback in L2 writing
Abstract
Although research on screencast-mediated feedback has yielded promising findings, further empirical inquiry is required to deepen our understanding of its potential. Correspondingly, this exploratory study sought the perceived affordances and constraints of screencast-mediated feedback as compared to traditional text (or written) feedback. Drawing mainly upon Mayer's (2005) Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning (CTML) as the framework, university-level English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) students received screencast-mediated feedback over four writing tasks in an undergraduate course requiring them to write in academic English. In total, the duration of screencast videos ranged from 37 minutes to 100 minutes (M≈ 59 mins.), amounting to approximately 34 hours (2019 minutes) in total. Employing a mixed-method design, data were triangulated through surveys and open-ended questions. Findings revealed that most participants expressed positive attitudes toward screencast feedback, highlighting its ease of use, enhanced clarity, and usefulness for revising, organizing, and structuring their writing, as well as for strengthening arguments and elaboration. In terms of constraints, nearly two-thirds of participants reported no challenges, while others cited difficulties such as the inability to ask questions immediately, limited sense of interaction, and occasional technical issues. Overall, the study advances understanding of learner perceptions and offers implications for L2 writing feedback, particularly in relation to instructors’ digital literacy, pedagogical practices, and the practical integration of screencasting technologies in academic writing contexts.
Keywords
Supporting Institution
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Ethical Statement
he study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki as it involved human participants. We made sure to protect participants’ rights and presented an informed consent form to approve before data collection.
Thanks
We would like to thank the participants of this study.
References
- Ali, A. D. (2016). Effectiveness of using screencast feedback on EFL students' writing and perception. English Language Teaching, 9(8), 106-121. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n8p106
- 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), 1-34. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1050651916636424
- Bailey, R. (2009). Undergraduate students' perceptions of the role and utility of written assessment feedback. Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, 1, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.47408/jldhe.v0i1.29
- Bhattacharya, K. (2017). Fundamentals of qualitative research: A practical guide. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315231747
- Bjerknes, A. L., Opdal, L., & Canrinus, E. T. (2024). ‘I finally understand my mistakes’–the benefits of screencast feedback. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 33(1), 43-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2023.2258134
- Borup, J., West, R. E., & Thomas, R. (2015). The impact of text versus video communication on instructor feedback in blended courses. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63, 161–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9367-8
- Bush, J. C. (2020). Using screencasting to give feedback for academic writing. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2020.1840571
- Carabajal, K., LaPointe, D., & Gunawardena, C. N. (2003). Group development in online learning communities. In M. G. Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (2nd ed.) (pp. 217-234). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Details
Primary Language
English
Subjects
Instructional Technologies
Journal Section
Research Article
Publication Date
January 31, 2026
Submission Date
December 5, 2025
Acceptance Date
December 24, 2025
Published in Issue
Year 2026 Volume: 9 Number: 1
APA
Savaşçı, M., & Akçor, G. (2026). Beyond the red pen: Screencast-mediated feedback in L2 writing. Journal of Educational Technology and Online Learning, 9(1), 22-44. https://doi.org/10.31681/jetol.1836639
AMA
1.Savaşçı M, Akçor G. Beyond the red pen: Screencast-mediated feedback in L2 writing. JETOL. 2026;9(1):22-44. doi:10.31681/jetol.1836639
Chicago
Savaşçı, Merve, and Gizem Akçor. 2026. “Beyond the Red Pen: Screencast-Mediated Feedback in L2 Writing”. Journal of Educational Technology and Online Learning 9 (1): 22-44. https://doi.org/10.31681/jetol.1836639.
EndNote
Savaşçı M, Akçor G (January 1, 2026) Beyond the red pen: Screencast-mediated feedback in L2 writing. Journal of Educational Technology and Online Learning 9 1 22–44.
IEEE
[1]M. Savaşçı and G. Akçor, “Beyond the red pen: Screencast-mediated feedback in L2 writing”, JETOL, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 22–44, Jan. 2026, doi: 10.31681/jetol.1836639.
ISNAD
Savaşçı, Merve - Akçor, Gizem. “Beyond the Red Pen: Screencast-Mediated Feedback in L2 Writing”. Journal of Educational Technology and Online Learning 9/1 (January 1, 2026): 22-44. https://doi.org/10.31681/jetol.1836639.
JAMA
1.Savaşçı M, Akçor G. Beyond the red pen: Screencast-mediated feedback in L2 writing. JETOL. 2026;9:22–44.
MLA
Savaşçı, Merve, and Gizem Akçor. “Beyond the Red Pen: Screencast-Mediated Feedback in L2 Writing”. Journal of Educational Technology and Online Learning, vol. 9, no. 1, Jan. 2026, pp. 22-44, doi:10.31681/jetol.1836639.
Vancouver
1.Merve Savaşçı, Gizem Akçor. Beyond the red pen: Screencast-mediated feedback in L2 writing. JETOL. 2026 Jan. 1;9(1):22-44. doi:10.31681/jetol.1836639