Video Tabanlı Dönüt Uygulamalarının Algılanan Dönüt Kalitesi Üzerine Etkisinin İncelenmesi

Year 2021, Issue: 51, 92 - 122, 14.01.2021

Mehmet Fatih Yiğit , Süleyman Sadi Seferoğlu

https://doi.org/10.9779/pauefd.707224

Cited By: 3

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı video tabanlı dönüt uygulamalarının algılanan dönüt kalitesi üzerine olan etkisinin incelenmesi ve ayrıca uygulamaya yönelik öğrenci görüşlerinin belirlenmesidir. Çalışma bir devlet üniversitesinin Bilgisayar ve Öğretim Teknolojileri Eğitimi Bölümü’nde öğrenim gören 38 lisans öğrencisi ile “Bilgi Güvenliği ve Etik” dersi kapsamında 10 hafta boyunca yürütülmüştür. Karma araştırma yöntemlerinden yakınsak paralel desene göre gerçekleştirilen çalışmanın ilk 6 haftasında deney grubundaki öğrenciler üç adet haftalık yazılı ödeve video tabanlı dönüt, kontrol grubundaki öğrenciler ise metin tabanlı dönüt almışlardır. Her bir haftalık ödevden sonra öğrencilere “Algılanan Dönüt Kalitesi Ölçeği” uygulanmıştır. Çalışmanın 6-8 haftaları arasında ise tüm öğrencilerin video ve metin dönütleri deneyimleyebilmesi için deney ve kontrol grupları yer değiştirilmiş ve bu kapsamda iki haftalık ödev daha verilerek sürece devam edilmiştir. Çalışmanın nicel bulgularına göre video dönüt uygulamasının algılanan dönüt kalitesi ve “geliştirme, anlaşılırlık ve teşvik etme” alt boyutları üzerinde istatistiksel olarak anlamlı etkisinin olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Çalışmanın nicel boyutunda edinilen bulgular öğrenci görüşmelerinden elde edilen nitel bulgular ile de desteklenmiştir. Nitel bulgular video dönütlerin metin dönütlere algılanan dönüt kalitesi açısından çoğunlukla daha avantajlı olduğunu göstermektedir. Çalışmanın sonuçlarına göre videoların dönüt süreçlerinde kullanılması önerilen araçlar olduğu görülmüştür.

Keywords

Dönüt, video dönüt, metin dönüt, algılanan dönüt kalitesi, üniversite öğrencileri

Investigating the Effect of Video-Based Feedback on Perceived Feedback Quality

Abstract

The aim of this study is to examine the effect of video-based feedback on perceived feedback quality and in addition, to determine the opinions of students about the video feedback practice. This study was carried out for 10 weeks with 38 undergraduate students from Computer Education and Instructional Technology department in a public university in “Information Security and Ethics” course. A convergent parallel mixed-methods study design was adopted in this study. In the first 6 weeks of the study, students in the experimental group received video feedback on three weekly written assignments while those in the control group received text feedback. Students were applied “Formative Feedback Perception Scale” after each week's assignment to determine their perceived feedback quality. During the 6-8 weeks of the study, experimental and control groups were switched in terms of the feedback format so that all students could experience video and text feedback. Meanwhile, students were given two additional assignments. Quantitative findings of the study revealed that video feedback had a statistically significant effect on perceived feedback quality and its “development, understandability, and encouragement” sub-factors. Qualitative findings also showed that video feedback was often found to be more advantageous than text feedback in terms of perceived feedback quality. Based on the results of the study, it is recommended to consider the use of videos in the feedback practices.

Keywords

Feedback, video feedback, text feedback, perceived feedback quality, university students

References

• Anson, I. G. (2015). Assessment feedback using screen capture technology in political science. Journal of Political Science Education, 11(4), 375-390.
• Bloxham, S., & Boyd, P. (2007). Developing Effective Assessment in Higher Education: A Practical Guide: A Practical Guide. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
• Bonnel, W. (2008). Improving feedback to students in online courses. Nursing Education Perspectives, 29(5), 290-294.
• Borup, J., Graham, C. R., & Velasquez, A. (2011). The use of asynchronous video communication to improve instructor immediacy and social presence in a blended learning environment. In Blended learning across disciplines: Models for implementation (pp. 38-57). IGI Global.
• Borup, J., West, R. E., & Graham, C. R. (2012). Improving online social presence through asynchronous video. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(3), 195-203. Borup, J., West, R. E., Thomas, R., & Graham, C. R. (2014). Examining the impact of video feedback on instructor social presence in blended courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(3), 232-256.
• Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013). Rethinking models of feedback for learning: the challenge of design. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(6), 698-712.
• Carless, D. (2013). Trust and its role in facilitating dialogic feedback. In D. Boud & L. Molloy (Eds.), Feedback in higher and professional education (pp. 90–103). London: Routledge.
• Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage publications.
• Crook, A., Mauchline, A., Maw, 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.
• Demiraslan-Çevik, Y., Haşlaman, T., & Çelik, S. (2015). The effect of peer assessment on problem solving skills of prospective teachers supported by online learning activities. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 44, 23-35.
• Denton, D. W. (2014). Using screen capture feedback to improve academic performance. TechTrends, 58(6), 51-56.
• Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2016). Supporting second language writing using multimodal feedback. Foreign Language Annals, 49(1), 58-74.
• Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2009). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York: McGrow-Hill.
• Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105.
• Grigoryan, A. (2017). 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.
• Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112.
• Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge.
• Henderson, M., & Phillips, M. (2015). Video-based feedback on student assessment: scarily personal. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(1), 51-66.
• Hovardas, T., Tsivitanidou, O. E., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2014). Peer versus expert feedback: An investigation of the quality of peer feedback among secondary school students. Computers & Education, 71, 133-152.
• Jones, N., Georghiades, P., & Gunson, J. (2012). Student feedback via screen capture digital video: Stimulating student’s modified action. Higher Education, 64(5), 593-607.
• Kang, S. H., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger III, H. L. (2007). Test format and corrective feedback modify the effect of testing on long-term retention. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19(4-5), 528-558.
• Kerr, W., & McLaughlin, P. (2008). The benefit of screen recorded summaries in feed-back for work submitted electronically. In F. Khandia (Ed.), Proceedings of the 12th CAA International Computer Assisted Assessment Conference (pp. 153–168).
• Lamey, A. (2015). Video feedback in philosophy. Metaphilosophy, 46(5), 691-702.
• Lunt, T., & Curran, J. (2010). ‘Are you listening please?’ The advantages of electronic audio feedback compared to written feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(7), 759-769.
• Mahoney, P., Macfarlane, S., & Ajjawi, R. (2019). A qualitative synthesis of video feedback in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 24(2), 157-179.
• Mathisen, P. (2012). Video feedback in higher education–A contribution to improving the quality of written feedback. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 7(2), 97-113.
• Mayhew, E. (2017). Playback feedback: the impact of screen-captured video feedback on student satisfaction, learning and attainment. European Political Science, 16, 179-192.
• Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2011). Distance education: A systems view of online learning. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
• Mutch, A. (2003). Exploring the practice of feedback to students. Active Learning in Higher Education, 4(1), 24-38.
• Narciss, S., & Huth, K. (2006). Fostering achievement and motivation with bug-related tutoring feedback in a computer-based training for written subtraction. Learning and Instruction, 16(4), 310-322.
• Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane‐Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199-218.
• Nicol, D. (2010). From monologue to dialogue: improving written feedback processes in mass higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 501-517.
• Orlando, J. (2016). A comparison of text, voice, and screencasting feedback to online students. American Journal of Distance Education, 30(3), 156-166.
• Race, P. (2001). Using Feedback to help students to learn. York: The Higher Education Academy.
• Rodway-Dyer, S., Knight, J., & Dunne, E. (2011). A case study on audio feedback with geography undergraduates. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 35(2), 217-231.
• Rowe, A. (2011). The personal dimension in teaching: why students value feedback. International Journal of Educational Management, 25(4), 343-360.
• Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153-189.
• 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.
• Sluijsmans, D. M., Brand-Gruwel, S., & van Merriënboer, J. J. (2002). Peer assessment training in teacher education: Effects on performance and perceptions. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(5), 443-454.
• Strijbos, J. W., Narciss, S., & Dünnebier, K. (2010). Peer feedback content and sender's competence level in academic writing revision tasks: Are they critical for feedback perceptions and efficiency? Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 291-303.
• Şat, M. (2017). Development and validation of formative feedback perceptions scale in project courses for undergraduate students. Journal of Education and Future, 12, 117-135.
• Turner, W., & West, J. (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.
• van der Kleij, F. M. (2019). Comparison of teacher and student perceptions of formative assessment feedback practices and association with individual student characteristics. Teaching and Teacher Education, 85, 175-189.
• van der Pol, J., Van den Berg, B. A. M., Admiraal, W. F., & Simons, P. R. J. (2008). The nature, reception, and use of online peer feedback in higher education. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1804-1817.
• Vasilyeva, E., Pechenizkiy, M., & De Bra, P. (2008). Adaptation of elaborated feedback in e-learning. In International Conference on Adaptive Hypermedia and Adaptive Web-Based Systems (pp. 235-244). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
• West, J., & Turner, W. (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.
• Winstone, N. E., Nash, R. A., Parker, M., & Rowntree, J. (2017). Supporting learners' agentic engagement with feedback: A systematic review and a taxonomy of recipience processes. Educational Psychologist, 52(1), 17-37.