SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Journal of Language Research / 2026 / Cilt: 10 Sayı: 2

Screencast versus Text-Based Feedback in L2 Academic Writing: Revision Uptake and Student Perceptions

İkinci Dil Akademik Yazımında Ekran Görüntüsü Kaydına Dayalı ve Metin Tabanlı Geri Bildirim: Düzeltme Alımı ve Öğrenci Algıları

Gökçe Kurt(MARMARA UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-9022-1258
Aslıhan Karabulut(MARMARA UNIVERSITY)0000-0001-9183-1210
Pages
450–468
Publication Date
2026-07-31
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The results showed that students in the screencast feedback group achieved significantly higher correction scores at the micro, macro, and overall levels.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The rapid expansion of technology-mediated feedback modes has prompted growing interest in screencast feedback as an alternative to text-based electronic feedback in L2 writing instruction.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The participants were 41 pre-service English language teachers enrolled at a state university in Türkiye.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results showed that students in the screencast feedback group achieved significantly higher correction scores at the micro, macro, and overall levels.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Ekran Görüntüsü Kaydı · Geri Bildirim · İkinci Dil Akademik Yazım

Abstract

The rapid expansion of technology-mediated feedback modes has prompted growing interest in screencast feedback as an alternative to text-based electronic feedback in L2 writing instruction. This study compares the effects of screencast feedback and text-based electronic feedback on revision uptake and explores students’ perceptions of screencast feedback in a content-based academic writing course. The participants were 41 pre-service English language teachers enrolled at a state university in Türkiye. Over one semester, the experimental group received indirect instructor feedback on their second drafts through screencast video recordings, while the control group received equivalent feedback as marginal comments in Microsoft Word. Quantitative data were drawn from a randomly selected subsample of 20 students (10 per group), resulting in 40 final drafts per group for analysis. Revision uptake was measured by calculating correction scores from final drafts, and group differences were analysed using Mann-Whitney U tests. In addition, six randomly selected participants from the experimental group took part in a semi-structured focus group interview to explore their perceptions of the screencast feedback process. The results showed that students in the screencast feedback group achieved significantly higher correction scores at the micro, macro, and overall levels. Qualitatively, students perceived screencast feedback as improving their writing, enhancing their engagement with the feedback process, and facilitating their revision strategies, while also demonstrating critical awareness of the constraints imposed by time limitations on feedback delivery. These findings contribute to the growing evidence base for screencast feedback in L2 writing and highlight its potential as an effective and engaging feedback mode in EFL pre-service teacher education contexts.

Özet

Teknoloji aracılı geri bildirim biçimlerinin hızla yaygınlaşması, ekran görüntüsü kaydına dayalı geri bildirimi (screencast feedback) ikinci dil yazma öğretiminde metin tabanlı elektronik geri bildirimin bir alternatifi olarak giderek daha fazla ilgi odağı haline getirmiştir. Bu çalışma, içerik temelli bir akademik yazma dersinde ekran görüntüsü kaydına dayalı geri bildirim ile metin tabanlı elektronik geri bildirimin düzeltme alımı üzerindeki etkilerini karşılaştırmakta ve öğrencilerin ekran görüntüsü kaydına dayalı geri bildirime ilişkin algılarını incelemektedir. Araştırmaya, Türkiye'deki bir devlet üniversitesinde öğrenim gören 41 İngilizce öğretmeni adayı katılmıştır. Bir sömestr boyunca, deney grubu ikinci taslak yazılarına ilişkin öğretici geri bildirimini ekran görüntüsü video kayıtları aracılığıyla alırken, kontrol grubu eşdeğer geri bildirimi Microsoft Word'de kenar yorumları biçiminde almıştır. Nicel veriler, rastgele seçilen 20 öğrenciden (her gruptan 10'ar kişi) oluşan bir alt örneklemden elde edilmiş olup analiz için her gruptan 40 son taslak incelenmiştir. Düzeltme alımı, son taslaklardan elde edilen düzeltme puanları hesaplanarak ölçülmüş; gruplar arasındaki farklılıklar Mann-Whitney U testleriyle analiz edilmiştir. Ayrıca, deney grubundan rastgele seçilen altı katılımcı, ekran görüntüsü kaydına dayalı geri bildirim sürecine ilişkin algılarını paylaşmak amacıyla yarı yapılandırılmış bir odak grup görüşmesine katılmıştır. Sonuçlar, ekran görüntüsü kaydına dayalı geri bildirim grubundaki öğrencilerin mikro, makro ve genel düzeylerde anlamlı ölçüde daha yüksek düzeltme puanları elde ettiğini ortaya koymuştur. Nitel bulgular açısından ise öğrenciler, ekran görüntüsü kaydına dayalı geri bildirimin yazma becerilerini geliştirdiğini, geri bildirim süreciyle etkileşimlerini artırdığını ve düzeltme stratejilerini kolaylaştırdığını ifade etmiş; aynı zamanda geri bildirim sunumundaki zaman sınırlılıklarının yarattığı kısıtlamaların farkında olduklarını da göstermişlerdir. Bu bulgular, ikinci dil yazma öğretiminde ekran görüntüsü kaydına dayalı geri bildirimi destekleyen büyüyen kanıt tabanına katkı sağlamakta ve bu yöntemin İngilizce öğretmenliği lisans programlarında etkili ve ilgi çekici bir geri bildirim biçimi olarak taşıdığı potansiyeli gözler önüne sermektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Kurt, G., Karabulut, A. (2026). Screencast versus Text-Based Feedback in L2 Academic Writing: Revision Uptake and Student Perceptions. Journal of Language Research, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 2, 450–468. https://doi.org/10.51726/jlr.1937595

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (51)

  1. Ajjawi, R., & Boud, D. (2017). Researching feedback dialogue. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(2), 252–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1102863
  2. Alharbi, W. (2017). E-feedback as a scaffolding teaching strategy in the online language classroom. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 46(2), 239–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239517697966
  3. Ali, A. D. (2016). Effectiveness of using screencast feedback on EFL students’ writing and perception. English Language Teaching, 9(8), 106–121. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n8p106
  4. 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
  5. Bakla, A. (2020). A mixed-methods study of feedback modes in EFL writing. Language Learning & Technology, 24(1), 107–128. https://doi.org/10125/44712
  6. Barrot, J. S. (2023). Using ChatGPT for second language writing: Pitfalls and potentials. Assessing Writing, 57, 100745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2023.100745
  7. Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. Routledge.
  8. 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(2), 161–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9367-8
  9. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  10. Bush, J. C. (2021). Using screencasting to give feedback for academic writing. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 15(5), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2020.1840571
  11. Carless, D. (2015). Excellence in university assessment: Learning from award-winning practice. Routledge.
  12. Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315–1325. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354
  13. Cavaleri, M., Kawaguchi, S., Di Biase, B., & Power, C. (2019). How recorded audio-visual feedback can improve academic language. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 16(4), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.53761/1.16.4.6
  14. 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
  15. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage.
  16. 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
  17. Dawson, P., Yan, Z., Lipnevich, A., Tai, J., Boud, D., & Mahoney, P. (2024). Measuring what learners do in feedback: The feedback literacy behaviour scale. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 49(3), 348–362. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2023.2240983
  18. Din Eak, A., & Annamalai, N. (2024). Enhancing online learning: A systematic literature review exploring the impact of screencast feedback on student learning outcomes. Asian Association of Open Universities Journal, 19(3), 247–263. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAOUJ-08-2023-0100
  19. Edwards, K., Dujardin, A.-F., & Williams, N. (2012). Screencast feedback for essays on a distance learning MA in professional communication: An action research project. Journal of Academic Writing, 2(1), 95–126. https://doi.org/10.18552/joaw.v2i1.62
  20. Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2016). Supporting second language writing using multimodal feedback. Foreign Language Annals, 49(1), 58–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12183
  21. Fatoni, M., Setiawan, S., & Munir, A. (2024). The students’ perceptions of screencast video feedback and their self-regulated learning in responding to the feedback. KnE Social Sciences, 9(6), 517–527. https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v9i6.15301
  22. Ferris, D. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Lawrence Erlbaum. Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). Sage.
  23. Guo, K., & Wang, D. (2024). To resist it or to embrace it? Examining ChatGPT’s potential to support teacher feedback in EFL writing. Education and Information Technologies, 29(7), 8435–8463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12146-0
  24. Harper, F., Green, H., & Fernandez-Toro, M. (2018). Using screencasts in the teaching of modern languages: Investigating the use of Jing® in feedback on written assignments. The Language Learning Journal, 46(3), 277–292. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2015.1061586
  25. Henderson, M., & Phillips, M. (2015). Video-based feedback on student assessment: Scarily personal. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(1), 51–66. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1878
  26. Hennessy, C., & Forrester, G. (2014). Developing a framework for effective audio feedback: A case study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(7), 777–789. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.870530
  27. Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge University Press.
  28. Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2019). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. Cambridge University Press.
  29. İnan-Karagül, B., & Şeker, M. (2021). Improving language learners’ use of self-regulated writing strategies through screencast feedback. SAGE Open, 11(4), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211064895
  30. Jiang, L., Lee, I., & Yu, S. (2024). Conceptualizing multimodal feedback literacy for L2 writing teachers in the digital age. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 34(4), 1479–1496. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12578 Lee, I. (2017). Classroom writing assessment and feedback in L2 school contexts. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3924-9
  31. Lee, I., & Mao, Z. (2024). Writing teacher feedback literacy: Surveying second language teachers’ knowledge, values, and abilities. Journal of Second Language Writing, 63, 101094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2024.101094
  32. Loncar, M., Schams, W., & Liang, J. S. (2023). Multiple technologies, multiple sources: Trends and analyses of the literature on technology-mediated feedback for L2 English writing published from 2015–2019. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 36(4), 722–784. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1943452
  33. 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
  34. Mao, Z., & Lee, I. (2024). Student engagement with written feedback: Critical issues and way forward. RELC Journal, 55(3), 810–818. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882221150811
  35. Marshall, D. T., Love, S. M., & Scott, L. (2020). “It’s not like he was being a robot”: Student perceptions of video-based writing feedback in online graduate coursework. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 14(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2020.140110
  36. Mellen, C., & Sommers, J. (2003). Audiotaped response and the 2-year-campus writing classroom: The two-sided desk, the “guy with the axe,” and the chirping birds. Teaching English in the Two-Year College, 31, 25–39.
  37. Nash, R. A., & Winstone, N. E. (2017). Responsibility-sharing in the giving and receiving of assessment feedback. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1519. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01519
  38. Orlando, J. (2016). A comparison of text, voice, and screencasting feedback to online students. American Journal of Distance Education, 30(3), 156–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2016.1187472
  39. Penn, S., & Brown, N. (2022). Is screencast feedback better than text feedback for student learning in higher education? A systematic review. Ubiquitous Learning: An International Journal, 15(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.18848/1835-9795/CGP/v15i02/1-18
  40. Ruffini, M. (2012). Creating a PowerPoint screencast using Camtasia Studio. Proceedings of the World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, Chesapeake, 1, 355–364.
  41. Saeed, M. A., AbuSa’aleek, A., & Alharbi, M. A. (2024). Examining teacher’s evaluative language in written, audio and screencast feedback on EFL learners’ writing from the appraisal framework: A linguistic perspective. Assessing Writing, 61, 100871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2024.100871
  42. Sambell, K. (2013). Engaging students through assessment. In E. Dunne & D. Owen (Eds.), The student engagement handbook. Emerald.
  43. 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
  44. Thompson, R., & Lee, M. J. (2012). Talking with students through screencasting: Experimentations with video feedback to improve student learning. The Journal of Interactive Technology and Pedagogy, 1(1), 1–16.
  45. Van der Zijden, J., Scheerans, J., & Wijsman, L. (2021). Experiences and understanding of screencast feedback on written reports in the bachelor pharmacy. Transformative Dialogues: Teaching & Learning Journal, 14(1), 46–67. https://doi.org/10.59236/td2021vol14iss11463
  46. Vatansever, A., & Toker, T. (2022). E-written versus screencast feedback in the L2 writing classroom: An engagement perspective. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(3), 189–199. https://doi.org/10.52380/mojet.2022.10.3.371
  47. Vincelette, E. J., & Bostic, J. (2013). Show and tell: Student and instructor perceptions of screencast assessment. Assessing Writing, 18(4), 257–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2013.08.001
  48. Wakeman, C. (2013). The innovative use of screencasts in higher education. Innovative Practice in Higher Education, 1(3), 1–5.
  49. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2014.1003954
  50. Wood, J. (2023). Enabling feedback seeking, agency and uptake through dialogic screencast feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 48(4), 464–484. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2022.2089973
  51. Yu, S. (2021). Giving genre-based peer feedback in academic writing: Sources of knowledge and skills, difficulties and challenges. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(1), 36–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1742872