Change display time — Currently: Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) (Event time)

Screencasting Feedback for Formative Assessment

Pennsylvania Convention Center, 121BC

Lecture presentation
Listen and learn: Research paper
Save to My Favorites

Research papers are a pairing of two 18 minute presentations followed by 18 minutes of Discussion led by a Discussant, with remaining time for Q & A.
This is presentation 1 of 2, scroll down to see more details.

Other presentations in this group:


Technology Coach
Graduate student
Michelle Zgombic is currently pursuing her doctorate from NJCU in EdTech Leadership. She has been a teacher in the Warren Township School District in NJ for over 20 years. Currently serving her role as a Tech Coach, she looks for innovative ways to bring technology into learning while having fun! She has presented to large scale audiences for ASCD, ISTE, PADLA and NJECC, in addition to supporting a smaller scale, but just as important, her staff and students.

Session description

How do you provide students with feedback and support while they are working on projects and long-term tasks that are online? Research will be presented regarding the practice of screencasting as a game-changing practice for formative assessment to support students during the digital work production process.


Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), Zimmerman Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) and Puentedura's SAMR levels of technology integration

More [+]


I designed an Explanatory Sequential Mixed Methods research study. The participants must be employed in NJ public schools, grades 5-12. The grades were selected as these teachers are the most likely to encourage students to generate digital work that would benefit from the formative assessment model. Participants are recruited via networking with administrators in various districts throughout NJ to seek permission to employ the study which will be submitted via email. The study will also be posted on assorted social media to try to get enough participants to validate the study, including the use of Twitter hashtags and Facebook educator groups. The first phase is a 5-10 minute quantitative study and if a participant indicates they are willing may proceed to a 30-45 minute interview. Questions explored by the researcher include the frequency of assigned digital content, the current methods of feedback to support student work, the familiarity of screencasting software and if this method has even been employed for the purpose of formative assessment.

More [+]


The study is being launched right now. My hypothesis is that although teachers are familiar with screencasting software, as a result to provide students with lessons during quarantine and distance instruction, they are not employing it for this purpose. My question is, if they are not, what obstacles are preventing the implementation of the software for this purpose. If it is being employed, would they recommend the practice to others.

More [+]


This could revolutionize how formative assessment is provided to students by offering a sustainable practice that has been proven by research to be a more effective method than traditional practices.

More [+]


To date:
Ali, A. D. (2016). Effectiveness of Using Screencast Feedback on EFL Students’ Writing and Perception. English Language Teaching, 9(8), 106.
Anson, C. M., Dannels, D. P., Laboy, J. I., & Carneiro, L. (2016). Students’ Perceptions of Oral Screencast Responses to Their Writing. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 30(3), 378–411.
Bissell, L. C. (2017). Screen-casting as a Technology-enhanced Feedback Mode. Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice, 5(1).
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.
Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013). Rethinking models of feedback for learning: the challenge of design. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(6), 698–712.
Cavaleri, M., Kawaguchi, S., Biase, B. D., & Power, C. (2019). How recorded audio-visual feedback can improve academic language support. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 16(4), 71–90.
Chang, N. (2011). Pre-service teachers’ views: How did e-feedback through assessment facilitate their learning? Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 11(2), 16–33.
Collins, K. M. T., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Sutton, I. L. (2006). A model incorporating the rationale and purpose for conducting mixed methods research in special education and beyond. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 4, 67-100.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, D. J. (2018). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Creswell, J. W., & Guetterman, T. C. (2019). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research (6th Edition) (6th ed.). Pearson.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2010). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research (Second ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Cunningham, K. J. (2018). Modes of Feedback in ESL Writing: Implications of Shifting from Text to Screencast (Order No. 10642150). Available from ProQuest Central. (2058848129).
Dawadi, S., Shrestha, S., & Giri, R. A. (2021). Mixed-Methods Research: A Discussion on its Types, Challenges, and Criticisms. Journal of Practical Studies in Education, 2(2), 25-36 DOI:
Fang, B., & Wickersham-Fish, L. (2020). BREAKING THE LAST BOTTLENECK FOR ONLINE TEACHING: Using Screencasting for Personalized Feedback. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 21(4), 19-35,73.
Fernández-Toro, M., & Furnborough, C. (2014). Feedback on feedback: eliciting learners’ responses to written feedback through student-generated screencasts. Educational Media International, 51(1), 35–48.
Fry, A. (2022, June 15). What is an LMS? Learning management systems explained. Moodle.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Grigoryan, A. (2017). Feedback 2.0 in online writing instruction: Combining audio-visual and text-based commentary to enhance student revision and writing competency. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 29(3), 451–476.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The Power of Feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.
Henderson, M., and Phillips, M. (2015).Video-based feedback on student assessment: scarily personal. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(1), 51-66.
Inan-Karagul B., & Meral, S. (2021). Improving Language Learners’ Use of Self-Regulated Writing Strategies Through Screencast Feedback. Sage Open, 11(4)
John-Steiner, V., Cole, M., Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society: Development of Higher Psychological Processes. United Kingdom: Harvard University Press.
Kaplan-Rakowski, R. (2021). Addressing students’ emotional needs during the COVID-19 pandemic: a perspective on text versus video feedback in online environments. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 69(1), 133-136.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Lipnevich, A. A., & Panadero, E. (2021). A Review of Feedback Models and Theories: Descriptions, Definitions, and Conclusions. Frontiers in Education, 6.
Mahoney, P., Macfarlane, S., & Ajjawi, R. (2018). A qualitative synthesis of video feedback in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 24(2), 157–179.
Matthews, L. (2019). Should we use video technology for giving feedback? Higher Education Pedagogies, 4(1), 476–487.
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.
Office of Educational Technology. (2017, January). Reimagining the Role of Technology in Education: 2017 National Education Technology Plan Update. U.S. Department of Education.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2006). Linking research questions to mixed methods data analysis procedures. The Qualitative Report, 11(3), 474-498. Retrieved [May 5,2022], from
Panadero, E. (2017). A Review of Self-regulated Learning: Six Models and Four Directions for Research. Frontiers in Psychology, 8.
Panadero, E., & Alonso Tapia, J. (2014). How do students self-regulate?: review of Zimmerman‟ s cyclical model of self-regulated learning. Anales de psicologia
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice (4th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Plano Clark, V. L. & Ivankova, N. V. (2016). Mixed methods research. A guide to the field. Sage Publications.
Puentedura, R. R. (2013). SAMR: Getting to transformation. Retrieved May, 31.
Rabinovich, L. (2016). Guidelines for mixed methods dissertations (Draft). Jersey City, NJ: Department of Educational Technology, New Jersey City University.
Ramaprasad, Arkalgud. (1983). On the Definition of Feedback. Behavioral Science. 28. 4 - 13. 10.1002/bs.3830280103.
Romrell, D., Kidder, L., & Wood, E. (2014). The SAMR model as a framework for evaluating mLearning. Online Learning Journal, 18(2).
Ryan, T. (2021). Designing video feedback to support the socioemotional aspects of online learning. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 69(1), 137-140.
Ryan, T., Henderson, M., & Phillips, M. (2020). Digitally recorded assessment feedback in a secondary school context: student engagement, perception and impact. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 29(3), 311–325.
Sadler, D.R. Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instr Sci 18, 119–144 (1989).
Scriven, M. (1967). The Methodology of Evaluation. In R. W. Tyler, R. M. Gagne, & M. Scriven (Eds.), Perspectives of Curriculum Evaluation Chicago (pp. 39-83). Rand McNally.
Shabani, K., Khatib, M., & Ebadi, S. (2010). Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development: Instructional Implications and Teachers’ Professional Development. English Language Teaching, 3(4).
Shkodrov, D. (2022, January 26). The Best Screencast Software: Full Comparison. ScreenRec.
Sommers, J. (2013). Response 2.0: Commentary on student writing for the new millennium. Journal of College Literacy and Learning, 39, 21-37.
TechSmith. (2020, June 16). Jing Alternatives: What Should I Install When Jing Retires in 2020? TechSmith Support.
Thorndike, E. L. (1927). The Law of Effect. The American Journal of Psychology, 39(1/4), 212.
van de Vord, R., & Pogue, K. (2012). Teaching time investment: Does online really take more time than face-to-face? The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(3), 132.
West, J., & Turner, W. (2016). Enhancing the assessment experience: Improving student perceptions, engagement and understanding using on-line video feedback. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 53(4), 400–410. doi:10.1080/14703297.2014.1003954
Wiliam, D., & Thompson, M. (2007). Integrating Assessment with Learning: What Will It Take to Make It Work?
Yiğit, M. F., & Seferoğlu, S. S. (2021). Effect of video feedback on students’ feedback use in the online learning environment. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 1–11.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement: An Overview. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 3–17.

More [+]

Session specifications

Teacher education
Grade level:
Coaches, Teachers, Teacher education/higher ed faculty
Attendee devices:
Devices useful
Attendee device specification:
Smartphone: Windows, Android, iOS
Laptop: Chromebook, Mac, PC
Tablet: Android, iOS, Windows
Subject area:
Inservice teacher education, Preservice teacher education
ISTE Standards:
For Education Leaders:
Visionary Planner
  • Engage education stakeholders in developing and adopting a shared vision for using technology to improve student success, informed by the learning sciences.
  • Share lessons learned, best practices, challenges and the impact of learning with technology with other education leaders who want to learn from this work.
Systems Designer
  • Ensure that resources for supporting the effective use of technology for learning are sufficient and scalable to meet future demand.