Video Feedback in Philosophy

Abstract

Marginal comments on student essays are a near-universal method of providing feedback in philosophy. Widespread as the practice is, however, it has well-known drawbacks. Commenting on students' work in the form of a video has the potential to improve the feedback experience for both instructors and students. The advantages of video feedback can be seen by examining it from both the professor's and the student's perspective. In discussing the professor's perspective, this article shares observations based on the author's experience delivering feedback through video. Turning to the student's view, it discusses qualitative feedback solicited from students that indicates a clear preference for video feedback over written marginalia. In particular, students describe video feedback as more informative, more personal, better at suggesting improvements on future assignments, enhancing the professor's ability to communicate through tone of voice and gesture, and easier to understand compared to written feedback.

A qualitative synthesis of video feedback in higher education

“…Moore and Filling (2012) found that, when providing video feedback, markers made fewer brief suggestions and corrective comments, instead elaborating on points and providing specific details. Markers using video feedback were also more likely to provide more detailed comments on the positive aspects of students' work (Lamey 2015;Parton, Crain-Dorough, and Hancock 2010;Thomas, West, and Borup 2017).…”

“…Some researchers suggest that video feedback fundamentally shifts the focus of feedback from the surface-level mechanics of writing to more substantive, global aspects of students' performance (Henderson and Phillips 2015;Lamey 2015;Orlando 2016;Thompson and Lee 2012;Vincelette and Bostic 2013). Under this characterisation, surface-level feedback focuses on superficial or mechanical concerns such as spelling and grammar, syntax and referencing, while substantive feedback addresses deeper and more conceptual academic skills such as argument, analysis and synthesis.…”

“…Under this characterisation, surface-level feedback focuses on superficial or mechanical concerns such as spelling and grammar, syntax and referencing, while substantive feedback addresses deeper and more conceptual academic skills such as argument, analysis and synthesis. For instance, Lamey (2015) found that he provided increased levels of substantive feedback on intellectual arguments when using talking head video feedback, and limited comments on mechanical areas such as syntax to one or two indicative examples. Thompson and Lee (2012) found a similar shift amongst their students, noting that students made fewer surface-level edits than substantive changes after receiving screencast feedback.…”

“…', and argue that feedforward moves beyond diagnosing current performance to offer information on how to progress. Lamey (2015) found that video feedback prompted him to offer more constructive comments and suggestions for future assignments, rather than simply itemising errors. Henderson and Phillips (2015) speculate that feedforward is not more likely to occur in video feedback as a result of the medium itself; rather, the format provides markers with more time to offer suggestions for future work.…”

Developing Language and Intercultural Skills through an IaH Programme at University

“…This is partly because the use of the voice allows for more complex and in-depth feedback which is not limited by the written medium. Teachers can contextualise feedback and provide more guidance on how to correct the work (Lamey 2015).…”