Feedback conversations: How should I use technology? A nuanced approach …

One of the most frequent conversations I have is around improving feedback, and how technology can help. Increasingly I am trying to encourage a more nuanced discussion about feedback, because deciding on what feedback to give and how to give it is not simply about a choice between one tool or another; the choice should be the result of the individual lecturer’s preference, the context, the type of assessment or activity upon which feedback is being offered, the characteristics of the student or cohort, the aims of the feedback, the tools and technology required, the quality management requirements and no doubt many other factors. Some of the common questions I get are shared below with comments:

Should I use GradeMark for feedback? 

Well, it depends a good deal on what you want to achieve. GradeMark has many benefits but in itself it will not make feedback better. To be clear, like any technology it can make a difference but it is not a silver bullet; without meaningful engagement and a commitment to change practice, it will not improve satisfaction with feedback.

GradeMark can help you to achieve consistency in the comments that you offer to students because you can create a bank of common points to annotate the work, and it can enable you to add a greater amount of feed forward signposting advice to students for their common errors, for example if a group are struggling to paraphrase, you could create a comment advising of techniques and pointing to resources that might help and use this many times. GradeMark can help with a sense of fairness too, as marks can be allocated using a rubric. This is entirely optional, and there are of course other ways to employ a rubric. It can help with legibility, as comments are typed; but so too can very clear handwriting and other technologies. It can allow you to save time at certain points in the marking and feedback process, as you can get started on your marking as soon as students hand in rather than delaying until you receive a complete set of papers. It can aid transparency when team marking; you can see how another tutor is marking and feeding back – again this is possible to achieve in other ways, but being able to see each other’s marking in real time can create ongoing dialogue about the way marks are allocated and the way comments are added. If you are really concerned about reading on a screen, this might be a problem; but if you consume news, media, research and other things via a screen, it may be worth laying aside your concerns and giving this a try. All of these benefits though can only be realised if the user is working with the technology and is not simply transferring existing practices in to a digital environment.

Will it save me time? 

Yes and no. It’s not that simple. It depends how you use the facilities and what type of feedback you give. You can use as many or as few of the tools within GradeMark as you see fit. You can use the facilities within GradeMark in any combination: Voice over comments, annotations (stock comments or personalised as if marking on paper), you can use a rubric, auto generated scoring from the rubric (or not) and you can use a final summary comment. Each individual needs to look at their set up and then consider what they want to achieve, they should then select the aspects of the tool that work for their situation. Annotations may be better for corrective, structural feedback, or feedback on specific aspects of calculations, but the narrative may be the place to provide feedback on key ideas within the work. If you go in to using GradeMark solely to achieve efficiencies, you will most likely be disappointed upon first usage because there is a set up investment and it takes a large group or multiple iterations to get payback on that initial time spent. In my experience those who use GradeMark may start out seeking efficiency, but end up with a focus on enhancing their feedback within the time constraints available to them. When time is saved by a user, I have seen colleagues simply re-spend this time on making enhancements, particularly to personalise the feedback further.
Ok, so what equipment do I need to be able to use GradeMark? Is it best to use a tablet?

Again it much depends on your work flows and preferences. A desktop computer is my preference as I like lots of screen room and I like to settle in to one spot with unlimited supplies of tea, whenever I mark. Others like to be mobile and the tablet version of GradeMark allows you to effectively download all scripts, mark and feedback and then upload. So unlike the desktop version you don’t need to be connected to the Internet – for those marking on the go, this is a good thing.

I see other people using other technologies for marking, like Dragon Dictate and annotation apps on tablets, are these better than GradeMark? 


There is a large toolkit available for assessment and feedback and each has strengths and weaknesses, and each fits differently with personal preferences and context. So Dragon dictate can be used to speak a narrative or extensive comments, it’s not perfect but may help those who struggle with typing; annotation apps allow the conversion of handwriting to text, and they allow comments to be added at the point of need within a script (though GradeMark allows this too). On the downside a manual intervention is needed to to return the feedback to students. Track change can be good for corrective feedback, but it can cause students to look at their work and feel that it wasn’t good enough as it has the electronic equivalent of red pen all over it!
Second markers or external examiners refuse to use the same interface… Then what …?

I’d suggest that you encourage others in the process to use the technology that you have selected. Give them early warning and offer to support the process. A pre-emptive way of dealing with this is to ensure a course wide approach to feedback, so agreeing, as a group, the tools that you will use. This should then be discussed with the external and others at appointment. It’s harder to resist a coordinated approach. Policy change is what is really needed for this, so lobbying might help!!!

But students like handwritten feedback, they find computer based feedback impersonal …

Maybe so, but all students prefer legible feedback and feedback that they can collect without coming back on to campus. Also is it not part of our responsibility as educators to ensure students can work digitally, even with their feedback? Students who tell us that they like handwritten feedback often feel a personal connection between them and the marker, but feedback using technology can be highly personalised. It is simply up to the assessor to use the tools available to achieve levels of personalisation; the tools themselves offer choices to the feedback craftsman. Adding a narrative comment, an audio comment or customising stock comments can all give a personal touch. However if the feedback giver chooses none of these things, then of course the feedback will be depersonalised.

Students say they don’t like electronic feedback…

Some might and the reasons are complex. If we introduce a new feedback method at the end of a students programme, without explanation, irritation is inevitable as we have just added a complication at a critical point. Equally if feedback across a students journey is predominantly paper based, it is no wonder they struggle to remember how to retrieve their digital feedback and so get frustrated. If the feedback is too late to be useful, that will also cause students to prefer old methods. It may be useful to coordinate feedback approaches with others on your course area so the student gets a consistent approach, rather than encountering the occasional exotic technology with no clear rationale. Finally, though, students also need to be trained to do more than receive their feedback. They might file it, return to it, précis it and identify salient points. Good delivery of feedback will never alone be enough. Timeliness and engagement are also key to allowing students to work gain the benefits of their feedback.

Seeing things differently ….

One of the benefits of using technology in feedback is not often spoken about, or written of. When we engage meaningfully with technology in feedback it can change our approach to providing feedback, irrespective of the technology. By (real) example, someone trying annotation software may have a realisation that legibility is a real issue for them and they must prioritise this in future; someone using a rubric may start giving priority to assessment criteria as the need for equity and consistency becomes more sharply placed in focus; someone using stock comments and adding a voice over becomes aware of the need for the personal touch in feedback; and finally, someone using audio becomes aware that the volume of feedback produced may be overwhelming for students to digest and so revise their approach. These realisations live on beyond any particular technology use; so when we think of using technology for feedback, it may be useful to be conscious of the changes that can be brought about to the feedback mindset, and judge success in these terms rather than just mastery of, or persistence with one or another tool.

(My) Lessons from the flipped classroom

In September 2015 I committed to deliver a thirty-credit module, called The Teaching Practitioner, using A flipped classroom pedagogy. The module is the first of two in a PgC Teaching and Supporting Learning in HE; it is associated with Associate Fellowship of the Higher Education Academy.

My motivation for flipping the classroom was three fold:

  1. My contact time was limited and therefore moving ‘delivery of content’ outside of the classroom was an answer to a specific timetable challenge.
  2. In learning and teaching provision of this type I wanted to actively avoid ‘preaching’ or appearing as the ‘authority’. Everyone, without exception, on a work-based programme brings experience and the class dynamic is much more about guiding equals and facilitating mutual learning.
  3. I would rather place my energies in to discursive, challenging and unexpected contact time, rather than repeat sessions of transmitting content, which can be accessed in other ways.

The pattern of delivery was simply that each week I shared materials to work through, including narrated presentations, videos (commissioned and existent), reading, reflective tasks and then we would gather to discuss. The discussions varied in formality, structure and style as the module progressed. Over the course of the module I learnt a great deal, the key points from my mental list of lessons are shared below.

Screen Shot 2016-03-17 at 08.46.13
To do list example (click to view)

Essential to do list: Each week I published what needed to be done in advance of the face-to-face class. Importantly the list split out what was essential and what was optional. Participants reported that this was a helpful organizing distinction and allowed better management of their activity. This is something that I would definitely adopt in future modules of any type to act as a pacesetter. Simple, perhaps obvious, but actively encouraging participants to make choices about the level of engagement they can make is a pragmatic way of supporting work based practitioners who have so many competing demands on their time.

Slides not videos: I experimented with the media format of presentational material (pre-class content). The staple across most weeks was the narrated PowerPoint. I found more editing control by using Audacity to record the audio and then drag and drop in to PowerPoint, compared to recording direct in to PowerPoint. Audacity gave me opportunity to edit out any major interruptions with ease (phone calls, door knocks etc). I included some video lectures of studio production quality however participants found them relatively less engaging, with a preference for visuals and audios mixed in together with the ability to more easily navigate the presentation. I was surprised by this preference, but there is no doubt narrated presentations are easier to create.

Don’t force theory: We took a discursive approach to our face-to-face time (which was usually two hours per week). I provided questions and starters and then tried to guide the discussion. At first the conversation was loose, multi-directional, on and off-topic. I worried that we were not being ‘very level seven’ and the participants shared some of these concerns. However an under the surface, a process of sense making was going on; each person, in their own language and terms, through sharing and reflecting on their own experience got chance to reconceive, affirm and evaluate their practice. The explicit linking to theory was a more private activity, which seemed to occur in response to assessment. It was only obvious that this had taken place at the end of the module as discussion and theory were fused. Perhaps the discussions were a shared liminal space in which we muddled through difficult issues, then we went away to individually reflect and make clear.

Screen Shot 2016-03-17 at 12.13.31.png
A conception of flipped learning as a three stage process

 Facilitation skills matter more than online production skills: My role can be linked to all the activities of a facilitator, including:

  • Summarizing

    Screen Shot 2016-03-17 at 09.01.39
    A discussion summary in progress
  • Questioning
  • Providing occasional expertise
  • Sharing anecdotes
  • Signposting
  • Collating the issues that we couldn’t solve and referring them to other forums, or mentally ‘parking them’ as knowingly messy
  • Archiving ideas (e.g. photographing shared lists and posting them online for future reference)
  • Providing clarity as needed
  • Providing confidence
  • Managing the group dynamics
  • Modeling active listening

As we progressed through the weeks, methods for each of these aspects became more developed e.g. creating graphics for summaries, defining the discussion purpose to keep us mainly on task. One thing I did from time to time was add a summary of the discussion as a resource for reference so that everyone had opportunity to revisit key points. This involved simply using my mobile phone and talking through the diagrams that we had created in class such that everyone had a record. This was not onerous at all if done straight after the session while fresh in memory.

Quick and dirty production process: If the model of delivery is going to be sustainable then resources need to be produced within a realistic time frame. By taking a quick and dirty approach to development, those on the programme see the approach as achievable and replicable; it provides accessible modeled practice. For me there is also a really clear sign in this approach that the value of the learning experience is the interaction and not a resource. To avoid perfectionism I never listened to my own presentations after they were recorded other than for a quick sound check.

Shared endeavor: While new roles were not formally defined, we fell in to a more even relationship. I sensed that we were co-researchers (in to the effectiveness of the pedagogy) and co-learners (about all aspects of the programme). We were facilitators and facilitated, rather than ‘teacher and student’. To reinforce this role equality, I tried to be very open about when I was learning too.

Allow choice about levels of engagement: As grown ups, participants face a simple rational choice about whether to engage or attend; sometime this choice is made in light of personal life and professional workload. In the weeks where individuals had not done the preparation for class, no action was taken or penalty applied. This approach relies on a commitment to engage and the rewards are implicit in the design. It also reflects the idea of running a community of equals. The group dynamic needs to be honest about the need for preparation, but pragmatic when this slips. If the facilitation works well then even those who have not prepared should be invited and able to contribute experience, and hopefully then inspired to retrospectively visit the online class.

A human process not a technical one: Flipped classroom may evoke thoughts about complex online tools and an unfathomable methodology of teaching promoted by centres of e-learning and academic development, but for me the experience of flipped classroom is a fundamentally human process which involves a respect the opportunity to explore individual experience and knowledge. It allows social learning and creates space for the discussion of any issues arising that matter to the group. I hope the language around this practice, and the identity of the learning model as slightly exotic, does not take away from the collegial simplicity, which resonates with traditional seminar based learning.

Support for the flipped approach from participants was demonstrated in three distinct ways: i) the adoption of flipped classroom by some group members ii) protest when classes are not flipped iii) outstanding, highly personalized, deeply connected assignments to demonstrate the culmination of meaningful engagement (though I am a little bias on the last point).

If I had a point nine on my list, it would be to keep faith that the approach will pay off, even when there is angst about its effectiveness. That said, when I saw in the module assessments that we had reached our destination (albeit a fleeting one on the way to the next module) I was very relieved!

 

 

Releasing slides before lectures – is it really a good idea?

I’ve recently been considering the risks and benefits of sharing presentational slides before lectures, and the effect it has on both attendance and performance. Some conclusions from my scoping are shared below. This review is not a recommendation that linear presentation software should be used in classes, clearly this is not the only way to structure learning.

Sharing lecture slides (almost universally PowerPoint slides) before a class is widely believed to not negatively impact attendance (e.g. by Billings-Gagliardi & Mazor, 2007; Frank, Shaw & Wilson, 2009; Worthington, & Levasseur, 2015). Billings-Gagliardi & Mazor (2007) conclude “Fears that the increasing availability of technology-enhanced educational materials has a negative impact on lecture attendance seem unfounded” (2007, p573). The evidence is not entirely unanimous though, with some research, particularly before 2006, pointing to a connection between pre-lecture release and attendance.

In Sambrook & Rowley’s (2010) research students reported that their peers have used slides as a substitute for attendance, but even so, non-attendance was most likely to be linked to other factors such as illness or crisis, and slides were likely to be an assistive facility rather than a root cause of non-attendance. Dolnicar’s (2005) research showed why students attend lectures – he included such factors as students wanting to: find out what they are supposed to know;  avoid missing important information;  find out about assessment; and make sure they learn the key content. They also attended because of university expectations. Others, for example Fitzpatrick, Cronin, & Byrne (2011), have looked at reasons for non-attendance  and reported factors such as curriculum overload issues and poor quality of teaching. It is perhaps unsurprising that, according to the balance of this evidence, lecture notes alone don’t appear to have an impact on attendance.

Within their research on making slides available through online environments, Sambrook & Rowley noted that “The most emphatic response [in their survey] was to the statement “lecture notes should be available on Blackboard” … the availability of webnotes has become expected” (2010, p.35). The value placed on pre-release of slides is also emphasised in students own pro-active stance on virtual learning environments (see for example Cain, 2012).

Research shows that electronic materials, which are shared before a class, are perceived as helpful to students’ preparation for learning, which in turn encourages attendance (Billings-Gagliardi & Mazor, 2007; Sambrook & Rowley, 2010). Specifically, as a result of advanced publication of notes online, students reported: i) better opportunity to retain content in the lecture when they had prepared, ii) being more organised in note taking iii) recognition of opportunities to pick out areas of the lecture where they will need further explanation (e.g. to ‘zone in’ during actual classes) – these points were especially important for international students and students with dyslexia (Sambrook & Rowley, 2010). Additionally “[b]y posting slides before lecture, students have the opportunity to prepare in advance for class and perhaps feel more comfortable in volunteering thoughts and opinions” (Babb & Ross, 2009, p.878).

The sharing of slides before lectures is associated with better note taking and/or perceptions of better note taking (Frey & Birnbaum, 2002; Babb & Ross, 2009). Sambrook & Rowley (2010) suggest “Providing lecture notes in advance can address cognitive processing problems student face with working memory overload, when they are trying to both listen to the lecturer and write their own notes”. Some research does however point to an over reliance on slides as limiting note taking, so the benefit of processing information in note taking is diminished, in turn this could be linked to achievement: “In short, many instructors fear that … slides encourage less encoding and that less encoding will translate into less learning” (Washington & Levasseur, 2015, p.15). Often students note taking skills are not well developed (Haynes, McCarley, & Williams, 2015; Pardini et al. 2005). Making slides available in itself is not a silver bullet for note taking, but students do report using slides as a structure for their thoughts. Actions to develop skills note taking skills are recommended (Haynes, McCarley, & Williams , 2015).

Irrespective of early or late release, use of PowerPoint in a way that oversimplifies ideas can stifle discovery, hinder deeper learning, and provide knowledge in linear and disconnected forms (Kinchin, Chadha, & Kokotailo, 2008; Isseks, 20011). Sambrook & Rowley, through their review of literature, indicate that slides can be associated with knowledge being fashioned in restricted ways, but they go on to add that this is a consequence of the way the tool is used rather than the tool per se. Maxwell (2012), Apperson, Laws, & Scepansky (2008) and Iseeks (2011) advise that the use of bullet points on PowerPoints should be reduced with more use being made of visual stimulus and lecturer engagement to provoke deeper, authentic and human engagement and to “complement and enhance” delivery (Maxwell, 2012, p. 48).

Having explored some literature it is clear that early release of slides is an increasing expectation. There are considerable benefits of early release to some students (particularly international, dyslexic and those with less confidence to speak out in class). On balance, understandable lecturer concerns about attendance are unsupported in more recent literature and there is even evidence that some more vulnerable students are more likely to attend classes if given time to prepare. The factors affecting lecture attendance concern a wide range of variables; where these lead to non-attendance, the slides provide a helping hand. Nevertheless, it is also clear that efforts to develop note-taking skills in students and the development of skills in the effective use of PowerPoint for educators would be well placed, to avoid students falling asleep with their eyes open (such is the title of a paper by O’Rouke et al, 2014) . In reaching this conclusion it does throw up a puzzle – if we use presentation tools for pictures, artifacts and stimuli, instead of an explicit guide to content, is their any point adding these to a virtual learning environment before a lecture? There is no evidence either way, or at least none that I have found, but presumably  some other means of pre-class indication of what to expect would enable the benefits of early release of slides outlined above (which rather presume a focus on course content) to be realised while maintaining engagement through a more creative use of presentational software.

Finally, it may be useful to note that there is experimentation occurring in to how to support learning through alternative technologies, particularly as the university’s role as authoritative transmitter of knowledge is under review, again O’Rouke’s paper provides a useful starting point for considering other modus operandi for the provision of resources.

References to download

This research was used to inform institutional guidance on inclusive practice  

Looking at the value of lecture capture

Looking at lecture capture led me to ask questions about the technology’s effectiveness. I can’t help feel that lecture capture is  counter-intuitive, since we know transmission based learning is less effective than active learning (so, why would we invest more in it and replicate it?) and we know that concentration spans for online engagement don’t readily lend themselves to hour long broadcasts (my own concentration sees frustration after 15 minutes!). Nevertheless adoption is on the increase  and students clearly appreciate the opportunity to apply catch up TV principles to learning – they value the flexibility.

As lecture capture heads towards the mainstream, I thought it useful to look at the evidence of the benefits and challenges of this technology, especially in light of a prediction that we may begin to move away from capturing lectures to viewing lectures as performances – something Professor Phil Race constantly emphasises with the idea of making the lecture unmissable and engaging.

My reading notes can be downloaded but the headline points were:

  1. More research is needed in to actual, rather than perceived effectiveness of lecture capture.
  2. Students appreciate lecture capture and believe it helps learning but the actual impact is unclear. Critically there is little or no evidence that lecture capture really impacts performance. Some subsets of users appear to show higher scores, but this may be associated with their diligence rather than the impact of heavy usage of downloads.
  3. The circumstances in which lecture capture is effective and the reasons for it are also unclear. Research suggests that content heavy subjects are best suited to this technology and interactive subjects less so, and this makes good common sense. By implication then, this point raises the question would lecture capture lead to a less interactive delivery style?
  4. Lecture capture is suspected as having a connection with more effective note taking and students appear to selectively watch lectures to address tricky concepts. These recurrent findings, irrespective of the growth of lecture capture, point to the value of addressing how students take notes as an academic skill and raise the question of how media can be used to address difficult concepts in watchable and debunking, even (dare I say) enjoyable ways.

If they are useful please help yourself to my lecture capture quick notes.

Jing-tastic; Audio visual tool

During a summer of local and international educational development workshops ‘Jing’ has had many outings. I was struck to see how this really simple facility never fails to make people say – “wow, I can really use that”. It’s a low ceiling technology with transformative potential. From my summer ‘tour’ here are some thoughts on how Jing can be used productively by those involved in teaching and supporting learning.

Formative feedback – an assignment walk through
As described here and also by Russell Stannard , Jing can be used to offer feedback on actual assignment work by enabling a visual-voice combination to be used. Feedback can be given and related to the assignment on screen. Early signs are that this approach is widely enjoyed by students who particularly value the ability to play and replay the feedback; the personal tones of the feedback; and, the privacy and convenience of getting the feedback in a location that suits them.

Best bits and “no no’s”(one to many feedback)
To feed forward and enable one group to learn from another, Jing can be a way of presenting good practice and things to avoid. This needs a little care to avoid showing individuals up, but with careful doctoring any ethical issues can be avoided! This can be used as a group feedback method, and can be a useful interim form of feedback when individual comments can’t be provided in time to be useful for the next assessment. Such videos can be added to the VLE or sent direct to students.

Correction
In addition to providing feedback, Jing can assist with directly facilitating corrections. This, I find, is particularly helpful with very specific and detailed tasks. The visual element can help enable the recipient to use tools to make future changes. An example would be a student who has issues with alignment being shown how to use the facility in Word, which shows the spaces and tab marks. In discussion with colleagues I am advised that the same principles may carry to correction of language or sentence structure.

Peer feedback
Lots of attention s being given to teacher led Jing feedback, but this is freeware and as a result can be easily utilised for students giving peer to peer feedback. This might even help with communication skills and confidence.

Summative feedback – a tour of the mark sheet
Students have fed back their desire to know how marks have been allocated. One way this can be brought about is through the use of Jing to discuss the mark itself; perhaps by the tutor talking through the feedback sheet, one section or outcome at a time. In this way Jing can be a useful complementary technology.

A reflective tool for students (an audio layer in the battle against plagiarism)
One of the ways we can mitigate plagiarism, and encourage learners to reflect on their learning processes, is through the inclusion of an annotated bibliography in any assignment. As an alternative, perhaps catering for different styles and preferences, students could review their own assignment and create a walk through of any difficult points, any areas that they feel could be improved and any things they would do different in future. They could also comment on how they found particular readings cited in their work.

Recalling assumptions (project management tool)
As part of my role is project management, Jing also helps with remembering what we did and why. A two minute voice over on a spreadsheet means that when we go back and think how on earth did we arrive at x, y or z, that we have the detail captured from the moment. Jing is now, therefore, becoming a favourite of accountants and data managers as well as teachers!

Apps 2012

Image

As I have progressed through my EdD my ways of working have got a little smarter. There are four apps that have served me well in 2012 for supporting my studies …

1. Reminders (so in the hours where I have too much to do I can remember what they were!)

2. Good Reader – managing my online library downloads and annotating my reading without reams of paper. By far the best reading app I have found (still).

3. Good notes – high levels of functionality, a great jotter and annotator – good for generating diagrams and mapping out thoughts.

4. Splashtop – allows my desktop (including Endnote) to be fully functional from my ipad or phone. Excellent when not wanting to be stuck at my desk.

Two more fab apps (not study related)  for 2012 have been

5. Screenchomp – Jing for the ipad – great for audio visual feedback for students and again this means there is no need to be desk bound.

6. Spelling – my best parenting app! So the kids can input the spelling list for the week and then run the tests until the spellings stick. Very motivational for kids who hate spelling.

The Jing feedback experiment

Since the last post on Jing (screen capture) I have tried it out more intensively by making 45 videos for formative feedback on personal development. I received draft submissions from students, opened them on the screen, started the video capture and recorded as I went.

Lessons learnt …

  • Read through once only and highlight in yellow any areas where a comment should be made (a higher level of scripting than that means you may as well write the feedback first )
  • Live with imperfection. Unless you edit the feedback in an audio editor, Jing is one take only. Live with the odd, ‘errr…..’ … pause or stumble or else the videos will take a ridiculous amount of time.
  • Manage expectations: Jing feedback was sought once word got around, this created a rush at the last minute. For the sake of workload give cut offs, and only feedback on a pre-determined amount of work.
  • Opt out not in. Given the openness of feedback, being technically accessible by others and given the alternative nature of the approach brief students and tell them what you are doing and why, and offer an opt out. No-one chose this.
  • Practice makes efficient. The first handful of videos took forever. Had I not made a public commitment to do this I would have ditched it out of sheer frustration. It did get better.
  • Using other types of video in class meant that this was a familiar approach to students. It was in synch with classroom methods. For example, I used video feedback to playback a critique of a case study.
  • It saved an awful amount of time by removing the need for proofing my own feedback.

While it may seem labour intensive to offer 45 verbal feedbacks I was secure in the knowledge that 45 written feedback attempts would take an awful lot longer. The depth of the feedback was also more than could have been realistically achieved on paper. You can say a lot in 5 minutes.

What did the students think …

  • Students thought this was fantastic!
  • ‘Like a conversation’
  • Personalised
  • ‘It was like having a one to one tutorial’
  • Enabled them to work through changes one at a time with the video open and their work open at the same time
  • Only one technical glitch was reported
  • Lots of feedback is possible in this way

Other Jing ideas…

An alternative approach I saw recently was a tutor talking through the grade sheet. Giving a verbal commentary on why decisions were made as they were. A different take on Jing.

As a spin off from this work, experimentation shows Jing can work well with White Board technology too, so that in-class examples can be used and taken away. A blue tooth mic and you’re away …

(How to make a Jing feedback video is outlined here http://www.techsmith.com/education-tutorial-feedback-jing.html )