Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer


Vol. 26 No. 1 (2023)

Teachers’ Perceptions Toward Video as a Tool for Feedback on Students’ Oral Performance

April 13, 2022


Video technology has the potential to improve opportunities for students to benefit from feedback that is essential for learning. However, previous studies have all dealt with videos of tutors, rather than videos of students’ performances. This study explores whether video technology contributes to the quality of feedback on students’ oral language performance and investigates how language teachers perceive contemporary technology regarding student education. Participants in the study were eight incumbent teachers involved in language education. The interview data suggested that the teachers seemed to be very positive about using video technology as a tool for feedback. The technology not only allowed for evidence-based accounts which served to enrich the quality of feedback, but also enabled them to highlight specific aspects of oral performances and create feedback that is conducive to understanding. The findings of this study showed that technology-enhanced evidence-based feedback will be able to provide an important supplement to written feedback, adding one more mode for an effective feedback process.


  1. Abdous, M. H., & Yoshimura, M. (2010). Learner outcomes and satisfaction: A comparison of live video-streamed instruction, satellite broadcast instruction, and face-to-face instruction. Computers & Education, 55, 733-741.
  2. Abrahamson, E. (2010). Assessment through video-feedback on an undergraduate sports rehabilitation programme. Higher Education Academy [HEA] Case Study.
  3. Almurashi, W. A. (2016). The effective use of YouTube videos for teaching English language in classrooms as supplementary material at Taibah University in Alula. International Journal of English Language Linguistics Research, 4(3), 32-47.
  4. Alwehaibi, H. O. (2015). The impact of using Youtube in EFL classroom on enhancing EFL students' content learning. Journal of College Teaching, 12(2), 121-126.
  5. Amiri, A., Wang, J., Slater, N. K. H., & Najdanovic-Visak, V. (2021). Enhancement of process modelling and simulation evaluation by deploying a test for assessment and feedback individualisation. Education for Chemical Engineers, 35, 29-36.
  6. Ardiansyah, L. (2018). Using videos in the teaching of listening. Jurnal Ilmiah Mandala Education, 4(1), 290.
  7. Bao, W. (2020). COVID‐19 and online teaching in higher education: A case study of Peking University. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2(2), 113-115.
  8. Bertolo-Pardo, E., Jones, P., & Carlton, K. (2012). Feedback and feed forward: Using video podcast to provide student feedback on past examinations and as revision aids. Higher Education Academy STEM Annual Conference 2012.
  9. Bitchener, J. (2012). Written corrective feedback for L2 development: Current knowledge and future research. TESOL Quarterly, 46(4), 855–860.
  10. Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. Routledge.
  11. Bracher, M., Collier, R., Ottewill, R., & Shepard, K. (2005). Accessing and engaging with video streams for educational purposes: Experiences, issues and concerns. Research in Learning Technology, 13(2).
  12. Brick, B., & Holmes, J. (2008). Using screen capture software for student feedback: Towards a methodology. Proceedings of the IADIS International Conference on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in the Digital Age (CELDA 2008) (pp. 339-342). IADIS Press.
  13. Brown, S., & Knight, P. (1994). Assessing learners in higher education. Taylor & Francis.
  14. Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
  15. Campbell, T. (1997). Technology, multimedia, and qualitative research in education. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 30(2), 122-132.
  16. Canale, G. (2019). Technology, multimodality and learning: Analyzing meaning across scales. Palgrave Macmillan.
  17. Cann, A. (2014). Engaging students with audio feedback. Bioscience Education, 22(1), 31-41.
  18. Cann, A. J. (2007). Podcasting is dead. Long live video! Bioscience Education, 10(1), 1-4.
  19. Çelik, S., Baran, E., & Sert, O. (2018). The affordances of mobile-app supported teacher observations for peer feedback. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning (IJMBL), 10(2), 36-49.
  20. Crook, A., Mauchline, A., Maw, S., Lawson, C., Drinkwater, R., Lundqvist, K., Orsmond, P., Gomez, S., & 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.
  21. Debuse, J., Lawley, M., & Shibl, R. (2007). The implementation of an automated assessment feedback and quality assurance system for ICT courses. Journal of Information Systems Education, 18(4), 491-502.
  22. Dunlop, M. (2017). Maximizing feedback for language learning: English language learners' attention, affect, cognition and usage of computer-delivered feedback from an English language reading proficiency assessment [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Toronto.
  23. El-Dib, M. A. B. (2007). Levels of reflection in action research. An overview and an assessment tool. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(1), 24-35.
  24. Erlingsson, C., & Brysiewicz, P. (2017). A hands-on guide to doing content analysis. African Journal of Emergency Medicine, 7(3), 93-99.
  25. Felix, U. (2005). Analyzing recent CALL effectiveness research: Towards a common agenda. Computer-Assisted Language Learning, 18(1-2), 1-32.
  26. Ferris, D. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(32), 181–201.
  27. Flor, M., & Futagi, Y. (2012). On using context for automatic correction of non-word misspellings in student essays. [Conference presentation]. The 7th Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications (BEA), Montréal, Canada.
  28. Gunada, I. S., & Wayan, I. (2017). Using YouTube video: An IT-based media to improve students’ speaking skill. [Unpublished manuscript]. Department of English Language Education, Ganesha University of Education.
  29. Harris, L. R., Brown, G. T., & Harnett, J. A. (2014). Understanding classroom feedback practices: A study of New Zealand student experiences, perceptions, and emotional responses. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 26(2), 107-133.
  30. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112.
  31. Henderson, M., & Phillips, M. (2015). Video-based feedback on student assessment: Scarily personal. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(1).
  32. Hennessy, C., & Forrester, G. (2014). Developing a framework for effective audio feedback: a case study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(7), 777-789.
  33. Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288.
  34. Huang, H.-T. D., & Hung, S.-T. A. (2013). Exploring the utility of a video-based online EFL discussion forum. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(3).
  35. Irons, A. (2007). Enhancing learning through formative assessment and feedback. Routledge.
  36. Körkkö, M., Kyrö-Ämmälä, O., & Turunen, T. (2022). VEO as part of reflective practice in the primary teacher education programme in Finland. In P. Seedhouse (Ed.), Video enhanced observation for language teaching: Reflection and professional Development (pp. 83-96). Bloomsbury Academic.
  37. Körkkö, M., Morales Rios, S., & Kyrö-Ämmälä, O. (2019). Using a video app as a tool for reflective practice. Educational Research, 61(1), 22-37.
  38. Lavolette, E., Polio, C., & Kahng, J. (2015). The accuracy of computer-assisted feedback and students’ responses to it. Language Learning & Technology, 19(2), 50-68.
  39. Lipnevich, A., & Smith, J. (Eds.). (2018). The Cambridge handbook of instructional feedback. Cambridge University Press.
  40. Liu, M., Moore, Z., Graham, L., & Lee, S. (2002). A look at the research in computer-based technology use in second language learning: A review of literature from 1990–2000. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(3), 250–273.
  41. 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, 759-769.
  42. Lyster, R., Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1999). A response to Truscott’s “What’s wrong with oral grammar correction.” Canadian Modern Language Review, 55(4), 457.
  43. Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(4), 471-497.
  44. Mann, S., & Walsh, S. (2017). Reflective practice in English language teaching: Research-based principles and practices. Routledge.
  45. Marriott, P., & Teoh, L. K. (2012). Using screencasts to enhance assessment feedback: Students’ perceptions and preferences. Accounting Education, 21(6), 583-598.
  46. Martínez-Arboleda, A. (2018). Audiovisual student feedback (ASF) in higher education: Teaching and power. The International Journal of E-Learning and Educational Technologies in the Digital Media (IJEETDM), 4(4), 98-113.
  47. Mathisen, P. (2012). Video feedback in higher education: A contribution to improving the quality of written feedback. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 7(2), 97-116.
  48. Mayer, R. (Ed.). (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press.
  49. McCarthy, J. (2015). Evaluating written, audio and video feedback in higher education summative assessment tasks. Issues in Educational Research, 25(2), 153-169.
  50. McLaughlin, P., Kerr, W., & Howie, K. (2007). Fuller, richer feedback, more easily delivered, using tablet PCs. Proceedings for the 11th International Conference on Computer Aided Assessment.
  51. Michael, H., & Michael, P. (2015). Video-based feedback on student assessment: Scarily personal. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(1).
  52. Miller, P., & Haines, J. (2022). From teaching to learning: The development of the VEO App. In P. Seedhouse (Ed.), Video enhanced observation for language teaching: Reflection and professional development (pp. 21-38). Bloomsbury Academic.
  53. Munshi, C., & Deneen, C. (2018). Technology-enhanced feedback. In A. Lipnevich & E. Panadero (Eds.), A review of feedback models and theories: Descriptions, definitions, and conclusions (pp. 335-356). Cambridge University Press.
  54. Nassaji, H., & Kartchava, E. (2017). Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications. Routledge.
  55. Orsmond, P., & Merry, S. (2011). Feedback alignment: Effective and ineffective links between tutors' and students' understanding of coursework feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36, 125-136.
  56. Oxford, R., Park-Oh, Y., It, S., & Sumrall, M. (1993). Japanese by satellite: Effects of motivation, language learning styles and strategies, gender, course level, and previous language learning experience on Japanese language achievement. Foreign Language Annals, 26(3), 359-371.
  57. Phillips, M., Henderson, M., & Ryan, T. (2016). Multimodal feedback is not always clearer, more useful or satisfying. Show Me The Learning. Proceedings ASCILITE, 514-522.
  58. Pisarenko, V. (2017). Teaching a foreign language using videos. Social Sciences, 6, 125.
  59. Prensky, M. (2005). Digital natives, digital immigrants. Gifted, (135), 29-31.
  60. Rahmatian, R., & Armiun, N. (2011). The effectiveness of audio and video documents in developing listening comprehension skill in a foreign language. International Journal of English Linguistics, 1(1), 290-304.
  61. Ranalli, J., Link, S., & Chukharev-Hudilainen, E. (2017). Automated writing evaluation for formative assessment of second language writing: Investigating the accuracy and usefulness of feedback as part of argument-based validation. Educational Psychology, 37(1), 8-25.
  62. Sauro, S. (2009). Computer-mediated corrective feedback and the development of L2 grammar. Languge Learning & Technology, 31(1), 96-120.
  63. Schmidt, J., Fleming, J., Ownsworth, T., & Lannin, N. A. (2013). Video feedback on functional task performance improves self-awareness after traumatic brain injury: a randomized controlled trial. Neurorehabilitation and neural repair, 27(4), 316-324.
  64. Seedhouse, P. (2022). Video enhanced observation for language teaching: Reflection and professional development. Bloomsbury Academic.
  65. Stannard, R. (2007). Using screen capture software in student feedback. H. E. Academy.
  66. Stannard, R. (2008). A new direction in feedback. Humanising language teaching, 10(6).
  67. Stirling, J. (2011). Teaching spelling to English language learners. Lulu.
  68. Tochon, F. (2008). A brief history of video feedback and its role in foreign language education. CALICO Journal, 25(3), 420-435.
  69. Truscott, J. (1999). What’s wrong with oral grammar correction. Canadian Modern Language Review, 55(4), 437-456.
  70. Van der Kleij, F., Adie, L., & Cumming, J. (2017). Using video technology to enable student voice in assessment feedback. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(5), 1092-1105.
  71. Walsh, S. (2022). SETTVEO: Evidence-based reflective practice and professional development. In P. Seedhouse (Ed.), Video enhanced observation for language teaching: Reflection and professional development (pp. 167-180). Bloomsbury Academic.
  72. Wang, Y.-H., & Young, S. S.-C. (2015). Effectiveness of feedback for enhancing English pronunciation in an ASR-based CALL system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(6), 493–504.
  73. Watkins, J., & Wilkins, M. (2011). Using YouTube in the EFL classroom. Language Education In Asia, 2, 113-119.
  74. 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.
  75. Yousefi, M., & Nassaji, H. (2019). A meta-analysis of the effects of instruction and corrective feedback on L2 pragmatics and the role of moderator variables: Face-to-face vs. computer-mediated instruction. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 170(2), 277–308.
  76. Ziegler, N. (2016). Synchronous computer-mediated communication and interaction: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(3), 553–586.