Improving Oral Presentations: Inserting Subtitles in Videos for Targeted Feedback

Main Article Content

Hanna Yang
Lauren F.V. Scharff

Abstract

Instructors are increasingly using videotaping in addition to written summarized feedback to develop oral presentation skills, but reviewing videotapes with students can be a time-consuming process. Moreover, students may find that summarized feedback, which is displaced from the video itself, is vague and unhelpful. This project investigated a new way for instructors to deliver targeted feedback within video recordings, and embedded the new approach within other best practices (e.g. rubrics, guided self-reflection). We compared two groups (N=31) across two presentations, with one group first receiving videotapes that included interjected feedback, much like subtitles, in their videos, while the other group first received raw videotapes and met face-to-face with their instructor to review their performance. Despite the significant student perception that face-to-face feedback was more useful, our results showed that interjected feedback was more helpful for developing students’ style skills, and there was no difference in improvement across presentations for content, organization and response to audience. Across both groups, students reported great benefit of video feedback because it provided them with a third-party perspective of their own performance. Furthermore, interjected feedback provided instructors with a substantial time savings compared to the face-to-face meetings.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Yang, H., & Scharff, L. F. (2013). Improving Oral Presentations: Inserting Subtitles in Videos for Targeted Feedback. Journal of Teaching and Learning With Technology, 2(1), 1–14. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/jotlt/article/view/3651
Section
Articles
Author Biographies

Hanna Yang, U.S. Air Force Academy

Assistant Professor of Law

Lauren F.V. Scharff, U.S. Air Force Academy

Director for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
Professor of Behavioral Sciences

References

Amirault, R. J., & Visser, Y. L. (2009). The university in periods of technological change: A historically grounded perspective. The Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21(1).

Andrade, H. (1997). Understanding rubrics. Educational Leadership, 54, 14-17. http://www.jcu.edu/academic/planassess/pdf/Assessment%20Resources/Rubrics/Other%20Rubric%20Development%20Resources/rubric.pdf

Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbooks 1 to 3: The cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domain. London: Longman.

Byrne, A.J., Sellen, A.J., Jones, J.G., Aitkenhead, A.R., Hussain, S., Gilder, F., Smith, H.L., & Ribes, P. (2002). Effect of videotape feedback on anesthetists’ performance while managing simulated anesthetic crises: A multicentre study, Anaesthesia, 57, 169-82. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2044.2002.02361.x/pdf

Chang, N., Watson, A.B., Bakerson, M.A., Williams, E. E., McGoron, F. X., & Spitzer, B. (2012). Electronic feedback or handwritten feedback: What do undergraduate students prefer and why? Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, 1(1), 1-23. http://jotlt.indiana.edu/article/view/2043/1996

Cooper, D. (2005). Assessing what we have taught: The challenges faced with the assessment of oral presentation skills, Proceedings HERDSA, University of Sydney, Australia. http://conference.herdsa.org.au/2005/pdf/refereed/paper_283.pdf

Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2004). Conditions under which assessment supports student’s learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1, 3-3. http://www2.glos.ac.uk/offload/tli/lets/lathe/issue1/issue1.pdf#page=5

Hooper, S., & Rieber, L.P. (1995). Teaching with technology. Teaching: Theory into practice, Needham Heights: Allyn and Bacon. http://www.d11.org/LRS/PersonalizedLearning/Documents/Hooper+and+Reiber.pdf

Kovach, K. (1996). Virtual reality testing: The use of video for evaluation in legal education, Journal of Legal Education, 46(June), 233-251.

Lundstrum, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer’s own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 30-43.

McKeachie, W.J., & Svinicki, M. (2006). McKeachie’s teaching tips, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Newell, A., & Rosenbloom, P. (1980). Mechanisms of skill acquisition and the law of practice. Computer Science Department Paper 2387. retrieved 16 April 2013 http://repository.cmu.edu/compsci/2387

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. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03075070600572090

Price, M., Handley, K., Millar, J., & O’Donovan, B. (2010). Feedback: All that effort, but what is the effect? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(3), 277-289.

Robert, P., & Anthony, H. (2003). A study of the purposes and importance of assessment feedback. University of Technology, Sydney. http://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/research/bitstream/handle/10453/6323/2003002119.pdf?sequence=1

Savoldelli, G.L., Naik, V.N., Park, J., Joo, H.S., & Hamstra, S.J. (2006). Value of debriefing during simulated crisis management, Anesthesiology, 105, 279-85. http://journals.lww.com/anesthesiology/Abstract/2006/08000/Value_of_Debriefing_during_Simulated_Crisis.10.aspx

Stevens, D. D., & Levi, A. J. (2005). Introduction to rubrics: An assessment tool to save grading time, convey effective feedback and promote student learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC.

Responses on Legal Research and Writing Listserv (LRWPROF-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU), December 2011

Winter, C., & Dye, V.L. (2004). An investigation into the reasons why students do not collect marked assignment and the accompanying feedback. Learning and Teaching Projects 2003/2004. University of Wolverhampton. http://wlv.openrepository.com/wlv/bitstream/2436/3780/1/An%2520investigation%2520pgs%2520133-141.pdf.