Electronic Theses and Dissertations

Ming Cheng

Date

2025

Document Type

Dissertation

Degree Name

Doctor of Philosophy

Department

English

Committee Chair

Rebecca Adams

Committee Member

Emily Thrush

Committee Member

Leah Windsor

Abstract

While research indicates that written corrective feedback (WCF) can promote learning of language and writing skills (Ferris, 2004; Bitchener, 2008), both students and teachers report persistent limitations. Students often find written comments difficult to interpret, while teachers consider them time-consuming to provide. Screencast corrective feedback (SCF) offers an alternative by utilizing screen recording technology to deliver audiovisual cues and personalized explanations that can reduce ambiguity and foster rapport (Harper et al., 2012). However, existing studies on SCF have largely emphasized learner perceptions rather than its measurable impact on language development (Cheng & Li, 2020). This dissertation investigates the comparative effectiveness of SCF and WCF in promoting revisions and long-term writing improvement among L2 learners in an intensive English program at a U.S. university. A mixed-methods, counterbalanced design was employed with international students across basic, intermediate, and advanced proficiency levels. Each participant completed two in-class writing tasks and received SCF on one and WCF on the other, followed by both revision and rewrite stages, as well as an exit survey. The dataset comprised 312 pieces of writing in total. Each instance of feedback was coded for error type (grammar, vocabulary, mechanics, cohesion, and content) and for learner response (adopted, not adopted, avoided). Statistical analysis using repeated-measures ANOVAs was complemented by survey data capturing learners’ attitudes toward each feedback mode. In revisions, both SCF and WCF proved effective, with learners correcting a high percentage of errors across all categories and no statistically significant difference between the two feedback types overall. However, in rewrites, SCF demonstrated clearer advantages, particularly for grammar, vocabulary, and content, whereas both feedback types were effective for spelling and punctuation. Learners expressed a clear preference for SCF, citing its clarity, personalization, and motivational effect, though some reported cognitive overload and technological barriers. These findings align with recent research showing the benefits of multimodal feedback for revision and engagement (Cao, 2023; Fatoni et al., 2024) while underscoring that feedback effectiveness is context-dependent (Penn & Brown, 2022). By situating SCF and WCF within authentic classroom practice, this study contributes empirical evidence that multimodal SCF can support both immediate uptake and sustained learning in L2 academic writing. Pedagogically, the results suggest that integrating SCF alongside WCF provides a sustainable and effective feedback strategy that enhances learner engagement while addressing the workload concerns of instructors.

Library Comment

Dissertation or thesis originally submitted to ProQuest.

Notes

Open Access

Download

Share

COinS
 

Archival Statement

This item was created or digitized prior to April 24, 2026, or is a reproduction of legacy media created before that date. It is preserved in its original, unmodified state specifically for research, reference, or historical recordkeeping. This material is part of a digital archival collection and is not utilized for current University instruction, programs, or active public communication. In accordance with the ADA Title II Final Rule, the University Libraries provides accessible versions of archival materials upon request. To request an accommodation for this item, please submit an accessibility request form.