CRONOGRAMA DE ACTIVIDADES

Previously, faster to learn (_XV=4.13) with the video artefact in SAF was the most popular goal amongst other video artefact related goals in the School (Table 6.14). Similarly, during the post-test

conditions, many students suggest that they learn faster with the video artefact in OSCE feedback because video in SAF is more effective and engaging (Cann, 2014; Henderson and Phillips, 2014). Equally, the students often relate faster to learn with the video artefact in SAF to the other video artefact related goals, including easier to remember (_XV =4.07) and paying more attention (_XV =4.07) as follows:

(PGS7): “It took me longer to read the feedback, but it was very fast to watch and learn in the video. Video felt more interesting and relevant somehow. With written text, you tend to skim over the text sometimes and not take in all the details. But somebody is taking to you, you are more inclined to listen, watch, and take in the details”. Aligning with these findings, the previous findings in the survey indicate that the students also find the video in SAF (_XV=4.13) to be faster to learn than the online-written (_XW=3.65) and audio (_XA =3.64) artefacts. For instance:

(PGS5): “I thought the lecturer has explained everything faster in video rather the written format. I found the audio very confusing to follow up the sections the lecturer was mentioning. I think learning by watching is much faster too….For my performance, I think I remember more from the video than written text”.

Subsequently, the audio artefacts in SAF are lacking visual descriptions for its effectiveness (McCarthy, 2015; Gould and Day,

2013). Hence, although many students can be satisfied with the audio artefact in SAF, some students still prefer the online-written artefact for making sense of visual comments by annotations (Morris and Chikwa, 2016). In fact, lack of visual cues for signposting in the audio artefact in SAF can become an issue for review and revision purposes:

(PGS7): “audio feedback was difficult to remember. For example, I was easily able to go back and search for a specific sentence with video and written feedback. It was difficult to remember where to find the information with audio. There is no signposting or markers for reference on it”.

Furthermore, length of audio recordings is also crucial, due to a risk of students’ attention diminishing during long asynchronous recordings (Hepplestone et al., 2011). For example, regarding the students with disabilities in the School, the student mentions that: (UGS10-Dyslexic): “I am dyslexic. So, reading can be slower, seeing and hearing is much faster. I much prefer the video because I can watch and hear it. But, I am also comfortable with audio. If multimedia is too long, I can’t concentrate”.

On the contrary, although average length of the video artefacts in OSCE feedback are higher than audio under the intervention conditions, many students feel that SAF with the video artefact is faster to learn through both visual demonstrations and auditory

descriptions as well as motivational with positive emotional words, rather than textual referencing errors (Henderson and Phillips, 2014; Turner and West, 2016; Harrison et al., 2015). The following student comment is indicative of their common agreements in the study:

(UGS3): “I wouldn’t say SAF with any multimedia were too long or short, but I was listening and watching the lecturer, so video feedback had a bigger impact on me. I think the written one was more confusing because I was looking for what I did wrong on the assessment”.

Next, there is a potential risk of ESOL students finding it more difficult to understand speed of verbal communications and various accents in audio and video artefacts (Voelkel and Mello, 2014) as: (UGS-ESOL9): “I think it was also important for me that my lecturer is talking very slowly on the video so I can understand everything said on the video”.

Finally, in the School, there are no statistically significant differences between the students for faster to learn with audio artefacts in SAF to improve their performance. However, the ANOVA test concludes that there are differences for the use of online- written and video artefacts (Table 6.34 and Table 6.35).

Operation Differences Independent

Variable (Goal): Q18. Faster to learn

Dependent Variable: Q13. My performance could be improved with the use of online-written artefact in SAF.

H1:

Faster to learn has an effect on improving students’ performance with online-written artefact in SAF.

1st difference:

There is a statistical difference between "Strongly Agree” and "Disagree" groups for faster to learn with online-written in SAF to improve their performance. "Strongly Agree" group suggests that faster to learn with online- written in SAF improves their performance. Mean difference is 0,700.

2nd difference:

There is a statistical difference between "Strongly Agree” and "Agree" groups for faster to learn with online-written in SAF to improve their performance. "Strongly Agree" group suggests that faster to learn with online-written in SAF improves their performance. Mean difference is 0,480.

Table 6.34: H1 Hypothesis, Faster to Learn and Online-Written Artefact

Operation Differences Independent

Variable (Goal): Q36. Faster to learn

Dependent Variable: Q15. My performance could be improved with the use of video artefact in SAF.

H9: Faster to learn has an effect on improving their performance with video artefact in SAF.

1st difference:

There are statistically significant differences between "Strongly Agree" and "Disagree" groups for faster to learn with video in SAF to improve their performance. "Strongly Agree" group suggests that faster to learn with video in SAF improves their performance. Mean difference is 2,039.

2nd difference:

There are statistically significant differences between "Agree" and "Disagree" groups for faster to learn with video in SAF to improve their performance. "Agree” group suggests that faster to learn with video in SAF improves their performance. Mean difference is 1,392.

3rd difference:

There are statistically significant differences between "Undecided" and "Disagree" groups for faster to learn with video in SAF to improve their performance. "Undecided” group suggests that faster to learn with video in SAF improves their performance. Mean difference is 1,046.

4th _difference:

There are statistically significant differences between "Strongly Agree" and "Undecided" groups for faster to learn with video in SAF to improve their performance. "Strongly Agree" group suggests that faster to learn with video in SAF improves their performance. Mean difference is 0,993.

Table 6.35: H9 Hypothesis, Faster to Learn and Video Artefact

Thus, although faster to learn (_XV =4.13) is the highest score for the video artefact in SAF, there are still statistically significant

differences between the students for faster to learn to improve their performance with video artefacts in the School.