Students’ Perceptions of the Use of Video Recording in Additional Language Oral Assessments

  • Qian GongEmail author
  • Kyoko Kawasaki
  • Wai Ling Yeung
  • Grace Zhang
  • Toni Dobinson
Part of the Multilingual Education book series (MULT, volume 30)


This study adds resources to the current research on computer-aided second-language (L2) learning by focusing on a relatively under-explored area of online oral assessment using video recording. It fills the gap of existing literature by looking into the area through the lens of students’ perception. Drawing on data collected through questionnaires and interviews of students enrolled in Chinese and Japanese language programs at Curtin University, this study found that video-recorded oral assessments facilitated L2 learning by improving learners’ motivation and encouraging self-reflection. The study also sheds light on the importance of technical and teamwork guidance in maximising learning outcomes. Data variations between beginners and advanced learners who participated in this study gave weight to the argument that a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach is not effective in online language learning, so facilitators may need to carefully evaluate the level of learners’ language competence when they are incorporating online components into their programs.


Language learning Video recording Reflection Collaboration 



We thank Yuko Asano-Cavanagh for help with data collection, Aki Kaneko for help with literature review, John D. Ball for proofreading and all the students who participated in this research project. We acknowledge with gratitude the eScholar grant awarded by Curtin University in 2012.


  1. Almekhlafi, A. (2006). The effect of computer assisted language learning (CALL) on United Arab Emirates English as a foreign language (EFL) school students’ achievement and attitude. Journal of Interactive Research, 17(2), 121–142.Google Scholar
  2. Al-Musawi, A., & Abdelraheem, A. (2004). E-learning at Sultan Qaboos University: Status and future. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(3), 363–367.Google Scholar
  3. Al-Senaidi, S., Lin, L., & Poirot, J. (2009). Barriers to adopting technology for teaching and learning in Oman. Computers & Education, 53, 575–590.Google Scholar
  4. Bani Hani, N. A. (2014). Benefits and barriers of computer assisted language learning and teaching in the Arab World: Jordan as a model. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(8), 1609–1615. Scholar
  5. Bánszki, F., Beilby, J., Quail, M., Allen, P. J., Brundage, S. B., & Spitalnick, J. (2018). A clinical educator’s experience using a virtual patient to teach communication and interpersonal skills. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 34(3), 60–73.Google Scholar
  6. Becker, H. J. (1994). Computer-based integrated learning systems in the elementary and middle grades: A critical review and synthesis of evaluation reports. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 8(1), 1–41.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, A. (1997). Designing for learning: What are the essential features of an effective online course? Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 13(2), 115–126.Google Scholar
  8. Brown, D., & Warschauer, M. (2006). From the university to the elementary classroom: Students’ experiences in learning to integrate technology in instruction. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(3), 599–621.Google Scholar
  9. Bueno-Alastuey, M. C., & Kleban, M. (2014). Matching linguistic and pedagogical objectives in a telecollaboration project: A case study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(1), 148–166.Google Scholar
  10. Chang, H., & Windeatt, S. (2016). Developing collaborative learning practices in an online language course. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(8), 1271–1286.Google Scholar
  11. Chia, C. S. C., & Ellis, M. (2003). PRC students’ experience with independent learning at the National Institute of Education, Singapore. In Proceedings of the independent learning conference 2003.Google Scholar
  12. Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  13. CTGV (Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt). (1990). Technology and the design of generative learning environments. Educational Technology, 31(5), 34–40.Google Scholar
  14. Dekhinet, R. (2008). Online enhanced corrective feedback for ESL learners in higher education. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(5), 409–425.Google Scholar
  15. Erben, T., Ban, R., Jin, L., Summers, R., & Eisenhower, K. (2013). Using technology for foreign language instruction: Creative innovations, research, and applications. In T. Erben & I. Sarieva (Eds.), Calling all foreign language teachers: Computer-assisted language learning in the classroom (pp. 13–36). New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Gu, P., & Xu, Z. (1999). Improving EFL learning environment through networking. In R. Debski & M. Levy (Eds.), World CALL: Global perspectives on computer-assisted language learning. Improving EFL learning environment through networking (pp. 169–184). Lisse: Swets & Zeiltlingers.Google Scholar
  17. Guo, R. X. (2013). The use of video recordings as an effective tool to improve presentation skills. Polyglossia, 24, 92–101.Google Scholar
  18. Hafner, C., & Miller, L. (2011). Fostering learner autonomy in English for science: A collaborative digital video project in a technological learning environment. Language Learning and Technology, 15(3), 68–86.Google Scholar
  19. Heins, B., Duensing, A., Stickler, U., & Batstone, C. (2007). Spoken interaction in online and face-to-face language tutorials. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(3), 279–295.Google Scholar
  20. Ilter, B. G. (2009). Effect of technology on motivation in EFL classrooms. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education (TOJDE), 10(4), 136–158.Google Scholar
  21. Jahnke, J. (2010). Student perceptions of the impact of online discussion forum participation on learning outcomes. Journal of Learning Design, 3(2), 27–34.Google Scholar
  22. Kearney, M., & Schuck, S. (2006). Spotlight on authentic learning: Student developed digital video projects. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 22(2), 189–208.Google Scholar
  23. Kessler, G. (2007). Formal and informal CALL preparation and teacher attitude toward technology. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(2), 173–188.Google Scholar
  24. Kessler, G., & Bikowski, D. (2010). Developing collaborative autonomous learning abilities in computer mediated language learning: Attention to meaning among students in wiki space. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(1), 41–58.Google Scholar
  25. Khine, M. S. (2001). Attitudes toward computers among teacher education students in Brunei Darussalam. International Journal of Instructional Media, 28(2), 147–153.Google Scholar
  26. Kim, H. K. (2008). Beyond motivation: ESL/EFL teachers’ perceptions of the role of computers. CALICO Journal, 25(2), 241–259.Google Scholar
  27. Lai, C., & Kritsonis, W. A. (2006). The advantages and disadvantages of computer technology in second language acquisition. National Journal for Publishing and Mentoring Doctoral Student Research, 3(1). Retrieved from
  28. Lee, L. (2002). Enhancing learners’ communication skills through synchronous electronic interaction and task-based instruction. Foreign Language Annuals, 35, 16–23.Google Scholar
  29. Lee, L. (2005). Using web-based instruction to promote active learning: Learners’ perspectives. CALICO Journal, 23(1), 139–156.Google Scholar
  30. Leung, C., & Lewkowicz, J. (2006). Expanding horizons and unresolved conundrums: Language testing and assessment. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 211–234.Google Scholar
  31. Lewis, J. (2016). Seven benefits of video-based assessment. Retrieved from file:///F:/Journal%20articles%20and%20submissions/Springer%20edited%20book%20-%20chapters%20etc/7%20Benefits%20of%20Video-Based%20Assessment%20_%20D2L%20Australia,%20New%20Zealand%20&%20Asia.htmlGoogle Scholar
  32. McNulty, A., & Lazarevic, B. (2012). Best practices in using video technology to promote second language acquisition. Teaching English with Technology, 12(3), 46–61.Google Scholar
  33. Meskill, C., Mossop, J., DiAngelo, S., & Pasquale, R. (2002). Expert and novice teachers talking technology: Precepts, concepts, and misconcepts. Language Learning and Technology, 6(3), 46–57.Google Scholar
  34. Müller, A., & Habel, C. (2012). Gaming to learn: Language in a clinical context. In C. Nygaard (Ed.), Transforming university teaching into learning via simulations and games (pp. 123–138). Oxfordshire: Libri Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
  35. Murday, K., Ushida, E., & Chenoweth, A. (2008). Learners’ and teachers’ perspectives on language online. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(2), 125–142.Google Scholar
  36. Newhouse, C. P., & Cooper, N. G. (2013). Computer-based oral exams and Italian language studies. ReCALL, 25(3), 321–339.Google Scholar
  37. Nikitina, L. (2011). Creating an authentic learning environment in the foreign language classroom. International Journal of Instruction, 4(1), 33–46.Google Scholar
  38. Nor, N., Hamat, A., & Embi, M. (2012). Patterns of discourse in online interaction: Seeking evidence of the collaborative learning process. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25(3), 237–256.Google Scholar
  39. Norris, D. M., Mason, J., Robson, R., Lefrere, P., & Collier, G. (2003). A revolution in knowledge sharing. Educause Review, 38, 15–26.Google Scholar
  40. Norton, J. (2013). Performing identities in speaking tests: Co-construction revisited. Language Assessment Quarterly, 10(3), 309–330.Google Scholar
  41. Penuel, W. R. (2006). Implementation and effects of 1:1 computing initiatives: A research synthesis. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(3), 329–348.Google Scholar
  42. Potter, J. (2005). ‘This brings back a lot of memories’: A case study in the analysis of digital video production by young learners. Education, Communication & Information, 5(1), 5–23.Google Scholar
  43. Presby, L. (2001). Seven tips for highly effective online courses. Syllabus, 14(11), 17.Google Scholar
  44. Radinsky, J., Bouillion, L., Lento, E., & Gomez, L. (2001). Mutual benefit partnership: A curricular design for authenticity. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33(4), 405–430.Google Scholar
  45. Reeves, T., Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2002). Authentic activities and online learning. In A. Goody, J. Herrington, & M. Northcote (Eds.), Quality conversations: Research and Development in higher education (Vol. 25, pp. 562–567). Jamison: ACT: HERDSA.Google Scholar
  46. Sato, E., Chen, J. C. C., & Jourdain, S. (2017). Integrating digital technology in an intensive, fully online college course for Japanese beginning learners: A standards-based, performance-driven approach. The Modern Language Journal, 101(4), 756–775.Google Scholar
  47. Scheffler, F., & Logan, J. (1999). Computer technology in schools: What teachers should know and be able to do. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31, 305–325.Google Scholar
  48. Shih, R. (2010). Blended learning using video-based blogs: Public speaking for English as a second language students. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(6), 883–897.Google Scholar
  49. Shrosbree, M. (2008). Digital video in the language classroom. The JALT CALL Journal, 4(1), 75–84.Google Scholar
  50. Swanson, P., & Early, P. (2008a). Digital recordings and assessment: An alternative for measuring oral proficiency. In A. Moeller, J. Theiler, & S. Betta (Eds.), CSCTFL report (pp. 129–143). Eau Claire: Central States Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.Google Scholar
  51. Swanson, P., & Early, P. (2008b). Technology for oral assessment: Recapturing valuable classroom time. In C. M. Cherry & C. Wilkerson (Eds.), Dimension: Proceedings of the southern conference on language teaching (pp. 39–48). Valdosta: SCOLT Publications.Google Scholar
  52. Weikart, L. A., & Marrapodi, M. (1999). The missing link: The technology infrastructure. Computers in the Schools, 15(2), 49–60.Google Scholar
  53. Whitton, N. (2010). Learning with digital games: A practical guide to engaging students in higher education. New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  54. Wozney, L., Venkatesh, V., & Abrami, P. C. (2006). Implementing computer technologies: Teachers’ perceptions and practices. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(1), 173–207.Google Scholar
  55. Zapata, G., & Sagarra, N. (2007). Call on hold: The delayed benefits of an on-line workbook on L2 vocabulary. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(2), 153–171.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Qian Gong
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kyoko Kawasaki
    • 2
  • Wai Ling Yeung
    • 3
  • Grace Zhang
    • 1
  • Toni Dobinson
    • 1
  1. 1.School of EducationCurtin UniversityPerthAustralia
  2. 2.School of Social SciencesUniversity of Western AustraliaPerthAustralia
  3. 3.Independent ResearcherPerthAustralia

Personalised recommendations