Cover not available
Part of
Language-Learner Computer Interactions: Theory, methodology and CALL applications
Edited by Catherine Caws and Marie-Josée Hamel
[Language Studies, Science and Engineering 2] 2016
► pp. 137–162

Video screen capture to document and scaffold the L2 writing process

 | University of Ottawa, Canada
 | University of Ottawa, Canada
This chapter explores the potential of video screen capture (VSC) as a technology that can provide new insights when investigating learner-computer interactions in CALL research, and that can play a mediating role in second language (L2) writing pedagogy. Arguments are put forward as to why CALL researchers and language educators should be interested in this accessible and flexible tool. Three studies are described to consolidate these arguments. The first one, a usability study, investigates L2 learners’ dictionary search processes in the context of the design of an online dictionary prototype. The second study examines the composition processes and strategies of L2 writers. The third study looks at the pertinence and added value of integrating VSC in the L2 writing class. Affordances of VSC arose from these studies. VSC emerged as a powerful documentation tool enabling the collection of process-oriented learner data and new forms of dynamic corpora. It also emerged as a retrospection tool capable of supporting L2 writers in their literacy development and as a scaffolding tool to provide multimodal feedback on L2 written output.
Keywords: affordances, dynamic learner corpora, L2 writing process, learner-computer interaction, video screen capture
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 14 June 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lsse.2.07ham
References (48)
References
Barbier, M.L., & Spinelli-Jullien, N. (2009). On-line tools for investigating writing strategies in L2. German as a Foreign Language, 2(3), 23-40.Google Scholar
Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning. London, United Kingdom: Longman.Google Scholar
Bevan, N. (2009). Extending quality in use to provide a framework for usability measurement. InM. Kurosu(Ed.), Human Centered Design (pp.13–22). Proceedings of HCI International 2009, San Diego, California, USA. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carr, A., & Ly, P. (2009). “More than words”: Screencasting as a reference tool. Reference Services Review, 37(4), 408–420. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chun, D. (2013). Contributions of tracking user behaviour to SLA research. InP. Hubbard, M. Schulze, & B. Smith(Eds.), Learner-computer interaction in language education. A festschrift in honor of Robert Fischer (pp. 256–262). San Marcos, TX: Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium.Google Scholar
Degenhardt, M. (2006). CAMTASIA and CATMOVIE: Two digital tools for observing, documenting and analysing writing processes of university students. InL. Van Waes, M. Leijten, & C. Neuwirth(Eds.), Writing and digital media (pp. 180–186). Leiden, Netherlands: Brill.Google Scholar
Dion, C. (2011). Tools to enhance second language writing autonomy: Can we do things better?InD. Gardner(Ed.), Fostering autonomy in language learning (pp. 64–76). Gaziantep, Turkey: Zirve University. Retrieved from <[URL]>Google Scholar
Drumheller, K., & Lawler, G. (2011). Capture their attention: Capturing lessons using screen capture software. College Teaching, 59(2), 93–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duff, P.A. (2010). Language socialization. InN. Hornberger(Ed.), Sociolinguistics and language education (pp. 427–454). Bristol, United Kingdom: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Fischer, R. (2007). How do we know what students are actually doing? Monitoring students’ behaviour in CALL. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(5), 409–442. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gass, S.M., & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Geisler, C., & Slattery, S. (2007). Capturing the activity of digital writing: Using, analysing, and supplementing video screen capture. InH.A. McKee & D.N. DeVoss(Eds.), Digital writing research: Technologies, methodologies, and ethical issues (pp. 185–200). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
Gibbons, P. (2003). Mediating language learning: Teacher interactions with ESL students in a content-based classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 247–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibson, J. (1997). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Gormely, K.A.Y., & McDermott, P. (2011). Do you jing? How screencasting can enrich classroom teaching and learning. Language and Literacy Spectrum, 21, 12–20.Google Scholar
Gow, J., Cairns, P., Colton, S., Miller, P., & Baumgarten, R. (2010). Capturing player with post-game commentaries. CGAT Conference 2010 . Retrieved from <[URL]>
Hacker D.J., Keener M.C., Kircher J.C. (2009). Writing is applied metacognition. InD. J. Hacker , J. Dunlosky , & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 154–172). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hamel, M.-J. (2013). Questionnaires to inform user tests in CALL. International Journal of Computer Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 3(3), 56–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2012). Testing aspects of the usability of an online learner dictionary prototype: A product and process-oriented study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25(4), 339–365.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hamel, M.-J., & Caws, C. (2010). Usability tests in call development: Pilot studies in the context of the Dire autrement and Francotoile projects. CALICO Journal, 27(3), 491–504. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hamel, M.J., Séror, J., & Dion, C. (2015). Writers in action! Modelling and scaffolding second-language learners’ writing process . Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario. Retrieved from <[URL]>
Hayes, J.R., & Flower, L.S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. InL. W. Gregg & E.R. Steinberg(Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3–30). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Jones, N., Georghiades, P., & Gunson, J. (2012). Student feedback via screen capture digital video: Stimulating student’s modified action. Higher Education, 64(5), 593–607. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Khan, S. (2011). Let’s use video to reinvent education. [Video file] Retrieved from &lt;[URL]&gt;
Kuniavsky, M. (2003). Observing the user experience. A practioner’s guide to user research. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J.P., & Thorne, S.L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lea, M.R. (2013). Reclaiming literacies: competing textual practices in a digital higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(1), 106–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levy, M. (2013). Design-based research and the quest for normalization in CALL. In 
J. Rodriguez & C. Pardo-Ballester(Eds.), Design-based research in CALL (Vol. 11, pp.31–40). CALICO Monograph Series. San Marcos, TX: Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium.Google Scholar
Little, D. (2007) Language learner autonomy: Some fundamental considerations revisited. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 14–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lotherington, H., & Jenson, J. (2011). Teaching multimodal and digital literacy in L2 settings: New literacies, new basics, new pedagogies. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 226–246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mathisen, P. (2012). Video feedback in higher education: A contribution to improving the quality of written feedback. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 7(2), 97–116.Google Scholar
Norman, D.A. (1998). The psychology of everyday things. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Olive, T., & Passerault, J.M. (2013). The visuospatial dimension of writing. Written Communication, 29(3), 326–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Park, K., & Kinginger, C. (2010). Writing/thinking in real time: Digital video and corpus query analysis. Language Learning & Technology, 14(3), 31–50. Retrieved from <[URL]>Google Scholar
Peterson, E. (2007). Incorporating screencasts in online teaching. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8(3), 1–4.Google Scholar
Price, J.B. (2010). Screencasting on a shoestring: Using jing. The Reference Librarian, 51(3), 237–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raby, F. (2005). A user-centered ergonomic approach to CALL research. InJ.L. Egbert & G. M. Petrie(Eds.), CALL Research Perspectives (pp. 179–190). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Roca de Larios, J., Manchón, R., Murphy, L., & Marín, J. (2008). The foreign language writer’s strategic behaviour in the allocation of time to writing processes. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(1), 30–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rubin, J., & Chisnell, D.E. (2008). Handbook of usability testing: How to plan, design, and conduct effective tests (2nd ed.). Indianapolis, IN: Wiley.Google Scholar
Sasaki, M. (2000). Toward an empirical model of EFL writing processes: An exploratory study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 259–291. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Séror, J. (2012). Show me! Enhanced feedback through screencasting technology. TESL Canada Journal, 30(1), 104–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Séror, J. (2013). Screen capture technology: A digital window into students’ writing processes/Technologie de capture d’écran: une fenêtre numérique sur le processus d’écriture des étudiants. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 39(3), 1–16.Google Scholar
Stapleton, P. (2010). Writing in an electronic age: A case study of L2 composing processes. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(4), 295–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toppo, G. (2011, October 7). ‘Flipped’ classrooms take advantage of technology. USA TODAY.Google Scholar
Van Waes, L., Leijten, M., Wengelin, Å., & Lindgren, E. (2012). Logging tools to study digital writing processes. InV.W. Berninger(Ed.), Past, present, and future contributions of cognitive writing research to cognitive psychology (pp. 507–533). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Victori, M. (1999). An analysis of writing knowledge in EFL composing: A case study of two effective and two less effective writers. System, 27(4), 537–555. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. 
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Yi, Y. (2014). Possibilities and challenges of multimodal literacy practices in teaching and learning English as an additional language. Language and Linguistics Compass, 8(4), 158–169. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Vinall, Kimberly, Wen Wen & Emily A. Hellmich
2024. Investigating L2 writers' uses of machine translation and other online tools. Foreign Language Annals 57:2 ► pp. 499 ff. DOI logo
Séror, Jérémie & Guillaume Gentil
2023. Chapter 7. Direct observation of writing activity. In Research Methods in the Study of L2 Writing Processes [Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 5], ► pp. 141 ff. DOI logo
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle
2021. The Process Corpus of English in Education: Going beyond the written text. Research in Corpus Linguistics 10:1 ► pp. 31 ff. DOI logo
Hamel, Marie-Josée & Louis-David Bibeau
2021. Pratiques (numériques) de rétroaction corrective des enseignants de langue et prototype d'outil numérique pour les optimiser. Alsic :Vol. 24, n° 2 DOI logo
Hellmich, Emily A.
2021. Machine Translation in Foreign Language Writing: Student Use to Guide Pedagogical Practice. Alsic :Vol. 24, n° 1 DOI logo
Hamel, Marie-Josée
2019. Bilingues, francophiles et citoyens du web ! / Bilinguals, Francophiles and Web Citizens!. CALICO Journal 36:3 ► pp. 162 ff. DOI logo
Gánem‐Gutiérrez, Gabriela Adela & Alexander Gilmore
2018. Tracking the Real‐Time Evolution of a Writing Event: Second Language Writers at Different Proficiency Levels. Language Learning 68:2 ► pp. 469 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.