This document describes a study that developed and evaluated a protocol for video recording student group presentations. The protocol involved recording student group presentations, uploading the videos to a wiki environment for self-assessment, and surveying students' experiences. Survey results indicated that students found watching their video presentation to be an effective form of feedback that could help improve future group and individual performances. Content analysis of open-ended survey responses revealed that students gained deeper insights and awareness of their presentations through self-assessment. The study provided evidence that the video recording and self-assessment protocol engaged students and benefited their learning.

1. A video recording and viewing protocol for student group presentations: Assisting
self-assessment through a Wiki environment
Shane Barry*
Griffith Business School, Department of Tourism, Leisure, Hotel and Sport Management, Gold Coast campus, Griffith University, Queensland 4222, Australia
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 26 October 2011
Received in revised form
2 April 2012
Accepted 12 April 2012
Keywords:
Group feedback
Self-assessment
Group experience
Group presentations
ICTs
Wikis
Video
a b s t r a c t
The purpose of this research was to firstly develop a protocol for video recording student group oral
presentations, for later viewing and self-assessment by student group members. Secondly, evaluations of
students’ experiences of this process were undertaken to determine if this self-assessment method was
a positive experience for them in gaining insights into the quality of their group’s presentation. Partic-
ipants were students undertaking a first year course in a bachelor of business degree within an Australian
university. Students were surveyed twice, once prior to group formation to determine their previous oral
group presentation experiences and then after viewing their presentations. Data from survey items
assessing students’ perspectives on the utility of viewing their video presentations, within their group
Wikis, revealed that watching the video of their group presentation was an effective method of feedback
and could improve both group and individual performance in the future. Further, content analysis of
open ended survey questions and focus groups identified that students were highly engaged in the
activity and after reviewing and reflecting on their video recording had deeper insights and raised
awarenesses of making group presentations. Students identified that this experience would benefit any
future group oral presentations they made.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Group presentations are a common, if not integral, part of many students’ university experiences and are intrinsically tied to their current
and future work experiences (Elliott & Higgins, 2005; Nordberg, 2008). Also, it is widely understood that group oral presentations can be the
most rewarding or daunting experience a student will undertake (Biggs & Tang, 2007; Zhang, Johnston, & Kilic, 2008). As such, it is
incumbent on educators to design and facilitate group activities in such ways that engage students in meaningful learning experiences
(Joughin, 2007; White, Lloyd, Goldfried, Brew, & Sacha, 2007). This can be done through taking advantage of Information Communication
Technologies (ICTs), and related communication environments which students understand, regularly participate in and engage with in their
everyday lives.
The area of interest in which this study is couched relates to student group work assessment with a particular focus on using ICTs, where
video recorded student group oral presentations are made available to students for review in their own group Wiki, for self-assessment.
These types of student interactions with ICTs and the varying and adapting aspects of how they interact with them is usefully outlined
by Conole, de Laat, Dillon, and Darby (2008) when they identified eight factors relating to student ICT use characteristics: pervasive;
personalised; niche; adaptive; organised; transferable; time and space boundaries; changing working patterns; integrated. Simply, students
ever increasingly use ICTs in all aspects of their learning as a core component providing them with individual flexibility across their
academic pursuits, in line with their broader social utilisation of technologies. This study followed the adaptive nature of student use of ICTs
by development and implementation of a video self-assessment process to enhance students understanding and learning as related to their
group presentations and improve their own self-assessment skills (Mort & Hansen, 2010).
There is little doubt that a well designed self-assessment process for oral group presentations would be of benefit to both students and
teaching staff (Race, 2001). However the literature of self-assessment and related peer assessment is substantial and diverse, and has been
* Tel.: þ61 (0) 7 5552 8017; fax: þ61 (0) 7 5552 8507.
E-mail address: shane.barry@griffith.edu.au.
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Computers & Education
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compedu
0360-1315/$ – see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.008
Computers & Education 59 (2012) 855–860

2. well outlined by Nulty when he cites numerous authors from the 1970s through to the mid 2000s (Boud & Tyree 1979; Falchikov, 2004; as
cited in Nulty, 2011). Self-assessment in this study is not to be confused with the process of ‘self-assessment of group members by each
other’, of which there is also a variety of literature (Biggs & Tang, 2007; Zhang et al., 2008). Rather it is self-assessment by an individual group
member of their own efforts. In so doing it is generally acknowledged that the potential for students to engage in the autonomy of self-
assessment allows for higher order thinking and reflection on their efforts (Grossman, 2009; Lew, Alwis, & Schmidt, 2010; Nulty, 2011;
Race, 2001), with the potential positive empowerment of students in assessment (Race, 2001; Tan, 2008). Within this study, self-assessment
occurred in what may be described as the Standard Model (Taras, 2010).
This model if often identified with students using marking criteria against which they grade their efforts, together with the opportunity
to provide additional comments on their reflections of their presentation (Taras, 2010). Understandably such reflections on ‘their efforts’
would be problematic if students were asked to assess their oral group presentation when complete, if they were unable to actually view
their presentation. The difficulties for students in being able to reflect objectively on their presentation are obvious. While students do
receive presentation feedback from their peers and teacher later in the process, their individual experience of viewing the video recoding of
their presentation on the same day it is made, is the first feedback and critical reflection they consider. Importantly, this form of feedback
should not be confused with various other literature, succinctly considered and applied by Crook et al. (2012), which considers the benefits
of feedback provided by teaching staff to students, where staff video record their feedback comments of assessment and make it available to
students.
Given the literature which also identifies the apparent lack of studies into the experience of first year university students of peer or self-
assessment (Nulty, 2011), it becomes even more important to provide an engaging and relevant way for students to participate in
assessment. These forms of participation are identified by studies into how students engage with various technologies while at university,
both for university related activities and their own non academic activities (Alexander, 2006; Bacon & Dillon, 2006, 2006; Braun & Schmidt,
2006; Brown, 2000; Downes, 2006; Prensky, 2001; Oblinger & Oblinger; 2005; as cited in Conole et al., 2008). These studies also highlight
the substantial debate on the benefits and challenges of technology use by students and the integration of various ICTs within university life.
As such, using appropriate technologies in assessment can positively accommodate both the learning and assessment needs of students
allowing them to engage in social media activities they are familiar with and to contribute to efficient and effective curriculum delivery.
Molla succinctly describes this approach stating that: “Effective utilisation of information and communication technology (ICT) tools to
supplement but not supplant mainstream and time-tested teaching and learning strategies can open a window of opportunities for uni-
versities.” (2007, p. 703). Therefore the more meaningful engagement of students in their own group presentations, by way of their own
assessment of their presentation, is expected to provide opportunities that will be more likely to develop enhanced group cohesion. That is,
the potential to build constructive task and social relationships within the group (Chang & Bordia, 2006).
2. Research approach
2.1. Educational context
Experiential learning, as part of the course design, by students is achieved through a group collaborative exercise where groups of three
to five students work together on an industry topic which they randomly choose from a selection of topics provided by the teacher. Topics
generally relate to property industry organisations and peak bodies such as the Property Council of Australia, Jones Lang LaSalle and the
Mirvac Group. Within their groups, students are required to research that topic area and develop an informative presentation (10–15 min
duration) during the course of the semester, which they eventually present orally to other students within their tutorial towards the end of
that semester.
The presentation is assessed by student peers and the tutorial teacher on feedback sheets which contain five criteria: background to
topic, overview of products and services, focused description of one product or service, CSR sustainability ethics position (choose only one),
overall quality of presentation. The criteria are ranked on a five point scale from ‘very poor’ to ‘outstanding’ and are equally weighted. Peer
and teacher completed feedback sheets are collected after the presentation is made. Students in the presenting groups use the same
assessment criteria sheet to complete after viewing the video recording of their presentation, which they are required to return to the
teacher at the next week’s tutorial. All feedback sheets from the teacher, peers and those self-completed by group members are compiled by
the teacher and returned to student groups after all presentations have been made in that semester. Collectively this combined feedback
provides students with a balanced perspective on the quality of their group presentation.
3. Method
3.1. Subjects
Participants were 46 students at a university in Australia in 2010, undertaking a first year property course within a bachelor of business
degree. Of these students there were 18 females and 28 males with an age range from 17 to 57 years (mean ¼ 21.41, SD ¼ 6.46).
3.2. Instruments
Student participants complete two surveys. Pre-group presentation surveys included demographic and previous group work experience
items, plus questions on any presentation feedback previously received at university and outside university, together with questions on the
importance of content and style in making presentations. Post- presentation experience surveys contained six 5 point scale questions which
sought to understand the students’ experience of viewing the video of their group presentation, as particularly related to the usefulness of
the process.
S. Barry / Computers & Education 59 (2012) 855–860
856

3. 3.3. Procedure
Pre-group presentation surveys were administered to students prior to the allocation of groups and topics, with post-presentation
surveys administered after all presentations had been completed and group video recordings viewed by participating students. The
research was completed with general informal focus group discussions (between the teacher and students) on the video experience, which
occurred in tutorials after all presentations had been completed and feedback and marks returned to student groups.
The video group recording and viewing protocol (Fig. 1) being trialled saw student presentations recorded on a portable video camera
(Sony Handycam HDD 160 GB) with an attached shotgun microphone (Sennheiser) in a tutorial setting. The teacher would start the
recording at the commencement of each group presentation and stop the recording when each group completed their presentation (this
leaves a separate group video file on the video camera hard drive). Students presented from a lectern, with their group PowerPoint slides
projected on a screen behind and to the side of them. Slide transitions were controlled by individual students, as they presented their part of
the group presentation, using a remote slide presentation clicker. Once presentations were completed for each tutorial the teacher would go
back to their office and copy the files from the video camera to a folder on their computer.
Within the universities Blackboard 8 Service Pack Learning Management System (LMS) embedded Wikis (using My Expo Site Wikis) for
each group were established. Individual group presentations were then uploaded from the office computer, using the manual function of the
Lecture Capture (Based on the Lectopia product from Echo360) versatile audio visual capture platform. Once uploaded a hyperlink of each
group presentation was obtained and embedded into the individual group’s Wiki, in the Blackboard LMS course site. Within their own group
Wiki students could access and ‘view only’ their group presentation. Students could not access other groups’ presentations. These video
recordings were made available by streaming only (not downloadable) with access restricted to only members of each group. Students were
then able to view their own group presentation by logging into the course Blackboard site, using any internet connected personal or
university computer, and opening the video hyperlink of their group presentation from their group Wiki. This enabled students to play,
pause and replay the video recording at their convenience and review for as long as, and as deeply as they required. During this process
students completed the self-assessment criteria sheet of the overall group presentation (not just their individual effort) which they were
required to hand in to their teacher.
3.4. Analysis
Student demographics, including previous group presentation experiences, were obtained and descriptive statistics (means and stan-
dard deviations) of students’ pre and post-presentation survey scores were computed. Correlation analyses were performed on post-
presentation surveys to examine the inter-relationship between the various impacts that watching the video recorded group presenta-
tion had on students. Content analysis was undertaken on three post-presentation questions which sought to understand the various
positive, negative and general impressions students had after this experience, together with interpreting comments from focus group
discussions.
4. Results
4.1. Quantitative
In the pre-group presentation survey students were initially asked how many times they had already completed group presentations
either at university or outside the university context. Of the 46 students (18 females and 28 males; mean ¼ 21.41, SD ¼ 6.46) who completed
both pre and post-presentation surveys, Table 1 summarises the responses. At University most students had completed no group
presentations or between 1 and 5 group presentations, while outside the University context the majority of students had completed 1 to 5
group presentations with some indicating completing between 6 and 10 group presentations.
Student group
presentations
recorded using
video camera
Presentations
recordings are
uploaded to lecture
capture servers
Students
individually, or in a
group, watch their
own group
presentation
Students can
complete self
assessment and
return to assessor
Groups are assigned
their own Wiki with
restricted access
(members only)
Video presentation
are converted to
streaming format
1 2 3
4
5
6
Fig. 1. Video recording & viewing protocol for group presentations.
S. Barry / Computers & Education 59 (2012) 855–860 857

4. The importance (5 point scale where 5 is very important) students gave to the content of a presentation together with the format and
style of presentation, in both the pre and post surveys, are outlined in Table 2. Dependent samples t-test comparing importance rating of
presentation ‘content’ at pre and post-presentation did not significantly differ. On both occasions presentation ‘content’ was rated as Very
Important. Dependent samples t-test comparing importance rating for presentation ‘format and style’ at pre and post-presentation did not
change significantly. On both occasions presentation ‘format and style’ was rated as Very Important.
Concerning the trial of the group video recording and viewing protocol the following results indicate that the protocol (Fig. 1) was
effectively operationalised as identified in the post group presentation survey results. With regard to students viewing their own group
video recordings, the average number of times students watched the video, on a range from 1 to 5 times, was 1.93 (mean) times (SD ¼ 0.96).
Students were asked to rate (5 point scale where 5 was strongly agree) the utility of watching their video group presentations as a form of
feedback across 6 items (Table 3). All items rated very highly indicating that students felt that watching the video of their group presentation
was an effective method of feedback on their work which could be used to improve both group and individual performance in future
presentations.
4.2. Qualitative
Content Analysis undertaken on three open post-presentation survey questions found a major theme of Personal Awareness/Devel-
opment and a smaller overlapping them of Positive Process/Experience. Overall the student comment “Effort was put into making resources
available to help students improve, i.e. video taping presentations that students could review to analyse ways to improve in future” typified the
general positive regard for the video process. Similar comments assisted in bringing out the major theme of Personal Awareness/Devel-
opment, such as “By viewing a presentation of yourself, you’re able to see where you can improve and how you look/come across to others”.
Also, “I was able to easily point out faults which I was not aware of at the time and can hence work on them/avoid them in my next
presentation.” As noted, particular items within this theme saw students identify “Areas to work on” and their “own faults” such as
improvements needed in body language, speech, voice etc, also mentioning the positive nature of seeing both “your strengths and
weaknesses”.
From the overlapping theme of Positive Process/Experience the succinct response of “The video was a GREAT idea” best sums it up.
Students commented that they wished they had such an experience before and that although, for some, it made them “cringe” they still saw
that is was “very beneficial” and that the process should be undertaken in other courses.
The overarching recurring feedback from students was that there were “.no negatives about viewing it (the video)” and that it was
“overall a good idea” which would assist students in developing skills for future presentations. Further, that it allowed students to “.gain
a more accurate perspective of how the group performed.” from the “audiences’ point of view”.
Focus group discussions, which occurred in tutorials when all presentations had been completed with presentation feedback and marks
returned, supported the nature of what the content analysis of open ended questions found. These somewhat informal discussions
completed the students undertaking of the course on a positive and collaborative note.
5. Discussion
Central to this study was the development and effective trial of a protocol for video recording student group presentations which would
allow students to view their own group presentations, for self-assessment, in a timely and secure manner. As a procedure in this research
this protocol was successfully developed and positively received by students when reviewing their videoed group presentation. This being
consistent with literature (Grossman, 2009; Joughin, 2007; White et al., 2007) which considers that educators need to be mindful in
designing and facilitating group activities which engage students in meaningful learning experiences.
Findings from this study, which particularly relate to the procedural use of the video recorded availability of group presentations,
strongly identified students’ positive regard to the convenience of accessing their group video through the course website Wikis. This type of
regard and use corresponding to a number of student ICT use characteristics (Conole et al., 2008) such as personalised, adaptive, organised,
time and space boundaries, and integrated. Further, this researcher acknowledges the relative ease of recording the presentations and
uploading them into an online environment where they were able to be linked into individual group Wikis. These Wikis established once
groups were formed and also used throughout the group assessment activity by group members for a variety of other communication
purposes, apart from that of the inclusion of the video link by this researcher.
Table 1
Presentation experiences in university and outside university.
Location Frequency of presentation (%)
None 1–5 times 6–10 times 11–20 times 20 plus times
University 50 37 10.9 2.2 0
Outside university 15.2 52.2 23.9 4.3 4.3
Table 2
Importance of presentation content and format and style.
Survey Content important mean (SD) Format and style important mean (SD)
Pre-presentation 4.54 (0.66) 4.44 (0.96)
Post-presentation 4.56 (0.66) 4.54 (0.58)
S. Barry / Computers & Education 59 (2012) 855–860
858

5. While oral group presentations can engender a range of emotions from students from positive dislike to a daunting but possibly exciting
challenge, it would appear that by allowing students to more actively participate in their group assessment provided them with a rich
experience of learning. The ability to allow students to conveniently view a video recording of their group presentation for self-assessment
was positively regarded by students. As such, this protocol provided a structure, in line with Grossman’s (2009) levels of reflection
observations, which allowed students to reflect and feed forward the potential for improvement on any future performances (Quinton &
Smallbone, 2010).
This activity allowed students to consider their own individual and group performance and critically appraise it. In conjunction with this
assessment, students received feedback from the tutor and other student peers watching the presentation. As such students received more
of a 360 feedback on their assessment, better closing the circle on their experience. Other video recorded simulations and self assessments
(Grant, Moss, Epps, Watts, 2010; Yoo, Son, Kim, Park, 2009) also found general satisfaction of participants in such assessment and flow
on performance improvements. The significance of the student experience was also seen in the very limited debate that some students may
have had with teaching staff around the accuracy, or worth of their marks. That is, often if one teacher marks one group presentation it is not
uncommon for some groups of students to seek a review of their mark and debate the marking.
With this study, not only did the marks of peers become pertinent, but the marks students allotted themselves became relevant. In
general most individuals from groups marked themselves lower than both their peers and the teacher. This is perhaps not surprising given
the sometimes stark realisations some students experienced (after viewing their presentation) of their actual group performance as
opposed to their perceived performance. Aspects of this realisation were also found in a video reflective feedback study by Harford,
MacRuairc, and McCartan (2010) where participants realised a gap between their perceptions of their activities and what they actually
did, in a teaching environment.
However, future research and process design in this area could include a step before students view their video recorded presentation.
Immediately after their presentation students could be asked to mark their presentation using the criteria sheet and submit it to their
teacher before actually viewing their presentation online. Then students would be required to mark their presentation again after viewing it.
A comparison of pre and post-presentation viewing marking would provide additional insight into this student experience. This process
could be further enhanced with students being asked to submit a reflective written assessment item (say 2 pages) on their experience of this
process to allow them to more deeply consider and gain from the assessment. This would also better inform the teacher of the potential
benefits for student learning. Within these recommendations also lies the opportunity for inter-rater reliability considerations to be
addressed, whereby an independent teacher could review (as needed) any of the video presentations and mark them accordingly, without
knowledge of any previous marks given. This could assist in any possible formal review of marks considerations. Further, it could also
contribute to addressing and refining consistency in the marking process and the utility of the overall assessment item in general.
The primary foci of this research were the development of a video recording for student view protocol and understanding the student
experience when accessing their videoed group presentation for self-assessment purposes. While these foci were achieved a limitation of
the study was that the individual group member feedback sheets were returned anonymously on both student name and group topic. This
was to promote student completion of their feedback sheets. Unfortunately this did not allow for student peer and teacher assessment
marks to be compared to how individual group members graded themselves.
Further, a larger sample size and application of this protocol in other courses and disciplines would contribute to the generalisability of
this research. However, given the somewhat generic nature of the actual process protocol it would be reasonable to conclude that it already
has utility in a variety of areas. Depending on the nature of the course design, learning and teaching environment, and discipline area the
actual video recording process could be used in a variety of settings. It may be used for interpersonal dynamics observations, for example
a mock (or practice) counselling session for psychology students or for the recording of skill demonstrations in various discipline areas. More
importantly various other flexible technologies continue to be developed, such as Bloggies (Sony video camera and camcorder) which are
designed specifically for uploading and sharing video and pictures on computers and websites, such as Facebook. These ICTs potentially
provide even greater flexibility in developing such a process outside the ICT limitations which may be intrinsic to a particular teaching
environment.
In conclusion, the process protocol was effective and efficient and its acceptance and contribution to the student group experience
presented very positive and encouraging findings.
References
Biggs, J., Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
Chang, A., Bordia, P. (2006). A multi-dimensional approach to the group cohesion – group performance relationship. Small Group Research, 32(4), 379–405.
Conole, G., de Laat, M., Dillon, T., Darby, J. (2008). ‘Disruptive technologies’, ‘pedagogical innovation’: what’s new? Findings from an in-depth study of students’ use and
perception of technology. Computers Education, 50, 511–524.
Crook, A., Mauchline, A., Mawc, S., Lawson, C., Drinkwater, R., Lundqvist, K., et al. (2012). The use of video technology for providing feedback to students: can it enhance the
feedback experience for staff and students? Computers Education, 58(1), 386–396.
Elliott, N., Higgins, A. (2005). Self and peer assessment – does it make a difference to student group work? Nurse Education in Practice, 5(1), 40–48.
Grant, J. S., Moss, J., Epps, C., Watts, P. (2010). Using video-facilitated feedback to improve student performance following high-fidelity simulation. Clinical Simulation in
Nursing, 6(5), 177–184.
Table 3
Utility of watching the group video recording.
Item Mean SD
Watching the video gave me an opportunity to see how our group could improve our presentation 4.32 0.59
Watching the video gave me an opportunity to see how I could improve my section of the presentation 4.52 0.62
Watching the video assisted my learning about making group presentations 4.17 0.77
Making the video available through your group wiki in course website was convenient 4.35 0.77
Overall the video was an effective method in assisting in learning about making group presentations 4.35 0.64
Watching the video helped me mark the criteria for our group presentation 4.21 0.67
S. Barry / Computers Education 59 (2012) 855–860 859

6. Grossman, R. (2009). Structures for facilitating student reflection. College Teaching, 57(1), 15–22.
Harford, J., MacRuairc, G., McCartan, D. (2010). ‘Lights, camera, reflection’: using peer video to promote reflective dialogue among student teachers. Teacher Development,
14(1), 57–68.
Joughin, G. (2007). Student conceptions of oral presentations. Studies in Higher Education, 32(3), 323–336.
Lew, M. D. N., Alwis, W. A. M., Schmidt, H. G. (2010). Accuracy of students’ self-assessment and their beliefs about its utility. Assessment Evaluation in Higher Education,
35(2), 135–156.
Molla, A. (2007). Facilitating student interaction in a group project: experience with the use of Blackboard. Concise paper. In: Proceedings ascilite Singapore.
Mort, J. R., Hansen, D. J. (2010). Instructional design and assessment. First-year pharmacy students’ self-assessment of communication skills and the impact of video review.
Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 74(5), article 78.
Nordberg, D. (2008). Group projects: more learning? Less fair? A conundrum in assessing postgraduate business education. Assessment Evaluation in Higher Education,
33(5), 481–492.
Nulty, D. D. (2011). Peer and self-assessment in the first year of university. Assessment Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(5), 493–507.
Quinton, S., Smallbone, T. (2010). Feeding forward: using feedback to promote student reflection and learning – a teaching model. Innovations in Education and Teaching
International, 47(1), 125–135.
Race, P. (2001). A briefing on self, peer group assessment. York, UK: Learning Teaching Support Network.
Tan, K. H. K. (2008). Qualitatively different ways of experiencing student self-assessment. Higher Education Research Development, 27(1), 15–29.
Taras, M. (2010). Student self-assessment: processes and consequences. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(2), 199–209.
White, F., Lloyd, H., Goldfried, J., Brew, A., Sacha, J. (2007). Evaluating student perceptions of group work and group assessment. Sydney: Sydney University Press.
Yoo, M. S., Son, Y.j., Kim, Y. S., Park, J. H. (2009). Video-based self-assessment: implementation and evaluation in an undergraduate nursing course. Nurse Education Today,
29, 585–589.
Zhang, B., Johnston, L., Kilic, G. B. (2008). Assessing the reliability of self and peer rating in student group work. Assessment Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(3), 329–340.
S. Barry / Computers Education 59 (2012) 855–860
860