Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide


  1. 1. Session eTEACH® -- A PROVEN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY FOR EDUCATION REFORM Gregory Moses1, Michael Litzkow2, Julie Foertsch3, and John Strikwerda4 Abstract  An eTEACH presentation combines a video the lecture, but instead uses the lecture in whatever way best frame (Microsoft MediaPlayer) with a slide frame meets the student’s learning needs. (Microsoft PowerPoint), an external web links frame, a Information technology in the form of web browser- dynamic table of contents that titles the major portions of based multi-media presentations enables this new role for the lecture and allows jumping to any portion, buttons that the college lecture. The eTEACH authoring and presentation allow the lecture to be advanced or rewound 10 or 30 software[3] was used to reform the curriculum of a large seconds, and fast forward and reverse buttons; all in an enrollment sophomore level computer sciences course (CS Internet Explorer window. The PowerPoint slides and web 310) taken by engineering students at the University of links automatically synchronize with the current position in Wisconsin-Madison. Two weekly lectures were replaced the lecture video. eTEACH supports PowerPoint animation with on-line eTEACH presentations viewed at the student’s features for viewing in the browser. eTEACH supports convenience and students attended an additional computer accessibility features such as closed captioning and web- laboratory each week in a specially designed computer page readers. eTEACH has been used extensively in “team lab”. This laboratory experience was mentored by the reforming a large enrollment computer sciences course. faculty in an active learning format. This educational reform was formally evaluated by the Index Terms  Education reform, learning technology, LEAD Center at the University of Wisconsin – Madison, an multimedia presentation, streaming video, web-based evaluation service and research center, to measure the instruction. outcomes. Outcomes were positive with many details reported in this paper. INTRODUCTION ETEACH VIEWING FEATURES Numerous studies and individual experiences have shown that engineering students learn best by doing and not by eTEACH is an authoring software tool to prepare multi- being “lectured at.”[1] Yet most engineering courses media presentations. eTEACH presentations are viewed continue to be taught by a professor at the front of the room using standard software; Microsoft Internet Explorer and lecturing to dozens or perhaps hundreds of students in a Microsoft MediaPlayer. The vast majority of eTEACH users oneway “information transfer.” Such lectures have been are viewers of the presentation. Therefore the viewing portrayed in the educational literature as an ineffective way experience is described first, followed by the details of the of teaching[2]. browser-side software, the authoring tool and server Using appropriate information technology the lecture technology. does have a legitimate place in the engineering educational A snapshot of a typical eTEACH presentation is shown framework. This place is one where the student can view the in Figure 1. The static nature of print publications does not lecture at their own time and convenience in order to obtain capture the features of streaming video software so these guidance on the particularly difficult or subtle parts of the will be described. The video frame in Figure 1 shows a course material. The lecture is a roadmap for the material in “talking head”. This is the lecturer speaking about the the course curriculum, emphasizing the most important Microsoft PowerPoint slide shown in the frame to the right aspects of the material. The lecture is a personal message of the lecturer. Such a format mimics the standard lecture from the professor to the individual student. hall format of a lecturer and slides. This is not the most In this context the lecture, like the textbook, is a ambitious utilization of streaming video, but it serves a reference at the student’s disposal. And just as important, the useful purpose. Survey results of 531 students over two lecture is not the focal point of a teaching-centered course semesters showed that 58% thought it was important to see curriculum, but instead is one more resource in a self-paced the professor lecture, rather than just listening to an audio learning-centered curriculum. The student does not “attend” presentation of the slides. Those that thought this was 1 Gregory Moses, University of Wisconsin – Madison, Engineering Physics Department, Madison, WI, 53706 2 Michael Litzkow, University of Wisconsin – Madison, Engineering Physics Department, Madison, WI, 53706 3 Julie Foertsch, University of Wisconsin – Madison, LEAD Center, Madison, WI, 53706 4 John Strikwerda, University of Wisconsin – Madison, Computer Sciences Department, Madison, WI, 53706 Work supported in part by the National Science Foundation through EOT PACI and the Foundation Coalition. 0-7803-7444-4/02/$17.00 © 2002 IEEE November 6 - 9, 2002, Boston, MA 32nd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference 1
  2. 2. Session time markers in the video controled by the author. The time is displayed with the entry. The ToC entries dynamically change, indicating those sections that have been viewed. The viewer can move directly to any part of the video presentation by clicking on the corresponding entry in the ToC. This is useful if the author wants to combine several presentations into one large one or for coarse grained navigation of a presentation. Below the slide frame is the external links frame. This frame contains links to other web sites. If the link is clicked, the presentation suspends and a new Internet Explorer window appears with the selected web site. When the new window is closed, the control returns to the presentation at the point it was suspended. This is useful for referencing related content or for adding interactivity such as self- assessment measurements that the student can use to determine their understanding of the material presented. The FIGURE. 1 link table is dynamic and the author can control the links that SCREEN SHOT OF ETEACH PRESENTATION appear during the presentation. preferrable indicated that seeing the professor connected them more to the course. ETEACH TECHNOLOGY eTEACH supports all of the animation features available in PowerPoint slides. Therefore the arrows on the An eTEACH presentation is a single page in the Internet slide fly into place as the lecturer refers to this particular line Explorer web browser as shown in Figure 1. The video, table of the slide. Parts of the slide can appear and disappear as of contents, slides, animations, and changing link tables are the lecturer refers to them. This is particularly important automatically coordinated and function together as a logical when slides contain a lot of technical content and the whole. The instructor who creates such a presentation begins speaker wants to direct the attention of the viewer to one part with compressed video, a set of slides, and some notion of or line of the slide. Slide changes are timed to the lecture how the table of contents should be organized and what web timeline by the eTEACH authoring software tool. links should be available at different points during the The slide frame need not contain PowerPoint slides. presentation. Once the presentation has been created, it must Any format viewable in a web-browser can be displayed in be published on a web site or CD before students can access this frame. However, PowerPoint slides are the most it. The process of creating the presentation from video, common content to use. slides, and other materials is called “authoring.” Making The frame below the video frame has controls for these materials available via the web or CD is called navigating the video. These include fast forward and reverse “publishing.” While students both hear and view as well as and “jog” controls that allow the viewer to skip ahead or interact with the presentation, this activity is simply called back in the presentation by 10 or 30 seconds. This is “viewing.” This section describes the technology behind the particularly useful if the viewer wants to replay a short viewing, authoring, and publishing processes. segment of the presentation to better grasp the content. The Viewing – The Browser slide frame synchronizes automatically as the video is advanced or “rewound.” These navigation features were An eTEACH presentation is comprised of two different added after surveying the students on their preferences. types of digital resources, streaming video materials and Ninety-three percent of the students answered affirmative to web-based materials. The process of loading these resources the suggestion of adding the fast forward, rewind and jog into a web browser begins when the student follows a link controls. from a course syllabus or other web page. Students need not There are play, pause and stop buttons, volume control concern themselves with the fact that they are accessing and a button to activate closed captioning. The pause button materials from two different servers, nor with how those was used by 97% of the students. Ninety percent of the materials are coordinated. These tasks are handled by students answered yes to the idea of adding a meter to show JavaScript code that is automatically loaded into their the time elapsed in the video and the total video time. These browsers along with the HTML in the web pages. features are all now included in the latest version of The initial web page is called “top.html.” The HTML in eTEACH. this file initializes each of the frames needed for the video, Below the video controls is the dynamic Table of table of contents, slides, and web links. The sizes and Contents (ToC). The table of contents entries correspond to locations of the frames are defined in an internal HTML 0-7803-7444-4/02/$17.00 © 2002 IEEE November 6 - 9, 2002, Boston, MA 32nd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference 2
  3. 3. Session style sheet. If the author uses eTEACH’s ability to change Authoring – The Presentation Production layouts during the course of the presentation, multiple style The authors of eTEACH presentations are typically college definitions are used for each frame. Changes in the layout professors, instructional staff, teaching assistants or other geometry are affected by simply switching styles. Each student helpers. Authors are expected to be familiar with presentation will contain a frame for the video player, and a common computer applications, but not the inner workings frame for the table of contents. Most presentations also of eTEACH. The “authoring tool” in eTEACH does most of contain a frame for slides, and many contain other frames for the technical work automatically and allows the author to web links or other purposes as defined by the presentation concentrate on the presentation of the materials. Several author. Code in the “top.html” file loads specific HTML high-quality video editing programs are available on the pages into the video and table of contents frames which commercial market, so video editing capabilities are not contain the code that implements their functionality. included in the eTEACH authoring tool. The web page loaded into the ToC frame includes Authors start with a video file that has already been HTML to create the ToC as well as the JavaScript code edited and contains the exact sequence of events they want which coordinates activities while the presentation is in the viewer to see. Presumably, they have prepared their progress. This page contains an internal HTML style sheet PowerPoint “slide deck” before shooting the video, so that is that defines styles for the ToC entries. During the also ready. Instructors who want to provide accessibility for presentation the currently playing ToC entry is indicated by hearing-impaired students should also have their closed use of a larger font and highlighted color. Entries that have captioning data prepared before beginning the eTEACH been previously viewed are indicated by a text “strike authoring process. The authoring tool starts by building a through” and a “diminished” font color. These changes are directory which holds all files associated with the affected by switching styles. Immediately upon startup, the presentation, then allows the instructor to “import” the ToC page loads another file called “Presentation.XML.” video, PowerPoint, and closed captioning files. The This file contains information needed to access the video authoring process consists of making decisions about the stream. If the lecture is being viewed from a CD, this is timing, coordination, and display of the imported materials. simply the name of the video file. For web-based eTEACH author stores all these decisions in an XML based presentations both the name of the video file and the IP file called “Presentation.XML.” If the instructor wants to address of the server are included. In either case script make modifications to an existing presentation, the running in the ToC frame passes this information to script in authoring tool reads the corresponding XML file to learn the video frame which loads the video stream. about all the decisions that have already been made, The video file has been specially prepared by inserting allowing the author to continue from where they previously “markers” at each time offset in the video where an left off. animation, slide change, or other event should occur. Each In addition to creating the XML file, the authoring tool time the video reaches a marker, an event is generated that places the markers in the video file, generates dynamic triggers code in the video frame. This code informs code in HTML code to affect all the PowerPoint slides and the ToC frame that a marker has been reached, and that it animations, and writes the custom JavaScript code to should update things accordingly. This code updates the ToC manage the table of contents, video player, and all and instructs other frames to load new materials or perform interactions with the viewer. The authoring tool provides a animations as appropriate. In most cases the presentation preview of the developing presentation so that authors can author has placed a ToC entry and an introductory slide at conveniently view the outcomes of the decisions they are offset zero in the file. Thus as soon as the video starts to making. play, the first slide displays and the first ToC entry is The authoring tool is a Windows application program highlighted. As the video progresses, further slide changes, with a graphical user interface. This application is built animations, and ToC entry changes are triggered at using the DotNET technology recently released by appropriate times. When the student clicks on a ToC entry, Microsoft. The graphical user interface is entirely custom the same actions are triggered as if the video had reached the coded in C#, but the underlying functionality relies heavily corresponding marker. However, in this case the code also on leveraging existing COM components and parts of the requests the video server to “jump” to the indicated marker. DotNET framework. The XML processing is provided by Thus in the normal case, events in the video stream “drive” standard classes available in the framework, and markers are the ToC and other content changes, but when the student inserted into the video files by an external COM component. clicks on the ToC, it drives the video to the new location. The PowerPoint application is accessed directly for analysis The student can also move around in the presentation using a of the slides and animations as well as to create the dynamic trackbar, fast-forward and rewind controls, or specially HTML code which implements those items on the world designed “jog” controls which move the video forward or wide web. A web browser COM component is utilized for backward 10 or 30 seconds. In all theses cases, movement the built-in preview functionality. within the video stream drives the table of contents, and thereby all the other frames as required. 0-7803-7444-4/02/$17.00 © 2002 IEEE November 6 - 9, 2002, Boston, MA 32nd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference 3
  4. 4. Session Publishing – The Web and Video Servers impact using information technology. Also, being a computer sciences course, the use of computer technology eTEACH presentations can be disseminated either through for the pedagogical aspects of the course would not be the world wide web or via CD. The process is similar for intrusive. The course content is briefly described, the reform both technologies, with some differences due to the different features are described and then the reform process is limitations associated with each. In either case the ultimate described. display engine is a web browser, and the viewer generally accesses presentations by following a link from a syllabus or Computer Sciences 310 Content index page. Computer Sciences 310 is a 3 credit course taken by about In the case of the world wide web, the video files must 300 engineering sophomores and juniors each semester. The be hosted on a Windows Media Server and all other files are course treats seven problem solving areas. hosted on a web server. The primary limitation here is bandwidth, with the largest consideration being the video • Symbolic computation using Maple bandwidth, since this is generally much larger than the • Simple programming using Matlab bandwidth required by the accompanying materials. While • Linear systems using Maple and Matlab available bandwidth does vary somewhat by time of day due • Numerical errors and convergence to network load, the main consideration is the kind of • Ordinary differential equations using Maple and Matlab network connection the viewer has available. For students • Eigenvalue problems using Matlab on a campus local area network, video recorded at 300 • Data interpolation and approximation using Matlab kilobits per second (Kbps), provides very good quality at the sizes needed for eTEACH lectures. A 100 Kbps version for Each semester has about 14 weeks of class. It is required of those students with cable or DSL connections at home is Chcmical, Mechanical, Civil and Environment, and also provided. At this bitrate the video looks nearly as good Engineering Physics students and is an elective for Industrial as at 300 Kbps, but motion tends to be less smooth. For the Engineering students. The problems in the course are taken “talking head” lecture videos usually associated with from these disciplines and the emphasis is on problem eTEACH, this is seldom a problem, and most students are solving and not on the specific engineering discipline. quite comfortable watching the videos at 100 Kbps. For Course notes are provided. There is no required text. modem users there are two alternatives – 37 Kbps video and Computer Sciences 310 Reforms 16 Kbps audio-only. At these low bitrates the video tends to be “choppy,” but some students prefer that to not seeing the Before Fall 2000 CS 310 was taught in a typical university video at all. The audio-only version provides very clear format. Two large lectures per week were given by a spoken audio and should work for nearly every student with professor and and one computer lab session per week was a telephone connection to the internet. The authoring tool taught by a teaching assistant. Printed course notes were has built-in support for publishing each lecture at a variety available at a local copy store. Student evaluations of the of bitrates making it easy for instructors to provide course expressed dissatisfaction with this arrangement, alternatives for viewers with varying network connections. stating that the lectures and labs were disconnected. The Publishing eTEACH lectures on a CD is also a good lectures covered mainly mathematical methods while the alternative, and eliminates any requirement for viewers to be computer labs covered the software tools. Teaching in this connected to a network. Here the main limitation is not format to so many students, it was nearly impossible for the bandwidth, but space on the CD. Using 100 Kbps video, an professor to see the learning process in the individual entire semester’s worth of presentations fits on a single CD, students. This led to a number of misconceptions of the which is very convenient. It is also possible to combine CD students’ level of understanding and some mismatches based instruction with web-based materials by including between faculty expectations and student performance. links to sites on the web in the eTEACH presentation. In this The reformed course, taught first in Fall 2000, has a case both the video and all the other materials that are a very different format. First, there are no scheduled lectures. direct part of the presentation come from the CD, but the The lectures are on-line in the form of eTEACH student can still be directed to external websites for presentations. Students view them at their own convenicnce additional enrichment. using the computer labs in the College of Engineering or in their dorm rooms (with ethernet connectivity) or at their CURRICULUM REFORM EXPERIENCE residence using either cable or DSL service. An on-line quiz covering the week’s lecture material is due on Wednesday The use of information technology such as eTEACH must be night to give an incentive to view the eTEACH presentation. guided by curriculum reform incentives[1]. A large On either Monday or Tuesday the student attends a so-called enrollment undergraduate computer sciences course called “individual lab” section with one student per computer to “Engineering Problem Solving Using Computers”, CS 310, work through a self-guided programming tutorial that covers served as the testbed for application of eTEACH. CS 310 features of Maple or Matlab. This lab is mentored by a was chosen because there was the potential for a large 0-7803-7444-4/02/$17.00 © 2002 IEEE November 6 - 9, 2002, Boston, MA 32nd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference 4
  5. 5. Session teaching assistant (TA) and is similar to the pre-reform lab. exercises were created in the Summer 2000 by a team of two There are roughly 13-16 sections of the individual lab professors, one programmer and 12 undergraduate students offered. who had previously taken the course. This was run like an Second, on Thursday and Friday students attend a new engineering project with milestones and deadlines to give “team lab” section that is taught by a professor and a TA. In the students experience in open-ended development. It was this specially designed team lab with 12 computer also very real-world because no large lecture hall had been workstation “pods,” three students work together at a reserved for the course in the fall! Had this effort failed, the computer station to solve comprehensive engineering negative consequences were very large. Needless to say it problems assigned for the lab. They discuss the problem and was a success. solution methods and programming techniques in an active Using these new materials, the course was taught in Fall learning setting. They are graded only on attendance at the 2000 and Spring 2001. Comprehensive evaluations were lab, removing the pressure to completely finish the conducted both semesters by the LEAD Center. Students assignment and instead concentrate on learning the material. were given homework credit for completing the 80 question There are about 10-12 team lab sections. on-line survey. This ensured nearly 100% participation. The team lab allows the professor to be close to the Selected students in the course were interviewed. The students and to observe their learning processes first hand. faculty and students who prepared the materials were This is one of the strongest features of this reformed format.interviewed. This collection of data, attitudes and It is difficult to quantify the impact of changing the totallyexperiences underwrites the outcomes and conclusions of detached approach of lecturing in a large hall to working this paper. within inches of 3-student teams as they try to solve In these two semesters various problems were identified problems. However, the experience teaching in both formats and corrected. The most serious problem was that some team convinces the authors that the active learning setting is lab exercises were too lengthy to complete in the allotted vastly superior to the lecture format. The eTEACH time. presentations free the professor from the low-quality student The on-line materials were hosted on a dedicated web contact time spent in large lecture halls and allow the and video server that was custom programmed. The professor to spend that time in active learning team lab reliability of the on-line technology was nearly 100% sections. The eTEACH presentations continue to provide according to the student survey. eTEACH worked perfectly. guidance to the students as they navigate through the course In the Summer 2001 major improvements were made by material. However, in the reformed format, the presentation four faculty, a programmer and a new team of undergraduate becomes simply one more resource for the student, along students. The eTEACH presentations were reshot. The with the course notes, student-to-student peer discussion, presentations of Summer 2000 were videotaped outside “on etc. The lecture is removed as the passive teaching location” around the UW campus and city of Madison. This centerpiece of the course. The combined use of on-line created interesting and sometimes amusing settings eTEACH presentations and active learning team labs has (elephants at the zoo in the background), but it created been described as “reversing the lecture-homework problems with the compressed video. Rapidly changing paradigm.” The student does not attend the lecture in class backgrounds, like fluttering leaves, consume excessive of and learn the problem solving skills at home, but instead bandwidth. Therefore the presentations were sometimes “attends” the lecture out of class, and practices the problem choppy, even though the speaker was standing still. solving with the professor in class[4]. Sometimes the audio was poor quality due to wind or traffic Third, the course notes, lab assignments, and eTEACH noise. This poor quality was corrected by shooting inside presentations are all on-line using the WebCT course with a monochrome backdrop to avoid the problem of management system. Wednesday quizzes are taken on-line bandwidth consumption by extraneous movement. This using the WebCT quiz feature. Team lab attendance is background is shown in Figure 1. The Summer 2001 conveniently taken on-line using the WebCT quiz feature presentations are noticably smoother, albeit not as amusing. (quiz has one question and one answer—“I am here”). The course notes and lab writeups were converted from Microsoft Word documents to HTML documents for more convenient viewing on the web. The host website was moved to the institutionally supported WebCT course Computer Sciences 310 Reform Process management site. The video was served by a dedicated video The process of developing the reformed format for CS 310 server operated by the College of Engineering computing using eTEACH was staged over one semester and a summer center. These were important steps to prove that eTEACH followed by an additional summer’s activity. The course was could be used with institutionally supported web or video taught in Spring 2000 semester as a normal lecture format, facilities. The use of eTEACH v2 allowed animation in the but the lecture material was authored onto PowerPoint slides PowerPoint slides for the new presentations, a feature rather than writing on the blackboard or using overhead unavailable during Summer 2000. This was used extensively transparencies. The eTEACH presentations and the team lab in the Summer 2001 presentations. Finally, the enhanced 0-7803-7444-4/02/$17.00 © 2002 IEEE November 6 - 9, 2002, Boston, MA 32nd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference 5
  6. 6. Session eTEACH features identified by the student survery were of curriculum reform using eTEACH was improved in the included in the Summer 2001 presentations. second summer’s activity. ETEACH is a stable learning technology tool that has demonstrated its effectiveness in CURRICULUM REFORM OUTCOMES education reform. Almost 60% of the students felt that in comparison to other courses the on-line version of CS 310 gave them more control over the pace and method by which they learned the material, but as a tradeoff for this greater degree of control, 64% felt the course also required more self-discipline than most courses. Seventy eight percent of students reported that it was more convenient to view eTEACH presentations according to their own schedule than it would have been to attend a live lecture at a scheduled time. Forty one percent of students viewed eTEACH in a college computer lab and 37% watched in their dorm room or apartment. The majority of students made use of eTEACH’s ability to stop the video in order to take notes, 81%, to go back over parts of the presentation in the same sitting, 89%, or to review presentations they had watched earlier, 67%. This clearly supports the hypothesis that the use of on-line eTEACH presentations altered the study habits of the students and the presentations took the role of a learning resource rather than the traditional lecture role of a scheduled “teaching event.” FIGURE. 2 The use of eTEACH as a review resource is demonstrated by VIDEO SERVER STATISTICS SHOWING STUDENTS REVIEWING ETEACH PRESENTATIONS viewing statistics from the video server shown in Figure 2. The viewing of the current week’s presentation is subtracted ACKNOWLEDGMENT from the total viewing time, thus Figure 2 displays the viewing of presentations for future and past weeks. The The authors acknowledge the students who participated three exam weeks are those where the review viewing time in making this project a success: Kim Benson, Alice Chen, peaks. Thus, in addition to the normal viewing, this is Dave Farnia, Megan Gibbs, Mary Flynn, Mike Freeman, evidence that students use the eTEACH presentations in a Nick Hanson, Lisa Kamke, James Masanz, Jeff Masters, way that is very different from the once-through classroom John Mickelson, Dan Mueller, Jim Neckvatal, Eugenia Ng, lecture. Monica Petrie, Derek Ploor, Patrick Pollard, Jen Schwarz, Forty seven percent of students watched all 13 eTEACH Tim Snell, Keith Tschohl, and Kevin Yttre. presentations and 75% watched 10 or more. Fifty six percent of students watched the lecture at least two days before the REFERENCES team lab that the presentation applied to and another 30% [1] National Science Foundation, Shaping the Future: New Expectations watched in the day or hours before the team lab. Recall that for Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, students were motivated to view the presentations before and Technology, 1996. Wednesday night by an on-line quiz deadline of 6 PM on [2] Millis, B. J., “Introducing faculty to cooperative learning,” Teaching Wednesday. Improvement Practices: Successful Strategies for Higher Education, 1995, pp. 127-154. CONCLUSIONS [3] eTEACH website, eTEACH was successfully used in the curriculum reform of [4] Foertsch, J., G. Moses, J. Strikwerda, and M. Litzkow, “Reversing the a large enrollment computer sciences course taken by Lecture/Homework Paradigm Using eTEACH Web-based Streaming Video Software,” J. Engr. Ed., (submitted). Also see pre-print version engineering students. The evaluation of the reform demonstrated that students used the eTEACH on-line presentations differently than they would use a conventional college lecture. Students liked the on-line presentation in comparison to a large lecture format; they liked the self- paced approach to learning that this provided. They liked the active learning team lab taught by the faculty that took the place of the conventional lecture. The features of eTEACH were improved, based upon the student survey. The process 0-7803-7444-4/02/$17.00 © 2002 IEEE November 6 - 9, 2002, Boston, MA 32nd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference 6