DennisYorkPh.D. DefenseMay 14, 2013An exploration of web video mediated learning in the university classroomGraduate Progr...
Implications andFurther ResearchThe Problem Theoretical FrameworkDiscussion of FindingsAGENDAResearch Method2
Implications andFurther ResearchThe Problem Theoretical FrameworkDiscussion of FindingsResearch Method3
Educational literature has made avariety of claims regarding numerousopportunities of web-based technologyfor learningCall...
Focus on videos produced in proprietary formats- “filtered”narrative- likely to isolate students from emergent knowledge a...
Most inquiries into effects of user-createdweb video are produced by practitioners- Possibility of researcher’s bias- Addr...
How user-created web video can be integrated in university curricula?• To balance web video with scholarly knowledge• To e...
Implications andFurther ResearchThe Problem Theoretical FrameworkDiscussion of FindingsResearch Method8
Learning: A community-driven process of knowledge productionand meaning-making enabled by greater access to information an...
Learning: A developmental process, during which studentsprogress from concerns on a personal level to higher-levelconcerns...
CONSTRUCTIVISMTheory ofsituatedcognitionTheory ofdistributedcognitionParticipatorycultureConcerns-basedadoptionmodel11
Learning: An emergent and dynamic construction of newunderstanding of knowledge “inherited from the context of use”Context...
Learning: Participation in activity through dynamicinteraction with other individuals and mediated by artefactsArtefactobs...
Conceptual Framework for the Study14
Pedagogical intervention / Research treatmentShowcase ofstudentsvideos***Boot Camp:Publishingvideo to WebWeek 6In-class wo...
Implications andFurther ResearchThe Problem Theoretical FrameworkDiscussion of FindingsResearch Method16
Web video mediated learningCreativeproductionof students’own webvideoCriticalappropriationof existingweb video• Students’c...
18Snapshot of a computer lab used during the WebVideo ProjectParticipantsMaster’s students registered in“Technology and Ed...
Pretest phase(Week 1)Midpoint evaluation(Week 4)Posttest phase(Week 6)QUAN•Survey methodqual•Interviews•Learning artefacts...
Implications andFurther ResearchThe Problem Theoretical FrameworkDiscussion of FindingsResearch Method20
7 (41.2%) 10 (58.8%)3 (17.6%)5 (29.4%)9 (52.9%)Elementary Education Math/ScienceLanguage Arts Special EducationOthers100% ...
Study outline22
Pretest Concerns ProfileLow intensity of awareness and managementconcerns (not consistent)High intensity of informational ...
 Students increased theirknowledge of web video andimproved confidence in usingweb video for learning Students managedsu...
Study outline25
Role of web video and blogging for learning26 Web video and blogging were perceived as indispensableWeb 2.0technologies f...
 Advantageous attributes of webvideo for learning: “entertainment”attribute,F(1, 16) = 8.73, p = .009 “multiple perspec...
28Web video opportunities for content contextualizationMeasures(Use of web video…)Estimated marginalmeans F pa ŋPretest Po...
29Web video opportunities for student-driven learningMeasures(Use of web video…)Estimatedmarginal means F pa ŋPretest Post...
Web video technologyconstraintsCross-browser compatibilityproblemsInsufficient bandwidth for qualityvideo viewing experien...
 Web video as a means of learning received positive response from students Distinction reserved for web video: accessibi...
Study outline32
Participants’ use of Internet and video sharing websites33% of time spent on video sharing websites,posttest (N = 15) (p. ...
Improved proficiency in digital media use and production skills,V = .93, F(1, 14) = 6.69, p = .024Participants’ self-asses...
 Real-life representation(M = 4.18) Substantial relevance either to the topic(M = 4.12) Relevance to assigned readings(...
 Enables to take issues to a deeper level(M = 1.71*) Enables to make new connections(M = 1.82*) Facilitates thinking an...
 Opportunity to see differences of opinion(M = 1.65) Opportunity to clarify one’s ownknowledge about the topic(M = 1.82)...
 expansion of practical knowledge (50%) advancement of conceptual understanding(18.7%) engagement in real-life practice...
 Web video takes high priority when processinginformation Preference for instructor-produced or assignedvideos Most stu...
 Web video use and production add a furtherdimension to text-based reflections Web video appropriation gives additionalc...
Implications andFurther ResearchThe Problem Theoretical FrameworkDiscussion of FindingsResearch Method41
 Increased understanding of web video asmeans for transforming learning Identification of functional significance of web...
 Positive response to the proposed design of web videomediated learning Web video capacity to situate student learning w...
 Examine the impact of web video mediatedlearning and re-test hypotheses with a largersample size Explore social dimensi...
DennisYorkPh.D. DefenseMay 14, 2013An exploration of web video mediated learning in the university classroomGraduate Progr...
Are students ready touse web video tosupport their learning?What do students thinkabout the learning valueof web video?46
Most research explored video production aspart of assessment of students’performancecompetencies- Videopapers,video cases ...
Web 2.0 Video(User-created web video)1990s 2020s2010s2000s 2030sWeb 1.0 Video(One-way web video)Web 3.0 VideoWeb 4.0 Video...
• Search and discoveramateur content• Watch video in real time inweb browser• Upload one’s own video clips• Record persona...
Pedagogical Capacities of Web Video• Enables facilitation of an understanding of complex concepts• Enables advancement of ...
Participatory CultureFrameworkDistributedCognition TheorySituated CognitionTheoryConcerns BasedAdoption Model51
52
53
Finding 1.1: Changes in students’concerns about web videoNo Statements of ConcernEstimatedmarginal means F pa ŋPretest Pos...
Finding 1.2: Changes in students’levels of use of web videoLoU Measures Pretest f (%) Posttest f (%)Lower Level of UseNon-...
56Perceived web video impact on achievementMeasure FactorStronglyagree(%)Stronglydisagree1 2 3 4 5Use of web video increas...
57Most typical constraints ofweb video integration
58
59
Typical positive comments re:the benefits of web videoappropriation: “That little video combined with the article,while i...
61
 Results are not generalized outside of the study’s population conditioned bylocation factor. Employment of a convenienc...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Engaging students with Real-World Experience in the Web 2.0 Era: An Exploration of Web Video Mediated Learning in the University Classroom

121

Published on

My PhD Defence Presentation

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
121
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Better understanding of students’ perceptions of using web video in the new Web 2.0 era
  • Engaging students with Real-World Experience in the Web 2.0 Era: An Exploration of Web Video Mediated Learning in the University Classroom

    1. 1. DennisYorkPh.D. DefenseMay 14, 2013An exploration of web video mediated learning in the university classroomGraduate Programme in EducationYork University
    2. 2. Implications andFurther ResearchThe Problem Theoretical FrameworkDiscussion of FindingsAGENDAResearch Method2
    3. 3. Implications andFurther ResearchThe Problem Theoretical FrameworkDiscussion of FindingsResearch Method3
    4. 4. Educational literature has made avariety of claims regarding numerousopportunities of web-based technologyfor learningCall for better management ofweb-based technology and itsintegration into curricula4
    5. 5. Focus on videos produced in proprietary formats- “filtered”narrative- likely to isolate students from emergent knowledge andprovide little opportunity for interaction with real-worldexperiences-- Few studies on user-created web video- “unfiltered”narrative-- Extant research does not meet students’needs infast-growing information environment that requires anew skillset to appropriate information5
    6. 6. Most inquiries into effects of user-createdweb video are produced by practitioners- Possibility of researcher’s bias- Addressing specific local problemsFew studies examine effects of user-created web video in a systematic waycontrolling validity of research data toa considerable degree6
    7. 7. How user-created web video can be integrated in university curricula?• To balance web video with scholarly knowledge• To enhance students’learning experiences• To observe the effects of video appropriationand video production on students’perceptions7
    8. 8. Implications andFurther ResearchThe Problem Theoretical FrameworkDiscussion of FindingsResearch Method8
    9. 9. Learning: A community-driven process of knowledge productionand meaning-making enabled by greater access to information andopen sharingUser-createdcontentGrassrootscreativityBottom-upcollaborationOpen sharing(Burgess & Green,2009;Macfadyen, 2006;Jenkins et al., 2006;and others)9
    10. 10. Learning: A developmental process, during which studentsprogress from concerns on a personal level to higher-levelconcerns about the effectiveness of the innovation.Self concerns(awareness,informational,personal)ManagementconcernsImpact concerns(consequence,collaboration,refocusing)(Hall et al., 1977;Hall & Hord, 1987;Hall & Loucks, 1977)10
    11. 11. CONSTRUCTIVISMTheory ofsituatedcognitionTheory ofdistributedcognitionParticipatorycultureConcerns-basedadoptionmodel11
    12. 12. Learning: An emergent and dynamic construction of newunderstanding of knowledge “inherited from the context of use”Context-drivenknowledgeAuthentic learning Situated activity(Barab & Duffy, 2000;Brown et al., 1989;Herrington et al., 2003;Lave,1990,1991;Lombardi, 2007;and others)12
    13. 13. Learning: Participation in activity through dynamicinteraction with other individuals and mediated by artefactsArtefactobservationExploration ofartefact attributesGuidedparticipation inartefact use(Cole & Engestrom,1993;Pea, 1997;Resnick, 1996;Salomon,1994)13
    14. 14. Conceptual Framework for the Study14
    15. 15. Pedagogical intervention / Research treatmentShowcase ofstudentsvideos***Boot Camp:Publishingvideo to WebWeek 6In-class workon videocomposition(in pairs)***Boot Camp:VideopolishingWeek 5ePortfolio(in-classlecture)***Boot Camp:VideoeditingWeek 4Ethics ofWeb 2.0 (in-class lecture)***Boot Camp:Gatheringresources &filmingWeek 3Assistivetechnology(in-classlecture)***Boot Camp:PlanningvideocompositionWeek 2ProjectIntroduction***Boot Camp:Embeddingweb videointo blogWeek 1Video enhancedbloggingParticipation insmall, in-classgroupdiscussionsStatement andre-statement ofpersonalphilosophyWeb videoproductionProject curriculum Project assignmentsSelf-assessment15Critical appropriation ofexisting web videoCreative production ofone’s own web video
    16. 16. Implications andFurther ResearchThe Problem Theoretical FrameworkDiscussion of FindingsResearch Method16
    17. 17. Web video mediated learningCreativeproductionof students’own webvideoCriticalappropriationof existingweb video• Students’concerns about web video• Their perceptions of affordances andconstraints of web video integration• Perceived impact on learningScholarlyknowledgeWeb videosPersonalexperiences17
    18. 18. 18Snapshot of a computer lab used during the WebVideo ProjectParticipantsMaster’s students registered in“Technology and Education”course in Spring 2010
    19. 19. Pretest phase(Week 1)Midpoint evaluation(Week 4)Posttest phase(Week 6)QUAN•Survey methodqual•Interviews•Learning artefacts• Pretest surveys• 1st round of interviews• Collection of artefacts(personal statements)• Midpoint feedback• 2nd round of interviewsResearch Treatment• Posttest surveys• 3rd round of interviews• Collection of artefacts(re-visited statements,self-assessmentreports)One-group pretest-posttest design19with mixed-method data collection procedures
    20. 20. Implications andFurther ResearchThe Problem Theoretical FrameworkDiscussion of FindingsResearch Method20
    21. 21. 7 (41.2%) 10 (58.8%)3 (17.6%)5 (29.4%)9 (52.9%)Elementary Education Math/ScienceLanguage Arts Special EducationOthers100% teacher candidates10 (58.8%) had prior teachingexperience (M = 2.94, SD = 3.87)13 (76.5%) worked ontheir 1st graduate degree8 (47.1%) took an online course8 (47.1%) participated in aninstructional technology course16 (94.1%) had NOT taken a courseenhanced with web video21N = 17 (65% response rate)
    22. 22. Study outline22
    23. 23. Pretest Concerns ProfileLow intensity of awareness and managementconcerns (not consistent)High intensity of informational and personalconcerns (consistent)Considerable high intensity of consequenceand collaboration concerns (unconvential)Posttest Concerns ProfileAwareness (sig.), informational, andmanagement concerns subsided (consistent)Personal concerns remained steady(inconsistent)Growth of impact concerns (consistent)Changes in students’concerns about web video23
    24. 24.  Students increased theirknowledge of web video andimproved confidence in usingweb video for learning Students managedsuccessfully learning tasksmediated with web video High intensity of impactconcerns at pre-postDiscussion of findings24CBAM Stages of Concerns,p. 48
    25. 25. Study outline25
    26. 26. Role of web video and blogging for learning26 Web video and blogging were perceived as indispensableWeb 2.0technologies for learning, V = .49, F(2, 13) = 6.01, p = .014 Students’comments: “I don’t think I had this complete understanding before this course of what Web 2.0 is thesupplement to learning is [sic]. I’ve been able to take what I’ve learned in the last few weeksand I’ve seen the value …” “I thinkYouTube should impart in the curriculum [sic] the way we’re using them [videos] nowin our class. I think every single classroom could use that format and really benefit from it…”
    27. 27.  Advantageous attributes of webvideo for learning: “entertainment”attribute,F(1, 16) = 8.73, p = .009 “multiple perspective”attribute,F(1, 16) = 9.26, p = .008 “multimodality”attribute,F(1, 16) = 5.89, p = .027Affordances of web video for learning27Contentdiversity(18.5%)Personalization(25.9%)Multimodality(7.4%)Accessibility(33.3%)Easy accessInstantaccessSearchabilityPersonalwork andeffort MultiplemediaformatsCurrentissues anddiverseperspectivesNumerouscapabilitiesof useBetterstoragePercentage of thematic units representing participants’perceptions of the distinctive attributes of web video in contrastto prior types of video technologies (p. 123)
    28. 28. 28Web video opportunities for content contextualizationMeasures(Use of web video…)Estimated marginalmeans F pa ŋPretest Posttest…makes learning more authentic 2.24 1.94 1.74 .206 .10…enables to explore broadly other people’sideas and perspectives2.12 1.82 2.04 .172 .11…helps to set the context 2.71 2.47 1.36 .260 .08…helps to visualize ideas and theoreticalconcepts2.29 2.12 2.47 .136 .13…enhances understanding of theoreticalconcepts2.29 2.12 1.31 .269 .08…helps to focus attention on topic 2.29 2.06 1.66 .216 .10Top3benefits
    29. 29. 29Web video opportunities for student-driven learningMeasures(Use of web video…)Estimatedmarginal means F pa ŋPretest Posttest…motivates to get more involved in learning 1.94 1.82 .39 .543 .02…makes learning more challenging 2.77 2.18 4.68 .046 .23…enables to work through course material atone’s own pace2.35 2.41 .06 .817 .00…promotes collaboration with fellow students 2.24 1.88 3.43 .083 .18..gives opportunity to be an active participantinstead of “a consumer of information”2.06 1.77 2.47 .136 .13Top3benefits
    30. 30. Web video technologyconstraintsCross-browser compatibilityproblemsInsufficient bandwidth for qualityvideo viewing experienceLack of ability to download webvideo (sig.)Technical problems with videosharing websitesIncompatibility of digital videoformats with MS MovieMakerDeficiency of web videosearching skillsRapid growth of video sharingwebsitesLack of ability to navigate videosharing websitesLack of ability to find a relevant webvideo (sig.)Lack of ability to store and organizeweb video efficiently (sig.)Lack of conceptualunderstanding of web videoConcerns around authenticity andquality of web video contentMost cited group of concerns instudents’ commentsPerceived constraints of web video for learning30
    31. 31.  Web video as a means of learning received positive response from students Distinction reserved for web video: accessibility,multimodality,content diversity,customization. Project came close to meeting essential characteristics for authentic learning Web video constraints that need to be addressed Lack of understanding of the nature of user-created content Technology incompatibilityDiscussion of findings31
    32. 32. Study outline32
    33. 33. Participants’ use of Internet and video sharing websites33% of time spent on video sharing websites,posttest (N = 15) (p. 145)% of time spent online (N = 15)during pre- and posttest (p. 144)
    34. 34. Improved proficiency in digital media use and production skills,V = .93, F(1, 14) = 6.69, p = .024Participants’ self-assessment of digital media skills34MeasuresEstimated marginalmeans F pa ŋPretest PosttestSearch the Web for information using searchengines3.67 4.33 2.26 .155 .14Locate necessary information on the Web 3.80 4.33 2.32 .150 .14Create and contribute to a blog 2.07 3.73 17.5 .001 .56Image search using web search engines 3.73 4.53 8.19 .013 .37Video search using web search engines 3.53 4.13 4.30 .057 .24Video search using video sharing websites 3.47 4.13 6.09 .027 .30Embed web video into a blog 2.00 3.53 12.43 .003 .47Produce a digital video .80 3.00 38.50 .000 .73Upload digital video to the Web 1.13 3.07 17.47 .001 .56Use media editing programs 1.40 3.20 36.98 .000 .73Significanttreatmenteffect
    35. 35.  Real-life representation(M = 4.18) Substantial relevance either to the topic(M = 4.12) Relevance to assigned readings(M = 4.06)Motivators for web video appropriation*35*Using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (least important) to 5 (most important)Learning events of video-enhanced blogging, pp. 236-237
    36. 36.  Enables to take issues to a deeper level(M = 1.71*) Enables to make new connections(M = 1.82*) Facilitates thinking and reflection(M = 1.82*)Perceived benefits of video-enhanced blogging36*Using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1(strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree)Screenshot of student’svideo-enhanced blog
    37. 37.  Opportunity to see differences of opinion(M = 1.65) Opportunity to clarify one’s ownknowledge about the topic(M = 1.82) Opportunity to have one’s own voice(M = 1.88)Perceived benefits of web video production*37*Using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree)
    38. 38.  expansion of practical knowledge (50%) advancement of conceptual understanding(18.7%) engagement in real-life practice (18.7%) gratification in sharing web video (12.6%)Perceived benefits of web video productionfor understanding*38*Percentage frequencies of thematic unitsScreenshot of student’s own web videoembedded into her blog
    39. 39.  Web video takes high priority when processinginformation Preference for instructor-produced or assignedvideos Most students perceived minor risks of usingweb video for learning 70% students satisfied with the WebVideoProjectPerceptions of the impact of the Project39Percentage of thematic unitsrepresenting participants’ overallsatisfaction with the Project (p. 162)
    40. 40.  Web video use and production add a furtherdimension to text-based reflections Web video appropriation gives additionalcognitive opportunity to contextualizetheoretical concepts Students accept the idea of the “self-directed”appropriation of web video;but more trainingis still neededDiscussion of findings40
    41. 41. Implications andFurther ResearchThe Problem Theoretical FrameworkDiscussion of FindingsResearch Method41
    42. 42.  Increased understanding of web video asmeans for transforming learning Identification of functional significance of web video(accessibility,personalization,content diversity,multimodality) Identification of important pedagogical strengths ofweb video appropriation and production Identification of challenges when incorporating webvideo into university classroom Proposed a conceptual architecture of web videomediated learning Shift to student-driven learning satiated with flexibility andaccountability42
    43. 43.  Positive response to the proposed design of web videomediated learning Web video capacity to situate student learning within broadercontextual environment Web video facilitates the relationship between scholarlyknowledge and real-life Project provided students with digital media skills to processinformation and construct their own knowledge Students’tendency to work on video mediated assignmentsin an individual capacity. Reinforcement of the value of instructor’s facilitation andpersonalized support structures43
    44. 44.  Examine the impact of web video mediatedlearning and re-test hypotheses with a largersample size Explore social dimensions of web videomediated learning Evaluate the content of web video mediatedlearning activities44
    45. 45. DennisYorkPh.D. DefenseMay 14, 2013An exploration of web video mediated learning in the university classroomGraduate Programme in EducationYork University
    46. 46. Are students ready touse web video tosupport their learning?What do students thinkabout the learning valueof web video?46
    47. 47. Most research explored video production aspart of assessment of students’performancecompetencies- Videopapers,video cases of teaching ordance performanceFew studies examine video productionas multimodal composition of reflectivenarrative47
    48. 48. Web 2.0 Video(User-created web video)1990s 2020s2010s2000s 2030sWeb 1.0 Video(One-way web video)Web 3.0 VideoWeb 4.0 Video?Static WebParticipatory WebSemantic WebIntelligent Web*Social networks*Video hosting service, sharing*Video mash-ups*Video annotations*Convergence of applications*Mobile devices*Extensive use of video applications*Sensor networks*Intelligent web searching*Convergence of devices*Consolidation of web services*Automatic translation/capturingWebdevelopment*Emergence of WWW*Video file transfer*Lack of interactivity*Knowledge of HTMLCurrent researchterritoryEvolution of Web Video48
    49. 49. • Search and discoveramateur content• Watch video in real time inweb browser• Upload one’s own video clips• Record personal videojournals using a webcam• Interact with web video uploaders(e.g., recommend,comment,orvideo responses)• Control quality of web videocontent• Share video clips outsideofYouTube’s infrastructure• Appropriation of existingvideo clipsSources: Burgess & Green, 2009; Jenkins,2006, and others49
    50. 50. Pedagogical Capacities of Web Video• Enables facilitation of an understanding of complex concepts• Enables advancement of analysis and reflection• Enables enhancement of active, student-driven,and personalizedlearning• Enables cultivation of originality and creative multimodalcomposition• Facilitates equitable and flexible teaching and learning50
    51. 51. Participatory CultureFrameworkDistributedCognition TheorySituated CognitionTheoryConcerns BasedAdoption Model51
    52. 52. 52
    53. 53. 53
    54. 54. Finding 1.1: Changes in students’concerns about web videoNo Statements of ConcernEstimatedmarginal means F pa ŋPretest Posttest6 I’d like to help other students inusing web video.5.33 3.60 9.43 .008 .4116 I’d like to know what resourcesare available if the instructordecides to integrate web video incourse.4.00 3.00 5.83 .030 .2923 I’d like to modify my use of webvideo based on the experiences ofother students.4.13 2.20 9.24 .009 .4035 Coordination of learning tasks andtechnologies is taking too much ofmy time.5.13 3.73 5.04 .041 .27Repeated-Measures ANOVA for Selected Concern Scores (p. 114) 54
    55. 55. Finding 1.2: Changes in students’levels of use of web videoLoU Measures Pretest f (%) Posttest f (%)Lower Level of UseNon-Use 3 (20.0) 0Orientation 5 (33.3) 3 (20.0)Preparation 2 (13.3) 2 (13.3)Mechanical Use 1 (6.7) 2 (13.3)Higher Levels of UseRoutine 2 (13.3) 3 (20.0)Refinement 1 (6.7) 2 (13.3)Integration 1 (6.7) 2 (13.3)Renewal 0 1 (6.7)Pre-Post Frequencies for Levels of Use of Web Video (p. 115)55
    56. 56. 56Perceived web video impact on achievementMeasure FactorStronglyagree(%)Stronglydisagree1 2 3 4 5Use of web video increases academicachievement.Pretest 17.6 64.7 17.6 0 0Posttest 41.2 41.2 11.8 5.9 0
    57. 57. 57Most typical constraints ofweb video integration
    58. 58. 58
    59. 59. 59
    60. 60. Typical positive comments re:the benefits of web videoappropriation: “That little video combined with the article,while it gave me a reallygood background and understanding of what eportfolio is…but the videoadded a usability factor…and I see…it dawned on me…I could’ve put allof this on eportfolio from my other class.And then enthusiasm came out.The web video came in at the end and communicated to me, gave me alot of ideas what I can do, use it, and apply in my own life by seeing howother people doing it. I guess that is learning about modelling the others.”[sic] “When I summarize the article,I need to have a video that connects thetwo.I need to read the article and watch the video, and then do thesummary and reflections. I think video enhances the article and providesa different perspective or light to it.” [sic]Finding 3.3: Perceptions of video-enhanced blogging60
    61. 61. 61
    62. 62.  Results are not generalized outside of the study’s population conditioned bylocation factor. Employment of a convenience sampling strategy caused by the call for a veryspecific type of university students Small sample of participants due to unexpected low enrolment,survey length, andlack of compensation The data analysis is exploratory in nature Match between scales and research construct may be able to be improved Survey and semi-structured interviews draw on self-reported data Researcher’s effect – workshop trainings and involvement in data collection Novelty and disruption effects might result in students’higher productivity62

    ×