YouTube-online

1,045 views
978 views

Published on

YouTube usage in one online class is reported; what are other possible uses?

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,045
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • This slide shows what the analysis found of different ways that students addressed their unseen K12 audience. At the beginning the students effectively forget the K12 audience and addressed most of the comments to their colleagues. By the second micrteaching they remembered to address the right audience. Still the students had a difficult time with creating the challenging, engaging environment that would raise K12 student curiosity; they tended to show students what to do and see.
  • For example, the instructor was able to get a very good perspective on the technology and science-lesson skills of the student.
  • YouTube-online

    1. 1. Using YouTube to Extend Microteaching Sessions . . . and Applications to Online & Performance-based Instruction<br />Presented at: All Areas of Study - 2010<br />Empire State College<br />Master of Arts in Teaching Program <br />Eileen O’Connor, Ph.D.<br />www.slideshare.net/eoconnor<br />
    2. 2. Using YouTube to Extend Microteaching Sessions . . . and Applications to Online & Performance-based Instruction – AAOS 2010 presentation – available at www.slideshare.net/eoconnor/YouTube-online<br />Paper soon to be published: THE EFFECT ON LEARNING, COMMUNICATION, AND ASSESSMENT WHEN STUDENT-CREATED YOUTUBES OF MICROTEACHING WERE USED IN AN ONLINE TEACHER-EDUCATION COURSE -- in the Journal of Educational Technology Systems<br />
    3. 3. Agenda<br />What are your course needs?<br />Background on the course & the needs of the course ; research questions <br />Findings from the YouTube pilot<br />Conclusions, improvements, next steps, and extensions: <br />How can we scaffold a developmental teacher-growth process where we can view performance? <br />What evidence would you want to see in a self-taped microteaching?<br />Where might such self-videotapings serve ESC needs?<br />
    4. 4. Where might a performance help your work? Jot down some ideas – we will return to these at the end<br />
    5. 5. Course Particulars<br />Pre-service teachers who are learning to become science teachers; career changing adults <br />An associated course is face-to-face and allows these teachers to practice but . . . <br />content-pedagogy experts are not always available<br />Purpose of YouTube pilot—to have students:<br />develop a microteaching that they share with peers & the instructor that can aid in their development as soon-to-be K12 teachers, that can serve as a course assessment , and that can encourage peer networks<br />
    6. 6. Course particulars: the nature of the course interactions<br />The online course itself is highly interactive and tech-enabled online course: <br />Second Life for meetings and discussions<br />Talk-aloud discussion boards for planning <br />Networking students in an expressed instructional objective -- COULD / SHOULD THIS BE A REQUIREMENT IN YOUR CLASSROOM<br />
    7. 7. Demographics: Career-changing adults <br />
    8. 8. Research questions (see paper)<br />Can the use of readily-available video-recording and sharing applications, such as YouTube, provide more opportunities for pre-service teachers working in a largely online environment to practice teaching before they enter the classroom? How can having more opportunities for content-expert faculty review help these students grow as research-based science teachers? Can students in online courses develop more collegial relationships through YouTube sharing? <br />What areas appear as problematic when students self-created and posted these videos – from a technical perspective and from a presentation perspective?<br />How did the YouTube serve as an assessment tool within the course? How has the use of student-developed videos improved the course effectiveness?<br />
    9. 9. You & your online students get to know each other<br />
    10. 10. Findings: students get to know each other – online <br />More personal interactions were apparent: <br />Peer help with creating and posting the YouTubes<br />Students discuss their presentation style<br />Do I look shifty eyes? <br />Students comment about themselves personally<br />Not happy with the beard  it was shaved<br />Personalities become apparent <br />From show-off-y to competent to quiet <br />
    11. 11. Findings: learning the technology<br />Some technology struggles in the beginning; but quickly overcome – issues at the beginning: <br />Uploading problems – timing out / too long <br />Trouble embedding the right links <br />No Helpdesk – students helped each other <br />Initial handout from the instructor with some “basics” <br />The icebreaker to test the process was very helpful - and students enjoyed their presentations<br />
    12. 12. Ways students worked<br />Sophisticated video-editing was clearly stated & demonstrated as NOT being required; this was not per se a technology course<br />
    13. 13. View students’ actual work <br />
    14. 14. Findings: now you can analyze performance characteristics <br />Such as the style of teaching that was evident:<br />
    15. 15. Students were creative in displaying data & its use<br />
    16. 16. A “performance based” assessment<br />Brings in a vital aspect of instruction and review: <br />The process of creating the microteaching is instructive in-and-of itself<br />As evident in the scientific quality within the productions even without specific coaching on how & what to present<br />Kindly but pointed review<br />Mastery of many areas but still not student centered or interesting<br />More similar to actual classroom observations <br />The content-pedagogy instructor can now observe technique, technology integration, & aspects of comfort in front of an audience <br />Difficult qualities to assess in online environment<br />
    17. 17. Findings <br />Good science & tech . . . however: <br />Too much to an adult audience – their colleagues<br />Despite criteria, notes, rubrics, and comments<br />But improvement by the second microteaching<br />Too much “this is what you should know about science” and not enough engendering of the questions that science addresses<br />Too little evidence of why K12 students would be interested or engaged in the science<br />
    18. 18. Benefits <br />Good way for online instructors to get to know students – in an asynchronous manner<br />Easy to use: <br />The learning curve for the technology is small<br />Network students for peer support <br />Important communication skills that teachers need: <br />Good modeling for their own classroom; K12 students work well in this environment<br />
    19. 19. Value to the students<br />Practice with the technology and with the teaching; learning how to assemble materials needed, how to address the standards<br />Getting to know their peers better<br />Using 21st century skills <br />
    20. 20. Value in teacher prep <br />Practicing with assembly of all the materials and ideas needed when teaching:<br />Requires the integration of many areas: the science; the lessons; the technology; and the videotaping  goes beyond what is evident in a lesson plan<br />Provides practice in speaking and later critiquing <br />The natural concern about speaking with colleagues as evident in comments to the audience and introductions <br />Also, these students may soon have to do a demo lesson on a job interview<br />
    21. 21. Selected links to microteaching YouTubes (T&L – spring 2010)<br />Deleted for student privacy reasons<br />
    22. 22. Value to using YouTube, in general<br />
    23. 23. Lessons learned for teacher ed: more research & development needed <br />Very valuable techniques – show the good and the bad of teaching <br />Often teacher-centered / little evidence of differentiation – but movement towards best practice<br />VERY difficult to change practice – we teach how we were taught; which may not be as evident in lesson plans and papers<br />Student products (the videos) can be shared, stored, and analyzed  improvement in teacher-ed instruction can be supported by actual performance evidence<br />
    24. 24. Lets return to your initial ideas:<br />NOTE: you might change instruction in<br /> significant ways – are you ready?<br />
    25. 25. In conclusion: the pilot outcomes<br />Very worthy – providing a whole new face for pre-service teacher education <br />Closer to the classroom – than written lesson plans; much better assessment of preparation for teaching<br />However, lack of “real” students may have skewed this towards a performance for other scientist<br />Performance-based assessment – heralds our adult students: good concrete experience <br />Need to bring the course itself into better alignment with this performance approach  areas in need of improvement were highlighted<br />
    26. 26. Notes to prospective implementers <br />Valuable way to assess performance but we need to improve the evaluation of live performances and not simply “papers”<br />Particularly useful in clinical programs and/or where performances are required <br />Model the techniques you want <br />Easier said then done<br />In teacher education, you need a new mental model of teaching; the YouTube gives evidence to the deeper thinking of students<br />The instructor will have students continue to use these videos in the fall semester’s course <br />

    ×