• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Text vs. Video Reflections: Teacher Perceptions of their Instructional Effectiveness
 

Text vs. Video Reflections: Teacher Perceptions of their Instructional Effectiveness

on

  • 230 views

Teacher perceptions of the instructional effectiveness and impact of youTube & Ning- facilitated video vs. LMS-supported text-based reflections as instructional tools in online graduate classes

Teacher perceptions of the instructional effectiveness and impact of youTube & Ning- facilitated video vs. LMS-supported text-based reflections as instructional tools in online graduate classes

Statistics

Views

Total Views
230
Views on SlideShare
228
Embed Views
2

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

1 Embed 2

http://www.linkedin.com 2

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Text vs. Video Reflections: Teacher Perceptions of their Instructional Effectiveness Text vs. Video Reflections: Teacher Perceptions of their Instructional Effectiveness Presentation Transcript

    • TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF THE INSTRUCTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS AND IMPACT OF VIDEO VS. TEXT-BASED REFLECTIONS AS INSTRUCTIONAL TOOLS IN ONLINE GRADUATE CLASSES Maria D. Avgerinou, Ph.D., O.E.T., ACS Athens, & Hellenic Open University, ELEARN 2013- Las Vegas, US
    • Overview ¨  Although especially video-taped reflection has become a significant component of teacher education curricula, research on the use of video has not included a comparison of video-based to text-based reflections. This study examines pre and in-service teachers' perceptions of the instructional effectiveness and impact of video vs. text-based reflections as instructional tools in six human development graduate classes.
    • Literature Review I q  q  Effective teachers engage in reflective practice. The Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium’s (INTASC, 1991, p. 31) 9th core standard for teachers reads: “The teacher is a reflective practitioner who continually evaluates the effects of his/her choices and actions on others (students, parents, and other professionals in the learning community) and who actively seeks out opportunities to grow professionally.” Mewborn (1999) argued that pre-service teachers need time to learn and practice reflective skills in a non-evaluative environment. Bullough and Baughman (1997) asserted that the first five to seven years of teaching careers constitute the novice period; these years should be marked by ongoing reflection, typically in the form of journaling: diaries, notebooks, dialogues, integrative entries, and evaluative entries (Sileo, Prater, Luckner & Rhine, 1998).
    • Literature Review II q  q  Experienced teachers also benefit from ongoing reflection in similar formats (Bean & Stevens, 2002). For pre- service or inservice teachers who are reflecting on their teaching practice as they do it, not simply reflecting on a past experience, reflection typically leads to the solution of specific practical problems (Smith & Hatton, 1993). Styler and Philleo (2003) recommended the use of technology to enhance reflective journaling. Whipp (2003) reported on research about teacher candidates engaging in field experiences in urban middle schools in which teacher candidates engaged in increasingly higher levels of reflection because of online discussions. Rodgers (2002) proposed four phases in the process of reflection, asserting that reflecting on action becomes practice for the reflection in action, necessary for teachers who must make decisions and responses on the spot repeatedly throughout each teaching day.
    • Literature Review III ¨  ¨  As a result, for the past two decades reflection has become an increasingly significant component of teacher education curricula (Cheng & Chau, 2009; Clarke, 2009; Kong, 2010; Jones & McNamara, 2004; Leung & Kember, 2003; Pollard, 2000; Rhine & Bryant, 2007; Rodgers, 2002; Schon, 1983; Sturges & Reyna, 2010; Wang & Hartley, 2003). Avgerinou, Carroll, Spelman, and Hanlon (2005) note that “custom design of reflection opportunities appears to be the best choice for teacher education professors. This is especially true when those custom designs are based on the instructional design (particularly objectives) and delivery of the course, strengths as well as specific needs of the teacher candidates and their instructors, and the ongoing call for thoughtful reflection in a “peoplebased” profession where infinite variables continue to influence effectiveness.” (p. 27) One popular form of reflection is conducted on videotaped records of teachers' field experiences, and/or practice. However, research on the use of video in that context has not included a comparison of video-based to the traditional text-based reflections when both focus on linking theory to one's own past personal, and current or future professional experience.
    • Study Aim ¨  This study examines pre and in-service teachers' perceptions of the instructional effectiveness and impact of video vs. text-based reflections as instructional tools in six human development graduate classes.
    • Study Questions ¨  1.  2.  3.  4.  5.  The study addresses the following questions: is the visual reflection experience different to the narrative one ? If so, how?; are there any pluses, or minuses in reflecting visually vs. reflecting via text?; what does the participant like/dislike about the visual reflection experience? what learning occurred for the participant during the video reflection experience?, and how does the participant report that s/he has already applied, or would apply it?
    • Methodology & Project Description Participants ¨  This descriptive study (survey) has involved 84 pre and in service online students (47 females, & 37 males). Of those, 79 participated in the regular academic quarter run of the course, and 5 in the summer quarter run of the course.
    • Project Description I As part of the assessed coursework of five Human Development classes, occurring four during the regular academic quarters (11 weeks) 2011& 2012 and one in the Summer quarter (5 weeks) 2011, students are required to: ¨  Regular Quarter Students: produce four text-based self-reflections and three text-based critiques of other students' reflections. These are posted on D2L. Students are also required to produce three video-based self-reflections (3 minutes) and three video-reflection critiques via youTube, and to post them to our private Ning platform. ¨  Summer Quarter Students: produce three text-based self-reflections as well as three video-based self-reflections (3 minutes). The text-based reflections are posted on D2L whereas the you-Tube produced video-based reflections are posted on Ning. ¨  Both groups: As an optional activity and following instructor-set prompts, students can produce speed reflections (max 150 words) on their experience as contributors and viewers of videos. Thus speed self-reflections are used as informal surveys within the context of this study.
    • Project Description II ¨  ¨  This study has utilized all aforementioned visual and textual material which are treated via the content analysis method. Extra credit has been offered to those who consented to participate in this study by submitting their speed reflections to the Ning platform. There is no consequences for those who do not wish to participate. The study does not present any conceivable risk to vulnerable populations although at this point the instructor is not aware of any such being part of the human development class. Once final grading is submitted for all participating classes, and all video and text-based data are collected and codified by the instructor, data will be removed from Ning and from the D2L platform. Data is stored in the instructor's computer which is password protected.
    • Question 1: is the visual reflection experience different to the narrative one ? If so, how?; ¨  ¨  ¨  ¨  ¨  Students found the visual reflection experience more challenging than the narrative both in terms of production and in terms of sharing. Production is discussed in terms of comfort with technology, as well as comfort with speaking in front of the webcam while trying to keep focused on, and concise in the discussion of the the reflection topic. Sharing is identified as difficult because some reflections are too personal to be recorded. A few students reported that written reflections are more straightforward and take fewer steps to be produced. Written reflections are also more comprehensive while video reflections may sound like ramblings if not focused on a particular topic. One student reported that if focused, a video reflection can be as insightful as a written blog. Students report that experience and practice of producing self video reflections, personal presentation style on camera, as well as interest in reflection topics are factors that affect the quality of the final video reflection as much as they would with a written reflection.
    • Question 2: are there any pluses, or minuses in reflecting visually vs. reflecting via text?; ¨  ¨  Advantages: see/hear others’ talking; more personable; conversational and casual style; more like a classroom discussion; “getting to know” others online; more concise (due to the 3 minute limit); more constructive; using new technology Disadvantages: learning curve; time consuming; editing entire video even if just need to correct one section; producing multiple videos to end up with a final one; more concerned about privacy; lack of eye contact; digital stage fright; students feel self conscious and easily distracted in front of the webcam; challenging for non-native English speakers; requires lots of practice; less focused and less comprehensive because of casual and conversational style
    • Question 3: what does the participant like/dislike about the visual reflection experience? ¨  It was not easy to distinguish between responses that related to Question 2, and those referring to Question 3. In other words, typically what was discussed as advantages of the visual reflections were also liked by the students; whereas what was reported as disadvantages, was also disliked by students.
    • Question 4: what learning occurred for the participant during the video reflection experience? ¨  ¨  ¨  Overall, students reported developing their technology skills as a result of participating in the visual reflection activity. Production of the videos and then embedding them into the Ning, despite a challenging adventure, was viewed as more educationally rewarding than just participating in online discussions via posting e.g. VoiceThread comments. There is no specific mention to their critical reflection skills and how video reflections helped develop them (or not) further. A few students have become more aware of issues such as producing a visual that can effectively attract and maintain the audience’s interest, and, protecting privacy and confidentiality online.
    • Question 5: how does the participant report that s/ he has already applied, or would apply it? §  §  §  Participants report that they are satisfied with the technology skills they have developed as a result of activity, and would attempt to use both youTube and Ning in their current or future classes. They are impressed with the creativity aspect of such projects, and their educational potential. They also report that due to using the specific technology, they now understand more the digital native generation, but they are also more mindful with such issues as privacy and video-recording minors in schools.
    • Discussion and Conclusion ¨  ¨  ¨  ¨  ¨  Despite the fact that most students admit to the many advantages of the video reflection, and report feeling more comfortable with practice thus more satisfied with the 2nd and 3rd video reflections, they would still opt for the written over the video reflections. This feeling is also shared by students who identify themselves as auditory learners and who at the beginning of this experience seemed to be more favorable toward it than producing written reflections. This result is readily understood for the data set collected via the Summer Session, where students had only three weeks of exposure to the video reflections. It is not however as easily justified for the regular quarter students who experimented with video reflections for about 10 weeks. Therefore more follow up research in the form of targeted interviews is required. At the same time, perhaps more exposure to video reflections should be required (i.e. increase them to more than 3) for future classes.
    • Screen Shot of the Homepage of the Visual Reflection Ning
    • References I §  §  §  §  §  §  §  §  Avgerinou, M.D., Carroll Kelly, M., Spelman, M.V., & Hanlon, K. (2005). Blended pedagogy research: Pathways for developing problem-solving reflective practitioners. In M. Simonson, & M. Crawford (Eds.), 28th Annual Proceedings: Selected Papers Presented at the 2005 Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Volume 1: Research and Development (pp. 18-28). Miami, FL: AECT/Nova Southeastern University. Bean, T., & Stevens, L. P. (2002). Scaffolding reflection for pre-service and in-service teachers. Reflective Practice, 3(2), 205-218. Bullough, R. & Baughman, K. (1997). First year teacher eight years later: An inquiry into teacher development. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Cheng, G., & Chau, J. (2009). Digital video for fostering self-reflection in an ePortfolio environment. Learning, Media and Technology, 34(4), 337-350. Clarke, L. (2009). Video reflections in initial teacher education. British Journal of Educational Technology 40(5), 959-96. INTASC (1991). Model standards for beginning teacher licensing and development, Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. Kong, S.C. (2010). Using a web-enabled video system to support student–teachers’ self-reflection in teaching practice. Computers & Education 55(4), 1772-1782.  Jones, L., & McNamara, O. (2004) The possibilities and constraints of multimedia as a basis for critical reflection. Cambridge Journal of Education 34(3), 179-296.
    • References II §  §  §  §  §  §  §  §  §  §  §  §  §  §  §  Leung, D. Y. P., & Kember, D. (2003). The relationship between approaches to learning and reflection upon practice. Educational Psychology 23(1) Jan 2003, 61-71. Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Mewborn, D. (1999). Reflective thinking among pre-service elementary mathematics teachers. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(3), 316-341. Pollard, A. (2000). Readings for reflective teaching. London, UK: Continuum International Publishing Group Ltd. Rhine, S., & Bryant, J. (2007). Enhancing pre-service teachers' reflective practice with digital video-based dialogue. Reflective Practice 8(3), 345-358. Rodgers, C. (2002) Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey and reflective thinking. Teachers College Record 4(4), 842-866. Rodgers, C. R. (2002). Seeing student learning: Teacher change and the role of reflection. Harvard Educational Review, 72(2), 230-253. Schon, D. A (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. London: Temple Smith Smith, D., & Hatton, N. (1993). Reflection in teacher education: A study in progress. Education Research and Perspectives, 20(1), 13-23. Sileo, T. W., Prater, M. A., Luckner, J. L., & Rhine, B. (1998). Strategies to facilitate pre-service teachers’ active involvement in learning. Teacher Education and Special Education, 21(3), 187-204. Sturges, M., & Reyna, J. (2010). Use of Vimeo on-line video sharing services as a reflective tool in higher educational settings: A preliminary report. In C.H. Steel, M.J. Keppell, P. Gerbic & S. Housego (Eds.), Curriculum, technology & transformation for an unknown future (pp.936-943). Proceedings ascilite Sydney, Australia. Styler, G. M., & Philleo, T. (2003). Blogging and blogspots: An alternative format for encouraging reflective practice among pre-service teachers. Education, 123(4), 789-797. Wang, J., & Hartley. K. (2003). Video technology as a support for teacher education reform. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 11, 105–38. Whipp, J.L. (2003). Scaffolding critical reflection in online discussions: Helping prospective teachers think deeply about field experiences in urban schools. Journal of Teacher Education 54(4), 321-333.  
    • THANK YOU! avgerinoum@acs.gr