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

DennisYork
Ph.D. Defense
May 14, 2013
An exploration of web video mediated learning in the university classroom
Graduate Programme in Education
York University

Implications and
Further Research
The Problem Theoretical Framework
Discussion of Findings
AGENDA
Research Method
2

Implications and
Further Research
Research Method
3

Educational literature has made a
variety of claims regarding numerous
opportunities of web-based technology
for learning
Call for better management of
web-based technology and its
integration into curricula
4

Focus on videos produced in proprietary formats
- “filtered”narrative
- likely to isolate students from emergent knowledge and
provide little opportunity for interaction with real-world
experiences
-- Few studies on user-created web video
- “unfiltered”narrative
-- Extant research does not meet students’needs in
fast-growing information environment that requires a
new skillset to appropriate information
5

Most inquiries into effects of user-created
web video are produced by practitioners
- Possibility of researcher’s bias
- Addressing specific local problems
Few studies examine effects of user-
created web video in a systematic way
controlling validity of research data to
a considerable degree
6

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 appropriation
and video production on students’perceptions
7

Implications and
Further Research
Research Method
8

Learning: A community-driven process of knowledge production
and meaning-making enabled by greater access to information and
open sharing
User-created
content
Grassroots
creativity
Bottom-up
collaboration
Open sharing
(Burgess & Green,2009;Macfadyen, 2006;Jenkins et al., 2006;and others)
9

Learning: A developmental process, during which students
progress from concerns on a personal level to higher-level
concerns about the effectiveness of the innovation.
Self concerns
(awareness,
informational,
personal)
Management
concerns
Impact concerns
(consequence,
collaboration,
refocusing)
(Hall et al., 1977;Hall & Hord, 1987;Hall & Loucks, 1977)
10

CONSTRUCTIVISM
Theory of
situated
cognition
Theory of
distributed
cognition
Participatory
culture
Concerns-
based
adoption
model
11

Learning: An emergent and dynamic construction of new
understanding of knowledge “inherited from the context of use”
Context-driven
knowledge
Authentic learning Situated activity
(Barab & Duffy, 2000;Brown et al., 1989;Herrington et al., 2003;Lave,1990,1991;Lombardi, 2007;and others)
12

Learning: Participation in activity through dynamic
interaction with other individuals and mediated by artefacts
Artefact
observation
Exploration of
artefact attributes
Guided
participation in
artefact use
(Cole & Engestrom,1993;Pea, 1997;Resnick, 1996;Salomon,1994)
13

Conceptual Framework for the Study
14

Pedagogical intervention / Research treatment
Showcase of
students'
videos
***
Boot Camp:
Publishing
video to Web
Week 6
In-class work
on video
composition
(in pairs)
***
Boot Camp:
Video
polishing
Week 5
ePortfolio
(in-class
lecture)
***
Boot Camp:
Video
editing
Week 4
Ethics of
Web 2.0 (in-
class lecture)
***
Boot Camp:
Gathering
resources &
filming
Week 3
Assistive
technology
(in-class
lecture)
***
Boot Camp:
Planning
video
composition
Week 2
Project
Introduction
***
Boot Camp:
Embedding
web video
into blog
Week 1
Video enhanced
blogging
Participation in
small, in-class
group
discussions
Statement and
re-statement of
personal
philosophy
Web video
production
Project curriculum Project assignments
Self-assessment
15
Critical appropriation of
existing web video
Creative production of
one’s own web video

Implications and
Further Research
Research Method
16

Web video mediated learning
Creative
production
of students’
own web
video
Critical
appropriation
of existing
web video
• Students’concerns about web video
• Their perceptions of affordances and
constraints of web video integration
• Perceived impact on learning
Scholarly
knowledge
Web videos
Personal
experiences
17

18
Snapshot of a computer lab used during the Web
Video Project
Participants
Master’s students registered in
“Technology and Education”
course in Spring 2010

Pretest phase
(Week 1)
Midpoint evaluation
(Week 4)
Posttest phase
(Week 6)
QUAN
•Survey method
qual
•Interviews
•Learning artefacts
• Pretest surveys
• 1st round of interviews
• Collection of artefacts
(personal statements)
• Midpoint feedback
• 2nd round of interviews
Research Treatment
• Posttest surveys
• 3rd round of interviews
• Collection of artefacts
(re-visited statements,
self-assessment
reports)One-group pretest-posttest design
19
with mixed-method data collection procedures

Implications and
Further Research
Research Method
20

7 (41.2%) 10 (58.8%)
3 (17.6%)
5 (29.4%)
9 (52.9%)
Elementary Education Math/Science
Language Arts Special Education
Others
100% teacher candidates
10 (58.8%) had prior teaching
experience (M = 2.94, SD = 3.87)
13 (76.5%) worked on
their 1st graduate degree
8 (47.1%) took an online course
8 (47.1%) participated in an
instructional technology course
16 (94.1%) had NOT taken a course
enhanced with web video
21
N = 17 (65% response rate)

Pretest Concerns Profile
Low intensity of awareness and management
concerns (not consistent)
High intensity of informational and personal
concerns (consistent)
Considerable high intensity of consequence
and collaboration concerns (unconvential)
Posttest Concerns Profile
Awareness (sig.), informational, and
management concerns subsided (consistent)
Personal concerns remained steady
(inconsistent)
Growth of impact concerns (consistent)
Changes in students’concerns about web video
23

 Students increased their
knowledge of web video and
improved confidence in using
web video for learning
 Students managed
successfully learning tasks
mediated with web video
 High intensity of impact
concerns at pre-post
Discussion of findings
24
CBAM Stages of Concerns,p. 48

Role of web video and blogging for learning
26
 Web video and blogging were perceived as indispensableWeb 2.0
technologies 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 the
supplement to learning is [sic]. I’ve been able to take what I’ve learned in the last few weeks
and I’ve seen the value …”
 “I thinkYouTube should impart in the curriculum [sic] the way we’re using them [videos] now
in our class. I think every single classroom could use that format and really benefit from it…”

 Advantageous attributes of web
video 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 = .027
Affordances of web video for learning
27
Contentdiversity(18.5%)
Personalization(25.9%)
Multimodality(7.4%)
Accessibility(33.3%)
Easy access
Instant
access
Searchability
Personal
work and
effort Multiple
media
formats
Current
issues and
diverse
perspectives
Numerous
capabilities
of use
Better
storage
Percentage of thematic units representing participants’
perceptions of the distinctive attributes of web video in contrast
to prior types of video technologies (p. 123)

28
Web video opportunities for content contextualization
Measures
(Use of web video…)
Estimated marginal
means F pa ŋ
Pretest Posttest
…makes learning more authentic 2.24 1.94 1.74 .206 .10
…enables to explore broadly other people’s
ideas and perspectives
2.12 1.82 2.04 .172 .11
…helps to set the context 2.71 2.47 1.36 .260 .08
…helps to visualize ideas and theoretical
concepts
2.29 2.12 2.47 .136 .13
…enhances understanding of theoretical
concepts
2.29 2.12 1.31 .269 .08
…helps to focus attention on topic 2.29 2.06 1.66 .216 .10
Top3benefits

29
Web video opportunities for student-driven learning
Measures
(Use of web video…)
Estimated
marginal means F pa ŋ
Pretest 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 at
one’s own pace
2.35 2.41 .06 .817 .00
…promotes collaboration with fellow students 2.24 1.88 3.43 .083 .18
..gives opportunity to be an active participant
instead of “a consumer of information”
2.06 1.77 2.47 .136 .13
Top3benefits

Web video technology
constraints
Cross-browser compatibility
problems
Insufficient bandwidth for quality
video viewing experience
Lack of ability to download web
video (sig.)
Technical problems with video
sharing websites
Incompatibility of digital video
formats with MS MovieMaker
Deficiency of web video
searching skills
Rapid growth of video sharing
websites
Lack of ability to navigate video
sharing websites
Lack of ability to find a relevant web
video (sig.)
Lack of ability to store and organize
web video efficiently (sig.)
Lack of conceptual
understanding of web video
Concerns around authenticity and
quality of web video content
Most cited group of concerns in
students’ comments
Perceived constraints of web video for learning
30

 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 incompatibility
31

Participants’ use of Internet and video sharing websites
33
% of time spent on video sharing websites,
posttest (N = 15) (p. 145)
% of time spent online (N = 15)
during pre- and posttest (p. 144)

Improved proficiency in digital media use and production skills,V = .93, F(1, 14) = 6.69, p = .024
Participants’ self-assessment of digital media skills
34
Measures
Estimated marginal
means F pa ŋ
Pretest Posttest
Search the Web for information using search
engines
3.67 4.33 2.26 .155 .14
Locate necessary information on the Web 3.80 4.33 2.32 .150 .14
Create and contribute to a blog 2.07 3.73 17.5 .001 .56
Image search using web search engines 3.73 4.53 8.19 .013 .37
Video search using web search engines 3.53 4.13 4.30 .057 .24
Video search using video sharing websites 3.47 4.13 6.09 .027 .30
Embed web video into a blog 2.00 3.53 12.43 .003 .47
Produce a digital video .80 3.00 38.50 .000 .73
Upload digital video to the Web 1.13 3.07 17.47 .001 .56
Use media editing programs 1.40 3.20 36.98 .000 .73
Significant
treatment
effect

 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

 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 blogging
36
*Using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1
(strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree)
Screenshot of student’s
video-enhanced blog

 Opportunity to see differences of opinion
(M = 1.65)
 Opportunity to clarify one’s own
knowledge 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)

 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 production
for understanding*
38*Percentage frequencies of thematic units
Screenshot of student’s own web video
embedded into her blog

 Web video takes high priority when processing
information
 Preference for instructor-produced or assigned
videos
 Most students perceived minor risks of using
web video for learning
 70% students satisfied with the WebVideo
Project
Perceptions of the impact of the Project
39
Percentage of thematic units
representing participants’ overall
satisfaction with the Project (p. 162)

 Web video use and production add a further
dimension to text-based reflections
 Web video appropriation gives additional
cognitive opportunity to contextualize
theoretical concepts
 Students accept the idea of the “self-directed”
appropriation of web video;but more training
is still needed
40

Implications and
Further Research
Research Method
41

 Increased understanding of web video as
means for transforming learning
 Identification of functional significance of web video
(accessibility,personalization,content diversity,
multimodality)
 Identification of important pedagogical strengths of
web video appropriation and production
 Identification of challenges when incorporating web
video into university classroom
 Proposed a conceptual architecture of web video
mediated learning
 Shift to student-driven learning satiated with flexibility and
accountability
42

 Positive response to the proposed design of web video
mediated learning
 Web video capacity to situate student learning within broader
contextual environment
 Web video facilitates the relationship between scholarly
knowledge and real-life
 Project provided students with digital media skills to process
information and construct their own knowledge
 Students’tendency to work on video mediated assignments
in an individual capacity.
 Reinforcement of the value of instructor’s facilitation and
personalized support structures
43

 Examine the impact of web video mediated
learning and re-test hypotheses with a larger
sample size
 Explore social dimensions of web video
mediated learning
 Evaluate the content of web video mediated
learning activities
44

Are students ready to
use web video to
support their learning?
What do students think
about the learning value
of web video?
46

Most research explored video production as
part of assessment of students’performance
competencies
- Videopapers,video cases of teaching or
dance performance
Few studies examine video production
as multimodal composition of reflective
narrative
47

Web 2.0 Video
(User-created web video)
1990s 2020s2010s2000s 2030s
Web 1.0 Video
(One-way web video)
Web 3.0 Video
Web 4.0 Video?
Static Web
Participatory Web
Semantic Web
Intelligent 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/capturing
Webdevelopment
*Emergence of WWW
*Video file transfer
*Lack of interactivity
*Knowledge of HTML
Current research
territory
Evolution of Web Video
48

• Search and discover
amateur content
• Watch video in real time in
web browser
• Upload one’s own video clips
• Record personal video
journals using a webcam
• Interact with web video uploaders
(e.g., recommend,comment,or
video responses)
• Control quality of web video
content
• Share video clips outside
ofYouTube’s infrastructure
• Appropriation of existing
video clips
Sources: Burgess & Green, 2009; Jenkins,2006, and others
49

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 personalized
learning
• Enables cultivation of originality and creative multimodal
composition
• Facilitates equitable and flexible teaching and learning
50

Participatory Culture
Framework
Distributed
Cognition Theory
Situated Cognition
Theory
Concerns Based
Adoption Model
51

Finding 1.1: Changes in students’concerns about web video
No Statements of Concern
Estimated
marginal means F pa ŋ
Pretest Posttest
6 I’d like to help other students in
using web video.
5.33 3.60 9.43 .008 .41
16 I’d like to know what resources
are available if the instructor
decides to integrate web video in
course.
4.00 3.00 5.83 .030 .29
23 I’d like to modify my use of web
video based on the experiences of
other students.
4.13 2.20 9.24 .009 .40
35 Coordination of learning tasks and
technologies is taking too much of
my time.
5.13 3.73 5.04 .041 .27
Repeated-Measures ANOVA for Selected Concern Scores (p. 114) 54

Finding 1.2: Changes in students’levels of use of web video
LoU Measures Pretest f (%) Posttest f (%)
Lower Level of Use
Non-Use 3 (20.0) 0
Orientation 5 (33.3) 3 (20.0)
Preparation 2 (13.3) 2 (13.3)
Mechanical Use 1 (6.7) 2 (13.3)
Higher Levels of Use
Routine 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
Perceived web video impact on achievement
Measure Factor
Strongly
agree
(%)
Strongly
disagree
1 2 3 4 5
Use of web video increases academic
achievement.
Pretest 17.6 64.7 17.6 0 0
Posttest 41.2 41.2 11.8 5.9 0

57
Most typical constraints of
web video integration

Typical positive comments re:the benefits of web video
appropriation:
 “That little video combined with the article,while it gave me a really
good background and understanding of what eportfolio is…but the video
added a usability factor…and I see…it dawned on me…I could’ve put all
of 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 a
lot of ideas what I can do, use it, and apply in my own life by seeing how
other 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 the
two.I need to read the article and watch the video, and then do the
summary and reflections. I think video enhances the article and provides
a different perspective or light to it.” [sic]
Finding 3.3: Perceptions of video-enhanced blogging
60

 Results are not generalized outside of the study’s population conditioned by
location factor.
 Employment of a convenience sampling strategy caused by the call for a very
specific type of university students
 Small sample of participants due to unexpected low enrolment,survey length, and
lack 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 productivity
62

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

More Related Content

What's hot (19)

Viewers also liked (7)

Similar to Engaging students with Real-World Experience in the Web 2.0 Era: An Exploration of Web Video Mediated Learning in the University Classroom (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

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

Editor's Notes