Video Pedagogy: Theory and Practice 9813340088, 9789813340084

Table of contents :
Acknowledgments
Contents
Editors and Contributors
1 Conceptualising Video Pedagogy
Introduction
What Is Video Pedagogy?
Pedagogical Benefits of Video
Chapters in Video Pedagogy: Theory and Practice
References
Part IVideo, students, and learning
2 Building Undergraduate Nursing Knowledge and Practice Through Video
Introduction
Video in Nursing Education
Building Undergraduate Nursing Knowledge and Practice Through Video: Strategies and Examples
Case Study 1—Using Video to Enhance Learning in Science
Case Study 2—Using Film to Learn About Human Behaviour: Sujit Kumar and the Nature/Nurture Debate
Tutorial Learning Objectives
Case Study 3—Using Film to Learn About Nursing Practice in Rural Communities
The Documentary
Evaluation of Documentary
Conclusion
References
3 Effectiveness of Multiple Types of Video for Learner Engagement in Business Education
Introduction
Learner Engagement
Video in Business Education
Case Study Course: Advanced Advertising Strategy
The Course Redesign and Development Process
Content Videos
Instructional Videos
Interactive Videos
Student-Created Videos
Findings and Discussion
Affordances of Video
Teacher’s Presence
Acquisition and Application of Knowledge
Interaction and Community Building ​
Challenges of Creating Videos
Recommendations and Conclusions
References
4 Flipping the Classroom: Using Video to Enhance First-Year Undergraduates’ Cultural Competency
Introduction
Community Engagement in Higher Education
What’s at Stake? Cultural Competence Among (White) College Students
Creating the Instructional Platform
Methodology and Process
Culture and Cultural Competency: An in-Depth Discussion
Student Impacts and Conclusions
References
5 Stop Motion: Being Precise About the Uncertainty of the Design Process in Architectural Education
Introduction
Video in Architectural Education
The Educational Context in a School of Architecture
Methodology
Discussion on the Use of Video in the Educational Design Context
Expectations & Hesitations
Distantiation & Reflection
Temporality and Linearity
Collecting and Synthesising
Technology and Software
Concluding Remarks
References
6 Learning by Watching Others Learn: Vicarious Learning from Videoed Tutorials
Introduction
Vicarious Learning from Tutorial Dialogue
Pedagogical Theory and the Implications for Videoing Tutorials
Activity-Based Interpretations of Vicarious Learning from Videoed Tutorials
Cognitive and Informational Interpretations of Vicarious Learning from Videoed Tutorials
Modelling Interpretations of Vicarious Learning from Videoed Tutorials
Motivational and Affect-Based Explanations of Vicarious Learning from Videoed Tutorials
The Theory in Practice
The Topic
The Tutors
The Tutees
The Preparation
The Dialogue
The Videos
Observer Activity
Conclusion
References
7 Video and the Pedagogy of Expansive Learning: Insights from a Research-intervention in Engineering Education
Introduction
The Social Situation of the Project
Conceptualising the Mediation of Expansive Learning
Using Video Footage in a Change Laboratory Project
1. Questioning
2a. Historical Analysis
2b. Actual-Empirical Analysis
3. Modelling
4. Examining
5. Implementation
6. Process Reflection
7. Consolidation/Generalisation
Concluding Comments
References
Part IIVideo, Teachers, and Practice
8 Flipping Professional Learning Through Videos in Mathematics Education
Introduction
Professional Learning
Flipped Professional Learning
The Flipped Professional Learning Study
Results of the Study
Mathematics Self-Efficacy
Teacher Agency
Just-in-Time
Limitations
Implications for Practice and Policy
Where to Next?
Conclusion
References
9 Video as an Instructional Tool in Transforming Teachers’ Pedagogical Practices and Mentoring Skills in Physical Education
Introduction
Use of Video in Teacher Learning and Mentoring in Physical Education
Context of the Study
Video Content
Video Designers
Video Responders
Viewing Focus
Exemplary Video Evidence for Beginning Teachers’ Instructional Practice
Video Evidence for Reflective Analysis and Conversations Between Mentors and Beginning Teachers
Video Evidence for Reflective Analysis and Transformational Learning with Mentors
Practical Considerations for the Use of Video Technology Tool
Appendix
References
10 Examining an Activity System of Learners, Tools, and Tasks in a Video Club
Introduction
Design Features of Video-Based Professional Development
Design and Methods of the Study: Video Club Context
Data Collection and Analysis
Findings
Discussion and Conclusion
References
11 Te Ara Motuhenga (Documentary Pathways): Developing Video-Based Teaching and Learning Resources for Documentary Practice
Introduction
The Context of the Resource Development Process
Choices and Challenges in Making the Resources
Close-up on the Resource Development Process
Aligning the Resources with the Teaching and Assessment of the Documentary Papers
Conclusion
References
12 A Practical Guide to Video-Making for Teachers: Key Principles and Tools
Introduction
Effective Uses of Video in Teaching and Learning
Types of Video
Steps and Principles of Video-Making for Teaching and Learning
Planning
Setting Up the Device
Recording
Editing
Publishing and Sharing
Tools to Record and Edit Videos
Considerations and Recommendations for Creating Effective Videos for Teaching and Learning
Presentation of Video
Active Learning with Videos
Accessibility
Copyright
Concluding Remarks
References
Afterword

Citation preview

Dilani S. P. Gedera Arezou Zalipour   Editors

Video Pedagogy Theory and Practice

Video Pedagogy

Dilani S. P. Gedera · Arezou Zalipour Editors

Video Pedagogy Theory and Practice

Editors Dilani S. P. Gedera Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand

Arezou Zalipour Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand

ISBN 978-981-33-4008-4 ISBN 978-981-33-4009-1 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-4009-1 © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore

Acknowledgments

We wish to sincerely thank all colleagues from New Zealand and other parts of the world—the US, the UK, Europe and South-East Asia—who showed interests in this project and wrote chapters for this book. This book would not have happened without them, and we are grateful for their co-operation and contributions. We thank Prof. Bronwen Cowie (University of Waikato) who has been supportive of this book project from the beginning. We are appreciative of the backing we received from our faculties, Faculty of Business Economics and Law, and Faculty of Design and Creative Technologies at Auckland University of Technology (AUT). Finally, we would like to thank our families who have supported and encouraged us through various stages of our professional and academic lives.

v

Contents

1

Conceptualising Video Pedagogy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dilani S. P. Gedera and Arezou Zalipour

Part I 2

3

4

5

1

Video, students, and learning

Building Undergraduate Nursing Knowledge and Practice Through Video . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Claire Goode, Liz Ditzel, Jean Ross, and Karole Hogarth

21

Effectiveness of Multiple Types of Video for Learner Engagement in Business Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dilani S. P. Gedera and Roy Larke

43

Flipping the Classroom: Using Video to Enhance First-Year Undergraduates’ Cultural Competency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jessica Mann, Mary J. Parish, Matt Kroh, and Michael Bridges

63

Stop Motion: Being Precise About the Uncertainty of the Design Process in Architectural Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Leonidas Koutsoumpos

83

6

Learning by Watching Others Learn: Vicarious Learning from Videoed Tutorials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Susan Geertshuis, Ngaire Rix, Odette Murdoch, and Qian Liu

7

Video and the Pedagogy of Expansive Learning: Insights from a Research-intervention in Engineering Education . . . . . . . . . . 123 Philip Moffitt and Brett Bligh

Part II 8

Video, Teachers, and Practice

Flipping Professional Learning Through Videos in Mathematics Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 Angela Stensness and Nigel Calder

vii

viii

9

Contents

Video as an Instructional Tool in Transforming Teachers’ Pedagogical Practices and Mentoring Skills in Physical Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 Isabella Yuen Fun Wong and Steven Kwang San Tan

10 Examining an Activity System of Learners, Tools, and Tasks in a Video Club . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 Tara Barnhart 11 Te Ara Motuhenga (Documentary Pathways): Developing Video-Based Teaching and Learning Resources for Documentary Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 Christina Milligan, Arezou Zalipour, and James Nicholson 12 A Practical Guide to Video-Making for Teachers: Key Principles and Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 Dilani S. P. Gedera Afterword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241

Editors and Contributors

About the Editors Dilani S. P. Gedera (Ph.D., Waikato) is a Teaching and Learning Manager at Auckland University of Technology (AUT). Prior to that, she worked as a Teaching Developer and eLearning Designer at the University of Waikato and Otago Polytechnic in New Zealand. She has taught and researched in different countries for 20 years. Dilani has played leading roles in institution-wide curriculum design, programme and Learning Management System (LMS) review projects. Her interest in technologyenhanced learning has led to several research projects in which she has explored how educational technologies can enhance learner experiences and engagement. Dilani co-edited the book Activity theory in Education: Research and practice (2016) and has published numerous resources, book chapters and journal articles. Her research interests span Curriculum Design, Learner Engagement, Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK), Technology Enhanced Learning, Video Pedagogy and Activity Theory. e-mail: [email protected] Arezou Zalipour (Ph.D., UKM; Ph.D., Waikato), is an Associate Professor in Screen Production and Cultural Studies at the School of Communication Studies in Auckland University of Technology (AUT). Arezou has worked in a variety of roles in higher education in several countries for the last 22 years. Her research expertise clusters around screen practice, race, diaspora and diversity; screen practice as/in research; world cinemas; and non-Eurocentric approaches to cinematic storytelling, film language and aesthetics. Arezou’s past project offered an innovative insight into New Zealand screen practice through the first conceptualisation of ‘Asian New Zealand cinema’ inaugurating diasporic film and filmmaking in New Zealand. Her book Migrant and Diasporic Film and Filmmaking in New Zealand (2019) was the first volume published in film practice and multiculturalism in New Zealand. Arezou has also worked extensively on curriculum, pedagogy and video technologies. She is currently working on the production of a documentary and a book project on diversity in screen production and practice as research. e-mail: [email protected]

ix

x

Editors and Contributors

Contributors Tara Barnhart Chapman University, Orange, CA, USA Brett Bligh Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK Michael Bridges University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA Nigel Calder University of Waikato, Tauranga, New Zealand Liz Ditzel Otago Polytechnic, Dunedin, New Zealand Dilani S. P. Gedera Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand Susan Geertshuis University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand Claire Goode Otago Polytechnic, Dunedin, New Zealand Karole Hogarth Otago Polytechnic, Dunedin, New Zealand Leonidas Koutsoumpos National Technical University of Athens, Athens, Greece Matt Kroh Motion Graphics Producer and Consultant, Pittsburgh, PA, USA Roy Larke University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand Qian Liu University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand Jessica Mann Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA Christina Milligan Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand Philip Moffitt Royal School of Military Engineering, Chatham, UK Odette Murdoch University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand James Nicholson Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand Mary J. Parish Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA Ngaire Rix Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand Jean Ross Otago Polytechnic, Dunedin, New Zealand Angela Stensness Papamoa College, Papamoa, New Zealand Steven Kwang San Tan National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore Isabella Yuen Fun Wong National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore Arezou Zalipour Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand

Chapter 1

Conceptualising Video Pedagogy Dilani S. P. Gedera and Arezou Zalipour

Abstract Video has been approached and utilised in educational contexts and learning and teaching in a number of ways. This introductory chapter conceptualises the ways in which video has created a pedagogy for the current learning and teaching contexts, disciplines and environments. Drawing on theory and practice in the current scholarship on video in teaching and learning, this chapter also provides two useful tables that summarise the key pedagogical benefits of video ‘for learners’ and ‘for teachers’. Finally, this chapter introduces the book’s structure: Part I ‘Video, students, and learning’, and Part II ‘Video, teachers, and practice’ and also includes a summary of the chapters. Keyword Video · Pedagogy · Teaching · Learning · Multimedia · Video Pedagogy · Education · Curriculum · Practice · Theory · Assessment · Curriculum · Design · Audio-Visual

Introduction Over the years, the use and form of video have changed dramatically. The history of video in teaching and learning goes back to the 1960s and 1970s when film was appropriated as a source of teaching materials. In teaching disciplinary areas such as anthropology, communication studies and English language teaching, teachers borrowed a copy of a cassette film from the library and played it to a class via a television. The popular forms of video were the VHS and LaserDiscs, followed later by camcorders. In the 1970s’ scholarship of teaching and learning, using film in the classroom was approached and discussed with both apprehension and admiration. In one early publication, Teaching with Film, Wegner (1977) pointed out the ways visual education methods were criticised in the education system in the UK, since at D. S. P. Gedera (B) · A. Zalipour Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand e-mail: [email protected] A. Zalipour e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 D. S. P. Gedera and A. Zalipour (eds.), Video Pedagogy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-4009-1_1

1

2

D. S. P. Gedera and A. Zalipour

that time teaching with film was perceived as a threat to students’ reading and writing skills. This was a time when visual literacy was not part of the curriculum in many regions. The 1950s’ filmmaker W. D. Griffith once said that ‘film could be used to teach many different subjects and teach them much better than before’. ‘If film can teach so well, why is it the one medium of instruction least used to its potential?’ (Wegner, 1977, p. 8). We have come a very long way since then and we believe a version of this question is still relevant in the broader context of audio-visual materials, environments, viewers, technologies and platforms in teaching and learning. These days, video is already mobile, for instance, and can be created and consumed on mobile devices. In 2018, we saw new research on how videos could be edited using artificial intelligence to make it appear as if people said or did things that never actually happened. We now live in an era of new technologies and new media, changing rapidly and converging through the mechanism of digitalisation. Since the 1990s, the accelerating digital revolution has resulted in numerous, easily available audio-visual resources for teachers and students. In the early twenty-first century, videos can easily be shared globally by the use of the Internet. This development started mainly with YouTube and an understanding of the way film and video could be brought into the classroom. Recent advances in the use of mobile devices and tablets have offered a number of avenues not only for accessing, watching and sharing but also for creating and manipulating videos. With the use of free apps, anyone can create, edit and share a video within minutes, if not seconds. Starting from video cassettes and DVDs, and progressing to YouTube, immersive, augmented, virtual, and mixed realities, and with the explosion of technological developments, video has now become one of the most promising media in education. Important developments in educational technology over the last decade, from games and gamification, from mobile learning to artificial intelligence and mixed reality, have continuously and consistently demonstrated the potential relevance of various forms of video for teaching and learning, as well as for creative inquiry and research in higher education (see Horizon Reports, 2006–2019). It is evident that the use of video in education is not new and has been the subject of much research and practice. However, advances in video production tools and platforms available to teachers and learners for watching, accessing, sharing, repurposing, manipulating and making videos, together with the increasing levels of audio-visual literacy, mean that the use of video is becoming ever more widespread and mainstream. The past few decades of research show the pedagogical benefits and diverse uses of video in education, particularly in teaching and learning. Articles written back in the 1990s discuss the ways in which video enhances student engagement, so the use of video in teaching and learning is not a new topic in research, scholarship and education. However, what is new is to be found in the ways in which the nature of learning has changed. Our students spend their lives primarily engaged with some device, interacting with multi-screens and in saturated media environments. Students today exploit videos as a tool for learning everything, from cooking their favourite dish to advanced surfing techniques (most often without thinking of this process as one way or form of learning). In classrooms, audio-visual equipment has long

1 Conceptualising Video Pedagogy

3

replaced many old teaching methods in education. It seems common now to expect to see projectors, document cameras, lecture capturing tools, and even mobile multiscreens that provide colourful moving imagery in any classroom. Our learners have increasingly become audio-visual adepts as they encounter different types and forms of multimodal texts in their environments. The inquiry that led to this book was prompted by noticing and reflecting on these contemporary changes in the nature of learning in higher education. Video Pedagogy: Theory and Practice celebrates and responds to these changes and invites teachers, educators and researchers across disciplinary areas as well as teaching, learning, and eLearning designers, developers and advisers across institutions and sectors, to reflect on the changing nature of learning in the twenty-first century. The book explores the ways in which video has created a pedagogy for current learning and teaching contexts, disciplines and environments. The idea for the book stems from the editors’ insights, interests and experience in technologyenhanced learning and teaching as well as screen-based media production and practice, and also from many conversations over the years with both students and teachers who have shared interests in the sensuous and multimodal potential of video. Here we use the term ‘video’ to refer to a broad concept that encompasses any moving audiovisual texts, and ‘a system of recording moving pictures and sound, either using a digital method of storing data or (in the past) using videotape’ (Oxford English Dictionary). Our goal in writing and compiling Video Pedagogy: Theory and Practice was to bring forward the concepts and practice of video as pedagogy by providing theoretical discussion and practical guidance on the use of video in teaching and learning, drawing on a wide range of examples from various educational contexts and disciplines. We hope the ideas, discussions, practices and examples in the book encourage effective, purposeful ways of thinking about video in pedagogical processes. The history of the use of video in teaching and learning shows that video has long been of interest in practice-oriented disciplines, such as nursing, psychology, journalism, hospitality, teacher education, social work, engineering and medicine, where field trips, doing, making and experience are key parts of the curriculum. There is no doubt that video technology has played a crucial role in bridging the divide between theory and practice in such disciplines. As a result of the increasing quality of video and the technologies surrounding it, as well as their accessibility and affordability, not only can practitioners and teachers have their students watch, learn and investigate issues that may arise in specific contexts of practice, but they can also help them make generalisations about epistemological, ontological and pragmatic approaches for professional practice. In such contexts, grounded in experience and learning by doing, students become future practitioners (and/or educators) whose encounter with and grasp of practice is the paramount goal of their learning process. In teacher education, for example, the use of video as a resource for recording, observing, studying and evaluating teacher practice goes back to the 1960s (e.g., Burleigh & Peterson, 1967; Popham, 1966) when the technology of the time made it feasible for teacher training programmes to ‘purchase television and videotape recording as a primary instructional aid’ (Gibson, 1968, p. 107). There has always been a tension in practice-oriented disciplines about how to adopt more practice-based teaching and learning approaches to ensure the authenticity of professional practice and find opportunities to meaningfully engage with various

4

D. S. P. Gedera and A. Zalipour

aspects of practice in the learning process. One of the primary goals of Video pedagogy: Theory and practice is to offer insights into the use of video in facilitating and creating new ways of knowing and learning through practice. Coming from practiceoriented disciplines, the editors hope the discussions in the book suggest key ideas and means by which practitioners, educators and teachers may start organising their thinking about using video in pedagogy, and encourage everyone to develop ways in which video could be effectively joined to teaching and learning. The book is structured into two sections: Part I, ‘Video, students, and learning’, and Part II, ‘Video, teachers, and practice’. The first part of the book focuses on student learning in connection with video, or video-enhanced learning. Through examples and case studies, the essays in Part I discuss how video can facilitate and enable learning, how students engage and interact with videos that teachers have developed or used in teaching both content and practice, and how students learn through the medium of video. This part also discusses how videos made by students develop their skills, knowledge, and competencies, and enhance their learning experiences in educational contexts. The second part of the book, ‘Video, teachers, and practice’, focuses primarily on video in connection with teachers: how teachers’ pedagogical and professional practices can be facilitated and enhanced through video, and how teachers use video to study class activities and reflect on their teaching in order to build up their pedagogical content knowledge.1 This part also offers insights into design, plan and content of professional practice and development and mentoring skills through video. Furthermore, focusing on the teachers’ pedagogical design and thinking in making videos, Part II discusses how teachers make videos to facilitate student learning, and what organisational strategies they utilise in relation to various components of their papers, learning outcomes and assessments. The final chapter in Part II offers practical recommendations on how teachers can create effective educational videos for their students. Collectively, these essays provide theoretical and practical guidance and discussion on the use of video through disciplinary case studies taken from various educational contexts and environments. The essays collected in this book are by scholars from New Zealand and other parts of the world, including the UK, Greece, the US and Singapore. The book furthers the discussion in the field by (a) conceptualising and defining ‘video pedagogy’ through an investigation of various aspects, forms, perspectives and uses of video in educational contexts and environments, and (b) bringing together trends, discussions and examples of video pedagogy from both New Zealand and international educational contexts. This book is not the endpoint of our inquiry. Rather, we framed it as an invitation to discuss and promote what we think would constitute video pedagogy. These will be discussed further in this chapter.

1 Shulman

(1986).

1 Conceptualising Video Pedagogy

5

What Is Video Pedagogy? At the heart of learning and teaching is pedagogy. The term ‘pedagogy’ has assimilated a number of ideas across educational traditions, contexts and cultures. Most often, it refers to the art, science, craft and profession of teaching. Recent literature on pedagogy illustrates the proliferation of the use of this term in educational research, from its early association with the education of children. Scholars have emphasised the dynamic, contextually layered concept of pedagogy, and that it includes much more than classroom teaching (see Murphy, 1996; Webb, 2013). Most often, pedagogy has simply meant teaching. In this introductory chapter, we have no intention of defining pedagogy or searching for the correct, accurate meaning and practice of pedagogy, nor to discuss the most effective pedagogies. In Video pedagogy: Theory and practice we take pedagogy in a broad sense, and define it as the interplay between teaching, learning and assessment, with all their associations, contexts, processes, conditions and practices. We understand pedagogy to be dynamic and believe it changes in accordance with shifts in the nature of learning and knowing. Pedagogy reflects how learning occurs in a given space and time. There is a wide, rich body of research on various trends and technological developments that have affected or driven educational change, curriculum, learning and teaching in the twenty-first century. Most recently, scholarly interest in video in relation to teaching and learning is increasing. While there is ample literature documenting the potential educational use and value of video in teaching and learning contexts and environments (Berk, 2009; Fyfield, Henderson, Heinrich, & Redmond, 2019; Kay, 2012), there are very few studies that specifically refer to ‘video pedagogy’. This term has also been used as the title for a website offering tips and tools in the use of video in teaching and learning (ref, University of Pittsburgh). Evidently, there is a need for a book that conceptualises and discusses various aspects and dimensions of what video pedagogy might refer to. Video Pedagogy: Theory and Practice fills this gap by offering a substantial multidimensional conceptualisation of video pedagogy. It is interesting to note that the term ‘video pedagogy’ was first used in the 1980s by Saint-Lèon (1988) when discussing film as authentic material in foreign language classrooms. ‘Authentic documents should be made available on videodiscs so that foreign language video pedagogy can be developed and its resources fully exploited’ (p. 27). Some scholars have only recently begun to use the expression ‘video pedagogy’ to discuss isolated aspects and uses of video in teaching and learning. In ‘Toward a Video Pedagogy: A Teaching Typology with Learning Goals’, published in the journal Teaching Sociology, Andrist, Chepp, Dean, and Miller (2014) refer to video pedagogy as an approach to teaching that guides instructors to make efficient use in their teaching of already available course-relevant video materials on the Internet. In their article, video pedagogy is categorised with ‘teaching with film’ literature and is discussed in relation to video as a teaching resource or part of course content. The positive effect on student learning of using video content and resources has been reported frequently (see next section, ‘Pedagogical benefits of video’) and

6

D. S. P. Gedera and A. Zalipour

in some studies, video is even the preferred learning medium among learners (e.g. Ireri, Wario, Omwenga, Oboko, & Mukiri, 2017). The term ‘video pedagogy’ has also been used specifically to refer to video reflection in teacher education. The long-standing interest in using video records for reflection and modelling good practice in teacher education2 and various disciplinary training programmes, has been the subject of many studies. These examine various conditions and aspects of the pedagogy of using video to develop reflective practice in learning to teach (e.g., Chittleborough, et al. 2015; Robinson & Kelley, 2007). In a recent book, Video pedagogy in action: Critical reflective inquiry using the gradual release of responsibility model, McVee, Shanahan, Hayden, Boyd, and Pearson (2017) present the GRR model as part of a pedagogy of video reflection for preservice and in-service teachers. We conceptualise ‘video pedagogy’ as an enabling pedagogy in which video facilitates, motivates, generates and enhances interactions and meditations among the who, what, why and how of pedagogy. Video pedagogy is an encompassing concept concerned with all aspects of learning and teaching that may be facilitated, challenged or enhanced by the production, consumption and integration of any forms or types of video by both teachers and students (including extended forms of moving audio-visuals in Augmented Reality, Virtual Reality, and mixed realities). Video pedagogy covers a wide range of types of video in education, including recorded and produced videos, videos available on the Internet that may be customised, adapted, manipulated or used for teaching and learning; recorded lectures, tutorials, practice, student work, discussions, and the like; and student-generated and teacher-generated videos. In video pedagogy, it is crucial to think of a dynamic triangle of ‘who, what, and how’ when making pedagogical decisions and choices. We need to consider the learner (who is taught), the curriculum (what is to be taught, learned and assessed), and the process (how the learner is taught, learned and assessed), and ask how video can mediate and facilitate these areas, their linkages and function as well as the processes that lead to effective and active learning. With all its various affordances, such as having audio, visual, and moving features and giving the ability to pause, replay, or adjust the speed, video mediates how one can learn and take control of one’s own learning. One might think Video Pedagogy: Theory and Practice would or should include the use of video for research. This book conceptualises video pedagogy by focusing on the use of video in teaching and learning and not in research. Video can be used in a number of ways in research as a research tool, a method of data collection, or using video to raise research inquiries, for instance, in sociology, (visual) anthropology, education and psychology. When video becomes part of the research design to serve

2 The

term ‘teacher education’ is used here to refer to the study pathways to become a teacher or to get a teaching qualification from a tertiary institution. In some educational contexts, the term also includes teacher training. For instance, this term in the UK is usually reserved for the ‘training’ of teachers in Primary, Secondary and sometimes post-secondary vocational training.

1 Conceptualising Video Pedagogy

7

an aspect of the (creative) systematic activities and investigations which are databased in order to add the stock of knowledge, video sits in the area of visual/video research methodologies and methods and not ‘video pedagogy’. The use for video as a research tool, research method, recording video data for research, or the analysis of video research data lie beyond the scope of the book and concept of video pedagogy. A new trend of practice has begun to experiment with extended forms of moving audio-visuals in Augmented Reality, Virtual Reality and mixed realities and their integration in educational contexts to facilitate learning. Weng, Rathinasabapathi, Weng, and Zagita (2019) used VR and AR to design a science book as a learning supplement to the printed book for improving students’ learning outcomes, and the results were satisfying. We believe that discussions of the use of VR and AR in teaching and learning (as extended forms of the broad category of moving image or video) should take place under the umbrella concept of ‘video pedagogy’. Some may argue that AR and VR are not videos, with whom we agree. We also believe that the nature of AR and VR integration into teaching and learning environments and the effects they make on facilitating learning have a large bearing to the ways video does in pedagogical contexts, and therefore propose it for further scholarship. The use of VR and AR in teaching and learning is a growing and emerging area in education and, we believe, it demands a substantial study to be able to meaningfully discuss VR/AR trends and case studies in various educational disciplines, contexts and environments. For this reason, we did not discuss VR and AR in the current book. In the area of video software and platforms, it is useful to note that Video Pedagogy: Theory and Practice offers ideas through a number of case studies when focusing on the use of video as an aspect of teaching and learning practice in educational contexts and environments. However, the discussions of the use of video for communication via synchronous tools such as Zoom, Whereby, Skype, Google hangout and Teams are considered communication tools and therefore were not given the space in the current book. The potential benefits one can obtain with the help of video and some of its key pedagogical advantages are discussed in the following sections in this chapter.

Pedagogical Benefits of Video Video is a diversified technology that can be used in multiple ways to support pedagogical strategies and learning styles that enhance learning and teaching experiences. Research shows that compared to reading text or simply listening to unillustrated lectures, images have a positive effect on learners’ ability to process and remember information (Chen & Wu, 2015; Shorter & Dean, 1994). Research on cognitive learning theory (CLT) and cognitive theory of multimedia learning (CTML) confirms that this same principle also applies to video, which combines both images

8

D. S. P. Gedera and A. Zalipour

and sound to support learning. The combination of sound and images in video materials contributes directly to remembering, understanding and assimilating knowledge (Mayer, 2001; Day, Foley, & Catrambone, 2006). Research to date strongly confirms the advantages of video, with its many affordances, as a learning medium. With advances in technology, video can also be accessed from anywhere on multiple platforms and devices. These flexible options provide students with cost-effective, flexible learning opportunities, allowing them to learn at their own pace and place without needing to be in a lecture room. For example, one significant use of video in education is for delivering course content in specific, open, flipped and online courses in order to make them available to a very large group (Gedera & Larke, 2019; Giannakos, Chorianopoulos, Ronchetti, Szegedi, & Teasley, 2014; Henderson, Selwyn, & Aston, 2017; Rajadell & GarrigaGarzón, 2017). Video has also been widely used as a resource to supplement lecturers (Brecht, 2012; Kraft, Rankin, & Arrighi, 2012) in blended learning environments. Teachers can easily find ready-to-use videos on platforms such as YouTube, Vimeo, eTV, TeacherTube and TED talks. By making their own videos, however, teachers can provide learners with more scaffolded, contextualised learning experiences. Not only can video deliver high-quality learning content but it can also successfully introduce complex content in simple ways. With the flexibility of images and sound in combination and the wider variety of possible content compared, for example, to a standard lecture format, video has the capability to offer complex content in a simple, systematic way. The ease with which well-produced video allows for the assimilation of the content also means there is relatively little unnecessary effort in understanding video materials. Videos allow for more flexibility and can be paused, for example, rewound and watched again—something that is more difficult in a lecture situation. With the help of video analytics, teachers can monitor students’ viewing habits, level of student engagement with the video, and completion of embedded interactive activities. There are dedicated research centres specialising in collecting, storing and analysing video-based data for researching teaching and learning practices.3 Video not only aids in delivering content but also assists in developing the twentyfirst-century learner skills, particularly if the videos are created by the learners themselves. Video has the ability to improve and develop digital literacy (Tiernan & Farren, 2017; Zalipour, 2019), and social, collaborative and communication skills (Bailey, Pearson, Gkatzidou, & Green, 2006), among other skills and competencies. When learners engage in the video-making process, they have the opportunity to develop skills such as planning, organising, communicating, and collaborating in the use of digital technologies, which are crucial for employability. In addition, when learners are actually producing video, they learn how to edit and share videos, using apps or other technologies and platforms. With the proliferation of mobile learning, not only can videos be accessed anywhere at any time, but video-making has become easier 3 One

example is the International Centre for Classroom Research (ICCR) run by the Melbourne Graduate School of Education of the University of Melbourne and the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER).

1 Conceptualising Video Pedagogy

9

than ever before with the aid of built-in cameras, microphones and easy access to editing apps and mobile networks. As an effective medium, video has the potential to facilitate active and engaged learning opportunities in various disciplines (Moore & Smith, 2012; Hsin & Cigas, 2013; Rackaway, 2012). The key types of video that facilitate active, engaged learning in educational contexts are talking head videos, screencasts, voice-over videos, instructional videos and interactive videos (Chen & Wu, 2015; Gedera & Larke, 2019). These multiple types of video are used in various ways for teaching and learning purposes. The auditory and visual nature of video caters to a wide range of learning styles, allowing viewers to process information in a way that is natural to them. The same auditory and visual aspects of video facilitate cognitive and emotional engagement (Greenberg & Zanetis, 2011), increase motivation in learning (Carmichael, Reid, & Karpicke, 2018; Saeed & Zyngier, 2012), help achieve learning outcomes (Boyle, 1997; Mayer, 2009), and thus improve course performance (Carmichael et al., 2018). However, simply presenting information in video format does not automatically lead to in-depth learning (Gedera, 2014, 2016). The pedagogical design and development of videos demand careful pedagogical thinking to include elements that promote active learning (Gedera & Zalipour, 2018). The videos need to be embedded within relevant instructional contexts purposefully (Seidel, Blomberg, & Renkl, 2013) so that the time and effort invested by the viewer are worthwhile (Valenti, Feldbush, & Mandernach, 2019). Recent developments in educational contexts also include the use of video for assessment (Sherer & Shea, 2011; Wiens, Hessberg, LoCasale-Crouch, & DeCoster, 2013) and feedback (Henderson & Phillips, 2015). A significant contribution of video assessments is that it provides learners with opportunities to develop multiliteracies. Typically, video assessments include tasks that require students to research the content, collect relevant media, such as images, text, audio and moving images, and put them together using video software to convey their ideas. With free mobile apps, learners are now able to capture, produce, edit and share videos easily. Videobased feedback generally includes either a talking-head video of the teacher talking about the assignment as he or she marks it or a recorded screen (screencast) of the assignment as the teacher marks it. Video-based feedback has been shown to be clear, constructive and less ambiguous compared to text-based feedback (Henderson & Phillips, 2015; West & Turner, 2015; Turner, West, & Christie, 2013). Video facilitates authentic (Hakkarainen, Saarelainen, & Ruokamo, 2007) and deep learning (Mitra, Lewin-Jones, Barrett, & Williamson, 2010) in educational contexts. When real-world learning opportunities are limited and hard to access, teachers can provide learners with alternative (at least close enough) experiences by bringing video case studies and authentic examples of the subject matter to the classroom (e.g., videos of animal behaviour). Using the example of safety for a construction site, Pink, Lingard, and Harley (2016) discussed how workplace learning was carried out safely through video (but can otherwise be dangerous). The authors believe that ‘the introduction of digital video pedagogy into dynamic workplaces with fast-changing social and material environments, can (if carefully implemented)

10

D. S. P. Gedera and A. Zalipour

bring radical forms of positive change’ (p. 1). In work-integrated learning contexts (when learners are in placements for example), when supervisors cannot physically be present to observe learners, video plays an important role in capturing the evidence of learning and the achievement of learner skills. For example, a learner in physiotherapy could record how he or she might work with a sprained thumb and make a customised splint for the patient and upload the video on their ePortfolio for assessment purposes. Video has played a significant role for several decades in teacher education, helping teachers in their reflective practice and professional development (e.g., McFadden, Ellis, Anwar, & Roehrig, 2014). Video in teacher education has consisted of viewing video recordings of classroom events and exemplary teaching scenarios or case studies to improve pedagogical practice and experience (Christ, Arya, & Chiu, 2017; Plöger, Scholl, & Seifert, 2018). Scholars have developed and offered strategies for analysing classroom video recordings. More recently, research has focused on producing and distributing professional digital video content for teacher education to help teachers draw attention to specific teaching and learning strategies (e.g., Brunvand, 2010) and application of their knowledge (Seidel et al., 2013). The key pedagogical benefits of video for learners and teachers are summarised in the following tables (see Tables 1.1 and 1.2). Table 1.1 Key pedagogical benefits of video for learners Knowledge transfer and retention With videos, learners grasp and remember core concepts and ideas better than with static media Learner engagement

With its audio-visual characteristics, video provides a sensory experience to learners. Video promotes active learning when it is designed to incorporate ‘learning moments’ (Gedera & Zalipour, 2018)

Social and academic interactivity Video has the potential to promote social and academic interaction (e.g., the use of FlipGrid video for introducing participants in online courses) Application of knowledge

With interactive video such as H5P and VR, learners are able to apply concepts as well as reflect on what they have learnt

Skills development

With video, learners are able to develop twenty-first-century skills, such as digital/multimedia literacy, creativity, software literacy, and social skills

Co-construction of knowledge

When learners create videos collaboratively as part of a learning activity or an assessment, they have the opportunity to learn from each other, whether content or skills or both

Learner autonomy

Autonomous learning takes place when learners take control of their own learning process. With videos, learners are able to decide when, where and at what pace they want to learn. When using videos to learn, they can pause and replay them as often as they want

1 Conceptualising Video Pedagogy

11

Table 1.2 Key pedagogical benefits of video for teachers Flexibility

Videos enable teachers to deliver content in a flexible manner. Particularly with fully online courses, teachers are able to reach students across the world with videos, which would not be possible otherwise

Accessibility

With consolidated features, such as audio, images, motion, transcripts, audio descriptions and captions, videos cater to diverse learning styles, especially for learners with disabilities4

Teaching/teacher presence

Teaching in fully online courses is a challenging task where learners may not see much ‘teaching presence’. Teaching presence is related to the Community of Inquiry model, defined as ‘the effort and activity around the design, facilitation, and direction of cognitive and social processes in learning communities for the purpose of realising personally meaningful and educationally worthwhile learning’ (Garrison, 2011). By making use of carefully designed and manipulated videos to deliver content, provide instructions, details of activities and assessments, and promote interactions and active learning, teachers can increase their teaching presence in online courses.

Cost-effective and time-efficient

By creating videos to convey instructions (e.g., concerning assessments, case studies), teachers do not have to repeat the same instructions and details of activities and assessments. Teachers can reuse videos or edit them to make minor changes

Reflective teaching

With video lecture capture technology, teachers are now able to review and reflect on their teaching strategies and techniques and engage in teacher professional development activities

Professional learning

Video is a great way to provide cost-effective, flexible professional development opportunities for teachers. Video-based professional learning helps to reach remote communities

Learner-centred pedagogy

If carefully designed, videos promote active learning, and facilitate thinking and analytical and creative skills. Learners are able to watch videos as many times as they want

Learner progress

Now videos can be easily embedded in learning management systems (LMS). Learner activities related to the videos can be monitored through various analytical features. This helps teachers to keep track of learner progress and identify at-risk students

The ethics of video pedagogy is an important and large area of work and discussion. Ethical considerations in video pedagogy range from matters associated with code of ethics and also with sharing, privacy and security issues in online environments and platforms. The ethics of video pedagogy should be thought and approached from two broad perspectives: teachers and students in relation to their 4 Gedera and Zalipour (2019) reported that in the course of conducting their large student survey on the use of video in teaching and learning, they had personal correspondence from individual students asking them if they had considered the use of video for students who have special needs and disabilities. We propose video pedagogy and disability is an important area for further research and investigation.

12

D. S. P. Gedera and A. Zalipour

choices concerned with making, (re)using, manipulating, editing, sharing or any other activities with audio-visual materials. The ethics of video pedagogy are concerned with a wide range of choices that teachers and students may make when using or working with already existing videos or capturing new footage in a given course and context. It is crucial to be aware of ethical principles, issues and actions involved in video pedagogy range from obtaining correct permission (informed consent) to matters related to copyright laws, Creative Commons and Fair use and fair dealing in various countries and regions when capturing and re-using videos in/for teaching and learning.

Chapters in Video Pedagogy: Theory and Practice The essays in the book have made use of a number of theoretical and methodological sources to undertake the development of various aspects of video pedagogy which have their roots in the domain of learning and teaching. This chapter, Conceptualising video pedagogy’ contextualises and discusses the ways in which video has created a pedagogy for teaching and learning. The introductory chapter defines video pedagogy and further discusses the pedagogical benefits of video for both learners and teachers. Part I of the book, ‘Video, students, and learning’, commences with Chap. 2, a study conducted at Otago Polytechnic in New Zealand, entitled ‘Building undergraduate nursing knowledge and practice through video’ by Claire Goode, Liz Ditzel, Jean Ross, and Karole Hogarth. This chapter focuses on how the visual medium of video supports twenty-first-century nursing education. Drawing on three case studies from an undergraduate nursing programme, the authors discuss the way videos can be used to develop students’ knowledge, practical skills and interpersonal learner competencies, and to link face-to-face learning with clinical practice in diverse health settings. In Chap. 3, ‘Effectiveness of multiple types of video for learner engagement in business education’, Dilani Gedera (Auckland University of Technology) and Roy Larke (University of Waikato) explore the production, pedagogical design and development of multiple types of video for a master’s-degree-level marketing course in the context of New Zealand higher education. Types of video included ‘content, ‘instructional, ‘interactive’ as well as ‘student-created’ videos. They also report on students’ experiences of interacting with these multiple types of video and how the purposefulness of videos helps improve student engagement. Giving examples, this chapter describes the ways in which the integration of multiple types of video, as well as opportunities for students to make their own videos, helped learners grasp core concepts of the course required, review background knowledge quickly, promote interaction, and apply knowledge of what they had learned in this context. Chapter 4, ‘Flipping the classroom: Using video to enhance first-year undergraduates’ cultural competency’, takes us to the US context, where Jessica Mann, Mary J. Parish (Duquesne University), and Michael Bridges (University of Pittsburgh)

1 Conceptualising Video Pedagogy

13

worked with Matt Kroh, a video/motion graphics producer, to integrate videos into an undergraduate programme. Their case study illustrates how video played a critical role in providing learners in a multi-cultural context with an introduction to new, complex subject matter—cultural competency. This chapter discusses how the use of video modules and best practices in online teaching and learning facilitated the learners’ understanding of both the key concepts and skills of cultural competency. In Chap. 5, ‘Stop motion: Being precise about the uncertainty of the design process in architectural education’, Leonidas Koutsoumpos, from the National Technical University of Athens in Greece, shares insights into the relationship between video, students and learning by drawing on a small case study based on a course he taught recently. This chapter takes our attention to the learning possibilities of using video through the example of video coursework, where students recorded the process of their thinking about architectural design. Chapter 6, ‘Learning by watching others learn: Vicarious learning from videoed tutorials’, written by Susan Geertshuis (University of Auckland), Ngaire Rix (Auckland University of Technology), Odette Murdoch (University of Auckland) and Qian Liu (University of Otago), focuses on the notion of vicarious learning and explores the potential of having students observe videos of tutorial discussions. The chapter reviews the research on student observation of others as the latter learn through tutorials and shares recommendations for teachers seeking to implement vicarious learning, utilising videos. It offers practice-based wisdom developed during the authors’ efforts to apply the guidance provided by the literature. Chapter 7, ‘Video and the pedagogy of expansive learning: insights from a research-intervention in engineering education’, draws on an in-depth study conducted by Philip Moffitt (Royal School of Military Engineering) and Brett Bligh (Lancaster University) and their insights as instructional designers in a military engineering education context in the UK. Unlike most studies that focus on some particular aspect, use or benefit of video in a given teaching and learning context, this chapter describes ‘a pedagogical process and explores the different roles that video played throughout—including emphasising where those roles were unexpected or problematic, and where the usefulness of video seemed to reach particular limits’. Zooming in on the teachers’ use of video for reflection and professional development, Part II ‘Video, teachers, and practice’ commences with Chap. 8, ‘Flipping professional learning through videos in mathematics education,’ by Angela Stensness (Papamoa College) and Nigel Calder (University of Waikato) from New Zealand. This chapter explores the ways in which collaboratively developed videos in a flipped professional learning programme improved mathematics teachers’ self-efficacy, as well as their skills and understanding in mathematics. In this case study, the authors describe how the use of videos helped teachers to increase their self-efficacy ratings and take greater control of their learning journey, thus encouraging teacher agency. In Chap. 9, Isabella Yuen Fun Wong and Steven Kwang San Tan (National Institute of Education) from Singapore, present a case study on the use of video for teacher’s professional learning in physical education. This chapter, ‘Video as an instructional tool in transforming teachers’ pedagogical practices and mentoring skills in physical education’, discusses the integration of digital video recordings of

14

D. S. P. Gedera and A. Zalipour

teachers as ‘exemplary videos’ in mentoring and professional learning development programmes. The chapter illustrates how these exemplary teaching behaviour recordings can enhance the pedagogical practices of beginning teachers and the mentoring skills of experienced teachers in a professional learning and mentoring experience. Chapter 10, ‘Examining an activity system of learners, tools, and tasks in a video club’, by Tara Barnhart (Chapman University), describes how a video club with high school science teachers in the US context provided ways for teachers to intensively study classroom practice. Using the Activity Theory framework, the chapter examines how different artefacts of practice, tasks designed to direct participants’ attention to student thinking, tools generated from those focused activities, and various facilitation moves within the video club, joined together to promote a stance of inquiry into science teaching practice. The chapter sheds light on the way the designers and facilitators of video-based professional development might plan for the shifting learning demands of participants, and the affordances of tools and tasks they engage with over time. In Chap. 11, ‘Te Ara Motuhenga (documentary pathways): Developing videobased teaching and learning resources for documentary practice’, Christina Milligan, Arezou Zalipour and James Nicholson (Auckland University of Technology) describe the process of creating video-based modules for documentary practice. They discuss pedagogical considerations when creating these resources and show how these are aligned with the learning outcomes and assessments of the courses on documentary practice and theory they currently teach in the Screen Production department (Auckland University of Technology). Drawing on their own experience as documentary makers, researchers and teachers, the authors explore the organisational factors that oriented the design and development of the video-based modules, including the editing of the interviews and the compilation of other relevant texts and materials, to promote the practice-based learning that shapes the core of their students’ learning. The final chapter of the book, Chap. 12, is ‘A practical guide to video-making for teachers: Key principles and tools’ by Dilani Gedera (Auckland University of Technology). This chapter provides the key principles associated with various stages of the video-making process and introduces some useful tools, software and apps to create and edit videos. The chapter also offers suggestions and recommendations that can be useful when creating videos for teaching and learning to ensure that they benefit learners and achieve their pedagogical purpose. As we can see from the chapters in this book and from the previous research, a consensus has emerged about the usefulness of video in teaching and learning but how this is achieved is less well articulated. We hope that the chapters in this book offer helpful insights and act as a framework for understanding and guiding the development of teaching and learning related to or based on video, or what we have conceptualised as ‘video pedagogy’.

1 Conceptualising Video Pedagogy

15

References Andrist, L., Chepp, V., Dean, P., & Miller, M. V. (2014). Toward a video pedagogy: A teaching typology with learning goals. Teaching Sociology, 42(3), 196–206. Bailey, C., Pearson, E., Gkatzidou, S., & Green, S. (2006, June). Using video games to develop social, collaborative and communication skills. In EdMedia + Innovate Learning (pp. 1154–1161). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Berk, R. A. (2009). Multimedia teaching with video clips: TV, movies, YouTube, and mtvU in the college classroom. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 5(1), 1–21. Boyle, T. (1997). Design for multimedia learning. London: Prentice-Hall Inc. Brecht, H. D. (2012). Learning from online video lectures. Journal of Information Technology Education, 11(1), 227–250. Brunvand, S. (2010). Best practices for producing video content for teacher education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 10(2), 247–256. Burleigh, J., & Peterson, H. (1967). Videotapes in teacher education. The Elementary School Journal, 68(1), 35–38. Carmichael, M., Reid, A. K., & Karpicke, J. D. (2018). Assessing the impact of educational video on student engagement, critical thinking and learning: The current state of play. White paper, Sage Publishing. Available at: https://au.sagepub.com/en-gb/oce/press/what-impact-does-videohave-on-student-engagement. Chen, C. M., & Wu, C. H. (2015). Effects of different video lecture types on sustained attention, emotion, cognitive load, and learning performance. Computers & Education, 80, 108–121. Chittleborough, G., Clark, J. C., & Chandler, P. (2015). The pedagogy of using video to develop reflective practice in learning to teach science. In Video research in disciplinary literacies. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Christ, T., Arya, P., & Chiu, M. M. (2017). Video use in teacher education: An international survey of practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 63, 22–35. Day, J. A., Foley, J. D., & Catrambone, R. (2006). Investigating multimedia learning with web lectures. Georgia Institute of Technology. Fyfield, M., Henderson, M., Heinrich, E., & Redmond, P. (2019). Videos in higher education: Making the most of a good thing. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(5), 1–7. Garrison, R. (2011). E-learning in the 21st century (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Gedera, D. S. P. (2014). Mediational engagement in E-learning: An activity theory analysis (Thesis, Doctor of Philosophy [PhD]). University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10289/8847. Gedera, D. (2016). Designing for learner success (D4LS) at Otago Polytechnic: From an E-learning designer’s perspective. Journal of Open, Flexible, and Distance Learning, 20(2), 55–65. Gedera, D., & Larke, R. (2019). Enhancing learner engagement through video. In Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australia (HERDSA). Auckland University: Auckland University and AUT. Retrieved from https://www.herdsa2019.auckland.ac.nz/. Gedera, D. S., & Zalipour, A. (2018). Use of interactive video for teaching and learning. In ASCILITE 2018 (pp. 362–367). Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education. Giannakos, M., Chorianopoulos, K., Ronchetti, M., Szegedi, P., & Teasley, S. (2014). Video-based learning and open online courses. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 9(1), 4. Gibson, J. W. (1968). Using videotape in the training of teachers. The Speech Teacher, 17(2), 107–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634526809377657. Greenberg, A., & Zanetis, J. (2011). The impact of broadcast and streaming video in education (White Paper). San Jose, CA: Cisco. Retrieved from http://www.cisco.com/web/strategy/docs/ education/classromconnect053012.pdf.

16

D. S. P. Gedera and A. Zalipour

Hakkarainen, P., Saarelainen, T., & Ruokamo, H. (2007). Towards meaningful learning through digital video supported, case based teaching. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(1), 87–109. Henderson, M., & Phillips, M. (2015). Video-based feedback on student assessment: Scarily personal. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(1), 51–64. Henderson, M., Selwyn, N., & Aston, R. (2017). What works and why? Student perceptions of ‘useful’ digital technology in university teaching and learning. Studies in Higher Education, 42(8), 1567–1579. Horizon Report, 2006–2019. Hsin, W. J., & Cigas, J. (2013). Short videos improve student learning in online education. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 28(5), 253–259. Ireri, B. N., Wario, R. D., Omwenga, E. I., Oboko, R., & Mukiri, M. I. (2017). Mobile learning: Content format and packaging for effective teaching and learning in a learner-centered pedagogy. In J. Keengwe & P. Bull (Eds.), Handbook of research on transformative digital content and learning technologies (pp. 329–344). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-15225-2000-9.ch018. Kay, R. H. (2012). Exploring the use of video podcasts in education: A comprehensive review of the literature. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(3), 820–831. Kraft, A., Rankin, E. S., & Arrighi, V. (2012). Using short videos to supplement lectures on reaction mechanisms, organic spectroscopy, and polymer chemistry. In Advances in teaching organic chemistry (pp. 209–224). American Chemical Society. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9781139164603. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press. McFadden, J., Ellis, J., Anwar, T., & Roehrig, G. (2014). Beginning science teachers’ use of a digital video annotation tool to promote reflective practices. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(3), 458–470. McVee, M. B., Shanahan, L. E., Hayden, H. E., Boyd, F. B., & Pearson, P. D. (2017). Video pedagogy in action: Critical reflective inquiry using the gradual release of responsibility model. London: Routledge. Mitra, B., Lewin-Jones, J., Barrett, H., & Williamson, S. (2010). The use of video to enable deep learning. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 15(4), 405–414. Moore, A. W., & Smith, R. A. (2012). Effects of video podcasting on psychomotor and cognitive performance, attitudes and study behaviour of student physical therapists. Innovations in education and teaching international, 49(4), 401–414. Murphy, P. (1996). Defining pedagogy. In P. F. Murphy & C. V. Gipps (Ed.), Equity in the classroom: Towards effective pedagogy for girls and boys. UNESCO. Used by permission of UNESCO, with bibliographic references native to the original edition excised. Pink, S., Lingard, H., & Harley, J. (2016). Digital pedagogy for safety: The construction site as a collaborative learning environment. Video Journal of Education and Pedagogy, 1(1), 1–15. Popham, W. (1966). Instructional video tapes in teacher education. AV Communication Review, 14(3), 371–376. Retrieved March 15, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/30217317. Saint-Lèon, C. B. (1988). The case for authentic materials on videodisc. Calico Journal, 6, 27–40. Rackaway, C. (2012). Video killed the textbook star?: Use of multimedia supplements to enhance student learning. Journal of Political Science Education, 8(2), 189–200. Rajadell, M., & Garriga-Garzón, F. (2017). Educational videos: After the why, the how. Intangible Capital, 13(5), 902–922. Robinson, L., & Kelley, B. (2007). Developing reflective thought in preservice educators: Utilizing role-plays and digital video. Journal of Special Education Technology, 22, 31–43. Plöger, W., Scholl, D., & Seifert, A. (2018). Bridging the gap between theory and practice—The effective use of videos to assist the acquisition and application of pedagogical knowledge in pre-service teacher education. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 58, 197–204.

1 Conceptualising Video Pedagogy

17

Saeed, S., & Zyngier, D. (2012). How motivation influences student engagement: A qualitative case study. Journal of Education and Learning, 1(2), 252–267. Sherer, P., & Shea, T. (2011). Using online video to support student learning and engagement. College Teaching, 59(2), 56–59. Seidel, T., Blomberg, G., & Renkl, A. (2013). Instructional strategies for using video in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 34, 56–65. Shorter, J. D., & Dean, R. L. (1994). Computing in collegiate schools of business: Are mainframes & stand-alone microcomputers still good enough? Journal of Systems Management, 45(7), 36. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. Tiernan, P., & Farren, M. (2017). Digital literacy and online video: Undergraduate students’ use of online video for coursework. Education and Information Technologies, 22(6), 3167–3185. Turner, R. N., West, K., & Christie, Z. (2013). Out-group trust, intergroup anxiety, and out-group attitude as mediators of the effect of imagined intergroup contact on intergroup behavioral tendencies. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, 196–205. Valenti, E., Feldbush, T., & Mandernach, J. (2019). Comparison of faculty and student perceptions of videos in the online classroom. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 16(3), (page numbers missing). Webb, M. (2013). Pedagogy with ICT. In M. Leask and N. Pachler. (Eds.), Learning to teach using ICT in the secondary school: A companion to school experience (pp. 67–83). London: Routledge. West, J. & Turner, W. (2015). Enhancing the assessment experience: Improving student perceptions, engagement and understanding using online video feedback. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 38(2), 240–252. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/147 03297.2014.1003954. Wegner, H. (1977). Teaching with film. Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation. http://teacherlink. ed.usu.edu/yetcres/catalogs/reavis/103.pdf. Weng, C., Rathinasabapathi, A., Weng, A., & Zagita, C. (2019). Mixed reality in science education as a learning support: A revitalised science book. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57(3), 777–807. Wiens, P. D., Hessberg, K., LoCasale-Crouch, J., & DeCoster, J. (2013). Using a standardised video-based assessment in a university teacher education program to examine preservice teachers knowledge related to effective teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 33, 24–33. Zalipour, A. (2019). Production in the Pedagogic Project of Media Literacy. In R. Hobbs & P. Mihailidis (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of media literacy. Wiley. https://onlinelibrary. wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781118978238.ieml0192.

Part I

Video, students, and learning

Chapter 2

Building Undergraduate Nursing Knowledge and Practice Through Video Claire Goode, Liz Ditzel, Jean Ross, and Karole Hogarth

Abstract This chapter focuses on the use of video as a visual medium, encapsulating documentaries and web-based film clips, to support twenty-first-century nursing education. With increasing blended delivery of nursing content, and students seeking greater flexibility with online and mobile technologies, nursing educators are using video to enhance students’ knowledge, practical skills, and interpersonal learner competencies, and to link face-to-face learning with clinical practice in diverse health settings. This chapter presents an overview of the literature on video-enhanced learning and teaching in tertiary education for the health professions, including the use of web-based video lectures, video podcasts, video-assisted feedback and debriefing, video media in simulation education, and videoconferencing for clinical skill development. This review firmly establishes the use of video as a learning pedagogy for nursing students. Strategies and examples from the undergraduate Bachelor of Nursing programme in the School of Nursing at Otago Polytechnic, Dunedin, New Zealand, are then presented as three case studies. The first of these focuses on video integrated into an applied science course, to guide learning about lived experiences of acute and chronic health conditions. The second case study shows how video can be used to explore and challenge students’ attitudes and perceptions of the roles played by nature—biological, genetic factors—and by nurture—parenting, environment, and culture—in human development. The third case study illustrates how video can be used to provide students with the personal stories of health consumers living in a small rural community, thereby enhancing students’ understanding of nursing practice in a rural setting. We reflect on how the use of videos has resulted in improved outcomes for our students, and close with recommendations and thoughts on future integration of video in nursing education. Keywords Nursing education · Clinical practice · Video-enhanced learning · Simulation · Video pedagogy

C. Goode (B) · L. Ditzel · J. Ross · K. Hogarth Otago Polytechnic, Dunedin, New Zealand e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 D. S. P. Gedera and A. Zalipour (eds.), Video Pedagogy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-4009-1_2

21

22

C. Goode et al.

Introduction The delivery of effective twenty-first-century nursing education calls on multidisciplinary competencies, specialist practice, communication skills, and emotional intelligence. Teaching needs to focus on person-centred care while developing critical thinkers capable of linking theory with practice and able to function in dynamic, inter-professional contexts. With increasing blended delivery, and students seeking greater flexibility with online and mobile technologies, nursing educators are using video to enhance students’ knowledge, practical skills, and interpersonal learner competencies, and to link flexible learning with clinical practice in diverse health settings (Ross, 2017). This chapter presents a review of the literature on video-enhanced learning and teaching in tertiary education for the health professions, including numerous webbased approaches. Teaching and learning technologies include video lectures, video podcasts, video-assisted feedback and debriefing, video media in simulation education, and video conferencing for clinical skill development, providing a foundation on which to promote the use of video as a learning pedagogy for nurse education. Three case studies from the undergraduate Bachelor of Nursing (BN) programme are provided as examples of how video is used to facilitate student learning and skill acquisition. Contemporary clinical environments are changing, along with the complexity of population health needs. The BN programme at Otago Polytechnic, Dunedin, New Zealand is a three-year, full-time degree, incorporating theoretical, practical, and technical skills that are applied and assessed in a variety of clinical practice contexts. Students are introduced to course content in a variety of ways, including simulation, self-directed activities and online learning modules (Ross, 2017). Theoretical content is offered in a variety of modes, including large group lectures and small group tutorials. As students progress in the degree programme, they apply their learning in various clinical settings. These include community organisations and groups, older adult residential facilities, and urban and rural hospitals located in the Otago and South Canterbury regions of New Zealand’s South Island. Successful completion of learning in the first two years of the BN programme is necessary before progressing to year three. In that final year, students integrate clinical skills and theoretical research-based knowledge, including ethical and professional responsibilities, during an extended period of clinical placement, before sitting ‘State Finals,’ the national registration examination (Ross, 2017). At Otago Polytechnic, learning content is typically delivered via Moodle, the online learning platform, and incorporates a variety of both teacher- and studentdirected activities. These include video-based learning activities and objects. How these are integrated into course content is now discussed.

2 Building Undergraduate Nursing Knowledge and Practice …

23

Video in Nursing Education Video is a long-established teaching tool in higher education. It can help students to learn while supporting different styles of learning. This teaching medium enhances innovative teaching methods, and presents a variety of content that combine to provide flexible learning opportunities to students (Fyfield, Henderson, Heinrich, & Redmond, 2019). Students also enjoy lectures with video content, in one study reporting that they were ‘consistently satisfied’ and that video content ‘improved or enriched their learning and increased their confidence’ (Wolf, 2018, p. 18). Furthermore, when video lectures are web-based, they also include the flexibility to watch videos multiple times, and at any time (De Gagne, Kim, Schoen, & Park, 2018; Massey et al., 2017; Wolf, 2018), putting the student at the centre of their learning experience, as they are in a position to access content synchronously and/or asynchronously on various devices (Wall Parilo & Parsh, 2014). Engaging with video includes several approaches. Each approach has its own merit in relation to the student experience and is now discussed briefly. Video podcasts are ‘increasingly used by a range of healthcare professions to aid the development of practical skills and clinical reasoning’ (Simmonds, Collinge, Abrahams, Wallis, & Main, 2017, n.p.). Simmonds et al. (2017) report on a project in which undergraduate physiotherapy students used video resources to support their face-to-face learning. The authors used short videos, divided into 6- to 8-min long learning units, including ‘high definition close-up shots, slow-motion repeats, text and voice-overs to emphasize key points’ (Simmonds et al., 2017, n.p.). Students accessed videos via Moodle, their learning management system, on their computer, tablet, or mobile phone. International students found this learning delivery style ‘overwhelmingly positive,’ and it was also greatly appreciated by students with specific learning needs (Simmonds et al., 2017, n.p.). Video clips accessed via mobile devices is an effective way of supplementing the development of clinical nursing skills and has been found to increase ‘learning motivation, confidence in practice, and class satisfaction’ among students (Lee et al., 2016, p. 12). Their recommendations for delivering video content included a student preference for streaming videos online, rather than downloading them, and for educators to add closed captioning so that videos can be viewed with the sound off to enhance learning, reflection, and revision of skill development (Lee et al., 2016). Video software such as YouSeeU™, has been found to motivate student nurses with its clear relevance to practice (Benner, Sutphen, Leonard, & Day, 2010; Forbes et al., 2016; Joiner-Rogers, Delville, & Timmerman, 2019). In De Gagne et al.’s study (2018), graduate-level nursing students using the YouSeeU™ software were able to annotate videos and provide peer feedback. Actively participating with others in this hands-on way, increased individuals’ online engagement, social presence, and motivation, with students seeing ‘learning [as] a partnership rather than a competition’ (De Gagne et al., 2018, para 21). Similarly, Stanley, Serratos, Mathew, Fernandaz and Dang (2018) used VoiceThread © , a cloud-based application, to enable teachers and students in an online RN-to-Bachelor of Science in Nursing (BSN) programme

24

C. Goode et al.

to create interactive presentations incorporating audio, video, and written comments (VoiceThread, 2019). This application also enabled students to provide feedback on their peers’ work, extending learning opportunities within this programme. A major benefit of this type of tool is that it builds social presence and is ‘a critical part of creating a sense of community for the online classroom’ (Stanley et al., 2018, p. 248). Video-assisted feedback is another undergraduate nursing education teaching and learning strategy, sometimes implemented with peer mentors facilitating ‘lowstakes’ assessments (Gabriele, Holthaus, & Boulet, 2016). For example, students learning intravenous therapy insertion and management skills were video recorded on a portable device that was then watched by a peer mentor who ‘completed the rating tools [and]… provided the student with immediate feedback on the performance’ (Gabriele et al., 2016, p. 339). Using video in this way freed up teaching staff’s time to provide targeted support for learners where needed. ‘Students rated the video-assisted peer mentor feedback experience highly’ (Gabriele et al., 2016, p. 341), and reported a ‘sense of belonging and satisfaction’ (p. 342) with their learning programme. Using video in nursing simulation has also been found to be cost- and timeeffective (Ali & Miller, 2018; Kim, 2017), while building core skills and selfefficacy in students (Herron, Powers, Mullen, & Burkhart, 2019). Undergraduate nursing programmes typically integrate Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs) into their curricula, to assess students’ clinical skills in simulations of ‘real world’ scenarios. Massey et al. (2017) report on the use of video resources provided to students to help them prepare for OSCEs, with students identifying that video exemplars ‘helped with preparation, decreased stress, and enabled them to have a better understanding of OSCE expectations’ (p. 59). Similarly, Simmonds et al. (2017) found that students who used video resources to prepare for OSCEs achieved average marks 6% higher than their peers who did not. When video recording of simulation scenarios is undertaken, this encourages the student nurse to evaluate and reflect on their own practice by watching back their technique and interactions (Arafeh, Hansen, & Nichols, 2010; Beaird, Nye, & Thacker, 2017; MacLean, Geddes, Kelly, & Della, 2019). In any clinical simulation, immediate face-to-face debriefing enables feedback from teachers and peers, and is vital in ensuring effective learning from the simulation experience (Kim, 2017). Furthermore, Ha (2014) explored undergraduate nursing students’ attitudes to VideoAssisted Debriefing (VAD) and found that three themes emerged, (a) some students felt that VAD left them tired and humiliated, (b) some found that it helped with their self-reflection, and (c) some felt that it boosted their confidence. Hamilton et al. (2012), working with surgical residents, found that VAD significantly improved team performance, with 90% of participants feeling it improved both teamwork and clinical competency. Having said this, Levett-Jones and Lapkin (2014) refer to video-assisted debriefing as the ‘gold standard’ (p. 62), while others suggest the evidence for this is negligible at best (Ali & Miller, 2018; Boet et al. 2011; Rossignol, 2017; Royle & Hargiss, 2015), and call for clearer guidelines (Krogh, Bearman, & Nestel, 2015; Rossignol, 2017; Wolf, 2018) and further research into the use of video-assisted debriefing.

2 Building Undergraduate Nursing Knowledge and Practice …

25

Video-enhanced learning can also benefit teaching for the affective domain, enabling students to ‘conceptualise and internalise subject matter relating to attitudes, emotions, or biases, in a way that changes or influences individual values, decisions, and behavioural choices’ (Donlan, 2018, p. 289). Coon (2018), for example, asked nursing students to watch a film extract, 30 min in length, which ‘related to the material covered that week in the [face-to-face] classroom setting’ (p. 188). Students then took part in an online discussion forum with their peers, reflecting on the film’s content and linking it to their classroom learning. Student feedback suggested that information was ‘integrated, enriched, and more easily applied in practice’ (Coon, 2018, p. 188). Videoconferencing, i.e., communicating via video link in real-time, is another useful tool in nursing education. Joiner-Rogers et al. (2019) focus on videoconference education, highlighting that it has ‘demonstrated high participant satisfaction’ with the benefits of nonverbal communication when compared with an audiorecording or written report (p. 44). They do, however, lament the ‘paucity of literature supporting videoconference use for clinical performance evaluation’ (Joiner-Rogers et al., 2019, p. 44). Like Penny, Bradford, and Langbecker (2018), Joiner-Rogers et al. (2019) assert that videoconferencing improves students’ decision-making and communication skills and enhances the overall learning experience. In summary, the current literature on video pedagogy in tertiary education for the health professions is positive about the use of video to enhance students’ learning experiences. However, it also acknowledges various constraints, for example, the time commitment needed to create and edit materials (Coyne et al., 2018; Simmonds et al., 2017; Stanley et al., 2018); legal considerations around copyright (Logan 2012; Sharoff, 2011); difficulties with emerging technologies (De Gagne et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2016), and the wide range and inconsistencies in quality of instructional design (Rossignol, 2017; Stanley et al., 2018; Wolf, 2018). The following case studies showcase how video media are used to enhance the students’ learning experience, providing them with opportunities to engage with issues such as patients’ experiences of acute and chronic health conditions; the impact of the environment on human development, and the challenges of access to healthcare in isolated rural communities.

Building Undergraduate Nursing Knowledge and Practice Through Video: Strategies and Examples We now turn to describe some examples of the use of video to enhance learning within undergraduate programmes in the School of Nursing at New Zealand’s Otago Polytechnic. These include: Case Study 1: Video integrated into an applied science course, to guide learning about lived experiences of acute and chronic health conditions,

26

C. Goode et al.

Case Study 2: Video use to explore and challenge students’ attitudes and perceptions of the roles played by nature—biological, genetic factors; and nurture—parenting, environment, and culture; in human development, and Case Study 3: Video use on the topic of practising in a rural setting, to provide learners with the stories of health consumers, presented on film in their own words.

Case Study 1—Using Video to Enhance Learning in Science Internationally, the sciences in nursing (bioscience, pathophysiology, and pharmacology) have traditionally been taught using didactic lectures and tutorials (Craft, Christenson, Bakon, & Wirihana, 2017), which, though generally well attended, do not meet the needs of students with alternate ways of integrating information. Video has been used and would include, for example, traditional descriptions of anatomy and physiology, drug action, use of antibiotics, and disease processes. While useful, such videos often lack context and the detail is readily forgotten (Blikstad-Balas, 2017). The literature indicates that, in nursing programmes, millennial and ‘Generation Z’ students (born in 1995 or later) prefer using short videos and games for visual contextual learning in science subjects. Students are energised by case study presentations, and are more likely to engage with, remember, and use the information (Hampton & Keys, 2017; Hampton, Pearce, & Moser, 2017; Van Horn, Hyde, Tesh, & Kautz, 2014). This supports the international trend of using video in the context of the professional field in which the learner is engaged. In addition, digital and mixed reality media in the health sciences provides students with an opportunity to engage with vivid and memorable learning activities, embedded into the curriculum (Brame, 2016). In the BN undergraduate nursing programme at Otago Polytechnic, we use videos of case studies in an online blended interface learning platform (KuraCloud Lt® [ADInstruments, n.d.], previously known as LabTutor), which is integrative, informative, and multi-functional. This platform, used internationally to teach sciences in the medicine, pharmacology, and nursing health disciplines (ADInstruments, n.d.; McMullan, 2017), is user-friendly and easily editable, with content regularly updated to add research or topical news items designed to generate discussion. In an integrated approach to learning, the student is engaged through multiple channels. Within this approach, the use of video encourages critical thinking and provides context. It can also draw on current research, clinical experience, and storytelling, delivered in mixed environments such as laboratories, classrooms, clinical settings, and online. Students are encouraged to process their learning in reflective and analytical ways, thereby capturing the complexities of disease scenarios, and increasing their ability both to recall content over time and to implement health interventions. During the design and development process of KuraCloud Lt® modules, clinical examples, based on real case studies, are woven throughout, creating opportunities

2 Building Undergraduate Nursing Knowledge and Practice …

27

for students to staircase their learning from normal anatomy and physiology through to where disease is considered in more depth. In developing our videos, we use reallife examples of science in practice to help students to learn what they might expect around a common pathway of care. The best learning often comes from working with clinical practice stories. Modules are case study-based (Fig. 2.1), and include multiple short videos about the patient’s journey, through their health condition, treatment, and recovery, in 1–2 min video extracts. Modules also incorporate animations, technical points (for example, what an electrocardiogram is and how it is performed and interpreted), the patient’s test results, and procedures are presented (also in video). An example of the use of video in the integrated learning process is described below. In the first step of the process, students are introduced to a disease; for example, cardiovascular disease and myocardial infarction. The introduction is in a traditional 2-hour didactic lecture format, the purpose of which is to give students an understanding of a topic and provide the structure for the development of critical thinking. This includes the pathology of a condition, treatment, tests that may be undertaken for diagnosis and treatment, and an introduction to a myocardial infarction clinical case study. The lecture time also provides opportunities for students to ask questions and share similar examples.

Fig. 2.1 Case study tutorial (Source Karole Hogarth)

28

C. Goode et al.

Following the lecture, students are encouraged to complete a 1-hour online tutorial on cardiovascular function, which includes videos and other activities to enable them to revise the normal structure and function of the cardiovascular system using dropdown questions, quizzes, and open-ended tasks, such as outlining the risk factors of cardiovascular disease for the general population (Fig. 2.2). Students can then relate this to the case study patient, introduced in a short video snippet in the online tutorial. The third component of each case-study module is a face-to-face small group session. In this example, students are introduced to Mike (with his consent, via KuraCloud Lt®). He tells his story about his experiences as a patient who has experienced a cardiac event in small snippets of video, interspersed with video clips of his partner, dietician, cardiac nurse educator, and a cardiac consultant. The case study module has pertinent questions appearing on the screen throughout, and discusses the test undertaken and the treatment protocol that Mike had, following his myocardial infarction. The clinical presentation and treatment are outlined by the students in class, with the help of the lecturer, and management of the pathology in Mike’s situation is discussed. This includes, for example, Mike’s risk factors for heart disease, signs and symptoms he experienced during his myocardial infarction, the treatment protocol (such as surgical intervention and medications), and discharge planning and health education. Following Mike’s video, specific areas are discussed in class, taking into account the clinical environment; for example, what students would expect to see if they compared a normal and abnormal Electrocardiogram (ECG), and what they would do if it were abnormal, thereby embedding a clinical reasoning process within the discussion (Figs. 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5).

Fig. 2.2 Drag and drop example (Source KuraCloud Lt®)

2 Building Undergraduate Nursing Knowledge and Practice …

29

The final part of each learning module is a clinical nursing simulation during which a mannequin displays a range of physiological responses that mimic Mike’s collapse (Fig. 2.6). Consolidating the learning through simulations in this way provides students with the skills to read a clinical situation, draw on patient data to respond both appropriately and with confidence (Fig. 2.7), and to know where their scope of practice lies, which may, for instance, mean taking the results to someone who has expertise in the area. To cement learning, students then submit a short report via KuraCloud Lt® for comment, in preparation for their final examination, based around the video case studies. Technology, including the use of video, offers students additional opportunities to integrate theory and readiness for clinical practice. Skills such as professionalism, critical decision-making, communication, teamwork, and interpersonal skills can all be achieved using a blended delivery model. The learning must be authentic and relevant. It is essential to keep in mind that students are being prepared to work in evolving healthcare environments, where there are high expectations that registered nurses are technologically capable and can integrate multiple devices into their practice. Despite the complexities of the subject matter, student feedback suggests that students relate to the real-life elements: Love the combination of videos and quiz questions with the learning material. The videos are a great way to change it up and keep me interested. I found the case study really good because you could physically see someone with the disease process and see the symptom physically which really helped match it up. I’d read that in the textbooks maybe 15 times… then, when you see someone actually trying to speak with COPD [Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease], you go, oh yeah.

Fig. 2.3 Mike’s ECG recording on admission (Source KuraCloud Lt® MI Case Study)

30

C. Goode et al.

Fig. 2.4 Mike’s ECG recording at the time of his collapse (Source KuraCloud Lt® MI Case Study)

Fig. 2.5 Mike’s ECG recording following defibrillation (Source KuraCloud Lt® MI Case Study)

In summary, a multi-layered, integrated environment provides numerous ways for students to reflect on their learning and contextualise content. The main component of this is the case study videos, which form the backbone to the learning. Such an approach encourages the integration of knowledge across concurrent courses, while

2 Building Undergraduate Nursing Knowledge and Practice …

31

Fig. 2.6 Simulation in progress with year 2 nursing students ©Otago Polytechnic, Communications

Fig. 2.7 Year 3 Nursing students in the clinical laboratory at Otago Polytechnic, practising their clinical skills ©Otago Polytechnic, Communications

also providing multiple opportunities for deep learning, the foundation of critical thinking.

32

C. Goode et al.

Case Study 2—Using Film to Learn About Human Behaviour: Sujit Kumar and the Nature/Nurture Debate In the first year of the BN programme, discussion and interaction based on videos and documentaries such as that broadcast on television or available on YouTube are particularly useful for students who have no or little experience of nursing, with the content helping to contextualise their learning. Showing a video as part of a classroom activity also allows students to interact with others, discuss ideas, and share and build their nursing knowledge. Applied Psychological Concepts for Nurses is a first-year course that integrates content from the other courses in the BN programme. For example, to understand how people might cope with chronic pain, it is necessary to know the physiology of pain, pharmacological treatments, and relevant cultural, sociological, and lifestyle factors. To encourage students to think about the roles played by nature (for example, biological, genetic factors) and nurture (such as parenting, environment) in human development, an alternative approach is required to provide students with a learning experience that is interesting and engaging. Video allows students to see images that are not part of their normal daily lives and provides opportunities for them to reflect upon content that may challenge their assumptions and world views. There are a wide range of images and video resources and evocative images showing so-called feral children who have grown up with little or no human interaction. Among these is the case of a Fijian man called Sujit Kumar, otherwise known as ‘chicken boy’ (Seymour, 2013). Sujit’s story was first screened as a 30-min television documentary called ‘Exposé - Saving a Wild Boy’ (directed by Harley & Gollan, 2006), and reproduced as an educational DVD. The documentary tells the story of Sujit Kumar, an 8-year-old boy who was found in 2003 penned up in a chicken coop at his Fijian village (Young, 2006). He had been kept enclosed because of his erratic and uncontrollable behaviour. Clearly, being left to fend for himself among chickens had a detrimental effect on his physical and mental development. After his mother died, Sujit, then aged about 10 years, was taken to an old people’s home in Suva (Fiji’s capital) to be cared for, but, due to his attempts to escape, was tied to a bed to prevent him from running away. Video clips show Sujit’s developmental progress from the time he left the aged care facility, aged 22 years, and moved into to a Christian refuge (called the ‘Happy Home’), where he was educated, socialised, and nurtured by a woman, Elizabeth, who befriends and eventually adopts him (Gibson, 2010).

Tutorial Learning Objectives The first of two learning objectives for this 2-hour group tutorial is to start students thinking about the effect of nurture (environment, parenting) on Sujit’s development. In a classroom setting, students are provided with an introductory framework

2 Building Undergraduate Nursing Knowledge and Practice …

33

about the nature-nurture debate. The whiteboard is used to record and categorise information from the documentary, which is shown with a short break half-way through. In the video showing Sujit’s early years, he is seen pecking at his food and eating using claw-like hand movements. He moves by ‘perching’ and hopping around, does not speak and communicates by eye contact and grunting. In the Happy Home, Sujit receives speech lessons, learns to sleep in a bed, eat at a table, and toilet himself, bringing his developmental age up to approximately that of a three-year-old child. Students watching the video make notes and later list their observations on the classroom whiteboard. These notes are then used as discussion triggers, for example, exploring reasons for his behaviour and evaluating the effect of the environment on his early childhood development. Theory from other courses related to growth and development is also used to structure this discussion. The second learning objective relates to the role played by nature (biological and genetic factors) in Sujit’s development. From a biological perspective, Sujit’s medical assessments reveal no abnormalities apart from unusual electrical brain activity, leading to a diagnosis of epilepsy for which he is prescribed daily medication. To find out about genetic factors, the journalist, film crew and Sujit’s adoptive mother Elizabeth, find his grandmother living in a rural village. Her only recollection is that Sujit was left outside with the chickens because he was difficult to control. The video content is very emotive and confronting to many students. Reactions to Sujit’s circumstances and physical appearance usually include shock, disbelief, anger, and/or sadness. Students say, ‘how could this happen to a person?’ and ask questions such as ‘why didn’t the parents care for him properly?’ and ‘why did no one report that there was a boy outside living with chickens?’ These words are written up on the whiteboard as students verbalise their feelings and identify and name their reactions. This process enables the tutorial facilitator to check students’ reactions to Sujit’s story, which is a necessary part of learning to communicate empathetically. The tutorial finishes by reviewing and assessing the information recorded on the whiteboard. For this, students work in smaller groups to assess the importance of the environmental factors that affected Sujit’s development. Collectively, the class makes a list of possible biological causes, including poor nutrition, inadequate shelter, and lack of medical care that may have contributed to Sujit’s delayed physical and mental development, as shown in the documentary. Students also evaluate other possible neurological or medical conditions, such as deafness or a brain tumour that may have contributed to his condition. The classroom discussion ranges from students’ experiences of people who have a disability to personal reactions to the documentary’s content. This includes the role of Elizabeth as an adoptee mother, and the ethics and morality of the media attention and publicity given to Sujit and to his extended family. When the lack of biological causative factors for Sujit’s condition is revealed in the documentary, the links between nature/nurture and his lack of development, particularly over the early formative years, can be debated in class.

34

C. Goode et al.

Discussing Sujit’s case allows students to express their opinions in front of peers and to develop their self-confidence. The facilitated conversation confirms the importance of nurture and parenting in human development and is a memorable teaching moment. This tutorial helps students to construct new knowledge about child development, families, and society, based on a dramatically different path of development that is both shocking and deeply evocative. Seeing this documentary also enables students to reflect upon their own experiences of growing up, and to develop new knowledge, including a broader understanding of the world. Formal course evaluation feedback indicates that students appreciate these teaching strategies: The videos are good. I like how [the lecturer] makes notes on the board through the videos and the words we need to know are written up. This makes our learning relevant for our future practice and helps us discuss and think about issues, even if we don’t understand them straight away. (Year one BN student, 2014).

Finally, to complete the learning circle, students are referred to a followup broadcast, screened on Australian television, showing the progress that Sujit made following intervention from experienced psychologists and education experts (Seymour, 2014). In summary, challenging assumptions and generating new ideas is an essential part of developing nursing knowledge. Like all professionals, nurses must continually ask questions, explore, and assess what they know to create new learning. For most students, seeing a documentary of a boy growing up in appalling circumstances is far beyond their lived experience. Using the documentary engages students, helping them to make sense of Sujit’s world, and to reconcile this with previous ideas and experience in order to actively create new knowledge.

Case Study 3—Using Film to Learn About Nursing Practice in Rural Communities Rural life is fundamental to the fabric of New Zealand society. Yet, most nursing students both live and engage in tertiary education in urban centres and have limited experience of rural life. The total population of New Zealand is currently estimated at 4.9 million people (Statistics NZ, 2019), of which approximately 25% live in the South Island (Statistics NZ, 2019). The population density of New Zealand is relatively sparse, with around 18 people per square kilometer (World Population Review, 2019). Of the total New Zealand landmass, rural areas (defined as towns with a population of 1000 people or fewer) account for about 95% of the land, having about 15% of the total population (Statistics NZ, 2019). The rural economy and communities need to be understood by those who provide health services to rural people (Ross & Crawley, 2018).

2 Building Undergraduate Nursing Knowledge and Practice …

35

The Documentary The small rural town of Tarras (Fig. 2.8), situated in Central Otago in the South Island of New Zealand, was chosen as the setting for filming the documentary (Brook & Ross, 2011). The 33-min documentary (Ross, 2011) was filmed in high resolution 1080 and is a mixed media type including ‘talking heads,’ a variety of still shots, video images, voice and music recordings. It was directed and filmed on location over three days in November 2011 and edited using Adobe Premiere software by Rachel Patching. The storyline was developed by Katherine Edmond and Peter Brook, and the third author (from Otago Polytechnic) interviewed the community members. Tarras was chosen because it represents a typical community in the rural Otago hinterland, and the third author has rural connections to the town and its people. Clinical placements are also offered for students, providing them with an introduction and access to rural nursing practice. Understanding the people, their day-to-day values, beliefs, and activities, is crucial for positive nurse–client partnerships. Brook and Ross (2011) express that producing image-based vignettes is seen as an effective means of capturing the authenticity of rural life (Fig. 2.9) including human to nonhuman experiences (Ross, 2019). To help fill this gap and to prepare student nurses for practice in rural settings, the third author initiated the idea to produce a documentary as a teaching resource, while giving voice to rural people. This documentary represents a typical rural New Zealand isolated community and in particular its geographical location. It was important that the documentary (a) introduce Otago, the region, and its associated educational institutions and clinical

Fig. 2.8 Arriving in Tarras ©Otago Polytechnic, School of Nursing

36

C. Goode et al.

Fig. 2.9 Typical rural isolated community depicting the human to non-human relationship ©Otago Polytechnic, School of Nursing

placement areas, and (b) capture the thoughts and experiences of rural lifestyle from Otago residents, including children, ‘old-timers’ and newcomers (Ross, 2012). Local rural people (insiders) including children and newcomers (outsiders) of Tarras, were filmed and interviewed. The interviewers gained the confidence of the local people who were happy to talk about what it felt like to live in a relatively isolated community. Local people shared their values and beliefs, way of life, and experiences of living and working in a rural community. They talked about the geographical isolation (Fig. 2.10), about the constant fund-raising for their children’s activities including school activities, and about the importance of helpful neighbours respected in rural circles as close kith and kin. The local community members who contributed to the documentary openly told their own stories, highlighting social and economic issues associated with life in a more remote rural setting and providing insights into access to health services and limited nursing and medical facilities.

Evaluation of Documentary As with any other educational resources, it was important to evaluate the effectiveness of using the documentary vignettes to enhance student nurses’ understanding of rural people, their way of life and engagement with their community. The documentary was shown to first-year BN students in 2013 and 2014, and every year since then. Both groups of students (2013 N1 = 72; 2014 N2 = 56 respectively) completed

2 Building Undergraduate Nursing Knowledge and Practice …

37

Fig. 2.10 Geographical isolation in Tarras ©Otago Polytechnic, School of Nursing

a short, two-part open-ended survey of the learning about rural concepts from the documentary. Part one was completed before watching the documentary, and it assessed levels of existing knowledge by asking students to list three concepts associated with rural life. Students identified; geographical isolation; farming; strong close-knit communities; small population; outdoor lifestyle; distance to health care facilities, and a lack of resources as key characteristics of the rural context. Part two, completed after viewing the documentary, assessed new learning by asking students to list new concepts (as seen in the documentary), and indicate how useful the documentary was to them as a teaching resource. New concepts identified by students included: self-sufficiency; resilience; creativity; adaptability; an appreciation of the role of tourism and fundraising, for example, for the local Tarras playgroup (Fig. 2.11). Most students who completed the two-part classroom survey (79.2 and 92.8% respectively) reported that their level of knowledge about rural life had increased, and they enjoyed the documentary as a medium for learning. In summary, these findings indicate that this documentary is an effective learning resource in our nursing programme. It helps student nurses to understand everyday rural life and issues experienced by rural community members. Such knowledge is crucial for the effective delivery of healthcare and building nurse–client partnerships.

38

C. Goode et al.

Fig. 2.11 Tarras Play Group where fundraising occurs to keep the playgroup open ©Otago Polytechnic, School of Nursing

Conclusion The use of video and video-enhanced content is, in many ways, convenient and practical for students and educators alike and will result in improved outcomes for both. It increases student engagement, and contributes to higher levels of confidence and motivation, as well as improving learning outcomes. Active learning with video media has also been shown to build a sense of community, improve decision-making skills, help with exam preparation, and decrease students’ stress levels. In nursing and other healthcare fields, teaching strategies which include video enhance students’ knowledge and practice, and improve teamwork, critical thinking, and interpersonal abilities. Video assists nursing students to link theoretical content and clinical skills, and visualise their learning in context, enhancing both skill acquisition and learner satisfaction. In undergraduate nursing programmes at Otago Polytechnic, the content is more engaging and relatable for students when it incorporates the use of video, particularly to depict real-life stories, case studies, and contexts. Students can reflect on what they see and hear, and link it to their own life experience, while also building new knowledge and a broader understanding of the world in which they will practise as qualified professionals. Future video delivery technology may change and advance; however, we recommend video pedagogy as an essential element of tertiary education, particularly in the health-related professions.

2 Building Undergraduate Nursing Knowledge and Practice …

39

References ADInstruments. (n.d.). Lt online learning platform for nursing courses. Retrieved from https:// www.adinstruments.com/lt/nursing. Ali, A. A., & Miller, E. T. (2018). Effectiveness of video-assisted debriefing in health education: An integrative review. Journal of Nursing Education, 57(1), 14–20. https://doi.org/10.3928/014 84834-20180102-04. Arafeh, J. M. R., Hansen, S. S., & Nichols, A. (2010). Debriefing in simulated-based learning: Facilitating a reflective discussion. The Journal of Perinatal & Neonatal Nursing, 24(4), 302–309. https://doi.org/10.1097/JPN.0b013e3181f6b5ec. Beaird, G., Nye, C., & Thacker, L. R. (2017). The use of video recording and standardized patient feedback to improve communication performance in undergraduate nursing students. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 13(4), 176–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2016.12.005. Benner, P., Sutphen, M., Leonard, V., & Day, L. (2010). Educating nurses: A call for radical transformation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Blikstad-Balas, M. (2017). Key challenges of using video when investigating social practices in education: Contextualization, magnification, and representation. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 40(5), 511–523. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2016.118 1162. Boet, S., Bould, M. D., Bruppacher, H. R., Desjardins, F., Chandra, D. B., & Naik, V. N. (2011). Looking in the mirror: Self-debriefing versus instructor debriefing for simulated crises. Critical Care Medicine, 39(6), 1377–1381. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0b013e31820eb8be. Brame, C. J. (2016). Effective educational videos: Principles and guidelines for maximizing student learning from video content. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 15, es6, 1–6. Brook, P., & Ross, J. (2011). Creating a film for educational purposes to capture the rural experience. Scope: Learning and Teaching, 2011, 50–55. Retrieved from https://www.thescopes.org/assets/ Uploads/054d125b45/Scope-Learning-and-Teaching-2-2011.pdf. Coon, R. A. (2018). Cinema in nursing education: Tapping into the affective domain. Journal of Nursing Education, 57(3), 188–189. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20180221-13. Coyne, E., Rands, H., Frommolt, V., Kain, V., Plugge, M., & Mitchell, M. (2018). Investigation of blended learning video resources to teach health students clinical skills: An integrative review. Nurse Education Today, 63, 101–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2018.01.021. Craft, J., Christensen, M., Bakon, S., & Wirihana, L. (2017). Advancing student nurse knowledge of the biomedical sciences: A mixed methods study. Nurse Education Today, 48, 114–119. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2016.10.003. De Gagne, J. C., Kim, S. S., Schoen, E. R., & Park, H. K. (2018). Assessing the impact of videobased assignments on health professions students’ social presence on web: Case study. JMIR Medical Education, 4 (2). https://doi.org/10.2196/11390. Donlan, P. (2018). Developing affective domain learning in health professions education. Journal of Allied Health, 47(4), 289–295. Retrieved from ProQuest Central. Forbes, H., Oprescu, F. I., Downer, T., Phillips, N. M., McTier, L., Lord, B., … Visser, I. (2016). Use of videos to support teaching and learning of clinical skills in nursing education: A review. Nurse Education Today, 42, 53–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2016.04.010. Fyfield, M., Henderson, M., Heinrich, E., & Redmond, P. (2019). Videos in higher education: Making the most of a good thing. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(5), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.5930. Gabriele, K. M., Holthaus, R. M., & Boulet, J. R. (2016). Usefulness of video-assisted peer mentor feedback in undergraduate nursing education. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 12(8), 337–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2016.03.004. Gibson, D. (2010, February 3). Special treatment for chicken boy. Fiji Sun. Retrieved from https:// fijisun.com.fj/2010/02/03/special-treatment-for-chicken-boy.

40

C. Goode et al.

Ha, E.-H. (2014). Attitudes toward video-assisted debriefing after simulation in undergraduate nursing students: An application of Q methodology. Nurse Education Today, 34(6), 978–984. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2014.01.003. Hamilton, N. A., Kieninger, A. N., Woodhouse, J., Freeman, B. D., Murray, D., & Klingensmith, M. E. (2012). Video review using a reliable evaluation metric improves team function in high-fidelity simulated trauma resuscitation. Journal of Surgical Education, 69(3), 428–431. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jsurg.2011.09.009. Hampton, D. C., & Keys, Y. (2017). Generation Z students: Will they change our nursing classrooms? Journal of Nursing Education and Practice, 7(4), 111–115. https://doi.org/10.5430/jnep. v7n4p111. Hampton, D. C., Pearce, P. F., & Moser, D. K. (2017). Preferred methods of learning for nursing students in an online degree. Journal of Professional Nursing, 33(1), 27–37. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.profnurs.2016.08.004. Harley, R., & Gollan, L. (Dirs.). (2006). Saving a wild boy [Television documentary]. New Zealand: TVNZ. Herron, E. K., Powers, K., Mullen, L., & Burkhart, B. (2019). Effect of case study versus video simulation on nursing students’ satisfaction, self-confidence, and knowledge: A quasi-experimental study. Nurse Education Today, 79, 129–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2019.05.015. Joiner-Rogers, G. L., Delville, C. L., & Timmerman, G. M. (2019). Using videoconferencing for verbal reports to improve clinical nurse specialist student performance. Clinical Nurse Specialist, 33(1), 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1097/NUR.0000000000000415. Kim, H.-J. (2017). Effects of a simulation-based debriefing using video in nursing education. Information, 20(8), 5509–5514. Retrieved from ProQuest Central. Krogh, K., Bearman, M., & Nestel, D. (2015). Expert practice of video-assisted debriefing: An Australian qualitative study. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 11(3), 180–187. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.ecns.2015.01.003. Lee, N.-J., Chae, S.-M., Kim, H., Lee, J.-H., Min, H. J., & Park, D.-E. (2016). Mobile-based video learning outcomes in clinical nursing skill education: A randomized controlled trial. CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing, 34(1), 8–16. https://doi.org/10.1097/cin.0000000000000183. Levett-Jones, T., & Lapkin, S. (2014). A systematic review of the effectiveness of simulation debriefing in health professional education. Nurse Education Today, 34(6), e58–e63. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2013.09.020. Logan, R. (2012). Using YouTube in perioperative nursing education. AORN Journal, 95(4), 474– 481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aorn.2012.01.023. MacLean, S., Geddes, F., Kelly, M., & Della, P. (2019). Video reflection in discharge communication skills training with simulated patients: A qualitative study of nursing students’ perceptions. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 28, 15–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2018.12.006. Massey, D., Byrne, J., Higgins, N., Weeks, B., Shuker, M.-A., Coyne, E., … Johnston, A. N. B. (2017). Enhancing OSCE preparedness with video exemplars in undergraduate nursing students. A mixed method study. Nurse Education Today, 54, 56–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2017. 02.024. McMullan, J. (2017). An evaluation of a technology enhanced learning tool (Labtutor) from the perspective of undergraduate student nurses. International Journal of Innovative Research in Medical Science, 2(1), 444–454. https://doi.org/10.23958/ijirms/vol02-i01/02. Penny, R. A., Bradford, N. K., & Langbecker, D. (2018). Registered nurse and midwife experiences of using videoconferencing in practice: A systematic review of qualitative studies. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 27(5–6), e739–e752. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14175. Ross, J. (2011). (Dir.). Tarras [Documentary]. School of Nursing, Otago Polytechnic, Dunedin, New Zealand. Ross, J. (2012). Place based practice: A New Zealand nursing education model. In D. Molinari & A. Bushy (Eds.), Rural nurse: Transition to practice. New York: Springer Publishing Company.

2 Building Undergraduate Nursing Knowledge and Practice …

41

Ross, J. (2017). Case study: From practice to evidence and evidence to practice: Bachelor of nursing Year 3. Scope Contemporary Research Topics Learning and Teaching, 3, 48–54. https://www.the scopes.org/assets/Uploads/fa35e4633e/SCOPE-learn-teach-3-Web-6-Ross.pdf. Ross, J. (2019). Rural communities. Scope Contemporary Research Topics Health & Wellbeing, 4, 13–20. https://www.thescopes.org/assets/Uploads/3-SCOPE-HW-Ross.pdf. Ross, J., & Crawley, J. (Eds.). (2018). Stories of nursing in rural Aotearoa: A landscape of care. Dunedin, New Zealand: Rural Health Opportunities. Rural Health Opportunities, Dunedin. Rossignol, M. (2017). Effects of video-assisted debriefing compared with standard oral debriefing. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 13(4), 145–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2016.12.001. Royle, C., & Hargiss, K. (2015). Comparison of Baccalaureate nursing students’ experience of video-assisted debriefing versus oral debriefing following high-fidelity human simulation. International Journal of Strategic Information Technology and Applications, 6(2), 40–49. https://doi. org/10.4018/IJSITA.2015040103. Seymour, B. (Reporter). (2013, May 6). Chicken boy. Today Tonight. Australia: Seven Network. Retrieved from https://www.todaytonightadelaide.com.au/stories/chicken-boy. Seymour, B. (Reporter). (2014, April 5). Boy raised with chickens in Fiji… . Today Tonight. Australia: Seven Network. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftWqYDu4qws. Sharoff, L. (2011). Integrating YouTube into the nursing curriculum. Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 16(3), 6–18. https://doi.org/10.3912/OJIN.Vol16No03PPT03. Simmonds, J., Collinge, R., Abrahams, S., Wallis, D., & Main, E. (2017, September). Enhancing the development of advanced physiotherapy clinical practice skills using vodcasts. Presented at the 28th International Networking for Healthcare Education Conference, Cambridge, UK. Retrieved from https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/hub/download/d2st2s4_jane_simmonds.pdf. Stanley, M. J., Serratos, J., Matthew, W., Fernandez, D., & Dang, M. (2018). Integrating video simulation scenarios into online nursing instruction. Journal of Nursing Education, 57(4), 245– 249. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20180322-11. StatsNZ. (2019). Population. Retrieved August 2, 2019, from https://www.stats.govt.nz/topics/pop ulation. Van Horn, E., Hyde, Y., Tesh, A., & Kautz, D. (2014). Teaching pathophysiology: Strategies to enliven the traditional lecture. Nurse Educator, 39(1), 34–37. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NNE. 0000437364.19090.be. VoiceThread. (2019). VoiceThread: Features. Retrieved May 26, 2019, from https://voicethread. com/about/features/. Wall Parilo, D. M., & Parsh, B. (2014). Case study: Student perceptions of video streaming nursing class sessions. Journal of Nursing Education, 53(3), 161–163. https://doi.org/10.3928/0148483420140223-01. Wolf, A. B. (2018). The impact of web-based video lectures on learning in nursing education: An integrative review. Nursing Education Perspectives, 39(6), E16–E20. https://doi.org/10.1097/01. NEP.0000000000000389. World Population Review. (2019). New Zealand population. Retrieved August 2, 2019, from http:// worldpopulationreview.com/countries/new-zealand-population/. Young, A. (2006, February 13). New Zealand pitching in for chicken boy. New Zealand Herald. Retrieved from https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid= 10367769.

Chapter 3

Effectiveness of Multiple Types of Video for Learner Engagement in Business Education Dilani S. P. Gedera and Roy Larke

Abstract This chapter discusses the findings of a case study that explored the incorporation of multiple types of video to improve learner engagement in a Masters degree level marketing course in a New Zealand university. In order to explore the potential for video to engage students in various ways, we designed multiple types of videos, including interactive videos, instructional videos, and video lectures in this course. Employing student and facilitator interviews and document analysis, the chapter discusses how these multiple types of video, as well as student-created videos, impacted learner engagement and experience in this context. The findings of the case study suggest that the integration of videos helped students to grasp core ideas required for completion of the course, review background knowledge quickly, promote interaction, and apply knowledge of what they had learned. The chapter also discusses the challenges of creating videos and shares planned changes for the improvement of this course. Keywords Video · Learner engagement · Business education · Teaching and learning · Video pedagogy

Introduction Learners today expect to be able to access content from a variety of locations and through multiple devices and ecosystems to enhance their learning experience and expand learning opportunities and learning ease. Although it is not always possible for every teacher in every course to provide this type of rich content and access, it is an ideal situation, and one increasingly demanded by students (Qin & Zheng, 2019). The literature relating to video as a medium for learning materials is large and continues to expand as video becomes easier and cheaper to produce and distribute. D. S. P. Gedera (B) Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand e-mail: [email protected] R. Larke University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 D. S. P. Gedera and A. Zalipour (eds.), Video Pedagogy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-4009-1_3

43

44

D. S. P. Gedera and R. Larke

Research to date strongly confirms the advantages of video as a learning medium, but there are many types, applications and formats that an teacher may choose from. Chen and Wu (2015) investigated three of these: recordings of lectures, talking head videos where the teacher’s face is composited over other content, and “Khan-style” (see Khan Academy, 2020) or “voice-over” video whereby concepts are introduced through videos of conceptual workings written usually by hand. These researchers found that all three types of video significantly improved learning performance, but the optimal type of video differed depending on the type of learner using the material. In particular, voice-over videos generated the highest sustained attention across all learner types but also induced the highest cognitive load. The overall conclusion was that, while some types of video have a higher cost of production, all types used in the study were worthwhile as effective learning media. In the case study discussed below, we used multiple types of video, including all three types of video described by Chen and Wu. This chapter introduces the results of a case study that focused on an online, Masters-level course in a marketing programme in 2018. The case study explored ways to incorporate multiple types of video to improve learner engagement. In order to explore the potential of video as a means to engage students in different ways, we designed several types of videos, including interactive videos, instructional videos and video lectures. This chapter discusses how these multiple types of video, as well as student-created videos, impacted learner engagement and experience in the context of the course. It outlines how these multiple types of videos, as well as student-created videos were produced using different software and tools.

Learner Engagement Learner engagement is linked to achievement, behaviour and a sense of belonging in a learning environment. The concept of engagement was initially introduced in education research mainly to deal with the dropout rates of socially and economically challenged students that were known to be at-risk (Parsons & Taylor, 2011). Over time, the focus of the concept of engagement has changed and the current discussion of learner engagement focuses on multiple constructs. The term student engagement denotes different things to different people. For instance, some of the early studies defined engagement in terms of interest (Dewey, 1913), effort (Meece & Blumenfeld, 1988), time on task (Berliner, 1990), and motivation (Skinner & Belmont, 1993). According to Chen, Gonyea, and Kuh (2008), engagement is the level to which the learners are involved with learning activities and engagement is related to learners’ satisfaction and achievement of good grades. Sharing similar views, Beer, Clark, and Jones (2010) state that, in spite of the fact that there is no universally accepted definition of what comprises engagement, engagement is always linked to student and college success, student retention and student motivation.

3 Effectiveness of Multiple Types of Video …

45

Engagement is viewed as a multi-dimensional construct. Learner engagement has been classified in three key ways in the literature: behavioural, emotional and cognitive (Fedricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004). Behavioural engagement is defined as participation in both academic and social activities. Behavioural engagement is related to academic achievement and dropout rates, and emotional engagement is described as students’ positive and negative responses to their teachers, peers and school. The relationship or the bond that the students have with their teachers, classmates and school influences their willingness to perform the tasks that those actors require of them for successful learning outcomes. Cognitive engagement is linked with the idea of investment. This means that individuals who are thoughtful, and who are willing to make an effort to understand concepts and ideas that are complex, become more accomplished at higher skill levels or achieve higher skill levels. Recent research on learner engagement demonstrates that scholars’ interests have shifted from linking engagement solely with student behaviour and achievement to relating learner engagement to learning experiences (Gedera, 2014). For example, Parsons and Taylor (2011) state: …no longer are educators focusing only on increasing engagement for behavioral compliance or academic achievement for some students; we are talking about increasing enjoyment, interest, scope, and meta-cognitive awareness about the spectrum of learning so students become skilled in learning in all aspects of life as well as core literacy and subject area content. (p. 14)

The rapid advancement of educational technologies has also added new dimensions to the notion of learner engagement. Educational technologies generally offer various affordances, conditions and options for designing online learning environments. However, technologies do not ensure that learners always have positive learning experiences. Thus, it is beneficial to explore how learning processes can be facilitated with appropriate technologies, strategies and conditions in order to maximise learner engagement in online learning environments. In the context of the current study, learner engagement is defined as students’ active participation in learning activities to achieve learning goals, and where students feel a sense of belonging to a learning community, use collaborative ways to coconstruct knowledge, interact with the content and technology, and maintain social and academic interactions with peers and the teacher (Gedera, 2014). The importance of engagement for effective student learning is no different in business education as in any other field. The positive association between high student engagement and deep learning and successful educational outcomes is clear (Northey, Bucic, Chylinski, & Govind, 2015). To be effective, teachers should have a good awareness of student engagement within a particular course or programme, and should seek to make improvements over time (Arbaugh, 2000). As noted above, various modern technologies provide opportunities to further learning engagement, and studies relating to business education specifically are common. In addition, within business education, studies in marketing education have emphasised the increased engagement of students when learning outcomes have a clear relationship with better employment outcomes either during or after the course of study (Dahlström & Edelman, 2013; Spiller & Tuten, 2019; Stanley & Zhang, 2018).

46

D. S. P. Gedera and R. Larke

As “engagement” is a commonly used metric in social media marketing, there have been multiple studies relating to the use of social media as a tool in marketing education (Crittenden & Crittenden, 2015; Mostafa, 2015; Northey et al., 2015; Williams & Whiting, 2016). These studies demonstrate ways to use social media or techniques borrowed from social media to measure student engagement. Although beyond the scope of this chapter, it is not clear whether “engagement” in social media necessarily equates to or is even similar to “learner engagement” in modern pedagogies, but these studies that consider learning engagement and social media do demonstrate the potential for better measurement of learner engagement in the same way that social media engagement demonstrates the success of social media marketing.

Video in Business Education Although few research studies are looking specifically at video use in business higher education, the literature surrounding the use of various forms of media for marketing educational purposes, as well as various flipped classroom and distance learning techniques, is extensive and has a long history (e.g. Arbaugh, 2000; Madden, 1983; Meisel, 1998; Ponzurick, France, & Logar, 2000). The “real-world” nature of much of the marketing curriculum lends itself to video as a means of content delivery because video can provide a visual illustration of concrete examples, both practical and conceptual (Baker & Delpechitre, 2016; Beuk, 2016; Hastings, 2019; Roter et al., 2004; Serapio & Fogg, 2009; Tugrul, 2012). Business education has evolved in recent years to keep pace with changes to business procedures and management techniques, with the adoption of numerous digital technologies a key component in this process. Video, and specifically the use of motion graphics (Beard, 2016; Scott Armstrong, 2010), has been a key tool for advertisers, trainers, demonstration and simple information diffusion in business since 1945. Today, video has become easier and cheaper to produce, meaning it is also a medium which learners themselves can employ and the manipulation (planning, production, creation, editing and distribution) of video are skills that can be useful in many business careers (Kaufman, Lambert, Donovan, & Kaufman, 2017; Miller, Mangold, Roach, & Holmes, 2013; O’Callaghan, Neumann, Jones, & Creed, 2017). For conceptual and theoretical content, like most subjects business education evolves over time but the method of instruction delivery has altered rapidly since 2000 to keep pace with other changes in the business environment (Giacalone, 2004; Hastings, 2019; Longmore, Grant, & Golnaraghi, 2018; Malhotra, 2002; Mårtensson & Bild, 2016; McCabe, 2019). This includes a more common use of distance learning and asynchronous instruction and learning methods, and greatly integrated use of technology as part of the instruction and learning process (Dastbaz & Kalafatis, 2015; Longmore et al., 2018; Miller et al. 2013). Although there is strong support both in research and among teachers and practitioners in business education for

3 Effectiveness of Multiple Types of Video …

47

traditional learning methods such as face-to-face classroom discussions and notetaking by hand, in many economies students and teachers are now highly versed in the use of, and have open access to, many different forms of technology (Celsi & Wolfinbarger, 2002; R. A. Peterson, Albaum, Munuera, & Cunningham, 2002; Roter et al., 2004; Serapio & Fogg, 2009). Wifi access to network services is close to ubiquitous in advanced economies and the business environment has moved beyond reliance on large devices such as personal computers, with network access already more common on mobile devices such as tablets or smartphones (Bharucha, 2018; Gavali, Khismatrao, Gavali, & Patil, 2017). Many studies of the use of video and multimedia specifically for business or marketing courses in higher education are presented as case studies (e.g. Lee et al., 2018), and the use of video-capture of student performance is also a common theme, particularly for areas of applied skills such as sales (Beuk, 2016; Mani, Kothandaraman, Kashyap, & Ashnai, 2016; Shen, 2014). Of the few examples specific to the use of video as content for marketing courses, Lancellotti, Thomas, and Kohli (2016) found that the use of video greatly helped understanding and exam performance, particularly in multicultural settings involving international students. Video allows for detailed and repeated reviews of content and is advantageous for non-native language speakers. It is also a good medium for explanation, illustration and demonstration of complex or applied concepts, although even with video available, there is still a role for human instruction to allow for detailed questioning to further ensure understanding (Bosshardt & Chiang, 2016; Khan, 2016; Makarem, 2015). Indeed, recording of lecture content is increasingly routine and expected (Chen & Wu, 2015; Shen, 2014). Marketing is an activity that, by definition, interacts directly with customers, and therefore use of state-of-the-art technology within marketing activities is commonplace. Not surprisingly, this has led some researchers to recommend that similar, recent technology should also be adopted within the classroom itself (Green, 2015; McGovern, 2017; M. Peterson, 2018). There are also a number of studies based in marketing education that describe the use of video and other technologies as teaching tools to record, disseminate and provide feedback and review of student outcomes (Baker & Delpechitre, 2016; Lee et al., 2018; Mani et al., 2016; M. Peterson, 2018). In summary, in the fields of business and marketing education, the practical nature of much of the curriculum means that rich content related to both concepts and example cases becomes a powerful form of learning medium. In addition, the capability to have students make their own videos to demonstrate their practical understanding and skill development is another powerful argument in favour of video use in the learning process.

Case Study Course: Advanced Advertising Strategy The course we chose for the case analysis was a Masters level course entitled Advanced Advertising Strategy at a leading university in New Zealand. The course

48

D. S. P. Gedera and R. Larke

was one of a small suite of four marketing courses taught at this level, but one that required a redesign for several reasons. The same course was taught by the same teacher as a face-to-face, seminar-style course for three years prior to the redesign. In these earlier iterations, video was used only when providing examples of advertisements. The majority of students who enrolled in the course could be categorised either as international students undertaking a 12-month Masters degree with a major in marketing, or domestic students taking the fourth-year undergraduate honours programme. The majority of the former group were non-native English speakers, while the majority of the latter were native speakers. One of the important considerations in course design was the need to cater to these two different groups of learners. In addition, at this level, the course received enrolments from students living some distance from the university, and many of the students were already in fulltime or part-time employment. At the time, marketing was one of the few programmes available with no distance learning course to cater for these students the Advanced Advertising Strategy course was chosen as suitable for delivery online through a distance learning model. This was partly due to the type of content, but also due to the teacher’s past experience with course design, digital learning tools and willingness to redevelop the course. The importance of student engagement and useful learning outcomes was a primary concern in the course redesign, which involved both the teacher and the university’s teaching development staff. The Masters courses available in the programme at the time of redevelopment were all taught to a particular model. Masters courses were seen as the domain of the most senior staff. The three primary pedagogical elements on the course were that students: (i) read a series of peer-reviewed academic articles; (ii) participate in the in-class discussion; and (iii) write academic-style essays. Student feedback prior to the redesign called for more practical content and the ability to link that content to their work, and this expectation was in line with the university’s policy of “work-integrated learning,” whereby course content should provide applied skills in addition to theoretical and conceptual understanding. The new course design needed to balance considerations of the expectation of a high volume of academic readings and student production of written and other content of a high and rigorous academic standard that would be subject to internal and external audit, alongside student expectations of an engaging course that provided both intellectual challenge and applied knowledge and understanding. In addition, the course needed to be delivered online with a high degree of self-study and through an asynchronous model. The research was designed and implemented on the first iteration of the new course design. The newly redesigned course itself was delivered via the Moodle learning management system (LMS). In designing the course, the following elements were included: • A set of learning outcomes related to the expectations of both the department and students

3 Effectiveness of Multiple Types of Video …

49

Fig. 3.1 Moodle Course Set up

• Clear course structure and content progression • Engaging content that students could study without direct input from an teacher • Assessment elements that measured student understanding and effort As the course was prescribed by the limitations in the functions available through Moodle, the structure took a weekly topic approach (see Fig. 3.1). To meet the requirement to ensure students read and to ensure consistency of readings across students in varying locations, a course textbook was set (specifically Scott Armstrong, 2010). The course began with two introductory weeks (see Fig. 3.2). In the first week, students were provided with a welcome video and videos that provided an overview of the course structure on Moodle. The university provided learning materials related to Moodle use, but these videos were produced to be specific to the course content and structure. Other videos were added to provide study skills advice. This was both to help students who were unused to studying online and to help students to understand specific expectations on the course. In the first week, students were asked to provide a self-introduction video using Flipgrid (see below). Materials for the second week (see Fig. 3.3) provided review materials related to marketing strategy to ensure all students began the main course content with a reasonable level of base knowledge. From the third week onwards, the structure of tasks required of students remained consistent (other than two assessment weeks) and was as follows: 1. An introductory video by the teacher in the form of a short lecture and exposition on the topic for the week.

50

D. S. P. Gedera and R. Larke

Fig. 3.2 Week 1 of the Course: introductions and study advice

Fig. 3.3 Student view of Weeks 2 and 3 of the Course

2. Students were required to read the relevant chapter of the textbook. In most weeks, students were also provided with notes on the topic as Google Slide decks, which included links to examples and other readings. 3. Students were then required to complete three tasks as assessment. These tasks repeated each week: (a) An applied discussion problem was set relating to the topic. To answer these problems, students were required to create a 90-second video of an “elevator pitch” on Flipgrid for an advertisement or advertising campaign and outline

3 Effectiveness of Multiple Types of Video …

51

their idea in a Moodle forum post. They were then required to evaluate one other student’s idea and provide constructive comment in the same forum. (b) Students were required to find one peer-reviewed journal article related to the topic and published 2011 or later and review this article. Again, the review was posted in a Moodle forum, with content written to a specific template. (c) Students were required to find two examples of advertisements that demonstrated the principles they had studied that week. These were presented in Google Slides and submitted as a Moodle assignment.

The Course Redesign and Development Process To explore ways to incorporate multiple types of video in this context, as a first step the teacher and the teaching developer reviewed the course outline to ensure that the learning outcomes, assessments and the learning and teaching activities were aligned. The principle of alignment or constructive alignment is a widely used course design approach (Biggs, 1999). The teacher had some past experience of video creation, and the teaching developer provided advice and guidance to improve both the workflow and the output of new videos for the course. The teacher produced a series of short videos for different purposes. These included content videos, instructional videos, interactive videos and student-created videos. The following is a brief description of each type of video and the software used to create and edit the videos.

Content Videos Where appropriate in the course, conceptual content videos were produced to provide guidance, understanding and examples related to the readings students completed during the course. These videos were shot on a mobile phone and edited in Camtasia1 video editing software.

Instructional Videos These videos were created to provide students with instructions and guides primarily by screencast demonstration. Some of the examples of instructional videos included an overview of Moodle functions, descriptions of case studies, instructions on assessment submission and clarity on assessment expectations. Camtasia was used to create and edit instructional videos, including producing screen recordings. 1 Link

to Camtasia: https://www.techsmith.com/video-editor.html.

52

D. S. P. Gedera and R. Larke

Interactive Videos These videos were used for the application of knowledge. Interactive videos included simple quizzes and review questions to help enhance learning by giving students an opportunity to apply and check the knowledge they had gained through reading of the conceptual content. Interactive videos were created using H5P software.2 H5P was integrated within the LMS.

Student-Created Videos These videos were created by students in two different ways. At the beginning of this online course, students introduced themselves to their peers and the teachers using Flipgrid video platform.3 Flipgrid allowed the teacher to restrict video length from between 30 seconds to five minutes. It also allowed students to post a video reply to their peers. Later in the course, students used Flipgird videos to present a marketing pitch presentation.4 Figure 3.4 includes screenshots of some of these four types of videos.

Findings and Discussion This case study was conducted over a period of one semester in 2018. The participants of the study were a group of students enrolled in a Masters level Marketing course at a New Zealand university. Data were generated using semi-structured interviews and document analysis. Both students and the teacher were interviewed at the end of the semester. In the interviews, students and the teacher were asked to comment on their experiences of learning and teaching with the use of videos in the course and their experiences of creating videos using different tools. NVivo was used as a data management tool. Data were analysed using a thematic approach. This study met the institutional requirements for ethical research, following the protocols for informed consent, right of withdrawal and confidentiality of participants.

Affordances of Video One key theme that emerged from the data was the affordances of video as a learning and teaching tool. The term “affordances” was first coined by the psychologist James 2 Link

to H5P: https://h5p.org/. to Flipgrid: https://info.flipgrid.com/. 4 Peer reviews through Flipgrid itself were implemented in a later iteration of the same course. 3 Link

3 Effectiveness of Multiple Types of Video …

53

Fig. 3.4 Screenshots of multiple types of video

Gibson in 1977 to refer to the actionable properties between the actor and the world (Gibson, 1977). However, in 1988, in relation to human–computer interactions (HCI), Don Norman explains that the possibility of actions being perceived by the user depends on how the object is presented. He refers to these as “perceived affordances” (Norman, 1988) which are more relational rather than subjective or objective. The affordances of the tool are determined by how the users perceive the possibilities of a particular tool and its ideal uses within the context of their learning. In the context of this study, students acknowledged that video is a powerful medium that enabled them to show more emotions compared with written communication. As this was a fully online course, the students did not have face-to-face class time. In the absence of face-to-face interactions, the students perceived video

54

D. S. P. Gedera and R. Larke

as a visual, interactive and responsive medium of communication. This was evident in the students’ comments: “Written communication is usually emotionless” (S1) “I think video is more interactive and responsive” (S3) “The video was like a [lecturer] was talking to you, just like lectures in class” (S2)

As a visual medium, video helped students to get clear directions and instructions. The instructional and “how-to” videos provided students with technical assistance and clear step-by-step instructions on technical requirements. These videos were used to introduce new technologies, to give an overview of the online course, to provide details of case studies and assessments. Students found the instructional videos useful, as they could go back to the videos whenever they wanted: “Having a video you can go back to it” (S1) “The instructional video on how Flipgrid works was really helpful” (S2)

The instructional videos also helped students improve their efficiency. Students referred to a video that gave clear instructions on how students could use editing modifications within the LMS when they were writing their assignments. For instance, the video explained how students could choose which editor to use (i.e. the “Tiny MCE HTML editor” in Moodle) to have more editing options. Based on the editor, students could do some editing modifications such as highlighting a phrase or making a phrase bold. “Editing modifications in Moodle video was super beneficial for me because I then use that in the rest of the course” (S3) “The video on how you can insert some hyperlinks into your text was very helpful. I overall improved my efficiency which is always a good end goal” (S3)

As a teaching and learning tool, videos acted as live examples of what students were reading in this course. Consistent with previous research, which demonstrates that visual media has a positive effect on learners’ ability to process and remember information (Chen & Wu, 2015; Shorter & Dean, 1994), compared to reading text or simply listening to lectures, the videos in this context helped students to understand the content better: “You have something to watch in between and you can relate that to the reading that is given to you. So it tells you in a way this is the type of principle being applied. So it’s basically a live example of what we are reading, which is good” (S1)

Teacher’s Presence Another key theme that emerged from the data was the “teacher’s presence” that helped foster the student–teacher relationship in this fully online course (Gedera, 2014). The concept of “teacher’s presence” is linked to the Community of Inquiry (CoI) model. Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (2000) introduced the CoI model that

3 Effectiveness of Multiple Types of Video …

55

consists of three forms of presence: social, cognitive and teaching. According to Garrison (2007), social presence is the capability to form relationships that are personal and purposeful. Cognitive presence occurs through collaboration and reflection and is described as, “the exploration, construction, resolution and confirmation of understanding” (p. 65). The teacher presence begins with the course design and “continues during the course, as the teacher facilitates the discourse and provides direct instruction when required” (Anderson, Rourke, Garrison, & Archer, 2001, p. 5). Particularly with fully online courses, there is a potential risk that the seemingly anonymous nature of online courses can lead to student disengagement with minimal participation or even withdrawal (Gedera, Williams, & Wright, 2015), as students often feel isolated in online learning environments when there is minimal interaction and teacher presence. In the study, to overcome the issue of disengagement due to student isolation, a number of strategies were adopted which employed videos. First, weekly videos introducing specific topics provided a high level of personal interaction with students. These videos were current, with some posted “on the fly” at the beginning of the teaching week, and so provided a timely connection to students. Secondly, lecturestyle videos were edited with picture in picture or “talking head” techniques so that students could see the teacher speaking to them during the video. This provided student–teacher connection and engagement. Thirdly, Flipgrid allowed for short, one-off announcement and explanation videos when necessary to help the class. Finally, the use of Flipgrid also allowed the teacher to provide timely, one-to-one feedback to individual students through the video medium. Students found videos more “personable” than simple reading-only materials and provided some compensation for lack of face-to-face content to some degree. An interesting finding was that the students expressed that they thought the “teacher cared more” when he appeared on any video. “I think with videos are a bit more personable, you can relate with him better” (S3) “I definitely loved those videos where the [teacher]’s little video is there when he is speaking. I think it connects you more through it.” (S1) “If he shows his face, in my mind that shows he cares more, that he wants to engage with the students” (S2) “With his videos it was like he was sitting there and talking to you” (S2) “It’s like you are listening to a lecture, especially with an online course where you don’t have a lot of interaction with your [lecturer]. I couldn’t feel it at all that it was in that course because there was so much of our involvement” (S1)

Students recognised that the videos were developed to the highest standard considering the various design and pedagogical aspects such as scaffolding, navigation, sound quality, background colours and the like. Having clear visuals and sound is paramount to a high-quality video. “The quality of the video is really important. The voice quality was good and sometimes he would just sit out in a lush green background. That was really good” (S1) “The videos were also broken down into sections so it was quite short and easy to navigate which was really beneficial” (S3)

56

D. S. P. Gedera and R. Larke

Acquisition and Application of Knowledge The findings of the case study suggest that the effective integration of videos in this course helped students to grasp core ideas and concepts of marketing aligned with the course learning outcomes. Particularly for those students who did not have a marketing background, and to some extent also those whose first language was not English, the videos helped them gather a quick review of background knowledge and the fundamentals required, and allowed for multiple views to enhance understanding. “I am not from a marketing background, so the introductory video he had on segmentation, targeting and positioning (STP) was really helpful for me” (S1) “Definitely the initial videos were really quite helpful for me” (S3)

The interactive videos in this study were created using H5P software, which was embedded as an activity creation tool within the LMS. Interactive videos have been defined as videos that have incorporated “interactive learning moments” in the form of reflective pauses, questions, statements and the like (Gedera & Zalipour, 2018, p. 363). Interactive video creation tools such as H5P allow users to upload their own video or link to an existing video from YouTube and then add a layer to the video with interactive features; for example, fill in the blank questions, pop up explanatory text, and short response or multiple choice questions for students to complete. Once the video is available, students play the video and when it reaches an interactive element the video stops and prompts students to answer a question, reflect on concepts or explore more about the topic. As students engage with these interactive features, teachers can easily see students’ progress via the learning management system. In our study, interactive videos were used to assist students in understanding and test their knowledge of how certain marketing concepts, strategies and principles have been applied in advertisements. Students read about these marketing concepts and principles and then engaged with interactive videos to test their knowledge of what they had learned. These exercises were not assessed, but most students completed them due to the high level of engagement. Students were able to see videos chosen by the teacher and answer simple questions embedded in the video itself. These questions helped students understand how the concepts and principles could be applied in real-world business situations. Students acknowledged that this was a useful learning activity. “It tells you in a way this is the type of principle being applied. So it’s basically a live example of what we are reading” (S1) “It helps you in relating what you have just read in the slides” (S2) “I really appreciated that you could go through the videos and apply what the readings had, what was used in top tier ad campaigns and how those strategies were incorporated and embedded within different types of advertising. I thought that was really nice” (S3)

3 Effectiveness of Multiple Types of Video …

57

Interaction and Community Building The findings of the study indicate that student-created videos fostered academic and social interactions. Student-created videos were used in two different ways in the study. First, at the beginning of the course, the students were asked to make a selfintroduction video using the Flipgrid tool and then respond to a peer with a video reply. The purpose of this activity was to provide students with an opportunity to get to know each other a bit better, even though some students would never meet in person due to their location. A secondary objective was to give students an opportunity to learn and practice with Flipgrid in the first week. The ability to see and hear each other in an online environment can create a sense of community where they share their ideas, help each other and foster social and academic connections. Students commented that: “It (Flipgrid) was really useful in that way to get to know each other” (S1) “I think he and I made about three videos back and forth. He would definitely engage, which was really quite nice” (S2) “Flipgrid provided some interaction” (S3)

The concept of community building is linked to the element “social presence” of the CoI model. Social presence is the capability to form relationships that are personal and purposeful (Garrison, 2007). By providing an opportunity for students to create as well as consume videos that they made themselves using Flipgrid, they were able to express themselves freely and develop a sense of belonging in the course. This is a particular issue in online and distance learning courses. In this case study, out of 18 students enrolled, six lived beyond easy commuting distance to the university and so they studied entirely from home with no recourse to meet their fellow learners. Although it is common for online courses to request a short, written self-introduction, as well as interaction on “chat” forums, using video for these purposes enhances students’ interactions perceptibly. Video allowed students to display their personalities better and, with limits set on presentation time, caused them to think carefully about what to say and how to say it. In response to student-created introductory videos, the teacher provided a personal video reply to each student to welcome them to the course and commented on at least one aspect of their introduction. Students expressed their pleasure at receiving their own personal response and appreciated the teacher’s genuine engagement. The self-introduction videos were not assessed, so students made the videos voluntarily, and we recorded no objections to the use of video in this study. Indeed, students reacted positively to the use of the Flipgrid tool, even though the tool itself is positioned for use in the K-12 school years rather than in higher education. It is important to allow students to freely choose the content they present and to feel little stress or pressure to produce such overt content. Although some students expressed the view that they were a little self-conscious at first, most expressed an interest in using the technology and some compared the exercise to current social

58

D. S. P. Gedera and R. Larke

media use. In other words, creating such videos for them was “normal.” It is, however, important to recognise that such an exercise could potentially cause some students to stress or anxiety, and we recommend students are provided with an option to communicate in other ways if they so choose. As described above, later in the course students had to come up with an idea for particular advertising problems and scenarios and present the idea as a 90-second “elevator pitch” using the Flipgrid video tool. This activity forced the students to be precise, creative and well-focused. The students’ attitude of using Flipgrid was positive: “The [lecturer] wanted to have some transparency so we could learn from one another and see best practices” (S3) “I am surprised with how well Flipgrid worked. It’s not just one way, here’s some videos you have to watch. As a student you can actually participate as well. Students really liked it” (teacher)

Challenges of Creating Videos From a teacher’s perspective, while there are many benefits to the use of video in teaching and learning, finding quality videos on the subject matter can be challenging. Moreover, readily available videos may not suit the course level or have the personalised features teachers require. A viable alternative to finding a suitable video that fits with the course learning objectives can be creating your own videos subject to time and financial constraints, and access to suitable hardware and software, or to resources such as production assistance from experts. The teacher in this study created several quality videos using multiple software. He indicated that the main challenge was the time and resources: “The workload is a big problem for me” “Getting the footage from the camera to the editing suite. The camera on the computer is not good enough and it’s also hard to position.”

To make different types of videos more personalised and contextualised in the course, the teacher edited the videos in the Camtasia editing suite to embed various “interactive learning moments” and elements (Gedera & Zalipour, 2018, p. 363) such as annotations, multimedia, pointers, green screen, audio narration and the like. A mobile phone was used to shoot the video footage as this provided high image and sound quality, recording video at 4K resolution far higher than was possible with available computer cameras. Using 4K means that it is possible to zoom in on a smaller portion of a shoot without appreciable loss in video quality. However, transferring the footage from the mobile phone to the Camtasia software was challenging, partly due to the models of the phone and the computer available and due to low bandwidth. The teacher acknowledged that, in general, “the actual learning curve to making better than purely amateur videos is quite steep.” The video production, as well as the editing process, is time-consuming and we need to know what we are aiming for to begin with.

3 Effectiveness of Multiple Types of Video …

59

Recommendations and Conclusions This case study evidences positive results derived from an educational research project that designed and integrated multiple types of video to enhance learner engagement in a fully online Masters level marketing course. To explore the potential for video as a means to engage students in various, effective ways, we designed multiple types of videos, including interactive videos, instructional videos and video lectures in this course. In addition, we also created opportunities for students to create their own videos for learning as well as social interaction purposes. The chapter discussed how these various types of video, as well as student-created videos, impacted learner engagement and experience in the context of this study. The findings of the case study suggest that the integration of videos in this context improved students’ active participation in learning activities and content of the course, and more importantly, enhanced emotional and cognitive engagement. The integration of multiple videos helped students to interact with the content and maintain social and academic interactions with peers and the teacher. The social and academic interactions aided in building a community of learners in this environment. The reflection on the course and student experience in this project has led us to make these recommendations for the improvements of the future occurrences of the paper: • • • • •

More videos for case studies and marketing concepts Videos to explain expectations of assessments Build up the database of examples and illustrations using H5P Increase the use of peer interaction through Flipgrid videos Shorten/segment some of the longer videos with a target length of no more than 10 min per video • Turn PowerPoint slides into video wherever possible

References Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 2–17. Arbaugh, J. B. (2000). How classroom environment and student engagement affect learning in internet-based MBA courses. Business Communication Quarterly, 63(4), 9–26. Baker, D. S., & Delpechitre, D. (2016). An innovative approach to teaching cultural intelligence in personal selling. Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, 24. http://www.mmaglobal.org/publications/JAME/JAME-Issues/JAME-2016-Vol24-SpecialIs sue/JAME-2016-Vol24-Special-Issue-Baker-Delpechitre-pp78-87.pdf. Beard, F. K. (2016). A history of advertising and sales promotion. The Routledge Companion to Marketing History (pp. 203–224). London, UK: Routledge. Beer, C., Clark, K., & Jones, D. (2010). Indicators of engagement. Proceedings of ASCILITE Sydney 2010 (pp. 75–86). Sydney, NSW, Australia: Ascilite.

60

D. S. P. Gedera and R. Larke

Berliner, D. C. (1990). What’s all the fuss about instructional time? In Ben-Peretz & R. Bromme (Eds.), The nature of time in schools: Theoretical concepts, practitioner perceptions (pp. 3–35). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Beuk, F. (2016). Sales simulation games: student and instructor perceptions. Journal of Marketing Education, 38(3), 170–182. Bharucha, J. (2018). Exploring education-related use of social media: business students’ perspectives in a changing India. Education + Training, 60(2), 198–212. Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Bosshardt, W., & Chiang, E. P. (2016). Targeting teaching lecture capture learning: Do students perform better compared to face-to-face classes? Southern Economic Journal, 82(3), 1021–1038. Celsi, R. L., & Wolfinbarger, M. (2002). Discontinuous classroom innovation: waves of change for marketing education. Journal of Marketing Education, 24(1), 64–72. Chen, P. S., Gonyea, R., & Kuh, G. (2008). Learning at a distance: Engaged or not? Retrieved from http://www.innovateonline.info/pdf/vol4_issue3/Learning_at_a_Distance__Eng aged_or_Not_.pdf. Chen, C. M., & Wu, C. H. (2015). Effects of different video lecture types on sustained attention, emotion, cognitive load, and learning performance. Computers & Education, 80, 108–121. Crittenden, V. L., & Crittenden, W. F. (2015). Digital and social media marketing in business education: Implications for student engagement. Journal of Marketing Education, 37(3), 131– 132. Dahlström, P., & Edelman, D. (2013). The coming era of “ondemand” marketing. McKinsey Quarterly. Retrieved from http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/marketing_sales/the_coming_era_of_ on-demand_marketing. Dastbaz, M., & Kalafatis, S. (2015). New technology and marketing education. In A. Manrai & H. Meadow (Eds.), Global perspectives in marketing for the 21st century (pp. 436–439). Cham: Springer. Dewey, J. (1913). Interest and effort in education. Boston, MA: Riverside Press. Fedricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. Garrison, D. R. (2007). Online community of inquiry review: Social, cognitive, and teaching presence issues. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(1), 61–72. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education model. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105. Gavali, M. Y., Khismatrao, D. S., Gavali, Y. V., & Patil, K. B. (2017). Smartphone, the new learning aid amongst medical students. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, 11(5), JC05–JC08. Gedera, D. S. P., Williams, J., & Wright, N. (2015). Identifying factors influencing students’ motivation and engagement in online courses. In C. Koh (Ed.), Motivation, leadership and curriculum design. Engaging the net generation and 21st century learners (pp. 13–23). Singapore: Springer. Gedera, D. S. P. (2014). Mediational engagement in E-learning: An activity theory analysis. Thesis, Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.). University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand. Gedera, D. S. P., & Zalipour, A. (2018). Use of interactive video for teaching and learning. In Proceedings of Australasian society for computers in learning in tertiary education (pp. 362–367). Melbourne, VIC, Australia: Deakin University. Giacalone, R. A. (2004). A transcendent business education for the 21st century. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3(4), 415–420. Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing: Toward an ecological psychology (pp. 67–82). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Green, T. (2015). Flipped classrooms: An agenda for innovative marketing education in the digital era. Marketing Education Review, 25(3), 179–191.

3 Effectiveness of Multiple Types of Video …

61

Hastings, G. (2019). Marketing: A tale of power, rebellion, and hope. gaps and intersections between marketing education. In M. Pinheiro, A. Estima, & S. Marques (Eds.), Evaluating the gaps and intersections between marketing education and the marketing profession (pp. 1–5). Hershey: IGI Global. Kaufman, P., Lambert, C. I., Donovan, L. A., & Kaufman, K. (2017). The creation of videos by marketing students: An exploration of attitudes and motivations in a capstone course. In Creating Marketing Magic and Innovative Future Marketing Trends (pp. 1265–1273). Cham: Switzerland. Khan Academy. (2020). The Khan Academy website. https://www.khanacademy.org/. Accessed 10 January 2020. Khan, H. U. (2016). Possible effect of video lecture capture technology on the cognitive Empowerment of higher education students: A case study of gulf-based university. International Journal of Innovation and Learning, 20(1), 68–84. Lancellotti, M., Thomas, S., & Kohli, C. (2016). Online video modules for improvement in student learning. Journal of Education for Business, 91(1), 19–22. Lee, S. H. (mark), Hoffman, K. D., Chowdhury, S. A., & Sergueeva, K. (2018). Creating a video documentary as a tool for reflection and assessment: Capturing guerilla marketing in action. Marketing Education Review, 28(2), 126–130. Longmore, A. L., Grant, G., & Golnaraghi, G. (2018). Closing the 21st-century knowledge gap: Reconceptualizing teaching and learning to transform business education. Journal of Transformative Education, 16(3), 197–219. Madden, C. S. (1983). The use of videotaped cases in the teaching of marketing. Journal of Marketing Education, 5(3), 2–5. Makarem, S. C. (2015). Using online video lectures to enrich traditional face-to-face courses. International Journal of Instruction, 8(2), 155–164. Malhotra, N. K. (2002). Integrating technology in marketing education: perspective for the new millennium. Marketing Education Review, 12(3), 1–5. Mani, S., Kothandaraman, P., Kashyap, R., & Ashnai, B. (2016). Sales role-plays and mock interviews. Journal of Marketing Education, 38(3), 183–198. https://doi.org/10.1177/027347531560 6785. Mårtensson, P., & Bild, M. (2016). Teaching and learning at business schools: Transforming business education. London: Routledge. McCabe, M. B. (2019). Intersections in marketing practice and marketing education: Bridging the gaps. In M. Pinheiro (Ed.), Evaluating the gaps and intersections between marketing education and the marketing profession (pp. 117–142). Hershey: IGI Global. McGovern, E. (2017). The introduction of virtual reality to education: should the marketing discipline engage? https://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/wcob_fac/456/. Meece, J. L., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (1988). Students’ goal orientations and cognitive engagement in classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 514–523. Meisel, S. (1998). Videotypes: Considerations for effective use of video in teaching and training. International Journal of Management & Enterprise Development, 17(4), 251–258. Miller, F. L., Mangold, W. G., Roach, J., & Holmes, T. (2013). Building the technology toolkit of marketing students: The emerging technologies in marketing initiative. Marketing Education Review, 23(2), 121–136. Mostafa, R. B. (2015). Engaging students via social media: Is it worth the effort? Journal of Marketing Education, 37(3), 144–159. Norman, D. A. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. New York: Basic Books. Northey, G., Bucic, T., Chylinski, M., & Govind, R. (2015). Increasing student engagement using asynchronous learning. Journal of Marketing Education, 37(3), 171–180. O’Callaghan, F. V., Neumann, D. L., Jones, L., & Creed, P. A. (2017). The use of lecture recordings in higher education: A review of institutional, student, and lecturer issues. Education and Information Technologies, 22(1), 399–415. Parsons, J., & Taylor, L. (2011). Student engagement: What do we know and what should we do?. Alberta, CA: University Partners.

62

D. S. P. Gedera and R. Larke

Peterson, M. (2018). Experiential learning in the age of web 2.0: The rap video project. Marketing Education Review, 28(2), 109–114. Peterson, R. A., Albaum, G., Munuera, J. L., & Cunningham, W. H. (2002). Reflections on the use of instructional technologies in marketing education. Marketing Education Review, 12(3), 7–17. Ponzurick, T. G., France, K. R., & Logar, C. M. (2000). Delivering graduate marketing education: An analysis of face-to-face versus distance education. Journal of Marketing Education, 22(3), 180–187. Qin, J., & Zheng, Q. (2019). Modelling of learner behaviour in massive open online video-ondemand services. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology, 14(4), 499. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijict.2019.101867. Roter, D. L., Larson, S., Shinitzky, H., Chernoff, R., Serwint, J. R., Adamo, G., et al. (2004). Use of an innovative video feedback technique to enhance communication skills training. Medical Education, 38(2), 145–157. Scott Armstrong, J. (2010). Persuasive advertising: Evidence-based principles. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Serapio, N., & Fogg, B. J. (2009, April). Designing for video engagement on social networks: A video marketing case study. In Proceedings of the 4th international conference on persuasive technology (p. 39). ACM. Shen, W. (2014). Using video recording system to improve student performance in high-fidelity simulation. In S. Li, Q. Jin, X. Jiang, & J. H. Park (Eds.), Frontier and future development of information technology in medicine and education (pp. 1753–1757). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Shorter, J. D., & Dean, R. L. (1994). Computing in collegiate schools of business: Are mainframes & stand-alone microcomputers still good enough? Journal of Systems Management, 45(7), 36. Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4), 571–581. Spiller, L., & Tuten, T. (2019). Assessing the pedagogical value of branded digital marketing certification programs. Journal of Marketing Education, 41(2), 77–90. Stanley, D., & Zhang, J. (2018). Do student-produced videos enhance engagement and learning in the online environment. Online Learning, 22(2). https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i2.1367. Tugrul, T. O. (2012). Student perceptions of an educational technology tool: video recordings of project presentations. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 64, 133–140. Williams, D., & Whiting, A. (2016). Exploring the relationship between student engagement, twitter, and a learning management system: A study of undergraduate marketing students. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 28(3), 302–313.

Chapter 4

Flipping the Classroom: Using Video to Enhance First-Year Undergraduates’ Cultural Competency Jessica Mann, Mary J. Parish, Matt Kroh, and Michael Bridges

Abstract This chapter serves as a case study illustrating how to successfully combine the use of video and best practices in online teaching and learning to provide first-year college students with an introduction to new and complex subject matter. In the summer of 2018, the Center for Community Engaged Teaching and Research at Duquesne University was presented with the challenge of preparing first year, primarily white, middle-class business school students to engage with residents and leaders from its local community—a majority African American neighbourhood that continues to struggle economically. The critical task at hand was to increase students’ cultural competency skills while having only one opportunity to interact with them face-to-face. The prior year’s collaboration between students and community had experienced some trouble spots relative to cultural competency, so there was a definite sense of urgency in getting it right pedagogically and institutionally. The chapter discusses the ways in which video played a critical role in introducing and anchoring a concise six-unit digital learning module that provided the solution to this conundrum. A combination of videos and exercises facilitated student learning of the key concepts and principles of cultural competency as well as the negative implications for business of cultural incompetence (an exploration of the “Euro Disney Debacle”). The module culminated in a classroom visit in which the students’ level of participation, particularly in the quality of their contributions to highly interactive in-class activities, indicated a significant degree of involvement with the material. In addition, a variety of data sources suggest that the module accomplished its purpose in terms of community members’, students’, and instructor expectations. Keywords Video · Flipped-learning · Cultural competency · Education · Pedagogy · Video pedagogy J. Mann · M. J. Parish (B) Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA e-mail: [email protected] M. Kroh Motion Graphics Producer and Consultant, Pittsburgh, PA, USA M. Bridges University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 D. S. P. Gedera and A. Zalipour (eds.), Video Pedagogy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-4009-1_4

63

64

J. Mann et al.

Introduction This case study discusses the process of integrating video into a self-contained, six-unit module to provide first-year college students with an introduction to new and complex subject matter. In the summer of 2018, the Director of the Center for Community-Engaged Teaching and Research (CETR) at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania was challenged with fostering the cultural competence of more than three hundred first-year business school students enrolled in the First Year Innovation Experience course. It is important to note that at the time of implementation, the business school’s demographic makeup was 98.57% full-time undergraduate students, 80% white, and 60% male (Duquesne University, 2018). Despite the cultural homogeneity of the school, and subsequently, the cohort of students enrolled in the First Year Innovation Experience course, an essential component of the course was a project in which the students partnered with community members and leaders of the university’s neighbouring community, Uptown. The Uptown neighbourhood, a community of roughly 1550 residents, covering 0.33 square miles, with a population of 49.3% African American individuals, has struggled economically for decades with a median household income of only $41,777 (Uptown Partners, n.d.). A major source of its struggles were the short- and long-term effects of an urban redevelopment project in the late 1950s that gutted more than 1000 buildings, displaced hundreds of businesses, and dislocated more than 1500 families within this community (Nelson Jones, 2018). The prior year’s course project, which included a collaboration between multiple groups of first-year students and the Uptown community, had resulted in some challenging interactions related to a lack of cultural competency among certain students. The critical task at hand for the Director of CETR was to increase the cultural competency and communication skills of the 2018 cohort with only one opportunity to interact with them directly on this topic in the classroom. Given the university’s commitment to servant-leadership and to “develop[ing] authentic and mutually beneficial alliances with community organizations” in Uptown and other underserved neighbourhoods in the city and “to promote civic awareness among students” (Strategic Plan 2018–2023, n.d.), the development and implementation of this community-engaged course component was a priority. Time was short (classes began in late August) and to manage this challenge, a collaborative partnership between CETR and the university’s office of Online Learning and Strategy was initiated. Video played a critical role in strengthening the cultural competency of this cohort of first-year business students—functioning as the vehicle to introduce and anchor a concise six-unit digital learning module. As Fig. 4.1 outlines below, the module engaged students with a combination of videos and readings reinforced by learning activities and assessments that facilitated their understanding of the key concepts and principles of cultural competency as well as the negative implications for professional initiatives and relationships resulting from cultural incompetence. Following students’ completion of the six units, the Director of CETR conducted a single-class lecture and facilitated class discussion. Data and item analysis from

4 Flipping the Classroom: Using Video to Enhance First-Year …

65

Fig. 4.1 Cultural competency module: structure and content

Blackboard, the university’s learning management system, confirmed that the vast majority of students had accessed and completed the learning activities in each unit of the module. In addition, the quality and level of student participation during the director’s face-to-face class visit indicated that the majority of students had synthesized and integrated critical aspects of culture and cultural competency. During the lecture, which unpacked the students’ understanding of cultural competency and

66

J. Mann et al.

its application to both their community-engaged project as well as their professional development, students actively participated in small and large group activities, discussing key examples from the module content as well as offering their own examples and questions related to the content. Moreover, students also requested the inclusion of additional content related to best practices in culturally competent businesses and examples of organizations with demonstrated expertise in cultural competence for future modules. In order to comply with institutional policies and research protocols, the authors received retroactive approval for the research through the Institutional Review Board (IRB). This process ensured the subjects’ rights, formally documenting that students were made aware that their participation in this module was not required, but rather appreciated by both the teacher and the researchers. Students were also made aware, verbally, that their feedback may be shared internally for the purposes of improving process and procedure for future community-engaged learning courses, as well as to make improvements to the module itself. In addition, the data collected was deidentified, and therefore, respondent confidentiality was guaranteed.

Community Engagement in Higher Education In order to appreciate the full value of video to this project, what follows provides a contextualization of the role of community engagement in student learning in American higher education. Since the late 1980s and early 1990s scholars and citizens alike have been analysing American higher education’s public purpose. Moreover, due to today’s economy and challenging job market, post-secondary students are demanding learning opportunities that provide knowledge, skills, abilities, and experiences readily translatable into employers’ job requirements. When combined, the discussion of the value of a college education and the public purpose of higher education has fueled the implementation of community-engaged learning—or the process of moving students out of the classroom and into direct contact with diverse populations. During this period, institutions began to develop and embed a pedagogical approach to address their public purpose—merging community service with learning (Jacoby, 1996; Welch, 2016) and thus shifting the conversation among scholars and administrators to focus on student and institutional civic engagement. Since the 1990s the dialogue around engaged pedagogy and research has continued, resulting in an umbrella of engagement frameworks surrounding civic engagement and community-university partnerships. For the purpose of this chapter, we specifically focus on community engagement, a conceptualization of engaged pedagogy structured around the process of an institution working with a community to realize and accomplish goals. Community engagement is defined by The Carnegie Foundation (2012) as “the collaboration between institutions of higher education and their larger communities for the mutually beneficial exchange of knowledge and resources in a context of partnership and reciprocity.” Under this approach to engagement, institutional resources are shared with the community, and a learning

4 Flipping the Classroom: Using Video to Enhance First-Year …

67

exchange occurs between the community and members of the educational institution. The goal of community engagement is to empower communities, educate students, and contribute to the creation of new knowledge in order to address, and hopefully solve, public problems (Welch, 2016). For faculty implementing community-engaged learning experiences in their courses, often the desired outcome for students is an ability to comprehend community and diversity as well as an emergence of an individual’s value system (Rhoads & Neururer, 1998). In this sense, community-engaged learning experiences have the potential to affect student’s academic, civic, and personal development—as participants experience changes in perspective as they relate to self and social issues (Mann & DeAngelo, 2016). Community-engaged learning at Duquesne University combines the key elements of rigorous learning, engagement with the community, reflection, and assessment that put the knowledge, skills, and values of discipline into action. The community-engaged components of these courses allow students to learn about community issues from and with members of the community in order to then move forward in a collaborative manner to take action on unstructured and complex public problems. In order to align with the institution’s focus on community-engaged learning and meet the rising demand for business schools to provide students with simulated or actual business experiences (Shao, Shao, & McKinney, 2013) the Palumbo-Donahue School of Business at Duquesne University launched First-Year Innovation Experience in fall 2017 as the “cornerstone course” in the major redesign of the undergraduate business core curriculum (Duquesne Business Leader, n.d.). As an intensive experiential learning course, the class curriculum introduced students to design thinking (a process for creative problem solving) while providing them with the opportunity to apply design thinking practices to real-life problems as part of an “Innovation Challenge” in which student teams joined forces with individuals and organizations in the Pittsburgh community (Duquesne Business Leader, n.d.). In fall 2018, the project at hand for first-year business students involved the reclamation of vacant or underutilized buildings and properties in the Uptown EcoInnovation District (FAST Program, 2018)—a collaborative redevelopment initiative involving multiple community partners of which Duquesne University was one. This enterprise connects “sustainability, innovative development practices and inclusive job growth” to better the environment and the lives of community members (“What is an EcoInnovation District?” n.d.). Innovation Challenge teams “identify a use for their assigned vacant or underutilized property, create a plan for its development, identify a cost for implementation, [and] estimate a timeframe for completion” (FAST Program, 2018). Anticipated learning outcomes included skill development in the areas of “entrepreneurial thinking, influencing, problem-solving, and teamwork [as well as] an increased comprehension of ethical sustainability principles” and the understanding of their ability to impact their communities in positive ways (Duquesne Business Leader, n.d.). This emphasis on innovation, entrepreneurial practices, and career readiness reflected a university-wide commitment to these student outcomes outlined in the university’s 2018–2023 Strategic Plan.

68

J. Mann et al.

What’s at Stake? Cultural Competence Among (White) College Students Community engagement offers students opportunities for development at multiple levels, particularly relevant to the awareness of and response to issues of difference and the subsequent strengthening of empathy. Saylor, Gruber, and Nix (2013) argue that high-quality community engagement activities are “responsive to students’ intellectual as well as affective and behavioural development” while simultaneously equipping students with the skills and knowledge they need to understand and respond to the needs of others (p. 41). As traditional college students are considered “emerging adults,” unfamiliar with worldviews outside of their own (Saylor et al., 2013) community engagement experiences serve as high impact practices for supporting student learning and development. While the emerging adult demographic has few normative experiences, they are characterized by a lack of personal experience, and subsequently, experience with others (Arnett, 2011). Moreover, many white students come to higher education with a variety of past experiences related to race and racism, leaving some with a more nuanced or developed understanding of racism as a system of power and privilege in America and others with unexamined or even putative racist behaviours and beliefs (Linder, 2016). With a general lack of direct experience with people of underrepresented cultures, most traditional white college students enter academia with underdeveloped cultural competence. The majority of students participating in First-Year Innovation Experience fell within a marginally skilled category of cultural competence. Primarily white (89.31%) men (59.07%) between the ages of 17 and 22 years old, the majority of their responses to a pre-community engagement experience survey (n = 281) indicated a lack of familiarity with minority populations, including Black, LGBTQIA, Immigrant, persons with disabilities, Hispanic, Muslim, Asian, persons without homes, and working poor communities. Demonstrating the Dunning-Kruger effect (the cognitive bias in which individuals with substantial deficits in their understanding cannot objectively evaluate their competence or incompetence), respondents asserted a strong level of confidence in regard to communicating and working effectively with individuals from cultures outside of their own (Kruger & Dunning, 1999). This discrepancy between a limited amount of experience encountering and interacting with dissimilar “others” and a high level of confidence in communicating across diverse life experiences indicated an absence of self-awareness as it relates to cultural awareness and understanding. Moreover, in light of the primarily white demographic makeup of the classroom, a level of white socialization (Linder, 2016) was to be expected—as students enter university after years of internalizing messages about race, ethnicity, power, and privilege—thus signifying the need for a pedagogical intervention to foster participant cultural competency. This intervention ultimately resulted in the creation and implementation of the Cultural Competency digital module, explained in greater detail in what follows.

4 Flipping the Classroom: Using Video to Enhance First-Year …

69

Creating the Instructional Platform The primary features of the First-Year Innovation Experience course included a business simulation, the Innovation Challenge (an experiential learning project in Uptown), and a series of one-time guest lectures by subject-matter experts (FAST Program, 2018)—both Duquesne University faculty and administrators as well as outside business and community development professionals. The lectures took place in a large lecture hall seating more than 150 students, occurred twice each week, and lasted approximately seventy-five minutes, which included time for question and answer sessions post-presentation. The course instructor was an Executive-inResidence at the university who possessed extensive experience in project management and innovation leadership roles in the corporate world. Although the course instructor had offered the Director of CETR the opportunity to guest lecture at one class meeting, it was clear from the beginning of the project that a single 75-min lecture would not be sufficient to ground students in the basics of culturally competent communication—more was needed to prepare students for the work required in the community-based Innovation Challenge. Thus, in order to gain any level of fluency, students would need to be introduced to concepts and skills, have the opportunity to apply those concepts and skills, and then interact with an instructor with subject matter expertise to clarify and expand upon their learning before they were adequately prepared to interact effectively with their community partners. The challenge presented here is not particularly unusual. There are many occasions in the college classroom (face-to-face, online, or somewhere in between) when an important component for success in the course cannot be a primary focus, e.g., critical thinking, analytical writing, creating a presentation, and the like. Although secondary and tangential to principal course content, nevertheless, mastering and demonstrating this skill or concept within the body of the course is essential for student success. Based on previous history and the assumptions discussed above, it was clear that in order to achieve key course outcomes, students in the First Year Innovation course needed to develop and apply basic knowledge about cross-cultural communication. Given the time constraints, it was determined that the best opportunity for student learning would involve frontloading student involvement with the cultural competency content prior to the classroom lecture, i.e., flipping the classroom. Within the flipped classroom model, students’ initial interaction with new subject matter takes place outside the classroom, during which students control the speed at which they engage with and process this material. Classroom time can then be spent on more advanced interactions that promote increased integration and application of this new knowledge (Talbert, 2017). In what has become something of a cliché, the instructor moves from being the “sage on the stage” to the “guide on the side” (King, 1993) as students take responsibility for their own learning outside the classroom, allowing the active engagement with the course material to dominate classroom time.

70

J. Mann et al.

In crafting the flipped classroom solution, an interactive digital approach emerging from Carnegie Mellon’s Simon Initiative to improve student learning was implemented. Designated “the sidecar” (N. Bier, personal communication, January 4, 2018), it offered a way to provide students with an interactive introduction to this specialized topic. Picture if you will have a motorcycle with a sidecar attached. The course, in this case, First-Year Innovation Experience, is the motorcycle; it drives student learning forward. The sidecar is an add-on module of content, in this case, focused on cultural competency, that offers an important benefit; it supports student learning involving an additional topic or skill set of some significance.

Methodology and Process The broad mission of this digital initiative was to ensure that student interactions with community members would be professional and positive. The focus in creating the module’s content, including the use of video, was to “intentionally integrate race- or diversity-related content” into this community-engaged experience to afford students the opportunity to learn about diverse communities and their associated challenges and opportunities (Simons, Russell, Hirschinger-Blank, Williams, & Willis, 2009, p. 190). The challenge was two-fold: to develop content that would introduce students to key concepts and to create buy-in by demonstrating the value of this material to students’ success in this course, and by extension, their future professional careers. To motivate students to begin thinking about cultural competency, in Unit 1 the module began with a survey that asked them about their own experiences with underrepresented communities, e.g., Black, LGBTQIA+, immigrant, persons with disabilities, Hispanic, Muslim, Asian, persons without homes, and working poor communities. Students were queried on their confidence in communicating, working with, and recognizing differences among those from other cultures as well as their own attitudes toward difference. After completing the course content, learning activities/assessments, and taking part in the in-class experience, students completed a similar post-module survey and reflected upon how what they had learned might affect their communication habits with others and what they might do differently in exercising their cultural competency in the future. Based on best practices in online teaching and learning, the core content units (Units 2–4) also contained a learning activity/assessment that required students to engage with and apply the content. Students completed these activities on their own and at their own pace over the course of six weeks. The Director of CETR monitored their performance and progress and emailed updates and reminders to students. In order to maximize the effectiveness of the module, the subject matter was broken down into three separate content areas, each of which considered a particular aspect of cultural competency. In Unit 2, the video overview, Culture and Cultural Competency, provided a general foundation, defining the concepts and providing a short

4 Flipping the Classroom: Using Video to Enhance First-Year …

71

narrative that personalized the impact of culture on establishing “norms” of communication and social interaction. Students then completed a brief learning activity in which they identified and applied key concepts. The third unit, “The Disney Debacle,” included a video about Disney’s not so magical experience in opening Euro Disney (now Disneyland Paris) in France in 1992. This unit introduced students to the implications of cultural competency within a broader business perspective. By emphasizing the severe financial implications for Disney, (along with what can most charitably be called an appalling series of tone-deaf gaffes), this video provided a macro example of what can happen when a business fails to apply the principles of cultural competency. Building on students’ understanding of the basics of cultural competency, they were now asked to apply what they had learned within a business framework by responding to prompts asking them to consider what risks or cross-cultural challenges might exist in their Innovation Challenge Project and the actions they might take to minimize or avoid those risks. Unit 4 moved from explication through video to a text-based case study, as students reviewed and responded to a scenario entitled “An Uncomfortable Encounter,” a brief narrative about ableism in the workplace that offered a micro example of the personal impact of cultural incompetence within an office environment. The subsequent learning activity/assessment focused on strengthening students’ levels of empathy—asking them to adopt the particular perspectives of the individuals involved (both persons with and without disabilities) both to gain insight and to problem solve by creating alternative ways the situation could have been handled and resolved more effectively. This activity was designed to further students’ understanding of the potential impact of a lack of cultural competence in interpersonal relationships and to avoid a similar faux pas in working with community partners. Unit 5 provided additional readings in advance of the Director’s classroom visit, during which the concepts and approaches explored within the module’s units were discussed and applied. In the final unit that students completed after their classroom interaction, they completed a survey and a reflection about their learning experience. From the beginning of the project, video was understood to be an essential tool in the development of the module. Originally, videotaping a relatively short (10–15 min) mini-lecture on the fundamentals of cultural competency seemed an optimal way to introduce the material. This type of introduction is common within the modality of the flipped classroom, and its strengths (among many others) include creating and reinforcing a relationship with the presenter (Talbert, 2017), a real benefit given the limited time available for face-to-face interaction in this situation. However, the combination of the complex nature of the material, its tangential relationship to the course itself, and the anticipated lack of student-awareness of the subject matter demanded a more imaginative approach to communicating the content and engendering a sense of connection with the material. Ultimately it was decided that what needed was a more captivating appeal to the students’ imagination. However, a review of “off-the-shelf” materials on the subject of communication and cultural competence, while revealing a wide-ranging assortment of educational resources, still resulted in lacunae of feasible options. None seemed optimal for integrating the basics of cultural competency into a learning modality that would be accessible, interesting,

72

J. Mann et al.

and relevant to this particular cohort of students, particularly given the stringent time limitations. Bringing on board an experienced video/motion graphics producer proved to be a fortuitous choice, providing the creative direction and capability that could hold the attention of students without sacrificing the serious nature of the content. And, adding a customized introduction and closing message from the Director of CETR personalized the work at hand and emphasized its relevance to the particular work of this student cohort.

Culture and Cultural Competency: An in-Depth Discussion The foundational core of the module was the introductory video, Culture and Cultural Competency. Student learning began there, and to avoid “mission creep” the development of the script focused on building content around the key learning outcomes that would best serve students within cross-cultural interactions. These learning outcomes included students’ ability to: • Define “culture” and describe some of the ways in which culture manifests itself • Define “cultural competency” and explain why it is an essential ingredient in a successful career • Identify and articulate three steps involved in building their own cultural competency. Three primary factors motivated the decision to introduce and anchor the Cultural Competency Module with an animated video. The first was the scale. The course had more than three hundred students, distributed across two large sections. A video provided an efficient and scalable way to reach all students in a short period of time, with limited opportunity for face-to-face contact. The second factor was standardization. A video allowed us to provide a repeatable and consistent introduction to the concepts of culture and cultural competency for all students. Moreover, the video, with slight modifications to the customized introduction, could be used in other courses and other contexts creating opportunities for cross-disciplinary applications. The third factor was the pedagogical value. Years of research have demonstrated that, when used properly, the motion graphics and visual representations provided by video content can boost engagement, enhance comprehension and retention (Berk, 2009; Mayer & Morenao, 2003; Sana, Fenesi, & Kim, 2011), support multimodal learning (Sankey, Birch, & Gardiner, 2010), more effectively represent complex concepts to support student learning (Shepard & Cooper, 1982; Mayer & Gallini, 1990), and engage and interest students in a manner preferable to that of written academic material (Gedera & Zalipour, 2018). Thus, anchoring our module with video content afforded us the opportunity to leverage these important advantages. In keeping with suggested best practices to support attention and memory for video content (Schacter & Szpunar, 2015), we kept the video relatively short at just over eight minutes, with a two-minute contextualizing introduction and one-minute conclusion. Students were then instructed to complete a short quiz at the end of the

4 Flipping the Classroom: Using Video to Enhance First-Year …

73

video to test their learning (Roediger & Karpicke, 2006). At the recommendation of the video producer, several production decisions enhanced viewer engagement, activating cognitive and emotional learning, and supported the conceptual content contained in the video. These included: • a discernibly black female voice for the narration. By avoiding a voice reflective of the dominant culture, the narrator reinforced the video’s focus on non-dominant cultural experiences and norms. • a light, staccato, and upbeat background tempo to tie the content together and carry the viewer along without distracting from the material or adding to the viewer’s cognitive load. • motion graphics reflective of explainer videos that are produced by new media creators on YouTube and other online video platforms with which our target student audience is familiar and comfortable. • a sleek, stylized, and understated look. The graphics did not reflect the cutting edge of technology, but rather something that at times mimicked a stop-motion collage. The motivation here was to convey something that felt genuine. This style is used by content creators on YouTube and a variety of other online platforms including gaming sites, explainer videos, etc., and as such it is very familiar to students who have grown up in a media-rich environment. The goal of positively influencing students’ perceptions about learning was also intrinsic to the creative process with a particular focus on avoiding the use of slick production values reminiscent of advertising. Both Millennials and Gen Z students are savvy media consumers who are more skeptical about advertising in the realm of social media. Given Gen Z’s inclination to skip ads (Kantar Millward Brown, 2017), we intentionally avoided any resemblance to “selling” which might run the risk of inviting disinterest or ridicule. Finally, to increase students’ motivation to attend to the contents of the video, the customized intro and conclusion by the Director of CETR, the subject matter expert, introduced the video by highlighting the reasons why this material was important to students in both the near term, i.e., completing the Innovation Challenge, and in the long term in their negotiation of an ever-evolving global economy and increasingly diverse workplace. She closed the video with an overview of what was to follow over the course of the module to further develop students’ understanding and skills. The broad goal of the video was for students to better recognize, understand, and value those who may not think, feel, or behave as they do so that they could communicate and work effectively with those who are different from themselves. Prior to watching the video, students had been reminded of various kinds of cultural difference that exist—racial, economic, religious, ability, country of origin through their participation in a survey that asked them to consider their attitudes regarding cultural difference. Therefore, it seemed most appropriate to begin the video by reminding them of the complexities that culture entails. As invisible and as powerful as the air we breathe, culture can often be confused with what is “natural” or “normal.” Thus, the introduction of the video used language and imagery to break culture into

74

J. Mann et al.

its component parts. Many of those images included faces of people from diverse cultural backgrounds—stock images found in Istock and peeks.com (Fig. 4.2). The image choices made by our video producer focused on younger faces that were not model-perfect, but still too polished to pass as average. A benchmark was Instagram, a platform familiar to many students. Many Instagram influencers fall into the “not quite professional models but above average and unique” category, and throughout the video, faces like these—not overly smiling, mugging, or over-staged, but rather sincere and authentic were included. Language was also integrated into the graphic design, illustrating and emphasizing the concepts central to understanding culture that were articulated in the initial segment of the video. The goal was not to

Fig. 4.2 Cultural diversity in images

4 Flipping the Classroom: Using Video to Enhance First-Year …

75

Fig. 4.3 Integration of language

bombard the eye by employing excessive or repetitive visual gimmicks, but rather to allow students to focus on what was being said and allow use visuals to carry the message (Fig. 4.3). Having introduced students to the major concepts of culture, the video transitioned to a narrative form to demonstrate the impact of culture on behaviour norms. To do so, it immersed students in a story about cultural competency that moved them into a setting that was at once both familiar and unfamiliar—an elementary school classroom on a Navajo Native American Reservation. A Navajo man and the father of one of the students opened the door to the classroom and stood silently, looking at the floor. The Anglo-American teacher said “Good morning” and waited expectantly, but the man did not respond. The teacher then said “My name is Mrs Jones,” and again waited for a response. There was none. In the meantime, a child in the room put away his crayons and got his coat from the rack. The teacher, noting this, said to the man, “Oh, are you taking Billy home now?” The man said, “Yes.” The teacher continued to talk to him while Billy got ready to leave, praising Billy … Billy walked towards his father, stopping to turn around and wave at the teacher on his way out and saying, “Bye-bye.” The teacher responded, “Bye-bye.” The man remained silent as he left. From a Navajo perspective, the man’s silence was appropriate and respectful. The teacher, on the other hand, expected not only to have the man return her greeting, but to have him identify himself and state his reason for being there. Although such an expectation is quite reasonable and appropriate from an Anglo-American perspective, it would have required the man to break not only Navajo rules of politeness but also a traditional religious taboo that prohibits individuals from saying their own name … This encounter undoubtedly reinforced the teacher’s stereotype that Navajos are “impolite” and “unresponsive,” and the man’s stereotype that Anglo-Americans are

76

J. Mann et al.

Fig. 4.4 Images reinforce cultural differences

“impolite” and “talk too much” (Saville-Troike, 1997, pp. 138–139, as cited in Young, 2011, pp. 426–427) (Fig. 4.4). Creatively, this scene is interpreted with silhouetted figures—one of the fathers and one of the teacher. Their physicality is left to the viewer’s imagination. Their words, or lack thereof, define them, as the decision to fill the silhouettes with text to represent their communication styles—with the teacher verbose and the parent verbally sparse—also suggests the different perspectives or behavioural norms that govern the internal space from which their actions originate. Within this visual scenario highlighted by the scripted narrative, students see a vivid enactment of the intersection of cultural differences in which neither person is right or wrong—but each comes from a distinct culture with distinctly different expectations and rules. The video then shifts from a narrative form to a call to action. The concluding segment locates cultural competency—the ability to understand, communicate, and interact effectively with people across a wide variety of cultures both on campus and beyond—within an actionable framework for building a successful future. Having demonstrated the importance of empathy and understanding and emphasized the relevance of these qualities to students’ professional and personal lives, the video connects students future success with their ability to learn, self-reflect, and analyze by emphasizing that cultural competency is a skill to be developed involving three steps: becoming aware and learning to value diversity; gaining knowledge about the ways in which cultures differ in obvious areas such as language and more subtle ones such as non-verbal communication, respect and hierarchy, and the individual’s relationship to time, and values and expectations regarding personal interactions and relationships; and, finally, examining their own attitudes for underlying assumptions, biases, and unexamined stereotypes (Cross, Bazron, Dennis, & Isaacs, 1989). The video concludes with an assertion that personal responsibility and action are required

4 Flipping the Classroom: Using Video to Enhance First-Year …

77

in order for students to become culturally competent. These three steps assist students in adopting an asset-based mindset that recognizes and acknowledges that cultural differences are not the same as problems or defects and points them towards positive and fruitful outcomes. In the follow-up classroom visit, used the class time to refresh students’ memory as it related to the module content, engaged students in group discussions surrounding the module content and community-engaged learning project, and charged them with continuing their personal and professional development as it relates to cultural competence. A specific breakdown of the schedule and activities used follows. The guest lecture began with a 3-min recall, challenging students to write down all they remembered about the module and the topic of conversation. At the end of the recall period, students shared their thoughts with the class, and a group list was created on the blackboard for participants to reference throughout the lecture. Next, a refresher of the module content was delivered, which included: a definition of culture, the steps needed to build cultural competency, and a discussion of the importance of cultural competency as it relates to the business world. Then, students were asked to pair and share in their innovation challenge groups. They were given a list of questions to respond to, with the responses then collected to evaluate a post-class visit. The prompts given to students were: • • • •

What was the most important takeaway from this module? What was something new that you learned? What was something you were surprised by? What three pieces of advice would you give to someone entering into a business situation with a diverse group of stakeholders, based on this lesson? What might prevent someone from taking this advice? • What else do you need to succeed in this project and in the future? • What else would be helpful to know? In addition to writing their responses to these prompts, student groups were asked to share their responses within the group as well as with the entire class. During this time, students were able to react to one another’s answers, which fostered a whole-class reflection on the module, its content, and the overall student learning experience, which lasted roughly 45 min and involved the direct contributions of a significant number of those students present. While each student’s experience with the class and module was different, there were a few common themes that resonated across the student reflections. The first being the benefit of an asset-based mindset surrounding diversity, with students highlighting the importance of focusing on the gifts, talents, and resources of individuals and communities rather than viewing diverse perspectives and cultures as a challenge to be faced. In addition, students noted respect and communication as crucial in working across difference, so as to allow for the development of authentic relationships among individuals. Lastly, students highlighted the need to “practice” cultural competency, acknowledging that it is a skill that needs to be developed that will strengthen over time.

78

J. Mann et al.

Student Impacts and Conclusions The goal of implementing multiculturalism-focused programming and experiences into the student experience is to foster the development of students as culturally competent individuals. Howard-Hamilton, Richardson, and Shuford (1998) developed a sequence of attributes that indicate cultural competence—inclusive of knowledge, skills, and attitudes—that progress from awareness, to understanding, and ultimately to an appreciation or valuing of difference. Student participation with the flipped classroom and the face-to-face classroom activities provides substantive evidence that the Cultural Competency digital module, and, in particular, the video segments that provided the principle preparatory materials, succeeded in fostering the hoped for student development in this area. The statistics from the learning management system indicated that 244 (80%) of the 304 students enrolled in the course watched all or a portion of the Cultural Competency video, and 233 (77%) watched all or a portion of the Euro Disney video. Of the 166 students who completed a postcourse survey of knowledge and attitudes (Unit 6), the majority found the overall module to be valuable in helping them to better understand culture and an asset-based approach to community engagement, more fully recognize that the perspectives of others have value, and to identify strategies for effective interaction with community partners (Table 4.1). In addition, of all the activities in the module, students found the video components to be the most beneficial in helping them to understand the module’s key concepts. Ninety-four per cent found the cultural competency overview video in Unit 1 to be very valuable (26%), valuable (26%), or somewhat valuable (22%), and 93% found the Euro-Disney case study video to be very valuable (35%), valuable (35%), or somewhat valuable (23%) in helping them to better understand cultural competence. Table 4.1 Student responses to the question “To what extent did the Cultural Competency Module help you to” A great deal (%) Somewhat (%) A little (%) Not at all (%) Better understand the concept of culture?

45.8

45.8

6.6

1.8

More fully recognize that 50.1 other perspectives have value?

41.0

6.6

1.8

Realize that you can learn valuable things from other cultures?

53.6

37.9

6.6

1.8

Better understand an asset-based approach to community engagement?

47.0

41.0

9.6

2.4

Identify strategies for effective 46.4 interactions with community partnership?

41.0

10.2

2.4

Note Total number of respondents = 166

4 Flipping the Classroom: Using Video to Enhance First-Year …

79

In their responses to the survey, students indicated individual and group growth related to their experience in this course—many sharing that this was the first time they had experienced a formal multiculturally-focused curriculum. For instance, several students indicated that this was the first time they had learned that “some actions that are considered to be ‘polite’ in the US may be rude or unbecoming to someone with a different cultural background.” Students also shared that it was the first time they had reflected on how “easy it is to misinterpret someone else’s actions”, as “how [their] peers perceive [their actions] can be very different from how [they] would assume they would be received.” In this sense, students articulated a newfound recognition of the variance of cultural norms across population types as well as cultural competency as a personal skill to be developed. In addition, participants were able to express the ways in which they found cultural competency to be relevant to their discipline, and ultimately, their future business careers—acknowledging that as the workforce and marketplace becomes more global, “cultural competency is essential to working in a diverse workplace environment and life in general.” Recognizing the challenges of the all too common pedagogical conundrum of adequately supporting course learning outcomes while balancing the time limitations on face-to-face instruction, this case study discusses the processes, both methodological and creative, involved in deploying a “flipped classroom” approach supported by a customized, easily navigable, student-centred, multi-unit digital module. Through the creation of this module, the importance of developing course content by beginning with the end in mind, i.e., the knowledge and skills students would need to possess to complete the community-engaged Innovation Project, proved to be essential. Recognizing the necessity of moving beyond a basic, bare-bones talking head video (though this methodology is often very effective) to engage students through the use of a creative, instructional video on a subject with which they had little acquaintance or direct experience in order to create a level of interest that would move them through their paces in an almost totally self-directed, self-paced fashion was a major “Ah ha!” moment of the entire project. A second important takeaway that will continue to shape the use of the flipped classroom approach, featuring video and learning activities within a digital module, is that it offers a way to bring student mastery of “soft skills”—in this case, cultural competency—directly into the classroom experience without unnecessarily diverting attention away from the course-specific learning that must take place there. With the increased focus on the importance of soft skills in the twenty-first-century workplace, this realization and the “proof of concept” provided by this intervention is even now being applied to other programmes within the institution. The bottom line is that it worked. Problems that had arisen during the course in 2017, were not repeated in 2018. And, we anticipate that the continuous improvement of this module will maintain and improve students’ cultural competency skills in this course and beyond.

80

J. Mann et al.

References Arnett, J. J. (2011). Emerging adulthood(s): The cultural psychology of a new life stage. In Bridging cultural and developmental approaches to psychology: New Synthesis in theory, research, and policy (pp. 255–275). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Berk, R. A. (2009). Multimedia teaching with video clips: TV, movies, YouTube, and mtvU in the college classroom. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 5(1), 1–21. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2012). Community engaged elective classification. Retrieved from http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu. Cross, T., Bazron, B., Dennis, K., & Isaacs, M. (1989). Towards a culturally competent system of care (Vol. I). Washington, DC: Georgetown Child Development Center, CASSP Technical Assistance Center. Democracy Collaborative. (n.d.). Anchor Institutions. Retrieved from https://democracycollabora tive.org/democracycollaborative/anchorinstitutions/A%20nchor%20Institutions. Duquesne Business Leader. (n.d.). First year innovation experience pushes students out of their comfort zone. Retrieved from https://applications.duq.edu/dbl/first-year-innovation-experience/. Duquesne University. (2018). Fact Book 2018–2019. [Brochure]. Retrieved from https://www.duq. edu/about/departments-and-offices/finance-and-business/planning-budgeting-and-institutionalresearch/fact-books/2018—2019-fact-book-x160511. Gedera, D., & Zalipour, A. (2018). Use of interactive video for teaching and learning. In M. Campbell et al. (Eds.), Open Oceans: Learning without Borders. Proceedings ASCILITE 2018 Geelong, pp. 362–367. Howard-Hamilton, M. F., Richardson, B. J., & Shuford, B. (1998). Promoting multicultural education: A holistic approach. College Student Affairs Journal, 18(1), 5–17. Jacoby, B. (1996). Service-learning in higher education: Concepts and practices. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kantar Millward Brown. (2017). AdReaction: Gen X, Y and Z. [Report]. Retrieved from https:// www.iabeurope.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/AdReaction-Gen-X-Y-and-Z_Global-Report_ FINAL_Jan-10-2017.pdf. King, A. (1993). From sage on the stage to guide on the side. College Teaching, 41(1), 30–35. Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121–1134. Linder, C. (2016). Working with white college students to understand and navigate white racial identities. In M. J. Cuyjet, C. Linder, M. F. Howard-Hamilton, & D. L. Cooper (Eds.), Multiculturalism on campus: Theory, models, and practices for understanding diversity and creating inclusion. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Mann, J., & DeAngelo, L. (2016). An examination of the transformative learning potential of alternative spring breaks. Journal of Student Affairs Research & Practice, 53(4), 416–428. Mayer, R. E., & Gallini, J. K. (1990). When is an illustration worth ten thousand words? Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 715–726. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 43–52. Nelson Jones, D. (2018, June 18). Lower Hill District. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Retrieved from https://newsinteractive.post-gazette.com/lower_hill/. Palumbo Donahue School of Business. (2018). FAST Program [PowerPoint Presentation]. Retrieved from https://www.duq.edu/Documents/business/undergraduate/SOBAFASTPresent ation_July2018_v2.pdf. Rhoads, R. A., & Neururer, J. (1998). Alternative spring break: Learning through service. NASPA Journal, 35(2), 100–118. Roediger, H. L., III, & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249–255.

4 Flipping the Classroom: Using Video to Enhance First-Year …

81

Sana, F., Fenesi, B., & Kim, J. A. (2011). A case study of the introductory psychology blended learning model in McMaster University. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 2(1), 1–10. Sankey, M., Birch, D., & Gardiner, M. (2010). Engaging students through multimodal learning environments: The journey continues. Curriculum, Technology & Transformation for an Unknown Future: Proceedings of the 27th Ascilite Conference, Sydney, Australia, 5–8 December 2010, pp. 852–863. Saylor, N., Gruber, P., & Nix, M. (2013). Student development in theory and practice. In A. Hoy & M. Johnson (Eds.), Deepening community engagement in higher education: Forging new pathways (pp. 41–53). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Schacter, D. L., & Szpunar, K. K. (2015). Enhancing attention and memory during video-recorded lectures. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 1(1), 60–71. Shao, D. H., Shao, L., & McKinney, R. E. (2013). Challenges and opportunities in business higher education. International Journal of Business Studies, 14(3), 137–142. Shepard, R. N., & Cooper, L. A. (1982). Mental images and their transformations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press and Bradford Books. Simons, L., Russell, B., Hirschinger-Blank, N., Williams, E., & Willis, K. (2009). An exploration of the value of cultural-based service-learning for student and community participants. In B. Moely, S. H. Billig, & B. A. Holland (Eds.), Creating our identities in service-learning and community engagement (pp. 189–214). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing Inc. Strategic Plan 2018–2023: Strategic Imperative 2. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.duq.edu/ about/university-leadership/office-of-the-president/2018-2023-strategic-plan/strategic-impera tive-two\. Talbert, R. (2017). Flipped learning: A guide for higher education faculty. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Uptown Partners. (n.d.). Fast Facts. Retrieved from https://www.uptownpartners.org/experience/ fast-facts/. Welch, M. (2016). Engaging higher education: Purpose, platforms, and programs for community engagement. Sterling, VA: Stylus. What is an Ecoinnovation District? (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.ecoinnovationdistrict.org/ what-is-an-eco-innovation-district. Young, R. F. (2011). Interactional competence in language learning, teaching, and testing. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. 5, pp. 426– 443). New York, NY: Routledge.

Chapter 5

Stop Motion: Being Precise About the Uncertainty of the Design Process in Architectural Education Leonidas Koutsoumpos

Abstract The chapter describes the theoretical and practical implications of the educational use of video as a means to help students reflect on the design process in the creative arts. In particular, it provides evidence from a course in the School of Architecture in the National Technical University of Athens (NTUA) in Greece that reveals the uncertainty of the design process. The students were asked to document through video the development of the drawing of a vertical section of the building that they were designing during a semester-long design studio project. A focus group was conducted in order to document the students’ views on the use of video. The analysis of the data focused on their perception of the way that video contributed in getting a better understanding of the design process. Five broad themes were identified: expectations and hesitations, distantiation and reflection, temporality and linearity, collecting and synthesising, and technology and software. Keywords Video · Illusion · Uncertainty · Design process · Architectural design education · Distantiation · Reflection · Video pedagogy

Introduction Moving pictures can still do what they have been invented for one hundred years ago. They can still be moving. (Wenders, 1994) Lisbon Story

The notion of video, in this book, is used in a broad sense, referring to any visual, audio or audio-visual entity (e.g. images, pictures, lines or text) that moves. As Wim Wenders notes in the opening quote, this movement creates emotion, it ‘moves’ people. For this video has been used with various ways in education in order to enhance teaching and learning. This chapter presents an educational experiment of the use of video in the School of Architecture in the National Technical University of Athens (NTUA) in Greece. L. Koutsoumpos (B) National Technical University of Athens, Athens, Greece e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 D. S. P. Gedera and A. Zalipour (eds.), Video Pedagogy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-4009-1_5

83

84

L. Koutsoumpos

It is worth noting that the moving power of video is based on an illusion. Video is a sequence of images displayed very fast in order to give the impression of movement. One of the very first animation devices, from the early nineteenth century, was named phenakisticope (from the ancient Greek root phenaki, meaning ‘lie’ or ‘fraud’), capturing in its name exactly this deception. It was a spinning cardboard disc with a series of images arrayed radially that created a fluid illusion of motion (La Cinémathèque Française, 2014; Prince, 2010). The conception of video is based upon a property of the human visual perception system that can process and perceive individually only 10–12 images per second. Higher rates than that appear as motion (Read & Meyer, 2000, p. 24). This property has been exploited in the stop motion animation technique in order to create the illusion of movement of an object that has been physically manipulated in small increments that are photographed in sequential frames. The educational advantages of video and stop motion, was identified from the early stages of cinema. For example, in 1926 Greene highlighted that stop motion and video is “unique for revealing for the first time in the history of human learning things that are too slow or fast to be seen by the human eye” (Greene, 1926, p. 128; Snelson & Perkins, 2009, p. 6). Until the contemporary digital era, stop motion video keeps on attracting teachers in its potential to engage students in the matter of study (Hoban, Loughran, & Nielsen, 2011; Keast, Cooper, Berry, Loughran, & Hoban, 2010). This chapter discusses video and stop motion, not in its illusionary aspect that is based on speed, but rather in its analytical power that slows things down. The terms video and stop motion, here, are used not with the technical accuracy of the term, that is, creating an illusion of movement, but rather the opposite. It is about the slow process of putting things in the right order or trying to select the right key frames that tell the story as accurately as possible. In this sense, it resembles more to the scopes of documentary. John Grierson, the pioneering Scottish documentarist, noted that video can be the ‘creative treatment of actuality’ referring to its power to create documentaries that represent accurately the world (Ylirisku & Buur, 2007, p. 5). This case study attempted to treat the actuality of the design process, which was found to be moving for students and enhancing education. What follows discusses the theoretical and practical implications of the educational use of video in higher education as a means to help students reflect on the design process in the creative arts. When seen from the outside, the design process seems a romantically creative straightforward activity, but from the inside, while moving towards the final outcome, it is full of uncertainties, back and forths, and dead ends. Especially, the first stages of the design are very often vague and imprecise without a clear idea of direction. In particular, this case study provides evidence from a course in the School of Architecture that reveals this uncertain process of design. During this course, the students were asked to document through video the evolution of the design process of a semester-long design studio project, by focusing on one particular drawing, a vertical section and its evolution through time. The videos under discussion documented the uncertainty that students went through during the design process.

5 Stop Motion: Being Precise About …

85

Video in Architectural Education The use of video in architectural education can be seen as part of the wider ‘visual pedagogy’ culture (Goldfarb, 2002, p. 109). The notion of ‘visual literacy’ has been used for some time now referring to the intellectual capacity of recognising and understanding meanings that are communicated through visible actions, pictures or images. In architectural education, visual literacy is extremely important for the pedagogy of the young architects. Video started to be integrated into architectural education in the late 70s or early 80s. One of the first studies on the use of video in architectural education conducted a survey of questionnaires which were sent out to 582 schools of architecture in the US and Canada, out of which, only 121 responded, that is, 21–45% of the accredited schools (Rald, 1983). The author speculated that most of the schools that did not respond had not yet considered the use of video in their education. One example was the response by the School of Architecture of Louisiana: “We have just received video equipment and plan to use it extensively. We are interested in the identification of all sources available so we might build a video-tape library” (Rald, 1983). Video had just landed in their school and they were seeking ways to incorporate it in their educational activities. Various cutting-edge conferences, at that time, showcased the ways that video was explored as a dynamic design tool, like the Computervision conference in London in 1981 (Purcell, 1981). In that era, it was thrilling news that “A new and exciting development in the use of microcomputers in landscape architecture is the ability to capture a video image from a video recorder or camera and display it on the computer screen” (Orland, 1987). These design practices gradually started to influence and inform architectural education. In the 90s attempts to employ video in architectural education focused on the combination of video and computer. The two mediums, at that point, were seen as belonging to different codes of representational reference (Lentz, 1992; Linzey & Soutar, 1993). Video techniques informed with film theory were also used in the architectural design studio in order to help students develop cinematic concepts within the framework of architectural design (Anderson, 1994). Since then, video has been a constituent part of the concept of the virtual design studio, as part of distance learning and the wider trend of Massive Open Online Courses (Kvan, 2001), that supports a delocalized learning space (Masdéu & Fuses, 2017). Video tutorials have also been used as a means to develop students’ representation skills (Mendoza Robles, Saldana Sordoba, & Rendon Sallard, 2016). Video documentation of the design tutorials has been used as a medium to recall and reveal aspects of the design process and as part of evaluation and feedback (Cowan, 2005). Video has been introduced as a means of responsive forms of architectural pedagogy (Salama, 2013), and of recreation through social networking applications (Bakir & Alsaadani, 2019; Tate & Osborne, 2013). A considerable part of current

86

L. Koutsoumpos

research focuses on the introduction of video in education through video-game technology design or serious gaming (Fonseca et al., 2017; Valls, Redondo, Fonseca, Garcia-Almirall, & Subirós, 2016). Video in education has always been influenced by the ways that this medium is used in architectural practice. Nowadays designers habitually use video as a method of documenting space, either before the design process (Pizarro, 2009; Zeiner, Kienast, Derler, & Haas, 2005) or after the completion of the building (P. J. Rhodes & Powell, 1994). Video also plays a critical role in the surveillance and security aspects of architectural environments (Caputo, 2014). Most current research on video and design, that has permeated education, relates to the creation of video through Computer-Aided Design that allows for someone to get an experience of ‘walking through’ a virtual environment—a designed architectural setting before this is actually built (Calderon, Nyman, & Worley, 2006). For this purpose, very often video is used as a presentation technique (Rhodes, McCartney, & Powell, 1992). Research that focuses on the design process has used video as a tool for qualitative research, assisting the review of interview material (Kokosalakis & Moorhouse, 1995). Video gives the researchers the opportunity to view design situations repetitively, and thus reveal things that often pass unnoticed during design experiments. When we start [as design students] we think designing is just making it up, designing is just making decisions falling out of the sky … But if you look at the video record a hundred times you can explain everything [all decisions]. (McDonnell, Lloyd, & Valkenburg, 2004, pp. 509–525)

In this sense, video allows a retrospective way of representation of the design process (Dorst & Dijkhuis, 1995). It has become a common medium of documentation of the design process, in order to help researchers overcome the problem that designers as subjects of study tend to represent their thoughts more coherently than it actually was (Newell, 1994). Finally, video has also been used in order to define issues of quality that appear in the area of Requirements Engineering (Karras, Schneider, & Fricker, 2019).

The Educational Context in a School of Architecture The course under discussion is an elective course in the fourth year of the study of the School of Architecture at the National Technical University of Athens, Greece. The course is titled ‘Section as a Tool of Understanding and Producing Architectural Space’ and it focuses on the notion of cutting as a tool of analysis and synthesis in architectural design. It examines the difference between plan and section and it focuses on the way in which section can be used to produce space in architecture, by introducing it as a starting point in the design process. Sections are drawings that represent space as if it would have been cut through a giant intellectual scalpel. They have been crucial tools of representation in all

5 Stop Motion: Being Precise About …

87

design-oriented spatial disciplines (architecture, landscape architecture, urbanism, engineering, product design, geography, etc.). Nevertheless, very little research has been accomplished about the nature and the origins of the ‘cutting’ that designers habitually do during the design processes. Even less research has focused on the way that this knowledge is taught in higher education. The most recent publication in the field (Lewis et al., 2016) offers a practical manual by offering a typology of sectional drawings (extrusion, stack, shape, shear, hole, incline, nest). Nevertheless, this course attempts to shift the focus from the drawings of sections to the practices of sectioning, calling, thus, to rethink this medium of representation, from a mere outcome of the design process to the design process per se (Koutsoumpos, 2018, 2020). The course offered lectures that discuss the crossing paths of the history of philosophy and architectural theory and practice. In the past, as part of the assessment, the students have been asked to study a renowned building, the section of which has played a key role in the overall design process. For example, Figure 5.1 shows the original section sketch of Le Corbusier’s Villa Curutchet (1949) where red pencilled lines are noted on the sectioned parts of the building. Students had to make a physical model of this building cut into two parts, in order to reveal its section (see Fig. 5.2). Moreover, they had to write an essay about the building in the Greek Wikipedia. In this sense the students had to create a physical model and a digital text, sharpening both their skills in manual construction and in writing according to academic standards that require justification and references. This chapter focuses on a twist that was introduced in the assessment exercise in the course during the academic years 2017–2018 and 2018–2019. During these years, instead of building the physical model, the students were given the option to document through video the design process of the building that they were designing themselves during the design studio course that they were attending during the same semester. For practical reasons, that had to do with the overall curriculum, they could choose whether they would do the model or the video (and as we are going to see later on, the students had strong opinions about choosing the one instead of the other).

Fig. 5.1 Original Section Sketch of Le Corbusier’s Villa Curutchet (1949) La Plata, Argentina

88

L. Koutsoumpos

Fig. 5.2 Sectional model of Le Corbusier’s Villa Curutchet created during the course (Students: Aristotelis Kaleris, Giannis Skoulikas)

In this sense, the elective course was lurking upon the design studio course that was taking place concurrently. Before proceeding with the details of the video, one needs to have a better understanding of architectural design education. Arguably, the backbone of architectural education is the design studio and it is very much based on apprentice learning. The students are given a brief and they are asked to design a building during a given time—usually a semester. However, it is not uncommon in some schools to promote more abstract conceptions of design. In most schools, the other modules that are offered (history, theory, technology, tectonics, etc.) come to support this main course. Teachers and students meet every week in order to discuss the evolution of the project. The studio forms the locus where tutorials, critiques (the notorious crits), reviews and discussions take place about the projects that are designed. Despite various local differences, it seems that a certain uniform studio culture has been formed worldwide. A report of the American Institute of Architecture Students uses the following words in describing design studio culture (Fig. 5.3). Those who have studied architecture undoubtedly have vivid memories that characterize this experience. Late nights, exciting projects, extreme dedication, lasting friendships, long hours, unpredictable events, punishing critiques, a sense of community, and personal sacrifice all come to mind. Those aspects are not usually written into the curriculum or even the design assignments, but they are likely the most memorable and influential. The experiences, habits, and patterns found within the architecture design studio make up what we have termed ‘studio culture’. (American Institute of Architecture Students & Koch, 2002, p. 31)

It has to be noted that formal architectural education and the design studio, in particular, is a relatively young institution, especially in comparison to the depth of history of architecture. It is only after the Renaissance that architectural education becomes gradually systematised. Prior to that, in ancient Greece “we must assume for the beginning architect some kind of apprenticeship alongside a master” (Kostof, 1977, p. 22). In one of the first surviving texts about architecture, the Roman architect Vitruvius makes a special mention about the education of the architect: Let him be educated, skillful with the pencil, instructed in geometry, know much history, have followed the philosophers with attention, understand music, have some knowledge of medicine, know the opinions of the jurists, and be acquainted with astronomy and the theory of the heavens. (MacDonald, 1977, pp. 38–39; Vitruvius, 2001)

5 Stop Motion: Being Precise About …

89

Fig. 5.3 Current education in the design studio at the Athens School of Architecture

Still, it was only after the establishment of an explicit academic institution dedicated to architecture in seventeenth century France that the studio started to form its contemporary understanding. Nevertheless, the two systems of education (apprenticeship and school) were infused for quite long till the eighteenth century when the architect was apprenticed as a builder. This mode of education dominated architectural education until 1919, when the school of Bauhaus presented a new scheme. The radical reconsideration of architecture during modernism was reflected in the education of this school and became modernism’s emblematic educational institution. Bauhaus was very much studio-based, especially since its original scope was to reunite all arts in the craft of building. The studios of Bauhaus influenced most contemporary schools of architecture. The importance of the tradition of studiobased architectural education has been emphasised by various formal forums on architectural education, architecture schools and institutions (Koutsoumpos, 2009). Nowadays, the pique of contemporary concerns about this tradition seems to be occupied by the enlarged numbers of students that reduce the teacher/student interaction, as well as, the integration of digital media and information technologies in the traditional studio culture. Having the above historical background in mind, it becomes clear that the students in this course were asked to perform a reflective video about their work at the design studio, where the main design practice takes place.

90

L. Koutsoumpos

Methodology In the Architecture School of Athens, a big yearlong studio takes place during the fourth year of degree; this is in contrast to the rest of the years of the study that are semester-based. Students are asked to design a complex multi-storey public building (e.g. museum, community building). Vertical section very often plays an important role in the overall design process and it is no coincidence that in the end the students have to produce a large sectional model of the building in scale 1:50. For this reason, the fourth-year studio was an ideal key time in order to study sections. The students were asked to create a short video (~three minutes) that would show the evolution of the design process throughout the 7th semester. Their focus should be on the role that vertical sections play in their design and to show the way that these sections were evolved from the first sketches to the final rendered drawings. They were encouraged to include in the video as much raw material as possible (for example, original sketches, see Fig. 5.4). Details about the practicalities of the creation of the video (software) are discussed later on in detail. At the end of the semester, there was an exposition of the videos followed with an overall discussion about the learning outcomes. The students were asked to submit anonymous feedback forms about the quality, content and the methodology of the course. A few months later, a focus group was conducted in order to record in a more structured way the students’ views on the use of videos in the design educational context. Participants of the focus group were the students who executed the video exercise. Ten random students were invited. Participation was voluntary and the participants gave written informed consent prior to the discussion. The focus group was conducted by two researchers, and its duration was approximately one hour. Participants were encouraged to share their personal opinions and experiences.

Fig. 5.4 Example of a sketch of the section during the design process (Student: Polina Saade)

5 Stop Motion: Being Precise About …

91

Two researchers analysed transcripts independently using Krueger’s ‘long table approach’ method (Krueger & Casey, 2000), adjusted for use with word processing software, rather than hand-written copies. This approach allowed relevant themes to be generated from the focus groups during analysis, rather than developing themes in advance and coding them as such. Moreover, the use of word processing software rather than hand-written copies allowed for direct comparisons between the independent analyses of each researcher. First, the two researchers independently read the transcript of the focus group and created a code tree based on the data. They subsequently compared the codes retrieved and formulated the final code tree, which was accompanied by a manual of descriptions for each individual code. The two researchers then worked independently to group codes into broader themes. Lists of recurrent themes and subthemes were revised and refined across researchers ensuring the validity of the analysis (Altheide & Johnson, 1994). Once indicative themes and subthemes were identified, their respective discussions were reviewed in order to ensure that statements were not taken out of context. Moreover, the group dynamics were taken into consideration (Krueger & Casey, 2000). Major and minor responses, crucial for the insight into each theme were also identified.

Discussion on the Use of Video in the Educational Design Context The elaboration of the material of the focus group led to the identification of five broad themes: (1) expectations and hesitations, (2) distantiation and reflection, (3) temporality and linearity, (4) collecting and synthesising and (5) technology and software. The discussions that took place during the focus group allowed the extraction of key phrases that summarise the essence of each theme in Table 5.1. The following sections discuss the five themes, offering insights about the ways that the students perceived the educational outcomes of the use of video in documenting the design process.

Expectations & Hesitations The first theme was the initial expectations and hesitations that the students faced when they were given the opportunity to create a video instead of a physical model. All the students that participated in the focus group put forth that the main aspect that intrigued them was the engagement with the new medium itself. In most cases it was their first time ever to make a video: “It was also something completely new to have a video with an educational aspect,” “to do something new that I haven’t touched before.”

92

L. Koutsoumpos

Table 5.1 Selected quotes from the focus group Expectations & Hesitations -“Educationally, It was a different approach. It was about seeing something that you were already been doing in one way, from a different point of view or from a different angle” -“I gained something that could not have been done with any other media” -“I am not really attracted by technology and I do not have much patience, for this it was quite a challenge” -“[I was afraid that] I would come to find out that the evolvement of the section would have an inconsistency or a logical gap… that the video would reveal something that I had not realized at the time that I was designing” Distantiation & Reflection -“We got caught up in the process of keeping a distance” -“There was a chance to have a fresh look on the drawings and reflect upon them” Temporality & Linearity -“The video as a process unfolds the design process” -“It was like unweaving the thread of the making” Collecting & Synthesising -“I saw my collection of sketches in a new way” -“I did not use all my material. I regret it now” Technology & Software -“The lack of explicit previous knowledge about video editing, made us find our own way and research about how to make it. You just need to spend time” -“The production was not difficult, the selection of the raw material was”

The students expressed their desire for a multimodal approach that would offer the abstract and theoretical topic of sections from a different viewpoint. Some students commented that one of the strongest points of the course was the exploration of various digital tools. The creation of the video was found, by some of the students, as ‘similar’ to the writing of the Wikipedia article, since both exercises use digital technology tools that are not familiar to the students of architecture. This should be seen in contrast to the more design-oriented software that the students are learning to work with during their study, like Computer-Aided Design tools and 3D Modeling. Having to create a video or create a Wikipedia article, took them out of their comfort zone and pushed their limits further. Moreover, the students felt interested in putting under the microscope the design process per se. In the design studio, they come to learn ways of designing, but it is not very often that these ways become an object of examination. Also, all the students that dealt with the video were interested in studying their own design work instead of someone else’s project: “The model was not ours” said one of the students, meaning that it was about the product of someone else’s thought. “It was the only coursework, so far in the school, that was involving or springing from something that we had produced. It wasn’t about someone else’s work.” These comments show that although it is valuable to learn things from the experts of a field, it can become educationally refreshing for the students (and the teachers) to explore their own work,

5 Stop Motion: Being Precise About …

93

especially when they are not sure about the process or the outcome. Obviously, this leads to reflection and self-criticism. Despite their initial enthusiasm, some students felt fear from the unknown field of the new medium. It is like learning to swim or diving in unknown waters; one becomes excited, but also is reserved or cautious. Although current young generations are in general easily acquainted with new digital technologies, it is obvious that some people are more fluent with the use of technology than others. Especially in the study of an artistic field like architecture, there are some students that are more inclined towards the humanistic aspects of the field, in contrast to its more technological edges. “I am not really attracted by technology,” mentioned one such student. Another aspect that initially posed as a hesitation was a concern about being ‘right.’ Characteristically a student commented: “what if the way that I design is wrong?” The video would reveal all the separate stages and expose in bright light one’s own flaws and missteps. In this sense, the video was seen by some students as a revelatory mechanism that one could not really control. Some students reported of being initially afraid that the video would show all logical gaps and inconsistencies of the design process. Moreover, others would be able to see things that “I wouldn’t have realised at the time that I was designing.” So, some students felt exposed even physically, since their hands (or more rarely their faces) sometimes appear on the screen. The exposition of the design process was a particular educational objective of the course so that it would help the students get a better understanding and become more conscious and reflective about the way that they design.

Distantiation & Reflection A major educational outcome that the students highlighted in the process of video making was the creation of a distance between themselves and the design practice. “We got caught up in a process of keeping a distance” said a student. The distantiation process was an intentional but not explicit educational objective. There are different levels of distancing that can be achieved during the reflective process (McDonnell et al., 2004). The video exercise asked the students to stop for a while and try to observe what they were doing in the design studio. This distance creates an important space and time for reflection and critical re-evaluation. The video of the design process created a distance from the design and was analogous to a bracket, that defines a space explaining things. This bracketing space, though, should not be seen as a closure of the educational process, but rather an opening to a wider understanding of architectural design. The bracket opens a metaphorical ‘space’ that can accommodate reflection about the practice that was just interrupted. It provides the necessary time to reflect on ‘the meaning of the practice’ or ‘what the whole thing is about’ (Appelbaum, 1996, p. 81; Baker & Jones, 1979, p. 29). Reflection is achieved through the distance that disrupts the ‘normal’ process. Distantiation and reflection create a paradoxical way of learning by unlearning what you already know. The students also commented that it was easier to distantiate yourself from a model

94

L. Koutsoumpos

than from a video that also has you, your hands, your teammates. The video is a portrait of you and your work. Nevertheless, despite the difficulty of distantiation, it pays back in the reflection. The video as a ‘copy’ or ‘representation’ of the design process further assimilates to reflection in its mirroring power. Reflection has the power to cast light, after some impact that is achieved through distance, allowing one to rethink, to weigh things to consider and to re-examine. The notion of reflection has been very important in philosophy and a fundamental way of approaching knowledge. For example, Descartes (1955) in his Discourse on Method described his way of putting the rules of his inquiry of knowledge like doing a montage for a video: “to carry on my reflections in due order, commencing with objects that were the most simple and easy to understand, in order to rise little by little, or by degrees, to knowledge of the most complex, assuming order, even if a fictitious one” (Descartes, 1955, p. 92). Moreover, even in the late postmodern philosophical turn, Donald Schön, who aimed to transgress the boundaries between theory and practice on philosophy and education, confronted the technical rationality of the positivist views of his time, by putting reflection again on the centre of his inquiry. Only this time, reflection is not an isolated activity of a pure mind, but rather a much more dirty and hands-on approach that was summarised in the term ‘reflection-in-action.’

Temporality and Linearity It is obvious that video has a temporal dimension since it is about time; the unfolding of a story: the one static picture comes after the other. Of course, very often, through their script and montage, movie directors challenge the obvious ‘historical’ linearity of the unfolding of the story, playing with fragmentations, anachronisms and multiple interpretations of time and narrative. Practically, the linearity of the medium is demonstrated by the timeline or time-slider under every video player application. The design process has also an inherent mundane linear dimension. In the early stages of design thinking theories (in the mid-twentieth century), the design process was thought of as a sequence of precise activities following the positivistic principles and methods of natural sciences. Nevertheless, such linear analytical explanations of design did not last long and non-linearity has been a central theme to all subsequent research on design theory. This non-linearity has to do with the non-linear way that our thinking evolves; very often, when designing, one follows a path that later finds that it should abandon and return back or has striking ‘eureka’ moments that put to the trash bin all previous work. Furthermore, post-structural and deconstructivist views of design have recently favoured inconsistency, incoherence and spontaneous ways for responding to design programs. Despite the fair criticism on the linear design approaches, the design process does happen linearly in time; one does one design action after the other without necessarily being coherent or based on previous steps. Arguably, coherence is something that should exist in the final design outcome in itself.

5 Stop Motion: Being Precise About …

95

The students were asked to document the mundane linearity of the design process through the linearity of the video. Their videos represented all the various phases that they went through, despite the fact that some of them were discarded or not followed at the final designed product. The students noted in the focus group this linear aspect of the video exercise. “The video as a process unfolds the design process,” mentioned one student and continued “I had to study every time where the section is and what I have done, and in this way, I rediscover my design and for this, it [the video] was one more processing layer of the section.” Moreover, the creation of the video was assimilated to “the unweaving of the thread of making.” This particular metaphor is powerful since it makes tangible the interdependency of the linearity of the video and the design process. This metaphor alludes that the making of the video requires the unmaking of the design; one has to unweave the design backwards, in order to follow the thread of its creating process. The making of the video offered the students the opportunity to trace back all the steps that they went through in order to design their building. For this, the videos visualised the design process through its linear unmaking—like unweaving a knit in order to show how it was made—only this time the unweaving of the design process created a new knit, that of the video. Another aspect of temporality that relates to the educational character of the video has to do with the fact that video is easily reproducible: “I could see the video again and again …without searching the piles of papers.” Looking at something many times allows one to focus on different aspects of the process, seeing different things each time. Some students commented that through this repetitive gaze, they saw things that they wanted retrospectively to have changed to the building, but, at the same time, they felt satisfied with some key design decisions. A student also commented that the spatio-temporal characteristic of the video makes you empathise and that “it somehow pierces your thought when you see it again.” Despite its abstractness it has something somatic and embodied, it is about space and time. One more aspect of temporality was commented to be the final montage. The overall video was about “putting everything in one line.” Although at the end one would have a certain amount of sketches that could be distributed across time, some students commented on giving particular emphasis to some sketches that were more important than others: “the time you leave an image to be seen offers a different narrative.” Finally, an interesting comment was made about the difference in the temporality of sections between the video and the model: “the model offers only one temporal section, the very last one in the design process, while the video presents the evolution of the section and of the building itself.” The model offers a fixed image of the section, while the video discloses the process of the sectioning as a design tool. The lines become vivid and the designed building becomes gradually a living creature that goes through a process of creation and evolution (Fig. 5.5).

96

L. Koutsoumpos

Fig. 5.5 Video stills from original sketches that show the evolution of the section of the building (Student: Eirini Konstantinou). Note that the first two rows were the development of two concepts that were finally abandoned. The third attempt was found satisfactory by the student and ended up in the last sketch (red square). The big picture at the bottom is the last video frame, showing the final model together with the final drawing of the section

Collecting and Synthesising As it has already been mentioned the video was created out of a series of static images that were selected during a period of time by students. An important part of the video exercise was the collection and organisation of the material that the students produced during the design process. The video valorised the mundane and simple scribbles, abstract physical or computer models that they did when designing. The mundane and trivial part of the design practice turned to be important; something that one had to take care of. “Sketches became valuable,” commented a student, “they gained some sort of weight or gravity.” Instead of throwing away the material that was produced during a common day of working on the design, students reported that they had to rethink whether there is something that could be used for the video. Students showed mixed feelings about the obstruction caused by the collection of the material to the design process itself. A student felt that he would not stop to take a picture of something on the spot, since this would interrupt the momentum of the design process. Some students were taking pictures at the end of the day of what they felt that would be relevant for the video. Most of them kept some pieces of papers with dates on. Others kept all the sketches and made the selection at the very end. A student mentioned that “although I was anyway accustomed to keeping

5 Stop Motion: Being Precise About …

97

Fig. 5.6 Three stills from a video that recreated the section ‘live’ in one drawing (Student: Dafni Karavola)

Fig. 5.7 Video still summarising the evolution of sections in a retrospective way (the images above the sketches are the relevant models that documented each phase of the design process) (Student: Polina Saade)

the various papers of my sketches and I would only throw it away the following year, I saw the collection that I was already been making in a completely different way.” Another student said that she took a lot more pictures during the design process that were finally not included in the final video. She felt regretful but at the time of the creation of the video as the pictures were not “good enough.” Another one said: “I saw it [the video] again before I came here this morning. I now feel that I am not satisfied by the final outcome. I believe that I could have narrated things better.” There were some students who decided not to show the original drawings in the video, but tried to make new ones that would summarise each distinct design phase in a more abstract way (see for example Fig. 5.6 and 5.7). A student noted that whenever she felt that she had reached an important stage of the design process, she would make a sketch on purpose that would summarise the process, trying to distil what was important at each stage. A different student redrew the design of the section on just one sheet of paper for the sake of the video in a stop motion technique. Another student made a video that consisted of only seven stylised abstract diagrams of the evolution of the section. Such attempts marginally failed to meet the educational requirements of the coursework, that asked from the students to present the original material. Nevertheless, they were visually very stimulating and in some cases conveyed the evolution of the section more clearly than others that included dozens and dozens of original sketches. Many students also attempted, apart from the evolution of the section, to explain through the video the entire building. Various narrative techniques were employed like showing in the beggining a picture of the model of the finished building, so that one could have an overview, or showing apart from the section the relevant plans. One student at the end of the video also added a virtual walkthrough that was

98

L. Koutsoumpos

generated out of the computer 3D model that she had created for the final renders of the building. During the discussion at the end of the semester when we all saw the submitted videos, there was a big debate on whether these techniques were ‘valid.’ Some students felt that such approaches attempted a shift of focus from explaining the evolution of section to just showing a ‘beautiful’ building.

Technology and Software The video coursework was offered during two consecutive academic years (2017– 2018 & 2018–2019). In the first year, the students were offered a short two-hour seminar by a staff member of the computer lab on how to create a video by using the commercial program Adobe Photoshop. In the second year, this was not made possible and the students accomplished their video without any instruction. Although there was some preliminary anxiety about the quality of the material that the students would submit, there was no real difference in the overall quality between the two years. The students that attended the later year that participated in the focus group felt that the technological part of the creation of the video did not seem to be a problem. Some used Photoshop since they were already familiar with the interface of the program, which is the standard for the manipulation of images in the design practices. Some students used the preinstalled programs that existed on their computers like the iMovie for Macs. Others became very creative by finding their own unconventional way by using presentation programs like Keynote or PowerPoint to extract a video. A student commented that “the lack of explicit previous knowledge about video editing made us find our own way and research about how to make it. You just need to spend time.” All students did some Internet research about how to make a video. “I have learned a lot of programs just by watching videos,” said another student. Some students felt that it would be better if they would get some guidance and support, while others said that learning a programme is extracurricular and out of the main body of knowledge offered in a university, something that one has to learn by him/herself “It is like learning a foreign language.” Finally, the student who originally said she “was not really been attracted by technology” expressed later “the production [of the video] was not difficult, the selection of the raw material was […] I was hoping that the material itself that I had selected would be more expressive than the way that video would be made.” This attitude shows that the student was less charmed by the visual outcome of the video and was rather focusing on the original sketches and drawings that she had produced during the design process. In this sense she did not try to ‘beautify’ her design project but rather tried to present it as accurately as possible.

5 Stop Motion: Being Precise About …

99

Concluding Remarks This chapter discussed the educational possibilities of using stop motion video in the example of a video coursework that students created in the context of a school of architecture. The flow of the video used not for its illusion technique to show ‘real’ motion, but rather as a metaphorical movement of the design process. In this sense, video was a medium of documentation that was found to be valuable because, with its inherent flow, helped the students to understand design, not as a static process that creates isolated drawings, but as a continuous way of thinking through making. Video was used as a retrospective way of representation of the design process helping the students to document and remember what is usually forgotten after a design activity has been completed. This case study also showed that students often tried to present their thought to be more linear and coherent than it actually was at the time of making. The videos that were created by students showed that the knowledge that one needs to acquire during architectural education is not an absolute technical theoretical knowledge that guides practice, what ancient Greeks called episteme, but rather a kind of practical knowledge that can be applied to specific situations and requires phronesis. Anthropologist Tim Ingold argues the static lines on the paper have a history that is continuing from the past and project to an uncertain future (Ingold, 2007). This is vividly demonstrated in the video artwork of William Kentridge that is composed by stop motion images that are drawn on the same piece of paper, again and again. Kentridge’s work has to do with the ‘state of the paper at that moment’ wishing to become something different that cannot be known beforehand. The students’ videos in this case study documented accurately the process of becoming of the building in its final form and expose the uncertainty of the overall process. At the same time, they showed part of the process of becoming an architect, which is also full of uncertainties, and twisted lines of thoughts.

References Altheide, D. L., & Johnson, J. M. (1994). Criteria for assessing interpretive validity in qualitative research. In Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 485–499). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. American Institute of Architecture Students, & Koch, A. (2002). The redesign of studio culture: A report of the AIAS studio culture task force (p. 31). American Institute of Architecture Students. http://www.aias.org/chapter_resources/documents/AIASStudioCultureReport.pdf. Anderson, L. (1994). Film theory and architectural design. In Reconnecting [ACADIA Conference Proceedings/ISBN 1-880250-03-9] (pp. 219–227). Saint Louis, MO: Washington University. http://papers.cumincad.org/cgi-bin/works/Show?241b. Appelbaum, D. (1996). Disruption. New York: State University of New York Press. Baker, P., & Jones, J. (1979). Benign disruption in the classroom: A case study. Teaching Sociology, 7(1), 27–44. Bakir, R., & Alsaadani, S. (2019). Facebook posts and design pedagogy: An Egyptian case study of social media communication in support of an architectural studio. EDULEARN19 Proceedings, 9878–9887.

100

L. Koutsoumpos

Calderon, C., Nyman, K., & Worley, N. (2006). The architectural cinematographer: Creating architectural experiences in 3D real-time environments. International Journal of Architectural Computing, 4(4), 71–90. https://doi.org/10.1260/147807706779398953. Caputo, A. C. (2014). An architectural design approach. In A. C. Caputo (Ed.), Digital video surveillance and security (2nd ed., pp. 207–229). Butterworth-Heinemann. https://doi.org/10. 1016/B978-0-12-420042-5.00006-X. Cowan, J. (2005). Evaluation and feedback in architectural education. In D. Nicol & S. Pilling (Eds.), Changing architectural education: Towards a new professionalism. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis. Descartes. (1955). Discourse on the method of rightly conducting the reason and seeking for truth in the sciences. In G. R. T. Ross (Ed.), The philosophical works of descartes (pp. 79–130). New York: Dover. Dorst, K., & Dijkhuis, J. (1995). Comparing paradigms for describing design activity. Design Studies, 16(2), 261–274. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(94)00012-3. Fonseca, D., Villagrasa, S., Navarro, I., Redondo, E., Valls, F., & Sánchez, A. (2017). Urban gamification in architecture education. In Á. Rocha, A. M. Correia, H. Adeli, L. P. Reis, & S. Costanzo (Eds.), Recent advances in information systems and technologies (pp. 335–341). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56541-5_34. Goldfarb, B. (2002). Visual pedagogy: Media cultures in and beyond the classroom. London: Duke University Press. Greene, N. L. (1926). Motion pictures in the classroom. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 128(1), 122–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/000271622612800120. Hoban, G., Loughran, J., & Nielsen, W. (2011). Slowmation: Preservice elementary teachers representing science knowledge through creating multimodal digital animations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(9), 985–1009. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20436. Ingold, T. (2007). Lines: A brief history. London: Routledge. Karras, O., Schneider, K., & Fricker, S. A. (2019). Representing software project vision by means of video: A quality model for vision videos. Journal of Systems and Software, 110479. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2019.110479. Keast, S., Cooper, R., Berry, A., Loughran, J., & Hoban, G. (2010). Slowmation as a pedagogical Scaffold for improving science teaching and learning. Brunei International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2(1), 1–15. Kokosalakis, J., & Moorhouse, J. (1995, November 16–18). A documentation methodology for multimedia recording of architects computer aided architectural designing. Multimedia and architectural disciplines [Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on Education in Computer Aided Architectural Design in Europe/ISBN 0-9523687-1-4] (pp. 203–216). Palermo, Italy. http:// papers.cumincad.org/cgi-bin/works/Show?8d21. Kostof, S. (1977). The practice of architecture in the ancient world: Egypt and Greece. In S. Kostof (Ed.), The architect, chapters in the history of the profession (pp. 3–27). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Koutsoumpos, L. (2009). Inhabiting ethics: Educational praxis in the design studio, the music class and the dojo (PhD Thesis, University of Edinburgh, School of Arts, Culture and Environment). http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/3294. Koutsoumpos, L. (2018). Drawing sections. Art, Materiality and Representation, London. https:// nomadit.co.uk/rai/events/rai2018/conferencesuite.php/panels/6059/List. Koutsoumpos, L. (2020). Practices of sectioning: Ancient Greek fragments. OASE Journal for 605 Architecture- Special Issue: Practices of Drawing, OASE, (105), 87–94. Retrieved from https:// www.oasejournal.nl/en/Issues/105/PracticesofSectioning. Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2000). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kvan, T. (2001). The pedagogy of virtual design studios. Automation in Construction, 10(3), 345– 353. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-5805(00)00051-0.

5 Stop Motion: Being Precise About …

101

La Cinémathèque Française. (2014). Phénakistiscope (boîte pour disque de) (AP-95-1693)— Collection—Catalogue des appareils cinématographiques—La Cinémathèque française. https:// www.cinematheque.fr/fr/catalogues/appareils/collection/phenakistiscope-boite-pour-disque-deap-95-1693.html. Lentz, U. (1992, November 12–14). MultiMedia in architectural education. CAAD instruction: The new teaching of an architect? [ECAADe Conference Proceedings] (pp. 85–90). Barcelona, Spain. http://papers.cumincad.org/cgi-bin/works/Show?4db7. Lewis, P., Tsurumaki, M., & Lewis, D. J. (2016). Manual of section. Princeton: Princeton Architectural Press. Linzey, M., & Soutar, A. (1993). Early attempts to combine the use of video and computer in architectural education. WIT Transactions on Information and Communication Technologies, 5, 523–530. MacDonald, W. (1977). Roman architects. In S. Kostof (Ed.), The architect, chapters in the history of the profession (pp. 28–58). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Masdéu, M., & Fuses, J. (2017). Reconceptualizing the design studio in architectural education: Distance learning and blended learning as transformation factors Archnet-IJAR. International Journal of Architectural Research, 11(2), 6–23. https://doi.org/10.26687/archnet-ijar.v11i2.1156. McDonnell, J., Lloyd, P., & Valkenburg, R. C. (2004). Developing design expertise through the construction of video stories. Design Studies, 25(5), 509–525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud. 2004.05.005. Mendoza Robles, R. M., Saldana Sordoba, F., & Rendon Sallard, M. (2016, November 7–8). Go with the flow, tutorials to support architectural education. Parametricism vs. Materialism: Evolution of Digital Technologies for Development [8th ASCAAD Conference Proceedings ISBN 978-09955691-0-2] (pp. 351–356). London, UK. http://papers.cumincad.org/cgi-bin/works/Show?_ id=ascaad2016_036. Newell, A. (1994). Unified theories of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Orland, B. (1987). Video-imaging in design. Landscape Australia, 9(1), 45–49. JSTOR. https://doi. org/10.2307/45164305. Pizarro, R. E. (2009). Teaching to understand the urban sensorium in the digital age: Lessons from the studio. Design Studies, 30(3), 272–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2008.09.002. Prince, S. (2010). Through the looking glass: Philosophical toys and digital visual effects. Projections, 4(2), 19–40. https://doi.org/10.3167/proj.2010.040203. Purcell, P. (1981, January 12–14). Computer linked video: A dynamic design tool. Computervision ’81, London. Design Studies, 2(2), 121–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(81)90011-9. Rald, C. (1983). Video technology in architectural education—A new teaching aid or a catalyst for a new perspective on communication. The University of Arizona. http://hdl.handle.net/10150/ 559177. Read, P., & Meyer, M.-P. (2000). Restoration of motion picture film. Burlington: Elsevier. Rhodes, P., McCartney, K., & Powell, J. (1992). Narrative structures within architectural videos. Design Studies, 13(4), 355–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(92)90131-S. Rhodes, P. J., & Powell, J. A. (1994). Tell them a story!: A theoretical model to assist in the transfer of architectural design information through video. Design Studies, 15(3), 270–284. https://doi. org/10.1016/0142-694X(94)90014-0. Salama, A. M. (2013). Seeking responsive forms of pedagogy in architectural education. Field, 5(1), 9–30. Snelson, C., & Perkins, R. A. (2009). From silent film to YouTubeTM : Tracing the historical roots of motion picture technologies in education. Journal of Visual Literacy, 28(1), 1–27. https://doi. org/10.1080/23796529.2009.11674657. Tate, D., & Osborne, L. (2013). Facebook: A 24 hour studio environment for contemporary architectural education (Working Paper). https://eprints.qut.edu.au/59549/. Valls, F., Redondo, E., Fonseca, D., Garcia-Almirall, P., & Subirós, J. (2016). Videogame technology in architecture education. In M. Kurosu (Ed.), Human-computer interaction: Novel user

102

L. Koutsoumpos

experiences (pp. 436–447). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-31939513-5_41. Vitruvius. (2001). Vitruvius: “Ten books on architecture.” Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wenders, W. (1994). Lisbon story. Madragoa Filmes, Road Movies Filmproduktion, Wim Wenders Stiftung. Ylirisku, S. P., & Buur, J. (2007). Designing with video: Focusing the user-centred design process. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media. Zeiner, H., Kienast, G., Derler, C., & Haas, W. (2005). Video documentation of urban areas. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 29(6), 653–668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compen vurbsys.2005.03.003.

Chapter 6

Learning by Watching Others Learn: Vicarious Learning from Videoed Tutorials Susan Geertshuis, Ngaire Rix, Odette Murdoch, and Qian Liu

Abstract Research attests to the efficacy of small group and individual tutoring in a range of educational contexts, but such tutoring requires resources that are beyond the means of many higher education institutions. In response, researchers have applied the notion of vicarious learning to explore the potential of having university students observe videos of tutorial discussions. The evidence from laboratory studies is very positive; students can and do learn from watching videos of tutorials, but the literature is somewhat confused, and a practical methodology has not been offered. This chapter reviews over two decades of research on observing others learn in tutorials. Additionally, the chapter shares the practice-based wisdom developed by the authors as they have sought to apply and test the approaches described in the research literature within a university business school. The chapter includes a series of recommendations with the aim of ensuring that learning vicariously from videoed tutoring is a pedagogy that can be successfully implemented by others. Keywords Vicarious learning · Video · Tutoring · Education · Pedagogy · Video pedagogy

Introduction Traditional face-to-face tutoring is recognised as being an effective educational paradigm (Muldner, Lam, & Chi, 2014). “It could be argued that tutoring is the most effective learning environment we know of in addition to being the oldest” (Graesser & McNamara, 2010, p. 422). It usually involves a trained tutor leading a session attended by one or a small group of tutees and is a particularly powerful S. Geertshuis (B) · O. Murdoch University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand e-mail: [email protected] Q. Liu University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand N. Rix Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 D. S. P. Gedera and A. Zalipour (eds.), Video Pedagogy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-4009-1_6

103

104

S. Geertshuis et al.

pedagogical approach to developing conceptual understanding (Bloom, 1984). While there are many ways of conducting a tutorial, the essential feature is dialogue between the participants (Graesser, D’Mello, & Cade, 2011). Although it is agreed that dialogue is the defining feature of tutorials, and, arguably, essential to higher education learning (Laurillard, 2002), it is not precisely clear what it is about the dialogue that renders tutoring so impactful. In an effort to better understand how learning takes place in tutorials, researchers have analysed tutor-tutee conversations to categorise the utterances and link particular patterns of exchanges with measures of student learning (Graesser et al., 2011). The findings from this work confirm that the effectiveness of tutoring strategies lies in whether they encourage students’ thinking and discussions (Gholson et al., 2009). It seems students learn most when they are active in explaining, asking, relating, doing, reflecting, collaborating, and constructing. Table 6.1 summarises effective strategies that tutors use to stimulate active engagement and dialogue. Much of the laboratory-based research into tutoring is performed on small tutor groups or one-to-one tutor-tutee encounters. This may reflect a traditional understanding of tutorials but not the reality of today’s educational practice (Dineen, Mayes, & Lee, 1999). Student numbers and resource constraints render traditional Table 6.1 Effective strategies for tutoring Socratic tutoring

involves the tutor asking a series of related questions which leads students to discover the limitations in their thinking and to work to develop more sophisticated ideas. Collins, Warnock, and Passafiume (1975)

Modelling-scaffolding and fading

involves the tutor in modelling a new skill. After watching the modelled performance, students attempt to perform the skill with support, explanations, and feedback. Finally, the tutor reduces the level of support until students perform independently. van de Pol, Volman, and Beishuizen (2010)

Reciprocal teaching

involves a discussion between tutor and tutees. Four strategies are used to facilitate comprehension: forming questions, summarising sections of text, clarifying concepts, and predicting consequences or what will happen next. Palincsar and Brown (1988)

Self-explanation and deep questioning encourages students to build their understanding by paraphrasing, inferring, proposing connections between ideas, and relating the new material to known. Craig, Gholson, Brittingham, Williams, and Shubeck (2012) and McNamara (2004) Task directed discussion tasks

are pre-prepared questions and activities designed to foster in-depth discussions between groups of students. Dineen et al. (1999) offer 11 forms of task-directed discussion formats that can be adapted to suit a range of topics

6 Learning by Watching Others Learn: Vicarious …

105

individual and small group tutoring beyond the means of many higher education institutions (Altbach, Reisberg, & Rumbley, 2019). In the authors’ intuition, if undergraduates are offered “tutorials” they are likely to be allocated to groups of 30 students or more. This will necessarily affect the pedagogical techniques available to tutors and so the educational impact of their classes (Solheim & Opheim, 2019). Even when working with individuals or small groups, tutors may fail to appreciate the learners’ level of understanding (Graesser, D’Mello, & Person, 2009) and adopt techniques which enable students to construct their understandings (Graesser, Person, & Magliano, 1995; Hattie, 2005). Instead, tutors, novice and experienced alike, often rely on explaining concepts to students, delivering mini-lectures, and asking questions which do not require deep levels of thinking (Graesser & McNamara, 2010). Potentially, video offers an approach that avoids the resource demands of face-toface tutoring and offers an opportunity to ensure that students can witness dialogues and discussions even if they cannot take part in them. Perhaps, rather than attending tutorials, students could learn vicariously by watching videoed tutoring sessions. This chapter assesses such an approach and, unlikely as it may seem, the results are incredibly encouraging.

Vicarious Learning from Tutorial Dialogue Vicarious learning is a term introduced by Bandura and later developed within social cognitive theory as a form of observational learning which is learning from witnessing the behaviour of others (Bandura, 1986). As Bandura and others have shown, humans are vociferous observational learners, acquiring complex rule-based patterns of behaviour, knowledge, skills and emotional responses merely by witnessing, either directly or vicariously, the experiences of others. Researchers of learning from tutorial dialogues adopt the term vicarious learning to mean learning from observing others learn (Lee, 2010; Mayes, 2015). Vicarious learning from dialogue is not a practice new to advanced education. It was a technique used by Plato who crafted discourses that could have occurred between Socrates and his pupils in order to expose complex ideas. It is also represented by having medical students watch a fellow student practising diagnostic skills on an actor-patient. The university masterclass, where a student audience observes an expert tutor work with an individual student, is a further familiar example of an approach to vicarious learning. In contexts like these, video may offer the additional potential of capturing valuable tutoring dialogues and reusing them time and time again (Craig, Sullins, Witherspoon, & Gholson, 2006). In deciding whether to adopt a new pedagogical approach, such as vicarious learning from tutorial dialogues, two considerations are important: effectiveness and scalability. Capturing and distributing videos of dialogues is obviously scalable; videos can be shared and reused indefinitely. Additionally, the production costs and resource implications are modest, particularly when compared with the resources

106

S. Geertshuis et al.

required for one-to-one tutoring. The question of effectiveness remains. Effectiveness or effect size is measured by standard deviations of difference between the performance scores of students who are given an intervention and those who are not. According to Hattie (2008), 0.4 is a moderate effect size that warrants an intervention being taken seriously. When human tutoring is compared with lecturing, effect sizes in the range of 0.7–2.00 have been reported (Bloom, 1984; VanLehn, 2011), confirming the substantial power of tutoring as an educational approach. To assess the effectiveness of vicarious learning, researchers have sought to compare the learning derived from watching tutorials with learning from attending tutorials. Perhaps surprisingly, under some conditions, watching tutoring dialogues has been reported to have an effect size in the order of 0.7 and to be equivalent in impact to attending a tutorial (Chi, Roy, & Hausmann, 2008; Muldner et al., 2014). Other workers find that attending a tutorial provides a better learning opportunity than observing others learning within tutorials (Craig, Driscoll, & Gholson, 2004; Schober & Clark, 1989). It must be remembered that students watching the tutorials did learn, just not as much as those who interacted directly with the tutor. For example, Craig et al. (2004) reported that the effect size for interacting with a tutor was 1.78 and the effect size for observing the tutee-tutor interactions was 1.12, which is lower but still substantial. While comparisons of learning from attending one-to-one tutorials delivered by experts and learning from watching tutoring sessions may be of theoretical interest, the more important question is the extent of learning gain from observing others learn in tutorials compared with other scalable pedagogies. This question is addressed by another approach to researching vicarious learning where learning from watching tutorial dialogues is compared with watching alternative teaching scenarios, most commonly a monologue or lecture. When watching a one-to-one or small group tutoring session is compared with watching a lecture or, more precisely, observing a dialogue is compared with observing a monologue, most studies find watching a dialogue to be superior (Craig, Chi, & VanLehn, 2009; Craig et al., 2004; Driscoll et al., 2003; Muldner et al. 2014; Muller, Bewes, Sharma, & Reimann, 2008). The effect seems to hold over a number of tutoring set-ups. For example, a video of a tutor and tutee solving a problem and discussing each step was found to provide a leaning advantage over a video of an expert solving a problem and explaining each step (Craig et al., 2009). Again, the conditions where observers have access to a dialogue generally prove superior to observing a monologue. These positive findings are not universal, and most studies reported in the literature are conducted in laboratory conditions rather than in live teaching situations. In a laboratory experiment, the quality of the observed tutoring is likely to have been carefully managed and to be high, and, as discussed above in practice, the quality of tutoring has been found to be less than optimal. It must also be remembered that participants in a study are not learning under the same conditions as are students in their university programmes. Studies conducted in the field are of interest because of their enhanced ecological validity. However, they are also likely to be subject to the influence of uncontrolled variables. Mayes and colleagues have conducted a

6 Learning by Watching Others Learn: Vicarious …

107

number of studies with very positive results using natural rather than scripted discussions (Cox, McKendree, Tobin, Lee, & Mayes, 1999; Dineen et al., 1999; Mayes, 2015). More recently, Cooper, Ding, Stephens, and Chi (2018) compared dialogue and monologue videos in a university psychology course. The authors reported no advantage for observing dialogue; students tended to prefer the monologue condition and weaker students did better under the monologue condition. Students reported that the dialogues were long and the utterances of the tutee confusing and irrelevant, while the monologues were short and easy to follow. It could be argued that efforts to establish whether observing tutorial dialogues is superior to observing lectures or monologues are naïve. They are the educational equivalent of asking if a hammer is superior to a screwdriver without having regard for the task and the learners in hand. A more useful avenue of research would be to establish when vicarious learning from tutorial discussions is superior to alternatives and how to maximise their impact. Researchers have offered a suite of interpretations which attempt to explain the learning gains from tutorials in general and the specific advantage of observing tutoring dialogues over observing monologues. These interpretations, which are summarised below, can be regarded as complementary and potentially additive rather than as sitting in conflict with each other. They provide valuable insights for practitioners contemplating adopting video pedagogies in tutorial contexts.

Pedagogical Theory and the Implications for Videoing Tutorials Four clusters of interpretations of the effectiveness of observing tutorials are discussed below. They are activity-based interpretations, informational interpretations, modelling interpretations, and motivational interpretations. Activity-based interpretations argue that the extent of learning depends on the nature of observers’ tasks and behaviour. Informational interpretations are based on evidence and argument that dialogues provide students with access to information and stimulate mental activity that is not provided by monologues. Modelling interpretations argue that tutors and tutees provide observers with multiple examples of learning-related behaviours which observers learn to adopt. Finally, the motivational interpretations centre around observer motivation, arguing that watching dialogues is more engaging and rewarding than watching monologues or reading texts. In the sections below the merits of alternative theoretical interpretations are summarised, and an effort has been made to draw out the practical implications of each interpretation.

108

S. Geertshuis et al.

Activity-Based Interpretations of Vicarious Learning from Videoed Tutorials Within this cluster of activity-based interpretations, the contention is that learning occurs when learners are behaviourally active in the process of discussion, negotiation and application. Chi and colleagues (Chi, Kang, & Yaghmourian, 2017; Chi & Wylie, 2014) have developed a framework for learning in tutorials that predicts the effectiveness of a learning intervention based on a hierarchy of learner activities. Passive tutorial designs involve students in no overt activity and require only that students pay attention to. The framework proposes that active learning involves students in some activity, and is likely to result in higher levels of engagement and so be more effective than passive learning conditions. Active learning tasks include simple note-taking, underlining or sentence completions. Constructive learning tasks are thought to be superior to active tasks and involve students in building new representations of concepts by, for example, drawing or explaining. Finally, interactive tasks involve collaboration and interaction between students in such a way that they answer each other’s questions and build on each other’s understandings. Interactive activities are purported to be the most effective. Chi and colleagues note that in early studies comparing attending tutoring sessions with observing them, the attendance versus observation conditions are confounded with interactive versus passive learning. To address this issue Chi et al. (2008) had observing students work in pairs to provide opportunities to interact. The tutees who observed a tutoring session and collaborated with other tutees learnt as well as those who attended the tutorials. Their learning was superior to that of students who observed alone and students who were given a text to work on in pairs. Muldner et al. (2014) similarly compared collaboratively observing a tutorial dialogue with attending a tutorial in person and likewise report no significant differences in learning. While the addition of a collaborative activity may enhance the effectiveness of learning, it does little to explain the effect of viewing a videoed dialogue. That is, it does not explain why individuals and collaborating pairs appear to learn more from watching dialogues than from watching monologues. Nor does it explain the nature of the impact of collaboration on learning. That is, it is not clear how the collaborative activity works to enhance learning. Craig et al. (2009) found that collaborative pairs performed better in long-term retention, suggesting that the collaboration may be a practice and consolidation effect. This would be entirely in accord with Bandura’s social cognitive theory which explains that observational learning is often refined and perfected through enactment (Bandura, 1986). From a practitioner’s point of view, if students can be set constructive and interactive tasks to perform during or shortly after vicarious learning through viewing recorded videos, then learning and performance may be enhanced. However, there may also be cognitive load (Chandler & Sweller, 1991), cost, and logistical implications of introducing such requirements. Additionally, likely that designing videos to enhance the likelihood of mental activity rather than mental passivity will enhance learning even if behavioural task demands are not placed on observers. Multiple

6 Learning by Watching Others Learn: Vicarious …

109

techniques for stimulating intellectual engagement and activity are discussed in the following sections.

Cognitive and Informational Interpretations of Vicarious Learning from Videoed Tutorials The cluster of cognitive and informational interpretations highlights the importance of observers’ cognitive processing in determining the learning gains. Central to this cluster of interpretations is the contention that observers and participants in tutorials should be cognitively, but not necessarily behaviourally, active. From this point of view, videoed tutorial dialogues provide rich information and multiple opportunities for observers to learn. The paragraphs that follow explain the empirical evidence that aligns with this cluster of interpretation and the techniques that are used in order to foster effective learning. Craig et al. (2006) suggest that tutoring dialogues encourage deeper thinking as deep questions are asked and addressed. Questioning and answering makes thinking visible (Collins, Brown, & Holum, 1991) and encourages the active construction of understanding (Gholson et al., 2009). Craig et al. (2006) manipulated the type of questions that were asked in videos of tutorial dialogues. Some observers watched videoed tutorials in which shallow (simple, factual, closed) questions were asked, and some watched tutorials where deep (complex, causal, predictive, judgmental, evaluation) questions were asked. They found that in-depth questioning was associated with superior learning. Chi et al. (2017) found no effect of tutor questions on learning instead, they propose that it is the tutees’ behaviour in dialogues that result in the advantage of dialogue videos over monologues. They provide evidence that observers attend to the tutees’ utterances more than to the tutors’ and suggest that the tutees express ideas in terms that observing students can comprehend as they are in a similar novice state or zone of proximal development (Chi, 2013). A related explanation for the superiority of observing videoed dialogues over observing videoed monologues may lie in the way discussions tend to begin. At the beginning of a conversation, participants explore and establish their shared knowledge (Isaacs & Clark, 1987; Tree & Mayer, 2008). They then use this vocabulary and modes of expression throughout their conversation. Therefore, when a tutor engages with a tutee, it is more likely that the common linguistic and conceptual ground established is shared by observing students rendering the dialogue more likely to be comprehensible than if the tutor does not engage in this initial exploration and adjustment in vocabulary and expression. When delivering a monologue, a tutor does not have an opportunity to engage in this process that establishes shared terminology. A further informational explanation for the superiority of witnessing dialogues is that dialogues make multiple perspectives available. This suggestion offered initially by, for example, Fox Tree and Mayer (2008), would imply that larger tutorial groups

110

S. Geertshuis et al.

could be more effective than a tutor-tutee dyad. Groups may generate several analogies, descriptors or examples while an individual speaker may offer a more limited array. It appears that it is not only potentially correct perspectives which are valuable, incorrect suggestions from students can also contribute to observers’ learning. Muller and colleagues (2007, 2008) propose that exposing wrong thinking and explaining why it is faulty can enhance learning and such exposure is more likely to be available in dialogues than monologues. Additionally, there is some evidence that watching videos of models who struggle is more effective than watching videos of students who are doing well, but findings and interpretations are mixed (Chan, Burtis, & Bereiter, 1997; Monaghan & Stenning, 1998; Schunk, Hanson, & Cox, 1987). This cluster of findings has important implications for practitioners seeking to implement vicarious learning utilising videos. Firstly, it highlights the need for videoed students’ active participation. It is the students who should be asking and answering questions as it is they, rather than the tutors, whom the video observers will attend to. It is they who will be using vocabularies that the observers can understand, and it is they who will voice perspectives and misconceptions that are likely to resonate with the observers. These findings also alert us to the risks inherent in scripting dialogue. A tutee using an educator’s voice will not convey the same information as a video captured from naturalistic settings. Muldner et al. (2014) note that most studies investigating vicarious learning from videos of tutorials have used scripted dialogues and a limited number of tutees and tutors. Scripting video is not only expensive and time-consuming, but it also runs the risk of researchers inadvertently eliminating valuable aspects of pedagogy. Muldner et al. (2014) advocate recording tutoring session and reusing existing video footage of monologues and dialogues to avoid most of these limitations. It is clear from the above discussion that students in videoed tutorials need to be actively discussing rather than passively listening. As outlined earlier in the chapter, it also seems that most tutors, for most of the time, tend to transmit information rather than elicit it. So students in tutorials are not engaging in the types of thinking and dialogue that are most effective. To illustrate, Shah, Evens, Michael, and Rovick (2002) analysed 28 hours of tutoring and found that tutees asked a non-closed question about every 18 minutes. There are no studies to date that compare learning from passively attending a poorly managed tutorial with vicarious learning from videos of high-quality tutorials. Neither, in the authors’ view, are there likely to be, but the results of such studies would certainly be very interesting. It may be that practitioners seeking to video tutorials will need to coach tutors and not assume that tutors have developed the skills to stimulate active discussion. Mayes (2015) and Muldner et al. (2014) advocate using natural language and offer a range of useful methods for stimulating task-directed discussions between students (See Table 6.1). Indeed, one of the advantages of videoed tutorials could well turn out to control over quality. Providing a single set of high-quality videos to all students may eliminate an uncontrolled variability in learning experiences.

6 Learning by Watching Others Learn: Vicarious …

111

Modelling Interpretations of Vicarious Learning from Videoed Tutorials Workers have drawn attention to the role of modelling in vicarious learning from videoed tutorials. These accounts propose that by observing the behaviour of the tutor and tutees in a tutorial, observers learn concepts, mental models, and skills. This learning is claimed to contribute directly to performance in assessments or indirectly by improving learning efficacy. Chi et al. (2017) note that students rarely have the opportunity to observe good learning skills in the classroom. It may be a relatively novel and valuable experience to see students ask questions and give substantial answers in videoed tutorials. It seems that observing modelled behaviour in tutorials can help students build generic active-learning strategies, including asking questions, elaborating on the information given, generating self-explanations, and the ability to discuss complex issues. For example, Craig, Gholson, Ventura, Graesser, and the Tutoring Research Group (2000) found that students learnt questioning skills by watching a videoed student ask deep questions. Chi et al. (2017) found that the number of questions asked by observers of each other correlated with the number of questions asked by the tutee in the video they watched. Similarly, the number of elaborative comments shared by the observers correlated with the number of tutees comments. Chi, Bassok, Lewis, Reimann, and Glaser (1989) noted that successful students produce double the number of self-explanations when compared with less successful students, and the tendency to produce self- explanations can be manipulated through modelling. Relatedly, Dineen et al. (1999) made recordings of students’ modelling discussion. Students who accessed these resources were more sophisticated participants in discussions, they provided more evidence or argument to substantiate their views, inferred from the provided materials and engaged more actively in discussions. The impact of modelling in videoed tutorials has been shown to influence learning and performance in a range of contexts. Braaksma, Rijlaarsdam, Van den Bergh, and van Hout-Wolters (2004) showed that students who had observed others engaged in writing tasks, that included a great deal of planning, engaged in more planning in their subsequent writing, than those who had learnt by practising. Groenendijk, Janssen, Rijlaarsdam, and Bergh (2013) demonstrated the process effects of observing creativity tasks. Rummel and Spada (2005) showed a video of collaboration amongst a small group and reported that observers developed their interactive, collaborative skills. Twyford and Craig (2017) found that the modelling of goalapproach and goal-avoid behaviours by students in videoed affected observers own goal orientations. Thus multiple studies have shown that observing positive role models who exhibit specific and constructive approaches to learning affects observers’ behaviour and attitude. This occurs without explicit instruction or reward. Such modelling extends well beyond simple mimicry, transferring to appropriate behaviours in different topics. It also extends temporally and situationally, well beyond the laboratory. The implications of this cluster of interpretations for practitioners are manifold. If students are to

112

S. Geertshuis et al.

become independent critical thinkers, capable of creative thinking and of defending a position, then they should not be asked to observe videos portraying students as passive, obedient, and compliant. Practitioners should avoid being preoccupied solely by a micro-focus on the exposition of the disciplinary content in their videos. Practitioners need to provide observers with role models of students who exhibit positive and constructive approaches to learning. Not just in their knowledge and intellectual arguments, but also interpersonal skills, their reactions to not knowing, uncertainty and challenge, and, as is covered again below, their enjoyment and enthusiasm.

Motivational and Affect-Based Explanations of Vicarious Learning from Videoed Tutorials A final contributory factor to the advantage of learning vicariously by watching videoed tutorials over learning by watching monologues is motivational. Several authors have suggested that watching dialogues is simply more engaging than watching a monologue. This is an important point but does not explain what features of dialogue are motivating and so engage students’ attention and willingness to devote effort to learning. This issue is explored below. Text is rated as having higher situational interest if it includes humans with whom the reader can identify (Hidi & Harackiewicz, 2000). Students may be more likely to attend to dialogues simply because they enjoy them more (or they are less boring) than observing a monologue. It is possible that observing tutorial dialogues motivates observers to learn by influencing their perceptions of the relevance, achievability, and importance of the topics discussed. Watching fellow students engage with concepts and content is likely to affect motivation by underlining the importance and relevance of particular concepts (Braaksma et al., 2004) and distinguish them from the mass of content in the curriculum as a whole. Additionally, a number of workers suggest that observing students learn builds observer feelings of their own learning self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986). In some circumstances, it seems that failure is more motivating than success. Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, and Vohs (2001) suggest that this is because failure has a poignancy or importance that success does not. They argue that it is more adaptive for us to attend to and invest efforts in avoiding threatening failures than to attend to continued successes. Chi et al. (2017) provide evidence that observers are more engaged after seeing a videoed tutee make a mistake. Bandura noted that observing others being rewarded or punished motivates the behaviours of observers in much the same way as if observers had experienced the outcomes personally. Bandura (1986) demonstrated the power of observational learning in stimulating the adoption of enduring emotional and attitudinal responses. To the extent that tutees in videos appear to be rewarded for learning, that is, they

6 Learning by Watching Others Learn: Vicarious …

113

are successful, enjoy their learning, and are excited by it, observers can be expected to mimic these positive emotions. Researchers emphasise the importance of similarity between observers and the observed (Braaksma, Rijlaarsdam, & Van den Bergh, 2002; Groenendijk et al. 2013). Mayes (2015) and Fowler and Mayes (1999) suggest that the potential effectiveness of a dialogue will depend on the degree to which the observers identify with the tutees that they are watching. Observers, it is suggested, develop a kind of empathy with tutees that they have a great deal in common with, and this is thought to drive learning (Cox et al., 1999). In the main, workers indicate that if the videoed students and the observers are similarly prepared/able/resourced, then the impact on learning is greater than if the models appear very different. The above summary suggests that the impact of motivation is largely on attention and effort. It indicates that practitioners developing videos of tutorials need to think carefully about how to retain observers’ interest. Practitioners should attempt to ensure that watching tutorials is an emotionally and intellectually positive and interesting experience. Using models that observers can identify with and giving them choice over what they watch is likely to help learners avoid mental passivity and boredom. Mayes (2015) takes this notion a step further proposing that practitioners use social media to enable students to like students’ discussions, to comment on their relevance and importance, and, ultimately, to curate content.

The Theory in Practice This section in the chapter builds on the previous analysis of the research literature. It exposes the practice-based wisdom developed during the authors’ efforts to apply the guidance gleaned from the literature. The authors have worked with a range of lecturers to create a series of video tutorial dialogues for students to use in addition to or, for departments that do not have tutorials, in the place of “live” tutorials across their faculty. They have completed four iterations in an educational design-based research project working largely with 1st-year undergraduate business students and their tutors (Geertshuis, Murdoch, Rix, & Liu, 2019). What they learned in the course of creating these videos is described below.

The Topic Choosing the correct topic for the videoed tutorial is essential as not all topics work well. One attempt at filming for a vicarious learning tutorial was based on what was, essentially, a process; a formulaic approach to solving a problem. While the topic was challenging to students, the step-by-step teaching of it did not lend itself to much interaction between the tutor and the tutee. There were a few questions about

114

S. Geertshuis et al.

details of the process, but no negotiation of meaning, no building of connections, no challenging of beliefs or understanding. For our other attempts, we carefully chose threshold concepts that were challenging for students. For students to grasp the concepts, they had to understand a variety of definitions and apply them to different situations. While the definitions were fixed, they were flexible in how they could be interpreted and applied. For some videos, students had to explore scenarios or situations and choose the rules to be applied. Usually, as long as a student could justify their application, their answers were acceptable. Their ability to reason convincingly was the measure of whether the student had grasped the concepts. Such topics provide scope for real discussion, negotiation of meaning, and room for students to be challenged by others and to challenge others, leading them to use deep questioning and higher order thinking. The potential for rich and meaningful dialogue is inherent to these types of topics. They provide students with the opportunity to create understanding and negotiate meaning, question people’s choices and justify their own decisions. In summary, in line with the literature, we found that topics that are difficult for tutees and that require them to negotiate meaning, question, make connections, and defend or challenge positions lead to the fruitful dialogues that are an essential part of successful vicarious learning as described in this chapter. It is better if the topics are not rigidly process-based or have only one application or one possible outcome. Ideally, the topics should be open to debate, contain multiple perspectives, be applicable in many different scenarios, and provide opportunities for students to discuss and negotiate genuinely. In feedback, one student pointed out “This is an amazing idea to have a videoed [sic] tutorial about one of the most significant and hard topics in the course”. Another stated, “Even when we attend tutorials, sometimes we… miss a few key points, so having the tutorial videoed is very helpful to revise key points”.

The Tutors Each of the tutors we worked with has many years of lecturing and tutoring experience and had opinions about how to execute tutorials. However, we noticed, as we had read in the literature, that the default for many tutors was lecturing at students rather than genuinely engaging with them. We discovered that resisting the temptation to lecture or explain in detail was very difficult for some tutors to overcome. However, some, with training in questioning and elicitation techniques and after watching themselves on video and realising how much they were talking, were able to make the shift and use more learner-centred strategies. The sessions that were most successful were those in which the tutors “handed over” the conversation, negotiations, and responsibility for the activities to the students. This allowed the tutors the freedom to monitor, prompt, question, encourage, elicit, and provide feedback on both content and learning behaviours

6 Learning by Watching Others Learn: Vicarious …

115

and strategies rather than shoulder the responsibility of being the sole conveyor of knowledge. It is our position that some tutors may need training in the kinds of teaching approaches that generate tutorial dialogue that warrants videoing.

The Tutees Our experiments with videoing tutorials involved different numbers of students; from individual to groups of four and then six. We capped it at six tutees for two reasons: ease of video and audio capture; and to replicate that “small group” feel of tutorials. Not only did we have different numbers of students participating in each trial, but we also experimented with students of different abilities. We noticed that factors such as willingness to participate, curiosity, willingness to experiment, low fear of failure, and ability to engage others in conversation seemed more indicative of a successful videoed tutorial session than knowledge of content. Students who displayed these qualities in the tutorial had a more enjoyable and successful learning experience. This enthusiasm and success transmitted well in the video. The learners who were active and asked questions seemed to elicit a positive response from observers, i.e. the observers of the video were invested in the tutees’ success; they wanted them to understand, to get to the correct answer. It seemed that the observers reacted favourably towards students they liked, who were active, or whom they could relate to. Feedback from one observer stated, “It was nice having students as they discuss what I would’ve thought…is correct, plus they ask questions I would be interested in too”. Low-achieving students did not consistently produce positive responses from observers. It seems that observers find it either frustrating or boring to watch people struggle with concepts they already understand. The same could be said for observing the very high-achieving students. Indeed, we would suggest that both high- and lowlevel students fail to engage in the kind of dialogue that produces negotiation of meaning, deep questions, and higher order thinking, but for different reasons; the weaker students cannot and the stronger ones do not need to. In choosing tutees for the videoed tutorial dialogues, it is important to select based on learning behaviour and to avoid the extremes in levels of subject knowledge.

The Preparation From our experience, we can say that the amount of preparation that goes into a successful videoed tutorial dialogue is considerable, and it takes longer than one might take for a “normal” tutorial. This is because there is an added layer to consider—how will everything appear on camera. This is not a consideration to be overlooked. Storyboarding, camera angles, numbers of cameras, the placement of

116

S. Geertshuis et al.

microphones for audio capture, lighting, the colours used on boards and materials, precise timing, planning exactly what the students will be doing and how you will get them to do it, what you will be doing, where you will stand, and so on, all need careful consideration and planning. One session we recorded was with a lecturer who did not plan any of these things because they “had done the tutorial a hundred times before”. The recording was not successful because what happens organically in a “live” tutorial will not immediately or easily translate onto video. In successful sessions, a lot of planning, design and student-free rehearsal went into the sessions. We would argue that the time spent preparing for these sessions is time well spent as the videos can be used over and over again. However, we have learnt that it is important not to begin a project with a lecturer unless they appreciate the importance of the initial investment in time.

The Dialogue After reading some initial literature around vicarious learning from tutorials and discussions, we considered scripting the dialogues in order to have greater control of the success of the video. However, we quickly rejected this approach as we wanted to capture authentic learning experiences. This necessitated the careful orchestrating of techniques (different levels of questioning, eliciting, prompting, monitoring, meaningful feedback both delayed and immediate) and activities (student-centred, collaborative, interactive, physical) that would result in the kinds of interactions that would produce rich dialogues and authentic exchanges. Moving away from the notion of scripting allowed us to capture the human side of our tutees—their humour, their struggles, and their triumphs—and fostered a learning environment that was natural and relaxed rather than focussed on sticking to a script. It also ensured that the language that was used was that of the students. It was their voice and lexicon born out of their current knowledge and understanding, not something imagined and fabricated by a tutor. The feedback from students confirms that this will help our videos resonate with observers.

The Videos Over the course of our experiments, we moved from using videos that were approximately the duration of a face-to-face tutorial of 30–40 minutes to using ones of 5–7 minutes. The shorter ones are, in our experience, much more valuable. We found that observers found it boring to sit through long videos and they were unlikely to do it. Adobe Premiere Pro, an application in the Adobe Creative Cloud Suite, was used to edit the videos. The video editor utilised the multi-camera video editing function, which time-synched the two different cameras and displayed different perspectives of

6 Learning by Watching Others Learn: Vicarious …

117

Fig. 6.1 Sample screenshot of videoed tutorial

the room. As a result, this captured various interactions between the students as well as the students to the tutor. Additional text and graphics were added to re-enforce the concepts and add context. Video titles were included in the introduction and provided information for the students to be able to identify concepts. The problem we encountered was how to distil all the content of a 50-minute tutorial into 5–7 minutes. The choice of the topic became important here. Threshold concepts that have different components are ideal. Our practice was to film an entire tutorial and then edit it into separate clips each beginning and ending with a new component. Filming entire tutorials and then editing them into smaller clips that are then placed on a Learning Management System (LMS) or YouTube channel has been a successful approach. It is important to provide an index or upload videos into specific weeks in an LMS so students can select just the videos they want to watch. We also provided transcripts of the audio in our videos in an effort to enhance accessibility for observers (Fig. 6.1).

Observer Activity We experimented only a little with observer activity, and this is an area for further exploration. However, from the few trials we did, we have learned that the observers need to be able to have control of what they watch (Do they watch the entire clip or just the sections that correspond to their learning needs?) how they watch (Do they stop, rewind, review?) and when they watch (Do they watch just before assessments?

118

S. Geertshuis et al.

Straight after lectures? Every week?). Giving students this control empowers them as learners. Feedback from students supports these ideas: “It was an impressive way to learn things by watching it. We can just repeat and repeat [sic]”. Another student noted, “I’ve found this very useful, as I am able to rewatch any parts over again if I still don’t understand”. We also discovered that it is preferable that the observers have something to do while watching. In one of the cases, the observers had to complete the same task (a mind map of the components and rules of a threshold concept) as the participants in the video. The task was given to them with the hope of keeping them focussed. However, we noticed that the observers watched the video and did very little with their mind maps while it was playing. But as soon as the video clip ended, without any prompting, the observers turned to each other and started working together to complete the task. This suggests that doing a collaborative task while or after watching a video clip could be something to be exploited as it creates opportunities for learning. Table 6.2 draws together the research and practice shared in this chapter to provide a summarising blueprint for practitioners.

Conclusion This chapter reveals substantial support for the notion that students can learn by observing videos of tutorials. Four possible explanations for the efficacy of vicarious participation in individual and small group learning were explored. They were: activity-based interpretations, informational interpretations, modelling interpretations, and motivational interpretations. Each interpretation was seen to have theoretical value and to have implications for practice. The authors’ practical experience of delivering vicarious learning from videos of tutorials was described and provided additional guidance to practitioners. In short, the evidence is that learning by watching videoed tutorials offers a powerful pedagogy that is scalable, efficacious, popular with students, and achievable using readily available technologies.

6 Learning by Watching Others Learn: Vicarious …

119

Table 6.2 Research-informed blueprint for videoed tutorials Task

Recommendation

Planning and preparation • Don’t imagine you will get it right the first time • Prepare, practice and do dry runs • Only work with people who have flexibility and availability Topic

• Make sure that a tutorial is the right vehicle for your learning—is the topic conceptual, complex, layered, ill-defined, contested, has multiple perspectives or values • Carefully select topics that are important and that students find difficult

Tutors

• Use tutors who ask deep questions and speak little • Have the tutor provide encouragement, as well as feedback

Tutees

• Train or select tutees who are able and constructive in their approach; that is, they ask deep questions and provide elaborative responses • Use tutees whom students will empathise with

Dialogue

• Use naturally produced dialogue of tutorials and orchestrate sessions carefully to ensure students produce rich discussions • Expose common errors in thinking (but not uncommon ones), providing prompt reasoned corrective information in response to errors and misconceptions • Use simple direct vocabulary in addition to technical terminology. Avoid vague hints as observers will not pick up on them • Pitch videos to students’ current not ideal level of understanding—you might need several students or several videos

Videos

• • • • •

Observer activity

• Make watching the video a human, vicariously social experience as well as an intellectual activity. Don’t be boring! • Give observing students something to do with the concepts taught in the videos. If they can work with a partner so much the better • Give observing students control, so they can stop, start, fast forward and, possibly, rate or comment on the videos

Keep the videos short Index them so students can watch what they want to watch Don’t over-edit and polish Take note of the other chapters in this book! Provide a script for observers who prefer to read as well as listen

Acknowledgements We would like to acknowledge the contribution of Terry Mayes and thank him for his comments on an early version of this chapter.

References Altbach, P. G., Reisberg, L., & Rumbley, L. E. (2019). Trends in global higher education: Tracking an academic revolution. Brill, UNESCO & Sense Publishers. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

120

S. Geertshuis et al.

Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5(4), 323–370. Bloom, B. S. (1984). The 2 sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational Researcher, 13(6), 4–16. Braaksma, M. A., Rijlaarsdam, G., & Van den Bergh, H. (2002). Observational learning and the effects of model-observer similarity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 405–415. Braaksma, M. A., Rijlaarsdam, G., Van den Bergh, H., & van Hout-Wolters, B. H. M. (2004). Observational learning and its effects on the orchestration of writing processes. Cognition and Instruction, 22(1), 1–36. Chan, C., Burtis, J., & Bereiter, C. (1997). Knowledge building as a mediator of conflict in conceptual change. Cognition and Instruction, 15(1), 1–40. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 293–332. Chi, M. T. (2013). Learning from observing an expert’s demonstration, explanations, and dialogues. In Expertise and skill acquisition: The impact of William G. Chase (pp. 1–27). Abingdon: Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203074541. Chi, M. T., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13(2), 145–182. Chi, M. T., Kang, S., & Yaghmourian, D. L. (2017). Why students learn more from dialogue-than monologue-videos: Analyses of peer interactions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 26(1), 10–50. Chi, M. T., Roy, M., & Hausmann, R. G. (2008). Observing tutorial dialogues collaboratively: Insights about human tutoring effectiveness from vicarious learning. Cognitive Science, 32(2), 301–341. Chi, M. T., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219–243. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. American Educator, 15(3), 6–11. Collins, A., Warnock, E. H., & Passafiume, J. J. (1975). Analysis and synthesis of tutorial dialogues. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 9, pp. 49–87). New York: Academic Press. Cooper, K. M., Ding, L., Stephens, M. D., Chi, M. T., & Brownell, S. E. (2018). A course-embedded comparison of instructor-generated videos of either an instructor alone or an instructor and a student. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 17(2),1–15. Cox, R., McKendree, J., Tobin, R., Lee, J., & Mayes, T. (1999). Vicarious learning from dialogue and discourse. Instructional Science, 27(6), 431–458. Craig, S. D., Chi, M. T., & VanLehn, K. (2009). Improving classroom learning by collaboratively observing human tutoring videos while problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 779–789. Craig, S. D., Driscoll, D. M., & Gholson, B. (2004). Constructing knowledge from dialog in an intelligent tutoring system: Interactive learning, vicarious learning, and pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(2), 163–183. Craig, S. D., Gholson, B., Brittingham, J. K., Williams, J. L., & Shubeck, K. T. (2012). Promoting vicarious learning of physics using deep questions with explanations. Computers & Education, 58(4), 1042–1048. Craig, S. D., Gholson, B., Ventura, M., & Graesser, A. C. (2000). Overhearing dialogues and monologues in virtual tutoring sessions: Effects on questioning and vicarious learning. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 11, 242–253. Craig, S. D., Sullins, J., Witherspoon, A., & Gholson, B. (2006). The deep-level-reasoningquestion effect: The role of dialogue and deep-level-reasoning questions during vicarious learning. Cognition and Instruction, 24(4), 565–591. Dineen, F., Mayes, J. T., & Lee, J. (1999). Vicarious learning through capturing task-directed discussions. ALT-J, 7(3), 33–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/0968776990070304.

6 Learning by Watching Others Learn: Vicarious …

121

Driscoll, D. M., Craig, S. D., Gholson, B., Ventura, M., Hu, X., & Graesser, A. C. (2003). Vicarious learning: Effects of overhearing dialog and monologue-like discourse in a virtual tutoring session. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 29(4), 431–450. Fowler, C. J. H., & Mayes, J. T. (1999). Learning relationships from theory to design. ALT-J, 7(3), 6–16. Fox Tree, J. E., & Mayer, S. A. (2008). Overhearing single and multiple perspectives. Discourse Processes, 45(2), 160–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530701792867. Geertshuis, S. A., Murdoch, O., Rix, N., & Liu, Q. (2019, July 2). The challenges, changes and opportunities offered by vicarious tutoring. Presented at the Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia. Next Generation, Higher Education: Challenges, Changes and Opportunities, Auckland. Gholson, B., Witherspoon, A., Morgan, B., Brittingham, J. K., Coles, R., Graesser, A. C., … Craig, S. D. (2009). Exploring the deep-level reasoning questions effect during vicarious learning among eighth to eleventh graders in the domains of computer literacy and Newtonian physics. Instructional Science, 37(5), 487–493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9069-2. Graesser, A. C., D’Mello, S., & Cade, W. (2011). Instruction based on tutoring. In R. E. Mayer & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 408–426). New York: Routledge. Graesser, A. C., D’Mello, S., & Person, N. (2009). Meta-knowledge in tutoring. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 361–382). Abingdon: Routledge. Graesser, A. C., & McNamara, D. (2010). Self-regulated learning in learning environments with pedagogical agents that interact in natural language. Educational Psychologist, 45(4), 234–244. Graesser, A. C., Person, N. K., & Magliano, J. P. (1995). Collaborative dialogue patterns in naturalistic one-to-one tutoring. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9(6), 495–522. Groenendijk, T., Janssen, T., Rijlaarsdam, G., & van den Bergh, H. (2013). The effect of observational learning on students’ performance, processes, and motivation in two creative domains. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279. 2011.02052.x. Hattie, J. (2005). The paradox of reducing class size and improving learning outcomes. International Journal of Educational Research, 43(6), 387–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2006.07.002. Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London, UK: Routledge. Hidi, S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: A critical issue for the 21st century. Review of Educational Research, 70(2), 151–179. Isaacs, E. A., & Clark, H. H. (1987). References in conversation between experts and novices. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 116(1), 26–37. Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies. London, UK: Routledge. Lee, J. (2010). Vicarious learning from tutorial dialogue. In M. Wolpers, P. A. Kirschner, M. Scheffel, S. Lindstaedt, & V. Dimitrova (Eds.), Sustaining TEL: From innovation to learning and practice (pp. 524–529). Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer. Mayes, J. (2015). Still to learn from vicarious learning. E-Learning and Digital Media, 12(3–4), 361–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/2042753015571839. McNamara, D. S. (2004). SERT: Self-explanation reading training. Discourse Processes, 38(1), 1–30. Monaghan, P., & Stenning, K. (1998). Learning to solve syllogisms by watching others’ learning. HCRC Publications, University of Edinburgh. Muldner, K., Lam, R., & Chi, M. T. (2014). Comparing learning from observing and from human tutoring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(1), 69–85. Muller, D. A., Bewes, J., Sharma, M. D., & Reimann, P. (2008). Saying the wrong thing: Improving learning with multimedia by including misconceptions. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 24(2), 144–155.

122

S. Geertshuis et al.

Muller, D. A., Sharma, M. D., Eklund, J., & Reimann, P. (2007). Conceptual change through vicarious learning in an authentic physics setting. Instructional Science, 35(6), 519–533. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1988). Teaching and practicing thinking skills to promote comprehension in the context of group problem solving. Remedial and Special Education, 9(1), 53–59. Rummel, N., & Spada, H. (2005). Learning to collaborate: An instructional approach to promoting collaborative problem solving in computer-mediated settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 201–241. Schober, M. F., & Clark, H. H. (1989). Understanding by addressees and overhearers. Cognitive Psychology, 21(2), 211–232. Schunk, D. H., Hanson, A. R., & Cox, P. D. (1987). Peer-model attributes and children’s achievement behaviors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(1), 54–61. Shah, F., Evens, M., Michael, J., & Rovick, A. (2002). Classifying student initiatives and tutor responses in human keyboard-to-keyboard tutoring sessions. Discourse Processes, 33(1), 23–52. Solheim, O. J., & Opheim, V. (2019). Beyond class size reduction: Towards more flexible ways of implementing a reduced pupil–teacher ratio. International Journal of Educational Research, 96, 146–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2018.10.008. Twyford, J., & Craig, S. D. (2017). Modeling goal setting within a multimedia environment on complex physics content. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 55(3), 374–394. van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher–student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 271–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10 648-010-9127-6. VanLehn, K. (2011). The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems, and other tutoring systems. Educational Psychologist, 46(4), 197–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/004 61520.2011.611369.

Chapter 7

Video and the Pedagogy of Expansive Learning: Insights from a Research-intervention in Engineering Education Philip Moffitt and Brett Bligh Abstract Video is used in pedagogy in diverse ways and celebrated in scholarship for its sensuous and multimodal potential. Yet its use rarely challenges established pedagogical goals, and dominant research narratives seek to analytically isolate video or document its application in bounded tasks. In this chapter, by contrast, we scrutinise the use of video across a wider pedagogical process—an expansive learning process in which participants strive to overcome existing practices and construct culturally novel knowledge. We analyse data from a Change Laboratory project in an undergraduate engineering setting. A joint team of learners, lecturers and institutional managers collaborated in a series of task-based workshops to develop new ways for learners to collaborate with external engineers, in ways previously obstructed by institutional technologies and policies. Video played a range of roles, especially when participants described problems, negotiated procedures and imagined future ways of working. Importantly, video use oscillated as participants’ goals shifted and developed, and the chapter is thus structured to examine video use longitudinally throughout the pedagogical process. The narrative also reflects on how participants’ use of video diverged, sometimes substantially, from our prior design expectations. We conclude by highlighting the importance of conceptualising video as part of a wider constellation of mediating artefacts, whose alignment is consequential; recognising the validity of learners’ goals where they regulate unanticipated uses of video; and understanding how people build relationships with video artefacts cumulatively, through sequences of interaction and meaning-making. Keywords Video · Pedagogy · Education · Expansive learning · Learning · Teaching · Learner · Reflection · Video pedagogy

P. Moffitt (B) Royal School of Military Engineering, Chatham, UK e-mail: [email protected] B. Bligh Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 D. S. P. Gedera and A. Zalipour (eds.), Video Pedagogy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-4009-1_7

123

124

P. Moffitt and B. Bligh

Introduction Consider three examples of video use in higher education. Undergraduate mechanical and electrical engineers experiment with water pumps in lab-groups, recording footage of their own labour to aid in developing their diagnostic technique; during visits to regional wastewater treatment sites, they create diary videos, exposing problematic aspects of their learning activity to themselves and others; and later, while on industrial placement, they record and analyse footage of vocational practices that deviate from curriculum content, which they share online for discussion in their cohort. Even considered individually, each of these actions has considerable merit: those who generate and analyse the video footage, in each case, use it— through performance analysis, reflection, or group critique, respectively—as a means for developing their practice. Yet such a fragmentary conception seems strangely limiting. Might there not be a wider potential for conceptualising video-mediated educational practices as moments within an ongoing trajectory of learning—linking together different practices within an overarching strategy, and thereby opening up a more radical potential for shaping pedagogical processes? It is towards this question, and the illustration of one such pedagogical strategy and the roles played by video within it, that the present chapter is oriented. In recent years, examples of the kind we suggest above—even where considered as isolated or fragmentary actions—have helped challenge, in the educational research literature, a long-standing view of video as an object of ‘detached’, replicable analysis (Ip & Morrison, 2001; Xiao & Mackenzie, 2004). Video is instead increasingly positioned, within both research scholarship and pedagogical praxis, in ways that go ‘beyond representation … to evoke, to communicate multimodally in a sensuous way, and to affect viewers’ (Vannini, 2015, p. 231). Teachers use recordings in professional development programmes, to reflect on ‘critical incidents’ within classroom interaction footage (Rozario & Ortlieb, 2015). Online sharing allows discussion of pedagogical implications across practitioner-research communities (Pea & Hoffert, 2007). Meanwhile, as our opening examples highlight, students take advantage of lower barriers to digital video-production: incorporating video into their learning practices as a means for peer-dialogue, collaboration and even societal activism (Holmes, Anastopoulou, Schaumburg, & Mavrikis, 2018). Across this broad range of examples, the importance of video is located in its function as a mediating artefact: the people using video, how they use it and what they use it for are closely woven together. Appreciating that close relationship is important and underpins our approach in this chapter, which contrasts with a more common impulse to focus more narrowly on intrinsic or technological ‘properties’ and attendant opportunities for novel ‘uses’ of video. Yet considering the different aspects of such mediated relationships allows us to notice that, in the literature, impressive methodological innovation with regard to people (the range of practitioners and students becoming involved) and mechanisms of use (generating opportunities to explore perspectives about diverse topics) are seldom accompanied by innovative pedagogical goals. With honourable exceptions, most uses of video

7 Video and the Pedagogy of Expansive …

125

explicitly for ‘education’ or ‘learning’ accompany iterative rather than ruptural pedagogical change: attempting to re-mediate existing curriculum objectives under the close direction of teachers, or teacher-educators, and remaining oriented towards individual student outcomes. A separate literature on video-activism, conversely, indicates a potential for pursuing less circumscribed and predetermined objectives, yet such work is usually neither oriented towards ‘learning’ nor linked to explicitly ‘educational’ scholarship. In this chapter, we wish to explore the use of video for purposes that are simultaneously emancipatory and conceptualised as ‘learning’. We build on the sensuous and affective view of video projected in contemporary educational literature, but we investigate people collectively using video to problematise and challenge their own daily realities, not to acquire predetermined knowledge and skills. Doing so within institutionalised education settings is challenging. Our conceptualisation of ‘learning’, elaborated below, follows Engeström’s (1987) model of expansive learning. Like Engeström (2016), our interest in people coming together, shaping the direction of their learning and producing culturally new forms of knowledge and practice, expresses our serious dissatisfaction with much actual classroom learning. Yet (unlike Engeström) we are unwilling to relinquish formal education as a site for research and practice: we remain interested in how students might learn differently, with teachers and others, in higher education institutions. In this chapter, we seek to explore some of the roles that video might play within such endeavours. In what follows, we elaborate a worked example of video use in a process of expansive learning, based on data from a larger underlying project. That wider project involved a genuine effort in a definite ‘higher education’ setting—albeit an unconventional one—at interweaving personal development with institutional transformation. The work, which formed the basis of the first author’s doctoral study, is previously unpublished, though an account focussed on participants’ development of agency is available as a PhD thesis (Moffitt, 2019). One core insight from Engeström’s (2016) work is the need to appreciate learning as an unfolding process: people learning transition between different actions, undertaken for different purposes at different times, with the ‘meaning’ of their learning derived holistically from across the sequence (p. 13). Correspondingly, in what follows, we emphasise how video was used at different moments throughout the sequence of a research-intervention, rather than focussing on isolated instances of use. The methodology of the project we describe was the Change Laboratory (Virkkunen & Newnham, 2013). Usually described as a research-intervention methodology, we shall position it as a ‘pedagogy of expansive learning’, given its emphasis on how the latter might be provoked by a researcher-interventionist. The episodes we analyse emphasise how people might use video footage at different moments within such a pedagogy. Our account focusses on the use of video by particular people, pursuing particular goals and motives at particular times, in ways that contribute to an overarching trajectory of expansive learning. We build on important conceptions from contemporary literature, such as where video is argued to allow ‘close analyses of ordinary practices (Broth, Laurier, & Mondada, 2014), to mitigate the ‘deadening effects’

126

P. Moffitt and B. Bligh

of less sensually or sociologically charged data (Vannini, 2015), and to enable the examination of problematic conflict in ways which ‘audio recording, thick observations or even interviews would not capture’ (Harris, 2016). Yet our perspective is explicitly mediational and processual. Rather than fixating on some aspect of video and exploring the attendant utility for pedagogy, we describe a pedagogical process and explore the different roles that video played throughout—including emphasising where those roles were unexpected or problematic, and where the usefulness of video seemed to reach particular limits.

The Social Situation of the Project The project we draw on was motivated by a desire to address persistent practice dilemmas in a UK higher education setting. The Royal School of Military Engineering in Chatham, Kent, has deep connections with the UK defence establishment, and students are seconded military personnel, yet it categorically provides higher education, not solely military training—with our research site being an undergraduate Bachelors in Engineering (BEng(Hons)) programme. One pole of the visible practice dilemma was an increasingly widespread perception that, to respond to complex, authentic problems, military engineers need to collaborate with external, often non-defence, engineering specialists at the moment and at the location where the need arises. The other pole was that such ‘boundarycrossing’ collaboration is circumscribed by security-restricted computer terminals and policies mandating that expertise is sought from approved sources. The situation, in our view, is a microcosm of wider professional and sectoral issues; yet it was rendered unusually visible in the context of the programme, which specifically emphasises critical thinking, reflection on expertise, and the development of future-oriented problem-solving skills. Prior to the project, in a situation probably reflecting widespread professional practice, the dilemma was semi-regularly resolved sub rosa: students used their personal technologies to collaborate with their ‘mates’ (personal/social/professional contacts), while supervisors turned a blind eye. The initial idea for the project was to bring together a range of stakeholders to address this dilemma more satisfactorily. Typically, within military education settings, students are the object of change, rather than its subjects—with educational innovation implemented top-down over lengthy timescales (Moffitt, 2019). For this project, we wished to provide students the opportunity to develop themselves as nascent military engineers through working with others to nurture culturally new military engineering practices. Those ‘others’ participating in the project would include lecturers, whose motivation was to keep up-to-date with technologyenhanced-learning for professional development purposes, and military managers, who voiced enthusiasm for understanding alternative approaches to strategy development. The fact that these people were keen to participate, it should be borne in mind, reflected widespread prior recognition of the need for change.

7 Video and the Pedagogy of Expansive …

127

Several additional roles within the project were taken by the present authors. The first author, a teaching-focussed lecturer in the local setting, led the project as part of their studies in a part-time PhD programme at another institution (Lancaster University). The first author thus had multiple roles in the project: as the ‘interventionist’ leading sessions, as one of several lecturers from the Royal School of Military Engineering participating in the project alongside managers and students, and as a PhD student at Lancaster. The second author, an academic from Lancaster who acted as doctoral supervisor for the underlying project, worked alongside the first author to advise on the design and development of the work. The overall description of the project, including how the first author led the research-intervention as an insider-researcher and participants’ eventual ‘solutions’ to the practice dilemma, are described elsewhere (Moffitt, 2019). In the account that follows, which is jointly produced, we are concerned to map how video contributed to the way in which the project unfolded pedagogically, based both on the data collected within the underlying project and reflections on our experiences as ‘instructional designers’ throughout the process. Our motivation to use video stemmed from a recognition that the project would need to mediate the experiences and vantage points of quite disparate participants. Yet we quickly realised that our challenges would be wider than simply supporting interpersonal group collaboration. Addressing the practice dilemmas we faced would require, among other things, bridging formal systems of military engineering education and external, vernacular practices; engaging with external knowledge in a variety of forms, including those openly contested on the internet and those commercially commoditised; and harnessing challenging discussions about the wider purposes of military engineers and their professional domain. These are all examples of some of the most difficult issues at the horizon of the contemporary scholarship on ‘learning’, reflecting precisely the kinds of conflicted situations that might drive cycles of what Engeström (2016) has called expansive learning. That concept had significant influence on our project’s design and analysis, and for that reason some abbreviated background information will be necessary to contextualise the empirical examples of video use that follow.

Conceptualising the Mediation of Expansive Learning The concept of expansive learning emerges from the tradition of activity theory (Blunden, 2010), a long-standing approach to understanding human practice widely used in empirical studies of higher education (Bligh & Flood, 2017; Gedera & Williams, 2016). Among other things, activity theory: • distinguishes between activities (sustained, collective human projects) and actions (the time-bound pursuit of concrete goals meaningful within activities);

128

P. Moffitt and B. Bligh

• highlights that the activities of human subjects are oriented towards objects, material items onto which they project meanings and from which they derive motivation; • draws attention to how human activity is mediated by artefacts, other items which come between subjects and their objects to form tripartite relationships; • emphasises that activities develop historically, with current forms arising from antecedents and further developing into new forms; and • locates the engine of development as contradictions within activity that subjects, who experience them as dilemmas, strive to overcome. Within that tradition, expansive learning is a concept developed by Engeström (1987) to characterise ruptures in activity where acute contradictions are resolved by subjects qualitatively transforming the object—a necessarily collective process that involves going beyond given knowledge and constructing culturally novel ideas and practices. Engeström (2016) suggests that such an understanding of learning is crucial, since societal challenges increasingly require subjects to go beyond the acquisition of predetermined knowledge (the typical understanding of ‘learning’). For expansive learning to occur, Engeström suggests, a cyclical movement is required; one that encompasses expansive learning actions of the following ideal-types (adapted from Engeström, 2016, pp. 47–48): 1. Questioning: criticising or rejecting aspects of established practice; 2. Analysis: investigating, representing and explaining the present situation, via: a. Historical analysis: appreciating its evolution from antecedents; and b. Actual-empirical analysis: understanding it systemically and relationally; 3. Modelling: constructing an explanatory, simplified models to address the present situation; 4. Examination: exploring proposed models to establish their dynamics, potential and limitations; 5. Implementation: rendering models concrete by applying them in practice; 6. Process reflection: evaluating and critiquing the learning process; 7. Consolidation and generalisation: embedding models as new forms of practice. While expansive learning does occur ‘naturally’, a desire to stimulate it underpins the emerging research field of ‘formative intervention’ (Engeström, 2016). As already established, the underlying project described in this chapter used the Change Laboratory—a prominent formative intervention methodology only occasionally used in higher education (Bligh & Flood, 2015). A Change Laboratory research-intervention generally involves groups of around 20 participants, who meet periodically in taskbased workshops (Engeström, 2007). We characterise the approach as a pedagogy of expansive learning, since it involves interventionists designing a microcosm for stimulating expansive learning and participating in the process (cf. Virkkunen & Newnham, 2013). Yet, along with an expanded object and newly constructed activity, a central outcome of expansive learning is participants’ transformative agency. For

7 Video and the Pedagogy of Expansive …

129

this reason, the interventionists’ design does not mechanically determine participants’ action; an unfolding deviation from design is both anticipated within the methodology and actively monitored by interventionists as an indicator of nascent agency that might be nurtured. A comprehensive description of the methodology is beyond the scope of this chapter. Instead, we explicate two specific issues of import for the subsequent narrative. The first concerns dual-stimulation tasks, a central knowledge-production method derived from Vygotsky’s experimental work (Wertsch, 2007). Dual-stimulation involves introducing a problem (‘first-stimulus’) that subjects perceive as conflicting, or solution-less, and an artefact (‘second-stimulus’) that subjects use to address that problem, thereby increasing their volition (Sannino, 2015). In Change Laboratory task-designs, those stimuli are supplemented by other components: ‘mirror-data’ (representational materials illustrating practice problems), direction on social organisation (for example, requests to work in sub-groups followed by a plenary) and documenting and recording mechanisms (Virkkunen & Newnham, 2013). Video footage from various sources is a common form of ‘mirror-data’ within such tasks, while video cameras are a common mechanism for ‘recording’. In Vygotskyan experiments, dual-stimulation tasks are used to investigate the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD): the area beyond subjects’ independent problem-solving ability where they can only work with cultural assistance (Wertsch, 2007, pp. 181–182). In the Change Laboratory, analogously, those tasks are designed to assist subjects pursuing difficult goals, such that they together inhabit and explore the ZPD of their collective systems of activity while exerting and further developing their own agency. Instructional design within the Change Laboratory involves designing tasks such that their goals, towards which the first-stimulus directs subjects, relate to the expansive learning actions listed above (proceeding from questioning). Indeed, one source of the power of the Change Laboratory, as a methodology, derives from its juxtaposition of expansive learning with dual-stimulation (see Moffitt, 2019, p. 84 for a tabulated example). Another is that task-designs are cumulative; frameworks built by participants themselves form second-stimuli for subsequent tasks, and session video recordings are often re-used later as mirror-data. The second issue requiring further explication is our conceptualisation of artefactmediation. A mediational view, as discussed above, conceptually locates artefacts between subjects and objects in active, tripartite relationships. Figure 7.1 presents a version of Engeström’s well-known triangular ‘activity system’ model. As the second author has previously written: That model visually depicts a subject-object system mediated by interlocking artefacts (whether more or less materially tangible), divisions of labour (whether by expertise or authority) and rules (whether or not explicitly recognised). Engeström’s model is widely used for conceptualising [activity], whether for analysing a single ‘system’ or interactions between several. Those analyses typically foreground contradictions, unfolding relationships between systemic elements that support and undermine each other. Contradictions are understood as drivers for change: they are manifest as subjective dilemmas that people try to address, with varying degrees of success, thereby altering attendant forms of collective activity. (Bligh & Flood, 2017, p. 130)

130

P. Moffitt and B. Bligh

Artefact (originally termed “instrument”)

Object

Subject

Rules

Community

Outcome

Division of labour

Fig. 7.1 The triangular model of an activity system (Adapted from [Engeström, 1987, p. 78])

Table 7.1 Relations between artefacts and objects (based on Engeström, 1990, p. 188) Conception of artefact

Relation to object

What-artefacts A means for subjects to directly pursue their object

Identifying and describing objects, including when attempting to construct ‘solutions’ to problems

How-artefacts A means for subjects to understand how to achieve their object

Guiding processes and procedures on, within or between objects

Why-artefacts A means for subjects to explain their object

Diagnosing or explaining the properties or behaviour of objects

Where-to-artefacts A means to model and envision the object

Imagining potential futures for objects

In the Change Laboratory methodology such a view of active, tripartite relationships has significant implications for instructional design: when interventionists provide mediating artefacts (such as ‘second-stimuli’) for subjects to use, the aim is not that subjects focus on those artefacts, but rather that they use them in mediational ways while focussing on the task (Sannino, 2015). Thus, when considering video in the examples that follow, it is necessary to avoid considering it in isolation. To address this problem, we use a fourfold schema, developed by Engeström (1990, p. 188), which conceptualises mediating artefacts in relation to objects by highlighting ‘what’, ‘why’, ‘how’ and ‘where-to’ relationships. Table 7.1 outlines that schema, which we use to describe the intended and actual use of video artefacts in the examples that follow.

7 Video and the Pedagogy of Expansive …

131

Using Video Footage in a Change Laboratory Project In this section we illustrate how video can contribute to an ongoing trajectory of learning and development. Given our processual emphasis, we structure the section to illustrate how video was used in the context of different expansive learning actions. Given our pedagogical emphasis, we consider, in each case, both the intention behind the task people were working on and what was achieved in practice. Given our mediational emphasis, we deploy the vocabulary outlined in Table 7.1 to describe the relationships between video, as an artefact, and the emerging object of the expansive learning activity. Video cameras were near-ubiquitous during project sessions, partially for research data collection. Given our current focus on pedagogy, however, we shall emphasise only where footage was used subsequently by participants, and where video was recorded specifically for in-session use.

1. Questioning Inviting participants to criticise established practice at the outset of a project is challenging, often contravening local norms and jarring with participants’ expectations (Virkkunen & Newnham, 2013). The established practices we wished participants to question—wherein they were required to follow prescriptive policies and use security-restricted devices in situations where doing so was frustrating—were wellestablished in the local practice setting (see the section The social situation of the project, above). Our initial instructional priorities were to illustrate practice problems (we had in mind problems that would invite the sub rosa solutions we described earlier), since we presumed participants would have disparate experiences of those problems; to legitimate open criticism of those problems, especially where those with different roles and military ranks were co-present; and to foster transformative agency by provoking emotionally ‘felt’ reactions (cf. Sannino, 2015). We convened separate sessions for students, lecturers and military managers, to nurture initial expressions of critique, before bringing participants together in a plenary (Moffitt, 2019, p. 85). Our instructional script—our strategy of intentions and resources for sessions, formally documented yet flexibly deployed in practice—involved deploying tasks (first-stimulus) asking participants to identify problems in learning practices, using paper workbooks (second-stimulus) containing diagrammatic templates. Video was used as mirror-data. We drew inspiration from prior interventions using footage to encourage all participants—students, lecturers and managers— to accept that practice problems exist (cf. Farhangi, 2018, who videoed examples of teacher-student miscommunication), and that they should be considered from different vantage points (cf. Virkkunen, Newnham, Nleya, & Engeström, 2012, who recorded interviews with marginalised students and showed them to teacherparticipants). Ethnographic video data of students’ routine work with infrastructure engineering systems was recorded prior to the initial sessions, by the interventionist

132

P. Moffitt and B. Bligh

and students themselves (Fig. 7.2). Although doing so was labour-intensive, the resulting resource was, as elaborated below, very useful subsequently. Excerpts for use in the initial sessions were selected by the interventionist. The footage (an example of established practices on the course that participants might come to question—in this case, showing difficulties encountered when students diagnosed and repaired a water distribution system) was intended to serve as a what-artefact: provoking participants to notice and describe the object on which they would be working within the intervention. Encouragingly, many manifestations of critique and resistance arose in the separate sessions (Moffitt, 2019, pp. 130–143). Criticism, for example, focussed on frustration with policy, concerns that course practices were ‘isolated’ and artificially individualistic, and the sense of uncertainty about rule-breaking. Those expressions remained evident in the plenary, one student asserting to the group that: … it [video footage] showed how much expertise we’ve needed … this stuff is hard to argue with really … it shows we can’t just do it in a bubble, we need to either get hold of experts or get better at this ourselves ….

While some of our overall instructional goals were realised, video was nonetheless used in ways that deviated from our plan. Our intention, for example, that mirror-data would serve as a what-artefact directing attention to the object was only partially realised: critique was primarily oriented at the (poor) attainment of curriculum objectives, rather than at problematising what people were actually doing. Participants proceeded to identify systemic practice problems—adopting video as a how-artefact—notwithstanding that the object of activity was imprecisely conceived. With reference to the triangular activity system (Fig. 7.1), participants directed their attention more towards artefacts and rules, and the tensions between them, than to the object of activity. We came to believe that the design of the task workbooks (secondstimulus) perhaps encouraged this focus on broader, systemic issues. That observation highlights the importance of recognising how artefacts form constellations within task-designs, perhaps with unintended consequences.

Fig. 7.2 Participants creating and interpreting video footage

7 Video and the Pedagogy of Expansive …

133

2a. Historical Analysis Historical analysis involves participants exploring how past developments led to the current situation, thereby exposing some ‘underlying causes’ of those issues highlighted during questioning (Virkkunen & Newnham, 2013, p. 84). We devoted one session specifically to this action, jointly involving students, lecturers and managers. Our instructional priorities were to divulge the historical development of institutional practice and link it to changes in the wider work contexts of military engineers; to engage all participants, who would have been involved to different extents because of their roles, together in mapping the practice history; and to provoke more targeted discussion of the object of activity. Tasks (first-stimuli) required all participants to identify ‘main problems’ in a number of examples of historically embedded practices, including learning to design and manage built engineering infrastructure. Participants identified how problems in activity had arisen through time, while frameworks (second-stimuli) included a representation of the activity system, developed within prior discussion, and a blank ‘timeline’ template. Published formative interventions use video in historical analysis confrontationally. Clot’s (2009, pp. 299–301) Clinic of Activity approach, for example, involves individual participants being filmed working in difficult situations; then working individually with researchers to analyse extracted ‘traces’ of their practice (called ‘simple autoconfrontation’); before being paired with other participants to analyse each other’s traces (‘crossed autoconfrontation’). ‘We rediscover each time’, notes Clot, ‘that the subjects at work carry history and experience that an observer from the outside easily confuses with automatisms and routine’ (p. 299). Importantly, Clot’s use of video serves as a why-artefact: diagnosing the object. Like Clot, we aimed to confront participants with their own experiences, yet we could only produce video traces of students’ practices, reflections on how those were experienced, and consideration of the wider practice context; and we could only present those to all participants collectively. We utilised video mirror-data excerpted from our student-practice footage (described previously); from interviews with selected students from previous cohorts (which we created specifically); and from pre-packaged materials showing scenarios of military hospitals, water and wastewater treatment plants, airfields and electrical power generation for humanitarian and warfighting tasks in Afghanistan, South Sudan and Sierra Leone. The latter were taken from an in-house archive of past and present teaching materials; excerpts were selected to illustrate historically changing circumstances and priorities. In the session, participants recognised that practice problems were long-standing and, importantly, came to relate the criticisms they had voiced in previous sessions more explicitly to the object of activity. One military manager, for example, speculated that the real object of activity had for some time been to maintain a ‘rite of passage’: …it’s [video footage] embarrassing really for us [managers]… we’re still stuck in the past with some of this [expletive] we’ve been talking about too… I mean the [learning

134

P. Moffitt and B. Bligh

programmes] that we’ve delivered on that [video footage] … the same [expletive] year after year after year… it’s like a rite of passage… to put up with the same old [expletive] ….

As before, however, participants also used the footage in unanticipated ways. For example, students repeatedly became fixated on the artefacts of activity: focussing on obsolete-looking or otherwise problematic tools, such as UK Ministry of Defence terminals, and suggesting that they be replaced with new alternatives, including social media, online messaging communication and web video, none of which could be accessed on sanctioned defence platforms. As instructional designers we could see that these problematic conditions likely prefigured tertiary contradictions (between historically embedded activity and new, culturally more advanced forms of activity), arising from participants’ desire ‘to use an advanced method to achieve an objective’ (Gedera, 2016, p. 58), even though we had not emphasised that issue in our taskdesign. Once again, video was being used partially as a how-artefact, notwithstanding that doing so was not part of our instructional intention at this stage in the project.

2b. Actual-Empirical Analysis In actual-empirical analysis the instructional priority is to assist participants to gradually shift their attention to the systemic: to move from considering particular practice problems to establishing the wider context in which those problems arise. In other projects, video recordings of interviews (Engeström, Rantavuori, & Kerosuo, 2013, p. 96) or teaching practice (Teräs, Lasonen, & Nuottokari, 2014, p. 42) have served to situate process failure or cultural tension. Such footage is similar to that we used for historical analysis, yet the attendant task-goals and other stimuli are different—reinforcing how the same video can play different mediating roles. Actual-empirical analysis of current programme activity, with a particular focus on programme elements concerning the delivery of built infrastructure, was the instructional focus for one session. Our instructional script involved using video to serve as mirror-data for first-stimulus tasks requiring participants to analyse, in turn, the extent of alignment between particular actions and overall activity, and systemic contradictions within activity. Second-stimuli included generic diagrams illustrating contradictions in activity systems, while ‘disturbance diaries’ (cf. Virkkunen & Newnham, 2013, pp. 88–89), which we had asked participants to keep prior to the session, were used as additional mirror-data alongside video resources. We intended participants to use video as a how-artefact, to understand typical processes and procedures of learning to design and manage built infrastructure on the programme—the first time we had actually intended them to do so. In practice, we had largely achieved our instructional objectives by the end of the session, though participants deviated from the planned script at the outset. While we anticipated participants using the video to study processes and procedures, as the actual action unfolded they first noticed and focussed on hitherto unremarked commonalities between their current practice problems and student comments from

7 Video and the Pedagogy of Expansive …

135

previous cohorts—using video footage as a what-artefact to corroborate the need for change. One student, for example, made the following statement: … that dude on the [video footage] getting [interviewed] there he wouldn’t have known any better than us a year ago … what he was saying about [platforms] being wrong it’s what we were saying when we got interviewed, exactly the same … he’s showing us the same problems we’ve got on it [video footage], it’s not just us!

Such action proved important, despite it being a deviation from our instructional script: participants seemingly felt a need to substantiate to themselves that aspects of social structure (as opposed to more tangible forms of mediation, such as technology) were actual and long-standing. Only after that corroboration, with video playing a central role, did participants engage analytically with the concepts of social structure (community, rules, and the division of labour) that were set out in the second-stimulus diagrams. Subsequently, participants—including, perhaps surprisingly, managers—started to offer anecdotal evidence, often from discussions with deployed colleagues, about those issues. By the end of the session, participants were deeply engaged with discussing issues of social structure and mediation, identifying their activity’s secondary contradictions for themselves (while detailed theorisation of contradictions is beyond the scope of this chapter, one example was a contradiction between video media and curriculum objectives—a secondary contradiction between the ‘artefacts’ and ‘rules’ elements as shown in Fig. 7.1; for more detailed exploration of similar examples, see Gedera [2016]). Our main priority as instructional designers became to ensure that this work, which was quite viscerally emotional, was harnessed to support more reflective thinking in subsequent sessions (cf. Virkkunen & Newnham, 2013, p. 24).

3. Modelling The action of modelling involves participants constructing simplified, explicit and observable representations of new forms of activity that offer potential solutions to present problems. Two instructional priorities are to ensure, firstly, that participants pay close attention to existing contradictions in activity, since those often implicate already-emerging changes and thus potential starting points for the new model (Virkkunen & Newnham, 2013, p. 93) and, secondly, that the models are constructed in a form—usually graphical—that might serve as a basis for ongoing discussion and refinement. Video may be used to reinforce existing contradictions—Rozario and Ortlieb (2015, p. 299), for instance, used video footage of multi-lingual classroom interactions to help teachers model more culturally responsive classroom strategies. Sometimes video is used to highlight potential models that participants might consider—Montoro (2015, p. 54), for example, used footage of disparate practice from several nations to help participants consider differences in models of working. Once again, we were able to devote a single session to this action. Our instructional script involved having whole-group tasks focussed, in turn, on the object, mediating

136

P. Moffitt and B. Bligh

artefacts and overall systematic structure of a potential new model; distinct firststimuli were provided primarily to discourage participants from fixating on mediating artefacts (i.e. technology). Second-stimuli included blank templates, based on Engeström’s (1987) activity system model in Fig. 7.1, with which participants were gradually becoming familiar. Mirror-data was created by producing further extracts from the interviews with previous students, which we felt emphasised potentially fertile contradictions in current activity systems. In the session, participants deviated very significantly from our instructional script—largely rejecting the provided mirror-data (showing interviews with previous students, lecturers and managers), and instead curating their own. Instead of using the materials we had provided, participants collectively decided to return to scrutinising the ethnographic footage on which they had focussed during the sessions devoted to questioning. Whereas, in those sessions, that material had served as a what-artefact (as part of the task-design) and a how-artefact (in a way not instructionally scripted), in this instance the same footage became used as both why-artefact (diagnosing issues that the new model should resolve) and where-to-artefact (with some aspects taken as the basis for the new model). In practice the footage was used in ways that seemed to repeatedly oscillate between different foci. On the one hand, footage of participants’ own actions-in-progress were used to foreground conflicting motives; on the other, footage showing the attribution of failure to other actors was used to highlight how present dilemmas and contradictions were being aggravated in practice. In one example, a lecturer reacted to failure in footage of action, recognising a need for modelling in the following way: … well that lot [video footage of failing rules and failing division of labour] shows we need to think of something very different now … it doesn’t matter how hard it is for us [lecturers] … it matters how much better it is for [everyone, the collective subject] … if we don’t do it [modelling] now then when? … And if we don’t what’s the next lot [of video footage] going to be showing?.

Previous studies using the Change Laboratory methodology have concluded that action-level deviations from the instructional script (i.e., where deviation remains confined to the goals of particular tasks, without challenging the overall direction of the intervention) can be important for the process of expansive learning, since they can serve to galvanise participants’ critical resistance and doubt, which might in turn be nurtured to encourage different conceptualisations of the object of activity (Engeström et al., 2013). In this instance of action-level deviation, however, the resistance that was galvanised was partially directed towards a sense of institutional inertia; though openness to new conceptualisations of the object is certainly evident. The transcript extract above, from the modelling session, also illustrates how video footage mediates participants’ understanding of retrospective and progressive consolidation in the intervention: the lecturer makes both reflective and predictive comments that relate to both short and medium temporal cycles of change, while recognising that the wider impact of the concepts being discussed requires further development.

7 Video and the Pedagogy of Expansive …

137

4. Examining Actions of examining involve participants exploring the potential dynamics, and implications of new models. Often that is attempted by selecting and considering test cases, mapping out how new activity systems might deal with those cases, and making comparisons with current practice. In published examples, video footage is sometimes used to illustrate the test cases. For example, Newnham (2018, p. 144) presents participants (teachers) with footage of a student discussing previously denied feelings of isolation, while Morselli (2015, p. 95) presents to student participants recent recordings of themselves undertaking vocational training. Our video footage, likewise, showed the cohort struggling with a task; selected as an example of students clearly seeking help in a difficult situation, we intended the footage to serve as a how-artefact through which participants might focus on issues of procedure. Our first-stimulus tasks suggested considering the implications of, in turn, a short-term field trial and more sustained use of the model. Second-stimuli included theoretical models from the activity-theoretical literature (illustrating interactions between different activity systems and types of systemic contradictions) and template ‘four-field’ diagrams (cf. Virkunnen & Newnham, 2013), which provided axes along which participants were invited to map the different contradictions that they discussed. Figure 7.3 shows the set-up in practice, with video on the right screen and four-field diagrams on the left. Prima facie, action in the session initially unfolded broadly as anticipated. Yet soon participants started to scrutinise the video to try to discern reasons for practice failure—it served as why-artefact rather than how-artefact. Subsequently, participants tried utilising footage to analyse possibilities for change (as where-to-artefact), at which point they demonstrated palpable frustration. Subsequent attempts to negotiate meaning using the task-stimuli resulted in striking rejection of both the task and room environment. As one participant (a student) commented: … sitting here watching videos on [expletive] going wrong … it’s awkward to watch alright but it’s not getting us nowhere … let’s all [expletive] off to [a remote military training area]

Fig. 7.3 Participants moving between watching video footage (right) and working with four-field analyses (left)

138

P. Moffitt and B. Bligh

… and aggravate some [expletive] real contradictions … to show who’s to blame and who’s not ….

Participants clearly felt a continuing need, when examining their new model, to understand current failure, and perceived the materials provided as an insufficient means for pursuing such understanding. The session was anxiety-inducing for us as interventionists; notwithstanding that the intervention was intended to empower participants, the turn of events was unexpected and we worried that our design had been lacking. It left us in an uncertain position as instructional designers, yet in retrospect the session would turn out to be a crucial moment in the development of participants’ agency.

5. Implementation Implementation involves participants nurturing aspects of new activity in reality, further unpacking their model’s potential for overcoming systemic contradictions by discussing it with relevant colleagues not involved in the intervention or piloting the ‘new’ ways of working (Virkkunen & Newnham, 2013). Footage from the intervention is sometimes used to mediate conversations between participants and colleagues (Barma, Laferrière, Lemieux, Massé-Morneau, & Vincent, 2017), while video can be used as a means of recording the implementation efforts (Ripamonti & Scaratti, 2015). At this stage our project had become, as described above, instructionally destabilised, with participants wishing to undertake fieldwork to further aggravate contradictions in their own ways. Three already-scheduled excursions in field locations were fortuitously identified, where attending participants (unfortunately not including managers) might take implementation-related action, with a subsequent session (which managers would be able to attend) as a plenary. Our instructional script involved a task (first-stimulus) asking participants to implement parts of their new model and compare it against current practice. Second-stimuli included activity diagrams from earlier sessions, while mirror-data included current policy documents. For the excursions, materials were reproduced in a stapled workbook with spaces for students’ fieldnotes. We did not provide video recording equipment, since participants preferred to use their personal smartphones. During the excursions, to a wastewater treatment site in a rural area, students took charge of exploring how remote collaboration might work. Reinforcing continuity with the intervention, participants decided, using portable clipboards, to mimic the information ecology from the room; they also built a tongue-in-cheek triangular ‘activity system’ on the ground, using sticks gathered from the woodland. Participants explicitly discussed the goal of generating their own mirror-data. Subsequently, in the plenary session, students explained their materials to managers (Fig. 7.4). Initially using the footage as why-artefact, to diagnose the properties of the new activity, students quickly came to realise the power of what they had produced and

7 Video and the Pedagogy of Expansive …

139

Fig. 7.4 Students explaining their video mirror-data

to fervently advocate its use as a where-to-artefact, to examine the potential for consolidating change for future students: …there was loads wrong [motions to video] when you cross-map what we done with real life with learning [sic]… we won’t cope if things change if we go backwards… this is our evidence of what we’ve tried, what works, what doesn’t work… so if the next lot [future participants] need it they can look and we went out and did it and we videoed it and it can’t be argued with… so other people can have a go now and see if they can keep it going.

At this point, then, video footage mediated an emphasis on sustaining the knowledge produced in the intervention. Moments like this were important because they demonstrated video mediating moments of both visceral and reflective action (cf. ‘the dialectic of close embeddedness and reflective distancing’; Virkkunen & Newnham, 2013, p. 24). In preceding sessions, our worries that video might promote only the visceral led us to design other task elements to support reflection. Participants explaining their own video to others proved an effective mechanism for connecting both kinds of moments, one that we had not anticipated in our instructional design.

6. Process Reflection Process reflection involves looking back over the intervention: evaluating the sequence of preceding actions. Doing so might involve participants discussing their developing conceptualisation of activity; the extent of their success in developing and refining new models; whether there are emerging consequences within actual work practice; their feelings about how they are developing individually and how they are working collectively to exert change (Virkkunen & Newnham, 2013). The attendant use of video is, surprisingly, seldom discussed in published interventions, though participants might plausibly revisit footage with which they are already familiar, or reflect on excerpts from preceding session recordings. Reflective discussions of the

140

P. Moffitt and B. Bligh

latter kind might make reference to the developmental value of different types of contradictions within and between activity systems (discussed by Yamagata-Lynch, 2010, p. 24; illustrated in Fig. 7.5). We allocated a single session to process reflection, with a deliberately flexible instructional script; to a significant degree, we anticipated delegating agency to participants. Having excerpted footage from session recordings, and having doublechecked the convenient availability of video resources already used earlier, we provided task-goals (first-stimuli) focussed on the past and future of the activity, and, for the purposes of supporting comparison, analytical resources (second-stimuli) comprised of diagrams established and annotated previously. In practice it was the student participants who took charge of selecting and using task-stimuli, perpetuating the division of labour established in the preceding session. Video footage was used to mediate a repeated oscillation between moments of identifying the future activity system (as where-to-artefact) and reiterating the consequences of not sustaining change (as why-artefact: emphasising the diagnosis of current practices). Students expressed a desire to negotiate and formalise personal roles and responsibilities for sustaining change, in one instance confronting a manager with recordings of expressions of scepticism from early in the project. He responded as follows: …I think what you’re diplomatically trying to say and what you’re showing me in that [footage] is that I wouldn’t accept it [need for change]… but I do, I just don’t think we should roll over and accept that we need to do it this way… otherwise we’ll just have a different kind of [expletive]… if you’re not a bit curious about maintaining these changes you’re making, you’ll just end up with a different kind of [expletive] … At least I was honest, but that might be because you’ve got me on video [laughter]….

Such incidents reminded us of examples documented by Virkkunen and Newnham (2013), wherein a teacher critically re-examines her own teaching after seeing footage Tertiary contradiction (between temporal versions such as old and new activity)

Primary contradiction (within one node) Quaternary contradiction (between adjacent activity systems)

Secondary contradiction (between two nodes)

Fig. 7.5 Four types of contradictions in and between activity systems (Adapted from YamagataLynch [2010, p. 24])

7 Video and the Pedagogy of Expansive …

141

of herself speaking (p. 79). In such cases, video mediates a ‘dialectic of long-term and short-term cycles of change’ (ibid.): as proposals are incorporated into people’s daily realities it is important that they are linked to both the realities of everyday practice and to how change and development are sustained (p. 24). The use of video to mediate this dialectic only became evident in the later stages of our project.

7. Consolidation/Generalisation Actions of this type attempt to embed and stabilise models of activity developed in the intervention. Doing so might involve attempting to refine and clarify any terminology developed; crystallising proposed processes into forms usable by others (perhaps as documents or in technical systems); and negotiating necessary organisational and policy arrangements with relevant stakeholders (Virkkunen & Newnham, 2013). Video footage can mediate such actions in various ways, including by promoting the new forms of working to potential stakeholders (Morselli, 2018). At this stage of our project, we wished to continue progressively accentuating the participant control of sessions. Our main concern was to avoid any perception of stakeholder negotiation being delegated to manager-participants—in the event, an unfounded concern. Three sessions were associated with consolidation/generalisation: the final ‘regular’ meeting and two follow-up workshops that took place, respectively, three and five months later. Our task-design for the ‘regular’ meeting comprised first-stimuli asking participants how they might influence local policies, and second-stimuli providing examples of current plans and previous institutional proposals. We did not provide new mirror-data at this stage. The follow-up workshops had no explicit task structure. The core consolidation/generalisation idea developed was that of a ‘resource bank’. Participants (especially students) wished to curate a set of resources (including videos) for use by future cohorts, who might benefit from their insights and ‘keep up the pressure’ on institutional management. The idea, incipient in the process reflection session, was significantly developed in the last ‘regular’ meeting, and participants had developed the ‘bank’ when follow-up workshops occurred. In consolidation/generalisation actions, many previous examples of video footage that had already been seen in previous sessions (and which participants were reviewing to consider their inclusion in the ‘bank’) were regularly used in ways corresponding to all four conceptions of artefact-mediation we were using (Table 7.1). Video was used as: • what-artefact: describing the ‘mission’ of the proposed ways of working; • why-artefact: explaining the reason for working this way (and emphasising negative lessons from earlier approaches); • how-artefact: explaining to future participants how to conduct their own intervention; and

142

P. Moffitt and B. Bligh

Fig. 7.6 Screenshots of fieldwork video footage

• where-to-artefact: discussing future possibilities and emphasising that the suggested ways of working were ‘work in progress’. The idea of using video footage to normalise and legitimate change was envisioned by participants as a means of helping mitigate potential regression. Referring to footage of their fieldwork (Fig. 7.6), one student commented: …we got the mirror material of our own… if we can show them this hard stuff [video footage] evidence of why we need to change and what we did… they can’t deny that… we can say instead here’s the video… we kept saying it was [expletive] but here’s what we couldn’t do until we tried… we went and did it [motions to video]….

Echoing our own previous realisation (see Implementation), the student was arguing that asking future cohorts to consider highly localised, visceral experiences might mediate moments of reflection if accompanied by an appropriate narrative. By the end of the project, participants had come to consider video as an evidence base for their narrative, which would be projected via the resource bank (cf. ‘hard stuff’, in the quote above). While this view of video is discussed in the scholarship in terms of intervention design—for example, Bligh and Flood (2015) observe that ‘footage and other image-heavy media are considered useful for […] conveying that problems exist undeniably’ (p. 156, original emphasis)—our work shows participants themselves eventually coming to adopt a quasi-instructional role and deploying their own video within pedagogies of expansive learning.

Concluding Comments We commenced the chapter by celebrating the increasing prominence of video in educational settings. Yet, we argued, common conceptions in the pedagogical literature routinely focus on video itself rather narrowly. We suggested that doing so

7 Video and the Pedagogy of Expansive …

143

has several drawbacks: occluding, in turn, that how people use video is closely intertwined with their goals; that many stated objectives for using video are fairly conventional; and how, in real pedagogy, the roles of video shift and develop, contingently, alongside other aspects of practice. By contrast, our chapter presented an unfolding narrative focussed on pedagogy. We documented an example of a project with unconventional aims—intertwining personal development and institutional change—and adopted a mediational and processual form of exposition: focussing on pedagogy and thereafter tracing the roles played by video within its contours. We now conclude by highlighting some particularly salient points. Firstly, video is always part of a constellation of artefacts mediating pedagogy. Teachers and students choosing to use video should strive to recall that it will (not ‘might’) be used with other artefacts: the digital and analogue; tangible, virtual and conceptual; personal and professional; those furnished by the course and those originating from outside. As well as evaluating video against alternative means, it is necessary to do so in relation to those means it complements. Video is most effective where contributing to, and advancing, a well-aligned mediating constellation. Some examples of productive alignment in our project are obvious, such as that between video and the four-field diagram in our examining session. Others are more subtle: think, for example, of how the verbal framing by students, in the implementation session, assisted other participants to use it. Conversely, artefact constellations can be mutually undermining, such as where the workbook design in our questioning sessions restricted how participants engaged with video footage. Successful pedagogy can be better fostered by consciously considering the constellation of mediating artefacts, rather than focussing on video in isolation. Secondly, video use is regulated by the goals of those using it. For us this point is axiomatic, and we commenced our account by arguing the point. Yet our narrative highlights some important additional implications. One implication is that, where goals are poorly understood, or where students and teachers have different goals, video is likely to be used in unanticipated ways. The point, however, is not so much a normative prescription for teachers to impose unambiguous goals as a call for keeping goals in mind; in our project (for example, during actual-empirical analysis), we occasionally found ourselves ‘catching up’ with the goals of students—which, notwithstanding that we had failed to anticipate them, were legitimate. Another implication is that the ‘same’ video can be used differently in relation to different goals, as evidenced by our repeated deployment of footage in successive sessions. Thirdly, people build emergent relationships with video artefacts. The pedagogically oriented narrative of our chapter exposes how relationships with video artefacts unfolded over successive sessions. Rhythms and repetition in video use enabled participants to build relationships through different encounters. Where students used footage of their practice to nurture initial critique (questioning) and explore historical practice relations (in historical analysis), they imbued it with practical meaning in the project; an imbued meaning that they subsequently recalled by direct verbal reference to the footage itself—even when the footage was not visible on-screen, and even many weeks later. By the consolidation/generalisation sessions, participants

144

P. Moffitt and B. Bligh

were openly expressing their (developed) relationships to the video: it had become a vehicle for them to express their ideas to others (in their ‘resource bank’). Existing literature highlights affective relationships with self-created footage, yet does not emphasise how such relationships can be constructed when watching the footage (or that meaningful relationships can also be built with others’ footage by watching and discussing it). Sometimes, as participants’ occasional frustration reminded us, video reaches certain limits as a pedagogical artefact; it is not the best tool for all tasks. Yet, under many circumstances, video plays useful roles in pedagogical processes. In this chapter, we provided one example of a project wherein video use was incorporated systematically and methodologically. Our account resolves that—where video is recruited into a well-aligned constellation of mediating artefacts, where the goals of those using it encourage purposeful engagement and where pedagogical design enables participants to construct meaningful relationships with footage over time— there is a good warrant for video pedagogy, which can play a useful role in the development of students, both individually and collectively.

References Barma, S., Laferrière, T., Lemieux, B., Massé-Morneau, J., & Vincent, M. (2017). Early stages in building hybrid activity between school and work: The case of PénArt. Journal of Education and Work, 30(6), 669–687. Bligh, B., & Flood, M. (2015). The Change Laboratory in higher education: Research-intervention using activity theory. In J. Huisman & M. Tight (Eds.), Theory and method in higher education research (Vol. 1, pp. 141–168). Bingley: Emerald. Bligh, B., & Flood, M. (2017). Activity theory in empirical higher education research: Choices, uses and values. Tertiary Education and Management, 23(2), 125–152. Blunden, A. (2010). An interdisciplinary theory of activity. Leiden: Brill. Broth, M., Laurier, E., & Mondada, L. (2014). Studies of video practices: Video at work. London: Routledge. Clot, Y. (2009). Clinic of activity: The dialogue as instrument. In A. Sannino, H. Daniels, & K. Gutiérrez (Eds.), Learning and expanding with activity theory (pp. 286–303). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit Oy. Engeström, Y. (1990). Learning, working and imagining: Twelve studies in activity theory. Helsiniki: Orienta-Konsultit Oy. Engeström, Y. (2007). Putting Vygotsky to work: The change laboratory as an application of double stimulation. In H. Daniels, M. Cole, & J. V. Wertsch (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky (pp. 363–382). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Engeström, Y. (2016). Studies in expansive learning: Learning what is not yet there. New York: Cambridge University Press. Engeström, Y., Rantavuori, J., & Kerosuo, H. (2013). Expansive learning in a library: Actions, cycles and deviations from instructional intentions. Vocations and Learning, 6(1), 81–106. Farhangi, S. (2018). Contribution to activity: A lens for understanding students’ potential and agency in physics education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 13(3), 617–637.

7 Video and the Pedagogy of Expansive …

145

Gedera, D. (2016). The application of Activity Theory in identifying contradictions in a University Blended Learning Course. In D. Gedera & P. Williams (Eds.), Activity theory in education: Research and practice (pp. 53–70). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Gedera, D., & Williams, P. (Eds.). (2016). Activity theory in education: Research and practice. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Harris, A. (2016). Video as method. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Holmes, W., Anastopoulou, S., Schaumburg, H., & Mavrikis, M. (2018). Technology-enhanced personalised learning: Untangling the evidence. Stuttgart: Robert Bosch Stiftung. Ip, A., & Morrison, I. (2001). Learning objects in different pedagogical paradigms. In Meeting at the Crossroads: Proceedings 18th ASCILITE Conference (pp. 289–298). Moffitt, P. (2019). Transformative agency for the collaborative and future-oriented redesign of activity in military higher education; empowering participants to change their boundary-crossing technology enhanced learning (Unpublished PhD thesis). Lancaster University. Montoro, C. (2015). Learn or earn? Making sense of language teaching and learning at a Mexican University through a Change Laboratory intervention. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 11, 48–57. Morselli, D. (2015). Enterprise education in vocational education: A comparative study between Italy and Australia. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Morselli, D. (2018). The change laboratory for teacher training in entrepreneurship education: A new skills agenda for Europe. London: Springer. Newnham, D. S. (2018). The inner circle: Building bridges or boundaries between researchers and practitioners. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 25(2), 138–150. Pea, R., & Hoffert, E. (2007). Video workflow in the learning sciences: Prospects of emerging technologies for augmenting work practices. In R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron, & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 427–460). London: Routledge. Ripamonti, S. C., & Scaratti, G. (2015). Safety learning, organizational contradictions and the dynamics of safety practice. Journal of Workplace Learning, 27(7), 530–560. Rozario, R., & Ortlieb, E. (2015). Using expansive learning as a model for video reflection in teacher education. In E. Ortlieb, L. Shanahan, & M. McVee (Eds.), Video research in disciplinary literacies (pp. 287–305). Sannino, A. (2015). The principle of double stimulation: A path to volitional action. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 6, 1–15. Teräs, M., Lasonen, J., & Nuottokari, M. (2014). Challenges of intercultural vocational education and training: Developing a strand model in the change laboratory. Jyväskylä: Finnish Institute for Educational Research. Vannini, P. (2015). Video methods beyond representation: Experimenting with multimodal, sensuous, affective intensities in the 21st century. In C. Bates (Ed.), Video methods: Social science research in motion (pp. 230–241). London: Routledge. Virkkunen, J., Newnham, D. S., Nleya, P., & Engeström, R. (2012). Breaking the vicious circle of categorizing students in school. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1(3–4), 183–192. Virkkunen, J., & Newnham, D. S. (2013). The change laboratory: A tool for collaborative development of work and education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Wertsch, J. V. (2007). Mediation. In H. Daniels, M. Cole, & J. V. Wertsch (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky (pp. 178–193). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Xiao, Y., & Mackenzie, C. (2004). Introduction to the special issue on video-based research in high risk settings: Methodology and experience. Cognition, Technology & Work, 6(3), 127–130. Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2010). Activity systems analysis methods: Understanding complex learning environments. London: Springer Science & Business Media.

Part II

Video, Teachers, and Practice

Chapter 8

Flipping Professional Learning Through Videos in Mathematics Education Angela Stensness and Nigel Calder

Abstract Teachers of mathematics in New Zealand are critical to the success of their students. It is important for them to have both a positive disposition towards mathematics‚ and skills and knowledge relating to mathematics and mathematics pedagogy. Yet many primary trained teachers have negative dispositions towards mathematics. Changing these attitudes, along with levels of confidence and understanding, would appear to be crucial. Professional learning is one method for achieving this outcome. Unfortunately, for teachers with low self-efficacy in mathematics, engaging in a professional learning experience relating to mathematics may be considered threatening. Therefore, the aim of this study was to explore the ways in which using collaboratively developed videos within a flipped professional learning programme might improve these dispositions of primary-trained teachers, along with their skills and understanding in mathematics. This study adopted an action research approach, due to the alignment of this methodology with the desire to utilise volunteer participant teachers as co-researchers and for them to reflect on and change their practice. The study found that the use of videos in a flipped professional learning experience increased the self-efficacy ratings of participants in the focus area of their intervention. Also, that it had the potential for teachers to take greater control of their learning journey, thus encouraging teacher agency. Therefore, it is the contention of the research that using videos in a flipped professional learning programme in mathematics could be beneficial to improving the teacher capacity of primary trained teachers in mathematics. Keywords Professional learning · Mathematics education · Flipped learning · Videos · Self-efficacy · Teacher agency · Video pedagogy

A. Stensness Papamoa College, Papamoa, New Zealand N. Calder (B) University of Waikato, Tauranga, New Zealand e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 D. S. P. Gedera and A. Zalipour (eds.), Video Pedagogy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-4009-1_8

149

150

A. Stensness and N. Calder

Introduction … would I use flipped learning? Absolutely… it was much more usable than sitting in a day’s course… I think that it was nice that it was sort of personalised and that I could do it on my couch… (Yvonne)

Accessing ongoing professional learning is crucial for teachers as they develop their skills, knowledge and attitudes, which in turn impact on students’ beliefs and attitudes towards learning mathematics, and hence student self-efficacy and understanding. However, it is unfortunate to note that those engaging in professional learning courses do not always find them to be useful or relevant. Indeed, some may even feel uncomfortable attending professional learning courses. This chapter reports on a case study of a small group of Year 7 and 8 teachers, who engaged with researcher-created videos using a flipped classroom approach to professional learning. It considers their pathway towards developing more positive self-efficacy towards mathematics. Mathematics education in New Zealand has been a topic of concern for a range of stakeholders over the past few decades (Anthony & Walshaw, 2007; Patterson, 2015). In general, these concerns have linked to students’ levels of achievement. Whilst various attempts have been made to address these concerns, students have continued to move through the education system, many emerging with less than desirable outcomes and attitudes towards mathematics. “Maths anxiety” is used to describe the feelings of anxiety experienced when engaging in mathematical activity and problemsolving. Some of these secondary-school graduates with low self-efficacy and anxiety in relation to mathematics have gone on to become teachers themselves (e.g. Biddulph, 1999). There are many primary-school teachers who enter their classrooms each day fearing mathematics (Boaler, 2016). These teachers report low self-efficacy and high anxiety in relation to mathematics, often dating back to their own schooling experiences (Anderson, 2017; Attard, Ingram, Forgasz, Leger, & Grootenboer, 2016; Flanagan, 2017; Young-Loveridge, Bicknell, & Mills, 2012). These beliefs can impact on teaching practice as beliefs inform what is done within the classroom situation (Beswick, 2008). It has also been found that student achievement in mathematics is lower when taught by a teacher with low confidence and qualifications in mathematics (Vale, Atweh, Averill, & Skourdoumbis, 2016). Meanwhile, students’ selfefficacy has been recognised as a key influencer on their mathematics performance (e.g. Pajares & Kranzler, 1995; Usher & Pajares, 2009).

Professional Learning Professional learning is one way of addressing the low self-efficacy and maths anxiety experienced by many teachers, whilst also developing teacher capacity. Teacher capacity has been defined by Zhang and Stephens as “…professionally informed judgement and disposition to act” (2013, p. 482). They highlight the three key aspects

8 Flipping Professional Learning Through Videos …

151

that make up teacher capacity as teacher knowledge, teacher skill, and teacher dispositions. The first two aspects relate to knowledge and skill requirements and the third relates to the affective domain. Teacher agency in a professional learning context “…is the capacity of teachers to act purposefully and constructively to direct their professional growth and contribute to the growth of their colleagues” (Calvert, 2016, p. 52). It has the potential to shift a teacher from taking a passive role in their professional growth to a far more active one, leading to a higher degree of satisfaction. In professional learning, it is assumed that participants are capable of self-directing their learning journey (Webster-Wright, 2009). Indeed, it has been found that when teachers recognise the gaps in their knowledge or pedagogy, they are more willing to engage in learning (Bobis, Higgins, Cavanagh, & Roche, 2012). Therefore, teachers are encouraged to have agency over their learning needs. In this case, Timperley, Wilson, Barrar, and Fung’s (2007) catalyst for engagement comes from the teachers themselves. Therefore, it would appear important for professional learning to be differentiated to meet these self-determined needs (Paterson, 2009; Schwartz, 2017). The degree of teacher agency relies on both internal and external factors (Calvert, 2016). Internally, a teacher must be intrinsically motivated to engage in professional learning and, externally, the school environment in which the teacher exists must promote the agency of the teachers through shared decision-making, enabling structures, and allowing time. Simply providing choice to teachers does not directly lead to agency. Rather, this choice needs to be supported and teachers need to be shown that this is a genuine opportunity to regain control of their learning journey within the profession. Once the teacher agency has been realised, professional learning can encourage learning to occur just-in-time. Just-in-time learning is a term that has become popular within the field of education following on from a change in the way in which knowledge is viewed (Bolstad & Gilbert, 2012). Bolstad and Gilbert (2012) contend that knowledge involves generating and applying new knowledge to solve problems as they emerge on a just-in-time basis. This concept initially surfaced in manufacturing, through the Toyota Motor Corporation identifying a lack of standardisation in processes. Contrastingly, in education, as the nature of learning changed with greater use of investigation and digital pedagogical media, there was a recognition of too much standardisation and not enough personalisation (Calder, 2011). Whereas, traditionally, knowledge was seen as a set of critical information or skills to be attained and then saved to be reproduced at some point in life, knowledge is now seen as only useful when it is being used to create new knowledge or find solutions to new problems. The provision of continuous just-in-time opportunities for the development of a teacher’s ability to respond to a range of learning needs and situations, is perhaps more important than the provision of a prescribed programme to implement (Timperley et al., 2007). In this model professional learning does not fit neatly into a set timeframe or structure, but rather requires easy access to robust, wide-ranging, useful material in order to develop crucial teacher knowledge as and when it is needed. This easy

152

A. Stensness and N. Calder

access to resources may indeed pose a challenge to this method of professional learning. However, if achieved, it is suggested that this method has the potential to more adequately improve teacher dispositions by more readily allowing for teacher agency, which may in turn lead to a growth in self-efficacy and a lowering of maths anxiety (e.g. Burns, 2016; Goodwin & Miller, 2013). Professional learning provides opportunities for teachers to receive new information that creates dissonance with their current beliefs and understandings about mathematics (Timperley et al., 2007). Indeed, changing beliefs and practices is the point of professional learning (Beswick, 2008). This can be a challenging process and therefore significant support may be required in order to achieve long-term change (Timperley et al., 2007). For this to occur, a relationship of trust needs to be established, because changes to deeply held beliefs can be emotional, challenging, confronting, and lead to feelings of vulnerability (Beswick, 2014). It is proposed that one less-threatening method of allowing teachers to have agency and to engage in professional learning is through using videos within a flipped learning model. At times, professional development (PD) workshops can be quite traditional in their approach, perhaps theory-based with a focus on the acquisition of knowledge. Teachers who attend these sessions may be left to puzzle over the application of the theory to their own practice outside of the PD session. Workshops that attempt to be more “hands-on,” providing practical activities may become one-off sessions back in the classroom as the teacher is again left to design further suitable activities. In addition, the enthusiasm experienced at the workshop can quickly be lost amongst competing demands experienced upon the return to the classroom (Shaffer, 2017). Indeed, many teachers feel that PD is a waste of time and question whether it models effective teaching practice (Burns, 2016).

Flipped Professional Learning An alternative to PD workshops is the use of the flipped model of professional learning. In this approach, theory and knowledge are conveyed to teachers using a video prior to a meeting that focuses on the application of this theory and knowledge in the teacher’s own classroom situation (Burns, 2016). This allows for individual scaffolding, assistance, inspiration, and coaching (Lee, Lim, & Kim, 2017). It is a three-phase process as shown in Fig. 8.1. Flipped professional learning has its origins in the flipped teaching and learning model that has gained popularity in recent years (Zainuddin & Halili, 2016). This may be due to the advances in technology that make the implementation of this model increasingly possible. Colorado teachers, Jonathan Bergmann and Aaron Sams, are often credited with beginning the flipped learning model following on from their creation of video screencasts for their students in 2006 (Milman, 2012). However, others argue that the model dates back to the 1990s (Bailey, 2015).

8 Flipping Professional Learning Through Videos …

153

Fig. 8.1 Burns’ (2016) A Standard Versus Flipped Professional Development Sequence

What is undisputed is the premise of the model—that participants watch instructional videos in their own time, outside of class, and then come ready to apply the learning within class time. This allows access to teachers when a challenge is experienced during the application of the content (Bailey, 2015). It is a student-centred approach (Zainuddin & Halili, 2016) and allows for a far more personalised approach to learning that focuses on individual student learning needs (Bailey, 2015). The role of the teacher then shifts from knowledge imparter to that of the coach (Goodwin & Miller, 2013). Anecdotal results have indicated that this flipped learning model leads to improved outcomes (Bishop & Verleger, 2013; Milman, 2012). In addition, Goodwin and Miller (2013) report improved teacher and student interactions, increased opportunities for real-time feedback, increased engagement, improved opportunities for self-paced learning, and more meaningful use of out-of-class work time. The additional benefits that have been found with a flipped professional learning model are its ability to provide cost-efficient, just-in-time, in-school, professional learning support to teachers (Burns, 2016). Within this model facilitators of the professional learning are freed up to support teachers with the challenging task of applying the new knowledge and theory to their individual classroom situation. In addition, the video-delivery method is perhaps more flexible to fit within the many competing demands on their time that teachers experience (Bailey, 2015). Additional benefits that have been found with video-based professional learning are the potential to: reduce anxiety; improve mathematical content knowledge and mathematics pedagogical content knowledge (Larkin & Jamieson-Proctor, 2013); address deep-seated math-phobia (Biddulph, 1999); promote open-ended investigations (Bailey, 2015); and provide an effective way of reaching remote and rural communities (Vale et al., 2016). However, challenges have also been identified with the flipped learning model. These challenges may stem from a lack of understanding of the flipped learning process (Lo & Hew, 2017). A lack of technological equipment and knowledge by

154

A. Stensness and N. Calder

teachers and students could also be problematic (Lo & Hew, 2017; Zainuddin & Halili, 2016). In addition, whilst the flipped model may mean more meaningful out-of-class time, caution has been suggested in relation to increased workload of participants due to the length of videos and the time required for viewing (Lo & Hew, 2017). The increased workload in creating the videos has also been identified as a concern. These challenges are worthy of consideration prior to making use of this teaching and learning model. A flipped learning model acknowledges that lectures are not inherently ineffectual; in fact, they are often an extremely effective way of teaching new knowledge (Goodwin & Miller, 2013). The issue is more to do with the relevance and pacing of the lectures. Videoed lectures allow the viewer to have control over the pacing of the lectures, rewinding and rewatching if necessary. Many universities have begun creating videos of their course lectures and Khan Academy has an ever-expanding library of video tutorials for a range of subject areas (Bishop & Verleger, 2013). These could be useful for a flipped learning model, but the video itself does not make up the model. A flipped learning model also requires the supported application of the content alongside the video lectures, thus ensuring that each component complements (rather than supplements) the other (Lee et al., 2017). The video content should be minimised, and the in-person application time should be maximised (Lee et al., 2017). In addition, it has been suggested that self-created videos can be more engaging and meaningful than those produced by others (Bergmann & Sams, 2015). However, it is important that these videos have good audio quality and that the length of the video be kept to ten minutes in duration if possible, but certainly no longer than 20 min, particularly when the face of the lecturer is not seen (Lee et al., 2017). Chunking the learning into shorter videos may be more effective than recording long videos that include multiple topics (Bishop & Verleger, 2013; Burns, 2016; Lee et al., 2017; Milman, 2012). The videos should begin with a basic overview to introduce the topic, highlight prerequisite knowledge requirements, and list the main points to be covered in the video (Lee et al., 2017). The videos should also include interactive elements where the viewer is required to pause the video, think, and answer some questions to check understanding (Gedera & Zalipour, 2018; Lee et al., 2017).

The Flipped Professional Learning Study This study explored the possibility that a flipped professional learning model could increase teacher capacity, particularly for those with low self-efficacy in mathematics, in an effective, personalised, and ongoing manner. The research question for the study reported in this chapter was: In what ways might a flipped professional learning model provide a method of increasing teacher capacity in mathematics for Year Seven and Eight teachers in a provincial city school, particularly those with low self-efficacy in mathematics?

8 Flipping Professional Learning Through Videos …

155

The four teachers who participated in this study were Year Seven and Eight teachers. Their teaching experience ranged from seven to fifteen years. Two of the four teachers co-taught in one of the four Innovative Learning Environments (ILEs) and the other two taught in other ILEs. Participants are referred to by their pseudonyms. The research design used to explore this question was action research, enlisting the four participants as co-researchers in the study. As a result, their input within each phase influenced each subsequent phase. The role of the researcher then was to obtain the data from the co-researchers, interpret this data, and make decisions about the direction based on feedback and feedforward given by participants. The design of the research was based on a critical research paradigm due to the desire for the study to challenge current realities in mathematics education professional learning and to suggest new solutions, particularly for those with low self-efficacy. During the intervention, participants reviewed a researcher-created video to address an area of need which had been self-identified by the participants within their initial interview. The video also took into account suggestions made by participants during the semi-structured interview. Each video was created using a similar structure based on the teacher knowledge and skill components of Zhang and Stephens’ (2013) concept of teacher capacity. The videos contained relevant content knowledge, appropriate curriculum links, and consideration of the range of student responses. The aim of the video then was to also improve the third component—teacher dispositions—particularly mathematics self-efficacy, maths anxiety, and teacher agency. As previously mentioned, it was decided that the creation of the various videos for the flipped classroom approach should follow a similar structure (Lee et al., 2017). It was thought that this would lead to familiarity if teachers were to engage in the viewing of a range of different videos in the future. In line with the recommendations of Lee et al. (2017), the researcher was careful to consider the physical features, content features, and logistic features outside of the video. In relation to the physical features, the topics were partitioned in such a way as to ensure that each video was kept to a time limit (Lee et al., 2017). Whilst a ten-minute time frame was the initial aim, this proved difficult due to the range of content included in the videos and therefore a time frame of less than 20 min was considered more realistic and acceptable. The audio quality was also considered, and every effort was made to avoid background noise. The video was created using the online presentation tool, Prezi, and then screen recorded using iSpring Free Cam 8. The video was then shared with each participant using Google Drive. When considering the content features, the researcher ensured that each video began with a welcome section (see Fig. 8.2) which enabled the viewer to see the talking head of the presenter (researcher) in order to make the initial personal connection. The talking head did not appear during the remainder of the video. Following this, an introduction was given (see Fig. 8.3), as well as an overview of the learning intentions for the session and any other important links to prior knowledge or other sessions (Lee et al., 2017). Each video then delivered some background information about the topic of the video, including definitions and links to the real world. Following this, the topic was

156

A. Stensness and N. Calder

Fig. 8.2 Welcome frame

Fig. 8.3 Video introduction

explored in light of the relevant strand of the New Zealand mathematics curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007) (see Fig. 8.4) and possible student responses were considered (see Fig. 8.5). The videos also incorporated interactive elements where viewers were encouraged to pause the video, think, and answer, prior to moving on (see Fig. 8.6).

8 Flipping Professional Learning Through Videos …

157

Fig. 8.4 Video link to the New Zealand curriculum

Fig. 8.5 Potential student responses

Participants were also encouraged to take notes regarding any questions, points of interest, or disputes they identified so that these could be discussed at the face-to-face meeting. The researcher gave strong consideration to the links between the video session and the face-to-face session to ensure that there was a complementary relationship rather than a supplementary relationship so that the face-to-face session added depth but required the content from the video (Lee et al., 2017). Therefore, following the

158

A. Stensness and N. Calder

Fig. 8.6 Interactive elements to evoke teacher reflection

viewing of the video the researcher scheduled a suitable time to work with each participant individually to clarify any aspects of the video and to assist in designing teaching and learning experiences for each participant’s specific students, linked to the video content.

Results of the Study The three themes that emerged at the conclusion of the third and final phase of the video-based flipped intervention were mathematics self-efficacy, teacher agency, and the importance of just-in-time professional learning opportunities.

Mathematics Self-Efficacy From the outset, the aim of this study was to raise the self-efficacy of primary-trained Years Seven and Eight teachers. This was due to the evidence of the predictive power of self-efficacy over mathematical achievement (e.g., Attard et al., 2016; Bandura, 1993; Zimmerman, 2000) and the concern that low self-efficacy in teachers of mathematics is often passed on to the students that they teach, thus continuing the cycle (Boaler, 2016). A flipped professional learning model, that made use of personalised videos, was the method utilised to attempt to improve self-efficacy.

8 Flipping Professional Learning Through Videos …

159

Over the course of the intervention, the self-efficacy of all of the participants improved in areas linked to their professional learning area of focus. This was most notable in the case of Eva, with her dramatically improved confidence in her ability to teach algebra over the three phases. Algebra was the focus of her flipped professional learning programme. Eva made the following comment on the way the use of video allowed for a vicarious experience that helped improve her self-efficacy: …watching her, is just like, “Oh yeah that’s right, oh yeah I can do that” and it was like, “Okay, yep, I’m good.”

The pre- and post-intervention self-efficacy ratings were compared to determine whether or not any change to self-efficacy was apparent. The self-efficacy ratings were broken into two sections and placed in two tables. A colour code was used to identify increased (green), decreased (red), or unchanged (orange) self-efficacy ratings during the second interview compared to the first. In addition, participants were all asked each question during the first interview but were only asked questions that related to their intervention during their second interview. Therefore, grey shading has been used in the tables to indicate questions that were not asked a second time. Table 8.1 compares the before and after participant perceptions of their selfefficacy, captured through the rating of their confidence that they could successfully engage with the various strands of mathematics themselves. This was done by showing each participant a question at Level Five of the New Zealand Mathematics Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007) and asking whether they felt confident that they could give the correct answer to the questions shown. They also rated themselves in relation to their confidence to solve mathematics problems and to be successful with mathematics in the real world. All of the participants reported improved self-efficacy in relation to their confidence to solve mathematics problems in question one. Anna reported improved selfefficacy in solving problems involving geometry, which was linked to her intervention. Yvonne and Eva also reported improved self-efficacy in solving problems involving algebra, which was linked to the intervention in which they participated. Table 8.1 Participants’ self-efficacy ratings to personally engage in mathematics Question Pre/Post

1 Maths Problems Pre Post

2a Number Pre

Post

2b Geometry

2c Measurement Post

2d Statistics

Pre

Post

Pre

Anna

60

70/ 80

90

30

40

30

60

60

Eva

75/ 80

80

90’s

90’s

70’s

80’s

90’s

Liam

95

100

100

90

100

100

100

Yvonne

80

95

100

100

80

100

90

100

Pre

Post

2e Algebra Pre

Post

95

11 Maths in the real-world Pre Post 80

70/ 80

98

90

100 100

100

100

160

A. Stensness and N. Calder

Table 8.2 Participants’ self-efficacy ratings to teach mathematics Question Pre/Post

Anna

3 Number Pre Post

4 Geometry Pre Post

90

70

70

5 Measurement Pre Post

6 Statistics Pre Post

7 Algebra Pre Post

80

80

60

85/ 90

10

90

(70) 90

100

90

Eva

95

85

100

Liam

80

95

90

Yvonne

100

100

100

95

70/ 80

100

Liam showed no change in his high confidence in solving problems linked to measurement. However, it is worth noting that Liam’s intervention that focussed on measurement was not intended to improve his knowledge or ability in the subject area but was intended to improve on his strategies for working with students who struggle in a particular aspect of measurement. He did mention the reaffirmation the video provided to him as an experienced teacher: …as experienced teachers a lot of what they [the video] did for us was affirm that we know what we’re doing…

Despite these improved ratings, Anna and Eva showed a slight decrease in levels of self-efficacy in their confidence to solve mathematics problems in the real world. This could be attributed to the fact that “you don’t know what you don’t know,” and following the professional learning experience, more questions and uncertainties were uncovered. Mastery experiences (Bandura, 1994), when solving real-world mathematics problems, could perhaps re-elevate these levels. Table 8.2 compared the before and after self-efficacy ratings that involved the confidence of the participants to teach the various strands of mathematics. Again, in most cases, an increase in confidence to teach the strand of mathematics that related to the intervention of their choice was apparent. Anna was the only participant to report unchanged levels of self-efficacy in her chosen area of professional learning geometry. She commented: …it would just be having to look at what we’re doing and what do I need to research…

Liam, Yvonne, and Eva, on the other hand, all reported increased self-efficacy in teaching the strand of mathematics linked to their personal intervention. The most notable improvement was that of Eva who went from a self-efficacy rating of 10 on the 100-point scale prior to the intervention to 70–80 out of 100 following the intervention. In her explanation she stated: Definitely still not confident with higher-end algebra. But have a better understanding of the progressions.

Throughout this study, it has been seen that mathematics self-efficacy is indeed malleable (Finney & Schraw, 2003). It would appear that utilising videos within a flipped professional learning programme has the potential to affirm the self-efficacy

8 Flipping Professional Learning Through Videos …

161

of those who are already confident and to improve the self-efficacy of those less confident. This was true for both improvements in mathematics self-efficacy with Anna and mathematics teaching self-efficacy with Eva. However, it also has the potential to reduce confidence in areas not specifically addressed within the flipped professional learning. Having said this, self-efficacy is a highly complex construct with many factors impacting on confidence levels on a daily basis. Therefore, the various changes in self-efficacy cannot be solely attributed to flipped professional learning. Nevertheless, using personalised videos in a flipped professional learning approach used in this particular study certainly had some influence, as seen in Eva’s comment here regarding the videos: Definitely more powerful than a full-day PD session… and listening and watching somebody deliver in a manner that is… not displaying good teaching practice.

Teacher Agency The video-driven flipped professional learning model relied heavily upon and promoted teacher agency in order to increase teacher capacity. Firstly, the participants had to volunteer to participate in the research from the outset, demonstrating their willingness to access additional professional learning that was not mandated by an external source. Whilst the findings of Timperley et al. (2007) suggested that the intrinsic motivation for teacher engagement in professional learning was not critical, the teacher agency evident in the participants appeared to be crucial to the success of this professional learning experience. Secondly, the participants had to make decisions about the area of professional learning that they wished to access to improve their teacher capacity. It should be acknowledged that this first round of professional learning most likely related to Beswick’s (2014) initial category of learning needs—that is, those that the teacher was aware of and would share with colleagues. Indeed, the use of videos in the flipped professional learning approach provided a springboard to useful conversations around a self-identified need in relation to teacher capacity. During the initial phase of the study, it was interesting to note that all four participants made reference to the control they had over their lower self-efficacy ratings in particular. This is exemplified in the following comment made by Anna: … whenever I come across problems like this where my confidence is not high I will generally do a bit of work and make sure before I go into teach it.

Comments such as this seemed to be in dissonance with the lower self-efficacy rating, in essence, bringing into question whether or not the participant did, in fact, have low self-efficacy in that area. Perhaps this suggests that teacher agency has the potential to override low self-efficacy. Videos provide a useful mechanism for enhancing this teacher agency and hence improving self-efficacy.

162

A. Stensness and N. Calder

Finally, it is important to note the impact of the flipped professional learning approach to increased teacher agency, led to teachers not only taking action to improve their individual practice, but also the practice of others in their sphere of influence. Yvonne commented on how she would recommend the videos to other teachers she may work with: …if I had a team member joining me who had come from Year 4, say, then it might be really powerful for them to see…the different levels… Or somebody who had maybe been teaching overseas for a long time. Like, as refreshers, I think they are really good too.

Working in tandem with teacher agency was the potential for a flipped professional learning video-based programme to occur just-in-time to meet these self-identified needs in a timely manner in order to improve teacher capacity.

Just-in-Time The flipped professional learning model allowed the teachers to engage in learning as and when they needed, as explained again by Yvonne: I think that it was nice that it was sort of personalised and that I could do it on my couch…

In the case of Eva, it was seen that the flipped approach allowed for professional learning to occur just-in-time before classroom implementation. However, the approach also allowed the opportunity for ongoing just-in-time professional learning in the form of a modelling session following the initial implementation within the classroom. In addition, it was very clear throughout the three phases of the study that the professional dialogue that accompanied the videos was crucial, almost to the point of suggesting that it was, in fact, the conversation that was important, not the video. Yvonne’s comments demonstrate this view: I think the most power for me was in the conversation though. So, a video alone I probably wouldn’t go out and watch…

This was particularly important to ensure that questions, wonderings, and affirmations were received just-in-time to enter back into the classroom. The use of videos within the flipped professional learning approach certainly improved the self-efficacy of the participants, encouraged teacher agency and justin-time professional learning. The next section acknowledges the limitations of this study.

Limitations Although there was evidence that indicated the effectiveness of using personalised videos to enhance teacher self-efficacy in mathematics within a flipped classroom

8 Flipping Professional Learning Through Videos …

163

approach, the reported findings should be considered in tandem with the following limitations. Firstly, the study consisted of a small sample of four teachers, all teaching at the same school. Due to the small sample size and the teachers being in similar teaching contexts, the intention of using this study to challenge unhelpful discourses in relation to mathematics, and the resulting societal beliefs, was limited. However, despite this, considerable amounts of qualitative data were gathered in order to reach the conclusions offered here. It is hoped that this study will contribute to the ongoing discussion relating to the mathematics self-efficacy of primary-trained teachers and how the use of video may contribute to improving this concerning situation. Another factor worth noting here is the relationship that was already established between the researcher and the participants. Whilst there was a power relationship at play, potentially influencing the way in which participants responded to questions, the established relationship of coaching and support may have also allowed for honesty and trust. This may have taken a considerable amount of time to establish had the study been conducted at another school. This aspect of developing trust would need to be considered if such a method of professional learning was used more widely. In addition, all of the teachers volunteered for the study so there was no resistance from these teachers with respect to their engagement within the professional learning programme. As well, due to the voluntary nature, there were potentially key participants missing from the study due to their low self-efficacy. These teachers may have had important insights to share. Any improvements to student achievement, as a result of this professional learning intervention, were not measured within the present study. Rather, any changes to the mathematics self-efficacy of the teachers were of greater interest. Despite these limitations, changes to teacher capacity were evident through the use of the video-based professional learning model. This has implications for practice, policy, and future research, which will be explored in the following sections.

Implications for Practice and Policy Through the use of videos within the flipped professional learning model, a shift in self-efficacy was apparent. This was due to the fact that the video allowed for professional learning to occur just-in-time in a non-threatening way. Therefore, the challenge remains as to how to get teachers, particularly those with low self-efficacy in mathematics, to engage in professional learning more readily. This may then lead to growth in self-efficacy, an aspect of teacher dispositions within the construct of teacher capacity. The results suggest that allowing for teacher agency and allowing professional learning to include an element of just-in-time learning may be beneficial, and this study shows that the flipped approach using videos on teacher chosen topics to professional learning encouraged both.

164

A. Stensness and N. Calder

If teacher agency has the potential to override low self-efficacy, then how to build teacher agency in all teachers, particularly those with low self-efficacy in mathematics, should be a significant focus to ensure greater improvements in teacher capacity. Therefore, it would appear that any further use of a flipped professional learning programme should first include building teacher agency, in order to increase participation and to build teacher capacity. One important factor in building teacher agency would appear to be the development of a trusted relationship between participants and the facilitators who are in the video and then following up in the face-to-face sessions within the professional learning programme. Having autonomy over access and engagement with the video was important as it enabled the enhancement of the relationship as compared to just having limited face-to-face interactions in the school setting. The relationship with the presenter is central to its success as expressed here again by Yvonne: …because I know that she’s worked in this environment, I listen to what she says a whole lot more than what I listen to somebody else… So, it’s actually valuing the person…I think knowing and valuing the presenter was huge.

This valuing of a trusted facilitator being present in the video also suggests the advantage for facilitators of this style of professional learning to create their own videos. This could require substantial time, but would appear to be imperative, based on the findings of this study. Indeed, the effectiveness of developing these strong, trusted relationships to achieve willing participation, provide adequate support through confronting learning, and achieve long-term change is highlighted in other research (Beswick, 2014; Timperley et al., 2007). These relationships take time to develop and would need to be a consideration in the provision of time and resulting cost of a professional learning programme to improve teacher capacity. However, once established, these trusted relationships may more readily encourage those teachers to begin to explore the other two categories of learning needs described by Beswick (2014): those that they are aware of and are reluctant to share; and those that are initially unknown. It would appear that another significant factor in building this teacher agency is enabling teachers to have more control over their professional learning journey, such as selecting the conceptual content to be contained within their videos. This was highlighted in the comments made by Eva: …the most beneficial PD now, for me, is in-house stuff that is relevant to our environment, our kids, and our beliefs as teachers in this… situation…

Having the ability to stop, rewind, and revisit video content also enhanced the participants’ autonomy in the professional learning process. Teachers must be seen as capable of self-directing their ongoing learning journey and must be given the external support of time, money, and resources to access this self-identified need (WebsterWright, 2009). This includes time to actively engage in professional dialogue and to develop relational trust with other professionals in order to eventually become

8 Flipping Professional Learning Through Videos …

165

willing to address their deeper, possibly less obvious, professional learning needs. This is where the use of professional learning through the use of video could be particularly helpful. However, it is important to note that simply creating a bank of videos for teachers to access in isolation may not be a suitable method for encouraging teacher agency or building teacher capacity. As highlighted by Calvert (2016), simply providing choice to teachers does not directly lead to agency. Liam commented: The benefit for what we did was … that there was face-to-face conversation… I guess the potential barrier is that in the future if there was just a bank of videos that it won’t be as personalised as it was this time and then I go, “That was alright and not quite what I wanted,” and so there’s still that potential, which a face-to-face conversation will always fix.

The personally developed videos on aspects that were identified by the participants may also bridge to self-selection of previously recorded videos or YouTube clips. This would need further specific research, but in conjunction with other aspects, it appears that the videos gave greater flexibility to professional learning, hence enhancing the learning for some teachers. It may require a complete rethink within schools about the way that professional learning is offered and encouraged. Beginning the school day later on certain days to allow for the meeting of professional learning communities is one such method that may be considered. If ongoing growth in teacher capacity is indeed valued, then enabling structures to facilitate this professional learning may be required. In addition, ongoing access to professional learning videos, such as that trialled in this study, may have alleviated Anna’s concern that, due to the timing of the intervention, her professional learning selection was not immediately relevant to her teaching: …So, benefit is the just-in-time, but that is also the modification… so it’s just about identifying what needs to happen just-in-time for my teaching… same as how we teach the children, it should be just-in-time, not just-in-case…

However, for this just-in-time approach to be possible on an ongoing basis, it would be vital to have a facilitator of the professional learning available whenever required. This could even be to the point of taking on Eva’s suggestion of having a live discussion function that was available whilst watching the videos. Despite this suggestion, Eva also then questioned the sustainability of this form of professional learning due to the practicalities of workload for the facilitator: However, not sustainable for somebody to deliver that kind of PL on a regular basis… as it has been for us, individualised, which has been great, personally, but individualised, I don’t know… how sustainable it is… It needs to be generic enough that it’s manageable for the people, for you, to do. So, I don’t think you could do it for… everybody’s different classes.

This would indeed be the challenge in the provision of this form of professional learning and further exploration of a way of ensuring that teachers have access to the professional learning that they need, when they need it, warrants further consideration. Supplementing facilitator made videos, along with pre-made videos may

166

A. Stensness and N. Calder

be a necessity. However, a cautious approach is suggested if accessing and sharing pre-made videos for professional learning purposes due to the abundance of videos available and the ease of anyone uploading videos to the internet. Considering the accuracy of information, the authority of the video creator and the method of explanation is crucial prior to sharing as part of a professional learning programme. Yvonne brought up the importance of the credentials of the video creator: …because I know that she’s worked in this environment, I listen to what she says a whole lot more than what I listen to somebody else… So, it’s actually valuing the person. So, I could probably find some clips on YouTube that might be good, but I’m a little bit of a critic, no I’m a massive critic, but I’m a little bit of a critic when it comes to who I want to sit down and watch in a professional learning sense. So, if you were a Joe Bloggs and I don’t know you from a bar of soap, then I’m not gonna give you my view on your YouTube channel because I wanna know that you’re actually a good educator. Cos there’s a lot of people can stand up and be amazing mathematicians and maybe can show you how they do it, but does that relate to my learners well? So, I guess I wouldn’t be as likely to just go and find a video, as I might be to use one that… somebody I know has created…. would it be great to have a resource of things… that have been created by somebody you value? Yes… Like if there was a bank of them, then I could go and find what I needed at that time. I think knowing and valuing the presenter was huge.

It is important to also consider that watching and checking videos to ensure they are ideal may actually take longer than creating the video from scratch. There should also be a particular reason for using a pre-made video and this should be shared with the participant, as this would be important to maintaining trust, as explained by Eva: I know what I’m signing up for, what I’m going to be watching is along the same lines. I don’t waste 15 minutes watching something and then going, ‘Oh well, okay’… And it didn’t relate to New Zealand Curriculum and now I have to go and find another one… I don’t have that time to go find other things.

In addition, when creating videos used in flipped teaching, it would appear critical to consider limiting the videos to ten minutes and provide time markers within the various sections of the videos. This is based on feedback from participants and in line with the recommendations of Lee et al. (2017). Efficient use of time is particularly important if it poses a potential barrier for teacher participation in professional learning. Perhaps a flipped professional learning programme could be more readily achieved if videos were used as a springboard for just-in-time professional conversations within professional learning communities. Both Yvonne and Eva identified this possibility as a future step for the use of this style of professional learning. Eva commented: …I think it would be a great tool to be used as… a team discussion tool there to access, grab it, when you need it, discuss it as a team… you said, ‘Hey team, here’s a video. We’re doing algebra next term. Watch the video and we’ll discuss it at our next meeting,’ …that would probably would have been, would be as powerful for me, that conversation with my team.

Yvonne agreed: Would I… use it in my team? Absolutely.

8 Flipping Professional Learning Through Videos …

167

To ensure that this is possible, mathematics lead teachers in schools may find that creating a bank of videos is a productive starting point. This would ensure that videos are available as required. The importance of teacher agency in mathematics professional learning was also highlighted in this study. The possibility of a mandated mathematics certification would appear to be in stark contrast to the promotion of teacher agency. Whilst continued improvements to the mathematics teacher capacity of Years Seven and Eight teachers is crucial, finding ways to enable teachers to take increased responsibility for this through the provision of just-in-time resources of videos and conversations from trusted sources may be more beneficial for long-term success. Changes to funding and enabling structures may be required. Perhaps consideration should be given to the creation of a mechanism for teachers to access funding pools themselves, rather than relying on schools to use professional learning funds for the self-determined needs of teachers. In addition, from the findings in this study, it would appear that accreditation of professional learning providers should continue to emphasise the importance of the ability of these providers to build trusted relationships. This would necessarily include the adequate provision of funds to allow the time for these relationships to be created. This study highlighted many implications for practice and policy, particularly with regard to the need to ensure teacher agency to engage with professional learning by developing trusted relationships, by allowing teachers to take control of their learning journeys with supportive structures in place, and by ensuring feasible methods of accessing this learning just-in-time.

Where to Next? The use of videos in a flipped learning approach, with its further application for professional learning of mathematics teachers, is still a relatively new phenomenon. Therefore, further research, beyond anecdotal evidence, would be valuable. Any changes to levels of student achievement as a result of this form of video-based professional learning would be of particular interest. Future research may focus on this aspect in order to further determine the levels of effectiveness of a flipped professional learning programme. As suggested earlier, “…the success of professional learning should be measured not just in the benefit to the teachers, but in the improved outcomes for the students” (The Australian Senate Standing Committee of Education and Workplace Relations, 2013, as cited in Beswick, Anderson, & Hurst, 2016, p. 92). Finally, further iterations of this study would be considered useful in order to attempt to allow more teachers to access videos, within this flipped professional learning model, as they self-identified a need within their teaching.

168

A. Stensness and N. Calder

Conclusion The use of videos within a flipped professional learning approach within this study allowed for just-in-time learning and saw increases in self-efficacy in areas of selfidentified need. This encouraged the teachers to explore their teacher capacity, including their knowledge, skill, and dispositions associated with the professional learning focus area. From the study, it was seen that teacher dispositions, particularly self-efficacy, improved for each participant in relation to their area of professional learning focus. In addition, the way in which the flipped professional learning approach encouraged conversation was particularly valued by the participants. This highlighted the fact that a flipped professional learning approach is far from an isolated videowatching method. It is a valuable springboard into robust learning-focused conversations which are relevant to the current reality of the teacher. Ensuring the availability of a facilitator with the appropriate range of knowledge and developed trust would be the challenge to the provision of this style of professional learning in order to ensure that it could be delivered just-in-time. However, the videos were seen to be central to this professional learning process. Making use of videos to provide an accessible and non-threatening method of delivering professional learning could well provide a solution to improving mathematics teacher capacity in New Zealand and delivering professional learning in general.

References Anderson, J. (2017). A mathematician has created a teaching method that’s proving there’s no such thing as a bad math student. Retrieved from https://qz.com/901125/a-mathematician-hascreated-a-method-of-teaching-that-is-proving-there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-bad-math-student/. Anthony, G., & Walshaw, M. (2007). Effective pedagogy in mathematics/pangarau: Best evidence synthesis iteration (BES). Wellington: New Zealand Ministry of Education. Attard, C., Ingram, N., Forgasz, H., Leger, G., & Grootenboer, P. (2016). Mathematics education and the affective domain. In K. Makar, S. Dole, J. Visnovska, M. Goos, A. Bennison, & K. Fry (Eds.), Research in mathematics education in Australasia 2012–2015 (pp. 73–96). Singapore: Springer. Bailey, A. (2015). Flipped learning. Training Journal; London, September, 5–7. Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117–148. Retrieved from https://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Bandura/Bandura19 93EP.pdf. Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71–81). New York: Academic Press (Reprinted in H. Friedman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of mental health. San Diego: Academic Press, 1998). Retrieved from https://www.uky.edu/~eus he2/Bandura/BanEncy.html. Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2015). Flipped learning for math instruction. Arlington: International Society for Technology in Education.

8 Flipping Professional Learning Through Videos …

169

Beswick, K. (2008). Influencing teachers’ beliefs about teaching mathematics for numeracy to students with mathematics learning difficulties. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 9, 3–20. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d93f/32df4c9346257f5ba08efc69 d3f2c0a0023b.pdf. Beswick, K. (2014). What teachers’ want: Identifying mathematics teachers’ professional learning needs. The Mathematics Enthusiast, 11(1), 83–108. Retrieved from http://web.a.ebscohost.com. ezproxy.waikato.ac.nz/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=32a6efe8-dfcb-4b30-9131-b25 151818bd6%40sessionmgr4007. Beswick, K., Anderson, J., & Hurst, C. (2016). The education and development of practicing teachers. In K. Makar, S. Dole, J. Visnovska, M. Goos, A. Bennison, & K. Fry (Eds.), Research in mathematics education in Australasia 2012–2015 (pp. 329–352). Singapore: Springer. Biddulph, F. (1999). The legacy of schooling: Student teachers’ initial mathematical feelings and competence. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 1(1999), 64–71. Bishop, J., & Verleger, M. (2013, June). The flipped classroom: A survey of research. Paper presented at the 120th ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, American Society for Engineering Education, Atlanta GA. Retrieved from https://peer.asee.org/22585. Boaler, J. (2016). Mathematical mindsets: Unleashing students’ potential through creative math, inspiring messages, and innovative teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass & Pfeiffer Imprints. Bobis, J., Higgins, J., Cavanagh, M., & Roche, A. (2012). Professional knowledge of practising teachers of mathematics. In B. Perry, T. Lowrie, & T. Logan (Eds.), Research in mathematics education in Australasia 2008–2011 (pp. 313–341). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy.waikato.ac.nz/lib/waikato/reader.act ion?docID=3034720&ppg=3. Bolstad, R., & Gilbert, J. (2012). Supporting future-oriented learning and teaching: A New Zealand perspective. Wellington: Ministry of Education. Retrieved from https://www.educationcounts. govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/109317/994_Future-oriented-07062012.pdf. Burns, M. (2016). Flipping teacher professional development. Retrieved from http://www.global partnership.org/blog/flipping-teacher-professional-development. Calder, N. S. (2011). Processing mathematics through digital technologies: The primary years. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Calvert, L. (2016). The power of teacher agency. JSD, 37(2), 51–56. Retrieved from https://learni ngforward.org/docs/default-source/jsd-april-2016/the-power-of-teacher-agency-april16.pdf. Finney, S., & Schraw, G. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs in college statistics courses. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(2), 161–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-476X(02)00015-2. Flanagan, L. (2017). For teachers who dread math, finding a better way. San Francisco: KQED Inc. Retrieved from https://ww2.kqed.org/mindshift/2017/08/06/for-teachers-who-dread-math-fin ding-a-better-way/?utm_medium=Email&utm_source=ExactTarget&utm_campaign=201708 13Mindshift&mc_key=00Qi000001WzNyNEAV. Gedera, D. S. P., & Zalipour, A. (2018). Use of interactive video for teaching and learning. ASCILITE 2018 Conference Proceedings (pp. 362–367). Deakin University, Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education: Geelong, VIC, Australia. Goodwin, B., & Miller, K. (2013). Evidence on flipped classrooms is still coming in. Educational Leadership, 70(6), pp. 78–80. Retrieved from http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.waikato. ac.nz/ehost/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=cc929fa6-8135-42b4-922c-f7bb90d081e8%40sessionmgr 4008&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=85833636&db=ehh. Larkin, K., & Jamieson-Proctor, R. (2013). Transactional distance theory (TDT): An approach to enhancing knowledge and reducing anxiety of pre-service teachers studying a mathematics education course online. In V. Steinle, L. Ball, & C. Bardini (Eds.), Mathematics education: Yesterday, today and tomorrow (Proceedings of the 36th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia) (pp. 434–441). Melbourne: MERGA. Lee, J., Lim, C., & Kim, H. (2017). Development of an instructional design model for flipped learning in higher education. Education Technology Research and Development, 65(2), 427–453. Retrieved from https://doi-org.ezproxy.waikato.ac.nz/10.1007/s11423-016-9502-1.

170

A. Stensness and N. Calder

Lo, C., & Hew, K. (2017). A critical review of flipped classroom challenges in K-12 education: Possible solutions and recommendations for future research. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 12(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-016-0044-2. Milman, N. (2012). The flipped classroom strategy: What is it and how can it best be used? Distance Learning, 11(4), 9–11. Retrieved from https://books.google.co.nz/books?hl=en&lr=& id=NgYoDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA9&ots=M5An8D8mQc&sig=A-xhaetZlm9K88NXx XiPpkieFUk&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false. Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media. Pajares, F., & Kranzler, J. (1995). Self-efficacy beliefs and general mental ability in mathematical problem-solving. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20(4), 426–443. Paterson, J. (2009). Fostering ongoing growth and development as a professional. In R. Averill & R. Harvey (Eds.), Teaching secondary school mathematics and statistics: Evidence-based practice (Vol. 2, pp. 189–201). Wellington: NZCER Press. Patterson, R. (2015). Un(ac)countable : Why millions on maths returned little. Wellington: The New Zealand Initiative Ltd. Retrieved from http://ndhadeliver.natlib.govt.nz/delivery/DeliveryM anagerServlet?dps_pid=IE25242159. Schwartz, K. (2017). Can micro-credentials create more meaningful professional development for teachers? Retrieved from https://ww2.kqed.org/mindshift/2017/02/15/can-micro-credentials-cre ate-meaningful-professional-development-for-teachers/. Shaffer, L. (2017). Why ‘unlearning’ old habits is an essential step for innovation. Retrieved from https://ww2.kqed.org/mindshift/2017/06/23/why-unlearning-old-habits-is-an-essential-step-forinnovation/?utm_medium=Email&utm_source=ExactTarget&utm_campaign=20170625Mind shift&mc_key=00Qi000001WzNyNEAV. Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H., & Fung, I. (2007). Teacher professional learning and development: Best evidence synthesis iteration. Wellington: Ministry of Education. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/48727127.pdf. Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2009). Sources of self-efficacy in mathematics: A validation study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(1), 89–101. Vale, C., Atweh, B., Averill, R., & Skourdoumbis, A. (2016). Equity, social justice and ethics in mathematics education. In K. Makar, S. Dole, J. Visnovska, M. Goos, A. Bennison, & K. Fry (Eds.), Research in mathematics education in Australasia 2012–2015 (pp. 97–118). Singapore: Springer. Webster-Wright, A. (2009). Reframing professional development through understanding authentic professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 702–739. Retrieved from https:// www.jstor.org/stable/40469054. Young-Loveridge, J., Bicknell, B., & Mills, J. (2012). The mathematical content knowledge and attitudes of New Zealand pre-service primary teachers. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 14(2), 28–49. Zainuddin, Z., & Halili, S. (2016). Flipped classroom research and trends from different fields of study. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(3), 313–340. Zhang, Q., & Stephens, M. (2013). Utilising a construct of teacher capacity to examine national curriculum reform in mathematics. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 25(4), 481–502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-013-0072-9. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 82–91.

Chapter 9

Video as an Instructional Tool in Transforming Teachers’ Pedagogical Practices and Mentoring Skills in Physical Education Isabella Yuen Fun Wong and Steven Kwang San Tan Abstract This chapter focuses on video analysis as a tool to enhance physical education teachers’ pedagogical practices and experienced practitioners’ mentoring skills. It offers a description of how videos have been managed to help beginning physical education teachers (hereafter “beginning teachers”) reflect and improve on their pedagogical performance, and to develop instructional mentors’ (hereafter “mentors”) competence. Exemplary digital videos were created that represented the desired “best practice” teaching actions. Furthermore, digitally recorded beginning teachers’ lessons and mentors’ mentoring episodes facilitated video-aided analysis of beginning teachers’ teaching for self-reflection and subsequent conversations with their mentors. Three Primary and four Secondary beginning teachers and their mentors participated in a year-long professional development, where they learnt pedagogical knowledge and viewed the exemplary videos. Qualitative data of conversations and semi-structured interview transcripts were analysed using the constant comparison method to arrive at themes to describe the influence of video in transforming the professional learning of the beginning teachers and mentors. Keywords Video · Pedagogy · Education · Mentoring · Teacher education · Video analysis · Physical education · Professional development · Video pedagogy

Introduction Mentoring of beginning teachers is an essential strategy adopted by the Ministry of Education, Singapore in efforts to develop beginning teachers’ competence, improve professional induction, increase teacher retention, and build a high-quality teacher workforce (Chong & Tan, 2006; Heng, 2012; Low, Liu, Ng, Goodwin, & Goh, 2017; Ministry of Education, 2019a; Ng, 2012). To further enhance the mentoring process during the professional development of teachers’ instructional practices, the Ministry of Education introduced the Singapore Teaching Practice model (Chan, 2017). The model (Ministry of Education, 2018) (see Appendix), at its core, presents I. Y. F. Wong (B) · S. K. S. Tan National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 D. S. P. Gedera and A. Zalipour (eds.), Video Pedagogy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-4009-1_9

171

172

I. Y. F. Wong and S. K. S. Tan

key instructional processes that clearly describes important planning and pedagogical practices (a.k.a. teaching actions) teachers need to deliberate on prior, during, and after each teaching episode with their students. The model seeks to make explicit effective pedagogical practices and provides a common language for teachers to describe how to teach (Liu, Koh, Choy, & Tay-Lim, 2018). To facilitate the development of school-based, subject-specific mentors in Physical Education (PE), Physical Education and Sports Teacher Academy1 revised the Physical Education Lesson Observation Tool (PELOT) (Ministry of Education, 2013, 2019b) document to align PE-specific teaching processes and actions with the model. Therefore, a study was designed, with grant support and expertise from the Ministry of Education, to investigate the influence of video-based professional development experience on beginning teachers’ teaching and their mentors’ mentoring. The purpose of this chapter is to describe how the pedagogical practices in physical education exemplary videos were developed for use in the study. Furthermore, we discuss how video analysis of beginning teachers’ lessons helped to improve the change process of the beginning teachers’ and mentors’ practices. Finally, results supporting the beginning teachers’ and mentors’ learning and improvement in their practices are illustrated qualitatively.

Use of Video in Teacher Learning and Mentoring in Physical Education Research on the use of video and the influence of video analysis in physical education teacher education and professional development, even though not new, is not very prevalent as compared to other disciplines like Mathematics, Science, and English (Calandra & Rich, 2014; Greenberg, 1971). Different scholars (Calandra, Gurvitch, & Lund, 2008; Gaudin, Chaliès, & Amathieu, 2018; Gaudin, Flandin, Ria, & Chaliès, 2014; Prusak, Dye, Graham, & Graser, 2010; Roche & Gal-Petitfaux, 2015) highlighted some perspectives on the influence of video on beginning (i.e., pre-service) teachers’ learning to teach within the context of a physical education teacher preparation programme, which provides relevant and pertinent insights. First, when viewing videos on good teaching practices, pre-service teachers tend to imitate the exemplary practice and reproduce these actions as similar as possible in classrooms. However, the proficiency and success in demonstrating these learned practices were impacted by their experiences, beliefs, and educational concerns at the time of learning and performance. Second, when viewing videos of typical classroom practice or personal teaching vignettes to stimulate personal reflections, beginning teachers were more inclined to focus on what Van Manen (1977) referred to as the technical aspects of their 1 The Physical Education and Sports Teacher Academy was established by the Ministry of Education

in 2011 to enhance the professional development and practice of physical education teachers, and to help them deliver quality PE lessons in schools.

9 Video as an Instructional Tool in Transforming Teachers’ …

173

teaching, and on a more teacher or self-centred focus, especially when no reflection guidelines were provided. However, with scaffolding provided, teachers shifted their observation and reflective focus on students and other classroom contexts. Third, viewing peers’ videos or classroom episodes to analyse the diversity of practices from various perspectives, stimulated beginning teachers’ self-reflection to seek personal teaching decisions and actions for application in similar teaching situations. Beginning teachers developed an ability to compare their teaching actions with their peers or other teachers. Finally, viewing videos is effective when trainers, experienced others or mentors facilitate the video viewing activity. Beginning teachers’ video viewing activity must be augmented with highly structured guidance and scaffolding to ensure any positive effect on teachers’ knowledge and skills. Furthermore, beginning teachers’ teaching activity is also influenced by other opportunities for practice (e.g., microteaching, student teaching) supported by experienced teacher-educators.

Context of the Study A total of seven beginning teachers (three Primary and four Secondary teachers) and their school-based mentors participated in a series of professional learning activities over one year. The study adopted the “normative” approach (Gaudin et al., 2014) in the design and implementation of the professional development experience to accelerate the learning of the beginning teachers and the mentoring development of the mentors. Specifically, the following steps were structured for the four, 2-day workshops, lesson observations, and follow-up mentoring sessions: • The meanings of the Singapore Teaching Practice model’s pedagogical practice in PE teaching actions were taught, explained, and exemplified (as “exemplar” or “best” practices in the exemplary videos) to the beginning teachers and mentors (Marsh, Mitchell, & Adamczyk, 2009). • Both beginning teachers and their mentors analysed beginning teachers’ baseline lessons using the “exemplar” practices, to ensure that they were able to interpret and instruct the “exemplar” teaching actions correctly during the initial workshop sessions. • Beginning teachers planned and taught six lessons over the 9-month school year, working on various “exemplar” practices, with the lessons digitally recorded. • Beginning teachers and mentors analysed the lesson recordings separately for use during post-lesson mentoring sessions. • During the mentoring episodes, the “one-to-one reflective learning conversations” (Fig. 9.1) mode of engagement between the beginning teachers and their mentors were employed (Baecher, Kung, Ward, & Kern, 2018). • Mentors’ mentoring episodes were digitally recorded for analysis and feedback by the University faculty to help mentors develop their mentoring competencies.

174

I. Y. F. Wong and S. K. S. Tan

Fig. 9.1 Still-frame of “one-to-one reflective learning conversations” between mentors and beginning teachers ©National Institute of Education, Singapore

The exemplary videos are meant to be “modeling videos” for instructional purposes that demonstrate “best practices,” justified and explained in conjunction with the model, and applied in the context of teaching in physical education (Gaudin et al., 2014). The purpose of the videos was to enable both the beginning teachers and mentors to develop a clear vision of what physical education teaching entails by viewing videos illustrating “best practices” of teachers (Brouwer, 2011). Additionally, these videos were also helpful to stimulate beginning teachers’ personal reflection of their practice, and to enable mentors’ video-aided analysis of their mentees’ pedagogical performance over time. For both situations, the exemplary videos were used as a reference point for comparing beginning teachers’ baseline and subsequent teaching episodes. The specific descriptions (Baecher, Kung, Ward, & Kern, 2018) for the exemplary videos included the following:

Video Content The videos of exemplary practice depicted ordinary physical education teachers exhibiting the teaching actions in a naturalistic context (i.e., actual classroom settings), where the lessons observed within the school’s environment were realistic and planned based on the national curriculum. Even though each video illustrated specific teaching actions with accompanying descriptors (see below for more details), the lesson and teaching presentations were authentic and not scripted. Besides, illustrating each teaching action in the videos, it was also important to help teachers review the knowledge base (i.e., the “what” and “why”) specific to the teaching actions. This was to ensure a common understanding of teachers’ professional knowledge and practice. In composing scripts for each particular teaching action, several scholarly

9 Video as an Instructional Tool in Transforming Teachers’ …

175

Fig. 9.2 Still-frame of the “what” and “why” for “Providing Clear Explanation with Effective Demonstration” teaching action

works were referenced extensively2 to provide a valid and cogent understanding of the required pedagogical knowledge in physical education. A voice-over narrated transcript, during the introductory segment of the video, presented the significant knowledge concerning “what” the teaching action is related to, and “why” the teaching action is considered important as part of a teacher’s pedagogical practice. A sample of the voice-over transcript for the “Providing Clear Explanation with Effective Demonstration” teaching action and the accompanying video still-frame are illustrated in Fig. 9.2. Clarity in teaching movement skills is essential as it enables students to gain an understanding of what they need to know and be able to do. In physical education, students need to not only hear how the movement is to be performed, but more importantly, they need to see an accurate representation of the movement they are expected to reproduce in their learning. When presenting the movement skill verbally to students, teachers need to draw their attention to what is important in the demonstration that is aligned with the explanation. Presenting the content clearly helps to promote desirable student learning and satisfaction.

The videos also presented critical descriptors or characteristics (i.e., the “how”) for implementing specific teaching action and assisted teachers to improve the delivery of their teaching. These descriptors (or characteristics) are observable elements of the teaching actions that define “minimal expectations” for their pedagogical practice. Again, the descriptors were summarised based on the extensive review of the established knowledge base. One important note is that the descriptors for each teaching action do not necessarily represent a complete or exhaustive list, but were 2 The

following textbooks were referenced in developing the exemplary videos: Capel, Leask, and Turner (2013), Graham, Holt-Hale, and Parker (2013), Harrison, Blakemore, Buck, and Pellett (1996), Rink (2014), Rovegno and Bandhauer (2013), Siedentop and Tannehill (2000), Tannehill, van der Mars, and MacPhail (2015).

176

I. Y. F. Wong and S. K. S. Tan

Fig. 9.3 Still-frame of “Providing Clear Explanation with Effective Demonstration” teaching action key descriptors

deemed, as “minimal expectations” required of teachers to propagate consistent, “best” practice in the teaching action for physical education by the fraternity, regardless of teaching experience. Figure 9.3 presents the key descriptors for the “Providing Clear Explanation with Effective Demonstration” teaching action. In helping teachers to appreciate “best” practice through leveraging video as a pedagogical tool, it is essential to point out the relevant segments in the videos that promote the characteristic practice. Therefore, to achieve this intention, the videos needed to help teachers understand what the descriptors refer to, in behavioural terms, when the teacher is portraying that teaching action. Therefore, the video presented the teaching actions key descriptors as subtitles whenever the teacher was observed illustrating those specific descriptors in the video. Figure 9.4 shows the key descriptors as subtitles for the “Providing Clear Explanation with Effective Demonstration” teaching action. Figure 9.5 offers other examples of key descriptors of different teaching actions presented as appropriate subtitles. In this way, teachers reviewing the pedagogical practice videos can pause at the appropriate segment of the video, to have a clearer understanding specific to that aspect of the practice, to deepen their understanding of the teaching performance. Eighteen teaching actions video clips were produced covering the following three teaching processes: (a) positive classroom culture, (b) lesson enactment, and (c) assessment and feedback. The length for each video ranged from 1 min up to 3 min the most, without considering the credits and voice-over introductory narration. During the workshop sessions, beginning teachers and mentors viewed and discussed the different videos, and used them to analyse the beginning teachers’ baseline teaching.

9 Video as an Instructional Tool in Transforming Teachers’ …

177

Fig. 9.4 Still-frame of “Providing Clear Explanation with Effective Demonstration” teaching action identifying specific key descriptors (as subtitles) when the teacher is portraying them during teaching in the video ©National Institute of Education, Singapore

Fig. 9.5 Still-frame featuring video fragments of different teaching actions identifying key descriptors (as subtitles) when the teacher was enacting these specific descriptors for the respective teaching actions ©National Institute of Education, Singapore

178

I. Y. F. Wong and S. K. S. Tan

Video Designers For the video production, the team, comprising of university faculty, Ministry of Education’s curriculum specialist, and PE Master Teachers,3 identified practitioners in the school system who were already comfortable performing these teaching actions in their daily routines.

Video Responders When facilitating beginning teachers’ video-analysis during the mentoring sessions, the mentors were primarily involved in providing feedback on the beginning teachers’ practice. However, during subsequent workshops, study team members also reviewed beginning teachers’ “volunteered” digital lessons.

Viewing Focus Beginning teachers and mentors were provided with directions for what they should observe, analyse, and reflect on when viewing the beginning teachers’ digital recordings. Specifically, they were required, during the face-to-face mentoring process, to detail comparisons of the critical descriptors for the teaching actions of subsequent lessons with both the baseline observations and exemplary videos. Each mentoring session usually lasted for no more than an hour and focused primarily on the identified teaching actions for development and improvement by the beginning teachers. During subsequent workshops, post-lesson conferences, and at the end of the year-long study, conversations and semi-structured interviews were employed for data collection. Analysis of qualitative data from the conversations and interview transcripts provided beginning teachers’ and mentors’ views on the use of video as an instructional tool in developing their teaching and mentoring skills. The study used a constant comparison to code beginning teachers’ and mentors’ responses (by at least two researchers) to the relevant topics and questions asked throughout the year. Data were systematically examined to determine consistent themes for each group. The next sections will discuss findings from using the exemplary and digital videos evidence (of beginning teachers’ lessons and mentors’ post-lesson mentoring) to facilitate beginning teachers’ and mentors’ learning and development.

3 The

Master Teacher is one of the career pathways in the Ministry of Education’s Teaching Track, with the pinnacle position of Principal Master Teacher. Career advancement in the Teaching Track include the Senior Teacher, Lead Teacher, Master Teacher, and the Principal Master Teacher. Currently, all the Master Teachers are situated within the Physical Education and Sports Teacher Academy.

9 Video as an Instructional Tool in Transforming Teachers’ …

179

Exemplary Video Evidence for Beginning Teachers’ Instructional Practice Explicit to helping beginning teachers to improve their pedagogical practice, and mentors’ capacity to help teachers to feel successful, was the idea that these teachers needed to have a clear vision of good teaching that both can work towards, and that the vision should be well-articulated and supported by the pedagogical knowledge base in physical education and school-based practical experiences. This, in essence, was supported by representative feedback expressed during the end of the study interview: I would say that the videos have been helpful in terms of my own personal target setting. . . . It lists down the behaviours that teachers should exhibit and it has made my teaching more structured and more specific. ~ Beginning Teacher 5

More specifically, the pedagogical knowledge base with the accompanying video exemplars provided the beginning teachers and their mentors with clear representations and made explicit what the descriptors for each teaching action meant. This allowed the teachers to level up their existing craft knowledge and understanding of the theoretical underpinnings of their practices. A clear example of this experience occurred during the workshop session after the first-semester professional development experience when a beginning teacher stated: The lesson observation cycle 1A helped me identify the characteristics I was able to show for the selected pedagogical practice. I then repeated these while tackling the missing characteristics in 1B. It was a progressive though tedious learning curve. ~ Beginning Teacher 7

The exemplary videos, therefore, were critical to the professional development of beginning teachers in enhancing their instructional practices. It is important to state that the intent of using the exemplary videos is not to highlight “best practices” per se. It must be noted that teachers might demonstrate more descriptors when portraying teaching actions and this is understandable and expected of more experienced teachers. However, in helping the beginning teachers to enhance and develop specific practice, it is imperative to identify clear descriptors to help them hone their teaching actions. At the conclusion of the study, one teacher succinctly expressed how the pedagogical practice videos were instrumental to his learning: For me, I am a visual learner. I think most of us are visual learners. Watching and seeing how it is executed is better as compared to just reading about it from the document itself. At least I know these are the expected behaviours that I should exhibit in my lessons. ~ Beginning Teacher 3

180

I. Y. F. Wong and S. K. S. Tan

Video Evidence for Reflective Analysis and Conversations Between Mentors and Beginning Teachers The use of videos has proved to be an invaluable tool for teachers to observe and reflect upon what they see of their teaching at the pre-service and professional development levels (Bergman, 2015; Calandra, Sun, & Puvirajah, 2014; Coffey, 2014; Harlin, 2014; Marsh & Mitchell, 2014; Osmanoglu, 2016; Pellegrino & Gerber, 2012; Rich & Hannafin, 2009; Wang & Hartley, 2003). One key advantage is that it retains a permanent record of the recording observations and that the mentor and/or teacher can replay the video as needed (Thomas, Nelson, & Silverman, 2015). This helps both mentors and teachers to verify their observations and allow for the collection of systematic feedback for analysing and evaluating specific teaching behaviours. This section discusses how video technologies were used specifically to help the beginning teachers and mentors to become more self-evaluative and critically reflective. First, the digital recording of a beginning teacher’s instructional practice allowed the dyad to view the pedagogical practices more critically, looking for evidence that facilitated a reflective inquiry and analytical stance together. As stated by a beginning teacher during the post-intervention interviews: I felt that the video recording was very useful because you know what exactly was said and done at that point in time. There is the evidence for discussion and where he (my mentor) can bring it up as an example. ~ Beginning Teacher 1

Furthermore, there was an opportunity for the beginning teachers to learn and compare the evidence from present teaching situations, via reflection, and their baseline teaching with information from the exemplary videos, for gaining insights and making changes for improvement: Looking at my baseline video, I noted that there were a lot of components lacking in my teaching. However, looking at the last few videos, I could see an improvement and progress made as I’ve hit most of the characteristics for effective demonstration. ~ Beginning Teacher 6

Second, besides facilitating video-aided observations, the power of digital video evidence to stimulate the essential reflective conversations between the dyad was evident. These conversations, based on objective evidence gathered from the beginning teachers’ digital records, now made more sense, especially for the mentors: With the videos, we can see and talk about what we see together. It’s easier for me to ask the ‘why’ and ‘what if’ questions. ~ Mentor 4

Developing the mentors’ ability to help raise awareness of their mentees, particularly in relation to the beginning teachers’ capacity in developing critical reflection on practice was an important dimension of this study. Such conversations empowered the beginning teachers through a process of constructing and using their own technical knowledge. The following quote illustrates this aspiration well: The reflection questions set me thinking about how to make my next lesson more enriching for the kids. ~ Beginning Teacher 2

9 Video as an Instructional Tool in Transforming Teachers’ …

181

Finally, during the workshop sessions, beginning teachers shared videos on the pedagogical aspects of their teaching with their peers. Such use of videos helped to inspire reflective practice through group-based discussions in a community of practice. For the beginning teachers, such sharing afforded credible experiences for communication and developed shared understandings of personal challenges and successes. The mentors also articulated ways in which they learnt in and from the mentoring experiences as they worked with their mentees. Specifically, for the mentors, these discussions helped them realise that mentoring is a creative, collaborative, co-creating, and transformative experience. As expressed by a mentor in a mentor-specific group session: I have to know the pedagogical practice and specific expectations. I also need to know how to assess if beginning teachers meet these expectations, and then need to know how to help. Knowing that I am not alone helps. Knowing that my mentee sees me journeying with him helps. ~ Mentor 7

The descriptions above indicate that the beginning teachers and mentors managed to leverage on video technology, which provided a platform for video-added observations, reflection on practice, and constructive, meaningful discussions and conversations. Furthermore, the impact of video-based lessons offering opportunities for associated learning and changes in the mentors’ mentoring practices were also supported.

Video Evidence for Reflective Analysis and Transformational Learning with Mentors The videos of the mentors’ baseline and practice mentoring sessions and transcripts were analysed to help determine the learning and development of their mentoring knowledge and skills. The digital recordings of the dyad’s mentoring conversations were intended to provide opportunities for the mentors to “learn about, discuss, try out, and reflect upon how these conversations are put into practice” (Helman, 2006, p. 80). The use of both audio and video digital recordings of the mentoring conversations during the various phases of the observation-mentoring cycles was another critical empowering aspect of the study. The videos afforded the mentors opportunities to engage in immediate and delayed reflective analysis of their practice as mentors and themselves as teachers. More importantly, giving collaborative support and a safe space (Lanas & Kiilakoski, 2013), helped the mentors to understand their voices, mentoring philosophical orientations, and facilitated for enhancing their learning, teaching, and mentoring processes and practice. The video observations and discussions engaged the mentors in studying their expectations and competencies, leading them to a transformation of their inner understanding of themselves as both mentors and teachers. Videos also played a critical role in disrupting initial assumptions as well as starting points for reflection and initiation for change practice. The following provide illustrative examples of the significance of self-awareness, self-reflection,

182

I. Y. F. Wong and S. K. S. Tan

and subjective turn that is important in learning and how these were facilitated by video analysis. When it came time for a mentor to observe his own actions from the video of a post-observation conversation, the subjective level of learning became activated for him. He had thought he had determined for a less directive, but more collaborative and mediational stance for working with his mentee, but was surprised that his opening statement was: [Name of Teacher], that was quite a good lesson. It looks like there are some things that I could suggest and you can try out in your next lesson. ~ Mentor 2

Similarly, another mentor, who had determined to co-inquire and not be judgemental, noted his contrary practice: First, the lesson is good. Let me talk to you first about your qualities. . . . Then I will focus on the area(s) that I thought you might have problems with ~ Mentor 4

In enacting a reflective model, the mentors appreciated the role of videos in helping them to make sense, “deconstruct,” “construct,” and mentor/guide about practice while collaboratively watching and reflecting together. Several features stand out regarding the use of videos with mentees and also with self as mentors. First, the focus on teaching behaviours and mentoring behaviours; second the attention to feedback and inquiry that involves correcting and enhancing behaviours as the primary goal; third, insights gained into the consistency between self-assessment (self-reflection) and reliable and detailed evidence; and fourth, a possible attempt to use videos to simplify context. Videos provide both verbal and non-verbal components of a context and allow participants to watch for specific elements of learning and development. Video-elicited reflections encouraged practitioners to be more discriminating rather than merely descriptive about their practice, and the elicited conversations tended to be enriched by multiple perspectives. In the mentoring cycle, videos elicited structures and reflections with defining goals, ascertaining the purposes of data collection, and alerting and anticipating challenges with the Pre-Conference. With beginning teachers, it helps to elicit glimpses into the teaching that is to unfold; with mentors, it provides a glimpse into the instructional mentoring agenda. The Observation is the gathering of data with the video recordings, with a primary focus on the beginning teachers’ work with their students during teaching. With beginning teachers reflecting with video elicits focus with specific teaching behaviours, implementation and revision of plans, and interaction patterns. With mentors, the video elicits awareness of mentoring stance, mentor-mentee interactions and behaviours, mentoring language, co-inquiry and problem-solving behaviours. The Post-Conference facilitates the analysis of data gathered via video during the observation. With beginning teachers, the focus is on changes made with teaching behaviours, pedagogical practice development, the lesson, and the why of student learning responses. The mentors systematically introduce video data to guide the conversations to issues and areas identified by the beginning teachers in the pre-planning and pre-conference phase. The beginning teachers and mentors then

9 Video as an Instructional Tool in Transforming Teachers’ …

183

construct action plans for future teaching. With mentors, the video informs on the success of chosen mentoring stance, flexibility with mentoring approach, competencies with mentoring language, mentee resistance or persistence in the mentoring partnership, the capacities of the mentee to participate in guided reflection and problem-solving, and awareness of self-competencies as a mentor. The qualitative findings gleaned from the mentors’ post-lesson feedback sessions with their mentees supported the mentors’ enhanced capabilities to support beginning teachers’ self-reflection and decision-making processes. An exemplary dialogue of a dyad during the post-lesson conference sessions is illustrative: Mentor

“This post-lesson conversation will focus on B3.3 that refers to ‘Teacher positions himself appropriately to maintain visual contact with the whole class, and gives timely and specific feedback.’ Based on the workshop, ‘timely and specific feedback’ refers to feedback that are specific and congruent, with cues provided to students, and for corrective feedback to focus on what students should do, rather than what they should not do. The last part will be based on motivating the students. . . . [Name of Teacher], can you please share what are the teaching cues for this lesson?” Beginning teacher “For this lesson, the objective is to teach the students the insideof-the-foot pass. For the inside-of-the-foot pass, I have three teaching cues - toes up, step and swing and inside foot dirty.” Mentor “Based on the lesson plan, for the toes up, you also emphasised critical features such as toe point upwards, bigger surface area, and strong contact.” Beginning teacher “For step and swing, step is to make the body stable and balanced, and swing is to generate strength in the kick.” Mentor “Finally, you mentioned using the inside foot to kick. With these cues in mind, let us now look at the eight feedback [statements] that you had given during the activity. Let us now use the criteria of specific and congruent as we look at the feedback one at a time. What do you think about the first feedback?” Beginning teacher “I like the way you swing your foot. This feedback is specific and congruent. I am giving feedback based on the teaching cues that I had introduced to them, which is step and swing. I should have said, ‘I like the way you swing your kicking foot to be more specific and precise.’ It relates back to my teaching cue, which is step and swing.” . . . Mentor “When you gave this feedback, did you think Corinna was able to reflect and understand specifically what you were saying? Did you think your feedback gave her the awareness that she was able to swing her leg to the back, and to be able to replicate it for future kicking? If we as teachers can get them [students] to be aware of it [feedback], to know it consciously.”

184

I. Y. F. Wong and S. K. S. Tan

Beginning teacher “She can see for herself the result of her kick. The ball managed to reach her partner that was about three to four metres away. Bearing in mind that some of her classmates who did not swing the foot, the balls went only for one to two metres and stopped halfway. For her, because she made the effort to swing her kicking foot, and as a result, the ball managed to reach her partner. Maybe, I could have added on with, ‘See, by swinging your foot to the back, you ball is able to reach the intended target.’ Maybe, I could have said that in my feedback. In this way, she might have a better or clearer idea of why swinging the foot to the back is good.” The findings observed from the digital recordings of the beginning teachers’ instructional and mentors’ mentoring sessions provided support for how video-guided reflection and inquiry practices contributed to beginning teachers’ and mentors’ professional learning. The beginning teachers were able to learn further and improve their teaching competencies, with the assistance of engaging in evidence-based critical conversations with their mentors. The mentors’ mentoring practices were also enhanced, as they reflected on video-evidenced mentoring practices, and as the dyads were able also to be involved in more productive and constructive collaborative discussions, as they were able to analyse the evidence from the teachers’ digital lesson recordings and relied on the Physical Education Lesson Observation Tool’s common language and characteristics of pedagogical practices to frame their communications.

Practical Considerations for the Use of Video Technology Tool Despite the advantages in the use of video-based observations, teachers and mentors need to be aware of specific issues and challenges, particularly when utilising videobased observations as a strategy in helping beginning teachers to reflect upon and improve their performance. The experiences from this study may provide valuable insights regarding practical considerations and solutions for how teachers can optimise the impact of video technologies for professional development. The first consideration is related to the use of evidence and behavioural descriptors to guide observations and responses for the “assessment” of teaching. If the beginning teachers were not guided specifically to observe the critical descriptors of the teaching actions, these important elements might be missed for the shallow, less significant aspects of their practice. It is critical to reinforce the importance of using videos as a pedagogical tool, rather than simply be something to be included in the mentoring experience of beginner teachers (Baecher, Kung, Ward, & Kern, 2018; Marsh & Mitchell, 2014). Furthermore, mentors should not simply focus on areas of weakness, but rather also assist the beginning teachers in discerning both

9 Video as an Instructional Tool in Transforming Teachers’ …

185

the positive (strengths) as well as the negative (weaknesses) aspects of their practice. In this way, mentors can assure the beginning teachers of their desire to assist them in their development, without fear of beginning teachers engaging in self-criticism or reluctance with revealing deficiencies for fear of a negative appraisal. The second concern relates to the motivation of individuals. Even though technology played a part in the capacity for self-evaluation of the beginning teachers and mentors, the gains were not consistent across all dyads. An obvious observation by the team was that learning to teach (and mentor) based on the expected protocols took a lot of effort and practice. There were clear improvements made, but the progress was slow. For effective mentoring conversations to take place, these individuals needed to take time to review the recorded lessons and engage in diligent preliminary preparations before their mentoring meetings. Enhanced critical and evidenced-based analysis may entail multiple viewing of the teaching episodes involving conscientious, persistent, and perhaps painstaking need to pause, note, rewind, and replay of video segments. Video-based engagement may be a clear benefit or a bane with mentoring. While technology might support the professional learning of teachers, technology in itself is unlikely to enhance the teachers’ learning per se. It is the way, the belief, the intensity, the and how teachers interact with the technology resource that governs the learning potential. The beginning teachers’ acceptance of responsibility for their development and personal progress was also vital to the mentoring process. Similarly, this commitment is applied to mentors. Having mentors who dedicated themselves to the study helped make the mentoring process fruitful for both parties. For this study, all the participants volunteered their involvement, either without the schools reducing their teaching workload responsibilities or with administrative support like common or dedicated time for lesson planning, observations, and mentoring. The dyads held observation-mentoring cycles during periods when both teachers were free from other responsibilities and commitments in the schools, or after official school hours. The dyads were self-motivated, willing, and gave dedicated efforts to video-based analysis and discourse, although with different levels of competencies. The third challenge deals with the use of the evidence-based approach in mentoring with the support of specialised recording tools for the collection of information. The collecting, processing, and analysing of information related to teaching behaviours requires time and human resources (including specialised expertise) that schools and teachers may not possess. Unlike in the classroom, where the teacher’s positions and students’ movements are generally limited, the physical education teaching-learning context is more challenging. The usage of digital recording does have a distinct disadvantage where the recording is dependent on the quality of equipment and technical expertise of individuals managing the recording. As the teacher and all students are generally on the move, and as such, the recording device needs to pan and follow the teacher (and sometimes the students) appropriately. The large Physical Education environment also makes recording challenging as, sometimes, when the teacher is far away, the view of the teacher–student interactions might be limited and blocked due to students in the foreground. This means that the individual

186

I. Y. F. Wong and S. K. S. Tan

managing the recording device needs to be aware and be constantly positioning the equipment to get unobstructed views of the teacher and students concerned. The availability of personnel to assist with the recording is a related constraint, where the mentor and students can generally assist with this task. However, the problems are often magnified when students are asked for assistance with recording without any instruction or with limited guidance. Besides recording clear views of the teacher, at all times, the technical capability of the equipment to make an audible recording of the teacher’s verbal dialogue, e.g., explanations, instructions, feedback, etc., compounds the problem. Generally, the large teaching environment requires an additional, external wireless lapel microphone accessory to record sounds successfully, rather than simply relying on the device’s, built-in microphone. Despite all these concerns in adopting the use of digital videos for videoaided reflection for physical education teachers, the study hoped that these beginning teachers would continue to record themselves as a means for reflection and self-evaluation, even without the need to rely on a mentor for feedback. It is important to note that over recent years, there are a plethora of recording devices capable of recording high definition video of teaching performance that varies in costs and sophistication. Some of these include the following: iPAD, GoPRo camera, tablets, smartphones, etc. Given the portability of digital video recording devices and the rich opportunity for physical education teachers to see themselves teach, and for mentors to help them in the reflective and mentoring processes, the continued exploration of new technologies to leverage on video technology and video-based observations during mentoring is a worthwhile undertaking (Bennett, 2010). Acknowledgements This manuscript was funded by the Education Research Funding Programme, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, project no. AFD 04/14 TKS. The views expressed in this manuscript are the authors’ and do not necessarily represent the views of NIE.

Appendix The Singapore Teaching Practice pedagogical practices Teaching processes

Teaching actions

Positive classroom culture

Establishing interaction and rapport Maintaining positive discipline Setting expectations and routines Building trust Empowering learners (continued)

9 Video as an Instructional Tool in Transforming Teachers’ …

187

(continued) Teaching processes

Teaching actions

Lesson preparation

Determining lesson objectives Considering learner’s profile Selecting and sequencing content Planning key questions Sequencing learning Deciding on instructional strategies Deciding on teaching aids and learning resources

Lesson enactment

Activating prior knowledge Arousing interest Encouraging learner engagement Exercising flexibility Providing clear explanation Pacing and maintaining momentum Facilitating collaborative learning Using questions to Deepen learning Concluding the lesson

Assessment and feedback

Checking for understanding and providing feedback Supporting self-directed learning Setting meaningful assignment

Adapted from Ministry of Education (2018, October 11). The Singapore Teaching Practice, Academy of Singapore Teachers, Ministry of Education

References Baecher, L., Kung, S. C., Ward, S. L., & Kern, K. (2018). Facilitating video analysis for teacher development: A systematic review of the research. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 26(2), 185–216. Bennett, R. (2010). The role of technology in the mentoring and coaching of teachers. British Educational Communication and Technology Agency (BECTA). Retrieved from http://www.iri sconnect.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/the-role-of-technology-in-mentoring-and-coachingf inal-1-33.pdf. Bergman, D. (2015). Comparing the effects of classroom audio-recording and video-recording on pre-service teachers’ reflection of practice. The Teacher Educator, 50(2), 127–144. https://doi. org/10.1080/08878730.2015.1010054. Brouwer, N. (2011, April). Imaging teacher learning: A literature review on the use of digital video for pre-service teacher education and professional development. Paper presented at the AERA Annual Meeting in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA. Calandra, B., Gurvitch, R., & Lund, J. (2008). An exploratory study of digital video editing as a tool for teacher preparation. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16(2), 137–153.

188

I. Y. F. Wong and S. K. S. Tan

Calandra, B., & Rich, P. J. (2014). Digital video for teacher education: Research and practice. New York: Routledge. Calandra, B., Sun, Yuelu, & Puvirajah, A. (2014). A new perspective on pre-service teachers’ videoaided reflection. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 30(3), 104–109. https://doi. org/10.1080/21532974.2014.891880. Capel, S., Leask, M., & Turner, T. (Eds.). (2013). Learning to teach in the secondary school. London, UK: Routledge. Chang, A. (2017, May 31). Online platform for teachers to share and learn teaching pratices. The Straits Times. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/online-platform-for-teachers-toshare-and-learn-teachiing-pratices. Chong, S., & Tan, Y. K. (2006, February). Supporting the beginning teacher in Singapore schools— The Structured Mentoring Programme. Paper presented at the Asia-Pacific Educational Research Association meeting, Hong Kong. Coffey, A. M. (2014). Using video to develop skills in reflection in teacher education students. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(9). Retrieved from http://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol39/ iss9/6. Gaudin, C., Flandin, S., Ria, L., & Chaliès, S. (2014). An exploratory study of the influence of video viewing on pre-service teachers’ teaching activity: Normative versus developmental approaches. Form@re, 14(2), 21–50. Graham, G., Holt-Hale, S. A., & Parker, M. (2013). Children moving: A reflective approach to teaching physical education (9th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Gaudin, C., Chaliès, S., & Amathieu, J. (2018). The impact of pre-service teachers’ experience in a video-enhanced training program on their teaching: A case study in physical education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 18(1), 168–196. Greenberg, J. S. (1971). Videotaping and teacher preparation. Journal of Health, Physical Education, Recreation, 42(4), 32. Harlin, E. (2014). Watching oneself teach—Long-term effects of teachers’ reflection on their videorecorded teaching. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 23(4), 507–521. https://doi.org/10. 1080/1475939X.2013.822413. Harrison, J. M., Blakemore, C. L., Buck, M. M., & Pellett, T. L. (1996). Instructional strategies for Secondary school physical education (4th ed.). Dubuque, IA: Brown & Benchmark. Helman, L. (2006). What’s in a conversation? Mentoring stances in coaching conferences and how they matter. In B. Achinstein & S. Z. Athanases (Eds.), Mentors in the making: Developing new leaders for new teachers (pp. 68–82). New York: Teachers College Press. Heng, S. K. (2012). Address by Mr Heng Swee Keat, Minister for Education, at the 6th Teachers’ Conference on Thursday, 31 May 2012. Lanas, M., & Kiilakoski, T. (2013). Growing pains: Teacher becoming a transformative agent. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 21(3), 343–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2012.759134. Liu, W. C., Koh, C., Choy, D., & Tay-Lim, J. K. H. (Eds.). (2018). Understanding teaching, learning, and learners: A guide for Singapore teachers. Singapore: Cengage Learning. Low, E. L., Liu, W. C., Ng, P. T., Goodwin, A. L., & Goh, S. (2017). Teachers as mentors. Research in Education at NIE (REED), 21(3), 1. Singapore: NIE. Marsh, B., & Mitchell, N. (2014). The role of video in teacher professional development. Teacher Development, 18(3), 403–417. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2014.938106. Marsh, B., Mitchell, N., & Adamczyk, P. (2009). Interactive video technology: Enhancing professional learning in initial teacher education. Computers & Education, 54(3), 742–748. Ministry of Education. (2013). Physical Education Lesson Observation Tool (PELOT). Singapore: Physical Education and Sports Teacher Academy, Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education. (2018, October 11). The Singapore Teaching Practice. Academy of Singapore Teachers, Ministry of Education. Retrieved on 30 November 2019 from https://www.moe.gov. sg/about/singapore-teaching-practice. Ministry of Education. (2019a). Instructional Mentoring Programme (Revised). Academy of Singapore Teachers, Ministry of Education. Retrieved on 30 November 2019 from https://aca

9 Video as an Instructional Tool in Transforming Teachers’ …

189

demyofsingaporeteachers.moe.edu.sg/programmes-publications/professional-development-pro grammes/instructional-mentoring-programme. Ministry of Education (2019b). Physical Education Lesson Observation Tool (PELOT). [Online version]. Singapore: Physical Education and Sports Teacher Academy, Ministry of Education. Ng, P. T. (2012). Mentoring and coaching educators in the Singapore education system. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 1(1), 24–35. Osmanoglu, A. (2016). Prospective teachers’ teaching experience: Teacher learning through the use of video. Educational Research, 58(1), 39–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2015.1117321. Pellegrino, A. M., & Gerber, B. L. (2012). Teacher reflection through video-recording analysis. Georgia Educational Researcher, 9, 1, Article 1. https://doi.org/10.20429/ger.2012.090101. Prusak, K., Dye, B., Graham, C., & Graser, S. (2010). Reliability of pre-service physical education teachers’ coding of teaching videos using studiocode analysis software. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 18(1), 131–159. Rich, P. J., & Hannafin, M. (2009). Video annotation tools: Technologies to scaffold, structure and transform teacher reflection. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 52–67. Rink, J. E. (2014). Teaching physical education for learning (7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Roche, L., & Gal-Petitfaux, N. (2015). A video-enhanced teacher learning environment based on multimodal resources: A case study in PETE. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 11(2), 91–110. Rovegno, I., & Bandhauer, D. (2013). Elementary physical education: Curriculum and instruction. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning. Siedentop, D., & Tannehill, D. (2000). Developing teaching skills in physical education (4th ed.). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Co. Tannehill, D., van der Mars, H., & MacPhail, A. (2015). Building effective physical education programs. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning. Thomas, J. R., Nelson, J. K., & Silverman, S. J. (2015). Research methods in physical activity. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Van Manen, M. (1977). Linking ways of knowing with ways of being practical. Curriculum Inquiry, 6(3), 205–228. Wang, J., & Hartley, K. (2003). Video technology as a support for teacher education reform. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 11(1), 105–138.

Chapter 10

Examining an Activity System of Learners, Tools, and Tasks in a Video Club Tara Barnhart

Abstract Science education reform documents call for shifts in instruction that promote more student-centred instruction. Current science teachers often lack experience with this form of instruction, both as teachers and as learners. Video can provide models of desired instruction as well as provide ways for teachers to study classroom practice intensively. However, the importance of facilitation and practices to promote participant collaboration and focus has been identified as a critical factor in promoting teacher learning with video. Various frameworks exist that elaborate effective facilitation moves and practices. Yet, these facilitation frameworks do not consider the facilitation of video over time in response to participant learning, tool development, and changing tasks. Using an activity theory framework to analyse the interplay of tools, tasks, and talk, this chapter describes how facilitation in a video club with high school science teachers shifted over the course of a semester. This chapter explores explicitly how facilitation moves functioned differently during the video club series. While facilitation in early phases promoted trust-building and norm-setting as they analysed videos of others’ instruction, facilitation in middle and late phases promoted increased reliance on video-based evidence and analytic tools to support participants’ claims. In addition, facilitation in late phases saw a return to trust-building as participants began to analyse videos of their own teaching. The results of this analysis shed light on how the designers and facilitators of videobased professional development might plan for the shifting learning demands of participants, and the affordances of tools and tasks they engage with over time. Keywords Video club · Activity theory · Video-based professional development · Video · Pedagogy · Video pedagogy

T. Barnhart (B) Chapman University, Orange, CA, USA e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 D. S. P. Gedera and A. Zalipour (eds.), Video Pedagogy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-4009-1_10

191

192

T. Barnhart

Introduction A common emphasis in new science frameworks and international measures of school-aged students’ science achievement is the need to integrate understanding of science concepts with the practices of science. Specifically, K-12 students in the US and internationally should know how to construct and interpret scientific explanations of everyday phenomena from evidence (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010; National Research Council [NRC] 2012, 2015; OECD, 2018). The connection between the products and processes of science should be explicitly supported through instructional practices (Krajcik, McNeill, & Reiser, 2008; NRC, 2012). The substance of students’ ideas are attended to, interpreted, connected to key ideas in the discipline, and used to direct future instruction (Robertson, Atkins, Levine, & Richards, 2016). This instructional shift demands a different type of classroom discourse, one where students’ ideas are the centre—what is termed “responsive science teaching.” It also requires a shift in the role of the teacher from a transmitter of a cannon of knowledge to one who mediates students’ reasoning (Hammer, Goldberg, & Fargason, 2012). Integral to enacting instruction centred around students’ thinking is attending to, interpreting, and responding to students’ thinking, a cluster of skills referred to as noticing (Luna & Sherin, 2017; Mason, 2002; Stroupe, 2014; Thompson et al., 2016). Video clubs, in which groups of K-12 math and science teachers meet to analyse recordings of classroom practice, have been shown to be effective in supporting teachers in developing noticing of students’ ideas and adopting an interpretive lens to make sense of students’ ideas (Johnson & Mawyer, 2019; Luna & Sherin, 2017). However, simply gathering teachers together to analyse videos of their own or others’ teaching is not sufficient for changing either noticing or instruction (Blomberg, Sherin, Renkl, Glogger, & Seidel, 2014). van Es and Sherin found that the design of a video club influences what teachers notice (2006). Frameworks identify principles of the design of video-based professional development, but there is a lack of research on how these principles contribute to teacher learning (Kang & van Es, 2018; Leblank, 2018; Roth et al., 2017; van Es, Tekkumru-Kisa, & Seago, 2020; Zhang, Lundeberg, Koehler, & Eberhardt, 2011). Activity theory is a useful tool for exploring how design choices influence teacher learning because it recognises that the learning outcomes of professional development cannot be separated from their learning context (Roth & Lee, 2007). An activity system is used to specify and describe how elements of a learning context—i.e. tools, norms and rules, community, and division of labour—mediate the learning and doing of a participant or group (Engeström, 2000). This chapter describes how the design elements of one such video club of high school science teachers in the Southwestern United States coordinated as an activity system to promote an inquiry stance into science teaching practice. I will first describe the features of video-based professional development for teachers, then explain how these features were applied and their influence on learning studied.

10 Examining an Activity System of Learners …

193

Design Features of Video-Based Professional Development Because teaching is a complex practice, it is important to provide both a tangible vision of desired practice and ways to rigorously decompose it to study and refine it (Grossman, Hammerness, & McDonald, 2009; Hammer & van Zee, 2006; Windschitl, Thompson, Braaten, & Stroupe, 2012). The collaborative examination of “artifacts of teaching”—durable, public evidence of practice such as lesson plans, student work, assessments, and video—has long been advocated as an approach for studying teaching that takes into meaningful account the variability of teaching and learning contexts (Darling-Hammond & Snyder, 2000). Video artefacts, however, have proven to be particularly useful for providing authentic models of ambitious practice, opportunities for teachers to systematically analyse the relationship between instruction and student learning, and support enactment of student-centred practice in science (Hougan, Johnson, Novak, Foote, & Palmeri, 2018; Luna & Sherin, 2017; Roth et al., 2011; Stürmer, Könings, & Seidel, 2013) in ways that reflection based on recollection do not (Rosaen, Lundeberg, Cooper, Fritzen, & Terpstra, 2008). Notable across this work is the importance of matching both the type of video and facilitation of discussion around the video with the goal of the professional development (van Es et al., 2020). Video has affordances that can greatly influence teacher learning in professional development settings if used intentionally. Because video can be slowed down and re-viewed multiple times it has been used to establish a vision of responsive teaching in authentic classroom settings (Levin, Hammer, Elby & Coffey, 2012; Hammer and van Zee, 2006). It can also provide opportunities to model the specialised discourse required for rigorous analysis of teaching (Zhang, Koehler, & Lundeberg, 2015). With the growing emphasis on student-centred instruction, video is increasingly used to provide opportunities to learn to notice students’ thinking—specifically how to attend to and reason about students’ ideas and consider how this informs possible instructional responses (Jacobs, Lamb, & Philipp, 2010; Yeh & Santagata, 2015). Each of these components of noticing—attending, analysing, and responding—are inter-related but separate skills that can be developed with a video-supported practice that permits the slowing down and decomposing of the frenetic classroom environment (Barnhart & van Es, 2015; Santagata & van Es, 2010; Seago, Koellner, & Jacobs, 2018). For vision-setting, working through problems of practice, and noticing students’ ideas, video clips are most impactful if they closely resemble the viewer’s own classrooms (Kleinknecht & Schneider, 2013; Zhang, Lundeberg, Koehler et al., 2011). Sherin, Linsenmeier, and van Es (2009) identified three additional features of video clips they used in a math teacher video club to specifically hone teachers’ noticing of student thinking: windows into student thinking, depth of student thinking, and clarity of student thinking. They also specified three levels of quality of each feature: high, medium, and low. Windows, or insights, into student thinking can include multiple sources of evidence (written, verbal, or signalled) that enable viewers to ascertain student reasoning. Low windows indicate “little evidence of student thinking from

194

T. Barnhart

any source” whereas high windows indicate “detailed information from one or more sources” (Sherin et al., 2009, p. 216). Depth of student thinking reflects the richness of the mathematical idea—is it a task that is routine and recall-based (low) or does the student engage in conceptual reasoning (high)? Finally, clarity of student thinking reflects how easy it is to make sense of a students’ response. Video clips that feature responses in which the students’ thinking is obvious are high clarity, clips that feature responses that are ambiguous or that require a great deal of interpretation are low clarity. Sherin and colleagues (2009) found that clips featuring both high windows and depth sustained productive conversation regardless of the clarity of the thinking. Whether the video is of oneself or others also influences what participants notice and feel in video-based professional settings. Seidel, Stürmer, Blomberg, Kobarg, and Schwindt (2011) found that science teachers who had previous experience with video noticed more components of teaching and learning and reported the experience to be more motivating and relevant to their own teaching practice compared to those who watched videos of others. Additionally, teachers who watched their own videos were less critical and considered fewer alternatives in their analysis compared to analyses of others’ videos. Seidel and colleagues, therefore, recommended that if the focus of the video work is on student thinking, teachers should start by examining their own videos to build experience with video, provide a student focus, and hone their noticing on certain details of learning and teaching. Somewhat differently, Kleinknecht and Schneider (2013) found that teachers who watched their own videos attended more to student learning; however, teachers who watched others’ videos conducted deeper analyses, and considered alternative actions the teacher could have taken more frequently. Their recommendation, if the purpose of the video work is to promote rigorous reflection, is to start by watching videos of other teachers in similar teaching assignments to their own. Even when working with high-quality video clips, all teachers, including veterans, require support to notice the salient features of teaching and learning in the clips they view (Prusak, 2015; Sherin & van Es, 2009). Professional developers should consider the learning goals of the participants when choosing both what video clips and support methods to use with teachers (Borko, Koellner, Jacobs, & Seago, 2011; Seidel, Blomberg, & Renkl, 2013). One particular mode of support that has been noted by several researchers over the past decade is the facilitation of discussion around video. Zhang, Lundeberg, and Eberhardt (2011) identified patterns of facilitation moves that enabled or limited engagement and idea progression around learning issues related to instruction. Although questioning and revoicing were the facilitation strategies used most often by the group facilitators, they were not always used in ways that built upon on teachers’ ideas or sustained group attention to a topic aligned with the professional development goals. When questioning and revoicing were used to encourage the teacher participants to elaborate on and explore their ideas, discussions were more productive. Relatedly, Coles (2013) identified five key aspects of working with teachers using video: selecting the clip, setting up discussion norms, re-watching the video clip, moving to interpretation, and meta commenting. These aspects, or decision-points, were used in ways that were more or less productive when considered in relation to the participants. Facilitator choices around these five

10 Examining an Activity System of Learners …

195

aspects that encouraged teacher participants to consider new interpretations of classroom events and new patterns of instruction were more productive than choices that allowed basic generalisations and evaluations of practice. Similarly, van Es, Tunney, Goldsmith, and Seago (2014) describe a set of facilitation moves organised around four main practices: (a) orienting the group to the video analysis task, (b) sustaining an inquiry stance, (c) maintaining a focus on the video and the mathematics, and (d) supporting group collaboration. They identify the similar and different ways facilitators of two video clubs coordinated moves to respond to the different goals of each video club design, whether they were to attend to and interpret students’ mathematical thinking or how a teacher might respond to students’ understanding of linear functions. Lesseig et al. (2017) also identified how facilitation around framing questions changed as professional development goals were refined. Common across these studies is the need to move beyond the identification of facilitation moves and clip features and explore in greater depth how facilitators make choices about enacting these moves in relation to the affordances of the clips, the contributions of the participants, and the goals of the professional development. van Es et al. (2020) advocate for treating the elements of video-based teacher professional development programmes as activity systems to better analyse and understand how the various elements interact to support teacher learning. When studying an activity system, one accounts for how participants, the tools, the organisation, and the practices coordinate to result in learning (Greeno, 2005). The influence of any one component must be considered in relation to the others in situ to understand its function fully. A diagram of the theorised science teacher video club system is shown in Fig. 10.1. The learning and participation of the video club participants in this context were mediated by tools and rules to focus their noticing of student thinking and their previous experience participating in district and department teams to design assessments together. Tools video clips, “ideal response”, rubric

Subject video club participants

Object noticing of student thinking

Rules & Norms facilitation, meeting structure Community district and department teams working on common assessment

Fig. 10.1 Activity system of a science teacher video club

Goal responsive science teaching

Division of Labor facilitator & teacher participation

196

T. Barnhart

In this system, participant teachers experienced in developing common assessments together collaborate to improve their sophistication of noticing student thinking in service of more responsive science teaching practice. Learning to notice student thinking is mediated by the video clips they view, the tools to frame their viewing, as well as the structure and facilitation of the meetings. The following section details design conjectures made about the coordinated function of the tools, rules, and learners in a video club for high school science teachers to promote noticing of students’ evidence-based reasoning and how those conjectures were tested. Specifically, the analysis will elucidate how the design components functioned in relation to each other to promote teacher learning.

Design and Methods of the Study: Video Club Context The professional development programme described here involved a video club I designed and facilitated to promote noticing of students’ evidence-based reasoning in science to stimulate experimentation with more responsive instructional practices that would make students’ thinking more visible to teachers. The participants were five high school science teachers from an urban high school district in the southwestern United States. The group included one biology teacher, one chemistry teacher, one physics teacher, one earth science teacher and one teacher with a split physics/earth science assignment. The participants each had over ten years of teaching experience and were accustomed to working in subject-alike collaborative groups to design and analyse common assessments. As part of the video club, the teachers met approximately once monthly for sixty to ninety minutes after school over the course of one semester. During the first three meetings, the group analysed published videos and student work (ambitiousscienceteaching.org and timssvideo.com) I chose that featured students engaging in evidence-based reasoning. The final two meetings featured videos and student work I captured in the participants’ classrooms as they attempted to enact more responsive science instruction. Each video clip consisted of three to five minutes of students interacting with each other or with their teacher about their evolving science ideas. Two to six video clips or work samples were analysed during each meeting. Drawing on Sandoval’s conjecture mapping model (2014), I hypothesised that using particular types of video clips—supported by specific activities and facilitation to frame teachers’ noticing of student thinking in the video clips—would encourage teachers to engage in focused inquiry and analysis of students’ thinking and related instruction (Borko et al., 2011; van Es & Sherin, 2006). Sherin and colleagues (2009) found that video clips featuring high windows into students’ thinking and high depth of student thinking were more likely to sustain rich discussion among teachers about the mathematical content of students’ ideas. However, including a promising video clip does not ensure that productive discussion will result. Facilitation that reminds the viewer of the learning goals, encourages collaborative inquiry, and sustained focus on the evidence to support analysis of teaching and learning are necessary

10 Examining an Activity System of Learners …

197

components for learning from video (van Es, Tunney, Goldsmith, & Seago, 2014). In addition to utilising these facilitation moves, I engaged participants in two activities to productively frame the participants’ viewing of video to focus on students and their learning. The first type of activity was to have participants complete the task students worked on in each video. I refer to this as the “ideal response” but the intent was not to develop a correct answer to evaluate students’ response against. The “ideal response” task was designed to help participants clarify the goals of the activity and gain an appreciation of the different ways students might approach the task (Borko et al. 2011; Levin, Hammer, & Coffey, 2009). Additionally, because the participants taught a variety of courses (biology, chemistry, physics, earth science, and environmental science) working through the “ideal response” afforded an opportunity to acquaint participants with content that they might be less familiar with. For example, the biology teacher benefited from talking through gas laws with the physical science teachers just as the physical science teachers benefited from revisiting principles of yeast metabolism with the biology teacher. The other activity that I hypothesised would clarify goals and encourage participants’ focus on student reasoning featured in the clips was to develop a rubric for evidence-based explanations. The rubric was not intended to be something to give to students or to formally assess student work but rather to serve as a way to make explicit how participants conceptualised evidence-based reasoning and make visible what they valued with respect to the development of students’ evidencebased reasoning. Because constructing explanations and engaging in evidence-based argument were two core practices in all sciences, this rubric could apply to all the participants’ work with students. The rubric was revisited several times over the five meetings to capture any changes in participants’ conceptions and values over time. Additionally, like the “ideal response” activity, it would clarify participants’ goals for developing their students’ reasoning and help them discern if the tasks they designed for students provided sufficient opportunities for their students to practice and demonstrate reasoning. Finally, the design included starting with using published, high-quality artefacts to apprentice participants into the type of evidence-based, focused analysis of students’ thinking for the first three meetings before transitioning to examining videos of their own classrooms in the last two meetings. The published videos I selected featured students developing causal explanations of their observations of a scientific phenomenon (how a tanker truck that was vacuum sealed after being steam cleaned collapsed, how metabolising yeast produced gas, how different sized tuning forks and different instruments produced sound waves, and how sound would be produced by different instruments and experienced by the audience at a concert). These videos were drawn from the AmbitiousScienceTeaching.org website. These videos were chosen because they offered rich insights into students’ causal reasoning about a substantive phenomenon rooted in everyday experience. Because the teacher was rarely present in the video clips I selected, I hypothesised that this would encourage participants to focus on students’ ideas. I chose one counterexample that showed students engaging in a more “typical” US classroom lab experience from the TIMSS

198

T. Barnhart

video set (sunspots and pulleys). Preparing teachers to work with the video of other’s classrooms that resemble one’s own has been found to be important for promoting self-reflection (Kleinknecht & Schneider, 2013). Teachers who have some experience working with video are more likely to experience engagement with the video and to notice more components of teaching and learning than those who lack experience (Seidel et al., 2011). Starting with videos of classrooms that resembled their own but that they did not have a personal relationship with before transitioning to analysing artefacts from their own classrooms was hypothesised to not only allow participants to familiarise themselves with the norms for rigorous, evidence-based analysis of student thinking in a lower-stakes environment, but still afford the close examination of their own practice.

Data Collection and Analysis Data collected included video recordings of the five video club meetings, the published video clips, as well as video and student work collected from the participants’ classrooms. These data were all parts of the video club activity system. The meetings were divided into activity phases—introduction of the lesson, discussion of the “ideal response,” analysing the clips and student work, discussion of the rubric, and housekeeping—and transcribed. The primary interest of the research question in this study involved how the components of the design coordinated to impact the quality of discourse around the artefacts of teaching. The artefact analysis phases of the meetings were therefore divided by discussion around each artefact (e.g. clip 1, clip 2, student work 1, student work 2) and further divided by idea unit. An idea unit was defined by a set of turns at talk centred around a focus (student thinking about the disciplinary core idea) or object (the drawn explanatory model featured in the student work). Five artefact segments from the five meetings were discussed by a research team to gain consistency in identifying idea units. This yielded one to six idea units for each of the 13 artefacts for a total of 54 idea units. To determine the quality of critical discourse during participants’ discussion of students’ thinking I categorised the productivity of each idea unit as either high, medium, or low quality based on three dimensions: What was being discussed, how participants interacted with ideas, and how participants interacted with each other. To characterise what the teachers noticed, I developed a preliminary set of topic codes informed by the literature on noticing and artefact analysis (Levin et al., 2009; Sherin & van Es, 2009; Star & Strickland, 2008). I applied these preliminary codes to each turn of talk for a portion of the artefact analysis segments of the transcripts. I noted what topics were not captured by the preliminary codes and revised the final topic code set to include instruction, classroom management, student behaviour, student thinking, classroom climate, assessment, disciplinary core ideas, or motivation. The modified framework was then used to code each turn of talk for all of the artefact analysis segments. If an utterance involved two topics, for example, assessment

10 Examining an Activity System of Learners …

199

of a disciplinary core idea, it was double-coded. Using these turn of talk codes, I determined the main focus of each idea unit for each artefact. To capture how participants engaged with the artefact, I used Sherin and van Es’ noticing framework (2009) to code each idea unit for the stance they most frequently applied to analysing the artefacts (descriptive, interpretive, or evaluative) and what they most commonly used as evidence to support their statements (anecdotes, artefacts, scientific principles, or a mixture of these). To capture how participants interacted with each other, the idea units were coded as increasing levels of participation (low, medium low, medium high, or high), depending on how many participants were involved in the discussion, whether each participant’s contribution built upon earlier comments or consisted of disconnected, discrete conversations, and whether participants critiqued each other’s “weak practices or flimsy reasoning” (Lord, 1994, p. 192). Five idea units across two meetings were coded by a research team familiar with the noticing literature to establish reliability of coding. Idea units were then characterised as either highly productive or less productive based on a combination of topic, stance, evidence, and participation. Idea units that integrated several topics focused on the core of teaching and learning, in which participants’ comments were also interpretive, grounded in evidence from the artefact or science concepts, and maintained collaborative or critical levels of participation were considered highly productive. All other idea units were considered less productive. I then sought to understand how the design elements of the professional development (artefacts, facilitation, and framing tasks) may have coordinated to influence the productivity of the discussion. To determine the influence of the quality of the artefacts on participants’ discussion of students’ thinking, I first coded each artefact (video or student work sample) for high, medium, or low windows into and depth of student thinking using an adapted form of the Sherin et al. (2009) framework. A colleague familiar with science instruction and artefact analysis double-coded five of the thirteen artefacts to establish reliability of coding. To determine the influence of facilitation moves on participants’ discussion I coded the transcripts of the artefact analysis sections of each meeting using the van Es et al. facilitation framework (2014). I coded each of my turns of talk according to the facilitation function it served. In instances where more than one move was employed, these turns of talk were double-coded (see Table 10.1). A portion of the idea units was coded together with a colleague familiar with the facilitation framework to establish reliability of coding. Frequencies of each move were then tabulated by idea unit. To determine the influence of the framing activities on participants’ discussion of students’ thinking I noted references to either the evidence-based reasoning rubric or the “ideal response” during the artefact analysis segments of the meetings. Frequencies of references were then tabulated by idea unit.

200

T. Barnhart

Table 10.1 Analytic framework for facilitation moves employed during artefact analysis Facilitation move

Definition

Example

Orienting group to the analysis of the artefact

Launching examination of the clip and situating the artefact by providing information about the lesson goals and context

-OK, so let’s look at Renaldo -Does this rubric capture some of what’s happening in this conversation? -She does have them briefly report out on their model. And they stay up in the room um, because they pull them back down and work on them a little some more through the unit

Promoting an inquiry stance

Highlighting evidence from the artefact; posing a question about student thinking in the artefact; making an inference about a student idea; pressing participants to explain their thinking; clarifying and revoicing their position; offering an alternative point of view or information to promote discussion or challenge assumption

-So, they write, “the length changes the pendulum and how fast the period moves. It increases and then begins to become more consistent” -So, I’m wondering if he’s, like, if he’s thinking about speed as in the compression waves come faster, meaning like more frequent versus the speed at which the wave is travelling. And there are no arrows pushing out on any of the diagrams right now, so there’s no acknowledgement yet that there is actually pressure still inside it’s just changed -What do you see in what he wrote? -You’re talking about the dent and there’s an arrow right by that dent? -So, you want him to say something about the distance between the lines? -Yeah, but, you know, if we wanted them to use a complete sentence they could say, they could add two these and this becomes a complete sentence and it doesn’t really fundamentally change anything about this answer, like about the science anyway (continued)

10 Examining an Activity System of Learners …

201

Table 10.1 (continued) Facilitation move

Definition

Example

Maintaining a focus on the artefact

Redirecting attention to the artefact; making connections between different ideas in the discussion

-Yeah, but well what was the conversation about? What were they talking about?

Supporting group collaboration

Allowing group members time to discuss an issue by “standing back”; inviting participant’s contributions; validating and affirming contributions; using humor; use of minimal responses to signal active listening

-What would you want to ask him about, Vince? -I struggle with this too -Yeah, I think it’s tough -Mmm hmm

Other

Commentary on issues other than the shared artefact or about the instruction isolated from the instructional triangle

-I think a lot of the science vocabulary words, like theory, hypothesis, gravity, um, force are hard because they have been co-opted by laypeople to mean something very different -Yeah, this one group that we’re not actually going to watch, but it’s pretty interesting. It’s like they know that this air is moving inside, and they’re like, “it’s a tornado”

Findings A summary table of the analyses of discourse productivity, references to framing activities, and facilitation (see Table 10.2) reveals three trends. First, Meeting 3, which featured high-quality artefacts, and the most frequent references to the framing activities and use of facilitation moves to promote an inquiry stance had the highest number of productive idea units. Participants by this time understood how to notice and use evidence from the artefacts and the framing activities to interpret students’ thinking. The rubric had developed from a list of topics the group had brainstormed in Meetings 1 and 2 to a more operationalised version with indicators of various levels of sophistication for students’ use of evidence, clarity and relevance of claims, connections to a big science idea, and appropriate use of scientific vocabulary. All components of this activity system (participants, artefacts, framing activities, and facilitation) were coordinated to produce productive talk focused on interpreting students’ disciplinary thinking. An example of how these elements coordinated to result in highly productive talk in Meeting 3 involves a discussion around a clip featuring physics students’ written and oral explanations for what sound waves would be generated by two different-sized tuning forks. I launched discussion of this clip by referring to the “ideal response” the group generated prior to watching the clip (see Example 10.1).

2

2

0

72

13 (5%)

HH HH

45

13 (13%)

22 (23%)

0 (0%)

10 (10%)

Total idea units

Idea units focused on the artifact

Idea units focused on anecdotes

Total turns of talk

References to framing activities

Artifact quality (windows & depth)a

Total facilitation moves

Orienting moves

Promoting moves

Maintaining moves

Supporting moves

29 (30%)

1 (1%)

13 (13%)

0 (0%)

52

0 (0%)

177

5

6

9

Less

0 (0%)

0 (1%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0

MM LL

0 (0%)

0

0

0

0

High

Meeting 2

30 (88%)

4 (6%)

47 (75%)

9 (14%)

63

10 (3%)

365

4

7

9

Less

28 (18%)

153

2

7

9

Less

29 (13%)

92

0

2

2

High

Meeting 4

88 (53%)

1 (1%)

65 (39%)

11 (7%)

167

30 (48%)

0 (0%)

12 (37%)

14 (22%)

63

17 (21%)

0 (0%)

9 (11%)

6 (8%)

32

HM HM HM MH HH MM MM HH

118 (32%)

369

0

11

11

High

Meeting 3

36 (45%)

1 (1%)

11 (14%)

0 (0%)

48

16 (7%)

127

3

1

4

Less

32 (14%)

154

7

5

7

Less

10 (12%)

0 (0%)

14 (17%)

6 (7%)

30

21 (26%)

3 (4%)

25 (31%)

2 (2%)

51

MM LM LM LM

22 (10%)

77

0

2

2

High

Meeting 5

Note Percent of references to framing activities represents the ratio of turns of talk that reference the framing activities to the total number of turns of talk. Percent of facilitation moves represents the ratio of the specific move to the total number of moves. a H represents high windows into or depth of student thinking, M represents medium windows or depth, and L represents low windows or depth (Sherin et al., 2009)

High

Productivity

Meeting 1

Table 10.2 Use of design elements across five video club meetings

202 T. Barnhart

10 Examining an Activity System of Learners …

203

Example 10.1 Examining student understanding of tuning forks 1

Facilitator OK. So, what do we see in this drawing that we wanted?

2

William

The lines? Compression waves?

3

Vince

Yeah, the separation between the lines, yeah

4

Ron

Yeah

5

Facilitator Mmm hmm. Do you see a difference in the separation between the low pitch and the high pitch?

6

William

7

Vince

Yeah

8

William

And to me there-

9

Vince

-On one side, like on the low pitch side, there seems to be more space there by compared to just the left-hand sides. There’s the one on the right they are closer together than the one on the left

I see I see more lines in the high pitch than I see in the low pitch

10 Facilitator Mmm hmm 11 Vince

The drawings on the right, it is kind of hard to tell, I know the one on the right has more lines than the one on the left, but-

12 William

-Low pitch means like low voice, right, like low?

13 Facilitator Mmm hmm 14 William

See that right now to me, means the kid has a higher, like wants to say a higher volume for the one on the right versus to the one on the left so pitch versus volume, I mean, I get what you’re trying to say with pitch but as the student I think that he might, there might be a, there might be a kinda like, not understanding pitch and volume, right?

15 Facilitator Yeah, it’s unclear right now 16 William

I mean he clearly writes high pitch and low pitch

17 Facilitator Yeah, “it would sound lower and have lower sound waves” 18 William

But if I ask him which one would be a higher volume, essentially, they would both be the same volume, at the same distance, right?

19 Ron

According to the [inaudible] they would both be the same sound, same amplitude

20 William

Yeah, but they, but if they start at the same time, [gestures] they have the same energy, they would have the same volume at the same distance, right? Then that’s a good question I would ask the student. And that would confirm or deny that they understand high pitch if it has those lines or not

The group had established that students should depict compression waves emanating from both tines of the fork, with the larger fork producing waves that are more spaced out (lower frequency) and the smaller fork producing waves that are closer together (higher frequency). Assuming both forks were struck with the same intensity, the size (amplitude) of the waves should be equal. In this sequence, participants describe, interpret, and respond to student ideas about sound using specific evidence from the clip and referencing the “ideal response.” In lines 2–11, the group collaboratively describes details of the work,

204

T. Barnhart

building on what each other noticed about the differences in the number and spacing of the lines representing compression waves coming from the forks. In line 12 William starts to conjecture what these details might mean about the student’s understanding, suggesting that the student might have been confusing pitch and volume (amplitude) because the student wrote that one of the forks would sound “low.” It was unclear if the student understood that low pitch did not always mean low in volume as well. Ron references the “ideal response” in line 19 to make sense of the student’s response. In line 20 William proposes a teaching move that might clarify if the student understood that pitch and volume were separate factors, making a connection between the students’ thinking and instruction. After launching the discussion, my facilitation consisted mostly of standing back and affirming responses to support continued participation and included one move to promote an inquiry stance by posing a question about details in the students’ answer in line 5. The high affordance of the artefact, facilitation to support and promote inquiry, and participants’ familiarity with noticing student thinking and using it and the tool produced by the framing activity as evidence coordinated to produce productive discourse in this meeting. Second, the influence of the framing activities shifted over time. The rubric, because it was constructed by the participants during the video club meetings as they refined their thinking about what they valued in students’ evidence-based explanations through viewing artefacts, had a different affordance for supporting critical discourse in earlier meetings relative to later meetings. Participants made little reference to the rubric in Meetings 1 and 2 because it only consisted of a list of topics. They used the more-developed rubric with indicators of various levels of quality to analyse students’ explanations in Meeting 3 because the artefacts made visible the students’ thinking about complex ideas. Later, in Meetings 4 and 5 when participants began to examine artefacts from their own classrooms, they used the rubric to problematise their own instruction. An example of how participants used the rubric and evidence from the artefact to problematise instruction comes from Meeting 5. Mitch shared a video clip and student work produced by his students as they explored what factors influenced a pendulum’s period. After leading students through a demonstration to show that mass does not affect the period of a pendulum, Mitch charged his students with collecting ten period measurements of varying pendulum lengths of their choice, graphing their results, and orally reporting their findings to the class. The students were also asked to circle the mathematical function that best represented their data and compose a written explanation of what they noticed about the relationship between the period and length of the pendulum. In our meeting, Mitch took the initiative to raise one artefact for examination by the group, noting that while many students identified the “basic relationship” that the shorter the length, the shorter the period, this particular group wrote “the shorter the length, the shorter the period, so therefore the higher the string is held, the longer it will take.” He observed that the students started with the correct relationship but in their attempt to clarify their answer (one of the elements the group identified as important in their evidence-based reasoning rubric) they mentioned something that was not in their data—string height—and that this addition was not correct because

10 Examining an Activity System of Learners …

205

Example 10.2 Exploring the instructional triangle around pendulums 1 Mitch

I wonder about the medium quality. We’re supposed to be getting closer to this medium quality for this. And, uh, I dunno. Is there a difference between medium and high quality in this prompt?

2 Facilitator Does the prompt afford that? I don’t know. You know and I think that, that is what is really tricky is a lot of what we get from the students hinges on how the prompt, the problem prompt is crafted. And unless you go through this exercise of like, well what do I really want them to know? Well, do I really want them to know all that? Do I want more than that? Like, really refining in your head what it is, like being very clear about that. And then, so now, how do I need to phrase this? And sometimes it’s not even the phrasing of the question, it’s like, I’m having, they’re engaging in the wrong task 3 Laurel

Yeah

4 Mitch

You can see that I changed the prompt, right?

5 Laurel

Yeah

6 Mitch

So now it makes sense because I wanted it to be more about the line matching, and so I changed the prompt to say which one of these looks like a match to what you are seeing. And so, I could have asked for more detail there, but clearly, this class probably needed just the idea of the relationship of the longer length to longer period. But I wanted to get into this discussion about is it this one or is it this one [pointing to linear and log graphs]

amplitude has no influence on the period. Laurel, Mitch, Ron and I attempted to sort out what the students really meant when they wrote “the higher the string is held,” and some alternate possibilities besides amplitude were proposed. This led to Mitch raising a question about the task design (Example 10.2). After highlighting evidence from the artefact to describe and interpret the student thinking Mitch shifted the discussion to the design of the prompt. He wondered if the way he worded the prompt provided enough stimulus for students to identify the logarithmic pattern as the matching function for this relationship—a function that Mitch explained he wanted students to understand when discussing the “ideal response” earlier in the meeting. Mitch posed and I revoiced a question to connect our analysis to instruction and Mitch mentioned how he changed his instruction in response to what he noticed about students’ work in class. Although this particular artefact only has medium windows into and depth of student thinking, it, combined with the affordances of the ideal response and the rubric sustained inquiry into student thinking and how it was potentially influenced by the nature of the task design. Third, just as the rubric took on a different role in later meetings as it developed, so did the participants themselves. As participants were apprenticed into the type of critical discourse for analysing students’ thinking they took on the role of highlighting evidence from the clips and using references to the framing activities in their inquiry, the total number and type of facilitation moves I employed decreased. I used more moves to orient participants to the clips I selected in early meetings and actively modelled the highlighting of evidence to promote inquiry in early meetings. The number of these moves decrease over time with a greater proportion of my moves

206

T. Barnhart

including supporting participants in their inquiry of student thinking in Meeting 3 and of their own students and instruction in Meetings 4 and 5. Although the participants understood how to use evidence from the artefacts and the framing activities in their inquiry, the artefacts featured in these meetings had fewer affordances to sustain conversation due to their lower windows into and depth of student thinking. The quality of the artefacts made it more challenging to use promoting moves such as highlighting and pressing because there was less evidence of students’ thinking to work with. These meetings still yielded more productive idea units than Meeting 1 because the greater affordances in terms of participants’ learning and the tools from the framing activities were able to make up for the lower affordances of the artefacts. A juxtaposition to the type of discourse that resulted from the coordination of the tools, tasks, and talk in Meeting 5 is the lack of coordination of these same components from Meeting 2. I noticed that the participation of Ron, the lone biology teacher of group, might have been negatively impacted by his unfamiliarity with the physical science concepts featured in the Meeting 1 artefacts. I could not find a life science artefact with high windows into and depth of student thinking but did find one with medium levels of these features. The clip showed students trying to make sense of their observations of flasks with yeast, sugar, and water in terms of metabolism and reproduction. As we discussed our “ideal response,” it became clear that the teacher in this clip was approaching the relationship between cellular respiration, reproduction, and metabolism in a way Ron was not familiar with and one he questioned repeatedly during the analysis of the clip. After we watched part of a video clip, I launched a discussion by highlighting evidence from the clip to an idea about evidence that arose when we worked on the evidence-based rubric earlier in the meeting (Example 10.3). Rather than interpreting what the student said about why their balloon was inflating and what that meant about the students’ understanding of respiration, Ron attempts to compare this lab with a similar one he ran with students. Mitch acknowledges this but then turns his attention back to students’ understanding about the gas captured in the balloon. I attempt to redirect attention back to the clip but Ron interrupts with a critique about how the teacher is managing the discussion among the lab group. Only Ron and Mitch were able to attend this particular meeting and they frequently engaged in critiques about the instruction despite my efforts to redirect attention back to the evidence of student thinking I highlighted in the clips. The “ideal response” discussion around this artefact, the nascent state of the evidence-based reasoning rubric, and the absence of three group members contributed to the failure of the activity system in this meeting to support productive discourse around artefacts of similar quality in Meetings 4 and 5.

Discussion and Conclusion Analysing the components of this video club affirms that participants, artefacts, facilitation, framing activities, and the tools that result from them coordinate to support a

10 Examining an Activity System of Learners …

207

Example 10.3 Discussing a lesson on yeast metabolism Facilitator

So that’s actually another piece of evidence, where you mentioned like the kids need to pay attention to the balloon, right? The kids, so this kid, I don’t remember if she noticed on her own like woah what’s happening at the bottom of the flask, like stuff is disappearing

Ron

You’d have to put a lot of sugar in though… we added, I don’t remember how much we added

Mitch

I mean it’s not saturated. It’s not even a significant quantity by volume. It’s, so it would be interesting to work out why that H2 O is going down. But anyway, they notice the H2 O goes down. So, the kids seem to know the knowledge-based information. They know that the gas is CO2 , right?

Facilitator

Mmm hmm…. Let’s listen to more about what they say

Ron

I just don’t understand how, sorry to interrupt you, I don’t understand how that teacher can tolerate that kid yelling, “what’s the temperature? What’s the temperature?”

Mitch

[laughing]

Ron

Well, you’re not paying attention to what the conversation is… The kid is talking right in front of the two people that are talking across from each other! She’s almost having a conversation with the girl and not with the group!

variety of levels of discourse. Over the course of the video club participants learned to notice students’ thinking and leverage it as evidence to reason about teaching and learning. Participants increasingly took on the roles of promoting inquiry and used tools they generated in the framing activities to sustain their conversations. Discourse was at its most productive when artefacts, tools, facilitation and participants operated at their highest affordances. This was seen in Meeting 3 when participants who were accustomed to and supported in noticing students’ ideas worked with artefacts featuring high windows into students’ thinking about meaningful science ideas. Facilitation and activity in early meetings apprenticed the participants into the work of exploring students’ thinking and making connections between the students’ ideas and the instructional moves that made that thinking visible. This design combined the use of the videos of others’ classrooms with videos from participants’ own classrooms. Following the recommendation of Kleinknecht and Schneider (2013), participants in this study used videos of others’ classrooms with students that resembled their own to hone their skills of analysis before applying these skills to their own videos. Indeed, the proportion of highly productive idea units peaked in Meeting 3 after two previous meetings of work with quality artefacts supported with facilitation and activities to focus attention on student thinking. Seidel and colleagues (2011) found that teachers who viewed their own videos noticed more aspects of teaching and learning if they had previous experience working with video. Teachers in their study reported working with their own videos to be more relevant and engaging. It could be the case that the quality of the clips used in this video club combined with the rubric and “ideal response” development provided enough relevance to engage the participants in this study, even when working with the video of others. The quality of the video captured from participants’ own classrooms was

208

T. Barnhart

lower in both windows and depth compared to the videos used in early meetings, and the productivity of discussion decreased in Meeting 2 even when the affordances of the videos dipped from high windows and depth to medium. This indicates that had we started with participant’s own videos, their clips may not have provided sufficient evidence of student thinking for the participants to develop their noticing and inquiry skills. This study design did not attempt to juxtapose the two models (own first versus other first) but does provide some evidence that the quality of the video should be privileged over participants’ desire to work with their own videos, particularly when relevance can be achieved with other supports. The field would benefit from further exploration of this design question. Analysis of this activity system also affirmed previous findings that just providing high-quality artefacts (Sherin et al., 2009; Zhang, Lundeberg, Koehler et al., 2011) or facilitation (Coles, 2013; van Es et al., 2014; Zhang, Lundeberg, & Eberhardt, 2011) does not guarantee productive discourse. The artefacts that featured high windows into and depth of student thinking in combination with facilitation moves to orient, promote, maintain, and support inquiry did not coordinate to produce sustained productive discourse in Meeting 1. Despite the use of high-quality artefacts and facilitation to support that work, participants were still early in their apprenticeship into the noticing of students’ thinking and leveraging what they noticed as evidence to support their interpretations about teaching and learning. The affordances of artefacts and facilitation alone were not sufficient to sustain highly productive discourse about student thinking. Relatedly in Meeting 2, despite aggressive facilitation to support and promote inquiry in students’ thinking, this meeting yielded no highly productive idea units in the absence of several group members, quality artefacts, and sufficiently developed tools. The example of choosing artefacts with lower affordances in Meetings 2, 4, and 5 highlights tensions as a designer and facilitator of video-based professional development. My goal to support participation by choosing an artefact to better position Ron as a knowledgeable contributor and to honour the participants’ desire to explore artefacts from their own classrooms was in conflict with my goal to feature artefacts of high quality to promote sustained discussion and model ambitious, student-centred instruction. Another tension involved supportive facilitation to encourage participation and facilitation to promote critical discourse. The most frequently used move across all phases of the video club was supporting, and this move was particularly frequent in less productive idea units. Zhang, Lundeberg, and Eberhardt (2011) found that quick, frequent, and affirmative revoicing may have limited hypothesising among teacher participants. That could also have been the case here, particularly in Meeting 2 when the affordances of other elements of the activity system were low. Such “decision points” (Coles, 2013) mark tensions within the design. An activity system frame of analysis will help further clarify tensions between elements of learning systems and perhaps shed light on potential strategies for how to navigate them. Assessing the affordances and limitations of the various elements of the activity system at any point in the learning trajectory of the group could inform decisions that lead to more productive outcomes. The feasibility of making these types of affordance/limitations calculations on the fly is an interesting route for further explorations.

10 Examining an Activity System of Learners …

209

Because the productivity of a group results not just from the inclusion of a few important components, but from the coordination of these components, further investigation into how each component takes on different amounts of responsibility across the developmental arc of video-based professional development is a worthy avenue of further research. Such examinations of how components in activity systems change over time will yield valuable insights for the design of video-based professional development as well as how best to facilitate teacher learning in dynamic learning systems.

References Barnhart, T., & van Es, E. (2015). Studying teacher noticing: Examining the relationship among pre-service science teachers’ ability to attend, analyse, and respond to student thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education, 45, 83–93. Blomberg, G., Sherin, M. G., Renkl, A., Glogger, I., & Seidel, T. (2014). Understanding video as a tool for teacher education: Investigating instructional strategies to promote reflection. Instructional Science, 42(3), 443–463. Borko, H., Koellner, K., Jacobs, J., & Seago, N. (2011). Using video representations of teaching in practice-based professional development programs. ZDM—International Journal on Mathematics Education, 43(1), 175–187. Coles, A. (2013). Using video for professional development: The role of the discussion facilitator. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 16(3), 165–184. Darling-Hammond, L., & Snyder, J. (2000). Authentic assessment of teaching in context. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(5), 523–545. Engeström, Y. (2000). Activity theory as a framework for analysing and redesigning work. Ergonomics, 43(7), 960–974. Greeno, J. (2005). Learning in activity. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 79–96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., & McDonald, M. (2009). Redefining teaching, re-imagining teacher education. Teachers and Teaching, 15(2), 273–289. Hammer, D., Goldberg, F., & Fargason, S. (2012). Responsive teaching and the beginnings of energy in a third grade classroom. Review of Science, Mathematics and ICT Education, 6(1), 51–72. Hammer, D., & van Zee, E. (2006). Seeing the Science in Children’s Thinking: Case Studies of Student Inquiry in Physical Science. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Hougan, E., Johnson, H., Novak, D., Foote, C., & Palmeri, A. (2018). Exploring the influence of accomplished teachers’ video and commentary pairing on teacher candidates’ noticing and thinking about practice. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 26(2), 217–248. Jacobs, V. R., Lamb, L. L., & Philipp, R. A. (2010). Professional noticing of children’s mathematical thinking. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41(2), 169–202. Johnson, H. J., & Mawyer, K. K. N. (2019). Teacher candidate tool-supported video analysis of students’ science thinking. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 30, 1–20. Kang, H., & van Es, E. A. (2018). Articulating design principles for productive use of video in preservice education. Journal of Teacher Education, 70(3), 237–250. Kleinknecht, M., & Schneider, J. (2013). What do teachers think and feel when analysing videos of themselves and other teachers teaching? Teaching and Teacher Education, 33, 13–23. Krajcik, J., McNeill, K. L., & Reiser, B. J. (2008). Learning-goals-driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project-based pedagogy. Science Education, 92(1), 1–32.

210

T. Barnhart

Leblank, S. (2018). Analysis of video-based training approaches and professional development. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 18(1), 125–148. Lesseig, K., Elliott, R., Kazemi, E., Kelley-Peterson, M., Campbell, M., Mumme, J., & Carroll, C. (2017). Leader noticing of facilitation in videocases of mathematics professional development. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 20(6), 591–619. Levin, D. M., Hammer, D., & Coffey, J. E. (2009). Novice teachers’ attention to student thinking. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(2), 142–154. Levin, D. M., Hammer, D., Elby, A., & Coffey, J. (2012). Becoming a responsive science teacher. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press. Lord, B. (1994). Teachers’ professional development: Critical colleagueship and the role of professional communities. In N. Cobb (Ed.), The future of education: Perspectives on national standards in education (pp. 175–204). New York, NY: College Entrance Exam Board. Luna, M. J., & Sherin, M. G. (2017). Using a video club design to promote teacher attention to students’ ideas in science. Teaching and Teacher Education, 66, 282–294. Mason, J. (2002). Researching your own practice: The discipline of noticing. London: Routledge. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards, Science and Technical Subjects. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/download.php?record_id= 13165. National Research Council. (2015). Science teachers’ learning: Enhancing opportunities, creating supportive contexts. Retrieved from https://www.nap.edu/catalog/21836/science-teachers-lea rning-enhancing-opportunities-creating-supportive-contexts. OECD. (2018). PISA 2015 Results in Focus. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/. Prusak, K. (2015). Generating expertise through the use of digital video In B. Calandra & P. J. Rich (Eds.), Digital video for teacher education: Research and Practice (pp. 181–199). New York, NY: Routledge. Robertson, A. D., Atkins, L. J., Levine, D. M., & Richards, J. (2016). What is responsive teaching? In A. D. Robertson, R. E. Scherr, & D. Hammer (Eds.), Responsive teaching in science and mathematics (pp. 1–35). New York, NY: Routledge. Roth, W. M., & Lee, Y. J. (2007). “Vygotsky’s neglected legacy”: Cultural-historical activity theory. Review of Educational Research, 77(2), 186–232. Roth, K. J., Garnier, H. E., Chen, C., Lemmens, M., Schwille, K., & Wickler, N. I. Z. (2011). Videobased lesson analysis: Effective science PD for teacher and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(2), 117–148. Roth, K. J., Bintz, J., Wickler, N. I. Z., Hvidsten, C., Taylor, J., Beardsley, P. M., et al. (2017). Design principles for effective video-based professional development. International Journal of STEM Education, 4(1), 1–24. Rosaen, C. L., Lundeberg, M., Cooper, M., Fritzen, A., & Terpstra, M. (2008). How does investigation of video records change how teachers reflect on their experiences? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(4), 347–360. Sandoval, W. (2014). Conjecture mapping: An approach to systematic educational design research. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(1), 18–36. Santagata, R., & van Es, E. A. (2010). Disciplined analysis of mathematics teaching as a routine of practice. In J. Luebeck & J. W. Lott (Eds.), Association for mathematics teacher education monograph series (Vol. 7, pp. 109–123). San Diego: Association for Mathematics Teacher Educators. Seago, N., Koellner, K., & Jacobs, J. (2018). Video in the middle: Purposeful design of videobased mathematics professional development. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 18(1), 29–49.

10 Examining an Activity System of Learners …

211

Seidel, T., Blomberg, G., & Renkl, A. (2013). Instructional strategies for using video in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 34, 56–65. Seidel, T., Stürmer, K., Blomberg, G., Kobarg, M., & Schwindt, K. (2011). Teacher learning from analysis of videotaped classroom situations: Does it make a difference whether teachers observe their own teaching or that of others? Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2), 259–267. Sherin, M. G., Linsenmeier, K. A., & van Es, E. A. (2009). Selecting video clips to promote mathematics teachers’ discussion of student thinking. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(3), 213– 230. Sherin, M. G., & van Es, E. A. (2009). Effects of video club participation on teachers’ professional vision. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 20–37. Star, J. R., & Strickland, S. K. (2008). Learning to observe: Using video to improve preservice mathematics teachers’ ability to notice. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11(2), 107– 125. Stroupe, D. (2014). Beginning science teachers’ use of tools to learn ambitious instruction. LEARNing Landscapes, 8(1), 269–285. Stürmer, K., Könings, T., & Seidel, T. (2013). Declarative knowledge and professional vision in teacher education: Effect of courses in teaching and learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 467–483. Thompson, J., Hagenah, S., Kang, H., Stroupe, D., Braaten, M., Colley, C., & Windschitl, M. (2016). Rigor and responsiveness in classroom activity. Teachers College Record, 118(5), 1–58. van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2006). How different video club designs support teachers in “learning to notice”. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 22(4), 125–135. van Es, E. A., Tunney, J., Goldsmith, L. T., & Seago, N. (2014). A framework for the facilitation of teachers’ analysis of video. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(4), 340–356. van Es, E. A., Tekkumru-Kisa, M., & Seago, N. (2020). Leveraging the power of video for teacher learning: A design framework for teacher educators. In S. Llinares & O. Chapman (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics teacher education, Vol. 2 (2nd ed.): Tools and processes in mathematics teacher education. Leiden: Brill-Sense Publishers. Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., Braaten, M., & Stroupe, D. (2012). Proposing a core set of instructional practices and tools for science teachers. Science Education, 96(5), 878–903. Yeh, C., & Santagata, R. (2015). Preservice teachers’ learning to generate evidence-based hypotheses about the impact of mathematics teaching on learning. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(1), 21–34. Zhang, M., Koehler, M. J., & Lundeberg, M. (2015). Affordances and challenges of different types of video for teachers’ professional development In B. Calandra & P. J. Rich (Eds.), Digital video for teacher education: Research and Practice (pp. 147–165). New York, NY: Routledge. Zhang, M., Lundeberg, M., Koehler, M. J., & Eberhardt, J. (2011a). Understanding affordances and challenges of three types of video for teacher professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2), 454–462. Zhang, M., Lundeberg, M., & Eberhardt, J. (2011b). Strategic facilitation of problem-based discussion for teacher professional development. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(3), 342–394.

Chapter 11

Te Ara Motuhenga (Documentary Pathways): Developing Video-Based Teaching and Learning Resources for Documentary Practice Christina Milligan, Arezou Zalipour, and James Nicholson Abstract The Te Ara Motuhenga (Documentary Pathways) project is an initiative of the Screen Production department of the School of Communication Studies at Auckland University of Technology (AUT). The department places a strong emphasis on teaching and researching documentary production, practices and theories. We have sponsored regular visits by local and international documentarians over several years, during which a series of studio interviews have been collected. This chapter focuses on the ways in which we are using these interviews to produce a series of video-based learning and teaching resources for documentary practice. Drawing on the principles and pedagogy of screen media education, we have designed the resources to embed, facilitate and enrich the practice-based learning of documentarymaking. This chapter describes the process of creating these video-based materials and the pedagogical considerations being taken into account. Further, it presents how the resources are aligned with the learning outcomes and assessments of the papers on documentary practice and theory we currently teach. Drawing on our own experience as documentary makers, researchers and teachers, we explore the organisational factors that have oriented designing and developing the video-based modules, including the edit of the interviews, and the compilation of other relevant materials, to produce resources to enhance the practice-based learning of our students. Keywords Video · Documentary · Pedagogy · Practice-based learning · Screen production · Video pedagogy

Introduction Auckland University of Technology’s Screen Production department is located within an institution that prides itself on the quality of its educational experience ‘on campus and in industry’ (AUT, 2019). Screen Production courses are taught by

C. Milligan (B) · A. Zalipour · J. Nicholson Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 D. S. P. Gedera and A. Zalipour (eds.), Video Pedagogy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-4009-1_11

213

214

C. Milligan et al.

academic-practitioners, most of whom are currently active in their field as practising documentary producers, director-editors or cinematographers. As experienced filmmakers, we aspire to inculcate in our students the values expressed early on by Alberto Cavalcanti, who saw the mastery of ‘the social, the poetic and the technical’ as foundational for success in documentary production (Monegal, 1955). The Screen Production major in the Bachelor of Communication Studies runs through the second and third years of the degree. All students take courses in documentary, fiction and multi-camera production, with students exercising increasing independence in terms of the content and style of their productions as the major progresses. In their final semester, the cohort of 40 students team up in pairs as producer and director to make a short documentary, drama or web series of six to eight minutes duration. About half of these final-year projects are documentaries. Lecturers take the role of executive producer, facilitating the learning of the student producers and directors in a one-on-one relationship as the films move through development, production and post-production. The student teams are required to crowdfund their films and the completion of the projects includes the production of publicity materials and marketing plans. Short films made by these students have been accepted into a variety of international (non-student) film festivals with opportunities recently for the top students on graduation to take up internships at, for example, the Sundance Institute (US), the Berlin Film Festival (Germany) and the Smithsonian (US). In a project which started in 2014 and is ongoing, the Screen Production department, through its relationships with major local film festivals, sponsors visits by documentary makers from around the Pacific Rim (Australia, Hawai’i, mainland US and New Zealand). These filmmakers are invited to present a half-day or day of seminars, as well as offering time for individual feedback on student documentary proposals where possible. During their visits, in-depth studio interviews are recorded with each filmmaker which, together with film extracts made available by the visitors, constitute a rich source of information for filmmaking students. The Te Ara Motuhenga (Documentary Pathways) project encompasses the visits of the filmmakers themselves, the recording of the interviews and the subsequent development of teaching and learning resources based on our personal and video engagement with the visitors. We consider the materials produced from this engagement offer excellent potential to be modified and reworked to create video-based online teaching and learning resources, because they are designed around interviews which are recorded by staff and students from the department and therefore reflect a very personal level of engagement with the material. We have been particularly concerned to design the materials to be directly linked to Screen Production papers that have documentary practice and studies as part of their learning outcomes and content. This chapter discusses our approach to creating these video-based resources for online use. Informed by our own experience as documentary makers, researchers and teachers, we explore the organisational factors that have oriented designing, developing, compiling and editing of the interviews, texts and other audio-visual materials for use in the context of practical documentary-making courses. Drawing on the principles and pedagogy of screen media education, we discuss the process of creating these resources and how we are designing them to promote and enrich

11 Te Ara Motuhenga …

215

practice-based learning of documentary production. Further, we discuss how the resources are aligned with the learning outcomes and assessments of the papers on documentary practice and theory we currently teach.

The Context of the Resource Development Process AUT’s Screen Production courses are designed to bring together theory and practice. During our documentary courses, we place emphasis on the students drawing inspiration from the world around them to enable them to understand and creatively represent aspects of the human condition. The fundamental principle in our pedagogical approach is to create opportunities for our students to develop filmmaking knowledge, skills and practice in an atmosphere that emphasises creativity, experiential learning and professionalism. The four principles that underpin our screen production pedagogy are: an understanding of how to tell an engaging story through dramatic conflict and story structure; an appreciation of genuine emotion grounded in truth, arising from thorough research and respect for the subject; an awareness of the filmmaker’s role in the documentary narrative, derived from personal experience and documentary theory; and a level of technical expertise that permits creative expression through image and sound. Mastery of filmmaking requires mastery of each of these principles, and they are foundational to the teaching of screen production at AUT. All second and third year documentary teaching in our courses places the emphasis on guiding the students to develop not just their technical and creative skills, but also their ability to analyse the choices they make and place them in a theoretical context. Papers are structured to lead students through the acquisition of progressively more complex technical skills in parallel with the development of their writing, structuring, visualisation and directing capabilities. Regular journal entries are compulsory and are assessed to develop the students’ abilities to reflect on, analyse and discuss the origins and outcome of their creative and technical decision-making. Documentary theorists informing the day-to-day discourse among teachers and students include Bill Nichols, Michael Rabiger and Michael Renov among others. Documentary films used in lectures and workshops range from well-known feature examples from the US, UK and Europe to a wide variety of feature and short examples from Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific, including works by the lecturers themselves. It is this pedagogical environment which has shaped the design and development of the video-based resources from the outset. Seven resources based on individual interviews have been created at the time of writing, and are ready for use in our courses and these will be trialled in the coming year. The design of the resources allows for lecturers to include them as part of a study of a specific film or a specific filmmaker. For example, the resource developed around our interview with filmmaker Rebecca Tansley focuses strongly on her documentary The Heart Dances and includes background material on the film The Piano which inspired the events in the documentary (Fig. 11.1):

216

C. Milligan et al.

Fig. 11.1 Screenshot from video resource on filmmaker Rebecca Tansley © AUT Screen Production Department

Where possible, links to wider discussions of the particular film or filmmaker are included in the resource. For example, the interview with Gaylene Preston discusses her recent documentary My Year With Helen, in which she follows former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark as she pitches unsuccessfully for the position as Secretary General of the United Nations. Given Ms Clark’s high profile, there is a wealth of additional material to link to, to give the students an understanding of the relationship between a filmmaker and a documentary subject (Fig. 11.2): Most of the resources also include extracts from the filmmaker’s own work as with Molly Reynolds (Fig. 11.3): All the resources are planned to be available to lecturers and students in undergraduate and postgraduate courses, and are designed to facilitate student-led inquiry as well as being usable as a reading set by the lecturer. They are intended to be used as source material not only for analysis, but also to provide insight and stimulation during the development and production of the students’ documentary work.

Choices and Challenges in Making the Resources The interviews originated in our wish to capture the practical wisdom of the experienced filmmakers we hosted, as we knew this would be valuable knowledge for

11 Te Ara Motuhenga …

217

Fig. 11.2 Screenshot from video resource on filmmaker Gaylene Preston © AUT Screen Production Department

future students as much as for the staff and current students. Each interview, with ten filmmakers to date, initially focuses on the documentary that the filmmaker is currently promoting but ranges quite broadly, addressing practical questions of creativity and craft in documentary production and practice. The interviews range between 17 and 67 min in length. All but one, so far, have been recorded in the television studio at AUT’s School of Communication Studies, using a multi-camera set-up with a mix of students and staff operating the cameras, and a staff member as studio director. The remaining interview to date was recorded with a two-camera set-up in a rehearsal studio. The interviews are transcribed as is standard documentary practice, to facilitate structuring and editing. The overall guiding principle driving the Te Ara Motuhenga project was our desire to address the lack of teaching and learning resources on local documentary practice for our students. There is a paucity of material that concentrates on documentary practice in New Zealand and the Pacific Rim. By inviting filmmakers from this

218

C. Milligan et al.

Fig. 11.3 Screenshot from video resource on filmmaker Molly Reynolds © AUT Screen Production Department

region, now and in the future, we seek to fulfil some of the ‘documentary-centred pedagogical aims’ identified by Michael Renov (2011): i.

The provision of ‘local knowledge’ about documentary makers in our region, which we address by including, for example, the New Zealand documentary makers Gaylene Preston, Rebecca Tansley, Alister Barry and Abi King-Jones;

11 Te Ara Motuhenga …

219

ii. The promotion of historical understanding, where an understanding of the work of indigenous filmmakers or working within indigenous communities is the focus of discussion with filmmakers like Anne Keala Kelly and Molly Reynolds; and iii. The modelling of political activism, which is the driving impetus behind the work and therefore the discussion with Anne Keala Kelly and Alister Barry particularly. Equally importantly, we also wished to address the limited availability of interviews with documentary directors that address their craft and practice in detail. While some of the filmmakers had previously been interviewed on radio and television, our interviews have a different character from those in the public media. They are conversations between filmmakers, made for an audience of emerging filmmakers. Thus they speak much more directly to the students’ focus of learning than those more broadly targeted media. Our decision to use video as the primary medium for these resources felt natural, as we knew from experience that video is perceived as more accessible by students than text, and that video-based resources were therefore more likely to be used than text-only material. An important driver of our approach was our advantageous situation. We have a multi-camera studio, supported by expert technicians, which we can crew with well-trained students and experienced staff. This means that we face no cost barriers to producing the video material, and more importantly, that we are able to produce high-quality material very quickly. High production values in video resources of this type—for teaching and learning purposes—are essential if they are to achieve credibility with the students, and the interviews recorded in our studio are not only a repository of content but a model of production technique. We are also aware of the advantages of the interview form itself. We value highly the impact on our students of meeting local and international directors face-to-face in the masterclasses the visitors have conducted with us. A professionally produced video interview is an effective way of conveying on screen a sense of personal engagement with the contributor. This is an effect of the controlled lighting, the medium and medium close-up shots used, and the clarity of sound achieved with lapel microphones. These technical aspects combine to produce a highly naturalistic representation of a conversational encounter, somewhat obscuring the structured nature of the dialogue that comprises the interview and directing the viewer’s attention to the content rather than the production technique. Interviews offer advantages in postproduction of teaching resources, because they can be edited in a number of ways: they are easily combined with other video or photographic material; different interviews can be juxtaposed to produce a form of dialogue; the vision can be removed and the interview presented as an audio resource; and the video can be broken into sections and combined with text, as in the teaching and learning modules we have developed. The editing of interviews can imply power structures within a documentary. In this particular instance, although we sometimes include the interviewer in our video clips, we have not imposed a narrator voice-over, as this device implies that the narrator carries more authority than the person being interviewed (Nicholson,

220

C. Milligan et al.

2019). By avoiding the use of voice-over, we have placed the interviewee as the most authoritative speaker in each clip. Although the initial production of the interviews is relatively easy for us, their subsequent development as teaching and learning resources has required considerable design and effort. A key strategy has been our decision to use a combination of teacher perspectives and learner perspectives to guide our decisions in the design and development process. The team developing the resources have different research interests that shape their individual perspectives on documentary, and we felt that these perspectives could be further broadened by the inclusion of student input to maximise the effectiveness of the resources. To do this, we employed one male and one female student as research assistants to help with the work. They were from our own newly graduated cohort, so they were familiar with the papers we currently have on documentary across the three-year degree programme, and they have also made their own documentaries in the courses they have taken as part of their Bachelor’s degree at the School. Both RAs were asked to keep a reflective journal in the process of the project to record their personal perspectives on how the resources could be made most effective for student learning. A strategy we then used to combine student and teacher perspectives was to conduct regular weekly team meetings where the three teachers and two RAs would discuss and reflect collectively. These reflections guided the focus and design of each module and helped us think how best the videos could offer the key aspects of the real-world experiences of filmmakers. The collective sessions led us to think which parts of the interviews could inform and challenge our students’ own practice, and also decide what supplementary materials students would need to assist their engagement with the content of interview videos. Our collective thinking proved productive and helpful, and often very interesting, when the similarities and differences in our perspectives surfaced. In the overall design of the learning and teaching resources, we have chosen to focus on the filmmaker, their practice and their philosophy as much as, and sometimes more than, the particular film that occasioned their visit. For decades it has been screen production educators’ concerns to design and deliver university learning and teaching to approximate real-world screen production practice to ensure students are ready for the industry after graduation (Fenton-O’Creevy, 2005; Hanney, 2013; Murray, Barkat, & Pearlman, 2019). For subjects with close ties to industry, utilisation of practising industry professionals for guest lectures and seminar series prove to have positive effects on student learning (Gentelli, 2015). With the aim of integrating professional practice within our curriculum, the video-based modules not only simulate such guest-lecture experiences for students but also, as noted, provide them with the background and supplementary information they may need to engage with the key points of the interviews which we have edited. In other words, the modules offer real-world documentary-making practice experience through the filmmakers’ reflections. Furthermore, our decision to focus on the filmmaking process reflects a shift in our teaching and assessment over the last five years, from a concentration on the artefacts produced by the students to a greater emphasis on the process the student has followed and the development of his or her awareness of their own practice. We

11 Te Ara Motuhenga …

221

believe this emphasis shapes the essence of screen production pedagogy when the focus is on practice-based, project-based learning. This shift is represented in the assessment schedules, with greater emphasis on reflective journals and statements, and in marking criteria for production work, where there is now an emphasis on demonstrated creative development, leadership and organisation. In earlier years, the marking criteria were solely based on the qualities of the finished film itself. This shift in emphasis from product to process reflects our own professional experience that filmmaking is a complex process with no guarantees of success, and that a student may produce work that is flawed, but may demonstrate considerable determination, leadership and creativity in the process. Hence our emphasis in the video interviews has been on the creative process of the filmmaker and the demands placed on the documentary director. One of the challenges that may appear in developing video-based teaching materials is the considerations we must have in mind around layout and platforms. After considering various platforms available to us to launch/offer the teaching resources, we decided to use the University’s current Learning Management System which is Blackboard. We needed a flexible space where we could combine a variety of materials including the high-definition edited video clips as well as relevant videos and film trailers from YouTube and other Internet platforms, online audio interviews and materials, texts, and links to appropriate contextual information, including academic resources. We chose the community space rather than linking to the course space on Blackboard, in order to have maximum flexibility for users. In addition to undergraduate papers, this placement allows us to make the resources a contribution to the wider academic community in our School, which includes many media researchers and postgraduate students with a wide range of interests. By placing the resources in the community space, we remove organisational barriers and provide access for all students, including postgraduate students, regardless of which papers or courses they are enrolled in.

Close-up on the Resource Development Process McDonald (2009) discusses the ways instructional designers can learn from filmmakers as storytellers, and as teacher-filmmakers, our pedagogy is underpinned by storytelling traditions, methods and principles. From many years of teaching, we can recall a range of examples when an aspect of story and storytelling in workshops or lectures engaged students’ attention and resulted in effective learning. It is this belief in storytelling as a teaching tool that guided us in the editing of the videos. Video becomes pedagogically effective when there is a story in it and a detailed look at the choices made in designing and developing two of the resource modules below exemplifies our pedagogical thinking as screen practice educators. The first module was developed from a two-person interview with American documentarians Brad Barber and Scott Christopherson, who visited Auckland to support their documentary Peace Officer when it screened at the New Zealand International

222

C. Milligan et al.

Film Festival in 2015. The recorded interview lasts 23 min and uses the film itself to generate a series of broad questions about the process of making a documentary in an atmosphere of heightened political tension. Peace Officer examines the militarisation of the US police force and tells its story through the work of William ‘Dub’ Lawrence, a former police chief who saw the SWAT team he founded kill his own son-in-law. The filmmakers in both the film and their interview are particularly concerned to demonstrate fairness through presenting the community’s and the lawmakers’ points of view in balance, and this issue of balance was chosen to be the axis of the module’s design. The module has a written introduction to the filmmakers and the film, with further information added via links to publicity material, the film’s trailer and a PBS (Public Broadcasting Service) interview with the filmmakers. Three excerpts from the interview then anchor three sections in the module under the headings: Keeping it Fair, Building Relationships and The Role of the Editor. Each excerpt is preceded by an introductory written paragraph, based on information from elsewhere in the interview, to place the excerpt for the viewer in terms both of craft and of the filmmakers’ philosophical approach to the subject. Leading from their personal approach as filmmakers (Keeping it Fair) through the difficulty of persuading police officers to be in the film (Building Relationships) to the contribution of the editor in providing another perspective while committing to the filmmakers’ balanced approach (The Role of the Editor), the edited clips of the interview present a story as a whole where students are exposed to a detailed example of how documentary filmmakers can use their craft to take a complex, politically volatile story and make it accessible to a broad audience through the application of ethical rigour. As evident, the instructional storytelling that we utilised for making this module was also partly guided by the content of the interview itself. Another of the modules required a different approach to its introduction, while using the same overall design strategy. This module was developed from an interview with Hawaiian filmmaker Anne Keala Kelly, who visited Auckland to screen her film Noho Hewa: the Wrongful Occupation of Hawai’i in 2014. The introduction required detail about the Hawaiian sovereignty movement and the history of the overthrow of the last Hawaiian monarch in order for the viewer to be able to engage with the resource. The introduction of the module includes links to Anne Keala Kelly’s website, the film’s trailer and a radio interview with the filmmaker, as well as a link to further information about the relationship between tourism and militarism in Hawai’i. The resource utilises four excerpts from the 22-minute interview. The four excerpts are preceded by contextual introductions, each under separate headings: the section headed Documentary Directing discusses the filmmaker’s need for a variety of shots to ensure that good performances can be captured when filming actual events; The Editing Process reflects on the how the filmmaker achieves structure and pace through editing; The Ethics of Making a Documentary is a very personal meditation on the filmmaker’s responsibility to their subject and the section headed No Crew discusses the extreme difficulty of making a documentary with no budget. In constructing the modules, we needed to edit the interviews in a way that would direct the students’ focus to a deeper understanding of elements of their own craft, as the filmmakers through their comments explored the creative and aesthetic aspects

11 Te Ara Motuhenga …

223

of their documentary practice. In some modules, we particularly focused on the moments where the filmmakers talked about problems, issues and challenges they faced and what they did to move their projects forward. As screen and media practice educators we agree with Roy Hanney (2013) that “it is the problem encounters situated at the heart of a project life cycle that generate the learning for students engaged in practice” (p. 45). By editing the interviews to highlight significant challenges faced by the filmmakers, we create opportunities for the students to compare difficulties they have faced in their own practice with similar challenges faced by the experienced filmmakers and this offers them very practical, applicable solutions which they can take forward in their learning. In the Building Relationships section of the module on Brad Barber and Scott Christopherson, the filmmakers discuss in detail the difficulty of convincing the police officers to agree to appear in the film, a process which took several months. For students who are nervously confronting the difficulties of persuading a chosen person to agree to be in their film, it is validating to watch and listen to a professional confronting the same issue. We believe creating opportunities where students are exposed to the challenges of the real-world faced by documentary filmmakers through hearing first-hand experiences—a key principle in practice-based learning—can develop new understanding for our students about uncertainties and impulses that drive professional practice (see Kane, 2007). Similarly, the No Crew section in the module on Anne Keala Kelly illustrates how Kelly’s mode of practice, shooting this film by herself and over the course of five years, worked out to her advantage. In practice, it meant that her interviews and observational footage of protests were far more intimate than they would have been if she had had a crew. The long timeframe of the production also brought disadvantages: Kelly’s standard-definition Sony PD170 camera became outdated during the filming period as high-definition video cameras became the norm. By the time the film was finished, standard-definition video looked distinctly inferior to the high-definition video the public had become accustomed to. The lack of money meant Kelly couldn’t take advantage of new technology, and the quality of the film suffered as a result. Again, for students, the teasing out of the surprising advantages as well as unforeseen disadvantages of this situation provides a clear example of the filmmaker learning from practice, knowledge which can inform their own learning. As noted earlier, in the development of the video-based modules, we wanted to have learners’ perspectives, so we asked the research assistants to write reflections on the process of their involvement in the making of these resources with us. These reflections supported our view that the video-based resources could offer students authentic applicable examples of real-world problem-solving. Specific points of practice emerged, such as the importance of transcribing interviews in documentary production, as well as human aspects of the production process that affect all filmmakers: one research assistant’s comment noted how the documentary maker discusses the editing of the film as an emotional journey for the filmmaker, a point that resonated with the assistant when she reflected on her own editing experience. In his personal reflection on constructing the module on Brad Barber and Scott Christopherson, an assistant noted how the discussion about achieving fairness and balance in such a fraught story as the death of a policeman’s son-in-law killed by

224

C. Milligan et al.

his own colleagues was extremely instructive for him. He related two examples in his student years where he or classmates confronted such issues of choice in representation and how ill-equipped they felt dealing with their problems. This is an example of the way an interview can personalise what might otherwise seem an abstract point to the student, as the filmmakers, in this case, reveal aspects of their own lives that affected their approach to their subjects. Editing the video module on Hawaiian filmmaker Anne Keala Kelly opened the second assistant’s eyes to the destructive effect of tourism on the indigenous people of Hawai’i, a country which she had visited twice as a tourist. This led her to make the point that students should be encouraged more strongly to engage with social or political issues in making their own short documentaries. It is notable that both research assistants were drawn towards elements in all the interviews where the filmmakers reveal how they think in their practice and how they make creative decisions, as key learning points for them and their student colleagues. Again, this learning seems to spring from the sense of personal engagement generated by the interview format. The sincerity of Christopherson and Barber and the passion of Kelly emerge on screen in a way that cannot be recreated in text on the page. This is what we emphasise is possible through video-based teaching and learning materials.

Aligning the Resources with the Teaching and Assessment of the Documentary Papers Discussing her own experience as a teacher of documentary practice, Wilma de Jong (2006) notes “in the case of teaching media practice, with its emphasis on using equipment and ‘doing’, the importance of reflecting, thinking and of integrating knowledge and experience seems essential” (p. 153). The ability to critically selfreflect is a strong element in the learning expectations and outcomes on all the documentary practice papers taught in AUT’s Screen Production programmes: for example, as part of one assignment the students are required to submit the following: A weekly journal entry should be entered into Blackboard. The writing should reflect your creative process; we are looking for a progression and development of ideas, well-expressed with correct grammar and spelling … The weekly journal allows you to give context to your work on field exercises and should address: • Creative ideas/subjects/techniques • ‘Aha’ moments • Critical reflection on production and writing skills • Technical skills learnt during workshops/practice • Organisational skills learnt during workshops/practice • Roles explored in field production • Working relationships with crews • Reflection on feedback from peers and lecturers.

11 Te Ara Motuhenga …

225

As teachers, we see the video-based resources as being adjunct materials in enhancing and growing the students’ understanding of how to assess and comment on their own practice in two specific ways. Firstly, the filmmakers interviewed all model specific examples of reflective observation on their practice. As one filmmaker noted: [The editor] and I share an interesting background in that we have a similar whakapapa [genealogy] when it comes to filmmaking and we both started working making documentaries on film … He’s cut a lot of my films, so why is that? Well, we kind of – he has a very human eye and he has an interest in structure, so we will work – we are not interested in cutting sequences, we are interested in getting the structure right.

A statement like this illustrates for students an experienced filmmaker thinking through their work process and their relationship with a creative colleague, in a work situation with which the students are very familiar but where they are still developing their understanding. Secondly, the filmmakers discuss their creative disposition with varying degrees of humility. Discussing the respect required when filming in indigenous situations, another filmmaker commented: There’s such a fine line between exploitation, right? You know, between doing something for somebody and doing something for oneself, and as a filmmaker, come on, we’re some of the most selfish people in the world when it comes to our films, like we know we need to do certain things to make our films live … So (making this film) was oftentimes very painful, because I wanted to be of service and (the subject) wanted to be filmed, but I also understand the medium.

Such an honest analysis of the filmmaker’s own motives in a discussion of ethics can be a very powerful statement of encouragement to a student to approach the evaluation of their own work with rigour. There is value in being able to hear and see a filmmaker reflect on their professional practice in the dynamic context of real-world practice, as students can feel the satisfaction or tensions in the filmmaker’s facial expression, body language and voice. We suggest in documentary education and pedagogy there is learning through iteration as well as motivation in the student’s encounter with an authentic reflection on practice through these video-based materials. A further value in the video resources is their use as tools of revision and reinforcement of learning. We have edited the videos of interviews to reflect certain aspects of documentary practice and craft that, based on our own experience and knowledge, need reiteration for our students, for example: Everyone with whom I collaborate, we all believe in the value of sound. Sound is what transcends a piece – I think it so often gives a work its emotional core – my thing is never, never ever neglect your sound, you know it’s such a vital part I think to the vibrancy of any screen work. There are certain things we agree upon about interview technique and one is … to give space, so I’ll tend to allow those uncomfortable silences to build and often that’s when you get your best (answer) … so I guess the thing I would recommend the most to people is that you get really comfortable with dead space and just giving people the room.

Statements such as these underline and reinforce for students elements that they will have been taught in practice workshops, elements which take time to master and which bear repeating from several different sources.

226

C. Milligan et al.

Conclusion Creating effective video-based resources is time-consuming and intensive work. In this chapter, we have discussed how to create video resources that can embed, facilitate and enrich the practice-based learning of documentary-making. In realising this project, it was vital that we discovered and applied strong organising factors to help us shape the video-based teaching and learning resources. These factors were: • The appeal of story: we used storytelling principles and structures to promote engagement with the materials. • A focus on challenges and problems: we deliberately emphasised these, recognising that an encounter with an obstacle or problem often provides the crucial moment of learning in practice. • Validation of the students’ experiences: students are able to see that professional filmmakers’ experiences are similar to their own, and also recognise that these filmmakers share many of the concerns and priorities expressed by their lecturers. • Placing theoretical concepts in the context of practice: the interviews offer concrete examples that elucidate and expand on the concepts students have encountered in theory. Two further elements in our working methods on this project are aspects we would recommend to other teachers embarking on similar resource creation. Firstly, the three members of the teaching team all brought quite individual approaches and research interests to the enterprise, which enabled us to interrogate the decisionmaking from a variety of theoretical and practical standpoints. Secondly, the two research assistants were very familiar with our papers and teaching methods as well as having known the teachers over the course of their degree, which meant that collective decision-making proceeded quickly in an amicable environment and enabled us to achieve the project of constructing the resources in a notably short timeframe. Finally, we are confident we have established a series of resources that will be of practical value to future students as well as other colleagues with the School of Communication Studies at AUT. We are also now in a position to continue interviewing future visiting filmmakers knowing we can effectively convert such interviews into readily accessible teaching resources for all teachers within the School who find them of value. Acknowledgements We thank William Anderson-Gardiner and Rose Hunt for their work as Research Assistants on this project.

References AUT. (2019). AUT directions to 2025. Retrieved from https://www.aut.ac.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/ 0019/119503/aut-directions-4pg-010917-v11.pdf.

11 Te Ara Motuhenga …

227

De Jong, W. (2006). From ‘doing; to ‘knowing what you are doing’: Kolb’s learning theory in teaching documentary practice. Journal of Media Practice, 7(2), 151–153. Retrieved from https:// doi.org/10.1386/jmpr.7.2.151/3. Fenton-O’Creevy, M. (2005). Is practice-based learning only for professional and vocational subjects? Open University Online. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/dow nload?doi=10.1.1.483.5977&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Gentelli, L. (2015). Using industry professionals in undergraduate teaching: Effects on student learning. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 12(4). Retrieved from http://ro. uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol12/iss4/4. Hanney, R. (2013). Towards a situated media practice: Reflections on the implementation of projectled problem-based learning. Journal of Media Practice, 14(1), 43–59. Retrieved from https://doi. org/10.1386/jmpr.14.1.43/59. Kane, G. (2007). Step-by-step: A model for practice-based learning. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 27(4), 220–226. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. McDonald, J. K. (2009). Imaginative instruction: What master storytellers can teach instructional designers. Educational Media International, 46(2), 111–122. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10. 1080/09523980902933318. Monegal, E. R. (1955). Alberto Cavalcanti. The Quarterly of Film Radio and Television, 9(4), 341–358. Retrieved from https://wwwjstor.org/stable/1209855. Murray, T., Barkat, I., & Pearlman, K. (2019). Intensive mode screen production: an Australian case study in designing university learning and teaching to mirror ‘real-world’ creative production processes. Media Practice and Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/25741136.2019.1644842. Nicholson, J. (2019). Vocal hierarchy in documentary. In A. H. Roe & M. Pramaggiore (Eds.), Vocal projections: Voices in documentary (pp. 219–233). New York and London: Bloomsbury Academic. Renov, M. (2011). Teaching documentary: Toward a goal-centered pedagogy of the documentary film. Significação: Journal of Audiovisual Culture, 38(35), 9–30. Retrieved from https://doi.org/ 10.11606/issn.2316-7114.sig.2011.68157.

Chapter 12

A Practical Guide to Video-Making for Teachers: Key Principles and Tools Dilani S. P. Gedera

Abstract Videos offer flexible learning opportunities and promote learning anytime, anywhere, and at any pace. However, simply presenting information in video format does not foster active learning. It is crucial to consider the pedagogical aspects related to the design and production of the video as well as active learning strategies that can be integrated in the videos. Through a primarily pragmatic lens, this chapter suggests using customised, personalised videos created by manipulating their content to include interactive elements, teacher narration and other multimedia. The chapter outlines key principles, tools, considerations and recommendations to create pedagogically sound videos. Keywords Tools · Software · Video design · Video production · Education · Elearning · Online learning · Video Pedagogy

Introduction Video has become an effective tool in teaching and learning contexts. Topics and concepts that once seemed difficult to teach and learn can now be explained and shown explicitly with the help of videos. The auditory and visual nature of videos caters to a wide range of learning styles, allowing viewers to process information in a way that is natural to them. Videos can enhance student learning (Gedera & Larke, 2019; Hsin & Cigas, 2013); however, simply sharing videos with students does not mean that they are pedagogically effective, or facilitate effective learning or teaching. In order to offer a meaningful learning experience and facilitate active learning, videos need to be carefully designed and developed, incorporating pedagogical techniques and elements, and what has been called “interactive learning moments” (Gedera & Zalipour, 2018, p. 363).

D. S. P. Gedera (B) Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 D. S. P. Gedera and A. Zalipour (eds.), Video Pedagogy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-4009-1_12

229

230

D. S. P. Gedera

This chapter outlines the effective uses of video in teaching and learning from a pragmatic perspective. It presents types of video, principles and steps of videomaking and sample tools and software that can be used in creating, editing and sharing educational videos. These video-making tools and principles are for teachers who want to make non-professional videos for their students. Some recommendations for creating effective videos are presented in the last part of the chapter. It should be noted that the chapter focuses on making videos using mobile devices and laptops and does not aim to engage deeply with learning theories and concepts as the previous chapters in the book have done. The recommendations offered in this chapter are based on a number of ‘video in teaching and learning’ workshops conducted by the author for academic staff at universities to promote online and innovative teaching. The principles and tools this chapter shares are primarily from good practice guidelines that have emerged as a result of the author’s experience of working with teachers over the years.

Effective Uses of Video in Teaching and Learning Effective uses of video in teaching and learning can be manifold. The use of video in education may vary from using video as supplementary material in face-to-face lectures to using video as the primary mode of course delivery. The top ten uses of video for teaching and learning that emerged from the teaching and learning workshops are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Lectures as short videos Video demonstrations or tutorials that students may need to watch several times Screencasts as ‘how-to’ videos (e.g. how to contribute to a discussion forum) Guest speaker videos (guests who can not make it to the class) Overview/weekly summary videos (what is coming up during the week or how the week went) 6. Overview videos for assignments or projects 7. Instructional videos (e.g. what aspects should be covered in a discussion forum post) 8. Video feedback on assessments 9. Interactive videos (e.g. to test student knowledge or the application of concepts) 10. Student recorded videos (e.g. as presentations, reflective commentary, peer feedback; these tasks can be included as part of an assessment).

Types of Video Educational videos come in multiple forms and types. The following are some examples. Screencasts: A screencast is a video recording that captures action that takes place on a screen, and usually includes video of a person or audio narration. One of the

12 A Practical Guide to Video-Making for Teachers …

231

primary uses of screencasts is the delivery of lecture content. Using screencasting software, teachers can record PowerPoint slides or other teaching material together with their voice narration, producing short videos. Screencasts are also commonly used for instructional videos or how-to-guides. For example, a screencast is an effective way to walk students through instructions of an assessment or project. Screencasts are also useful in providing video feedback to students, where teachers can record the screen as they mark student work, illustrating which parts need improvement. Another use of screencasts is getting students to make content videos as part of an assessment. With the help of free software, students can now create videos easily and quickly now. Talking head videos: A talking head video is one where a person speaks directly to the camera, either straight to it using reporting style or taking a position slightly to the side, using an interview style. Talking head videos are commonly used for such tasks as welcoming students to a new paper, or providing an overview or summary of the week. Talking head videos can also be used for recording reflective commentaries or interviews with experts who cannot make it to the class. Demonstration videos: Demonstration videos capture recordings of demonstrations or tutorials that students may need to watch several times. For example, recording how to dissect a frog or draw blood from a patient can be useful, as these tasks are challenging to perform repeatedly. Lecture capture videos: Lecture capture is one way of recording classroom lectures as videos and making them available to students after the class. Classroom videos can be useful if a student misses a class or if students join in the class from a distance. Teachers can choose to record class lectures using only PowerPoint slides with audio, or teachers might choose to include other sources such as video, desktop and document camera. Classroom recordings can also be used for professional development purposes to improve learning and teaching practices. Live-streaming videos: Live streaming refers to media being simultaneously recorded and broadcast in real-time. Live streaming is also referred to as webcasting. Panopto and Eco360 are popular video platforms in educational institutions, and with the live-streaming feature, teachers can share events and lectures in real-time with off-shore students and colleagues. These recordings can be accessed and shared with anyone as soon as the streaming ends. Interactive videos: Interactive videos support user interaction with the video. These videos may comprise various clickable areas such as embedded quizzes, reflective pauses, hotspots and the like. An interactive video plays like a regular video, but when it reaches a point where the viewer is expected to interact with the video or perform a task, the video will pause. Interactive videos are commonly used to test a student’s knowledge of concepts and also to promote active learning.

232

D. S. P. Gedera

Steps and Principles of Video-Making for Teaching and Learning The fundamental steps in making videos comprise planning, setting up the device, recording, editing, publishing and sharing. The sections below describe these steps in detail. These steps depend on what types of video are being made and for what purpose.

Planning Before starting the video-making process, it is useful to think about how to tell and visualise the content of the video. Preparing a ‘shopping list’ of what is needed to make the video can save time. The ‘shopping list’ may include such items as a webcam, mic, tripod, script, charger, device and the like. Creating a simple storyboard using stick figures can be useful to determine the types of shots, people and locations that will be needed. Having a script or an outline of points that will be covered in the video is helpful to stay focused when recording videos.

Setting Up the Device If a mobile device is used for creating the video, it is vital to check how much storage is available on the device. One gigabyte of storage will be sufficient for eight minutes of recording (1080p). An obvious but essential tip is to clean the camera lens and enable airplane mode before recording. When using a mobile device for videomaking, it is best to avoid recording vertically. Vertically recorded footage will result in a video with black lines on either side when played on landscape-oriented devices or displays, for example. To avoid having a shaky video, it is important to stabilise the recording. One way to achieve this is by using both hands to hold the mobile device while placing the elbows on a steady platform. Another option would be to use a tripod or clamp to hold the mobile device. Lighting is another critical aspect of a video. To find the best lighting, one suggestion is to put the mobile device on selfie mode and turn 360°. When using a laptop to record videos, using a reasonably good webcam can enhance the quality of the images and audio. The ideal position is to place the laptop camera or webcam slightly above the operator’s eye level. If there is too much backlighting (i.e. if there is a window or light source behind the subject), this may place the subject in silhouette). If the goal is to create a better-looking video for teaching and learning, be sure to clear the clutter in the background. Whether using a mobile device or a laptop for the video, the sound quality can be improved by avoiding noisy, windy places. When recording indoors, be mindful of the humming sound in air-conditioned rooms, for instance. Using an external mic can enhance the quality of video sound.

12 A Practical Guide to Video-Making for Teachers …

233

Head room

Lead room

Fig. 12.1 The rule of thirds

Recording Depending on the type of video, a variety of shots, such as wide-angle, mid-range and close-up, can be used. If using a mobile device for recording close-ups, it is best to get closer to the subject or use a clip-on optical lens than to use the zoom-in function. Digital zooming on mobile devices results in grainy videos. The rule of thirds can help improve composition, which is the placement and arrangement of visual elements in a shot. The rule of thirds involves mentally dividing the frame into thirds both vertically and horizontally and placing the person or the object on the meeting points of two of these lines. Two important framing concepts in video-making are headroom and lead room (a.k.a. nose room). Headroom refers to the space between the subject’s head and the top of the frame and the lead or nose room designates the empty space between the subject and the edge of the frame. Leaving some space in front of the principal subject in the direction of his/her movement creates visual ‘breathing room’. Following the rule of thirds, the subject’s eyes can be placed on the upper third line to get the best positioning (see Fig. 12.1). In addition, if the videos are intended for reuse when recording them avoid references to current events, specific dates or sessions. Also, when embedding web links to outside resources, keep in mind that these web links may not be available later.

Editing There are many simple apps and tools available for editing videos (for more details, see the recording and editing software and tools section). As a general rule of thumb

234

D. S. P. Gedera

for preparing videos for our own teaching and learning contexts (non-professional videos), it is best to avoid over-editing videos to keep it simple. In creating educational videos, it is advisable to record short segments, since short videos are not only pedagogically effective but can also be easily edited and reshot if necessary.

Publishing and Sharing Publishing and sharing videos depend on the audience who would access them. An easy option is to publish videos on video storage sites, such as YouTube or Vimeo, and share a link with the targeted audience. Videos can also be shared in learning management systems (LMS) by embedding a link or uploading the videos on video management systems, such as Panopto or Eco360.

Tools to Record and Edit Videos The following are apps and web-based tools for recording and editing videos. Screencasts and talking-head video • • • •

Screencast-o-matic https://screencast-o-matic.com/ Loom https://www.loom.com/ Panopto https://www.panopto.com/ Echo360 https://echo360.com/. Interactive video

• H5P https://h5p.org/ • PlayPosit https://go.playposit.com/ • Edpuzzle https://edpuzzle.com/. Video editing suite • Camtasia https://www.techsmith.com/video-editor.html • Adobe Premiere Pro https://www.adobe.com/nz/products/premiere.html. Mobile apps to record and edit videos • Kinemaster (for iOS and Android) https://www.kinemaster.com • iMovie (for iOS) https://www.apple.com/nz/imovie. Video hosting platforms • • • •

YouTube www.youtube.com Vimeo https://vimeo.com Loom https://www.loom.com/ Panopto https://www.panopto.com/

12 A Practical Guide to Video-Making for Teachers …

235

• Echo 360 https://echo360.com/. Ready to use video content: • • • • • • •

YouTube www.youtube.com YouTube—Edu www.youtube.com/edu TeacherTube www.teachertube.com Vimeo https://vimeo.com TED-Ed http://ed.ted.com/videos TED http://www.ted.com Khan Academy http://www.khanacademy.org.

Considerations and Recommendations for Creating Effective Videos for Teaching and Learning Videos have become an integral part of flipped, blended and fully online courses. However, to ensure that videos facilitate active learning as opposed to the passive transmission of information, videos must be carefully designed and integrated with active learning classroom exercises. The following recommendations provide helpful tips in creating engaging, pedagogically sound content videos.

Presentation of Video Segmenting: Video production decisions can have a considerable effect on student engagement. Students engage more with short, succinct videos. Research affirms that the average engagement time with videos is six minutes or less, regardless of the total length of the video (Kim et al., 2014; Guo, Kim, & Rubin, 2014). Therefore, replicating a 50-min lecture in the form of a video is not very effective. Presenting a concept succinctly in a video requires more planning. Consequently, shorter videos are not only effective because of their reduced length but must also be better organised. Keeping videos to about five–six minutes helps to avoid information overload. Each video should cover one topic or concept, avoiding ambiguous terminology or jargon. Teachers need to remember that students cannot ask questions and clarify issues when they watch these videos outside the classroom. To prepare students for a 60–90 min workshop or tutorial, it is reasonable to share five videos (five–six minutes each) to cover five concepts or, alternatively, several aspects and examples of one concept. Each video should stand alone and have an overview at the beginning, as individual videos may not be watched in sequence by students. Personalisation: Videos with a personal feel tend to engage students more with their learning. Students feel connected with the teacher when the latter appears in the video, as compared to videos where teachers provide only an audio track accompanied by visuals (Gedera & Larke, 2019). The teacher’s presence, a key element

236

D. S. P. Gedera

in fostering student engagement, is more prominent in videos with a human face, particularly in fully online papers. Providing professional expertise by drawing on their own experience or adding authentic examples about the topic can make videos more engaging. Guo et al. (2014) affirm that students tend to engage more with videos when teachers speak faster. While it is not possible to provide an exact number of words to be spoken per minute, a conversational, enthusiastic tone should be maintained to keep students engaged. Compared with the speech rate typical of classroom teaching, teachers should speak relatively quickly. There is no need to intentionally speak slowly in videos, as the video interface has the functionality to play, pause, speed up or slow down as needed. Congruity, signaling and coherence: The design of multimedia content aims to maximise learning. Mayer’s (2009) congruity principle illustrates that presenting information using both the auditory and visual channels simultaneously can increase processing in the working memory and prevents cognitive overload. For example, if a process is explained in a video, it is important to present the related visuals and narration at the same time. Signaling or cueing is another principle that may be used to highlight important information in videos. This can be done through the use of keywords and symbols on the screen. For example, highlighting keywords or using animated arrows to point out important aspects of a process helps students focus on specific information that needs to be processed. Although continuous visual flow in videos is another important aspect in engaging students, accompanying visuals need to be relevant and add value to the video. This is known as the coherence principle in creating multimedia (Mayer, 2009). Multimedia content that is not directly related to learning can lead to cognitive overload (Sweller, 1988) and may distract students. When using visuals in videos, one question to ask yourself is, “is this image 100% necessary to help students grasp the concept?” Similarly, teachers should be careful when using background music, as it may distract students or affect students with a hearing impairment.

Active Learning with Videos Can videos promote ‘active’ learning? Viewing videos is not the same as learning from them. Research affirms that simply watching an educational video does not contribute to meaningful learning (Szpunar, Jing, & Schacter, 2014). The purposeful integration of activities and application of active learning strategies with videos not only promotes active learning but also keeps students engaged with the videos. Active learning can be facilitated by: • Providing a brief outline of the video at the beginning to guide students through it, explain why they need to watch it and what they will learn from it, and what they have to do with it.

12 A Practical Guide to Video-Making for Teachers …

237

• Encouraging students to take notes while watching videos is an active learning strategy that can improve student learning. • Posing a question at the beginning of the video. Preliminary questions can provide students with focus and keep them engaged while watching the video. • Embedding pauses for reflection, statements, or guiding questions within the video to promote reflection and active learning. • Including interactive and responsive features, such as a short quiz after the video. Short formative quizzes are a great way to test students’ understanding of what they have just learned. • Linking videos back to class lesson content and activities. For example, students may be instructed to think about a new concept they learned in the video and then discuss how that concept is related to them and their experience. Students can post their responses on a discussion forum. Teachers may also ask students to create a two-minute video and post it on the discussion forum rather than posting a text message. To encourage peer interaction, students should be encouraged to ask questions of their peers and respond to each other. • Making use of the video analytics feature to track student progress, so that at-risk students can be identified and supported.

Accessibility Accessible videos can be helpful and even critical for some students. Consequently, careful consideration of the use of colours, font sizes and styles in videos is vital. Some common video hosting platforms like YouTube offer automatic captioning. Improvement is needed, however, when it comes to the accuracy and consistency of automatic captioning technologies. An accessible video generally includes captions and a transcript as alternatives to audio. Although sometimes it may not be feasible, consider adding captions and providing a transcript of the video whenever possible. When creating media content for videos, teachers should make careful decisions about using text that is easy to read, choosing colours with good contrast and avoiding fast-flashing animations (Bureau of Internet Accessibility, 2020).

Copyright When developing educational videos, it is not uncommon to combine new media that teachers may produce from scratch with existing media created by someone else. Existing media, such as video clips, images and music, may be protected by copyright laws and one needs to be mindful when embedding these in videos. As with the content shared in a classroom, any material used in the video (given that the video is shared on a password-protected platform, such as a Learning Management System) may be covered by the rules governing fair use in educational settings. However, if

238

D. S. P. Gedera

videos will be published in a public domain, such as YouTube or Vimeo, the rules for fair use in educational settings will no longer apply. There are three options when it comes to the use of media in a video: (a) Create your own materials; (b) Seek permission from producers to use existing media (c) Use media that are copyright-free or with limited copyright, such as materials published under the Creative Commons licence. More information on the Creative Commons licence can be found at https:// creativecommons.org/.

Concluding Remarks Video is an effective medium that can foster active learning and student engagement. However, the pedagogical aspects of the design and production of videos are of paramount importance in order to maximise the benefit of educational videos. Both research-supported recommendations and professional experience affirm that videos need to be short, targeted and personalised. Also, to make the most of educational video, active learning strategies such as questions before and after the video, interactive elements and worksheets should be interspersed with videos. As the other chapters of this book have discussed, videos for teaching and learning purposes and contexts can be created in a variety of ways. This chapter offers some key principles and tools that can be used to create such videos but in no way intends to provide a comprehensive introduction to making professional videos. The snapshot of the suggestions and recommendations provided in this chapter can help teachers who are new to video-making or who have just started making videos for teaching and learning purposes.

References Bureau of Internet Accessibility, Inc. (2020). Checklist for Creating Accessible Videos. https://www. boia.org/blog/checklist-for-creating-accessible-videos. Gedera, D. S. P., & Larke, R. (2019). Enhancing learner engagement through video. In Proceedings of Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australia (HERDSA). https://www. herdsa2019.auckland.ac.nz/. Gedera, D. S. P., & Zalipour, A. (2018). Use of interactive video for teaching and learning. Proceedings of ASCILITE 2018 Conference, 362–367. https://2018conference.ascilite.org/wp-content/upl oads/2018/12/ASCILITE-2018-Proceedings-Final.pdf. Guo, P. J., Kim, J., & Rubin, R. (2014, March). How video production affects student engagement: An empirical study of MOOC videos. Proceedings of the first ACM conference on Learning@ scale conference, 41–50. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2556325.2566239. Hsin, W. J., & Cigas, J. (2013). Short videos improve student learning in online education. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 28(5), 253–259. Kim, J., Guo, P. J., Seaton, D. T., Mitros, P., Gajos, K. Z., & Miller, R. C. (2014). Understanding in-video dropouts and interaction peaks in online lecture videos. Proceedings of the first ACM conference on Learning@ scale, 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556325.2566237.

12 A Practical Guide to Video-Making for Teachers …

239

Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285. Szpunar, K. K., Jing, H. G., & Schacter, D. L. (2014). Overcoming overconfidence in learning from video-recorded lectures: Implications of interpolated testing for online education. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 3(3), 161–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac. 2014.02.001.

Afterword

Dilani S. P. Gedera and Arezou Zalipour Reaching the end of this book, we offer a final thought on how video pedagogy opens new ways of pedagogical thinking in education which we believe are going to help face challenges anticipating the future of teaching and learning. Although the book focused on teaching and learning in higher education, its core ideas and concepts are transferable to other education sectors and informal education across the lifespan. Various chapters in this book have discussed how video has affected and sometimes transformed existing approaches to teaching and learning. Video pedagogy: Theory and practice brought together a number of case studies from around the world to reflect how pedagogy changes in accordance with shifts in the nature of learning and knowing. Video is a ubiquitous, powerful medium not only in presenting factual, procedural, emotional and conceptual content, but also reshaping the pedagogy to facilitate active and engaged learning. This book was compiled in the belief that teachers and those who are supporting teaching staff at universities, as well as the eLearning industry would benefit from the examples of the ways video can be utilised for various purposes if embedded and designed purposefully to enhance the learning experience, aligned with learning outcomes of a course. As we are finalising the manuscript in 2020, it becomes more evident than ever before the value and the usefulness of video in teaching and learning, not as an alternative way to enhance the learning experience, but rather as one of the most effective ways in the current and future pedagogies. We are in the midst of what has invaded and changed people’s lives across the globe, the sudden outbreak of a fatal disease called Covid-19. This situation has challenged the education systems across the world and forced teachers to shift to an online mode of teaching and learning overnight. With uncertainties COVID situation has created in different regions and countries, teachers are required to be ready to shift between online, blended and face-to-face modes of teaching. We are closing Video Pedagogy: Theory and Practice at the time when educational institutions are diligently trying to find ways to establish online and remote learning approaches and strategies, and the first thing that comes to mind is the use of video © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 D. S. P. Gedera and A. Zalipour (eds.), Video Pedagogy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-4009-1

241

242

Afterword

and how it can facilitate and enable learning. With this sudden shift away from the classroom in many parts of the globe, learning and teaching have been supported by various forms of pre-recorded videos and other resources supplemented by asynchronous and synchronous sessions. We all have realised that the way we teach and learn has been reshaped and transformed, and the adoption of new ways of teaching and learning may even continue to persist post-pandemic. The lessons learned from this unexpected pandemic experience and feedback from students reinforce the need for more deliberate and conscious design, pedagogical thinking and development of educational resources, strategies and environments that facilitate video pedagogy. And we see upfront there has never been such dire need for staff upskilling and support for using and creating videos and multimedia content for teaching and learning. We encourage readers to explore how to use this book to systematise and innovate in the ways they use video in teaching and learning. We reiterate here what inspired us from the beginning, that Video Pedagogy: Theory and Practice is not the endpoint of our inquiry. Rather, we framed it as an invitation to discuss and promote what we think would constitute video pedagogy.