Executive Summary of Results

Three methods of producing video were implemented, each of increasing complexity: 1) simply talking to the camera, 2) written lectures with teleprompter, and 3) adding PowerPoint slide backgrounds in post production. Using the advanced video technology complicates the process and will discourage faculty involvement due to the increased workload. A simple video from an office chair (using titling features of the software and adding any scanned images or video clips desired) provides the easiest production method. Although greater use of technology is “really cool,” a complex video seems to provide no more additional “classroom presence” than a simple, brief video.

Need for the Project

As pedagogical practices and research have shown, students employ various learning styles, including visual, auditory, and tactile. Distance Education has largely depended on reading and writing as its principle medium of communication, largely eliminating aural and visual elements of classroom instruction. Also lost are the non-verbal messages on which relationships rely for creation and maintenance. Throughout the 1990s, adding audio and, more recently, video tapes of instruction has helped to remedy this situation, encouraging many institutions to invest heavily in producing videotapes for DE. However, many programs have abandoned the videotape method due to the high cost and labor intensive nature.

The advent of digital technology has greatly simplified the video production process, yet few departments have revived video as an instructional medium. The present project experimented with various methods and concluded that good quality instructional videos can be produced by any professor willing to learn the use of a consumer model camcorder and video editing technology that now is installed on EVERY new computer. I have concluded that classroom presence can be increased and instructor/student relationships deepened with minimal cost and effort. Brief, topic-oriented vignettes can be filmed (with no assistance) by the instructor by simply setting a camcorder on a tripod, aiming at him/herself, and talking. A casual “fireside chat” approach shows the character and personality of the instructor to students, and by exploiting the peculiar ability of TV to develop a “false” intimate relationship, students can “perceive” that they have a good relationship with the instructor, which is indeed what we desire them to have.

Materials can be recorded directly to the computer hard drive via the iMovie (for Mac) or Windows Movie Maker (for PC) software. Titles, key terms, even still images or video clips can be easily imported and “dropped” into place in a brief editing session (if desired). The project can then be “exported” to video files that can be streamed over the Internet or burned onto a CD (a CD will hold over 10 hours of fair quality video.

The challenge of this project has been to help colleagues overcome prejudices and “technophobia” and understand that they can quickly master the skills needed to add video vignettes or full lectures to their online or DE course offerings. The increasing availability of high bandwidth access is quickly hastening universal access to streaming capability of students.

Use of Technology

The novel approach of this project was to empower instructors to handle their own video and technology needs. High quality video materials can be created in the office. The telecommunications professional that was previously necessary for successful DV videos is now obsolete. Professors willing to invest an hour into learning a new skill can produce streamable video files for online coursework. Although the technology has been available for several years, few college level instructors are taking advantage of it.

Instructional Design Plan

Describe how the use of technology used supported your teaching approach:

• What student learning outcomes were expected?

The central outcomes involved making course ideas and materials more intelligible to students who need “human contact” in some form, those for whom books, chatrooms, and email do not provide a sufficient learning environment that takes advantage of their propensity toward visual and auditory learning styles.

• How did your teaching plan encourage active learning, provide  feedback, address respective learning styles, and build collaboration? 

In the classes where I employed the technology, I encouraged active learning through reading other students’ ideas, writing responses, and writing essays as assignments. Collaboration was encouraged through having students post ideas for a final project and soliciting feedback form their cohorts.

• What resources were used? (campus technology support services, etc.)

I used the on-campus Teaching & Learning Center to help with the use of software and CD burning.

• Would your project be easily understood and executed by other faculty?

Herein is the challenge of the project. While I believe the project itself is simple, getting other faculty to actually set up a camcorder and learn to use the software seems to be problematic. To address this issue, I am working on a short “streamable video” that demonstrates how easy the process is.

Potential to Impact Student Learning

Clearly define how your project improved student learning - include specific examples of how your project:

• Fostered depth of learning

I believe the project improved the learning of students whose primary learning styles are visual and auditory as well as made student feel more comfortable with me as an instructor. At least half of the class dropped by the office at some point and introduced themselves to me. Others recognized me on campus and introduced themselves. For one particular concept, I was able to explain a model of argumentation while showing various versions on screen. As an instructor, I was more satisfied with this visual representation than the text-only versions I used in past courses.

• Supported efforts to improve retention

Retention in the online courses seems to be improving and is somewhat better than my in-class courses. The dropout rates are about 10% and 20% respectively.

• Fostered  the learning of large numbers of students

The project did not attempt to significantly expand the class size. I did increase the enrollment from 20 up to 28 and filled the course.

• Has broader applications that will affect learning K-12 or community

      environments?

While much of K-12 coursework still occurs in a classroom, an increasing community of students is turning to online charter schools. It is in such environments as these that video lectures may prove to be extremely helpful. Currently, kids only know their teacher as someone who answers email in such situations.

Assessment Plan

Briefly explain the effectiveness of your assessment plan:

• What measure of assessment was used?

I used augmented course evaluations that added a set of questions specifically regarding student response to and use of the video lectures.

• How did your approach obtain measures of performance? 

Performance was assessed through a “1 Minute Paper” as well as an analysis of exam and final project scores.

• Did you feel your measurement was accurate and effective?

Being a “self-report”, the 1 minute paper may not be entirely accurate. The exams are a better indicator of effort than learning. The best indicator of student learning is probably the analysis of final project scores.

Plan for Colleague Development

Describe your role and activities as a mentor:

• What mentoring activities were implemented to assist colleagues?

I also presented in an on-campus symposium, as well as the ISSOTL Annual convention (2004) demonstrating the method I have developed.

• How did you help to develop colleague's instructional technology skills?

I assisted a Communication Colleague in successfully creating a set of video lectures for a summer course in 2004. Our department is currently discussing the merits of an on-line Communication degree—one of the first in the nation—if our campus makes a commitment in this direction.

• How do you think your contributions to the Knowledge Base will help colleagues planning similar projects?

I hope that this project will encourage colleagues to keep their video technology simple, in the interests of faculty workload and equipment expense.

• Is your project approach potentially applicable to other contexts or disciplines?

Yes, video technology for education is applicable to any discipline that values (at least in part) lecture formats or videotaped examples for learning.

• What tips would you offer?

Keep your video efforts simple. It is easy to become immersed in the technology distracting from other responsibilities, such as staying abreast of one’s field.

Final Comments on Project Results

• Do you think you met the goals of your project?

Parts of the goals were met. I desired to administer a survey at the conclusion of the project, but being a qualitative researcher, I found that I had not sufficiently prepared for a meaningful survey that could be generalized. As it was, I did refine the method I had planned and concluded that it was so time consuming that few faculty members would adopt it.

• What, if anything, would you do differently? 

Employ a co-author and set up properly to include an empirical analysis using control groups.

• Did you have any unexpected outcomes? (positive or negative)

I found that students did not view the lectures as much as I expected. While many students reported the lectures to be helpful and worthwhile, others did not watch them at all.

• Would you recommend this teaching approach to colleagues?

Yes. It is worth the effort.

• What other comments or suggestions would you offer to complete this report?

Keep video lecture materials technically simple.

Return to Final Reports page

AT&T Fellows Home Page

Last updated: 18 May, 2007

Comments and Questions | (317) 278-4833
Copyright © 1999-2003, The Trustees of Indiana University