In 1956 the world’s first commercially successful videotape recorder was released. Ever since then, since production and distribution of video technology became economically viable the spread and development of audiovisual recording technology was inevitable. Despite the visible potential of the medium, no one could have predicted its successors’ ubiquity today, namely digital camera technology. Initially, audiovisual media recording was exclusively for Hollywood and the entertainment industry. Eventually, not only did the digital technology that enabled audiovisual recording enter the hands of the every day citizen via digital cameras and later mobile phones, but the result of the technology, the medium of video, entered realms beyond entertainment. One of the areas of particular interest is education. The prevalence of video technology in educational contexts is actually less than was expected at advent of audiovisual recording; Thomas Edison was quoted saying “the motion picture is destined to revolutionise our educational system and that in a few years it will supplant largely, if not entirely, the use of textbooks.” (1922 as cited in Provenzo, E. F., & Cuban, L., 1986, p.9)
This paper asks why there exists such a disparity between the initial expectations of video, especially lecture and lecture-like explanations, and the current applications of these recordings in education, particularly in high school and university settings. The main premise being that while most video usage has done little to develop pedagogy thus far, it has the potential to change it in ways that greatly benefit both educators and students. In dissecting this stance, the paper will also give rise to questions such as what makes the usage of recordings effective in student learning while also assessing its limitations. Further, it considers how lecture recording impacts the teacher’s role, primarily in higher education though it can be extrapolated to include some aspects of high school teaching. Lastly, it examines how teacher’s might adapt to take advantage of the medium without compromising on student learning outcomes.
Although (educational) video platforms such Youtube and Khan Academy have been called “revolutionary” by media outlets due to its adoption by students around the world, I’m willing to question whether it is, in fact, revolutionary, or whether it is just the same pedagogy on a different medium. After all, with billionaire philanthropist Bill Gates supporting Salman Khan and his online academy it’s hard for it not to become sensationalised.
Audrey Watters (2011) states about Khan Academy specifically: “although there’s a tech component here that makes this appear innovative, that’s really a matter of form, not content, that’s new.” This is the problem with current perceptions of instructional video content. The underlying pedagogy of most video content is no different to the traditional pedagogy where someone stands at the front and delivers the content. The only difference is that afterwards it can be rewatched and distributed (the benefits of which will be covered later). This is not the only reported pedagogical problem with educational video library Khan Academy. Due to the high demand of videos, Sal Khan, the founder and primary creator of the platform asserted that he sometimes only spends 20 minutes googling a concept before creating content (Noer, 2012). While the content aspect of the platform’s videos may be useful, it is important to see past this and recognise that 20 minutes of research is not enough for someone to gain an understanding complete enough to pass on to students in an effective and wholesome way.
Derek Muller’s paper (2005) found that students both enjoyed and perceived they learnt more via lecture-like video (i.e oral explanations potentially accompanied by demonstrations, real or animated) than in a traditional style lecture. There are certain reasons this may be the case. One of which is the fact they judged the “clarity” of the video, explaining gravity in the case of the study, as clearer than a standard lecture. The added clarity of explanation can be put down to further preparation by teachers in preparing a video, since they know it will likely be reused. The added student enjoyment has great potential in the classroom where recently the greatest contributor to students’s underachievement is lack of engagement. Despite this added engagement and clarity of content in video format, there seemed to be little to no objective test-score improvements in Muller’s study (2005) from before to after. Perhaps this is due to the fact that students see video or audiovisual content as primarily entertainment (Krendl, 1986). Interestingly, it was only until another video explanation of gravity was shown that was actually perceived as less clear, specifically one in which common student misconceptions were explicitly pointed out, that the students’ test scores increased substantially (Muller, 2005).
With this in mind we can see why it is not necessarily the medium of video that has or will revolutionise education but rather the way each video is constructed and how it is used. Live capture recordings of traditional university lectures are becoming more and more popular in tertiary institutions. There are several benefits to be reaped by the students if lectures are recorded. The ability to pause, rewind, and fast-forward give students an opportunity to pace their own learning. Students need not worry they are slowing down the rest of the class if video is used, they can quickly patch gaps in their knowledge by rewinding the video before they forget what it was they missed by the end of the lecture. The ability to pause means they can slow down, review the lecture slide and ensure they have understood rather than simply transcribed the content. The rewind feature acts in the same way. However, the inability to ask questions is a limitation of video in the context of effective student learning.
Today, video is stored in a digital format, therefore the distributable nature of the internet can be leveraged to advantage students around the world. Khan Academy is one of several that sets out to leverage the internet in this way to bring a free education to anyone with an internet connection. Through his platform, Khan has blended local and global boundaries. Teachers can now refer a Khan Academy video to their class, have students discuss a concept’s implications with each other and contribute to the global discussion in the comment section on Khan academy, harnessing the power of the network. Not only do the students gain educational capital directly from the site’s use in the form of the video content, but the multimodal nature of the site allows students to engage and enhance the literacies required to function effectively as part of the digital generation.
Before proficiency in these literacies is achieved contributions to the platform through the site’s comment functionality is not of equal benefit for each student. Not only do students from other countries need to have literacy in the traditional sense, enough to read and write in the language used, predominantly English, but they also need both the technological and cultural literacy to meaningfully connect and share with students of other nationalities. However, the internet is beginning to change this dynamic having sparked the formation of a global literacy (Starke-Meyerring, 2005), a set of tacit rules, separate, though stemming from the participating cultures. The significance of this is that for globalised platforms like Khan Academy to be equally effective for all students, the video lecture content must account for the different habiti or socio-cultural backgrounds of the students.
To use video recordings as a one-for-one substitute for traditional methods is a drastic oversimplification. The power of video, as was said earlier, offers no real pedagogical change. Video, in fact, disables face-to-face discussion with other students or the teacher in a lecture theatre or classroom. “Recent innovations in physics teaching and a literature review of social learning theories revealed a strong emphasis on class discussions.” (Muller, 2008). It is because of the ambiguity of discussion, the non-linearity of conversation, that learning is enhanced, since learning is about making connections, connections which are often not connected linearly. Interestingly, even when not in a traditional style lecture the personalisation principle, which is applied naturally when in conversation, still applies. That is, when more informal, colloquial language, is used students learn better, whether face-to-face or in a video. (Mayer, Fennell, Farmer & Campbell 2004).
Thus far the basis of the paper has been on how students view, and are affected by, video use in the classroom. The possibilities for educators must also be considered. The recording of a lecture is relatively easy to implement in comparison to other edu-tech. It requires only a camera and a lecturer. This may be one reason recordings, especially in tertiary education are used extensively. A hindrance to the adoption of any new technology, however, is the teacher’s technological literacy. In the case of lecture-recording the barrier is relatively low. It should be noted that just because it’s easy to implement does not mean it is effective. In light of recent technological developments, the teaching framework Pedagogical Content knowledge (PCk) has been augmented to with the addition of Technological knowledge, forming the acronym TPACk, representing the intersection between each component of a modern complete educational system. One of the biggest challenges for teachers is “maintaining a clear focus on the teaching process and not becoming lost in the complexities of new technologies” (Woolfitt, 2015). This seems obvious, but it is difficult to implement. The addition of video recording to an educational system must intersect with the Pedagogy and Content in a way that creates an improvement in the overall learning experience and is not just thoughtlessly added onto the Pedagogical and Content knowledge framework.
For a lecturer to record or permit the recording of their lecture means to permit the possibility of their lecture being received by a wider audience. This means they permit any mistakes or moments of awkwardness to be housed on the internet for this larger audience to see. This amalgamation of a large audience and everlasting mistakes can create excess pressure for the educator. This can have effects on their self-esteem and self-confidence that would otherwise be mitigated if video were more ephemeral (Waters, 2011). Perhaps somewhat ironically, another of educators’ fears of having lecture recordings is that there will be a decline in lecture attendance to the lecture theatre. While this does not apply to high-schools where attendance is mandatory it is nonetheless a highly rated concern among those of universities (Bond and Grussendorf, 2013). Having less students watching the lecture live would decrease immediate pressure for perfection, contradicting Waters’ study to a certain extent.
Lecture recordings need not only impact the educator negatively. The permanent and reviewable nature of video can allow for constant self-improvement by looking back at past lectures and working on explanations and general pedagogical approach (Deal, 2007). This is where video can be used to be more than just a traditional lecture on a different medium. Teachers using video as a vehicle for personal pedagogical improvement can only positively influence the learning of their students. Besides using the reviewing capability to improve themselves educators can also collaborate with other teachers and share mistakes or possibilities for improvement.
The perception of video use by educators is also important. If the lecturer does not think it to be effective or useful, they simply will not use it. In a study by Oliver, R, Grant, M. & Younger, G (1994) they found that teachers’ perceptions of television in the classroom was very positive, mentioning that “students respond very well to instruction and teaching through this medium” and “videos have the capacity to stimulate many learners where conventional materials may not.” The teachers in the study also mentioned that the students are likely to learn more because it is coming from a medium they are accustomed to outside of the classroom. This is the opposite to student opinions earlier in this paper; students believed they learnt less via video because it is associated with entertainment. This disparity between teacher perceptions and student perceptions can have a serious impact on pedagogical implementation and therefore effectiveness. This study was done using television documentaries, and so, while similar, there is a limitation to the transferability of the research. The difference in perceptions must be addressed though. In order for an effective pedagogy to be implemented, there must be fewer opinions and more research done specifically on the effectiveness of lecture recordings and the reasons why they are effective. This is the only way to truly and objectively gauge its effectiveness. Teachers who decide the primary teaching methodology must learn these reasons in order to take appropriate action.
As part of the wholistic inclusion of video lectures into the pedagogy of schools and universities the role of the educator must change. Where previously the students were positioned as consumers of knowledge, now “new technologies [also] give students tools for being their own knowledge producers, not only consumers” (Erstad, 2003). If the student role has changed, so too must the role of the teacher. Video recording allows the role of the teacher to change more seamlessly, as opportunities to prepare in advance and to use recordings that other lecturers have produced increase time flexibility. This opens up opportunities for more focussed topical discussion in class because time is not wasted on background-content transfer as is normally the case. The time can be used to compliment and fill in the gaps in knowledge by allocating time specifically for questions, should video be the primary form of knowledge transfer.
To conclude, there is little doubt that utilising video recording technology can be beneficial if used correctly. The perspectives of both students and teachers should be considered before making a judgement on potential effectiveness, and any trade-offs such as less face-to-face interaction that are a corollary of video usage in classrooms must be accounted for and mitigated. When thinking about the mitigation, however, it should not just be about minimisation of negatives but should also attempt to bring the best pedagogical practices to the students. It then becomes less mitigation and more optimisation. The videos themselves should put into practice all that is known about effective teaching. The reusability means more time and effort can be spent to perfect an approach. The focus, however, must always be on the objective improvement of student learning, not the perceived improvement of student learning. With less time spent repeating lectures, either by one lecturer or several, more time can be spent talking to students, using the discursiveness of conversation to complement and enhance overall understanding.
It is essential to remain temperate in technology use in the classroom and not to assume technology can replace a teacher entirely, in this case that video recorded teaching can replace classroom instruction entirely. Educators must embrace these technologies if they are to be used to their potential, rather than simply adhering to the rubric that states some form of technological literacy must be practiced by students. With that said, it is not necessarily easy to find a good intersection between Content, Pedagogical and Technological knowledge. More research ought to be done in order to find a practical and effective intersection with specifics on what role the teacher should play if the time is freed by using video technology if it is to enhance the learning of students effectively.
References:
Bond, S., Grussendorf, S. (2013). Staff attitudes to lecture capture. Discussion Paper. The London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK. Retrieved from http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/54870/1/__libfile_REPOSITORY_Content_Bond%2C%20Stephen_Staff%20attitudes_Bond_Staff%20attitudes_2013.pdf
Deal, A. (2007). Lecture webcasting. Teaching with Technology, (January), 1–12. Retrieved from http://www.cmu.edu/teaching/resources/PublicationsArchives/StudiesWhitepapers/LectureWebcasting_Jan07.pdf
Erstad, O. (2003). Electracy as empowerment. Young, 11(1): 11 – 18. doi: 10.1177/1103308803011001073
Noer, M. (2012). Education’s Salman Khan is a Superstar too. Forbes Magazine, India. Retrieved from http://www.forbesindia.com/article/real-issue/educations-salman-khan-is-a-superstar-too/34313/0
Krendl, K. A. (1986), Media influence on learning: Examining the role of preconceptions, Educational Communication and Technology 34(4), 223–34.
Mayer, R. E., Fennell, S., Farmer, L. & Campbell, J. (2004), A personalization effect in multimedia learning: Students learn better when words are in conversational style rather than formal style, Journal of Educational Psychology 96(2), 389–395. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.2.389
Muller, D. A. (2008). Designing effective multimedia for physics education (Doctoral dissertation, University of Sydney Australia 2008).
Muller, D. A., & Sharma, M. D. (2005). Determining the factors affecting student perceptions of a popular science video. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 21(4). doi:10.14742/ajet.1316
Oliver, R., Grant, M., & Younger, G. (1994). The Perth Educational Television Project. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 10(1). doi:10.14742/ajet.2082
Provenzo, E. F., & Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and Machines: The Classroom Use of Technology since 1920. History of Education Quarterly, 26(4), 647. doi:10.2307/369036
Starke-Meyerring, D. (2005). Meeting the challenges of globalization: A framework for global literacies in professional communication programs. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 19(4), 468-499.
Waters, J. K. (2011). Lecture capture: Lights! Camera! Action! Retrieved from http://campustechnology.com/Articles/2011/06/01/Lecture-Capture-Lights-CameraAction.aspx?m=2&Page=1
Watters, A. (2011), The Wrath against Khan: Why some Educators are Questioning Khan Academy [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://hackeducation.com/2011/07/19/the-wrath-against-khan-why-some-educators-are-questioning-khan-academy
Woolfitt, Z. (2015), The Effective use of Video in Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www.inholland.nl/media/10230/the-effective-use-of-video-in-higher-education-woolfitt-october-2015.pdf
