Video: Difference between revisions
Peter Bishop (talk | contribs) (→Video) |
Peter Bishop (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
==Affordances== | ==Affordances== | ||
Meaningful learning can be achieved through various approaches of video use, including designing, producing and watching videos (Hakkarainen, Saarelainen and Ruokamo, 2007). Jarvinen et al. (2012) found that producing a video project increased students’ results on their final exam. Kpanja (2001) found that students who were provided with video microteachings before a lesson were confident and enthusiastic; these students did better on post evaluations than did the group without video teachings. | |||
Donkor (2011) reported “video increases learners’ interest in the subject, as well as motivation to learn” (p.75). This increased interest and motivation led to a high rate of acceptance of video teachings and thus perceived learning (Donkor 2011). Hung (2009) found that students using video to learn language were motivated because they were able to see their improvement. Choi and Johnson (2010) found that motivation of learners given video-based instruction was higher when compared with text-based instruction. According to Weir and Connor (2009) and Shyu (2000), the use of video produced increased enthusiasm and motivation. | |||
Hung (2009) found that video helped direct and focus the learners’ attention through visualization, which helped students identify strengths and areas of weakness for improvement. According to Brecht (2012) video gives students the ability and control to skip the topics that they understand and focus on those that they do not. Video allows students to see what they are doing right and wrong (Hung, 2009). Hung found that students who are learning new languages could review videos of them performing language tasks, which could allow for reflection and improvement. | |||
Kearney and Schuck (2006) reported that students using digital video were motivated to do well because other users would view their videos. | |||
Videos also allow for the use of simulations or models (Cihak and Bowlin, 2009; Weir and Connor, 2009) and give users the flexibility of when to send data and when to read it (Griffiths and Graham, 2010). Cihak and Bowlin found that learning disabled students showed improvement when they were able to use video models when doing geometry problem. In a study by Donkor (2010) it was found that video-based instructional materials produced better summative evaluation results than did print-based methods. Weir and Connor found that the video simulation provided a natural link between lessons and served as a significant teaching and learning aid. | |||
==Constraints== | ==Constraints== | ||
Revision as of 03:04, 22 July 2013
This article or section is currently under construction
In principle, someone is working on it and there should be a better version in a not so distant future.
If you want to modify this page, please discuss it with the person working on it (see the "history")
Video
Peter Bishop, Memorial University of Newfoundland
Definitions and background
Videos, video and audio recording, which can be made available for students (Hamad Odhabi and Lynn Nicks-McCaleb, 2011) have been used in teachers’ classrooms since the 1950s for communication (Otrel-Class, Khoo, and Cowie, 2012). Videos are classified into two types, synchronous and asynchronous (Grifiths and Graham, 2010). Griffiths and Graham described synchronous video, or live-stream video, as video that allows for face-to face interactions among users by way of high-speed internet. Asynchronous video is described as pre-recorded video, which allows teachers and students to record information and send it at anytime (Griffiths and Graham, 2010).
Video has been used in classrooms, including the classrooms of Physical Education (Weir and Connor, 2009), Mathematics (Cihak and Bowlin, 2009), Science (Otrel-Cass et al., 2012), History (Zahn and Krauskopf, 2012), and Language Arts (McKenney and Voogt, 2011). As video technology continues to develop, it is being used more and more in classrooms (Hung, 2009). In fact it has become a normal tool for curriculum enhancement (Hung, 2009).
Affordances
Meaningful learning can be achieved through various approaches of video use, including designing, producing and watching videos (Hakkarainen, Saarelainen and Ruokamo, 2007). Jarvinen et al. (2012) found that producing a video project increased students’ results on their final exam. Kpanja (2001) found that students who were provided with video microteachings before a lesson were confident and enthusiastic; these students did better on post evaluations than did the group without video teachings.
Donkor (2011) reported “video increases learners’ interest in the subject, as well as motivation to learn” (p.75). This increased interest and motivation led to a high rate of acceptance of video teachings and thus perceived learning (Donkor 2011). Hung (2009) found that students using video to learn language were motivated because they were able to see their improvement. Choi and Johnson (2010) found that motivation of learners given video-based instruction was higher when compared with text-based instruction. According to Weir and Connor (2009) and Shyu (2000), the use of video produced increased enthusiasm and motivation.
Hung (2009) found that video helped direct and focus the learners’ attention through visualization, which helped students identify strengths and areas of weakness for improvement. According to Brecht (2012) video gives students the ability and control to skip the topics that they understand and focus on those that they do not. Video allows students to see what they are doing right and wrong (Hung, 2009). Hung found that students who are learning new languages could review videos of them performing language tasks, which could allow for reflection and improvement.
Kearney and Schuck (2006) reported that students using digital video were motivated to do well because other users would view their videos. Videos also allow for the use of simulations or models (Cihak and Bowlin, 2009; Weir and Connor, 2009) and give users the flexibility of when to send data and when to read it (Griffiths and Graham, 2010). Cihak and Bowlin found that learning disabled students showed improvement when they were able to use video models when doing geometry problem. In a study by Donkor (2010) it was found that video-based instructional materials produced better summative evaluation results than did print-based methods. Weir and Connor found that the video simulation provided a natural link between lessons and served as a significant teaching and learning aid.
Constraints
Links