Critical Review of Using the Video in Teaching - Essay Example

? A Critical Review on the use Video in Teaching Task: A Critical Review on the use Video in Teaching Background information In the past, teaching depended almost wholly on verbal communication between the teacher and student. The alternative source has been the use of written communication or printed materials. Though written communication has been in use for a long time, it continues to be of immense importance in the teaching learning process. Nevertheless, the context of education has changed. New technologies continue to emerge, and educationists have the task of incorporating technology into the teaching-learning process. The use of Audio-visual aids started long ago with ancient educationists. Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536) advocated for the use of pictures and other visuals instead of memorization as a technique of learning. John Amos Comenius (1592-1670), in his orbis sensulium pictus, started the use of illustration in textbooks. His books contained one hundred and fifty pictures on aspects of everyday life. Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) and other educators emphasized the use of pictures, illustrations and other playthings. During the beginning of the 20th century, Nelson I. Greene coined the term visual education. Eric Ashby (1967) categorized the revolutions in education. He listed the use of electronic media as the fourth revolution. Cobun (1968) discovered that people learn 83 percent of knowledge through sight. Through his research, he also discovered that people remember 50 percent of what they hear and see and only 10 percent of what they read. This, among other discoveries, underscored the need for the use of audio-visual aids. They help the teacher clarify concepts, and make learning more interesting, appealing and vivid. These aids also provide considerable advantage in information learning, imagination, retention and cognitive ability level. Principles that are hard to understand usually become easy with skilled use of Audio-visual aids. Raymond Wyman (1957) observed that excessive use of words in teaching and learning results to verbalism and forgetting (Sampath 2008, Pp. 80-82). Sampath argues that, in the teaching- learning process, media augment a variety of other teaching materials and techniques (Sampath 2008, Pp. 80-82). He also observed that creativity is important in coming up with ways of combining media and other materials and techniques. Though visual aids have numerous advantages, they also have limitations. For example, a photograph can distort the real thing. The effectiveness of a video as a teaching aid will depend upon the angle of filming, the recorder used, and the writing provided (Das 2007, 163). There is also the risk of technical problems. Regardless of the quality of a machine, there is always the risk that it can break down. Projectors can break down; DVDs can get damages among other misfortunes. There is also the possibility of distracting the students from the focus in a picture or a video. These materials are also resource, time and space intensive. Nevertheless, the use of visual aids is the future of instruction. Riel (2000) argues that personal learning will change, and there will be more collaboration (Watson & Downes 2005, Pp. 9-24). Therefore, there is a need for more research to improve the efficiency of modern instructional techniques and to invent new ones. It is also of immense importance to review existing knowledge in view of either authenticating it or identifying its redundancy. Video as a collaborative tool Herder, Subrahmanian, Talukdar, Turk, and Westerberg (2002) conducted an experiment to find out how they could teach a course in Delft University of Technology (TUD) and Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) at the same time. The two universities’ locations were different geographically. They formed teams constituted students from both countries. Their aim was for students to interact with different people from a different culture. The students communicated through a variety of means. They recorded lectures from one university by a video camera and prepared an accompanying slide. They then used them during teaching in the other university. Researcher’s motivation arose from wanting to bring out the influence of culture on engineering design, and discover the possibilities and challenges students can face while collaborating across the Atlantic Ocean. The classes at CMU taped their lessons and the recordings sent over the internet to TUD. Those at TUD did not tape, but rather utilized the recordings from the other university. Herder et al in their report did not indicate the process of sample collection used. Due to this omission, it is impossible to rule out biases in the sample collection. This significantly affects the reliability and validity of the findings. Proper sampling reduces the discrepancy between values obtained in the research and those in the large population (Kumar 2005, Pp. 23). Furthermore, the researchers did not indicate the exact number of participants who took part in research. To be able to generalize research results the sample used must be a representative of the whole population. The fact that they only gave estimates shows the lack or ineffectiveness of the sample selection procedure used. Herder et al found out that, classes that used the recordings took up more time than convectional classes. Though the researchers claimed that the longer time was necessary, there are no findings to justify that (Herder et al. 2002). There lacks explanation on how the researchers solicited the instructors’ and students’ comments on the extra time. The issue of time was of concern in this research. If videotaped lessons took more time, they should have registered it as a limitation. Any justification to the contrary should be based on quantifiable evidence, to eliminate the researcher's objective bias. This makes this comment the researchers' opinion. The researchers' evaluation of the effect of the cross-Atlantic collaboration is incorrect. Their conclusion, that it had no effect, relies on the comparison of the grades of the sample and control group, also the comparison between the two sample groups (Herder et al. 2002). The TUD group had never done the course before, and it cannot be ascertained how they would have scored without the collaboration. The researchers concluded that the use of video clips in classroom instruction added value to the students. This relies on the replies they got from students of what they saw as an added value of the international collaborations. Considering that the two sample groups had different experiences, the conclusion is vague. One group learnt in the convectional classroom setup while they taped the lesson, the other group learnt using the recorded videos. This presents two varying sets of experiences. The method used to enquire the addition of value to the students was also inappropriate. The opinion of the possibility of value addition and the actual addition of value are two different phenomena. Therefore, a notion that the videos added cannot be proof of actual value addition. Herder et al did not look at the limitations of collaborations between students from different geographical areas (Herder et al. 2002). Though knowledge is transferrable, its application may not be transferrable. In some cases, this transfer of knowledge application may result in inappropriate approach to problems. The researchers, therefore, omitted a significant aspect of the research. Video as a teaching aid Weir and Connor (2009) conducted a research on the use of digital video in physical education. The purpose of the research was to ascertain the role of digital video in teaching, learning, and assessment of physical education (Weir & Connor 2009). The researchers used an action research approach, where they relied heavily on qualitative judgment of participants. This was because their interest was on the underlying reason for success or failure of the use of video. The initial phase, teachers selected one class as a control group and another as a comparison group. They involved 203 males and 250 females in the lessons that used video lessons. The researchers used questionnaires to collect the views of the students and teachers. The teachers also kept a detailed, reflective journal to write analytical comments. Apart from the questionnaires and the journal, teachers conducted standardized interviews. The researchers used Ms Excel spreadsheet to analyze the data collected. In their research, Weir & Connor (2009) outlined four aims of their project. This aims helped to limit the scope of the project to manageable breadth. The information sought also matched the research methodology (Weir & Connor 2009). That is the information sought was of a qualitative nature, and the methodology used was qualitative. The use of standardized data collection tools increased the reliability of the results. The sampling process was also clearly defined and the number of participants well known. The difference between the male and female participants was not significant. This was necessary to avoid results that are gender biased. The random sampling of questionnaire respondents also helped eliminate any element of bias. Evaluation of the level of achievement of the project objectives was thorough. Through triangulation, they avoided the inefficiency of a single method. This makes the results reliable. Throughout the research, evidence and proof to support a certain effect was by way of triangulation. This improved the reliability of the whole research. However, weir & Connor (2009) failed to address the economic impact of the use of video in teaching physical education. To affirm that the use of video is a worthwhile aid to the education process, the economic impact of their use must also be evaluated (Weir & Connor 2009). Without this, the accessibility and sustainability of their use cannot be known. Video as a revision tool Whatley and Ahmad (2007) conducted a research on the use of video-recorded summary lectures to aid in student revision. They used an interpretative approach in their investigation. Students used video summaries of lectures to revise for their exams (Whatley & Ahmad 2007). At the end of teaching on the module, the researchers asked for their opinions on their usefulness in revising for exams. They collected this information using informal interviews and questionnaires. Whatley & Ahmad evaluated the use of video in teaching shallowly. There is no indication of the sampling procedures used or whether the sample size used could have made the results to be of value. The lack of a systematic research design affected both the validity and reliability of the findings. Quantitative design was more appropriate for studying the effect of use of lecture video summary than qualitative design. The conclusion that the videos were helpful was not from any identifiable fact or research finding. This is because the response rate was low. Methods of analysis of the data collected were also unclear. The researchers did not consider the appropriateness of video summary in different subjects. The subject evaluated is also not indicated. This is a significant omission because the nature of knowledge is different across disciplines. The researcher also failed to consider different levels of education. Therefore, the findings can only be restricted to the level evaluated. Again, they did not evaluate the economic factor. They did not consider the cost of using video summary in revision. Therefore, the accessibility and sustainability of using video summary cannot be ascertained. The fundamental question of valuable the videos can be to students goes unanswered. Conclusion Research is a way of examining critically various facets of day-to-day life. It helps in understanding and development of new knowledge among other uses. For research findings to be of use, researchers must use proper techniques. In every stage of the research, from the design of research up to the conclusion on the findings, researchers must strive to remain within the confines of proper research. In the research articles analyzed, the researchers tackled the research problem relevantly. Nevertheless, their approaches varied in depth and breadth. Herder et al. (2002) showed that it was possible to teach collaboratively between two universities in different locations. Nevertheless, their research was not exhaustive and had significant omissions (Herder et al. 2002). Therefore, it is necessary to, further, pursue the possibilities of collaborative research with more emphasis on proper research practices. Weir and Connor (2009) exhaustively evaluated the use of video in teaching physical education. Through their triangulation of evidence and use of standardized data collection processes, they clearly showed the possibility and advantages of using video in teaching physical education (Weir & Connor 2009). Nevertheless, the researchers did not address the economical aspect of using video in teaching. Further research is necessary to address the economic feasibility of the same. References Kumar, R 2005, Research methodology: a step-by-step guide for beginners, Sage Publications Ltd, London. Sampath, K 2008, Introduction to Education Technology, Sterling publishers private ltd, New Delhi. Watson & Downes T 2005, communication and networking in education, kluwer academic publishers, Boston. Das R. C. 2007, Science Teaching In Schools, Sterling Publishers Private Ltd, New Delhi. Weir, T & Connor, S 2009, The use of digital video in physical education, Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 18 (2), 155–171. Whatley, J & Ahmad, A 2007, Using video to record summary lectures, Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 3, 186-196. Herder, P et al, 2002, the use of videotaped lectures and web-based communications in teaching: a distance-teaching and cross-Atlantic collaboration experiment, Eur. J. Eng. Ed, 27 (1), 39-48. Read More