the creation and use of video for learning in higher ... · constructivist and connectivist...
Post on 26-Aug-2020
0 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
THE CREATION AND USE OF VIDEO-FOR-LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION:
PEDAGOGIES AND CAPABILITIES
Andrew Thomson
Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Fine Art (Research)
Creative Industries Faculty
Queensland University of Technology
2019
The creation and use of video-for-learning in Higher Education: Pedagogies and capabilities i
Keywords
Video, learning and teaching, pedagogy, film and video production, technology,
pedagogy, content knowledge, TPACK, professional development
ii The creation and use of video-for-learning in Higher Education: Pedagogies and capabilities
Abstract
This practice-led research aims to highlight the pedagogic affordances of video-for-learning when using an agile approach to video production in a Higher Education Institution in Queensland, Australia. The project consists of an exegetical work, and the practice comprises a suite of video-learning objects and an accompanying blog. These components operate in dialogue, where one informs, and is informed by the other. Agility in video production is achieved through the use of mobile devices; streamlined production processes for video making; and a collaborative, capability-building arrangement of technical, pedagogic, and content expertise among participants in the video-making process. This approach challenges a number of normalised activities and processes for designing and making video-for-learning in Higher Education Institutions. The hybrid practice-led approach to this project adopts several research methods. At the outset, a literature review investigates the landscape of video production and video pedagogy in the Higher Education sector. A practice component analyses the collaboration among a professional video maker, academic staff, and institutional learning and teaching support staff. Reflection on this collaborative experience provides insight into the processes and activities by which videos are created. Finally, a thematic analysis draws together the researcher’s reflections and data from interviews with professional support and academic staff associated with making video-for-learning in this project and their institution. These methods and analytical approaches are informed by theory developed across the models of education, including the Technology, Pedagogy, Content, Knowledge model (TPACK), which points to the skill sets required of educators in their successful use of technology. The study underlines the strengths and weaknesses of, and associated problems and gaps in the use of video in Higher Education learning experiences. The research reveals how the knowledge areas of content, pedagogy, and technology are important to the design of video-for-learning. It also reveals that in Higher Education Institutions, these capabilities are distributed among different individuals and organisational areas. Finally, the findings inform the discourse of using and creating video-for-learning, and deepens our considerations of the effectiveness of video, and of the support structures for video use in Higher Education. Video producers, learning designers, and academics who facilitate, support, and deliver videos as a part of the learning experience will find relevant points of interest for their roles in learning and teaching in Higher Education Institutions.
The creation and use of video-for-learning in Higher Education: Pedagogies and capabilities iii
Table of Contents
Keywords ................................................................................................................................... iAbstract ..................................................................................................................................... iiTable of Contents ..................................................................................................................... iiiList of Figures ........................................................................................................................... vList of Tables ........................................................................................................................... viStatement of Original Authorship ........................................................................................... viiAcknowledgements ................................................................................................................ viii
Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................. 11.1 Positioning myself as the researcher ................................................................................... 8
Chapter 2: Literature Review .................................................................................. 152.1 Video-production processes .............................................................................................. 152.2 Video-making technologies and software ......................................................................... 212.3 Video and education ......................................................................................................... 242.4 Video use scenarios in Higher Education ......................................................................... 262.5 Pedagogic theories and models applicable to videos in Higher Education ...................... 412.6 Gaps in knowledge to be explored .................................................................................... 53
Chapter 3: Methodology ........................................................................................... 553.1 Research Design ................................................................................................................ 573.2 Methods............................................................................................................................. 613.3 Ethical Clearance .............................................................................................................. 673.4 Summary ........................................................................................................................... 67
Chapter 4: Practice and interviews ......................................................................... 694.1 The projects ....................................................................................................................... 694.2 Institutional context: Support for video-for-learning ........................................................ 894.3 Summary ......................................................................................................................... 100
Chapter 5: Findings ................................................................................................ 1035.1 Mobile technologies and agile production ...................................................................... 1035.2 The role of video producer as ‘Technology’ expert ........................................................ 1075.3 The tension with time ...................................................................................................... 1085.4 Revisiting the research questions .................................................................................... 1105.5 Summary ......................................................................................................................... 114
Chapter 6: Conclusion ............................................................................................ 117
Bibliography ............................................................................................................ 121
iv The creation and use of video-for-learning in Higher Education: Pedagogies and capabilities
Appendices ............................................................................................................... 131Appendix A Initial video recorded interview questions with participants ........................... 131Appendix B Final evaluation video recorded interviews with participants .......................... 133Appendix C Audio recorded interview questions with technology support staff and professional video production staff ....................................................................................... 135
The creation and use of video-for-learning in Higher Education: Pedagogies and capabilities v
List of Figures
Figure 1: Video production styles (Hansch et al., 2015) ..................................................... 39Figure 2: MOOC video design formats (Morrison, 2014b) ................................................. 40Figure 3: Video production types (Winslett, 2014) ............................................................. 40Figure 4: Presentational attributes of video (Koumi, 2014) ................................................ 46Figure 5: TPACK image (Koehler & Mishra, 2011) ........................................................... 47Figure 6: A trajectory of practice and research for this project ........................................... 58Figure 7: Faculty of Education academic demonstrating an experiment in a self-
produced video .............................................................................................. 77Figure 8: Mobile devices and audio recording equipment used for the STEM
Faculty project ............................................................................................... 83Figure 9: Four photographs of participants filming for the STEM Faculty project ............. 85Figure 10: Four still images from the STEM Faculty field trip introduction video ............ 86Figure 11: Two still images from recordings made by the learning designer ..................... 87Figure 12: Placement of interviewees in the institutional support structure ........................ 90Figure 13: Use of multiple video layers to control the image quality of separate
areas of the frame ........................................................................................ 105
vi The creation and use of video-for-learning in Higher Education: Pedagogies and capabilities
List of Tables
Table 1: Summary of research approaches .......................................................................... 62
QUT Verified Signature
viii The creation and use of video-for-learning in Higher Education: Pedagogies and capabilities
Acknowledgements
This research would not have been initiated, barely sustained, and certainly not completed, without the support of many amazing individuals: Dr Christiaan Willems and Professor Brad Haseman for encouraging me to consider my work in terms of research, and for putting me on the path Dr Abigail Winter and Dr Monica Behrend for their considerable support with writing and editing All of the participants, and my fellow Learning and Teaching and video-producer colleagues Associate Professor Michael Dezuanni and Dr Lee McGowan, my principal and secondary supervisors respectively, for their outstanding guidance, encouragement, and extreme patience And, of course, my partner Ruth, for never giving me a hard time, putting up with the ranting, having all of the conceptual conversations, setting a superb example, and being generally fabulous.
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
Chapter 1: Introduction
The use of video has become ubiquitous in Higher Education. Video is
common in many forms of on-campus and ‘flipped’ modes of teaching (Ash, 2012;
Brunsell & Horejsi, 2013; Bull, Ferster, & Kjellstrom, 2012; Holtzblatt & Tschakert,
2011; Howitt & Pegrum, 2015), and is the primary delivery mode for content in
wholly online offerings such as Lynda.com; the Khan Academy; and Massive Open
Online Courses (MOOC) (Bombardieri, 2014; Giannakos, 2013; Morrison, 2014a).
The power of video to enhance the learning experience has been articulated in
various ways. For example, Mateer (2011) suggests that video can aid motivation,
and the deepening and retention of knowledge in education contexts. Klass (2003)
describes the moving image and streaming media in Higher Education as richly
communicative, leveraging our visual and auditory capacities to gain understanding
in ways that text alone cannot.
The presence of technological capabilities in affordable cameras, hardware,
and software (Bell & Bull, 2010; Ouimet & Rusczek, 2014), and the prevalence of
video streaming platforms such as YouTube, have been significantly impacting on
the education process over the last decade (Greenberg & Zanetis, 2012; Hartsell &
Yuen, 2006; Klass, 2003; Woolfitt, 2015). Despite the fact that the rise of user-
generated content in post-industrial societies leads to greater agility in video
production, the production of video-for-learning in Higher Education often remains a
resource-intensive venture, and draws on the skills established in industrial video-
production settings. Expectations in Higher Education often, and arguably
anachronistically, demand high production values (Bombardieri, 2014; Guo, Kim, &
Rubin, 2014; Hollands & Tirthali, 2014; Winslett, 2014). Nevertheless, there is little
2 Chapter 1: Introduction
direct evidence that high production quality values improve learning outcomes (Guo
et al., 2014; Hansch et al., 2015). Furthermore, the way in which video is used in
learning, whether it is formally or informally produced, is often not facilitated by
learning design processes.
In contemporary Higher Education contexts, ‘flipped’ and ‘blended’ learning
incorporating a great deal of technological and digital resources such as video has
become increasingly pervasive as a pedagogical strategy (Bishop & Verleger, 2013;
Howitt & Pegrum, 2015). For at least a decade, as Muller notes, the advantages of
video have been largely seen as self-evident, and have not been verified through
empirical research (Muller, 2008). Its use is almost taken for granted in
contemporary contexts (Hansch et al., 2015). As yet, therefore, little direct evidence
reports on the effectiveness of video in facilitating learning (Hansch et al., 2015).
This might be because the ways in which video can be embedded in curriculum are
complex and varied (Winslett, 2014).
Adoption of contemporary pedagogic strategies in video making are under-
utilised, as the use of video is dominated by variations on the theme of lecture
capture and web-lecture segments (Bishop & Verleger, 2013; Guo, 2013; Witton,
2016). This style of delivery is entrenched for reasons of historical tradition,
convenience, and efficiency, and not necessarily because it improves learning
(Schejbal, 2012). It is argued that the lecture video is only adequate as a like-for-like
replacement of the face-to-face medium of the lecture, rather than an improvement
upon it – even if it is sometimes effective (Brecht, 2012).
The important notion that effective pedagogy is required for learning with
video (Bell & Bull, 2010) can be overshadowed by tangible logistical challenges.
Producing video is typically a team effort (Bell, 2009; Burrows, 2001; Rowland,
Chapter 1: Introduction 3
2016). A high cost is attributed to supplying the resourcing and skills to meet the
demand for high quality video in education (Bombardieri, 2014; Hollands & Tirthali,
2014; Morrison, 2014a). Higher Education Institutions struggle with producing
enough quality learning experience video at scale (Thomson, Bridgstock, & Willems,
2014). Economic and institutional forces continue to stifle innovation in the
adoption of new pedagogical practices, while at the same time, technological
developments force a re-evaluation of pedagogical practices (Venema & Lodge,
2013).
Research into technology in distance education throughout the 20th century,
and digital multimedia research from the 1990s onwards, reveals robust structural
principles for cognition in digital learning – principles distilled by Mayer’s Cognitive
Theory of Multimedia Learning (Mayer, 2001). Research into video in Higher
Education contexts highlights the importance of cognitive understanding as its basis,
covering many of the structural considerations, design principles, and styles of video
that can be used (Hansch et al., 2015; Winslett, 2014; Woolfitt, 2015).
There are also theoretical considerations of the use of video in contemporary
constructivist and connectivist paradigms, such as Koumi’s ‘Potent Pedagogic Roles
for Video’ (2014). Frameworks developed for the use of technology in education,
such as the ‘Technology, Pedagogy, Content, Knowledge’ (TPACK) framework
(Koehler & Mishra, 2008), also inform pedagogical practices that deploy video-for-
learning.
This research project examines some of the complexities and variation in the
way video is used in Higher Education. Video as a learning resource, or video-for-
learning, is explored in terms of the design principles for creating video objects, and
in terms of the capabilities and skillsets needed by academics and staff who take part
4 Chapter 1: Introduction
in the process. It draws on industry-based video-production approaches and
contemporary education theories relevant to video use, in order to develop
appropriate educational resources. It consists of two key components: 1) a suite of
video learning resources accompanied by a reflective blog, which is weighted at 60%
(videomakingresearch.tumblr.com); and 2) an exegetical work that informs, and is
informed by, this practice (weighted at 40%).
As a professional video producer, with seven years of experience working in a
Higher Education Institution, I am regularly tasked with producing video-learning
objects. I bring a decade of experience working in professional, corporate, and
freelance video production to this process. As I have increasingly found myself in a
learning design role, this project aims to combine this experience with theories of
effective learning.
While production values and processes in industry range from the very high to
the very low end of a spectrum, most professionals work in the space between these
extremes. Varying levels of production are mediated by the available time and
resources, just as they are in Higher Education Institutions (Burr, Haver, Morales, &
Cohen, 2003; Garcia, Ball, & Parikh, 2014; Morrison, 2014a). An advantage of my
work within the Higher Education system has been the application of a range of
skills and knowledges of the video-making processes to solve similar challenges that
I have experienced in industry. However, the availability of new technologies is
reshaping both the role of the learning designer, and expectations of academics, who
are increasingly required to incorporate video in their curricula.
Having identified academics’ lack of knowledge about the use and production
of video in Higher Education, this practice-led project addresses the following
research question, as it relates to one Queensland university:
Chapter 1: Introduction 5
How can academics, learning designers, and video producers align
pedagogical theory and principles of both agile and more formal video production to
produce suitable videos to achieve curriculum aims?
In order to undertake this investigation, this practice-led research project is
framed around three sub-questions:
• What are the typical processes for video production for learning and teaching
in a Higher Education Institution?
• How might collaborative, agile production methods be used for creating
video-for-learning in Higher Education?
• In the collaborative, agile video production process, how are capability sets of
academics, learning designers, and video producers represented, and how do
their various capabilities and resources come together during the production
of video-for-learning?
In short, this research seeks to examine the facilitation of the relationships between
content, technical production, and pedagogy in the design of videos for learning and
teaching. While aiming to resolve technological and logistical considerations, the
project also clarifies understanding of how video production can achieve curriculum
aims.
To achieve this aim, this project explores how resourcing, skills, and pedagogic
design challenges all impact the video-making process. In particular, it investigates:
(i) the use of mobile devices for video making; (ii) an agile, do-it-yourself (DIY)
approach to the video-production process; and (iii) a collaborative, capability-
building approach to design involving academic, learning design support, and
6 Chapter 1: Introduction
professional video-making participants. This approach aids in the application of
pedagogic ideals while, at the same time, encourages participants’ development of
video-making and design capabilities. These elements are described in more detail
below.
Use of mobile devices
In this project, mobile devices serve as a medium for facilitating an
understanding of video making with tools that are easy to use and understand, as well
as a means to streamline the video-production process. Video-enabled mobile phone
and hand-held tablet devices can effect great change in the design and use of videos
in the learning experience. The camera technology built into modern mobile devices
matches and surpasses many other purpose-built consumer cameras available today
(Fairley, 2014). Furthermore, mobile applications are comparatively cheap, and
enable many of the features of discreet camera and video production software suites.
The proliferation of mobile devices, and the amount of video being produced and
consumed, increases year on year (Greenberg & Zanetis, 2012). Indeed, the mobile
device as a tool for learning is becoming an extension of its more general use in
everyday life (Mandula, Meday, Muralidharan, & Parupalli, 2013).
Agile, do-it-yourself approach to video production
There is opportunity for the design of videos created for higher learning to
leverage many of the same DIY techniques that have long been a significant part of
the corporate, freelance, and narrative video- and film-making spheres of industry.
DIY techniques have evolved to enable creators to address logistical and creative
problems during production. The combination of practice and techniques employed
in low budget and DIY endeavours can be defined as approaching the formal video
production process in an ‘agile’ way. The agile approach incorporates principles of
Chapter 1: Introduction 7
flexibility, cost effectiveness and ease-of-use towards production goals. These
principles can support video production in resource limited environments with a
combination of professional and non-professional participants like Higher Education
Institutions.
Maintaining high levels of visual communication under budgetary limitations
infuses most aspects of DIY (Fritts, 2017; Rodriguez, 1996). The advances in digital
cameras, and the growing capability of home computers to perform editing and
production across the 1990s and 2000s, have only strengthened and widened these
DIY practices in film and video production (Fairley, 2014). The link between DIY
and mobile devices as a cheap production tool is unmistakable. As mobile devices
began to feature camera technology equivalent to purpose-built video cameras,
independent filmmakers started to create significant works with them (Goetz, 2010;
Konow, 2013; Watercutter, 2015). Communities of DIY practice, which include
access to online resources and help, are sustained by filmmakers who share their
work and learning with others.
A collaborative capability-building approach
This project takes a capability-building approach to the development of video-
for-learning by bringing together academics, learning and teaching support staff, and
the video producer in a collaborative process. Technology, pedagogy, and content
are the key and combined knowledge domains that are applied to the design of
technology-infused learning experiences. This three-pronged approach is often
summarised as the Technology, Pedagogy, and Content Knowledge (TPACK)
approach (Koehler & Mishra, 2008), and provides a helpful framework for
understanding the design of video for Higher Education. While one individual can
develop and understand these three knowledge domains, in Higher Education
8 Chapter 1: Introduction
Institutions, different individuals provide each of the three areas of expertise.
Academics, therefore, often need to access pedagogic and technological support
structures in order to construct learning experiences (Thomson et al., 2014; Wiley,
2011; Younie & Leask, 2013). However, mentoring staff to build capability with
technologies can overcome many of the barriers associated with technology adoption
(Kopcha, 2010). In this way, participants with specific domain knowledge have an
opportunity to build capability in the other knowledge domains.
Many types of video can be applied in a learning context, and can be
constructed and/or curated in different ways. Cisco (2012) describes broadcast and
streaming video as ‘a pedagogical aid that can be used in many ways: as a tool for
learning, as a medium for collaboration, and as a universal language’. Video might
equally be found and curated as a part of the learning experience, and constructively
aligned to learning outcomes (Antonio, Martin, & Stagg, 2012). The term ‘video-
for-learning’ is used hereafter to encompass video objects that can be produced,
found, or streamed, as a part of a designed learning experience.
1.1 Positioning myself as the researcher
The beginning of my career in video production was informed by a strong
interest in movies, television, and film; the design principles of art making from my
initial studies for a Diploma of Fine Art; and the related aspects of animation studied
later in an undergraduate degree. I have never received any specific formal training
in video production. The principles of video making that I now understand are the
result of more than a decade embedded in that sphere of professional practice before
working in a Higher Education Institution. Across the first decade of the 2000s, I
produced corporate, training, and educational multimedia and videos. I held several
Chapter 1: Introduction 9
jobs in video production and, concurrently and at various other times, undertook
freelance work. My role in video production tended to require making the most of a
small budget and limited resources in small companies. My freelance experience,
conducted around the edges of a more focused role, on the other hand, enabled the
development of agile, innovative, cost-effective approaches across limited
resourcing. At the same time, I was able to build expansive networks.
In any realm of the professional, corporate, freelance, or big-budget film and
video-production industry, there is always an emphasis on the bottom line (Burrows,
2001). Even in very high-end production, there is significant emphasis on ‘bang-for-
buck’, and the streamlining of process and practice in an effort to minimise overall
cost while, at the same time, producing a quality product. However, these goals and
considerations are especially important in the independent, small business, and
amateur sectors of industry. In these sectors, therefore, agile, innovative, and DIY
processes are developed and translated across projects and jobs. The documentary
filmmaker Anthony Q. Artis (2008) calls the approach ‘Down and Dirty’, and
defines the approach as ‘maximizing your resources by teaching you how to enhance
and get the best use out of the things you do have and can afford, and how to
substitute or workaround the resources you don’t have’. The approach defines the
significant domain of ‘low-’ and ‘no-budget’ filmmaking (Rodriguez, 1996).
In such work places, individual and/or collective professional development is
often self-driven, and extends the formal on-the-job training. It might incorporate
extensive on-the-job experimentation and learning; knowledge and experience that is
transferred from similar mediums; and investigative research into technology and
practice through engagement with fellow practitioners, books and magazines, and the
10 Chapter 1: Introduction
Internet. The goal of developing practice is to attain the high quality that passionate
video and film makers aspire to, and that clients demand.
Working with peers towards the creation of our own small narrative film
projects, my professional development has involved investigating any available
information on the creation of spectacular sound and vision. The aim was to recreate
similar effects, but at much lower cost. Prior to the pervasion of the Internet and
streaming video, documentaries, DVD special features and written literature on low-
budget innovative filmmaking – such as Rebel Without a Crew (Rodriguez, 1996)
and Killer Camera Rigs You Can Build (Selakovich, 2010) – were just a few of the
avenues that related high production efforts to DIY approaches. YouTube proved to
be the ideal medium for communicating anything and everything to do with
filmmaking: Channels such as Film Riot (2018) and Indy Mogul (2018) practised,
and then described, clever means of realising movie magic that was greater than the
sum of the homespun and DIY parts. Internet discussion forums such as DVXUser
("DVXUser.com. Internet Forum," 2018) from 2003 onwards, are also an important
communication network of professionals, amateurs, and devotees of all aspects of
film and video making. Within these various forms of information and
communication, it is not difficult to relate suggestions, advice, and techniques. These
can relate to the analysis of multi-million-dollar Hollywood productions, or to the
enthusiastic aspirations of the beginning video maker who is filming a friend’s
wedding: It is all a contribution to the language of film.
Synthesising an appreciation of the form and techniques of film and video
making is a critical skill developed through the self-directed practice of work and
professional development. Applying techniques, tools, shortcuts, workflows, history,
and indeed people and connections, is a way of creatively solving problems and
Chapter 1: Introduction 11
keeping a production on track (Fritts, 2017). This synthesis of my learning journey
might best be equated with non-formal learning, as defined by Eraut (2000).
Non-formal learning incorporates deliberative learning, reactive learning, and
implicit learning (Eraut, 2000, p.115). I experience deliberative learning during work
when being taught explicit work tasks by co-workers while performing them in that
moment. Deliberative learning also occurs during the reading or watching that forms
my own directed learning. Reactive learning and implicit learning can be
particularly powerful; such learning constantly occurs during work, and even during
deliberative learning moments. Reactive learning is a response to a situation at hand,
and draws on the collection of previous work experiences to solve new and
immediate problems.
Reactive and implicit learning also informs behaviour and attitudes towards
others throughout the work process. Responding to, and learning about the
knowledge domains and subject matter of productions serve to positively influence
the design of the production to best suit the needs of the client, and the
communication of a message. An awareness of others’ capabilities with the medium
(or gaps in their capabilities) helps to frame dialogue among participants, video-
making experts, and clients. This ensures that instructions, intent, and process are
clearly understood by all, and that others receive professional development.
The video-making experience and learning that I have gained over time has
enabled me to build expertise and agility in equipment use, activities, and
interactions with others. During any part of the work process, there are instances
where problems can occur with the equipment, the location, the talent, or with the
concept of the video being produced. My expertise with equipment and with video-
making processes provides insights to help solve such problems. Solutions vary, and
12 Chapter 1: Introduction
are sometimes immediately revealed. These might include knowing how devices can
be reconnected; knowing how to apply the capabilities of a piece of equipment to a
new task in the absence of the specific tools for the purpose; or directing and guiding
non-video professionals towards a production goal. An agility develops in creating
informed solutions to challenges. These might be identified and addressed during
planning stages and/or the production process, and frequently emerge from an
‘enthusiasm of practice’ (Haseman and Mafe, 2009).
These attitudes and approaches to work and video production are what I have
applied to my work in Higher Education Institutions. The application of my video-
production expertise in projects with academic and learning design experts from
different knowledge domains, is not unlike producing work for clients, and aligns
well with notions of collaboration and professional development among educators
(Younie & Leask, 2013). The application of DIY techniques, resourcefulness, and
an agile mindset with regard to production, aligns with the ‘milieu of complexities,
conceptual ruptures and options for action’ (Winslett, 2016) associated with
supporting learning and teaching in Higher Education Institutions. I attribute the
video-making capabilities of mobile devices as extensions of the principles of a DIY
approach – an ideal approach for the Higher Education Institution context.
The next chapter is a literature review of video in Higher Education, current
practices for producing video-for-learning, and an introduction to the video
production, technology, and learning theories that underpin this research. Chapter 3
(Methodology) details the research design and methodology that was formulated to
execute this research. Chapter 4 (Practice and Interview) details the project
activities, and describes the practical project component and the thematic analysis.
Chapter 5 (Findings) outlines the significant outcomes that have emerged from the
Chapter 1: Introduction 13
project activities. Finally, Chapter 6 (Conclusion) provides summary thoughts, and
considers further research directions.
Chapter 2: Literature Review 15
Chapter 2: Literature Review
This chapter examines the current literature that explores the contextual
landscape, the theoretical underpinnings, and the practical concepts relating to video-
for-learning in the Higher Education sector. It details the theories that form the
background of the approach taken in this research project, and places the project in
the context of video-making practice in Higher Education Institutions.
Firstly, an introduction to the formal video production process and
technologies for video making establishes a foundation in the logistical and technical
means by which video-for-learning is created. It then explores current video-making
practices and purposes in the Higher Education sector, and makes best practice
recommendations arising from this exploration. The chapter concludes with the
evidence that supports the frameworks and theories that inform the use of video as an
element of pedagogic practice. It also introduces other theoretical frameworks
relating to academic professional development – frameworks that also influenced this
research project.
2.1 Video-production processes
Making video-for-learning is subject to the same kinds of processes as any
other video production. The activities conducted as a part of video-making in this
project are derived from a formal video production model, are influenced and
adapted by DIY techniques, and include processes particular to the use of mobile
devices that form a part of my expertise.
16 Chapter 2: Literature Review
It is helpful to first define ‘video production’. A number of complex activities
and processes take place to create film and video artefacts. The production process is
a highly organised structure that has been the basis of all film and video production
since the early days of filmmaking. Contemporary processes in video production are
very much the same as the processes in film and television production; however,
images are recorded almost exclusively digitally. Burrows (2001) describes video
production as a process of capturing moving images and audio (videography), and
making combinations and reductions of the video parts through live production and
post-production (video editing).
The processes of video production are generally grouped into three significant
phases: pre-production; production; and post-production (Grace & Jones, 2011;
Griego, 2017; Littlefield & Hutton, 2015; Seifert, 2017). These phases essentially
translate into: planning; making the parts; and putting them together (Seifert, 2017).
2.1.1 Pre-production phase
The pre-production phase is considered to be all the preparatory aspects
required before recording is begun (Grace & Jones, 2011). It is considered the most
important phase (Seifert, 2017), as the bottom line of being able to realise the
production within time and budget constraints is paramount (Burrows, 2001; Newton
& Gaspard, 2001).
Processes and tasks that constitute the pre-production phase include writing
and scriptwriting; storyboarding; location scouting and hiring; assembling of crew
and equipment; casting; set design; costume design; and scheduling. The phase
begins with defining what kind of video object is to be made, and working towards
conceptually and logistically arranging the components that will enable them to be
recorded in video form (Irving, 2006). The approach to these activities can
Chapter 2: Literature Review 17
sometimes differ, but are interchangeable whether the artefact is a fictional drama or
a non-fiction documentary, editorial, or marketing piece. For example, a drama
might necessitate the making of specific costumes, but a documentary might still
define a certain style of clothing to be worn. A drama production could plan for a set
to be built to create a space that otherwise did not exist, and a documentary could
require a studio with certain kinds of lighting and aesthetics for an interview to take
place.
The importance of this phase cannot be overstated, and should account for the
lion’s share of the time spent on the whole production process: that is, 60% or more
(Littlefield & Hutton, 2015). The time needs to be long enough to adequately plan
and organise all of the aspects that are required. Larger productions typically require
much more planning. There are advantages in terms of time and effort in having
multiple people engage with the various activities required, in conjunction with
adequate project management to track and organise the group’s efforts (Wales,
2005).
As some aspects of pre-production might need differently emphases to suit
individual or DIY needs, the importance of this phase is even more pronounced. For
example, if an individual works with much less camera equipment, the external
resourcing and logistics to transport, acquire, and pay for a large production kit might
be unnecessary (Newton & Gaspard, 2001). However, this might also mean that
written details – such as a shotlist, prop lists, or schedules – are more important in
preventing things from being forgotten, or in communicating the specific vision to
non-professionals who might be helping. Furthermore, the limitations and
affordances of DIY equipment and mobile devices can mean that specific conditions
need to be arranged to achieve best results; adequate lighting, for example, is
18 Chapter 2: Literature Review
something that might need specific attention. Ultimately, the allocation of enough
time is vitally important when operating in a DIY fashion, so that the execution of
the production process can be completed with fewer human or technical resources.
2.1.2 Production phase
The production phase encompasses all activities during the time when material
is being recorded (Grace & Jones, 2011). These activities include acting, presenting,
audio recording, and camera operating, among others. It is the phase where nearly
all of the planning and conceptualisation of the pre-production phase come together.
As there are complexities and variations in similar tasks during the production phase,
the need for the input of multiple people to realise the production becomes apparent
during this phase (Littlefield & Hutton, 2015; Seifert, 2017).
Sound recording, for example, is one activity that might involve a number of
different audio-recording tasks, such as recording dialogue channels separately from
other recordings of background noise, or other specific noises that are used to build
an overall sound design. The recording of sound and vision is better served by
allocating one person to each task. This allows them to focus on their specific task
for best results, particularly as the material is recorded on separate devices – either
out of necessity, to ensure quality, or to afford different options in the post-
production phase. Other people taking part in the process are able to handle props
and lights; reposition equipment or set features; watch for continuity errors; direct
staff or passers-by; or conduct off-site tasks associated with the production (Wales,
2005). Assistance with the myriad of tasks surrounding the core activity of recording
action serves to reduce the overall time and cost of the production.
Without re-filming, it is very hard to remedy mistakes made during an initial
filming (Seifert, 2017). For this reason, it is more difficult to achieve a result when
Chapter 2: Literature Review 19
live filming, as there is no chance to re-film. This again highlights the importance of
the pre-production phase, where it is necessary to plan for both the expected and the
unexpected (Irving, 2006).
A DIY approach, or the use of mobile devices for filmmaking, can have some
advantages over a large production kit. It can allow for much more speed when there
is little gear to organise, move, and set up between shots (Artis, 2008; Newton &
Gaspard, 2001). The streamlined controls of mobile devices can also allow for
speedier operation and gathering of footage, or for reviewing footage and getting
back to filming. Mobile devices can also put participants more at ease, as they are
familiar devices and less intimidating than a lot of complex production gear.
2.1.3 Post-production
The post-production phase comprises activities after the sound and vision have
been captured, but before the final video object is released as a final version (Grace
& Jones, 2011). In modern video editing workflows, the sound and vision that have
been recorded are digitised or copied into a computer-based, video-editing
environment, a process known as ‘ingesting’ (Burrows, 2001). Editing the video is a
process of choosing and organising segments of audio and video, and arranging them
in the right sequence, as defined by the concept of ‘the video object’. Sometimes it
suits the nature of the video being edited to edit the sound first, then match vision to
it; sometimes it is more suitable to reverse the process by first editing the images and
then adding the sound (Seifert, 2017).
Once it is deemed that the editing of the video object is complete, it is
‘rendered’ or ‘exported’, to a final single movie data file. ‘Rendering’ and
‘exporting’ are terms used where the structural information of the timeline containing
a number of individual data files that are arranged in a particular sequence, is
20 Chapter 2: Literature Review
condensed and written anew into its own data file (Griego, 2017). The specification
of the output file might be contingent upon its intended distribution. For example,
video for internet distribution has different requirements than video for television.
The video is then distributed, hosted, or delivered by some means to its intended
audience. After this process, the three main phases of the video production cycle can
be considered complete.
Mobile apps that are designed to easily share and distribute content to web
platforms allow mobile devices to also serve as platforms for post-production.
However, the breadth of post-production capability that a mobile device provides is
somewhat limited compared to the capabilities and interface affordances of a
computer-based environment. This is evident from the comparison of software
packages of the same lineage such as Apple iMovie, for example. Thus, recorded
video is more commonly transferred to a computer to allow for a more
comprehensive post-production process.
Touch interfaces and small screen sizes on mobile devices limit space for
options and buttons to control post-production, and limitations in processing power
preclude complex productions that use multiple layers or effects. Mobile apps tailor
their capabilities through the provision of templates and styles that can be too
identifiably ‘generic’, and this can limit the chance of a unique output. An
advantage, however, is that data sizes can be much smaller than for professional
camera recordings, and perform better on lower specification computer hardware.
The multitude of processes and activities mentioned here make it reasonably
clear that the video production process comprises a complex set of activities. This
process is often interpreted in many different ways, depending on the kind of
production, and the people involved. It is greatly improved by the input of many
Chapter 2: Literature Review 21
people, rather than one individual (Bell, 2009; Rowland, 2016). While current
video-making technology does make it possible for an individual to complete all of
the activities as a lone operator, in that case, it almost certainly requires more time
for completion, and the application of several kinds of skills.
Applying video-production practice in the context of Higher Education reveals
a number of tensions for educators and staff who wish to produce video. The
professional development of educators and teaching support staff to utilise
technologies such as video is hindered by significant time and resource limitations,
and a variety of competing priorities within institutions (Younie & Leask, 2013).
Bearing the full weight of the production process and technologies can exacerbate
time and cost concerns, even if there is a guarantee of quality. However, mobile
devices can provide the opportunity to address these dimensions of efficiency and
sustainability. However, quality and efficacy are concerns if non-professionals such
as academics or learning designers produce video without a good understanding of
the execution of the production process.
2.2 Video-making technologies and software
The technology for making videos has undergone dramatic changes since
digitally-encoded video was normalised in the 1990s and 2000s (Fairley, 2014;
Gannes, 2009). Tape media gave way to digital card media, and digital sensors
became smaller and more affordable, thus enabling very high-quality recording in
small portable cameras. Similarly, as predicted in Moore’s Law (Schaller, 1997),
computer processing power and storage increased exponentially while, at the same
time, reducing in size and cost. The proliferation of broadband internet helped
establish new means of distributing digital video (Gannes, 2009). By the mid-2000s,
22 Chapter 2: Literature Review
video camera technologies were small enough to be credit-card size, and
subsequently integrated into mobile phones, tablets, and laptops. Meanwhile, picture
quality was increasing (Hill, 2013). The small sensor sizes in mobile devices have
also found their way into other technologies, such as interactive whiteboards and
document cameras. These replaced the overhead projector, and enabled the capability
to record and save presentations (Burks & Tate).
As the result of all of these developments, the technology for recording and
working with high quality digital video has increasingly become located within the
consumer space as much as within specialised industry. The production of video is
further supported by the cheapness and availability of internet bandwidth and hard
drive storage (Muller, 2008). These technological changes and the growing
capabilities of devices, influence the way in which the Higher Education sector has
been able to adopt the use of video and video-making practice into learning and
teaching (Bell & Bull, 2010).
In recent years, non-linear video-editing software – once also the domain of
industry-level production – has become more affordable and widespread. Cheap (or
even free) software contains much of the same functionality as software packages
costing thousands of dollars. Shotcut (http://shotcut.org), for example, is completely
free and open source, and contains the effects, multitrack composition, and titling of
any professional grade package. WeVideo (http://www.wevideo.com/) is a wholly
online video-editing environment that does not require the installation of any
software. The education sector has given rise to strong, affordable software
packages for screen capture software such as Camtasia
(https://www.techsmith.com/) or Screencast-o-matic (https://screencast-o-
matic.com/). While this software possibly provides a more limited feature set for
Chapter 2: Literature Review 23
editing than professional packages do, it adds other functionality – such as graphical
overlays and picture-in-picture – that is associated with common video styles for
education. Post-production and editing capabilities are also an included functionality
in larger platforms, such as Echo 360, to finesse lecture recordings.
Other application suites extend upon eLearning multimedia presentation
creation by folding in many video-editing processes and tools, such as Articulate 360
(https://www.articulate.com/360). Many eLearning multimedia development suites
are designed to combine basic elements of digital education materials – such as the
humble lecture slideshow, and various interactive media elements and quizzes – into
complete learning resources. This merging of slideshow presentations and audio
recordings, akin to how a lecture might be conducted, begins to resemble a video. In
the absence of filmed material, extensive, prebuilt visual elements and controls for
animation enable the developer to build visual sequences to add interest to basic
slideshows – in effect, to create video from static slideshows. The tools and interface
structures that are built in to achieve this result parallel the kinds of controls present
in the purpose-built video-production software. It is entirely possible to build and
export a video file of a multimedia creation without needing other eLearning
elements such as interactivity and assessment components.
Mobile device software also contributes to the options for video production. In
a mobile device workflow, it is possible to fully complete and share a production
without the need for transferring material to a computer for post-production. Third
party apps maximise the capabilities of a device to record video images by offering
more options for frame rates, recording quality, and manual focus and exposure
controls. The FiLMiC Pro application (2018) for Apple devices is a popular example
of this, and many others exist for current Apple, Android, and Windows-based
24 Chapter 2: Literature Review
devices. The multitude of available apps for all platforms extend pre- and post-
production capabilities, and provide functionality for scripting and storyboard,
editing, animated and text overlays, colour grading, and image correction. Many of
these apps have been developed from popular established and robust computer-based
workflows, and can sync and transfer content between digital mediums to influence
the workflow in many ways.
Literature discussing video for education often parallels the considerations for
equipment and production processes described here (Chetty & Pallitt, 2014; Hollands
& Tirthali, 2014; Ouimet & Rusczek, 2014). High and low production values, the
roles needed for video production, costs, time and equipment have all been
investigated to varying degrees. The next sections examine the uses of video-for-
learning that has been developed in Higher Education using the technologies and
processes just described.
2.3 Video and education
Video-based education is not new. Educational films in the classroom and for
distance education have been used for as long as screen-based media has existed
(Alexander, 2016). As he played films to communities on his kinetoscope invention
in the early 1920s, Thomas Edison asserted that ‘schoolbooks would become
obsolete’ (Dickson, 1933). In Australia, a Royal Commission in 1927-1928
investigated ‘the ability of the cinematic apparatus to transform classroom learning’
(Dezuanni & Goldsmith, 2015). The advent of 16mm films and cheaper, smaller
projection equipment saw many more education films distributed in schools in the
pre-World War 2 years. Post-World War 2 saw great public expenditure on film for
education. Hand-held cameras and, subsequently, tape-based formats and video-
Chapter 2: Literature Review 25
cassette delivery added significant capacity with yet more affordability and greater
flexibility. Meanwhile, content creation was placed in the hands of the educator and
learners (Greenberg & Zanetis, 2012).
The increasing use of video in education is currently tied closely to the
affordances of contemporary digital technologies; the cost of high quality HD
cameras and software to manipulate video material (Ouimet & Rusczek, 2014); and
the increased capabilities of mobile devices. In 2012, while investigating the impact
of streaming video on education, Cisco Systems’ Global Education Group recognised
the proliferation of video-enabled mobile devices, and young people’s increased
understanding and appreciation of such devices (Greenberg & Zanetis, 2012). The
group considered video as an enabler of, and a complimentary tool for high quality
education.
At times, video that is not specifically created for learning purposes is later
adopted as a powerful learning resource. From 2009 onwards, Brady Haran, a video
journalist, and academics from the University of Nottingham, instigated a number of
YouTube channels and websites that contained short videos on a variety of chemistry
and other science concepts. The aim of this work from Haran’s point of view was
not to overtly make educational videos, but to inspire interest in and curiosity about
science in young people, and to foster prospective scientists (Haran & Poliakoff,
2013; Moriarty, 2014). While the net result has been to inspire and enthuse young
people about science, much of the feedback suggests that audiences do use the
content specifically for educational purposes (Haran & Poliakoff, 2011).
Statistics suggest that the use of YouTube for learning and the proliferation of
creators using the platform for ‘how-to’ content, is on the rise (Gesenhues, 2015;
Morrison, 2015; Ritchie, 2017). Significant education platforms, such as the Khan
26 Chapter 2: Literature Review
Academy, use YouTube as the delivery mechanism for its video content. YouTube
also maintains currency with newer technologies for video, integrating support for
360-recorded video playback. It is perceived that 360 video will have a significant
impact on video that is used for education (Geduldick, 2016).
2.4 Video use scenarios in Higher Education
Video can be used as a part of the learning experience in many and varied
ways, and these are later discussed (Koumi, 2014). The broad spread of video use
that is evidenced in the literature can be categorised as videos that are made (i.e.
purpose-built through the production process), videos that are found (i.e. curated
from other sources), and videos that are hosted (i.e. videos that serve as a medium
for synchronous communication).
Videos that are made are evidenced by the high use of live lecture recordings
and variations thereof (Witton, 2016); produced, segmented lectures such as those
used in MOOC (Giannakos, Chorianopoulos, Ronchetti, Szegedi, & Teasley, 2014;
Guo et al., 2014; Morrison, 2014b); and flipped models of on-campus teaching
(Davies, Dean, & Ball, 2013; Enfield, 2013; Waters, 2011). Shorter form, specific
productions are also produced (Lloyd, 2015; Thomson et al., 2014). Video
production is sometimes also undertaken by learners who create content for
assessment, or as a part of the learning cycle (Chetty & Pallitt, 2014; Cochrane,
Antonczak, Keegan, & Narayan, 2014).
Video as a resource for learning can also be curated (Cunningham et al., 2016;
Rotman, Procita, Hansen, Sims Parr, & Preece, 2012). Education-specific
repositories such as the Khan Academy, Merlot, Academic Commons and iTunesU
Chapter 2: Literature Review 27
(Goldberg & LaMagna, 2012), and social media video repositories such as YouTube,
are extensive resources for video-for-learning. The seeking out of high quality
videos produced by others can reduce the need to produce one’s own videos (Ash,
2012). However, high quality video is also an important component of the overall
approach to teaching in the digital age, supplementing other learning resources and
modes of teaching (Holtzblatt & Tschakert, 2011), and forming a central aspect of a
teacher’s identity as an expert professional educator (Cunningham & Duffy, 1996;
Cunningham et al., 2016).
As well as specific education-focused channels and outlets for institutions,
these social media-oriented video platforms have also given rise to a huge segment of
entrepreneurial content creators who have built extensive channels of how-to
demonstrations on any number of subjects. Haran’s work on The Periodic table of
Videos (Poliakoff & Haran, 2009) and Sixty Symbols (Moriarty, 2014) are just some
of the many national and international examples (Ritchie, 2017). Haran and
Poliakoff report that their materials have been welcomed and appropriated for
educational use, even though that was not their original intention (Haran & Poliakoff,
2013). They note that YouTube how-to videos are increasingly more popular than
textbooks, and that Australian audiences and learners are second only to American
audiences in their appetite for video demonstrations (Starke, 2013).
Videos, whether produced or found, are generally asynchronous to the learning
experience; that is, they can be watched by individuals in their own time. Real-time
video, on the other hand, is synchronous to the learning experience and can be
described as ‘hosted’. It takes the form of live video communication among
individuals and groups of learners using tools such as Google Hangouts, Skype or
Facebook Live, and can bring other dimensions to learning experiences through
28 Chapter 2: Literature Review
collaboration and discussion (Keegan, 2010). It is a video strategy that is under-
utilised in MOOC, yet could have a great impact on a community of learners and
create peer-to-peer learning opportunities (Hansch et al., 2015).
This research project addresses video production, professional development,
and video pedagogy, and fits within the broad categorisation of videos that are made,
rather than videos that are found or hosted. There are certainly technical, pedagogic,
and capability concerns that are common to these three categories. In formulating a
conceptual background for this research, however, this literature review now focuses
on the category of videos that are made.
2.4.1 Videos that are made for learning in Higher Education
In universities, there is currently a widespread use of lecture-capture
technologies that translate the traditional classroom lecture into video form.
Technologies for lecture capture record combinations of video and audio, slide
presentations, and computer screens (Witton, 2016). Video might be recorded in real
time as a face-to-face lecture takes place, through the use of enterprise level
platforms such as Echo 360 (https://echo360.com/), or recorded in purpose-built
capture studios with varying degrees of self-service (Lloyd, 2015).
Variations on the theme of lecture recordings are represented by the ‘produced’
lecture video; that is, the construction of a similarly styled video through the
complete process of video production, rather than through live lecture capture
platforms or other semi-automated recording options (Chorianopoulos & Giannakos,
2013). The production of video lectures occurs prominently in MOOCs (Tschofen &
Mackness, 2012), where there has been considerable resourcing to produce high
quality video materials that leverage all elements of the production process
(Bombardieri, 2014; Hollands & Tirthali, 2014; Morrison, 2014a). It has been
Chapter 2: Literature Review 29
substantiated by various sources that video is a central component of the learning
experience in all of the current generation MOOC (Giannakos, 2013; Guo et al.,
2014; Morrison, 2014b). MOOC were initially built using university classroom
lectures (Hansch et al., 2015), and it was thought that the lecture would serve as the
main pedagogical format for online courses.
Bali notes that the majority of MOOC contain videos that are purpose-built for
the course (Bali, 2014), and a 2014 Columbia University report on MOOC
production identifies that video production and quality is one of the major cost
drivers of MOOC production (Hollands & Tirthali, 2014). Meanwhile, Giannakos
notes the increase in the volume of research around video for learning (Giannakos,
2013). There is now so much use of video as the default mode of delivery that it has
come to be taken for granted (Hansch et al., 2015), and is the dominant teaching
medium on the internet (Laaser & Toloza, 2017). While much innovative
investigation and experimentation in the use of video (and other technologies) for
online learning experiences continues (Hollands & Tirthali, 2014), “we are so far just
‘scratching the surface’ in exploring ways in which online videos can augment or
potentially improve education” (Cooper & Sahami, 2013, p.30).
In the broader sense of a ‘blended’ capacity, both MOOC and on-campus
teaching share challenges in integrating technology. Bates (2012) notes that MOOC
material is increasingly extracted from its open contexts, and used in specific closed
contexts in regular, for-credit online programming. For on-campus teaching
scenarios, lecture capture or lecture videos translated from live lectures ‘frontload’
the lecture. This enables a different use of in-class time, also known as ‘flipping the
classroom’ (Bull et al., 2012; Kereluik, Mishra, Fahnoe, & Terry, 2013; Waters,
2011). The adoption of these strategies and platforms is designed to establish the
30 Chapter 2: Literature Review
aforementioned benefit of repurposing face-to face-time; however, it can also
reinforce the use of video as a translation of the lecture-based teaching model
(Enfield, 2013).
Studies highlight a number of ways in which lecture videos increase student
satisfaction and learning outcomes. Interactivity through playback control enables
students to engage in their own space and time, and to revisit segments multiple
times (Brecht, 2012; Chorianopoulos & Giannakos, 2013). Platforms for recording
and hosting lecture recordings have the advantage of archiving lectures, and provide
support for revision and remedial learning (Middleton, 2009). Lecture videos are
most effective when their design and production are well executed; when they
incorporate multiple strategies for changes in pace (Brecht, 2012); when they are
organised into brief content segments; and when their concepts and message are
refined (Guo et al., 2014).
There is also a growing awareness, however, of the ways in which lecture style
videos do not work very well. Some studies report that lecture videos have little to no
impact on learning outcomes (Witton, 2016), while Brecht (2012) emphasizes that
the lecture video is only adequate in being a like-for-like replacement of the face-to-
face lecture, even if that is sometimes effective. This suggests that the video lecture
remains a transmissive mode of delivery, derived from behaviourist learning
frameworks (Thomson et al., 2014).
Transmissive approaches to teaching remain overly entrenched largely for
reasons of historical tradition, convenience, and efficiency – not necessarily for
learning effectiveness (Schejbal, 2012). Live lecture recording platforms and semi-
automated lecture recording studios certainly address dimensions of efficiency.
While well-crafted lecture segments can be beneficial to learners, not all institutions,
Chapter 2: Literature Review 31
academics, and support staff can invest in the instructional design and video-
production process required (Chorianopoulos & Giannakos, 2013). MOOC analytics
reveal that most participants engage with only a small proportion of the video content
(Hansch et al., 2015). This calls into question the justification of the expense
incurred, and the time taken in lecture video production.
A move away from the lecture video format is also supported by a growing
appreciation of newer learning frameworks such as Constructivism (Cunningham &
Duffy, 1996) and Connectivism (Siemens, 2004) that have evolved beyond
behaviourist principles. Frameworks for the integration of transformative technology
into learning, such as the ‘Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, Redefinition’
model (SAMR) (Puentedura, 2006), present a strong rationale for making more
significant changes away from the simple translation of the lecture model, to afford a
greater impact of technology on the learning experience. Bates (2104) argues that
the more the traditional transmissive lecture model is maintained, the further we
wander from the core concept of the MOOC. Web-based communities and social
networking technologies that leverage Web 2.0 are inducing pedagogical changes
that move away from the lecture model, and are empowering learners to structure
their own learning (Dabbagh & Kitsantas, 2012).
Of course, long-form lecture videos and recordings of live lectures are not the
only style of video being produced for education; however, it certainly appears that
these have been the most common. Their production can be quite extensively
automated to eliminate the need for academic capability building, and the need for
specific hands-on technical expertise. While it often takes a lot of work to produce
lecture videos, ultimately, many concur that there are longer-term time savings
32 Chapter 2: Literature Review
(Witton, 2016). Meanwhile, as course design and the use of video moves away from
the online lecture, purpose-built shorter videos are becoming more common.
In the last few years, principles of better practice for the design and use of
video have emerged from the analysis of MOOC productions and on-campus
investigations into course design and learner engagement (Guo et al., 2014;
Morrison, 2014b). MOOC production teams rely heavily on the analytic data that
can be mined from the various platforms to understand how learners engage with
their designs. Suggestions about how well videos work is sometimes revealed
indirectly through data about other aspects of course design. The prevalence of the
data, however, allows for a great deal of evidence of the growing awareness of
effective video design principles (Hansch et al, 2015). On-campus design efforts are
generally less scrutinised and less documented; however, emerging principles of best
practice are shared.
In previous research conducted by my colleagues and me, four main
considerations for improving engagement with videos were identified: getting to the
point; narrative style; authentic presentation; and visual communication (Thomson,
et al., 2014). These considerations emerged from the observed practice of video
making in a Higher Education Institution; they are based on a combination of
professional understanding of the video form and the academic literature on video-
for-learning. However, the video producer’s perspective on making video-for-
learning is still not addressed in this literature. The four dimensions are as follows:
Getting to the point
Short duration has been revealed as a key factor for engagement in online
videos (Guo et al., 2014). This finding is a reflection of the viewing habits of
audiences of the world’s largest video repository YouTube, where the average video
Chapter 2: Literature Review 33
length is approximately four minutes (Lella, 2014). Providing objects with short
duration is not a difficult principle to implement when beginning with long-form
lecture videos, as the latter can be segmented into shorter sequences. However,
short duration does not necessarily aid engagement per se, even with high quality
material (Guo et al., 2014). The notion of ‘getting to the point’ is emphasised in the
principle of short duration (Thomson et al., 2014) by emphasising the most important
information at the start of a video, and not including any unnecessary content.
While the importance and usefulness of lecture capture as a revision and
archiving tool are self-evident, long form video recordings can suffer from the length
and ‘sameness’ of the content, and can be less desirable for students. Commonly,
there is an emphasis on breaking down these long-form videos into short-segment
videos through the selection of specific content for specific contexts.
Narrative style, and the vocabulary of film and television
Authentic presentation and ‘telling a story’ (Thomson et al., 2014) is also
recommended. Storytelling and the importance of the narrative in video-for-learning
is identified by a number of authors. The power of storytelling provides a structure
upon which learners can organise knowledge (Muller, 2008), and aids in the
retention of content (Greenberg & Zanetis, 2012). A story that entertains and takes
the audience on a journey is exactly what the video medium can do well, and what
audiences hope for from this medium (Griego, 2017). In the video-for-learning
context, such video can be achieved by leveraging educators’ own narratives and
experiences (Thomson et al., 2014). ‘Presenting-to-camera’ productions that are
common in educational video and lecture recordings, reinforce the notion that the
purpose of educational video is to explain content (Winslett, 2014). This notion
undermines the strength of the medium to show rather than tell. The strengths of the
34 Chapter 2: Literature Review
medium lie in the vocabulary of film and television: lights, camera angles, sound
design, storytelling, depth of field, and more (Winslett, 2014).
Authentic presentation
Further to working with educators’ own experiences as a part of design, there is
a growing awareness of the need for new video presentation skills (Waters, 2011). In
light of the fact that more technology is being utilised in the learning experience, it is
important to retain the humanity of the academics who are presenting it. In other
words, making the most of the technology means maximising the human
communication skills of those using it (Willems, 2015). The social presence of a
presenter on screen is not critical to the learning experience; however, it can motivate
and effect an emotional response in the learner (Kizilcec, Papadopoulos, &
Sritanyaratana, 2014).
Being comfortable and confident with the medium of video, Willems contends,
fosters credibility in one’s content (Willems, 2015). Waters (2011) notes that a
degree of performance is inherently necessary to presentation, as does Willems in our
previous research (Thomson et al., 2014). The content also needs modifying to best
suit the medium of video, and this can be a challenge for academics new to working
with the medium. Working with Brady Haran, academics from the University of
Nottingham noted the need for some distillation, and certain framings to suit the
medium and the audience. In the case of the Sixty Symbols YouTube channel of
science videos, that involves ‘simplifying complex ideas into a single, logical
storyline that can be understood by the general public’ (Moriarty, 2014).
Visual communication
Hand in hand with a narrative style and authentic presentation, is the need for
strong visual communication. The capability of narrative films to illustrate,
Chapter 2: Literature Review 35
highlights their strength as stimulating and motivating pedagogic tools (Huczynski &
Buchanan, 2004). Any video object used for learning would similarly be benefited
by maximising the amount of visual communication; that is, by showing rather than
telling.
Appropriate locations, contexts, and visual aids are an important design aspects
that strengthen storytelling (Thomson et al., 2014). To reinforce concepts, visual
interest must be maximized through varying shot styles, cutaway shots, and matching
visual and auditory components. In a large scale analysis of click-level interactions
with videos in MOOC courses, high peaks of viewership related to changes in visual
content (e.g. a change from a slide to the presenter’s face on screen) (Kim et al.,
2014). A variety of visual information and editing to signal changes and emphasise
context, can be more effective for learning than static imagery as it directs attention
and focus (Reiss, 2008).
2.4.2 Mobile devices as video-production tools for education
Workflows for mobile device productions are common in independent
filmmaking and corporate video-production sectors. YouTube DIY production
channels (Film Riot, Indy Mogul), corporate video-production consultancies such as
Storyguide (http://www.storyguide.net/gear/mobile.html), and social marketing and
communications entities, frequently present techniques and examples for maximising
the use of mobile devices as a replacement for more expensive professional
production equipment. Independent narrative filmmaking that produced the 2015
film Tangerine and the 2018 film Unsane, are examples of mobile device workflows
that are competing with traditional high-budget narrative filmmaking. The producers
of these films discuss and document in depth the affordances and challenges of using
mobile devices for this purpose (Marine, 2015; Woodward, 2018). Similarly,
36 Chapter 2: Literature Review
recommendations for staff and student mobile device production are appearing in
Higher Education Institutions.
These recommendations are driven by the availability of cheap mobile add-on
devices, and the recognition of a baseline for production-level equipment. A
Colorado State University video-making handbook, for example, recommends a
mobile-device production kit that comprises an iPad, tablet holder, tripod, and audio
microphone (Littlefield & Hutton, 2015). A University of Minnesota document
similarly suggests a student-production kit comprising an iPad, tablet holder, tripod,
and wireless audio recording kit (McCauley, 2015). A University of Minnesota
guide notes that the video-production process should be simplified as much as
possible because students receive no training in media production. In another avenue
for mobile device video production, the University of Wisconsin promotes the use of
screen-casting software on a mobile device to produce video that can incorporate
real-time whiteboard, web browser, and mobile device camera material into a video
object that is shared directly to that university’s video server to make lecture-style
videos ("Mobile Device Video Production," 2018).
Smartphone camera and video capabilities have been applied to digital
storytelling projects at the University of Wollongong (Lefoe, Olney, Wright, &
Herrington, 2009). Participants were shown an example, workshopped the
storyboard/scripting process, and produced their own video object in a one-hour
timeframe. They also used the videorecording capability to interview people and to
create podcasts. The researchers reported that the project was an excellent use of
mobile devices as part of a learning context, and that it was easy for learners to
become familiar with, and use the devices for such purposes. Even though the
participants could only be considered to have ‘developing’ skills in the use of the
Chapter 2: Literature Review 37
devices for video production, the production-level outcomes were satisfactory for
their purpose.
The use of mobile device kits enables educators or students to perform
significant parts of the video-making production process on their own with easy-to-
use tools. Logistical overhead is lower as the tools are more portable, and educators
can work in their own space and time. They afford a measure of safe
experimentation to build confidence with the medium, an important aspect of
building capabilities. This sentiment can best be exemplified by the advice to ‘just
start doing it’ given by Muller (2013), creator of the YouTube science video channel
‘Veritasium’. This advice was given as he wandered around Sydney recording
himself with a GoPro and no other equipment.
While there seems to be increasing recommendation for the use of mobile
devices for educational film making in Higher Education Institutions, and more
evidence of this use, the type of videos being made in this way is not yet well
described in literature.
2.4.3 Typology of video styles
The recognition of types and styles of video in the literature reflects a growing
emphasis on technological and pedagogic approaches to video design (Berk, 2009;
Hansch et al., 2015; Morrison, 2014b; Winslett, 2014). As discussed earlier in this
chapter, video-for-learning is quite often a re-imagining of the classroom lecture in
video form to suit online or ‘flipped’ purposes (Bates, 2014; Brecht, 2012; Witton,
2016). Categories of types and styles of video, therefore, reflect designs that
incorporate the constituent content parts of the classroom lecture: the educator,
slideshow materials, and other visual and auditory material that might be presented.
They also reflect the kinds of technology in which institutions have invested.
38 Chapter 2: Literature Review
The figures below are examples of three authors’ categorisations of video-for-
learning. They share similarities in the styles identified. In many cases, the styles
are identified by their production and technical traits, as much as they are by their
pedagogic intent; however, there is also a lot of overlapping in these aspects.
Figure 1, from Hansch et al.’s (2015) paper ‘Video and Online Learning:
Critical Reflections and Findings from the Field’, categorises video into a number of
production styles. It provides a more comprehensive range of technical production
delineations than Morrison’s list (Figure 2) of the two main video styles that are
prevalent in MOOCs (Morrison, 2014b). It is also more comprehensive than
Winslett’s generalised production types (Figure 3). However, these later examples
do hint at the intent of the content in terms of pedagogic affordances.
Chapter 2: Literature Review 39
Figure 1: Video production styles (Hansch et al., 2015)
40 Chapter 2: Literature Review
Figure 2: MOOC video design formats (Morrison, 2014b)
Figure 3: Video production types (Winslett, 2014)
1) Lecture-style Video Formats
• Instructor(s) with/without Presentation Slides: features instructor(s) lecturing with, or without, PowerPoint presentation; slides inserted throughout with instructor ‘voice over’ while slide is displayed
• Office Setting: close-up shots of the instructor filmed at his or her office; typically, instructor speaks directly to camera
• Classroom Setting: video captured from a live classroom lecture
• Production Studio Setting: instructor recorded in a studio with no audience; typically, speaking to the camera
2) Tutorial/Demonstration Video Formats • Video Screencast: instructor demonstrating a concept; i.e., writing code in a text editor, or command-line prompt (in the case of computer science courses); using spreadsheet or document
• Drawing Freehand on a Digital Tablet: instructor using a software program (a style popularized by Khan Academy videos)
Other Formats not mentioned in the study
• Instructor interviewing another expert or guest speaker
• Instructor delivering lecture in another setting related to the course (though not always), for example an ecologist giving lecture at the beach, an art historian in a museum, etc.
• Panel Discussion of experts on specific course-related topic
Video production types: a) Fly-on-the-wall - Capturing real life practices and contexts
b) Mashing up - Manipulating, re-using, and modifying existing
video materials and repositories
c) Presenting to the camera - Explanations, instructions, and
stories
d) Dramatic works - Dramatising, stylizing, or modelling real life
practices and contexts
e) Interviews, testimonials, and vox pops
f) Producing video games
g) Recording and/or transmitting a teaching event
h) Multiple production types and technologies
i) Simulating/modelling/representing/capturing, and capturing
hard to see processes and contexts
Chapter 2: Literature Review 41
The components of the various styles identified in these examples refer
frequently to the constituent parts of a lecture model: adapted slideshow material; to-
camera presentation by educators and other experts; screen recordings; and other
generated animation content. However, less well represented in the styles
exemplified here – and in the styles widely discussed in the literature – is the practice
of filming activities, objects, locations, people, and experiences, rather than
presenting dialogue to-camera and relying on adapted graphical material.
So far, I have discussed the types of videos being made in Higher Education
Institutions, and the fact that there is a growing awareness of mobile devices as video
production tools. The following discussion considers the learning frameworks and
theories that have a bearing on video-for-learning design.
2.5 Pedagogic theories and models applicable to videos in Higher Education
As evidenced earlier in this chapter, video is a significant technological
component of blended and online learning experiences. Learning theories can
contribute greatly to an appreciation of the value and potential of video in the current
technological learning paradigm. The frameworks that inform this research are:
Constructivism (Ertmer & Newby, 2013); the Cognitive Theory of Multimedia
Learning (Mayer, 2001); Potent Pedagogic Roles for Video (Koumi, 2014); and the
Technology, Pedagogy, and Content Knowledge (TPACK) model (Koehler &
Mishra, 2009).
These frameworks impact both the technological and pedagogic dimensions of
the application of video in learning. The technological dimensions relate to the
42 Chapter 2: Literature Review
adoption of, and engagement with video technology, and the development of the
skills to use the technology as in the Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning. The
pedagogic dimensions relate to when and why a video is appropriate and useful, and
the affordances it offers the learning experience as in Constructivism and The Potent
Pedagogic Roles for Video. The Technology, Pedagogy, and Content Knowledge
model bridges both technological and pedagogic considerations addressing the
overlap between these dimensions in the process of design, and is a key framework
in this research for addressing the research questions.
2.5.1 Constructivism
In summary, the tenets of constructivism hold that: (1) learning is an active
process of constructing, rather than the acquisition of knowledge; and that (2)
instruction is a process of supporting that construction rather than the communication
of knowledge (Cunningham & Duffy, 1996).
Constructivism posits that learning is situated within the learners themselves,
rather than being dependent on the instructor. A learner’s prior knowledge is crucial
to how much learning takes place, as they structure any retained knowledge in terms
of their previous understanding: that is, meaning is created rather than acquired.
Constructivism emphasises the authenticity of the learning experience: that activities
should be embedded in meaningful contexts in order to facilitate knowledge transfer
by active involvement and the application of ideas (Ertmer & Newby, 2013).
Video is an inherently passive medium, and this can pose a distinct challenge
in using the medium in ways that go beyond the mere transmission of concepts. It is
advantageous to consider the constructivist perspective, and to design experiences
that activate the construction of knowledge through the screen content (Woolfitt,
2015). A video can be structured to reveal concepts to construct knowledge in
Chapter 2: Literature Review 43
several ways. For example, authenticity and embedded meaning can be considered
by filming actual domain-specific settings and activities. Scaffolding might also be
considered in a broader sense, where a video might be one part of a number of
learning resources, and its place and context within a range of multimedia and face-
to face-engagements determines its design. The use of misconceptions has also been
applied to improve learning in video objects (Muller, Bewes, Sharma, & Reimann,
2008). Structuring conceptual understanding around the refuting of misconceptions
about a knowledge domain is a strong mechanism for scaffolding knowledge.
2.5.2 Mayer’s Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning
While constructivism speaks to the conceptual design of video, the Cognitive
Theory of Multimedia speaks to structural design considerations to combat cognitive
overload. Multimedia is well suited to presenting information that utilises both
visual and auditory channels, and meaningful learning is improved when both
channels are used (Mayer, 2002). From the theoretical frameworks of Cognitive
Load Theory (de Jong, 2010), Mayer and Moreno (2003) and Khalil, Paas, Johnson
and Payer (2005) have contributed a number of principles of multimedia design for
minimising cognitive overload and promoting schema construction. These principles
are broadly defined as the Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning.
Examples of these principles that are more specifically related to video include:
• Multimedia principle: use a variety of visual material, cutaway shots from
different angles, and sound design.
• Spatial and temporal contiguity principle: edit relevant visual material to
match the dialogue accompanying it.
44 Chapter 2: Literature Review
• Coherence principle: do not inflate the video with content unrelated to the
video context (and certainly not ahead of the most relevant content).
• Redundancy principle: do not duplicate narration as on-screen text when
competing with dynamic visuals.
• Signaling and cuing: use auditory or visual cues that point to relevant
elements in the video frame.
• Offloading: translate a particular representation into another, more easily
appropriate medium (e.g. a wordy explanation might be better served by a
visual sequence)
• Segmentation: break larger videos into constituent parts and present in a
logical order
Principles of the Cognitive Theory of Multimedia are applicable to all types of
multimedia. A PowerPoint presentation used in a face-to-face lecture, a web page
resource in a learning management system, or self-contained web apps or multimedia
packages from development applications (such as Articulate Storyline) might contain
a combination of text, image, and audio elements. If the design of the presentation
supports it, this combination of elements can serve to reduce cognitive overload.
Video is no different, particularly as a common thread for the design of educational
video objects is the translation of content that has been developed for face-to-face
lectures – typically, an educator recording their own presentations.
A bespoke video designed around the filming of activities, places, objects, or
experiences is also subject to cognitive overload, depending on how the principles of
Cognitive Theory of Multimedia are addressed. The cognitive ‘reading’ of an object
occurs when the combination of visual and auditory elements is complementary.
Chapter 2: Literature Review 45
Cognitive overload can be reduced by thoughtful consideration of frame
composition, shot duration, the design of on-screen graphics, and the use of dialogue
to accompany it.
2.5.3 Koumi’s Potent Pedagogic Roles for Video
Koumi’s Potent Pedagogic Roles for Video extends upon constructivist
approaches by articulating the specific affordances of the video medium for
pedagogic advantage, and identifying a relationship between the cognitive principles
of multimedia and the presentational attributes of the video medium. The ‘pedagogic
roles’ comprise video techniques and teaching functions that exploit video’s
distinctive presentational attributes that other media cannot achieve as effectively –
not even direct teaching in most cases. More than 33 specific pedagogic roles are
highlighted in Koumi’s model, and are categorised into four domains:
1. Facilitating COGNITION
2. Providing realistic EXPERIENCES
3. Nurturing AFFECTIVE characteristics (motivations, feelings)
4. Demonstrating SKILLS
(Koumi, 2014)
Koumi’s specific presentational video attributes are an important factor in
establishing its four domains, and its numerous pedagogic functions (Figure 4). The
presentational attributes described exemplify the gamut of video-making processes
and techniques. These attributes encourage the filming and recording of people,
places, objects, and experiences, leveraging the affordances of the medium of video.
46 Chapter 2: Literature Review
Figure 4: Presentational attributes of video (Koumi, 2014)
The presentation attributes described by Koumi are the sorts of considerations
a video professional would apply by default to the process of conceptualising any
video. By framing these presentation attributes in terms of their pedagogic
affordances, the framework articulates the relationship between the two for educators
and other non-video professionals. In this way, Koumi’s Potent Pedagogic Roles for
video bridges the gap between two spheres of knowledge, and brings them together
to inform the design of video-for-learning.
2.5.4 Technology, Pedagogy, and Content Knowledge Model
The Technology, Pedagogy, and Content Knowledge model (TPACK) model
points to three skill areas that educators need in order to successfully use technology
in teaching: content, pedagogy, and technology (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). The
TPACK framework is often considered in the K-12 teacher education sphere, but has
not been widely considered in Higher Education (Benson & Ward, 2013). This
difference points to a distinction between the human resources associated with
technologies and pedagogies for learning in Higher Education Institutions and in the
K-12 sphere. As previously discussed in relation to the video production process,
video making is a team effort. However, it is often the case in Higher Education
Chapter 2: Literature Review 47
Institutions that videos are made with the help of learning and technical support staff,
or by specialised production teams, for example in MOOC productions (Aleckson &
Ralston-Berg, 2011; Hansch et al., 2015; McCauley, 2015; Morrison, 2014a). This
project explores how particular knowledges are embodied in different staff who
come together to design and produce video-for-learning in a Higher Education
Institution. The extent to which these knowledge areas are present, and the extent to
which they influence a video design, can relate to the extent to which they are
represented in the TPACK framework.
Figure 5: TPACK image (Koehler & Mishra, 2011)
The affordances of technology for learning have often been perceived to be
self-evident (Muller, 2008). The professional development of educators to use
technology in learning contexts often emphasises technical skills and technologies
without pedagogical or content considerations (Benson & Ward, 2013), or without
consideration of the complex interplay between technology, pedagogy, and content
48 Chapter 2: Literature Review
that occurs (Loo et al., 2013). However, overlap of the three knowledge areas
represented in TPACK is important to developing an understanding of technology in
the context of both pedagogy and content (Benson & Ward, 2013). The ways in
which each of the three capabilities can overlap is described below.
TPK – Technical Pedagogical Knowledge
Technical Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK) embodies the pedagogical
affordances of technology. In a video production context, for example, this refers to
the medium’s pedagogical value. There are a number of identified styles of video
that are useful in this regard (Woolfitt, 2015; Thomson, Bridgstock & Willems,
2014); for example, the virtual field trip, interviews with other experts, and
demonstrations of specific skills. The pedagogic element of a video cannot be
generic; it must be specific to the content and context of the specific learning (Bell &
Bull, 2010).
TCK – Technical Content Knowledge
Technical Content Knowledge (TCK) is an understanding of the impact of a
particular technology on the practices and knowledge of a given discipline. That is,
TCK is a process of finding the right way to frame content to suit the chosen
technological medium. For example: Is a video appropriate in a particular context?
Will an animation describe a concept better than something that is filmed?
PCK – Pedagogical Content Knowledge
An understanding of content as it relates to curriculum, learning outcomes, and
learning frameworks is the domain of Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK). This
knowledge is about framing the content, disciplinary knowledge, or subject area
within a pedagogically effective design. To be effective, content needs to relate
Chapter 2: Literature Review 49
directly to the learning outcomes of a particular course or part thereof; there are
potentially many ways in which to structure content to meet those outcomes.
It can be difficult for individual educators to adequately and consistently build
capacity in all three knowledge areas defined by TPACK (Pierson, 2008). It is also
interesting to consider that, due to organisational structures, workload considerations,
and individual capability within the context of Higher Education Institutions and
online learning, expertise typically resides in different individuals. The
contemporary online learning experience is commonly delivered to the World Wide
Web via content management solutions that are realised by the input of many
individuals with different expertise (Wiley, 2011). This delivery directly parallels
the nature of video production, which is also a complex process, is often undertaken
with a number of individuals, and always requiring a range of different skillsets and
expertise.
In this research project, the TPACK model has been a point of reference for
investigating how representatives of the different expertise domains of learning
design, academia, and technology, collaborate in the video design process. The
extent to which the three domains influence each other can speak not only to the
video design process, but also to the capability building of learning design, academic,
and technology support staff.
2.5.5 Other theories and frameworks
There are many frameworks for analysing and utilising technology as a part of
the education experience. As has been established, video is a multimodal form
containing a combination of text, moving image, and audio. Being defined as a
‘multimedia technology’, it can be viewed through the lens of any technology-
infused learning framework. The extent to which the further frameworks described
50 Chapter 2: Literature Review
below might be useful in evaluating video is determined by individual purposes,
needs, and intended outcomes. These frameworks are important lenses through
which to consider video-for-learning, but are less central in the articulation of the
process of the video making and capabilities that underpin this research.
The frameworks central to this research are important in functionally relating
production, pedagogical, and content expertise and capabilities to the development of
video-learning objects. They are designed to scaffold structures, and to create an
understanding of the evolving nature of the learning experience in a technology-
mediated environment. However, video is only one technological aspect of the many
technologies that are deployed in modern learning experiences. It is logical,
therefore, that both the design sense of a video object and the design sense of a whole
learning experience are intrinsically linked, and are subject to the same time,
resourcing, and infrastructure challenges. However, this research focuses on that
part of the process where the video object per se is needed, and must be
conceptualised; it does not focus on meta-level approaches to a learning paradigm
where video is but one part of broader learning considerations.
Conversational Framework
Laurillard’s Conversational Framework can be applied to evaluate the extent to
which educational media support a teaching strategy that operates as an iterative
dialogue, and is discursive, adaptive, interactive, and reflective (Laurillard, 2002).
Laurillard has also categorised the various educational media types that are likely to
be used for educational purposes in terms of how they address the Conversational
Framework. There are five categories of media forms: narrative; interactive;
communicative; adaptive; and productive. These five media types are then matched
to particular kinds of learning activities for which they have particular affordances.
Chapter 2: Literature Review 51
Television and video are categorised as ‘narrative’ media types. In this specification,
they are useful for learning activities that involve notions such as ‘experiencing’,
‘apprehending’, and ‘discriminating’.
Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, Redefinition Model
As explained above, TPACK is a theoretical structure for determining the combined
capabilities of learning design, academic, and technology domains that are needed to
implement technology in learning. Meanwhile, the Substitution, Augmentation,
Modification, Redefinition (SAMR) model is a theoretical structure for defining what
technology in learning can, or should, look like. SAMR argues for the
transformation of teaching with technology by moving its application beyond its use
as a substitution for established teaching and assessment practice (Puentedura, 2006).
The model has potential both as a strategical approach to design, and as a reflective
evaluation framework.
The model encourages educators to ‘move up’ through four dimensions,
progressing towards more transformative approaches to learning tasks, using
technology that leverages more of its affordances (Hamilton, Rosenberg, &
Akcaoglu, 2016). The first dimension, ‘Substitution’, reflects the use of technology
as a replacement for other approaches that create no functional change in the learning
experience. At the level of ‘Augmentation’, the application of technology starts to
change the learning experience in some way that improves the experience or
outcomes. Reaching the level of ‘Modification’ suggests that the learning experience
or task has had to be significantly changed around the implementation of technology.
Finally, at the level of ‘Redefinition’, an entirely new task has evolved to facilitate
the learning outcome (Hamilton et al., 2016; Puentedura, 2006).
52 Chapter 2: Literature Review
The SAMR model provides a tangible way of evaluating how the use of a
media type might create a fundamental change in the learning task. However, the
model is open to interpretation in different ways. It has been argued that it is too
specific about the product of the technology rather than the learning experience, and
does not take into account the complexity of the way technology is used in different
learning experiences (Hamilton et al., 2016).
Connectivism
Connectivism takes the concept of constructing knowledge in one’s own
context (as exemplified by Constructivism) one step further: It takes into account the
distributed and networked way in which knowledge can be found, engaged with, and
shared, in the modern technological paradigm (Siemens, 2005). Theories of
Connectivism posit that learning can occur through the construction of a diverse
range of networks and connections facilitated by the array of technologies and digital
networks that are now available. Recognising the attendant patterns in the
connections and networks is the key to knowledge construction (Siemens, 2008).
The breadth of digital communication and networking tools and technologies
that are used in most people’s lives is the basis for the distributed and varied ways in
which knowledge can be constructed. Wholly or in part, video is a common element
of many of these digital tools – of websites, blogs, social networking platforms,
media sharing platforms, and communications. It becomes a small part of the larger
array of resources that are connected to create context and meaning, and can be used
in multiple contexts. If we imagine what a video or other digital resource looks like
as part of a distributed network (as Connectivism suggests), other interesting ideas
become relevant to their design. There is a tension between an object’s contextual
Chapter 2: Literature Review 53
size and its ability to be reused in different contexts (Wiley, Gibbons, & Recker,
2000).
2.5.6. Summary of learning frameworks
Collectively, the frameworks considered as a part of this research influence a
collaborative design and production workflow for video. Technology, Pedagogy and
Content Knowledge principles (Koehler, 2012) frame an approach to structuring
human resources and expertise in the design process, while at the same time enabling
the building of expertise and capability. Meanwhile, the design of video objects
themselves is influenced by the formal structural principles of the Cognitive Theory
of Multimedia Learning (Mayer, 2001), and the conceptual pedagogic intent of
Koumi’s Potent Pedagogic Roles for video (2014). Constructivism promotes the
design of video-for-learning in a way that considers them is as a part of a larger
scaffolded process of active learning (Ertmer & Newby, 2013). Together, these
theories have informed the practices undertaken in this project, as outlined in the
analysis and discussion sections of this document.
2.6 Gaps in knowledge to be explored
Across this review of the literature a number of dimensions to the design and
use of video-for-learning in higher education have been explored. This research is
positioned to investigate some of the gaps that exist in literature and theory about
video and technology enhanced learning that has come before. First, while much has
been documented about video production processes in general, and in literature some
of these processes have been able to be generalised to video-for-learning purposes
and contexts (Burrows, 2001), it has also been suggested that there are specific
requirements and constraints in production of video-for-learning higher education.
54 Chapter 2: Literature Review
For instance, debate continues about what constitutes sufficient production values in
learning and teaching (Hansch et al., 2015; Morrison, 2014a). Further, while little
has been documented formally about who exactly is making videos-for-learning in
higher education, it seems fair to assume that very few videos-for-learning outside of
high profile externally facing MOOC contexts (Hollands & Tirthali, 2014; Morrison,
2014a) are made by a full production crew using traditional production processes.
Rather, videos are made using pragmatic processes and tools by a single academic or
a small collaborative group (Lawler, 2016; Littlefield & Hutton, 2015; Thomson et
al., 2014; Woolfitt, 2015). However, little has been documented about how these
processes work, or how they might work optimally to make the most of the
capabilities of those involved. The Technology, Pedagogy and Content Knowledge
framework (Koehler, 2012), which maps the different knowledge domains required
for teaching with technology, represents a useful framework to explore collaborative
video production processes and capabilities. However, it was developed with
individual educators in mind, and has not to date been used to investigate capabilities
across collaborative groups. This research project aims to address these gaps in
knowledge. The next chapter, Methodology, outlines the research methods by which
this project integrated the practice of video making with the theories described in this
chapter.
Chapter 3: Methodology 55
Chapter 3: Methodology
This chapter outlines the methodological approaches adopted in the study.
First, the chapter situates the project within a practice-led approach to research. It
then describes the design of the project, which comprises the activity of making
video-for-learning; reflective practice; and the conduct of interviews with
participants and video support staff in a Higher Education institution. This chapter
focuses on the design of the research study. The next chapter details the specific
contexts and how the study was conducted using this design.
This research addresses the question:
How can academics, learning designers, and video producers align
pedagogical theory and principles of both agile and more formal video production to
produce videos that achieve curriculum aims?
This main inquiry is framed around three sub-questions:
• What are the typical processes for video production for learning and teaching
in a Higher Education institution?
• How might collaborative, agile production methods be used for creating
video-for-learning in Higher Education?
• In the collaborative, agile video-production process, how are the capability
sets of academics, learning designers, and video producers represented, and
how do their various capabilities and resources come together during the
production of video-for-learning?
56 Chapter 3: Methodology
The theoretical framework in which these questions are addressed is the
Technology, Pedagogy and Content Knowledge framework (Koehler, 2012). The
TPACK framework incorporates the knowledge domains of technology, content and
pedagogy recognising the importance of each of them in effectively teaching with
technology. TPACK also provides an understanding of how the knowledge domains
overlap and influence each other (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). As explored in the
previous chapter, the design of technology based learning resources often involves
groups of individuals bringing particular capabilities, particularly in the context of
higher education (Aleckson & Ralston-Berg, 2011; Hansch et al., 2015; Hollands &
Tirthali, 2014). In this project the TPACK framework also affords a way to establish
the dynamics of capabilities and activities that occur between the individuals that
participate in the design of technology based learning resources.
To address these questions, a practice-led methodology was adopted. Practice
has been described as “the knowledge, tacit or otherwise, of how something is done
within the context of a professional and cultural framework” (Haseman & Mafe,
2009). Further, Haseman & Mafe assert that practice encompasses all activities that
practitioners undertake: thinking, reading, and writing, as well as looking, listening,
and making (2009). Central to the notion of a practice-led approach is that
specialised research insights can be found in the training and knowledge that
practitioners have, and in the activities they engage in when conducting their practice
(Smith & Dean, 2009).
Application of the practice-led approach in this project enabled the articulation
of the tacit processes within my video-production experience. Practice-led research
methods were a natural fit for revealing the relevance and importance of the
Chapter 3: Methodology 57
knowledge and expertise required to inform a wider understanding of video making
in Higher Education.
3.1 Research Design
For this research project, the practice-led methodology incorporated four types
of research activity and data collection: (i) a practice-based component of video
production that involved myself (as a professional video producer) and academic and
learning design participants; (ii) a traditional literature review; (iii) a blog
documenting my reflections (as researcher) on the activities and trajectory of the
practice component; and (iv) interviews conducted with participants of the video
production component and stakeholders in the support of video-for-learning in the
institution (that is, learning design and technical support staff). A framework for the
use of these four data collection activities can be considered in terms of a trajectory
of practice and research (Candy & Edmonds, 2010), as illustrated in Figure 6 below.
58 Chapter 3: Methodology
Figure 6: A trajectory of practice and research for this project
A trajectory of practice and research comprises three elements: practice,
theory, and evaluation (Candy & Edmonds, 2010). In the trajectory of practice and
research activities and data collection performed as a part of the enquiry are
attributed to one, or possibly more, of these three elements (Candy & Edmonds,
2010). The elements and their related activities are cyclical and interwoven, and can
be non-linear. The trajectory represents the space in which the researcher can form
pathways between pure practice and pure research (Candy & Edmonds, 2010). The
research strategy for this project involves activities that can be attributed to the three
elements of the trajectory in order to be ‘creative and critical’, and move from the
known to the unknown (Sullivan, 2009). The structure of the elements of practice,
theory, and evaluation in this research project are described below.
Chapter 3: Methodology 59
Practice
The elements of practice in this project were video making, and working with
other participants to develop video-for-learning. The component of practice
incorporated aspects of formal production processes (Burrows, 2001), low
budget/DIY techniques (Artis, 2013; Rodriguez, 1996) and mobile device production
(Littlefield & Hutton, 2015), sometimes adapted, modified or extended upon by my
own experience of video production defined as non-formal learning (Eraut, 2000).
The practice is in conjunction with the instructional design processes that occur
between learning designers and academics (Aleckson & Ralston-Berg, 2011) that
may also have their own aspects of non-formal learning (Eraut, 2000). The reflective
component of my observations that were recorded in a blog and interviews with
those participants, can also be considered to form part of this practice component, as
they directly related to, and informed the choices made during the practice of making
the videos. The reflections and interviews also formed part of the evidence of the
activities of practice: They captured details and perspectives about what happened
during the practice.
Theory
The theory element of the research included three components: the formal
investigation into existing literature on the use of video in Higher Education, and
current video pedagogy; qualitative interviews with university staff who comprise
the support structures within the institution for video production; and the non-formal
learning that I both brought to the process, and acquired during the process (Eraut,
2000).
Literature in this element focused on the affordances and pedagogic efficacy of
video for learning as a factor in design, such as in Bates (2012), Hansch (2015),
60 Chapter 3: Methodology
Koumi (2014), Witton (2016) and Woolfitt (2015). The literature and interview
components provided a point of comparison between the practice within this project,
and normalised practices within the particular institution and the Higher Education
sector. The interview component also influenced design choices for the video-for-
learning, and ways of operating within a Higher Education institutional space to
conduct the activities of video production. Non-formal learning (Eraut, 2000) plays
a part in forming theory here merging new and existing direct experience and tacit
knowledge with formal knowledge from literature and theory.
Evaluation
The evaluation element of the research was composed of: 1) interviews with
the learning design and academic participants involved in the practice-led activities
to gauge the impact of the video production process and their own learning; and 2)
my reflections on the trajectory of the project activities. Evaluation as an ongoing
activity enabled the interviews and my reflections to continuously influence the
practice element, by referring back to the research questions of this project, and also
by asking: How do these outputs and processes measure up to what had been created
elsewhere, and what is required of the video-for-learning in this instance?
Specifically, approaches to video production activities were adapted based on my
reflections and the different needs of the academic and learning design participants
that were captured in the interviews.
The three elements of practice, theory, and evaluation were revealed through
four distinct activities: practice-led activity, interviews, reflection, and a formal
literature review. These activities were the basis for the methods used in this project;
their definition as the research methods is given below.
Chapter 3: Methodology 61
3.2 Methods
The necessary data and insights needed to address the research questions were
gathered from the four activities undertaken in this project: practice-led activity,
interviews, reflection, and a formal literature review. These four activities can be
defined as the methods used for this research project.
1) Practice-led activities of video design and production explored collaborative,
agile, and mobile-based production methods.
2) A traditional literature review investigated the current uses of video in
Higher Education, and the documented best practice for design and theoretical
underpinnings of video pedagogy.
3) Reflective practice, in the form of a blog, documented the ways in which the
content, pedagogy, and technical knowledge domains interacted, and informed
aspects of video design across the project.
4) A thematic analysis of interviews conducted with academic and learning
design participants of the practice-led project, and other university staff who form the
video-production support structures within the institution; and the researcher’s
reflections (as catalogued in the blog).
While these four methods addressed each of the research questions in a number
of ways, Table 1 below shows that the data obtained from certain methods had a
more particular application to certain questions.
62 Chapter 3: Methodology
Table 1
Summary of research approaches
Research Question Research Approach
1. What are the typical processes for video production for learning & teaching in a Higher Education Institution?
• Practice-led activity; video outputs
• Literature review • Interviews with support
stakeholders
2. How might collaborative, agile production methods be used for creating video-for-learning in Higher Education?
• Practice-led activity • Interviews with participants
in the practice-led element • Interviews with support
stakeholders • Researcher’s blog
3. In the collaborative, agile video- production process, how are capability sets of academics, learning designers and video producers represented, and how do their various capabilities and resources come together during the production of video-for-learning?
• Practice-led activity • Interviews with support
stakeholders • Interviews with participants
in the practice-led element
Table 1: Summary of research approaches
3.2.1 Practice-led activity
Videos for use in learning experiences were designed and constructed by
applying the content, pedagogical, and technical domains of knowledge, as posited
by Koehler and Mishra (2009) in the TPACK framework for teacher knowledge and
technology integration. In this practical component, the three TPACK knowledge
domains were represented by academics, learning designers, and me (as the video
professional). Mobile devices were utilised as the tools for production in order to
facilitate participants’ intuitive professional development in video production, and to
promote agile, streamlined, and DIY production processes.
Two projects of practice-led activity were undertaken in separate
collaborations with academics and learning designers. The two projects had different
Chapter 3: Methodology 63
and distinct timelines based on the requirements of the course and availability of the
participants. In broad terms both projects took place over a duration of 4 months
between October 2016 and February 2017 with a gap over the Christmas period.
This timeframe fit between the end of a second semester and the beginning of a first
semester, between academic teaching periods.
The next chapter Practice and interviews elaborates upon the trajectory of each
project and the details of what occurred.
3.2.2 Reflective practice
Documentation of the collaborations involved in video design – in the basic
sense of describing what happened – was not difficult. However, a further level of
analysis was needed to make meaning of the practice-led activities observed in the
participants. This was achieved through the process of reflection by the researcher.
The reflective blog contributed to the thematic analysis described below.
Donald Schön described the tacit, implicit knowledge of professionals in their
field as ‘knowing in action’. Thinking about, reacting to, and being surprised by the
actions they routinely perform, often leads to reflections on those actions, and these
reflections can be embodied in further action (Schon, 1983). With all of the
participants in this project being professionals in their field, the capture of these
reflections was an important component of understanding the design process.
A reflective journal in the form of a web-based blog contained notes and
reflections on project activities and on the meaning of those activities for the
researcher and the participants. These entries helped to determine the next steps of
the project activity. The blogging platform Tumblr was chosen as a repository for
the blog for its ease of use, particularly for embedding images and video. A mobile
64 Chapter 3: Methodology
device app for Tumblr enabled ease of access when not at a computer, and the ability
to embed photos and video directly from mobile devices.
Recordings in the blog served as reflection both in time – that is, collecting
thoughts and details on, or close to the events – and over time, where actions and
thoughts could be recovered, reviewed, revised, re-evaluated, and reordered
(Burnard, 2006). Reflection can be considered to be closely tied to the notion of
learning (Moon, 2013). The purpose of reflection in this project can be considered as
a mode of professional development: a way of approaching future activity during or
after the project timeline. However, it also provided a critical review of the activities
and process (Moon, 2001). In other words, evaluation of the usefulness and success
of the activities and process was afforded by the critical review provided by the
reflection.
Blog posts were recorded for each of the major timeline events over the course
of the practical projects: after each interview or meeting; after workshop or filming
events; and after major milestones of post-production. The posts were recorded from
the researcher’s own perspective. They captured the activities that were undertaken,
and the order in which they were undertaken; the researcher’s perceptions of, or
feelings about the meaning of these activities; and anticipations of what needed to
happen next.
3.2.3 Interviews
Semi-structured interviews following a prepared set of questions were
conducted with participants in the practice-led project teams, as well as a number of
other support staff associated with the provision of video-for-learning resources
across the institution. The interviews contributed to a thematic analysis detailed
Chapter 3: Methodology 65
below. The interviews followed a slightly different format for the academic and
learning design participants and for the support staff.
The academic and learning design participants were interviewed both before
and after the practice-led activity component (see Appendix A and B). They were
able to respond directly to their experience of the practice-led activity, while
commenting more broadly on their appraisal of video making and support within the
institution. The ‘before’ interview also became a component of project planning and
pre-production aspects of the practice-led activities. The support staff, in contrast,
were interviewed only once about video making and support within the institution
(see Appendix C).
The nature of the questions was intentionally somewhat broad. However, to
constrain the conversation to relevant themes that might emerge, they were tempered
by the researcher’s experience in the video-production and learning-design fields.
Conversational depth was enhanced by following lines of conversation specific to the
individuals being interviewed. To facilitate efficient analysis, the interviews were
transcribed.
3.2.4 Thematic Analysis
A thematic analysis (Guest, Macqueen & Namey, 2012) was applied to three of
the data types produced in this research project: 1) interviews with academics and
learning design participants in the practice-led project; 2) interviews with other
university staff from the video-production support structures within the institution;
and 3) the researcher’s reflections, as catalogued in the blog.
Thematic analysis focuses on identifying and describing both the implicit and
explicit ideas within the data, moving beyond the counting of explicit words and
phrases. Codes are developed to represent identified themes, and are linked to raw
66 Chapter 3: Methodology
data as summary markers for analysis (Guest, MacQueen & Namey, 2012). In this
project, the analysis identified the major themes, similarities, and differences in
approaches to the production and use of video-for-learning in the institution.
Understanding the ‘why’ and ‘how’ of what people do is the situated
knowledge – the praxis – of a process, and can be deciphered by using the semiotics
of that process (Leeds-Hurwitz, 2012). In this case, the semiotics of video
production and learning and teaching endeavours form the basis for the codes and
themes for the thematic analysis.
The content of the interviews highlighted the ways in which individuals, who
were embedded within the process of providing support for video, shared a number
of ways of working and communicating with each other, and with the institution as a
whole. It also contained various appraisals of purpose and need for video that can
lead to differences in approach, and possibly, to gaps in institutional strategy,
particularly with regard to the TPACK framework (Koehler, 2012). A thematic
analysis of this content built a picture of these gaps and various approaches.
The interview and blog data was comprised of the inputs of academics,
learning designers, supports staff, and the researcher. These contributors were
individuals who exhibited various capabilities that could be aligned with the
knowledge domains of content, pedagogy, and technology (as framed by TPACK).
These three areas of expertise, therefore, became the three broad themes by which to
categorise the thematic analysis at the top level. Further themes and codes from
interview responses emerged from aligning the data with the research question they
most closely addressed. In this way, data were then closely aligned to reveal the
shared terms, activities, processes, and contexts that were apparent as a second stage
of organisation.
Chapter 3: Methodology 67
3.3 Ethical Clearance
Ethical clearance was granted to conduct this research project by the QUT
Research Ethics Committee (approval number 66798). All participants provided
informed consent for their participation. Participants in the practice-led project
agreed that they would be photographed and video recorded as identifiable as a part
of documenting the project activities. The project participants agreed to being video
interviewed and transcribed. Other institutional staff who were interviewed were
audio recorded, and their interviews were transcribed for thematic analysis.
3.4 Summary
This chapter described how this practice-led research research was conducted
through a trajectory of practice and research (Candy & Edmonds, 2010). The four
types of data collected; practice-led activity, interviews, reflective practice and the
literature review, were outlined as well as the methods by which they have been
analysed. The next chapter Practice and interviews recounts the application of the
research methodology outlined here to a component of video-making practice, and a
thematic analysis of interviews and reflections.
Chapter 4: Practice and interviews 69
Chapter 4: Practice and interviews
In this chapter, the activities resulting from the methodological approach to this
research project outlined in the previous chapter are described.
Two practice-led projects were conducted as a part of this research. The
timeline for both projects occurred over a period of approximately 4 months, from
the end of October 2016 to February 2017, with a gap of approximately one month
across the Christmas period. This segment of time in the year fit between the end of
semester 2 teaching and exams, and the beginning of the following semester 1. The
two projects are described next.
Across a similar time period of the end of 2016 and into 2017, a number of
interviews were conducted with support staff closely attached to the provision of
video-for-learning resources within the institution. Details about these interviews
and follow after the sections about the practice-led projects.
Finally, there is an outline of the thematic analysis applied to both the
interviews and the reflections documented across the project.
4.1 The projects
Described here is the detailed trajectory of each project. Each project had its
own timeline and activities, and emphases that met the differing needs of each of the
project teams. For example, one team consisted of a group of academics with
separate work schedules, and their collaboration on the project required coordination.
Meanwhile, the other team, comprised of only one academic, required less
coordination but was limited to certain weeks and months of availability. The
70 Chapter 4: Practice and interviews
process by which these teams were identified and initiated was supported through the
institution’s central Learning Design Team.
Within the Queensland Higher Education Institution that was the site for this
research, academics have access to learning design support through a central
Learning Design Team. In general, academics have an awareness of video as a
resource that is available through infrastructural lecture recording; of virtual
classroom technologies; and of other video support and strategies. They have either
self-identified these resources, or learning designers have provided them for their
consideration.
With the help of the leader of the Learning Design Team, some course units,
for which there was an imperative to develop digital course materials (including
video), were identified. The academic coordinators of these courses were
approached, and offered an opportunity to participate in this project along with their
respective faculty learning designer. From this recruitment process, two projects
were chosen: an early childhood academic from the Faculty of Education wished to
capture demonstrations of science experiments and activities; and a team of three
academics from the STEM Faculty, envisaged a video to support a student field trip
for an integrated Earth Sciences unit. These participants are described in more detail
in the following sections.
In this research project, the Technology, Pedagogy and Content Knowledge
(TPACK) framework (Koehler & Mishra, 2009) was employed to define and
categorise the different capabilities that are exercised in the development of video-
for-learning. Mobile device technologies were used as the tools for video
production. The two projects looked at how the TPACK framework exemplified the
skills and capabilities required for successful design, and the usefulness of mobile
Chapter 4: Practice and interviews 71
devices and agile production processes for video making in the Higher Education
context.
The participants in each of these two project teams exhibited and represented
the capabilities of the TPACK framework and, in some cases, more than one of these
capabilities. The academic participants represented capabilities mostly in their
content knowledge area; the learning designers chiefly represented the pedagogic
knowledge area; and I predominantly represented the technological knowledge area.
All of the participants had some capability in all three knowledge areas. It is almost
inescapable that in the process of developing and teaching with digital learning
resources in a Higher Education context, some capability in all three of the
knowledge areas is developed.
Video making and video-for-learning is the basis for the technological
component of TPACK in this research project. All of the participants in the two
project teams already had some experience with using video as a part of the teaching
process. The Early Childhood academic had attempted a number of different video-
capture technologies to try to improve upon the institutionally mandated lecture-
capture system, and was supported as much as possible by the Faculty Learning
Designer to navigate university systems to set up and use other video capture-
technologies. The STEM Faculty participants were also familiar with lecture-capture
systems and the use of curated video. The STEM Faculty learning designer was
reasonably experienced with video making, having previously filmed and edited
short videos on a number of occasions.
At the beginning of the project, semi-structured interviews were conducted as
part of an initial production meeting with the academic and learning design
participants (see Appendix A). Their purpose was to establish their experience with,
72 Chapter 4: Practice and interviews
and understanding of video-for-learning, and to start to define the scope of the
project they were about to undertake. These interviews contributed to the thematic
analysis that is detailed later. Next, the activities of design and production were
undertaken to provide professional development for the participants, and to produce
the video objects. These processes were documented and reflected upon. Finally,
semi-structured interviews with the academics and learning designers (again
transcribed and thematically analysed) were conducted to appraise the process, to
gauge changes in their awareness and understanding, and to determine the
possibilities for designing, making, and using video-for-learning (see Appendix B).
The findings of this practical component of the research responded to two of
the three research questions:
• How might collaborative, agile production methods be used for creating
video-for-learning in Higher Education?
• In the collaborative, agile video-production process, how are the various
capability sets of academics, learning designers and video producers
represented, and how do their various capabilities and resources come
together during the production of video-for-learning?
4.1.1 Project 1 – Faculty of Education
An early childhood academic from the Faculty of Education wished to make
her own videos to capture demonstrations of science experiments and activities for
her students. Neither she nor the learning designer had any prior experience in
producing video content; however, they were familiar with video-based virtual
classroom solutions that are used for lecture and tutorial classes for external students.
Concept videos were produced in this project as a further strategy to demonstrate
Chapter 4: Practice and interviews 73
specific activities and experiments that are difficult to realise within the capabilities
of virtual classroom technologies.
The project was an opportunity to make a lecture or demonstration video
component to supplement the academic’s established mode of teaching. The
demonstration of experiments was not sufficiently supported through the academic’s
use of virtual classroom software, and this process would provide her with much
more control in the presentation of the demonstration. The new video would still fit
within her overall established teaching mode, and not upset the effective process that
she and her students were used to. My role in working with this team was to provide
conceptual input into the design of the videos, and technical guidance in the
production of video content with mobile devices.
The trajectory of activities for this project group can be summarised in three
phases:
1. Establishing the interview, and development of a support model
2. Workshop and technological support
3. Video completion and final interview
Establishing interview and development of support model
During their initial interview, the academic and learning designer described
their familiarity with using video conferencing and virtual classroom platforms to
incorporate video into learning experiences. Several different platforms had been
tried, mostly to resolve issues around connectivity and ease of use. Using these
platforms had allowed the academic and the students to successfully engage in
learning, and to bring the external and on-campus cohorts together for learning
activities.
74 Chapter 4: Practice and interviews
A deficiency in the virtual classroom and video conferencing software was that
it did not afford the ability to present or record the academic’s more specific activity
demonstrations. Thus, the academic and learning designer were hoping to leverage
my technological expertise to address this problem. The limitations of the platforms
they were using arose primarily from the nature of their being designed around face-
to-face video communication, and having the relatively fixed webcam in the
academic’s computer monitor. With only a webcam attached to a monitor, she was
unable to place the camera in different positions, or indeed arrange the office space
adequately to record the demonstrations. Therefore, they determined that they would
like to produce specific videos of the demonstrations to supplement the virtual
classroom platform experience.
The academic recounted her approach to technological challenges in the
learning and teaching environment by saying: “If I have to go somewhere to get
training for it, then that becomes a bit of an issue because I’m just so busy, and trying
to find the time to fit that in” (Faculty of Education Academic). It was plain to see
the high value she placed on self-efficacy and on learning how to use technology for
herself. She was familiar with utilising available support mechanisms within the
institution to resolve technological issues, and was aware of the limitations in how
that support could help in her specific learning and teaching context. She cited her
own research into suitable platforms to support the use of virtual classrooms and
video conferencing to facilitate an engaging learning experience. Her own network
of fellow staff and learning designers was very important in being able to work
through ideas and issues around technology. It was apparent that she had extensive
pedagogic and content capabilities, and relied upon those to determine how to use
technology. In her own words: “If they don’t know how you need to apply the
Chapter 4: Practice and interviews 75
technology, then just having the technical specifics of how to work it is not enough”.
She was able to self-identify low capability and then find the necessary technical
support to resolve gaps in her technical knowledge.
We determined that my role in supporting this process should be to build the
academic’s capabilities in video making, concentrating on the production aspects of
composition and filming using the mobile devices. I determined the need for my role
to be flexible; to be able to vary the level of support she needed. Her self-driven
nature meant that, at times, only verbal advice might be needed; at other times,
specific hands-on help might be. It was up to her to determine the level of
involvement. As the learning designer explained: “We are more of a catalyst; we can
equip her with whatever she needs to run with it herself”. I perceived that
scaffolding and separating out these new knowledges was important so that she did
not become overwhelmed with the process. I constrained the capability building to
mobile device skills, offering myself as a resource when, and if, any questions about
other aspects arose.
Workshop and technological support
I hosted a mobile device video-making skills workshop for the academic and
learning designer. An iPad mobile device video-making kit from the Learning and
Teaching Support Unit was used as the academic would be using it when it came to
the production phase. The workshop focused on the set-up of mobile device
hardware, tripods, and audio recording gear, use of controls in the camera
applications, and composition and framing.
During the workshop, the academic was prompted with questions about how
she imagined the video and what would be shown. Through this questioning, I was
trying to create a more concrete link in her mind between the use of equipment and
76 Chapter 4: Practice and interviews
its applications, and the visual output she hoped to achieve. A reflection in the blog
noted: “I feel it might be that she is worried that it’s more work than she will be able
to apply to the process” (Blog Reflection No.7).
The more the academic was able to articulate to me what she hoped to achieve,
the more I was able to suggest particular ways of using the equipment to achieve her
goal as we were working with it. Again, this was a conscious tactic to create the link
between pedagogy and technology in the academic’s mind. In this way also, I hoped
to provide as much help as possible ahead of the actual production, as I would not be
present during that phase. From this point the academic wished to work through the
production process alone so as not to create complexity, a manifestation of the her
strong desire for self-efficacy.
After the workshop was conducted it was approaching the end of 2016. The
Christmas period of leave intervened, and additionally the learning designer had to
bow out of further participation in the project due to health issues.
Video completion and final interview
While I maintained email contact with the academic and enquired if there was more I
could do to help the production process, my next meeting with her was after the
video making had taken place. She arranged an iPad kit – containing an iPad, tablet
tripod mount, tripod, and small shotgun microphone – from the Media Production
Support Service, and set aside time to film content for three videos on a single
occasion. The set-up for the three videos was kept simple, with a single framed shot
and enough desk space to see all elements of the demonstrations. Video editing was a
challenge for the academic as she attempted this herself without any training or
familiarity with software or editing workflows.
Chapter 4: Practice and interviews 77
The process was not as intuitive as I thought it would be so I had to go and look I think at a You Tube thing… and then I came back and then I could do it, then it was easy. Then I could see how you could put in all the titles and do all the different fancy stuff. (Faculty of Education Academic)
With input from YouTube resources, the academic was then able to edit the
sequences. However, she chose to use a free software package, and the exported
videos had a watermark from the developer embedded in the picture. She secured
help from a colleague with a licenced video-editing package to re-edit the content
and produce videos without watermarks.
Figure 7: Faculty of Education academic demonstrating an experiment in a self-produced video
The videos were delivered to students through the course website, and were
hosted on the institution’s video repository. After comparing her videos with other
videos used in the course, she realised that the audio level in her videos was quite
low.
I did them one after the other. But one of them, the sound is really low and hard for students to hear. I don't know why because I didn't change anything. (Faculty of Education Academic)
Along with her struggles with using video-editing software for the first time, this
sound deficit was another of the academic’s main disappointments in terms of
technical issues with the process.
78 Chapter 4: Practice and interviews
Debriefing after the process, the academic reported that the workshop was
greatly beneficial in forging ahead with filming material for the video, and that the
mobile device equipment was not difficult to use. Challenges reported during
filming related to the logistical difficulties with conducting the filming entirely on
one’s own: it was time consuming to be both in front of the camera, and behind,
setting up the camera. The overall time commitment for the video production was
specifically noted:
The biggest difficulty with making those is the time it took to make them and that was like a whole day and then I don't really have that time.
The limiting factor was trying to do it by yourself. (Faculty of Education Academic)
The core purpose of this project was to develop the video making technology
capability of an academic who already had highly developed content and pedagogical
capabilities. The importance of developing this capability as a part of the academic’s
daily practice (Loo et al., 2013) was addressed through the informal workshop on
filmmaking skills, and experimentation with those skills in, or outside of her work.
The academic and learning designer had resolved most content and pedagogic
considerations before embarking on this project, and had identified the specific video
technology elements that were needed to satisfy the course design elements. This
placed them ahead of the curve when it came to typical professional development in
technology, which is often limited to addressing technological concerns, without
incorporating pedagogic considerations (Loo et al., 2013; Younie & Leask, 2013).
My part in the process was purposefully contained to building the academic’s
capability in the technological knowledge component; this was partly due not only to
the highly resolved nature of the content and pedagogical elements, but also to her
self-reliant nature. It was important to the academic to be able to apply the three
knowledge areas of TPACK to the situation herself. In this way, key concerns such
Chapter 4: Practice and interviews 79
as time and resourcing constraints, could be managed within the bounds of her
availability and abilities.
4.1.2 Project 2 – Faculty of STEM
A group of three academics from the Earth Science, Environmental Science,
and Biological Science disciplines, and their Course Support Officer, coordinated a
first-year, integrated Unit (course) that involved students from the three respective
disciplines. They were supported by a learning designer to assist with course design
and to build course elements in the digital Learning Management System.
A field trip provided the backbone for the learning context and content in this
unit. The purpose of this video was to encourage students to attend a field trip, and
to serve as a substitute for students who would not be able to attend. My role in this
project was to help the team to conceptualise a range of suitable video objects related
to the trip, to provide technical help to the team around video making with mobile
devices, and to record and edit the video objects for the academics to use with their
students.
This project contrasted quite strongly with the Faculty of Education project,
and encompassed a very different exhibition of the capabilities of the Technology,
Pedagogy and Content Knowledge framework (Koehler, 2012). While the academic
team were happy to learn more about video making and to be somewhat involved in
the process, they required the video production expertise I brought to the project for
the bulk of the production work. The greatest limitation on their involvement was
their time availability.
The academic team articulated a theme of interconnectedness, exemplifying a
coming together of the three different disciplinary areas involved in this course. This
theme prompted an opportunity to leverage the principles of Koumi’s Potent
80 Chapter 4: Practice and interviews
Pedagogic Roles for Video (Koumi, 2014) in this project. I perceived that some of
the pedagogic roles that Koumi identified could be embodied in this work to
communicate with, and to enthuse and inspire the student cohort. They could also
demonstrate a different and more interesting way in which the academic team could
use video.
The trajectory of this project more closely resembled the three main phases of
the video production process than the first project:
1. Pre-production phase: meetings, planning, and workshop
2. Production: filming events
3. Post-production: editing, review, and distribution
Pre-production phase: Meetings, planning, and workshop
Initially, the academics had envisaged a single video for this project. However,
they had numerous concepts and pieces of information that they needed to include a
welcome for students to the course; the disciplinary context for each of the three
disciplines; and logistical information about the field trip. They articulated a
significant theme: “that all three disciplines are field-based, and the importance of
field work. They are interconnected – a vital link to establish” (STEM Faculty Earth
Sciences Academic).
I perceived that this theme of the importance of field work could be a strong
motif to conceptually bind separate videos and – applying the Potent Pedagogic
Roles for Video (Koumi, 2014) – that it could also be leveraged to inspire both
student curiosity and interest in both the field trip and the course in general. There
were two challenges: how to condense the many concepts into something students
Chapter 4: Practice and interviews 81
would watch; and to produce the amount of necessary video in the available time and
with the available resources. I noted in my blog:
A single video that contains an introduction to each of the field trip experiments, information about how those experiments translate to the lab activities, and cover off on the logistical considerations… so something in the region of 20-30 mins. I’m already thinking of perhaps four… I’m considering how a video for each experiment might have more use in other contexts, and offsetting the problem of getting students to watch one long video. (Blog Reflection No.2)
The suggestion of making multiple videos prompted an interesting discussion.
The academics discussed their concerns that students would not watch multiple
videos, or that they might need to be directly navigated through them. The
academics suggested having a number of pages with individual videos that the
learners would be forced to click through. The learning designer and myself urged
that increased navigation would make the content just as difficult to reach, as would
one long video that students might not watch. The learning designer added a
valuable consideration that multiple videos in a single page would give clarity to
contextually linking the videos together, as opposed to hiding content behind more
mouse clicks.
This discussion (among the academics, the learning designer, and me) assisted
the academic staff in evaluating the information they wanted to include. Some
concepts were identified as less important, or able to be managed in other content
forms if time did not permit the production of a video. This part of the process
enabled the academics to segment the concepts. This segmentation, in turn, helped
them constrain the content needs for individual videos, and further to begin to
abstractly visualise the videos in their mind. The result was a conceptualisation of the
four videos: one welcome and introduction video for all disciplines; and a separate
video for each of the disciplinary areas. The separate videos explained the specific
experiments that would be conducted on the field trip. Additional videos to cover
82 Chapter 4: Practice and interviews
on-site safety aspects were conceptualised, with a view to producing them if there
was time.
The team decided that the four videos would be created on a day of filming at
the field trip location prior to the trip, and on the day of the trip itself. Any other
content that was needed could be created on campus. The introductory video would
be completed for the beginning of the course, and the remaining videos of discipline-
specific demonstrations would become available to students as a revision tool after
the trip. Writing content for the four videos was the important next step. I suggested
that a Google document would enable the academics to collaboratively write the
script components for all of the videos. It was immediately created and shared with
the team.
I conducted a video-making skills workshop with the academic team, and
demonstrated the technical process of filming, and mobile device controls. It was
conducted inside a meeting room, and this provided less opportunity to explore
composition and framing concerns; nevertheless, the participants developed an
understanding of device controls quite quickly. The capabilities that they started to
build as a result of the workshop made it much easier to describe, explain, and work
through more abstract and/or nuanced aspects of the video-making process in
subsequent planning and production meeting, and on the day of filming.
The STEM Faculty learning designer had some prior experience in creating
video, and so skill development in the workshop covered revision and refinement of
those skills. This left me free to emphasise higher-level production aspects (such as
continuity and sequence construction) in a conceptual way; this, in turn, enabled the
designer to construct an edit in her mind before filming. The learning designer’s
Chapter 4: Practice and interviews 83
accomplished skills were certainly reflected in the recorded vision from the field trip,
which displayed attention to composition, exposure, stability, and continuity.
The pre-trip filming event was scheduled approximately four weeks prior to the
start of the course. Ahead of this event, I met with the project group three times
(including the workshop meeting) in order to design the video content and to plan for
the onsite filming. The academics were encouraged to build script elements in the
Google document. However, by the time of the pre-trip filming, there was only a
script for the introduction video. The academics were very sure of the content of
their experiments and specific locations at the site, and we were resolved to working
through them on location. I felt confident in my ability to, in essence, ‘wing it’ with
these videos; however, I was concerned about how long the process might take.
Production Phase
Figure 8: Mobile devices and audio recording equipment used for the STEM Faculty project
Two iPad kits containing an iPad, tablet tripod mount, tripod, and small
shotgun microphone were borrowed from the institution for use for the pre-trip
filming. I also supplied a professional-grade radio-lapel microphone kit and external
sound recorder, and a newer iPhone (with which I was very familiar) as a video
84 Chapter 4: Practice and interviews
recording device. The audio recording equipment was used specifically to record
high-quality dialogue from the academic presenters, and was significantly more
suited to the task than the microphones supplied with the iPad kits.
The field trip location was a rocky creek bed in a nature reserve, and the
particular day of filming was very hot. The scenes to be filmed involved the
academics in describing biological and geological processes in various areas of the
creek. As they were sometimes separated from each other by a few to ten or more
metres, it was necessary to film across the space, building up shots that would
suggest continuity of action and dialogue.
Throughout the day, I described what I was doing and why. This commentary
clarified the filming process for the academics, and explained how it would translate
into the video output.
I felt like on the day we were in field, you were explaining why you were getting certain shots and what you were trying to do and that was helpful. (STEM Faculty Academic)
This approach was also a very conscious tactic on my part to keep the production
effort moving, in order to complete the filming tasks in the time available at the site.
Both iPad kits and my phone were used extensively to acquire video recordings
and photos; at several points, it was encouraging to see the academics also utilise the
devices to record.
Chapter 4: Practice and interviews 85
Figure 9: Four photographs of participants filming for the STEM Faculty project
At the end of the day, the group was satisfied that we had acquired almost
everything for all of the videos to be edited. One of the academics identified specific
content for their disciplinary segment that would be recorded on the day of the field
trip. Meanwhile, the immediate post-production task was to edit the introductory
video.
Post-production phase
I proceeded to edit sequences for the four videos, concentrating on completing
an edit of the introduction video. With about a week to go before the course started,
I met with the academic team to review the edit. The review highlighted a
significant problem in that I had misinterpreted the structure of the script for the
introduction video.
None of the bits were really in order! It took a little bit of discussion for me to make sense of it from them and we went back and forth looking at the scripted dot points and the video. (Blog reflection No.9)
While I was able to construct a video sequence that seemed (on the face of it)
to have conceptual clarity, in truth, I had not developed adequate content knowledge
86 Chapter 4: Practice and interviews
to interpret the context and build it into the video correctly. Further communication
around the dot point script and the video output was necessary for me to understand
the content accurately, and to bring everyone to the same understanding of the
structure of the video object. We identified that some more dialogue was needed to
fully convey the concepts. In the review session, we revised the dialogue
component, and wrote new material for further recording.
We later re-convened to record these dialogue segments with my external
recorder. Editing of the introductory video then continued, and was completed ahead
of the course start date. This video was hosted in the institution’s video repository,
and delivered to students through the course site in the Learning Management
System.
Figure 10: Four still images from the STEM Faculty field trip introduction video
A few weeks into the course, the field trip was conducted. I was not able to
attend the trip; however, the learning designer attended with an iPad kit to film
further material to supplement the videos in development, and for the remaining
disciplinary segment. By this time, I had nearly completed the editing of the three
Chapter 4: Practice and interviews 87
disciplinary segments, and addition of the field trip material was all that remained to
be done. With the sequences edited, they were shown to the academics for review.
Responses were gathered via email rather than a group meeting. With the
academics’ approval, the videos were hosted, and delivered to the students via the
course website.
Figure 11: Two still images from recordings made by the learning designer
To mark the end of the project, a final interview was conducted with the STEM
Faculty team to document their thoughts on the process of designing and producing
the four videos. The team noted challenges in organising enough time to commit to
the process; they also noted, however, that they learned a great deal about video
making and the design of video-for-learning.
Once you see someone do it, you see what happens. Then you feel … it wasn't something that was horrible. It was just the logistics. Yeah, I know it's not easy but at least … you'd be a lot more inclined to have a go at it. I would never have thought to use iPads and phones to takes videos. I would have assumed you needed … other than home things. (STEM Faculty Support Officer)
This project highlighted several ways in which the capabilities of TPACK were
shared and developed among the participants. In the early planning stages, content,
pedagogy, and technology were all discussed and considered, with input from the
academics, learning designer, and video producer. Both the learning design and
academic participants developed capabilities in video making – capabilities that
translated into a demonstration of those skills in their own filming.
88 Chapter 4: Practice and interviews
A lapse in the video producer’s understanding of the content became apparent
during post-production when a video was edited in the wrong sequence. However,
this was also resolved through discussion of the problem and a sharing of more
knowledge of the content. This misinterpretation of the content by the video
producer was also a capability-building moment for the academics, as they came to
understand the importance of scripting and pre-production.
The academics were hesitant at first to take on a different design for the videos than
they had first envisaged; however, as they built new knowledge from discussions and
the subsequent workshop, a change in their thinking about video-for-learning was
evident (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010). The presence of a video producer to
drive the production effort enabled them to be involved without having to be
responsible for the outcome. This facilitated a freedom to experiment, while still
being assured of an outcome – a significant factor in their adoption of new ideas and
practice for the integration of video-for-learning (Younie & Leask, 2013).
Thus far, we have discussed the production of video-for-learning from the
perspective of academics, learning designers, and a video production professional
through the practice-led component of this research; it is now important to consider
the broader institutional context of producing video-for-learning. To this end, the
next section incorporates responses from the academic and learning design
participants, the support staff in the institution, and elements of the reflective
practice, to reveal the affordances, challenges, and expectations of these different
stakeholders in the process of creating video-for-learning in a Higher Education
institution.
Chapter 4: Practice and interviews 89
4.2 Institutional context: Support for video-for-learning
A number of interviews were conducted with the participants of the previously
described practice-led component of the project, and with a number of other
individuals across the university who contributed directly to enabling the use of
videos-for-learning. A thematic analysis was used to interrogate the data collected
from the various interviews and reflections captured in the researcher’s blog posts. It
is useful to define the structure of video support within this institution, and to thereby
contextualise the practice of video making in Higher Education Institutions more
broadly.
As previously noted, the site for this research was a Queensland Higher
Education Institution located in a large metropolitan centre. Within this institution,
there are a number of avenues for video and technology support available to
academic teaching staff; professional, administrative and technical staff; and
students. There are also academics and professional staff making videos of their own
accord, without necessarily leveraging the available institutional support. As a part
of my work in producing video and supporting others to produce video, I often
engage with other personnel in support areas, and with staff who are making their
own videos. In this collaboration, we leverage each other’s resourcing, capacity, and
networks. Importantly, there is also knowledge sharing, ideation, and shared
understanding of how we operate within the institution, and more importantly, how
we could operate in supporting video-for-learning. The different ways in which
these various video support avenues function, continue to influence my own practice.
Figure 12 below charts the organisational structure of the institution, and places
the interviewees within this hierarchy.
90 Chapter 4: Practice and interviews
Figure 12: Placement of interviewees in the institutional support structure
The academic and learning designer participants from the two (previously
described) projects were interviewed before and after their particular video-making
activities. The questions that formed the basis for these semi-structured interviews
are outlined in Appendixes A and B. Four academics and two learning designers
took part in the practice-led projects: one academic from the Faculty of Education,
supported by a centrally provisioned learning designer; and three academics from the
Faculty of STEM, supported by one centrally provisioned learning designer. Their
activities in the process of making video-for-learning are described in previous
sections of this chapter.
A further five interviews were conducted with staff from the main areas of the
institution that are responsible for learning and teaching support, where video is an
element of that support. The questions that formed the basis for these semi-
structured interviews are outlined in Appendix C. The interviewees were identified
based on my understanding of, and familiarity with the organisational hierarchy of
the institution. Interviewees with specific roles were chosen so that we could cover
the main video support areas as comprehensively as possible. They were:
Chapter 4: Practice and interviews 91
• Service Manager for a central Media Production Support unit (Service
Manager)
• Director/Producer for a Central Media Production support unit
(Director/Producer)
• Two Learning Designers from a central Learning and Teaching Support unit
(Central Learning Designer)
• Learning Designer from a Faculty Learning and Teaching Support team
(Faculty Learning Designer)
• Two Team Leaders from a central Audio/Visual Support unit (Audio/Visual
Technical Support)
The interviews were designed to elicit responses that particularly addressed
Research Question 1:
• What are the typical processes for video production for learning and teaching
in a Higher Education Institution?
However, much of the discussion relating to processes provided insight into
aspects of the other research questions:
• How might collaborative, agile production methods be used for creating
video-for-learning in Higher Education?
• In the collaborative, agile video production process, how are the various
capability sets represented, and how do the various capabilities and resources
come together during that process?
A number of staff highlighted efficiencies afforded by the use of video in a
number of dimensions. The learning designers, both central and faculty, recognised
92 Chapter 4: Practice and interviews
the ability of video to condense and refine content; to funnel attention for students,
and thus save them time; to change the way that educators spend their time with
students; and to provide structure for revision. The learning designers identified the
flipped and blending strategies in the use of video as being important and useful:
I think video can be a very efficient way of communicating content… but I think it can also help to engage or inspire… you can also add or enhance interest and engage students with the material that they’d miss if they were just reading it in a book. (Faculty Learning Designer interview)
So, instead of having to read 20-30 pages of an article, an academic can very quickly give a two to three minute precis of it. I find that it’s something that actually engages them. (Central Learning Designer interview)
The Producer/Director emphasised the strength of the medium in visually
communicating concepts, and enriching the learning experience. This notion was
shared by the Audio/Visual technical support staff who recognised that when visually
communicating, video works better than slides with audio. They also believed that
presentation by a person and moving images was more effective.
The notion of ‘fit for purpose’ was a forefront consideration for learning
designers and support staff in the institution. Hand-in-hand with this was their
growing recognition of the usefulness of mobile devices as an important tool to
support the process of video making. They highlighted that the quality of mobile
devices is more than adequate for video-for-learning: “It’s on computer screens, it’s
on phones and devices, it’s not on televisions and that’s a really big difference”
(Central Learning Designer; Faculty of Education interview). They all work towards
achieving an appropriate level of production to convey the needed message in order
to constrain production time, cost, and effort.
Building the capabilities around video is also very important to all of the video
support avenues. For example, learning designers are always conscious of finding
ways to build their academic clients’ digital literacies, and to involve them across the
Chapter 4: Practice and interviews 93
production process. The Media Production Support Service has capability building as
an aspect of its remit, and it has become a core part of their strategies and processes.
4.2.1 What are the existing processes for video support and production?
Interviewees highlighted several avenues and strategies for making and using
video in learning and teaching in the institution, including making videos themselves.
Both Audio/Visual Technical Support and the Media Production Support Service
operate primarily on a cost recovery model, where organisational areas within the
university are charged for their services. Audio/Visual Technical Support outlines
their support as encompassing “multiple roles, in our core business of teaching and
learning” (Audio/Visual Technical Support interview). For example, lecture
recording for multiple purposes, live streaming, and promotional/specialised
production tasks are mentioned as activities within their remit.
The production staff who are available to academics through the Media
Production Support Unit, are industry-experienced professionals with expertise
across the gamut of production processes. They can conceptualise video objects
through “the more creative elements such as, you know, scripting, visual ideas, how
to construct the audio” (Producer/Director interview). They are also skilled in the
logistical organisation of production “getting the best crew together, and basically
scheduling things and making things happen at the right time and on the budget”
(Producer/Director interview).
An important distinction in the Media Production Support remit is described by
the Service Manager:
There was a lot of consideration taken into whether it was going to be media production support, or media production and support. The ‘and’ part is actually quite important because it helps to denote that there's more to the service than just creating assets. The support part can be implied as creating support for asset creation, but also, generically, support for digital literacy upskilling.
94 Chapter 4: Practice and interviews
So that, in itself, can stand alone from project specific support. Someone can come to our service and engage with us without having to have a specific video requirement for it. (Service Manager interview)
In the Media Production Support Service, there is particular emphasis on
involving the learning designer as part of the process, in order to establish the best
pedagogic intent for the video objects. This emphasis is based on the recognition of
the fact that building the pedagogic capabilities of both the professional producers
and the academics is ongoing. A strategic change has seen the implementation of a
tiered support model that categorises three levels of support for video making for
learning and teaching purposes. This model comprises:
Tier 1: do-it-yourself, mobile device/bring-your-own-device, capability and
skill-building services
Tier 2: provision of learning design support and a professional video
production camera person/editor with professional-grade equipment, to produce a
video for a specific course code at no cost to the academic or faculty
Tier 3: (at cost) comprehensive production capability with professional
equipment and team, including producer, camera operator, audio technician, video
editor
This strategy is designed to make the Media Production Service more available
to the teaching staff of the institution, and to address new concerns such as “the scale
of economy of production value, and what did fit-for-purpose really mean for
academics who were coming to us” (Service Manager interview). The tier support
system has created a much higher level of engagement with video across the
institution, and “momentum is being built up, but also sustainability out of what
we're doing” (Service Manager interview). This institutional strategy has also shifted
Audio/Visual Technical Support emphasis towards the provision of infrastructural
Chapter 4: Practice and interviews 95
support for automated lecture recording, bespoke lecture presentation recording, and
hardware support.
Prior to the implementation of these new strategies, some faculties, which felt
that centrally provisioned support had been inadequate, had developed a different
support model. The faculty learning designer now relies less on central support, and
is less likely to bring central media production support into the process. Rather, even
now that the new strategies are in place, they are doing more themselves. From their
perspective, this is because “there’s a belief that the support works best when it’s
embedded in the faculty, there’s quite a lot of trust” (Faculty Learning Designer
interview). While the faculty might not have the weight of support options or
resources, it has possibly gained a support capability that is much more suited to their
specific needs.
What do they need to do to make that happen? Who can they turn to? Probably isn’t going to be the (central support) person who’s here for one day a week and who’s dealing with five other Faculties and can only really give them an hour or so. It’s the person who’s just around the corner or at the end of the phone, just upstairs who will see it through. (Faculty Learning Designer interview)
Learning designers are often the first point of contact that academics have in
working out whether to use video; their appraisal of ‘fit-for-purpose’ might have a lot
to do with whether they help the academics themselves, or whether they involve
professional video-making support.
You direct the academic into the way you think things should go when they contact you. If an academic came to me and said ‘I need the whole shebang’ I’d ask why? What are you doing with the video, who ‘s seeing it, where is it being displayed… questioning it. (Central Learning Designer; Faculty of Education interview)
Both central and in-faculty learning designers also design and produce videos,
performing all of the same tasks that professional video producers do:
Supporting course design and conceiving of video components, and then creating videos as well, exhibiting all of the production process, pre-prod and
96 Chapter 4: Practice and interviews
scripting, storyboarding, meeting, filming, and editing – self-taught for the most part. (Central Learning Designer interview)
They acquire these capabilities because it is expected “from doing and learning on
the job… it’s all come out of necessity” (Central Learning Designer interview).
4.2.2 Technology, Pedagogy and Content Knowledge capabilities
Interviewees were not asked to directly address the TPACK framework
(Koehler, 2012) in the context of their work; however, they were asked questions
relating to the skills and capabilities they exhibited in the video-making process.
Most understood the need for technological, content, and pedagogic expertise in the
process, and had tried to strategise these three elements in their approach. For
example, built into the Media Production Support multi-tiered approach is the
building of academics’ capability to produce video themselves, or the involvement of
a learning designer in the design process if the academic directly approaches Media
Production Support.
Media Production Support options at Tier 1 – that is, do-it-yourself, mobile
device/bring-your-own-device capability and skill-building services – enable
academics and learning design staff to produce their own video, and to build personal
skills in the area. These skills then make it possible for professional support staff to
work more effectively with them in further production in Tier 2 and 3 . Learning
designers are constantly upskilling themselves to handle both technological and
pedagogic capabilities in implementing this model.
The Producer/Director specifically notes his capability in “joining the dots with
language that can communicate” (Producer/Director interview), and in articulating
content from the educator’s perspective. However, he also notes that he relies on the
content capability of academics and the pedagogic capability of the learning
designers to come to an understanding of “what’s important and what’s not important
Chapter 4: Practice and interviews 97
to the actual learning” (Producer/Director interview). Here, the Producer/Director is
recognising the gap in his Pedagogic Content Knowledge – a gap that is filled by the
expertise of the educators and learning designer.
The Faculty Learning Designer highlights the importance of applying both
technical and pedagogic knowledge to support the academics in creating valuable
resources, and the fact that deficiencies in these areas lead to poor results. Video
expertise that does not have the “hat on from the teaching side wouldn’t be able to sit
down with an academic who can’t quite see it themselves to get them there” (Faculty
Learning Designer interview). Conversely, “All the technical competence in the
world but it might never actually get that done because if the academic can’t supply
all of that (pedagogy) then the product won’t do the job it’s required” (Faculty
Learning Designer interview).
Effective communication among all individuals is critical for the process to
work well. As exemplified in the STEM Faculty project described earlier, a gap in
clarity of communication lead to a misinterpretation of the content at the post-
production stage. Thus, the effectiveness of the communication among the various
participants in this process might be the most important factor in determining how
well issues such as this might be resolved.
As a part of their role, learning designers engage a significant amount of both
technological pedagogic capability, and the ability to accurately and effectively
interpret and work with content. In other words, they succinctly embody and
illustrate the core notions of the TPACK framework. The hierarchy of support within
the institution for Central Learning Design and Media Production Support fosters the
development of these TPACK capabilities. It does this through a remit of production
98 Chapter 4: Practice and interviews
and support, and by enabling both learning designers and production staff to work
together in providing support to academics and other university staff.
4.2.3 Perceived problems and gaps in existing media production support models
The support network individuals interviewed provided a number of different
perspectives on the biggest challenges for producing video-for-learning. Their
different areas of support are beholden to their remits as they understand them, and to
their own appraisal of the important aspects of the learning and teaching process.
The Audio/Visual Support staff perceived the duplication of services as a problem,
and that this duplication leads to inconsistencies with quality, branding, and technical
upkeep. They observed that their role blurs with IT support, and that this blurring
creates difficulties in terms of who provides what support.
There’s a big confusion about IT and the IT guys tend to be more process based whereas the AV people are a bit more creative. We’re all technology support officers but some of the IT guys don’t think it’s in that side of it.
And then some of the AV guys don’t think it’s their job either but they learn to adapt and change. You know we’re all about learning and teaching, that’s why we exist, so there shouldn’t be any confusion about what we’re supposed to do to help. (Audio/Visual Technical Support interview)
The learning designers and academics both observed the limitations of time –
for the former to work on quality resources, and for the latter to be a part of the
process as well. Academic participants in the practical research projects noted that
time limitations affected their ability to be involved in the video-making process in
different ways. The Faculty of Education academic believed that smooth, easy-to-
manage processes that could be personally undertaken were key to saving time.
Meanwhile, the ability to have professional experts join them for the video-making
process was a strong time-saving measure for the STEM Faculty team. The faculty
learning designer further recognised the inability of central support to adequately
cover the broader university, hence embedding the need for faculty support.
Chapter 4: Practice and interviews 99
(The Media Production Support unit) would do an amazing job but it needs to be done in a week and it needs to be done on no budget. They get me for free. So I feel I let the Faculty down a little bit in that way. I don’t think my Faculty is adequately equipped to keep up with demand on that front. I find myself having to say “no” or “not now” probably more than I’d like to. (Faculty Learning Designer interview)
The Central Learning Designers recognised some challenges when engaging
Media Production Support. This is because the use of higher-level production
processes can create a tension between quality and fit-for-purpose:
I do understand that the guys from (Media Production Support) that’s their profession, they are professional film-makers so they’re used to working in that environment whereas our academics are not professionals. It would add more quality to what we’re doing...
But I also find too that it does take away because if they’re doing the editing, they don’t understand necessarily the context.
The academics want to get in and do it and be finished; they don’t want to do it one more time with more feeling, “Let’s try it again. Let’s try a different angle” – they just want no fuss, “Just get in, get me done” and get out of there because they’re very time-poor. (Central Learning Designer interview)
The Producer/Director observed a number of challenges from a production
standpoint. Often, the expectations of their academic clients must be managed and
modified for a successful result:
Obviously, the amount of material to be made in a period of time with a limited amount of resources is difficult. But the worst thing we could do is to go and have one meeting with our client and they describe a basic scenario, and we just turn up and execute filming what they think. What I think is most important is that time of pre-production, getting an understanding of what (is) key. (Producer/Director interview)
The Producer/Director also perceived a problem in having too many
stakeholders, and thus limiting the possibility of effectively communicating during
the project:
If you manage to get into that one-on-one relationship with… might be two or three people involved in that other side and you can get them to the table, then they get it and they understand it. But when it starts to split off into four or five different departments and numbers of people that’s involved...
So, that’s where the real battle is for me, when the committees get involved in the writing of the scripts, and no understanding of how that’s going to work out in a video. (Producer/Director interview)
100 Chapter 4: Practice and interviews
4.3 Summary
The practice and interviews described in this chapter reveal a number of ways
in which academics, learning designers, and professional video production or
audio/visual support staff work together to produce video-for-learning in a Higher
Education Institution. Considering the ‘agile’ approach to the two projects outlined
in this chapter, video objects that were inexpensive to produce compared to a
conventional video production process were successfully created and used in
teaching, but equally the participants also gained new capabilities and confidence
with video. A conventional video production process may not afford the space for
non-production staff to build new capabilities and understanding about using and
creating video if it is not consciously built in to that process. Applying the principles
of TPACK (Koehler, 2012) and the agile, mobile-based production approach
allowed for the structuring of a workflow and design process that enabled the growth
of capabilities and confidence as well as the successful creation of the video objects
themselves. The capabilities in content, pedagogy, and technological video expertise
among the participants were applied in these projects to produce an outcome for
learning.
The TPACK framework (Koehler, 2012) has been a useful lens through which
to consider the application of these capabilities in producing video-for-learning. It is
interesting to observe that a consideration of TPACK’s areas can also be reflected in
the organisation of support structures in higher education institutions. These
knowledge areas and capabilities might reside with various individual staff in
different organisational areas; nevertheless, the collaboration of all areas in the
structure fosters the development of all three knowledge areas in the individual.
Chapter 4: Practice and interviews 101
The next chapter, Findings, expands upon the themes revealed through this
interview and practice evidence.
Chapter 5: Findings 103
Chapter 5: Findings
This chapter synthesises the findings emerging from the discussion in previous
chapters, which addressed the research question at the centre of this research project.
The three themes that have emerged from the practical component and the thematic
analysis of the interviews are discussed first. These three themes are: 1)
technological issues relating to mobile technologies and agile production methods; 2)
the role of the video producer as technological expert when working with content and
pedagogic expertise in Higher Education Institutions (in relation to the TPACK
framework); and 3) the time tension related to work in Higher Education Institutions,
and the continuous development of new technology. This synthesis is followed by a
summary of broader findings relating to the research questions posed at the
beginning of the thesis.
5.1 Mobile technologies and agile production
The project found that irrespective of mobility or agility in the video-making
process, paring back too much of the pre-production phase negatively impacts upon a
streamlined process for video-making. The pre-production phase is the time to
research and develop the idea, and to prepare for every aspect of the filming process
(Irving, 2006). Decisions made in this phase are the most important for the whole
production process to achieve a successful outcome. Resourcing and capabilities
might be more easily quantified in the Higher Education environment, as one is
leveraging existing support structures, personnel, and equipment. Communication
among participants, however, is critical in the pre-production phase to ensure that the
104 Chapter 5: Findings
subsequent phases are executed in a way that is expected, and are designed for
producing effective video-for-learning objects.
It is important to recognise the benefits of the use of mobile devices for video
making, and to play to the strengths of these tools. There is both advantages and
compromises to be had when using mobile devices. It is possible to use them to
record material that is comparable to the quality of more professional tools, and it
can be quite fast and agile to do so. If little video editing is required, that aspect of
post-production can also be uncomplicated. However, at the same time, more
complicated production needs can reduce the efficiencies that mobile devices
provide.
Mobile device applications on touch-screen devices do not have the precise
controls that desktop software applications do, and it is therefore necessary to
transfer video files recorded on mobile devices to a computer for post-production.
Computers certainly have the processing power and software to perform complex
editing operations on the footage; however, the codecs used in mobile device
recordings – that is, the algorithmic compression software used to reduce file size –
can produce an editing bottleneck. Video editing effects, and layering of multiple
tracks of video, can cause the CPU to work much harder to process the video, and
lead to greatly increased time to edit and render the footage.
An example of a complex edit that created a bottleneck became apparent when
editing footage for the STEM Faculty field trip video. Colour correction tools were
used to brighten the exposure of the presenter and other subject matter, and to
minimise the distraction of other over-exposed areas in order to focus viewer
attention on important parts of the frame. This process was a combination of
Chapter 5: Findings 105
duplicating layers of footage and masking off certain areas in order to separately
control the image properties.
Figure 13: Use of multiple video layers to control the image quality of separate areas of the frame
Creating the multiple layers and mattes with separated colour and exposure
corrections dramatically slowed the editing process, as the capability of the computer
hardware was fully consumed. Compared to industry-standard video codecs such as
Apple ProRes 422, the MPEG-based compression of mobile device H.264 video
(Mantel, 2018) is much harder for the CPU to process in real time. Playback slowed
to the point where it was not possible to watch the sequence without rendering first,
and this added a great deal of time to the editing process.
A detailed understanding of video editing and digital video can make it
possible to work through the difficulties highlighted in this example. Staff will not
always operate at a professional level to infuse complex editing practice into their
video making. Nevertheless, hardware and software nuances and limitations can still
impact upon workflows in post-production, and make it difficult to achieve results.
106 Chapter 5: Findings
Using higher-grade equipment to begin with might have yielded as good a result,
without adding to the editing workflow. The decision to do these visual fixes was
not playing to the strengths of the medium, and it could be argued that, in terms of its
impact on the final product, it was not worth the effort and time. Complex scene and
shot construction that require specialised filmmaking equipment to achieve might not
be suitable for capture on a mobile device. If the production deems equipment-heavy
activity is worth it for the kinds of footage to be captured, then it is also worth
changing to a higher-grade camera.
The affordances of the mobile device as a video-making tool must be a valued
part of the consideration of a fit-for-purpose strategy that Higher Education
Institutions employ. Designing video-learning objects should necessarily consider
what content is worthy of a video, and what a particular video will contribute to the
learning experience. It is in that framing, that the affordance of the technology
becomes apparent.
Technological capability for creating video aside, a mode by which academics
and staff can build capabilities in the fundamentals of video is another significant
affordance of mobile devices. These tools are easy to learn to use, and nearly
everyone has one. Increasingly, academics and staff are required to build capabilities
with technologies and to apply them in their teaching; however, they do not always
have the requisite time to build these capabilities, or to experiment with, and test
what really works for them. Mobile devices can be a simple tool for staff to make
uncomplicated videos quickly and easily, and can help to lower overheads for
experimentation and capability building.
Chapter 5: Findings 107
5.2 The role of video producer as ‘Technology’ expert
In the context of examining the TPACK capabilities, it is apparent from this
research that technological capability alone is an advantage for the video producer in
supporting staff in Higher Education. While it is not feasible for video producers to
become content experts in various disciplines, they can acquire the skills to draw out
the academic’s content knowledge for transfer to audio/visual mode. The strength of
the video producer is in shaping a narrative, in a filmmaking sense, to best
communicate a concept. It is not enough to know the mechanics and controls of the
equipment and the processes of recording and editing video.
The TPACK framework (Koehler, 2012) best signifies the range of capabilities
required for the production of video-for-learning. It encompasses knowledge of the
capabilities and affordances of technology as it is used in learning and teaching, and
the knowledge that teaching can change through its use (Mishra & Koehler, 2006).
The incorporation of the technological knowledge of video production within
learning frameworks is hugely beneficial in interpreting content in pedagogically
appropriate and contextually accurate ways. The Faculty Learning Designer
interviewed noted the value of individuals with TPK capabilities:
So might be there’s a need for that person who embodies both skill sets, amazing. Hire that person. But having just the video expertise, might be embedded in one person and then having input from someone from T&L (teaching and learning) to support the academic in … figuring out exactly what would work best for the students, might be that’s another person. (Faculty Learning Designer interview)
A key component of making the most of the video producer’s technological
expertise in this educational context is communication. Clarity of communication
around intent, purpose, and logistics among all stakeholders in a project maximises
success and helps alleviate problems. The video producer might also need to balance
the amount of technological capability they are contributing to the process and the
108 Chapter 5: Findings
amount they are trying to foster in the academics and the learning designers they are
working with.
The growth of new capabilities for video is part of educators’ professional
development, and is a process of learning and relearning (Younie & Leask, 2013).
There is a balance to be struck in this development in the face of educators’ complex
obstacles in terms of time, resourcing, and more importantly, their pedagogic belief
systems. In this project, the Faculty of Education academic was very self-motivated
in her use of video technology, and the video producer was involved at a comfortable
level that maintained the speed and direction of the project’s progress. The STEM
Faculty team, however, required much greater involvement of the video producer,
and the project was driven from that capability base.
5.3 The tension with time
Academics and educators in modern institutions have competing priorities for
their available time (Younie & Leask, 2013). In this project, most of the support
staff and all of the academics who took part in, or were interviewed with regard to
the project noted their limited time as a factor in their capacity to produce video, or
to learn how to produce it. The process of video making is inherently time-
consuming. Time is referred to frequently in guides for video and film production as
a key consideration: saving time to save money; organising time so that all parts of
the process can be achieved; or doing the activities in the right order (Burrows, 2001;
Newton & Gaspard, 2001; Rea & Irving, 2015).
Video production is also something that almost assumes that multiple people
will be involved –from a few at the minimum on low-budget productions (Artis,
Chapter 5: Findings 109
2008), to perhaps hundreds for full productions (Wales, 2005). While it is possible
to achieve a great deal and produce complete videos as a lone operator, it will nearly
always be at the expense of taking more time. In this project, an academic
participant had the confidence to attempt video making on their own; however, this
was time-consuming as it required alternating between camera set-ups and featuring
in the recordings, and extra time to research processes such as video editing with
which she had no experience.
Time has a further impact on the long-term usefulness of video-for-learning.
In the contemporary university context, where contract staff are more commonplace,
and there is increasing pressure to meet the needs of diverse cohorts both on- and
offline, the access to technology is both a blessing and a curse. Flipped classroom
models and continued technology integration into the learning experience take the
same level of investment in terms of time and resources, but with an expectation that
time savings come later. Video-for-learning objects might be re-usable, but they
might only prove to be efficient if they are used a minimum number of times.
Therefore, it is necessary to scope video design, taking into consideration whether
the output expectations justify the production effort. Video objects might be
produced at a high level for a long life of reuse, or for use in other contexts, with a
cumulative saving of time over the long term. They can also be produced with very
little effort, time, and resourcing, to be used only once in a very limited context.
The last thing to note about time is that new technologies continue to be
developed, and excitement is built around the learning opportunities they afford.
New technologies and ideas appear so rapidly that people adopt them before fully
realising the potential of past technologies. An example of this occurred during the
timeframe of this research project. The consumer market has been flooded with 360
110 Chapter 5: Findings
degree cameras that provide new ways of producing substantive high-quality video
experiences through inexpensive and easy-to-use devices. They are a ‘hyped’
technology, in much the same way that mobile devices and tablets have been in the
recent past (Hogue, 2013). In my role at the institution, I have already been involved
in multiple projects utilising 360 video as a learning resource, while at the same time
completing this focused investigation into producing standard video objects.
While 360 degree video is still in a phase of significant discovery, the format is
recognised as having great potential for education and science (Geduldick, 2016),
and particularly for journalism (Miller, 2016). It is not the same as Virtual Reality
(VR), but is a gateway step to virtual reality production, as it is considerably cheaper
and easier to produce than VR experiences (Miller, 2017).
Even before considering its potential for use in the learning context, 360 degree
video presents a number of new and unique technological challenges to production.
However, Higher Education Institutions are still exploring the use of standard video
in pedagogically effective ways. The fact that the continued development of new
technologies cannot be slowed, only emphasises the continued need to evaluate the
use of video and other technologies for the unique pedagogic affordances they can
provide, in concert with robust theoretical learning frameworks.
5.4 Revisiting the research questions
At the initiation of this research project, I sought to address the following
question:
Chapter 5: Findings 111
How can academics, learning designers and video producers align
pedagogical theory and principles of both agile and more formal video production,
to produce suitable videos to achieve curriculum aims?
The inquiry was framed around three sub-questions, which are now addressed.
5.4.1 What are the typical processes for video production for learning and teaching in a Higher Education Institution?
The research affirmed that video making in Higher Education Institutions
occurs at various production levels, with a number of different capabilities. The
exploration of activities within the specific Queensland metropolitan Higher
Education Institution lends context to, and often parallels, the evidence of video
making in other institutions, as discussed in the Literature Review. Professional
video producers support academics and learning designers with video production at
the site institution, and this is reflected in the literature, particularly with regards to
MOOCs (Bombardieri, 2014; Hansch et al., 2015; Hollands & Tirthali, 2014;
Morrison, 2014a).
In the research site institution, the coordination of learning design and media
production support that was observed, and that provided academics with both video-
production capability and pedagogic capability at different production levels, was
encouraging. However, academics and learning designers are themselves also
conducting the entire process of video making, building new capabilities –
sometimes from scratch (Howitt & Pegrum, 2015; Lawler, 2016; Waters, 2011).
This was observed in, and noted by academics and learning designers who
participated in this research. Institutions work towards providing support for their
staff to make their own videos, and mobile devices are increasingly popular as the
112 Chapter 5: Findings
tool of choice (Littlefield & Hutton, 2015; "Mobile Device Video Production,"
2018), a strategy also used in the site institution.
5.4.2 How might collaborative, agile production methods be used for creating video-for-learning in Higher Education?
This research demonstrated that agile approaches to production methods are
possible in the context of the creation of video-for-learning. The combination of the
technological, pedagogical, and content capabilities working collaboratively supports
the streamlining of processes and methods to produce video. Design can allow for
DIY approaches and the use of lower-level production mobile device tools, while
still achieving good production quality and successful outcomes for video-for-
learning. An important element for enabling streamlined approaches is the pre-
production phase. This is the most important phase for design; it should not be
glossed over in an effort to be agile and efficient. A rigorous pre-production phase
allows for efficiencies across the other phases of production.
A high level of communication between stakeholders and participants, and an
emphasis on building capability in all three of the knowledge areas defined by
TPACK, enables a shared understanding of expectations and outcomes with video.
Workshops and experimentation as a means of capability building aid in the
development of capabilities in such a way as to take non-professionals on the journey
of discovery, as opposed to imposing on them a template of formal production
processes that can overwhelm them.
The development of lecturers’ ICT capabilities through the easy use of mobile
devices has demonstrated the usefulness of these devices for learning. The devices
also reduce anxiety in the adoption of new ICT skills (Mac Callum & Jeffrey, 2014).
In a similar way, making video with mobile devices is considerably less complex
Chapter 5: Findings 113
than with higher-end production equipment. Mobile technologies allow academics to
build a stronger appreciation for the complex nature of video as a medium, and the
affordance it might have for them in delivering a learning experience.
5.4.3 In the collaborative, agile video-production process, how are the capability sets of academics, learning designers and video producers represented, and how do their various capabilities and resources come together during the production of video-for-learning?
In addressing the previous two questions, the three capability areas of content,
pedagogy, and technology are noted as key elements in developing video-for-
learning. The TPACK framework (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) offers a strong lens
through which to examine the capabilities applied in designing video-for-learning.
In Higher Education Institutions, the three knowledge areas are commonly
represented by different people in different organisational areas. How these different
capabilities can come together for design is dependent upon the academics’ access to
pedagogical and technological support; the institutional strategy for structuring those
support avenues; professional development opportunities for staff; and the strength
of networks among fellow staff members across the institution.
Communication between academics and staff, who have very busy and varied
workloads, is a key element in how these capabilities interact in the process of design
and production. The capacity to engage with the process of video making is different
for all. Being responsive to the knowledge levels of the participants, and the needs
of the design. is vital to achieve a result. Therefore, effective communication among
all parties is essential.
In this project, there were a number of ways in which individual participants
developed new capabilities outside of their area of knowledge. This illustrated a
shared application of their TPACK knowledge. In the STEM Faculty project, the
114 Chapter 5: Findings
video producer sourced content knowledge from the academics in order to perform
the video-editing component; meanwhile, the academics and learning designer
developed capabilities in filmmaking, ultimately recording their own photos and
video during the production phase. Similarly, in the Faculty of Education project,
the academic developed technological capabilities in mobile device video recording
and computer -based video editing in order to produce her own videos.
The development of capabilities reflected the way in which staff are required to
learn extra skills from relevant experts to effectively facilitate student learning with
technology (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010). The collaborative aspect,
however, is more than simply the professional development of TPACK capabilities
among the group. The design of video learning resources that effectively
communicate content, match a learning outcome through pedagogical consideration,
and are successfully produced through the application of video-making technologies
is a shared endeavour to which the three groups of knowledge experts contribute.
5.5 Summary
In this research project, the ‘complex interplay’ (Benson & Ward, 2013; Loo et
al., 2013) that exists between content, pedagogy, and technology has been explored
in the making of video-for-learning. First, the practice of video making undertaken
with academics and learning design participants resulted in video-for-learning
objects that were incorporated into courses. Second, the interviews with staff across
the institution revealed a number of ways in which various support structures work
together to develop video-for-learning.
Chapter 5: Findings 115
The themes and findings discussed in this chapter call for appropriate and
flexible application of the knowledge areas of technology, pedagogy, and content, as
defined in the TPACK framework (Koehler, 2012). They also indicate the need for
careful consideration of the time resource in order to achieve successful video-
production outcomes, and to develop new capabilities with video and pedagogy.
Finally, they call for a more nuanced appreciation of the affordances of mobile
technologies and streamlined approaches to production – approaches that are based
on capability with the technology, and resource levels that are fit-for-purpose
imperatives in Higher Education Institutions.
The next and final chapter Conclusion provides further insight into video-for-
learning and its production processes, and identifies issues for possible future
research.
Chapter 6: Conclusion 117
Chapter 6: Conclusion
In this last chapter, some key recommendations are presented. These
recommendations synthesise the observations, data, and literature that emerged from
this project. Future research considerations are also discussed.
Academics, learning designers, and video producers must clearly align
pedagogical theory, and principles of video production – both agile and more formal
– to produce suitable videos that achieve curriculum aims. The interplay between
academics and content, learning designers and pedagogy, and video producers and
technology is a complex and dynamic one (Benson & Ward, 2013). Content,
pedagogy, and technology must be given equal importance in the design of video-
learning objects where they are to achieve curriculum aims.
This research was initiated from the observation that the strengths of the video
medium were not yet well understood in the Higher Education context and, as a
result, not well incorporated into the design of video-for-learning. However, the
emphasis became much more about the importance of the knowledge domains that
are critical in the design of video objects to genuinely leverage those affordances –
knowledge of content, pedagogy, and technology – than the affordances themselves.
Further investigation into how those knowledge domains and expertise interact
within other Higher Education Institutions could contribute more towards effective
models for the arrangement of video-making support in learning and teaching
contexts.
The following key principles for the design of video-for-learning emerged as a
result of consideration of the three knowledge domains of the TPACK framework,
and the observations, data, and literature that have been documented in this research.
118 Chapter 6: Conclusion
Content principles
• Design around the broad context and concepts, and then branch into specifics
• Determine whether the content’s context and concepts are actually
strengthened by being presented in video form
• Thoroughly resolve the video content to ensure that it is all relevant to the
intended audience
Pedagogic principles
• Frame the content in ways that ensure that the context and concepts are
strengthened by the use of video
• Consider how the video fits with other elements of the learning experience
• Exploit the presentational features of the video medium to emphasise
meaning making, and to structure and scaffold the learning (Koumi, 2014)
• Apply a learner-centred approach that considers the intended audience: where
they are; how they watch; and what they need
Technology principles
• Evaluate the level of video production required for the expected reach, use,
and impact of the video or videos to be produced
• Emphasise the audio/visual strengths of the video medium: Present the
content in a way that ‘shows’ rather than ‘tells’
• Plan in detail: Robust planning is the strongest way to ensure a successful
outcome, and to afford the potential for a video to transcend the sum of its
Chapter 6: Conclusion 119
parts — that is, to communicate effectively and create impact regardless of
the level of production
A number of additional factors related to the design of video-learning objects
have been noted throughout this document. Where a full discussion of these factors is
beyond the scope the enquiry, they are noted as areas for further research. The
constitution of video-for-learning beyond type, such as in Figures 1, 2 and 3 for
example, should be considered in future research. Detail of the affordances of the
medium and their value to the design process are articulated in video and technology
specific frameworks such as Koumi’s Potent Pedagogic Roles for Video (Koumi,
2014), and Laurillard’s Conversational Framework (Laurillard, 2002). Combining
the themes of these frameworks with the broader themes of contemporary learning
frameworks such as Constructivism (Ertmer & Newby, 2013) and Connectivism
(Siemens, 2004) and blended and online learning more broadly (Ash, 2012; Gedik,
Kiraz, & Ozden, 2013) might reveal yet more insights into the design of video-for-
learning.
Another consideration for future research is video’s role among a range of on-
and offline learning resources. Its potential for reuse can also be considered in a
broader scope than an individual course. A singular video can be classified as a
‘multimedia learning object’: one of many types of digital and non-digital entities
“which can be used, re-used or referenced during technology supported learning”
((Wiley, 2011). Wiley cites a tension between the size of a learning object and its
potential for reuse (Wiley et al., 2000). This is not so much about ‘physical’ size,
duration, or length, as it is about the size of the context (McGee, 2003). The more
granular an object, the more there are contexts in which it can be reused. The larger
an object, the less it is likely to be reused, or used in other contexts. This presents an
120 Chapter 6: Conclusion
interesting conundrum for the design of video, where design is commonly focused on
supplementing a specific course. Video production is generally so intensive that
there is a tendency to make it as contextually replete and as standalone as possible,
thus harming its reuse in other contexts. The way in which to incorporate this
consideration into content, pedagogic, and technological design elements is a
worthwhile future exploration.
Another aspect beyond the scope of this research project is the effectiveness of
video-for-learning objects and their production. It is academically accepted that use
of video has a positive impact on the learning experience (de Boer, 2013; Heijstra &
Sigurðardóttir, 2017; Howitt & Pegrum, 2015; Witton, 2016). However, the
measurement of the effectiveness of video-for-learning is dependent on a range of
variables. For example, different videos are more, or less, useful in different
contexts. Therefore, evaluating effectiveness in terms of the type of object is not as
insightful as evaluating the context of their use and creation (Littlejohn, Falconer, &
Mcgill, 2008).
The findings from this research contribute to knowledge in the broad fields of
teaching, learning, and technology in Higher Education and, more specifically, to the
area of video-for-learning. They provide insights into the professional and
institutional processes and policies that support video production; into the ways in
which Higher Education Institutions can be more responsive to student needs; into
institutional resourcing; and into the ever-evolving role that video plays in the
educational process.
Bibliography 121
Bibliography
Aleckson, J. D., & Ralston-Berg, P. (2011). MindMeld: Micro-Collaboration between eLearning designers and instructor experts: Atwood Pub.
Alexander, G. (2016). PSSC Films. Retrieved from http://www.afana.org/psscfilms.htm
Antonio, A., Martin, N., & Stagg, A. (2012). Engaging higher education students via digital curation. Paper presented at the Future challenges, sustainable futures. Proceedings of the 29th Australasian Society for Computers in Tertiary Education Conference.
Artis, A. Q. (2008). The Shut Up And Shoot Documentary Guide: Oxford: Focal Press.
Artis, A. Q. (2013). The shut up and shoot documentary guide: A down & dirty DV production: Focal Press.
Ash, K. (2012). Educators Evaluate 'Flipped Classrooms'; Benefits and drawbacks seen in replacing lectures with on-demand video. Education Week, 32(2), s6.
Bali, M. (2014). MOOC Pedagogy: Gleaning Good Practice from Existing MOOCs. Journal of Online Teaching and Learning (JOLT).
Barham, N. (2018). FiLMiC Pro. Mobile Application. Retrieved from https://www.filmicpro.com/
Bates, T. (2012). Pedagogical roles for video in online learning. Retrieved from http://www.tonybates.ca/2012/03/10/pedagogical-roles-for-video-in-online-learning/
Bates, T. (2014). MOOCs: getting to know you better. Distance Education, 35(2), 145-148.
Bell, J. (2009). The Roles of the Film Production Team. Retrieved from http://www.centerdigitaled.com/artsandhumanities/The-Roles-of-the-Production-Team.html
Bell, L., & Bull, G. (2010). Digital video and teaching. Contemporary issues in technology and teacher education, 10(1), 1-6.
Benson, S. N. K., & Ward, C. L. (2013). Teaching with Technology: Using Tpack to Understand Teaching Expertise in Online Higher Education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 48(2), 153-172. doi:10.2190/EC.48.2.c
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.
Bishop, J. L., & Verleger, M. A. (2013). The flipped classroom: A survey of the research. Paper presented at the ASEE National Conference Proceedings, Atlanta, GA.
Bombardieri, M. (2014). Harvard goes all in for online courses. Retrieved from http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/05/17/behind-harvard-explosion-online-classes-flurry-lights-camera-action/BybPhkyfX59D9a7icmHz5M/story.html
Brecht, H. (2012). Learning from online video lectures. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 11(1), 227-250.
Brunsell, E., & Horejsi, M. (2013). Flipping Your Classroom in One "Take". The Science Teacher, 80(3), 8.
122 Bibliography
Bull, G., Ferster, B., & Kjellstrom, W. (2012). Inventing the flipped classroom. Learning and Leading with Technology, 40(1), 10.
Burks, B. K., & Tate, M. Ditch That Overhead Projector for a Document Camera. Retrieved from RRISD Teacher Guides website: https://rrisd-teacherguides.wikispaces.com/file/view/Ditch_That_Overhead_Projector.pdf
Burnard, P. (2006). Reflective Practices in Arts Education (1. ed.). Dordrecht: Springer.
Burr, V., Haver, S. G., Morales, M., & Cohen, M. (2003). Digital Video and Teacher Education. Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference.
Burrows, T. D., Gross, Lynne S., Foust, James C., Wood, Donald N. (2001). Video production: disciplines and techniques (8th ed.). Boston, Mass: McGraw Hill.
Candy, L., & Edmonds, E. (2010). The role of the artefact and frameworks for practice-based research. The Routledge companion to research in the arts. Routledge, New York, 120-137.
Chetty, R., & Pallitt, N. (2014). Student Video Production: Assignment to Assessment.
Chorianopoulos, K., & Giannakos, M. N. (2013). Usability design for video lectures. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 11th european conference on Interactive TV and video.
Cochrane, T., Antonczak, L., Keegan, H., & Narayan, V. (2014). Riding the wave of BYOD: developing a framework for creative pedagogies. Research in Learning Technology, 22(1), 24637.
Connolly, R. (2018, 2018). Film Riot. YouTube Channel. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/user/filmriot
Cooper, S., & Sahami, M. (2013). Reflections on stanford's moocs. Communications of the ACM, 56(2), 28-30.
Cunningham, D., & Duffy, T. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. Handbook of research for educational communications and technology, 51, 170-198.
Cunningham, S., Dezuanni, M., Goldsmith, B., Burns, M., Miles, P., Henkel, C., . . . Murphy, K. (2016). Screen Content in Australian Education: Digital Promise and Pitfalls.
Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2012). Personal Learning Environments, social media, and self-regulated learning: A natural formula for connecting formal and informal learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 3-8. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.06.002
Davies, R. S., Dean, D. L., & Ball, N. (2013). Flipping the Classroom and Instructional Technology Integration in a College-Level Information Systems Spreadsheet Course. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(4), 563-580. doi:10.1007/s11423-013-9305-6
de Boer, J. (2013). Learning from video: Viewing behavior of students: University of Groningen Library][Host].
Dezuanni, M., & Goldsmith, B. (2015). Disciplining the screen through education: the Royal Commission into the Moving Picture Industry in Australia. Studies in Australasian Cinema, 9(3), 298-311.
Dickson, W. L. (1933). A brief history of the Kinetograph, the Kinetoscope and the Kineto-Phonograph. Journal of the Society of Motion Picture Engineers, 21(6), 435-455.
Bibliography 123
DVXUser.com. Internet Forum. (2018). Retrieved from http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/forum.php
Enfield, J. (2013). Looking at the Impact of the Flipped Classroom Model of Instruction on Undergraduate Multimedia Students at CSUN. TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 57(6), 14-27. doi:10.1007/s11528-013-0698-1
Eraut, M. (2000). Non-formal learning and tacit knowledge in professional work. British journal of educational psychology, 70(1), 113-136.
Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2013). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43-71.
Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255-284.
Fairley, R. (2014). The Rapid Evolution of the Consumer Camcorder. Videomaker Magazine. Retrieved from https://www.videomaker.com/article/f22/17178-the-rapid-evolution-of-the-consumer-camcorder
Fritts, E. (2017). Why Every Filmmaker Should DIY. Videomaker Magazine. Retrieved from https://www.videomaker.com/article/p14/19013-why-every-filmmaker-should-diy
Gannes, L. (2009). YouTube changes everything: The online video revolution. Television goes digital, 147-155.
Garcia, D., Ball, M., & Parikh, A. (2014). L@ S 2014 demo: best practices for MOOC video. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the first ACM conference on Learning@ scale conference.
Gedik, N., Kiraz, E., & Ozden, M. Y. (2013). Design of a blended learning environment: Considerations and implementation issues. AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY, 29(1), 1-19.
Geduldick, J. (2016). GoPro’s Odyssey Camera & History of 360-Degree Video. Voices of VR Podcast: voicesofvr.com.
Gesenhues, A. (2015). YouTube “How To” Video Searches Up 70%, With Over 100 Million Hours Watched In 2015. Retrieved from https://searchengineland.com/youtube-how-to-searches-up-70-yoy-with-over-100m-hours-of-how-to-videos-watched-in-2015-220773
Giannakos, M. N. (2013). Exploring the video-based learning research: A review of the literature. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(6), E191-E195.
Giannakos, M. N., Chorianopoulos, K., Ronchetti, M., Szegedi, P., & Teasley, S. D. (2014). Video-Based Learning and Open Online Courses. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET)(9), 4-7.
Goetz, G. (2010). Majek’s Goldilocks: A Sign of Things to Come. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/external/gigaom/2010/10/19/19gigaom-majeks-goldilocks-a-sign-of-things-to-come-16768.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
Goldberg, E. J., & LaMagna, M. (2012). Open educational resources in higher education A guide to online resources. College & Research Libraries News, 73(6), 334-337.
Grace, J., & Jones, M. T. (2011). Film production workflow. Retrieved from https://www.slideshare.net/newestprod/film-production-workflow
Greenberg, A. D., & Zanetis, J. (2012). The impact of broadcast and streaming video in education. Cisco: Wainhouse Research, 75.
124 Bibliography
Griego, D. (2017). VideoEditingSage.com. Retrieved from http://www.videoeditingsage.com/
Guo, P. (2013). Optimal Video Length for Student Engagement. Retrieved from edx.org website: https://www.edx.org/blog/optimal-video-length-student-engagement - .U_wRlby1ZwU
Guo, P. J., Kim, J., & Rubin, R. (2014). How video production affects student engagement: An empirical study of mooc videos. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the first ACM conference on Learning@ scale conference.
Hamilton, E. R., Rosenberg, J. M., & Akcaoglu, M. (2016). The substitution augmentation modification redefinition (SAMR) model: A critical review and suggestions for its use. TechTrends, 60(5), 433-441.
Hammond, G. (2018). Indy Mogul. YouTube Channel. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/user/indymogul
Hansch, A., Hillers, L., McConachie, K., Newman, C., Schildhauer, T., & Schmidt, P. (2015). Video and Online Learning: Critical Reflections and Findings from the Field.
Haran, B., & Poliakoff, M. (2011). The Periodic Table of Videos. Science, 332(6033), 1046-1047. doi:10.1126/science.1196980
Haran, B., & Poliakoff, M. (2013). Conveying the excitement of chemistry on YouTube. Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 52(34), 8758-8759.
Hartsell, T., & Yuen, S. C.-Y. (2006). Video streaming in online learning. AACE Journal, 14(1), 31-43.
Haseman, B., & Mafe, D. (2009). Acquiring know-how: Research training for practice-led researchers. Practice-led research, research-led practice in the creative arts, 211-228.
Heijstra, T. M., & Sigurðardóttir, M. S. (2017). The flipped classroom: Does viewing the recordings matter? Active Learning in Higher Education, 1469787417723217.
Hill, S. (2013). From J-Phone to Lumia 1020: A complete history of the camera phone. Retrieved from https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/camera-phone-history/
Hogue, R. J. (2013). Considerations for a Professional Development Program to Support iPads in Higher Education Teaching.
Hollands, F. M., & Tirthali, D. (2014). MOOCs: Expectations and Reality. Full Report. Online Submission.
Holtzblatt, M., & Tschakert, N. (2011). Expanding your accounting classroom with digital video technology. Journal of Accounting Education, 29(2-3), 100-121. doi:10.1016/j.jaccedu.2011.10.003
Howitt, C., & Pegrum, M. (2015). Implementing a flipped classroom approach in postgraduate education : an unexpected journey into pedagogical redesign. AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY, 31(4), 458-469. doi:10.14742/ajet.2439
Huczynski, A., & Buchanan, D. (2004). Theory from fiction: A narrative process perspective on the pedagogical use of feature film. Journal of Management Education, 28(6), 707-726.
Irving, D. K. (2006). Producing and directing the short film and video (3rd ed. ed.). Burlington, MA: Focal Press.
Keegan, H. (2010). Immersed in the digital: Networked creativity through mobile video production.
Bibliography 125
Kereluik, K., Mishra, P., Fahnoe, C., & Terry, L. (2013). What knowledge is of most worth: teacher knowledge for 21st century learning. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 29(4), 127.
Kim, J., Guo, P. J., Seaton, D. T., Mitros, P., Gajos, K. Z., & Miller, R. C. (2014). Understanding in-video dropouts and interaction peaks inonline lecture videos. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the first ACM conference on Learning@ scale conference.
Kizilcec, R. F., Papadopoulos, K., & Sritanyaratana, L. (2014). Showing face in video instruction: effects on information retention, visual attention, and affect. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems.
Klass, B. (2003). Streaming media in higher education: Possibilities and pitfalls. Campus Technology.
Koehler, M. (2012). TPACK explained. TPACK Explained. Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing tpck. Handbook of technological
pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators, 3-29. Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content
knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary issues in technology and teacher education, 9(1), 60-70.
Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2011). TPACK image. Konow, D. (2013). A Horror Movie Shot Entirely On An iPhone. Retrieved from
http://www.tgdaily.com/games-and-entertainment-features/80499-a-horror-movie-shot-entirely-on-an-iphone
Kopcha, T. J. (2010). A systems-based approach to technology integration using mentoring and communities of practice. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(2), 175-190.
Koumi, J. (2014). Potent Pedagogic Roles for Video. Laaser, W., & Toloza, E. A. (2017). The Changing Role of the Educational Video in
Higher Distance Education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(2).
Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies: Routledge.
Lawler, E. (2016). The producers: rethinking roles to create an in-library production team.
Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (2012). Semiotics and communication: Signs, codes, cultures: Routledge.
Lefoe, G. E., Olney, I. W., Wright, R., & Herrington, A. (2009). Faculty development for new technologies: Putting mobile learning in the hands of the teachers.
Lella, A. (2014). comScore Releases January 2014 U.S. Online Video Rankings. Retrieved from http://www.comscore.com/Insights/Press-Releases/2014/2/comScore-Releases-January-2014-US-Online-Video-Rankings
Littlefield, J., & Hutton, S. (2015). Video Production Handbook for Short Educational Videos Retrieved from https://extension.colostate.edu/docs/comm/video-handbook2.pdf
Littlejohn, A., Falconer, I., & Mcgill, L. (2008). Characterising effective eLearning resources. Computers & Education, 50(3), 757-771.
126 Bibliography
Lloyd, M. (2015). Making an Impact With Self-Service Video Recording. Retrieved from https://campustechnology.com/articles/2015/07/23/making-an-impact-with-self-service-video-recording.aspx
Loo, v. d. J., Rienties, B. C., Lygo-Baker, S., Brouwer, N., Bohle Carbonell, K., Rozendal, A. P., . . . Dekker, P. (2013). Online training of TPACK skills of higher education scholars: a cross-institutional impact study. European Journal of Teacher Education, 36(4), 480-495.
Mac Callum, K., & Jeffrey, L. (2014). Factors Impacting Teachers’ Adoption of Mobile Learning. Journal of Information Technology Education, 13.
Mandula, K., Meday, S., Muralidharan, V., & Parupalli, R. (2013). A student centric approach for mobile learning video content development and instruction design. Paper presented at the Advanced Communication Technology (ICACT), 2013 15th International Conference On.
Mantel, R. (2018). Video File Formats, Codecs, and Containers Explained. TechSmith. Retrieved from https://www.techsmith.com/blog/video-file-formats/
Marine, J. (2015, 2015). How the Filmmakers Behind Sundance Hit 'Tangerine' Shot on an iPhone & Got Cinematic Results. Retrieved from https://nofilmschool.com/2015/07/tangerine-sundance-iphone-5s-sean-baker-radium-cheung-interview
Mateer, G. D. (2011). Using Media to Enhance Teaching and Learning. Retrieved from https://serc.carleton.edu/econ/media/index.html
Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
McCauley, P. (2015). iPad Video Kits for Teacher Assessment and Digital Storytelling. Minnesota eLearning Summit.
McGee, P. (2003). Reusing online resources: a sustainable approach to e-learning: Psychology Press.
Middleton, A. (2009). Beyond podcasting: creative approaches to designing educational audio. ALT-J, 17(2), 143-155. doi:10.1080/09687760903033082
Miller, C. (2016, 12/04/2016). 360 video in news: Not just watching, but experiencing. BBC Academy Blog. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/collegeofjournalism/entries/7add679f-bddb-48ce-b6c0-135c0758b29b
Miller, C. (2017, 18/03/2017). VR and 360 video: What are they good for? BBC Academy Blog. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/academy/entries/6d292464-be4c-4e0a-a846-59d1340af4f0
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
Mobile Device Video Production. (2018). Retrieved from https://online.uwc.edu/faculty/knowledgebase/mobile-device-video-production
Moon, J. A. (2013). Reflection in learning and professional development: Theory and practice: Routledge.
Moriarty, P. (2014). The power of YouTube. Physics World, 27(3), 31-34. Morrison, D. (2014a). How to Create a Video Strategy for MOOCs: Costs and
Considerations. Retrieved from online learning insights website:
Bibliography 127
http://onlinelearninginsights.wordpress.com/2014/05/29/how-to-create-a-video-strategy-for-moocs-costs-and-considerations/
Morrison, D. (2014b). MOOC Design Tips: Maximizing the Value of Video Lectures. Retrieved from Onlien Learning Insights website: http://onlinelearninginsights.wordpress.com/2014/04/28/mooc-design-tips-maximizing-the-value-of-video-lectures/
Morrison, K. (2015). Demand for How-to Content on YouTube is On the Rise. Retrieved from http://www.adweek.com/digital/demand-for-how-to-content-on-youtube-is-on-the-rise/
Muller, D. (2008). Designing Effective Multimedia for Physics Education. Sydney University.
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.
Newton, D., & Gaspard, J. (2001). Digital filmmaking 101: an essential guide to producing low-budget movies: Michael Wiese Productions Studio City, CA.
Ouimet, T. C., & Rusczek, R. A. (2014). Video-Based Learning Objects. Professional safety, 59(6), 36.
Pierson, M. (2008). Teacher candidates reflect together on their own development of TPCK: Edited teaching videos as data for inquiry. Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference.
Poliakoff, M., & Haran, B. (2009). YouTube in Its Element (Vol. 76, pp. 30-33). Puentedura, R. (2006). Transformation, technology, and education. Presentation
given August 18, 2006 as part of the Strengthening Your District Through Technology workshops, Maine, US. Retrieved from http://hippasus.com/resources/tte/puentedura_tte.pdf
Rea, P., & Irving, D. K. (2015). Producing and directing the short film and video: Focal Press.
Reiss, D. (2008). Video-based multimedia designs: A research study testing learning effectiveness. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology/La revue canadienne de l’apprentissage et de la technologie, 33(3).
Ritchie, E. (2017). Click go the shares. Retrieved from http://www.theaustralian.com.au/arts/review/aussie-youtube-sensations-taking-world-by-storm-and-raking-it-in/news-story/ffdb1e2ddbc662add8eadfdd2cd10e0a
Rodriguez, R. (1996). Rebel without a Crew: Faber & Faber. Rotman, D., Procita, K., Hansen, D., Sims Parr, C., & Preece, J. (2012). Supporting
content curation communities: The case of the Encyclopedia of Life. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(6), 1092-1107.
Rowland, J. (2016). Ready, set, go: Why filmmaking is a team effort. Retrieved from http://45westfilms.com/blog/ready-set-go
Schejbal, D. (2012). In Search of a New Paradigm for Higher Education. Innovative Higher Education, 37(5), 373-386. doi:10.1007/s10755-012-9218-z
Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
Seifert, T. (2017). cameratim.com - Video production. Retrieved from http://www.cameratim.com/business/video-production-process-info
128 Bibliography
Selakovich, D. (2010). Killer camera rigs that you can build: how to build your own camera cranes, car mounts, stabilizers, dollies, and more! : Taylor & Francis.
Siemens, G. (2004). A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. Retrieved from eLearnspace website: http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm
Siemens, G. (2005). Bridging Learning Design and Modern Knowledge Needs. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/ldc.htm
Siemens, G. (2008). Learning and knowing in networks: Changing roles for educators and designers. ITFORUM for Discussion, 27, 1-26.
Smith, H., & Dean, R. (2009). Practice-led research, research-led practice in the creative arts: Edinburgh University Press.
Starke, P. (2013). YouTube 'how to' videos increasingly popular in Australia. Retrieved from http://www.news.com.au/technology/youtube-how-to-videos-increasingly-popular-in-australia/news-story/ec36ac39d27033a9436c7f8b5a37e029
Sullivan, G. (2009). Making space: The purpose and place of practice-led research. Practice-led research, research-led practice in the creative arts, 41-65.
Thomson, A., Bridgstock, R., & Willems, C. (2014). ‘Teachers flipping out’beyond the online lecture: Maximising the educational potential of video. Journal of Learning Design, 7(3), 67-78.
Tschofen, C., & Mackness, J. (2012). Connectivism and dimensions of individual experience. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(1), 124.
Venema, S., & Lodge, J. M. (2013). Capturing dynamic presentation: Using technology to enhance the chalk and the talk. AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY, 29(1).
Wales, L. M. (2005). The people and process of film and video production: From low budget to high budget (Vol. 1): Pearson College Division.
Watercutter, A. (2015). Tangerine Is Amazing—But Not Because of How They Shot It. Retrieved from https://www.wired.com/2015/07/tangerine-iphone/
Waters, J. K. (2011). Lecture Capture: Lights! Camera! Action! Campus Technology. Wiley, D., Gibbons, A., & Recker, M. (2000). A reformulation of the issue of
learning object granularity and its implications for the design of learning objects. The instructional use of learning objects. Bloomington, Indiana: Agency for Instructional Technology and Association for Educational Communications of Technology.
Wiley, D. A., II. (2011). Learning objects, content management, and e-learning Content management for e-learning (pp. 43-54): Springer.
Willems, C. (2015). The" Gourmet" Sausage Factory: Keeping It Human. Journal of Learning Design, 8(1), 79-94.
Winslett, G. (2014). What counts as educational video?: Working toward best practice alignment between video production approaches and outcomes. AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY, 30(5).
Winslett, G. (2016). The struggle to satisfy need: exploring the institutional cues for teaching support staff. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 38(5), 534-549.
Witton, G. (2016). The value of capture: Taking an alternative approach to using lecture capture technologies for increased impact on student learning and engagement. British Journal of Educational Technology.
Woodward, D. (2018). How to a shoot a movie on your phone, according to Steven Soderbergh. Retrieved from http://www.dazeddigital.com/film-
Bibliography 129
tv/article/39355/1/how-to-shoot-a-movie-on-an-iphone-steven-soderbergh-unsane
Woolfitt, Z. (2015). The effective use of video in higher education. Younie, S., & Leask, M. (2013). Teachers, pedagogy and professional development
Teaching with technologies the essential guide (pp. 88-108). Maidenhead, England: McGraw-Hill Education.
Appendices 131
Appendices
Appendix A
Initial video recorded interview questions with participants
<Prompt: demographic details: staff role, organisational area, context>
What value do you feel videos have as learning and teaching resources?
What makes an effective video for learning and teaching?
<Prompt: Do you feel you have an understanding of what makes a good video for
learning and teaching?>
How important is the quality of video in learning and teaching?
What would an ideal learning and teaching video production process be like for you?
<Prompt: support, resourcing, equipment and technology>
How much do you feel supported to make or use videos?
<Prompt: Do you know what resources are available?>
<Prompt: Are there adequate avenues to host/distribute?>
<Prompt: What impediments do you perceive?>
132 Appendices
What kinds of skills do you think are important in order to make and use videos
effectively for learning and teaching?
How would you rate the importance of experimentation and play towards
maximising the use of video effectively in learning and teaching?
What should the role of the academic/learning designer be in making and using
videos for learning and teaching?
<Prompt: what kinds of skills should they have?>
What other roles should support the academic in making and using videos for
learning and teaching?
Appendices 133
Appendix B
Final evaluation video recorded interviews with participants
<Prompt: demographic details: staff role, organisational area, context>
During this project, you made <video description>. Overall, how satisfied were you
with the video/s that you made?
How different was/were the video/s that you made from what you expected? How
so? Why was this?
Tell me about your experience of the workshop/production process.
<Prompt: What did you learn during the workshop/production process?>
<Prompt: What advantages were there in having the input of different expertise?>
<Prompt: What difficulties or frustrations did you encounter during the process of
creating the videos you needed?>
<Prompt: What were the most valuable aspects to this production process?>
What modifications would you recommend to this production process?
What are the strengths of using mobile devices for the creation of video for learning
resources?
134 Appendices
<Prompt: How might you now extend the use of mobile device technology in
learning and teaching?>
<Prompt: How does the use of mobile devices in this context compare to other ways
in which you could pursue the creation of video resources e.g. A/V support
services/infrastructures?>
What are the limitations of using mobile devices for the creation of video for
learning resources?
<Prompt: How might you now extend the use of mobile device technology in
learning and teaching?>
<Prompt: How does the use of mobile devices in this context compare to other ways
in which you could pursue the creation of video resources e.g. A/V support
services/infrastructures?>
How has your approach to applying videos in learning and teaching been changed by
this production process?
Which aspects of the video production process do you feel have the most impact on
the success of a video learning object?
Reflecting upon your experiences of making and using video for learning and
teaching, what support, resourcing, equipment and technology do academics need to
make and use effective videos?
Appendices 135
Appendix C
Audio recorded interview questions with technology support staff and
professional video production staff
Can you describe the role/s you have played in making videos for learning and
teaching in the institution?
<Prompt: producing/shooting/editing/conceptualisation/support/any learning design
applied?>
What do you perceive the role of the video professional should be in creating videos
for learning and teaching in this environment?
Are there differences you perceive in the process of making learning and teaching
videos in the institution that are distinct from making other institution videos, or
other video production jobs?
<Prompt: is resourcing different? Time commitments different? Your input into the
final ‘design’ of the videos?>
Are there some characteristics of the Higher Education institution that are different
from other video editing clients/environments?
As a professional video producer what characteristics of the medium do you think
support the learning experience?
136 Appendices
Can you describe the various support options that exist for teaching staff to use video
in their units and courses?
<Prompt: Are there gaps in the kinds of support available for video?>
<Prompt: How much are teaching staff needing support for video compared to other
technical support?>
What are some of the challenges for support staff/professional video staff and
infrastructure in providing and supporting the use of video in learning and teaching
in the institution?
<Prompt: what gaps are there in expertise and skills among support
services/professional video staff?>
<Prompt: How do support staff/professional video staff engage with teaching staff in
providing support>
<Prompt: what are some of the common support needs for video you encounter from
teaching staff?>
How much do support staff/professional video staff need to understand the content
and pedagogy of any particular teaching staff or disciplinary area in order to
effectively support the use of video learning and teaching process?
What kinds of skills do you think are important in order to make and use videos
effectively for learning and teaching?
Appendices 137
What are the production level requirements needed for the production of effective
learning and teaching video?
<Prompt: What are the risks associated with a high level of production?>
<Prompt: What are the risks associated with lower level/DIY production?>
What would comprise an ideal infrastructure and support system for using video for
learning and teaching?
top related