the creation and use of video for learning in higher ... · constructivist and connectivist...

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,


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


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:


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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,


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


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


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-


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


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


(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


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


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


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,


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


(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


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


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,


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,


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


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.


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.


Figure 1: Video production styles (Hansch et al., 2015)


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


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


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


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.


• 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.


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.


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


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


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


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


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.


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).


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


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.


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:


in a Higher Education institution?



• 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


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.


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.


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),


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.


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.


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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,


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:



• 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


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.


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


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


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.


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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.


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.


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.


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:


• 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:


in a Higher Education Institution?

However, much of the discussion relating to processes provided insight into

aspects of the other research questions:



• 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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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.


(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)


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.


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


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.


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.


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


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,


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


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:


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


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


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


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.


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


<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


<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?

the creation and use of video for learning in higher ... · constructivist and connectivist...

Documents