Posts Tagged With: video

Student-Curated Video Collection: An Activity

AEG/Telefunken television from 1937. This was newfangled back when I started screening videos for this course. Eckhard Etzold, CC BY-SA 2.0

AEG/Telefunken television from 1937. This was newfangled back when I started screening videos for this course. Eckhard Etzold, CC BY-SA 2.0

I’ve been working on revisions to a distance-education physical geology course, and attempting to make it more interactive by offering videos. Have you ever tried to source relevant and accurate videos for multiple topics across multiple course modules? It involves going through hours and hours of videos, and rarely finding one that is directly on point or without problematic inaccuracies. My search technique has evolved to skipping anything longer than 5 minutes that doesn’t come with a transcript or clear description, and then screening the video at 1.5x speed.

So what to do about getting reliable videos without spending most of your adult life in the attempt… well, one school of thought would say let the students do it. I experimented with this kind of activity a few years back, but didn’t have an opportunity to deploy it full-scale. Here are the instructions I provided, with annotations. If you try it, let me know how it goes!

Curating Videos for Historical Geology

In this assignment you will assemble a collection of videos and complementary resources for historical geology students. You will work from the TED Ed* Lessons Worth Sharing video collection, Awesome Nature. This collection can be found at http://ed.ted.com/series/awesome-nature.

*I chose TED Ed because the videos are short. The student who did this moved on to TED Talks, which are  longer. I’d advise limiting the length of videos if you don’t want to spend hours watching videos in order to grade the results. If I were doing this today, I’d also recommend the fabulous video collection at MinuteEarth.

Your work will form the basis of a collection of resources to be made available to future students in Geology 109. If you wish, you will be acknowledged as the curator of the resources when they are posted, although I reserve the right to make any modifications that might be necessary to optimize the effectiveness of the collection.

Rationale

In the Independent Studies version of Geology 109, students do not have access to video lectures. Sometimes the textbook is unclear or written in too technical a fashion for students new to the topic to immediately understand what is being said. Videos designed by someone with a different perspective on the topic can be very helpful for reinforcing concepts, or clarifying points of confusion.

The problem is that not all videos are created equal. Some have factual errors, or even seek to mislead viewers. Some could benefit from clarifications. The task of looking for and vetting videos requires an understanding of the objectives a video should satisfy, and an assessment of how well the video accomplishes those goals. It also requires that viewers understand why they are watching the video and what they should get out of it. When an instructor looks for videos, he or she has an idea of what students find difficult, but it is really the students themselves who can most accurately identify where they need help, and what helps the most.

Your task

  1. Identify a video that satisfies one or more of the learning objectives for Geology 109. Provide the name of the video, and the link.
  2. Write an overview of the video. This should not simply restate the title of the video, but should summarize its contents in three or four sentences.
  3. List the learning objectives from the Geology 109 Course Guide that the video covers, and indicate which chapter they are from.
  4. Identify three key questions that the video answers. The questions should not be a restatement of the learning objectives, and should make it clear to other students why they would find the video useful. The questions will take the following form:
    1. Have you ever wondered …?
    2. Would you like to know how [something works or happens/ happened]?
    3. Have you ever been confused by …?
  5. Identify five terms that are technical in nature, and that are key to understanding the topic of the video. Define those terms in simple language, using your own words.
  6. Identify three “loose ends,” and explain the loose ends so that others watching the video will not be confused by them. The “loose ends” could be:
    1. Points that could be expanded upon
    2. Points that might leave some confusion in the minds of students watching the video
    3. Factual errors (hopefully there won’t be any of those)
    4. Points that are inconsistent with something in the course materials (e.g., competing hypotheses, more recent information, etc.)
  7. Write ten multiple choice questions so students can test their knowledge after watching the video. Supply the correct answers. The questions should cover key points. A good set of multiple choice questions will have the following characteristics:
    1. Four answer options (a through d)
    2. Little to no use of answer options like “all of the above” or “none of the above.”
    3. It should not be obvious to someone with no prior knowledge of the topic which is the correct answer. (Over-simplified questions are not helpful when trying to understand a topic.)
    4. Questions should be relevant to the topic of the video and to the learning objectives.
    5. After doing the questions, it should be clear to students what key points they have not understood.

Deliverables

You will write up each video following the layout supplied at the end of this document. This layout is designed to be compatible with the Blackboard system. The specific software you use to create the write-up is not important, nor is the font. (Blackboard has some formatting limitations, and formatting must be done within the Blackboard text editor, so this is something I will have to do afterward.)

Grading

Each write-up is worth up to 10 points. Those points will be calculated as follows:

  • Is the video relevant to Geology 109, and is the relevance clearly explained? (2.5 points)
  • Are all of the elements in points 1 through 7 above provided (e.g., the learning objectives, multiple choice questions, etc., are present)? (2.5 points)
  • Is the write-up scientifically accurate (e.g., definitions are correct, multiple choice answers are correct, etc.)? (5 points)

You may curate as many videos as you like*, however the maximum possible score for the assignment portion of the class will be 100%.

*This assignment was designed for a specific student. You may wish to rethink the “as many as you like” policy, or turn it into a group project to reduce the workload.

Format for submission

Square brackets mean text that you will insert. Text in italics are my notes, and don’t need to be included in your write-up.

[Video title]

[url]

 

Summary

[Three to four sentence summary of the video topic]

 

Why watch this video?

  • Have you ever wondered […]?
  • Would you like to know how [something works or happens/ happened]?
  • Have you ever been confused by […]?

 

This video addresses the following learning objectives for Geology 109:

  • [Learning objective], Chapter [chapter number]
  • [Learning objective], Chapter [chapter number]
  • [as many additional points as necessary]

 

Some key terms used in this video are:

[term 1]: [definition]

[term 2]: [definition]

[term 3]: [definition]

[term 4]: [definition]

[term 5]: [definition]

 

Special notes

  • [Loose end 1, explanation]
  • [Loose end 2, explanation]
  • [Loose end 3, explanation]

 

Note: these could take the form of, “In the video, [topic] is mentioned, but [concept] isn’t explained. Here is what it means,” or “The video says [this] about [topic], but in the textbook it says [that].   The difference is [reason].”

 

Self-test

[Questions 1 through 10]

 

[Solutions (e.g., 1a, 2b, 3d, …)]

 

Deadline

All write-ups must be submitted on or before Monday, March 30th 2015.

 

Categories: Assessment, Distance education and e-learning, Learning strategies, Learning technologies, Teaching strategies, Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , | Leave a comment

Is plagiarism funny?

Generally I would say no, but I’ve tried to make an exception with a new video project.

A recent onslaught of assignments highlighted the futility (yet again) of what amounts to grading the textbook. My brain started churning out cartoons about the ridiculous ways students attempt to skirt the requirement of having to answer in their own words. Jeff Foxworthy’sYou might be a redneck if…” came to mind, and my productivity screeched to a halt: “It might not be in your own words if…” (Does that make Jeff Foxworthy my muse?)

The point was to get students thinking about plagiarism without taking a “thou shalt not” approach. I plan to build additional resources, including a video and/or handout with tips on how to answer in one’s own words. I like to point out that the textbook is one way to say something, but not the only way, and not necessarily the best way. And it isn’t about some pedantic exercise in avoiding a specific set of words- it’s about turning words on a page into knowledge… and that doesn’t happen unless you think about what those words mean.

This project is shorter than my last project, which could make the difference between students watching it and not. Another difference is that it consists of text, music, and my own drawings… so no fifteen takes required to get a voice-over without stumbling or stuttering. The drawings were the fun part. While I have at some pont generated drawings and paintings that look like actual objects and people in the real world, doing so quickly and consistently is another matter. I came up with scribble people after searching for examples of line figures that others have drawn, and then doing my best to create something else. At one time I would have opted for stick figures, but after discovering Randall Munroe’s brilliant webcomic, xkcd… well, you wouldn’t try to out-drip Jackson Pollock, now would you?

In the process of making this video, I learned some things that might come in handy for anyone trying a similar project.

Timing

If you’ve made the slides, then you know way more about them than a first-time viewer will, so you’re probably not the best judge of how fast the slides should move along. What worked great was having someone else advance through the slides using the “Rehearse” mode under the “Slideshow” tab in PowerPoint. This records the duration over which each slide is viewed. Not only did I get an idea of how much time viewers might need, it became very clear which slides would benefit from a redesign. Set the intervals for transitions between slides, and run it with “Use Timings” selected. Then it is a simple matter of starting and ending a screen recording.

Music

I am not musically astute. If you ask me about Country and Western music released between 1950 and 1969, or Tom Waits, or Leonard Cohen, I might be able to help you. Lyrics to “The Battle of New Orleans?” Got you covered. Otherwise, you’d best ask my husband, who has a much larger musical vocabulary, and likes to ask me “Who sings this?” when he knows full well I can’t answer. But I needed music, so what to do?

Where to get it

I learned that there is a lot of royalty-free music online, and a subset of that is free royalty-free music. There is the Free Music Archive, which, amongst other things, has recordings from Edison cylinders! How cool is that?! I also found Kevin MacLeod’s website, where he offers his music under a Creative Commons license. His music is searchable by genre as well as by “feel” (bright, bouncy, driving, mysterious, etc.). Each song comes with an excellent description, suitable for the musically challenged, which makes it clear what an appropriate context would be for that song.

How to use it

Odds are, your song and your video won’t be the same length. If the song is longer than your video, it is easy enough to fade out the volume at a convenient spot. If the song is shorter, it’s more difficult to maintain continuity. Some songs come with versions that are suitable for looping, or in versions of different lengths. You can buy a little extra time by delaying the start of the song slightly, and fading in the volume, and then fading out the volume at the end. You could perform audio surgery and create a Frankensong… but if amputating musical body parts and stitching them back together again isn’t for you, then throwing continuity out the window might be the better choice. I didn’t know any of these things when I started, and it took a lot of experimenting to get something I could live with. Hopefully villagers with pitchforks and torches won’t be a problem.

Categories: Challenges, Learning technologies | Tags: , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Radiometric dating with cookies

Detail of the face of the astronomical clock in PragueThe media project for ILT was due yesterday, so naturally I’m posting it today instead.  I blame the delay on ambient noise makers of the four-legged variety.  (If I ever had a production company I would call it “Can we play now?” and the logo would be a tennis ball.)  My media project is a screencast about radiometric dating.  I used an analogy that has worked well for me in the past—eating cookies.  The cookie-eating analogy lets me explain the main idea behind radiometric dating in an intuitive way, and it also allows me to address a common misconception about the meaning of the term “half-life.”

This process is new to me, and I found it to be relatively painless, other than having to listen to my own voice over and over again.  I was happy to have iMovie to splice and dice QuickTime recordings to remove misspeaking, and to take out some of the more obvious pops, breaths, and thumps.  The biggest problem I experienced was underestimating the extent of image degradation upon sharing the video to YouTube.  Even with the highest quality setting, the text of my image credits is difficult to see.  Some of the images that I didn’t create myself are historical and have been in the public domain for a very long time.  However, three of the images aren’t historical, and they are important to credit.  To avoid re-recording the screencast in its entirety, I added image credits to the end.

The philosophy behind the design of my screencast is based on the idea that learning is a cumulative process.  If you don’t have a good foundation, you don’t really have anything.  My video is quite basic.  I avoided the radiometric decay equation, and the definition of the term “isotope.”  In an example, I used the elements uranium and lead because they are elements most people have heard of before (unlike samarium, neodymium, rubidium, or strontium).  Carbon-14 would otherwise be a natural choice because people tend to be familiar with carbon-14 dating, but it doesn’t work for the example, or for rocks in general.

There are many resources online to handle the more complex details of radiometric dating.  My goal was to establish the essential underlying ideas, and to convince students that radiometric dating is something they can understand.  If that is accomplished, the fear factor is reduced, and it is much easier to stuff information into brains.

Categories: Learning technologies | Tags: , , , | 3 Comments

Blog at WordPress.com.