Introduction
Teachers have incorporated video in their
lessons for decades, often via VHS cassettes, CD-Rom, and more recently
DVD (Rodriguez, Ainley, & Smith, 2001). Now, video streaming is
available to educators whose systems have purchased access through such
companies as United Learning. As a specialist student in Instructional
Technology, I am consistently looking at new technologies available to
me for use in my science teaching. Within the past three years, I have
been incorporating video streaming as a teaching aide both to reinforce
concepts taught to my students and as a motivational and
attention-gaining tool. While the use of video in the classroom has
been studied extensively, very few empirical studies have been
conducted to investigate the utilization of video streaming in the K-12
setting (Rodriguez et al., 2001).
I sometimes use video streaming in my
classroom presentations by providing hyperlinks in Power Point to
streaming video that is pertinent to the material discussed. For
example, during a lesson on kinetic theory, the notes are given in
Power Point as text. The concept is then elaborated on and reinforced
through a short clip that discusses the movement of particles of a gas.
Some of the advantages of using Power Point in the classroom are its
features to make transitions easier between slides and hyperlinks to
internet sources such as streaming video (Miltenoff, 2003). Some
researchers contend that the decisions of which media to use can be
made by the educator regardless of the choice of the delivery method or
where the learners stand in terms of content knowledge (Hastings,
2005). This belief ignores the importance of the learners, learning
theories, and teaching method as the most important factors an educator
can consider when designing a lesson.
Science
educators have long used demonstration of natural phenomena in their
classrooms to show students how these processes work for themselves. In
my use of this teaching method, I have found that good demonstrations
are effective in gaining the attention of students and allow them to
see a real example of the phenomena, thereby helping an abstract
concept become more tangible and concrete as the students see science
in action. These demonstrations were effective in transfer of knowledge
to the students based on my observations.
However,
demonstration of certain science topics is not feasible in the
classroom oftentimes due to a lack of materials, monetary issues, or
time to put the materials together. For example, sublimation, which
represents a phase change of a solid directly to a gas, is an important
concept in the science curriculum. However, demonstrating the process
of sublimation in the classroom can be troublesome. Substances such as
dry ice, solid carbon dioxide, are not only difficult to purchase from
retailers due to availability, but it is also hard to store at the low
temperatures needed. The use of streaming video to show this process is
a viable alternative to its demonstration due to these existing
constraints.
Purpose
of the Study
The purpose
of the current study is to compare the use of video streaming in
science teaching to the use of demonstration in terms of effectively
promoting retention in the short-term and long-term based on
quantitative results. Additionally, qualitative data was collected to
analyze student perceptions of both demonstration and video streaming
and to assess motivational components.
Research
Questions
The research
is guided by the following questions:
1. Is the use of video streaming in science education as effective in
knowledge transfer as demonstration in the short-term, one to three
days?
2. Is the use of video streaming in science education as effective in
knowledge transfer as demonstrations in the long-term, two weeks?
3. What are the perceptions of students exposed to video streaming in
science?
4. What are the perceptions of students exposed to demonstration in
science?
Assumptions
The first
assumption under this study is that demonstration has been shown
through research as an effective method of delivering science
instruction. The use of demonstration is promoted in the higher
education of science teachers, and research has shown evidence to
support the use of demonstration in the classroom (e.g. Clermont,
Borko, & Krajcik, 1994; Shepardson, Moje, &
Kennard-McClelland, 1994). However, few empirical, experimental and
controlled studies have been done to support the effectiveness of this
type of instructional method. In the present study demonstration is
used in a constructivist manner, especially to alter science
misconceptions which have been shown by research to be difficult to
change (Smith& Roschelle, 1994).
Another
assumption is that the quality of the video streaming does not make a
difference in learning. The videos that were used in this study were
somewhat pixilated when transferred from a computer to the television.
However, there is some evidence that the quality does not interfere
with learning when slight pixilation occurs (Colfield, 2002). Even
though the quality of the video was altered when transferred to the
full television screen via a scan converter, I do not think that the
quality was so poor that it hindered learning.
Another
assumption is that both the treatment and control groups had the same
previous knowledge about the properties of matter including kinetic
theory, phase changes, mixtures, compounds, and elements. A specific
pre-test was not given to determine their knowledge of matter. From
past pre-tests given in chemistry that assess the full range of the
curriculum, the students typically score about 25% correct on a
multiple-choice test, which is what they would score if they randomly
guessed on the items.
Limitations
The
experimental groups included two honors classes and one advanced
chemistry class, which were not randomly assigned. One honors chemistry
class consisted of a small sample size, N=11. To compare these groups
more in depth, the demonstration and video streaming groups would have
needed to be switched at a later date. However, based on the scope of
this project and personal ethics, this could not be justified. The
groups were given four quizzes to assess short-term and long-term
retention. Standardized tests such as the Georgia High School
Graduation Test and the End of Course Tests and teacher assessments
account for approximately 25% of the school year. Testing in general
takes up too much instructional time. As a result, the duration of the
experiment is short, about one and a half weeks long, and the long-term
retention measure was given two weeks later.
Importance of the Study
Video has
long been used in education. However, video streaming technologies are
fairly new, and their effectiveness in content retention has not been
shown by research in detail. Video streaming offers the teacher a
wonderful tool that can be used in the classroom. Many systems are
already buying video streaming capabilities. Therefore, more research
should be conducted to guide teachers as to the most effective methods
to use this technology. Most research has been focused on college level
students in web-based instruction to determine their perceptions of
video streaming (e.g. Colfield, 2002; Sheppard, 2003). More research
should be done to assess cognitive and affective components of high
school, middle school, and elementary students regarding video
streaming.
Literature Review
The purpose of this study is to investigate
the use of video streaming in chemistry compared to constructivist
demonstration teaching. The literature review in this section is
intended to place this research in the historical context of video
research and to identify the research framework. Specifically, the
review of the related literature is organized around the following
three sections: Demonstration as a Constructivism Approach, The Use of
Video Streaming in the Classroom, Media Comparison: Research and Debate.
Demonstration
as a Constructivism Approach
Constructivism
is included in many science education reforms such as in the National
Science Education Standards. These reforms call for science classrooms
to implement strategies and lessons for the students to construct their
own understanding of science such as in an inquiry approach. This
constructivist philosophy has become accepted in science education and
compliments the science classroom due to the inherent nature of science
as an investigative subject (Haney, Czerniak, & Lumpe, 2003).
Students have different learning styles, and the best teachers use a
variety of pedagological approaches to their science teaching. One
effective way of doing so is through the use of demonstration, which
occurs when teachers show specific scientific phenomena to the students
as it happens in nature. Demonstration allows for inquiry and
reflection and is compatible with a constructivist philosophy of
learning (Narguizian & Wali, 2005). This method of science
teaching employs a concrete experience for the student and helps them
to organize the subject matter into a coherent framework. If
incorporated successfully, demonstration can promote an intrinsic
desire from the students for further explanation (Chiappetta &
Koballa, 2002).
Chemistry is often a difficult subject to master especially since
students often work with abstract concepts. The students must alter
these concepts into a concrete, schematic representation that makes
sense to them (Rodriguez et al., 2001). From a science education
viewpoint, constructivism refers to a “philosophical view
about the nature of reality" (Colburn, 2000). We construct our own
world-view and knowledge about science throughout various points in our
lives, thereby creating our personal reality of science. Students have
their own preconceived notions when they come into the classroom. They
are far from being a tabula rasa, and what they already know is very
difficult to change especially if they hold misconceptions about
science. Students are active learners and incorporate their own
understanding into existing schemas. Constructivism puts students at
the center of learning and the classroom (Lin Hsiao, n.d.). In a
constructivist learning theory, one of the teacher's responsibilities
is to change students construction of reality to be more in-line with
what the scientific community considers factual based on current and
past research conducted through the scientific method (Colburn, 2000).
Students should also understand that science as a discipline is tenable
and changes are made when new theories arise based on evidence through
experiments.
Demonstration can be utilized most effectively as a constructivist
approach when the teacher evaluates what the students are thinking and
challenge any misconceptions in tangent with their preconceived ideas.
If the teacher can identify common misconceptions and conduct
demonstrations that will activate them, they can show the students that
their misconceptions are inaccurate views of a scientific concept
(Colburn, 2000). Demonstration can be used to illustrate
“counterintuitive phenomenon” through discrepant
events which are examples of science that the student would not expect
and go against what they already know. These experiences encourage
critical and higher-level thinking and are believed to promote better
retention and recall of the material (Chiappetta & Koballa,
2002). Additionally, teachers can use demonstration effectively by
asking the student what they know beforehand and encouraging students
to make predictions before seeing the scientific phenomena for
themselves. This allows for the students to construct their own
knowledge as the demonstration occurs. It also allows the teacher to
gain a better understanding about how the student views the phenomena
so as to modify their teaching accordingly (Colburn, 2000). Using the
previous example of sublimation of solid carbon dioxide, many students
would expect a substance that exists as a gas at room temperature to
change from a solid to a liquid rather than from a solid directly to a
gas unless they are familiar with the properties of dry ice. Therefore,
demonstrating this phase change that challenges their intuition could
foster a new, accurate understanding of sublimation.
Using
Video Streaming in the Classroom
Concept
of Video Streaming
Streaming
video is described as video that is sent in a “continuous
data stream” over the internet to a web browser and
reconfigured in a media program for immediate display (Colfield, 2002).
Streaming video sends out an audio and visual file across the internet
as a “series of small data packets” (Redden, 2005).
Some type of media player such as Quick Time or Windows Media Player
captures these files which may then be viewed by the recipient (Redden,
2005). In the past, one would need to wait until the media files were
finished downloading before viewing them which can cause the learner to
lose attentiveness. With the use of streaming video, students can view
the files that they wish to see as soon as it reaches the web browser,
which by today’s standards is almost instantaneously. High
speed connections, current computers, and "video compression
technologies" are so advanced now that the files that are streamed have
higher quality than in the past and can be viewed very quickly
(Colfield, 2002). The quality of the video may not be as advanced as
movie theatre quality, but it can be effective at showing scientific
phenomena that the students may otherwise not be able to experience
through their laboratory investigations or teacher-centered
demonstrations.
One benefit of streaming video from certain educational vendors is that
it allows teachers to access the material that is related to their
state standards, and they can choose the clips or movies that best suit
the needs of their students. The video clips that are streamed may be
viewed by the whole class or by individual students. Students and
teachers may save the clips in some instances or bookmark them for
future use. They can download the segments or videos and incorporate
the information into class presentations. Absent students may also view
the clips at later dates to catch them up with the rest of the class
using the teacher's computer, or if the student has access to the
streaming videos, they may view them from home (Redden, 2005). Indeed,
there are many practical benefits of video streaming such as student
and teacher access, convenience during viewing, and time efficiency
(Wetzel, Radtke, & Stern, 1994).
Choice of video streaming
Johnson
(2005) compares Curriculum Resource Bank, United Streaming, and
Powermedia Plus and considers United Streaming to have the most optimal
features. Also, in an independent study by CARET (Center of Applied
Research in Educational Technology), the group ranked United Streaming
as the best compared to its competitors (“Praise for
video”, 2003). One aspect of United Streaming that
distinguishes it from the other streaming sites is its longevity as a
company. United Streaming was designed by the Discovery communications
division within United learning, a media-based educational company. It
has the largest collection, 2600 videos and 26,000 clips, and contains
entire curricula for many subjects. The users may search within the
site which allows for videos to be located by keywords or state
curriculum standards. A drop down menu shows the subject, grade level,
state, and corresponding standard which allows for various methods of
effective searching. When a search result occurs, one may view a
summary of the video as well as the different clips by title and a
description of how long the video lasts. The video may be streamed,
saved completely, or saved in short segments (Johnson, 2005). This is
beneficial since some school systems prefer that teachers save video on
their hard drives rather than streaming due to bandwidth issues.
United Streaming also gives teacher assessments, citation sources,
integration ideas, sample lessons, and the opportunity to create
quizzes through a “quiz center” that allows for
hyperlinks to the corresponding video or clips (“Praise for
video”, 2003). This company offers worksheets in PDF format
for the teachers to use with their classes or individual students. The
media programs that are compatible with the movies and clips are
Windows Media Player or Quick Time. This internet source provides
schools with streaming video from WestenWoods, CalTech, Discover, and
other education programming in the core curriculum areas and is
relatively inexpensive (“Praise for video”, 2003).
Complete access to streaming video is sold to schools from about
1500-2000 dollars per year (Redden, 2005). This is cost-effective
considering that certain demonstration equipment is comparable in cost
and typically can only demonstrate one type of scientific phenomena.
Effects
of Using Video Streaming in the Classroom
According to
Sheppard (2003), experts agree that the most effective use of video in
the classroom involves incorporation of the video in short segments to
maximize the learner’s concentration and attentiveness. This
is best done when the learner is interacting with the video and has the
ability to construct what they believe they should learn from it. Most
often, the video is delivered through the VCR and television. More
recently the use of CD-ROM has allowed teachers to design instruction
that is more interactive for the students. Video that is used in a
narrative format does not promote active learning. However, when video
is delivered through a computer, the learner has the expectation of the
material being interactive. As a result, there may be components in
this type of media that is contrary to conventional video (Sheppard,
2003). Nonetheless, it is not clear if students perceive these
components as different from conventional video or what constitutes
these differences.
Ostensibly, streaming video may not be different than video from a DVD
or VCR in that the video plays and the viewer can control the result
through functions such as playing, fast-forwarding, pausing, and
rewinding. The video screen is smaller on the computer than on the
television, but it can be moved to full screen in the classroom with
some level of pixilation. In addition to the movie mode of streaming
video, the students have the option of viewing the video individually
after conducting research in a computer lab setting. Since the video
may be viewed in short segments rather than playing the whole movie,
the learners may choose which part they wish to view (Sheppard, 2003).
This saves both the students and teachers time.
Lessons can be designed that incorporate the material more effectively
in short segments to be pertinent to the topic at hand. Current
technologies allow for more adaptability of the streaming video in that
the lecturer can have rolling text to accompany the video and use it to
demonstrate natural processes that would otherwise be impossible to
demonstrate in the classroom or would be very difficult both monetarily
and in a time effective manner. The video can be accompanied by online
tests, quizzes and outlines of the topic so as to help the student
organize the information in an effective schema (Sheppard, 2003).
Overall, this type of media is very adaptable to use how the teacher
sees fit.
Colfield (2002) investigated the use of streaming video in Web-based,
college instruction as an addition to the traditional incorporation of
images and text. He looked at the perceptions and beliefs of the
students in terms of use and effectiveness in a Web-based learning
environment and previous experience with the Web to measure the utility
of streaming video. Colfield found that the students perceived the
streaming video, if used properly, as a reinforcer to learning. They
felt that it created the “presence of an
instructor” and saw the video as holding their attention and
accommodating their own, unique learning styles (Colfield, 2002). He
also found that the size and picture clarity of the streaming video
clips did not seem to affect the student’s beliefs or
attitudes towards the clips (Colfield, 2002). Therefore, showing video
in the K-12 classroom setting from the computer to the television with
some pixilation may not negatively affect the perceptions of these
students either.
Other studies analyzing college student perceptions of video show mixed
results. In 1999, Hect & Klass looked at whether or not live
streaming audio and video technology could be incorporated for
instruction in off-campus research classes (as cited in Colfield,
2002). Some students approved of the video while some students
preferred asynchronous classes that did not involve live video
streaming lectures (Colfield, 2002). Even with traditional video, Brown
(1975) found that higher education students did not like their
professors to incorporate video technology in the class if it was not
directly related to the instruction (as cited in Colfield, 2002). They
did not want to view the material out of just pure entertainment
(Colfield, 2002). Mahendran and Young (1998) looked at the perception
of six, second year undergraduates of video defined as an
“integration of computer and laboratory
simulations” designed to improve the aesthetics of lectures
and to replace certain laboratory instruction. The results show that
the students perceived the use of video as a worthy endeavor. The
students viewed the computer simulations as important and effective in
helping them comprehend the lessons. However, the sample size of their
study was very low (Manhendran & Young, 1998).
In the K-12 setting, student perceptions of video-enhanced lessons have
been generally positive. The use of video in the classroom was
implemented in an Indiana school. Grades and the teacher’s
grading method were not altered with the use of video and
computer-enriched instructional lessons. The teachers observed that the
students' interests and attention were held to a greater degree with
the use of video than the teacher lectures alone. The students stated
that the classes that used video were more interesting and made the
content easier to learn (Wise & Groom, 1996). Similarly, Redden
(2005) discusses the case of a math teacher whose students were loosing
their focus during class, and this teacher needed to change her usual
teaching methods to get them back on track. When her students viewed
the streaming math videos, they became more motivated and interested
(Redden, 2005). Streaming video can be used in many subjects in this
manner.
Streaming video has been used in education to provide more concrete
understanding of medical applications. Harrison (2002) used streaming
video during lecture to a group of more than 200 higher education
students to provide information on the nature of cystic fibrosis (as
cited in Sheppard, 2003). The video showed a real patient exhibiting
symptoms of the disease. These students may not have been able to
appreciate the severity of the patient's condition or have access to a
patient account without the use of streaming video. In another case
investigated by Larkin (2001), the professor lectured with Power Point,
administered hand-outs, and provided streaming video on how to measure
and take blood pressure with a sphygmomanometer, a blood pressure cuff
(as cited in Sheppard, 2002). The students’ perceptions were
that the hand-outs provided the most useful information and helped them
the best, while the streaming video was the worst medium of teaching.
However, the students scored high on a measure of how much they learned
regardless of the method used to teach the material (Sheppard, 2003).
So it seems that there may be a disconnect with what the students
perceive and their knowledge gains.
Learning chemistry is often confusing because the student must make the
abstract nature of microscopic phenomena more concrete, such as how
molecules move in phase changes. The use of video is an appealing and
straightforward way to do so. However, there is debate about the use of
video as compared to demonstration and hands-on lab activities. Indeed,
students often prefer their own investigations in science to further
understand how things work.
Learning
Theories
Mayer,
Heiser, & Lonn (2001) discussed some hypothesis and assumptions
to explain multimedia learning. The information delivery hypothesis
states that people learn more when information is delivered through
more paths, verbal and visually, rather than just one path, verbal or
visual alone. The cognitive theory of multimedia learning rests on
three assumptions, the dual-channel assumption, the limited capacity
assumption, and the generative learning assumption. In the dual-channel
assumption, learners possess separate and unique visual and verbal
processing channels in the brain. Each of the channels is limited in
its capacity and ability to process information according to the
limited capacity assumption. The best learning occurs when the learners
attend to the relevant information of each channel, visual and verbal,
and integrate the two types of informational material according to the
generative learning assumption (Mayer et al., 2001). The dual-channel
assumption is synonymous with dual-coding theory in which long-term
memory consists of two interdependent coding mechanisms, semantic or
verbal and visual. This theory assumes that if the information is coded
twice, once in the visual and once in the verbal area, then the
material learned will have a greater chance of being remembered
(Reiber, 1991). However, overloading these channels results in poorer
performances (van Merrienboer, & Ayres, 2005). These theories
are cognitive in nature rather than behavioral and involves an
informational processing view of learning.
According to the cognitive load theory, the best learning occurs when
the load on working memory or short-term memory is kept at a minimum,
thereby optimizing the transition of this information to long-term
memory (Miller, 1994). This theory assumes that short-term memory has a
limited capacity when it is dealing with new information, about seven
items during the storing phase and two to four items during the
processing phase. Long-term memory on the other hand has much more
capacity and is more dynamic in its ability to store information in the
form of cognitive schemas. These schemata organize and store
information and will reduce the load on working memory by implementing
complex organization and chunking of information. If they are
repeatedly and successfully applied as in the case of experts, schemata
have the ability to become more automated which also frees working
memory. How easily working memory processes new information can
determine the degree with which it can be stored successfully in
long-term memory. The load on working memory may be influenced by the
intrinsic nature of the tasks involved in the learning, intrinsic
cognitive load, and how these tasks are presented, extraneous cognitive
load. Also, short-term memory can be affected by the amount of
cognitive resources that the student puts into automation and schema
development (van Merrienboer & Ayres, 2005). Intrinsic
cognitive load depends on how the type of the information and materials
being learned interact as well as the level of expertise of the learner
as a novice, expert, or somewhere in between. Extraneous cognitive load
can be altered when instructional strategies are employed that are not
directly necessary for learning. When the visual or verbal areas of
working memory are cognitively overloaded, extraneous cognitive load
may increase and interfere with learning (van Merrienboer, &
Ayres, 2005). The role of cognitive load and learning is not clear with
the use of streaming video in the K-12 setting.
In one study, college students viewed an animated video while attending
to narration that explained the formation of lightening, a
well-researched scientific phenomena. Students also received on-screen
text that duplicated or summarized the narration and performed worse on
measures of retention and transfer. This is consistent with the
redundancy effect in which it is better to eliminate redundant
information which results in better performance than if the redundant
information is included (Mayer et al., 2001). The researchers explained
that this effect occurred because the addition of on-screen text
overloaded the visual channel. As a result, the students processed the
information in this channel by having to attend to two sources
visually, thereby “splitting” their attention
(Mayer et al., 2001).
Also, when
the students focus on details not relevant to the content or when
irrelevant video clips were added to the narration, they performed
lower on measures of transferring information. This effect was
explained with the seductive details hypothesis where the narration and
inserted video prime the activation of prior knowledge of schemata that
is not important to learning the lesson. In other words, the students
were learning the information based on a faulty foundation (Mayer et
al., 2001). If the students integrate new knowledge based on an
inappropriate schema initially, it follows that the students may
develop misconceptions or have trouble remembering the information in
the long-term.
One way to further explain a concept is to insert video clips in the
lesson. The clips reinforce the concept being taught but is not
directly needed for the students to learn the material. As a result,
even though the video provides an elaboration and further explanation
of the concept, it also contains a potential overload of facts not
directly relevant to the instruction. The learner may activate prior
knowledge instigated by the video clips that provides a faulty
organizing schema for the lesson and results in poor transfer of
knowledge. Mayer et al. (2001) defined seductive details as interesting
but unneeded material added to peak the learners interest in the
subject matter. Conceptually irrelevant illustration to a text and an
explanation of this illustration results in learners performing lower
on assessments of knowledge transfer. How pictures and words are
related in a multimedia presentation is described by the term coherence
(Mayer et al., 2001). This principle states that learning occurs on a
deeper level when extraneous information is not included in a
presentation (Mayer, n.d.). Coherence can describe situations where the
addition of pictures or words to a multimedia presentation often
results in poorer performance if they are irrelevant (Mayer et al.,
2001). Even though this principle is usually used in describing other
multimedia presentations, it could also be used to explain poorer
performances with video streaming incorporation.
Video clips are often integrated in teaching to increase the appeal of
the subject matter and motivation for learning. Mayer et al. (2001)
described an emotional interest as an increase in the
learner’s enjoyment of the lesson which may occur when
certain types of appealing material is added to a multimedia
presentation. The increase in enjoyment causes the reader to attend
more and try harder to comprehend the material, thereby increasing the
learner’s cognitive processing (Mayer et al., 2001). This
addition of interesting material regardless of the media used may
provide for intrinsic motivation to learn the material.
The cognitive theory of multimedia processing argues that learners are
pro-active in making sense of presented material by selecting and
integrating the material with existing schemas in long-term memory.
Derived from this constructivist idea, the emotional interest
hypothesis states that as a student constructs their knowledge based on
their own learning style, he or she gains a sense of satisfaction and
interest in the material. Video clips may negatively interfere with
this process regardless of emotional appeal. The explanation of a
concept may be related to irrelevant information in the video clips.
Mayer et al. (2001) found that the video clips did not influence direct
learning, positively or negatively. However, the non-video group was
able to come up with more solutions on a test that measured their
ability to transfer information than the video group. So it seems that
the use of video clips in streaming video may not interfere with direct
learning and recall, only with the ability of students to transfer
information to new situations.
Media
Comparison: Research and Debate
There has
been a debate over whether or not media influences learning and if
researching this topic is a fruitless endeavor. The two key players in
this debate are Richard Clarke and Robert Kozma. Clarke’s
(1983) stance is that media will never influence learning, and the
media research that has been conducted over an extended amount of time
has shown that there is no significant difference in learning due to
various instructional media. Clarke (1983) would argue that any
differences and gains in retention or learning are due to the
instructional method, not the media. When studies show no significant
difference when comparing instructional media, the research employs the
same instructional method but different media (“The great
media”, 2005). An
example of no differences being found in learning gains is in the use
of interactive videodisks and traditional cadavers to teach anatomy.
This was demonstrated in a study involving 473 undergraduate
pre-nursing students (Guy, & Frisbie, 1992). When differences
are shown, they are due to different instructional methods and media
combined. Clarke argues that academia has wasted time and money by
repeating this question over and over (“The great
media”, 2005).” He states that whether or not media
influences learning may be the most researched question in the
“history of communication and education”
(“The great media”, 2005).
Kozma (1994) argues that media does influence learning and that if
there is indeed no relationship between media and learning, it could be
because researchers have not found this missing link. He states that
the methods used in research of this kind are linked to behavioral
philosophies, and these studies do not address emotional, cognitive, or
social complexities through which learning occurs. The media used in
teaching is one of the many tools available to the teacher, and certain
media are applicable in certain instructional methods. The choice of
the best media and method will impact the learners. Kozma states that
when there has been differences found in these studies, Clarke has
never thoroughly explained how all of the variance could be due to one
research factor, instructional method. How these two factors interact
in learning is the most important question to consider and implement in
the research (“The great media, 2005). These points should be
considered in all media research.
Summary
In
conclusion, video streaming is used in higher education and K-12
settings. The research has generally found that students enjoy and
approve of the use of video in both of these settings, perceiving it as
creating the presence of an instructor, acting as a reinforcer to
learning, and making a traditional classroom more interesting
(Colfield, 2002: Redden, 2005). The best use of video in a classroom
setting is in short segments and related to the topic (Sheppard, 2003).
The optimal use of demonstration occurs in constructivist teaching by
presenting discrepant events which increases recall and can clear up
misconceptions (Colburn, 2000: Chiappetta & Koballa, 2002). It
is still unclear if media does influence learning or if the learning
effects are due to the method of teaching rather than the type of media
used (“The great media”, 2005). The learning
effects that research in the use of video has shown are explained by
learning and multimedia theories such as cognitive load theory,
dual-channel/dual-coding theory, and the cognitive theory of
multimedia. Each of these theories has certain assumptions and
hypothesis inherent to them (Mayer et al., 2001: Reiber, 1991). The
role of these factors in the use of video streaming is still unclear,
especially in the K-12 educational setting since most research has
involved college students.
Methods
The purpose of this study is to assess the
utility of video streaming clips hyper linked to Power Points in
short-term and long-term retention of chemistry content in a high
school chemistry class compared to the use of demonstration of the same
concepts conducted in a constructivist manner.
Hypothesis
Participants
The study
took place at a rural high school located in the southeastern United
States. The population studied was students from three chemistry
classes, two honors and one advanced. Fifty-one students participated
in the research with thirty-one students in the video groups and twenty
in the demonstration group. Their ages ranged from 15 to 18 in the
honors chemistry video group and advanced chemistry demonstration group
and ages 15 to 17 in the honors chemistry demonstration group (see,
Table 1).
Table
1
Demographic
Data for Video and Demonstration Groups
| Gender
and Ethnicity |
Honors
Video Group |
Adv.
Video Group |
Demonstration
Group |
| Total
(N) |
11 |
20 |
20 |
| Female |
7 |
9 |
16 |
| Male |
4 |
11 |
4 |
| African-American |
0 |
2 |
0 |
| Asian-American |
1 |
3 |
1 |
| Caucasian |
10 |
14 |
17 |
| Hispanic |
0 |
1 |
2 |
Instruments
The
dependent measures used to quantitatively evaluate retention were four
teacher-made assessments. Three of the assessments were quizzes used to
measure short-term retention after a lecture lasting approximately 30
minutes to an hour long and were given immediately following the
lecture, occurring in one or two days (see, Appendix A-C). Each quiz
contained multiple choice, short answer, or essay items designed to
measure the retention from each of these lectures. Also, a final,
cumulative quiz was constructed based on the content in the lecture and
the quizzes (see, Appendix D). The final quiz represented a snapshot of
the same content. This test was used to quantitatively measure
long-term retention two weeks after all lectures were given. These
questions were embedded in a unit test that measured all of the content
taught during the unit on matter.
Additionally,
an eleven-item survey was constructed for the video group (see,
Appendix E). A ten-item survey was constructed for the demonstration
group (see, Appendix F). Each student that participated in the study
completed the survey on-line from the Quia web site (“Where
learning takes," 1998). This survey was designed to provide more
affective and motivational insight into the research questions posed.
Research
Design
This design is a quasi-experimental, group post-test only design and a
qualitative survey experiment. The independent variable is the video
clips in the lecture. The dependent variables are the amount/degree of
retention, either short-term or long-term at different points in time
as measured by three quizzes to measure short-term retention and one
final quiz to measure long-term retention.
Procedures
Students
were taught three lessons on matter and the classification of matter in
chemistry. The presentation formats used were teacher made Power
Points. Each lesson was taught in a lecture format, using the Power
Points as a guide. The demonstration/control group received the
lectures in the same format as the streaming video group. However,
instead of reinforcing the concepts with video at specific moments in
the Power Point, this group received reinforcement with traditional
demonstration. The demonstration groups were inevitably more
interactive and constructivist.
The
experimental group received the same Power Point lectures. However,
hyperlinks were present in the Power Point to short clips of streaming
video from United Streaming to reinforce the content presented (United
streaming, 2005). In this group, the students received short streaming
video at the same point in the lesson as the other group that received
demonstration. These clips ranged from 30 seconds to 5 minutes in
length, and there were 5 clips, total embedded in each presentation.
This group did not receive the reinforcement through a demonstration or
white board, or verbal elaboration. The reinforcement given to the
control/demonstration group lasted, approximately, the same amount of
time that it took for the media clips to play as in the experimental
group.
Immediately
after each three lectures were completed, a short-term retention
measure was given to each student in the form of a multiple-choice,
short answer, or essay quiz. The lessons lasted 30 minutes to one hour
from one to two days. After all three lessons were presented, the
students were taken to the media center to complete the online surveys
(see, Appendix E and F). Two weeks later, a unit test was given, which
contained questions embedded in the test designed to measure long term
retention of the material presented in the experiment. These questions
were short-answer/essay items.
Analysis
A t-test was used to analyze the quantitative data to compare the
groups. The sample size, mean, median mode, range, and standard
deviation were used to analyze the data to determine differences and
similarities in the groups (see, Appendix G). The surveys were used to
gather qualitative data from the students to provide information about
the cognitive processes of the students as well as attitudes and
beliefs.
Results
and Discussion
The results of the quantitative and
qualitative data are presented in the following order; Quiz-1, Quiz-2,
Quiz-3 (measures of short-term retention), Final Quiz (measure of
long-term retention), and the qualitative survey results (see, Appendix
A-F).
Quantitative
Results
The results from the first measure of short-term retention, Quiz-1,
show that the honors demonstration group (M=7.76, SD=1.08)
out-performed both the advanced chemistry video groups (M=6.15,
SD=1.73) and the honors chemistry video group (M=7.54, SD=1.69). A
t-test was run to determine significant differences between each video
group and the demonstration group. A significant effect was found
between the advanced chemistry video group and the honors chemistry
demonstration group, t(19) = 4.02, p < .001. However, no
significant difference occurred with the honors video and honors
demonstration group, t(10) = .30, p > .05 (see, Table 2).
The results from the short-term retention measure, Quiz-2, show that
both honors classes, video (M=8.36, SD=1.50) and demonstration (M=7.95,
SD=2.04) groups, scored higher on the quiz than the advanced chemistry
video group (M=7.89, SD=1.85). The honors video group (M=8.36, SD=1.50)
outperformed the honors demonstration group (M=7.95, SD=2.04). However,
these results are not significant based on a t-test, t(10) = .91 and
t(18) = .13 , p > .05 (see, Table 2).
The result from the short-term retention measure, Quiz-3, showed that
the honors video group (M=7.09, SD=0.83) outperformed the honors
demonstration group (M=6.55, SD=1.32). The honors chemistry
demonstration group (M=6.55, SD=1.32) outperformed the advanced
chemistry video group (M=6.47, SD=1.22). A t-test showed a significant
effect between the honors video group and demonstration group, t(10) =
2.15, p < .05, but no significant difference was found in the
advanced chemistry video group compared to the honors demonstration
group, t(18) = .27, p > .05 (see, Table 2).
The results from the long-term retention measure, Final Quiz, showed
that the honors chemistry demonstration group (M=4.60, SD=0.598)
outperformed both video groups, honors (M=3.27, SD=0.786) and advanced
(M=3.60, SD=1.14). A t-test showed a significant difference between the
honors video group and the demonstration group, t(10) = 5.60, p
< .001, as well as the advanced chemistry and demonstration
group, t(19) = 3.91, p < .001 (see, Table 2).
Table
2
Descriptive
Statistics on Means and Standard Deviations for Four Quizzes
| Group |
Mean |
Standard Deviation |
N |
| |
Q1 |
Q2 |
Q3 |
FQ |
Q1 |
Q2 |
Q3 |
FQ |
|
| Video Group Honors |
7.54 |
8.36 |
7.09 |
3.27 |
1.69 |
1.50 |
0.83 |
0.79 |
11 |
| Video
Group Adv. |
6.15 |
7.89 |
6.47 |
3.60 |
1.73 |
1.85 |
1.22 |
1.14 |
20 |
| Demonstration
Group |
7.76 |
7.95 |
6.55 |
4.60 |
1.08 |
2.04 |
1.32 |
0.60 |
20 |
| Total |
|
|
51 |
Qualitative
Results
The
participants completed an online survey that was developed and posted
on the Quia web site (“Where learning takes”,
1998). The survey consisted of questions measured on a 5-point Likert
scale. In addition to this qualitative measurement, the students
answered open-ended questions to assess their perceptions of the
lessons. These answers were analyzed and categorized according to
specific themes that resulted. These themes and agree/disagree
responses are presented in the following tables (see, Tables 3-6).
Table
3
Descriptive
Statistics for 5-point Likert Scale in Honors Chemistry Demonstration
Group, N = 20
(Strongly agree 1-2-3-4-5 Strongly disagree)
| Question |
Result |
| The
demonstrations helped to prepare me for the quizzes. |
1.65 |
| The
demonstrations were interesting. |
1.30 |
| I
paid attention to the demonstrations. |
1.45 |
| The
demonstrations helped me to learn material. |
1.30 |
| The
demonstrations were presented in a logical manner in the lectures. |
1.60 |
| I
would prefer videos (short media clips) of demonstrations to real life
demonstrations. |
4.15 |
Table
4
Common
Themes of Honors Chemistry Demonstration Group, N=20
| Question |
Theme |
Respondent |
| How did the demonstrations help
you learn? |
Being
able to visualize
|
14
|
| Attention
getting |
4 |
| Interesting |
2 |
| What did you least like about
the demonstrations? |
Did
not dislike anything |
8 |
| Did
not do the demonstrations themselves |
8 |
| Too
short |
2 |
| Odor
of the sulfur |
1 |
| Don’t
remember |
1 |
| What do you remember most about
the demonstrations? |
Fire/flames-visual
stimuli |
15 |
| How
it relates to the content |
3 |
| Teacher
description |
1 |
| What did you like most about
the demonstrations? |
Enjoyment
of watching |
8 |
| Experiencing
it firsthand |
6 |
| Deeper
understanding |
6 |
| Aided
with remembering |
2 |
| Interaction
with the content |
1 |
Table
5
Descriptive
Statistics for 5-point Likert Scale in Honors and Advanced Chemistry
Video Groups, N = 31 (Strongly agree 1-2-3-4-5 Strongly disagree)
| Question |
Result |
| The
quality of the media clips (videos) was sufficient. |
2.65 |
| The
media clips (videos) were interesting. |
2.97 |
| The
media clips (videos) in the Power Points helped me to learn. |
2.61 |
| I would prefer real life demonstrations to
media clips (videos) of demonstrations. |
2.03 |
| The
media clips (videos) were embedded in the Power Points in a logical
manner. It made sense where they were placed. |
1.68 |
| The
media clips (videos) helped to prepare me for the quizzes. |
2.90 |
| I
paid attention to the media clips (videos) during lectures. |
2.29 |
Table
6
Common
Themes of Honors and Advanced Chemistry Video Group, N=3
| Question |
Theme |
Respondents |
| What do you remember most about
the media clips (videos)? |
The
demonstrations and experiments |
9 |
| The
main facts |
4 |
| Voice
of the narrator |
3 |
| Duration
of the clips/short |
2 |
| Quality-old
and pixilated |
2 |
| Nothing |
1 |
| What did you like least about
the media clips (videos)? |
Duration/short |
12 |
| Boring |
6 |
| Don’t
know or nothing |
4 |
| Narrator |
3 |
| Poor
quality/old |
3 |
| Video
can’t answer questions |
2 |
| What did you like most about
the media clips (videos) in the Power Points? |
Details
and reinforcement |
7 |
| Experiments |
6 |
| Integration
into lecture |
4 |
| Visual
stimulus |
3 |
| Being
a video |
2 |
| Informative |
2 |
| Attention
getting |
2 |
| Quality |
2 |
| Helped
me remember |
1 |
| How did the media clips
(videos) help you to learn? |
Reinforced
concepts |
11 |
| Provided
more details |
10 |
| Gave
a visual |
6 |
| Did
not help |
2 |
| Attention
getting |
1 |
Analysis
of Quantitative Results
The results from the first measure of short-term retention support the
original hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant
difference between the honors chemistry video group and the honors
chemistry demonstration group. Cognitive load did not interfere with
learning to a greater degree with either teaching strategy. The honors
video group did not attend to irrelevant information and build
knowledge on an inappropriate schema any more than the honors
demonstration group did according to the seductive details hypothesis.
The level of emotional interest does not seem to effect short-term
retention in this case. However, the qualitative results will shed more
light on the level of interest from these groups.
This result
also supports Clarke’s (1983) argument that the type of media
does not influence learning. The teaching style used with the video
groups was inherently more passive and teacher-centered than the
demonstration group, being more constructivist and student-centered in
nature. However, the teaching method did not affect the students'
ability to recall the content in this short-term retention measure.
The results
from the this first quiz also supports the hypothesis that a
significant difference among the advanced chemistry video group and the
honors chemistry demonstration group would be found. I attribute this
result to the differences in the ability level of an honors chemistry
class compared to an advanced chemistry class. However, this ability
difference does not mediate the results of all measures since the
honors chemistry demonstrations group does not outperform the advanced
chemistry group in every case (see, Table 2). Therefore, there are
mediating factors in some instances that results in no significant
gains in short-term retention of advanced chemistry groups exposed to
video streaming compared to honors chemistry groups exposed to
constructivist demonstration teaching.
One factor
to consider is that the advanced chemistry groups took physical science
previously, whereas the honors chemistry groups did not. Their previous
science was honors biology. Therefore, the advanced chemistry group was
exposed to some chemistry in this previous class. This fact could
explain these results. However, my experience has been that regardless
of this fact, the honors chemistry classes still outperform advanced
chemistry classes, and the advanced chemistry classes tend to score
around 25% on pre-tests that measure the full chemistry curriculum. One
explanation is that students that have previous knowledge are less
likely to attend to irrelevant or seductive details and therefore are
more inclined to build their knowledge on appropriate schema.
The results of the second measure of short term retention show no
significant differences between the video and demonstration groups
regardless of whether or not it was an honors chemistry or advanced
chemistry class. It was expected that the honors chemistry
demonstration group would outperform the advanced chemistry video group
so this hypothesis was refuted. Video streaming may be more effective
at promoting short-term retention of chemistry content for students who
have had some previous experience with chemistry content. A pre-test
was not given to determine the level of knowledge of the content. As a
result, the advanced chemistry groups’ prior knowledge of
chemistry from physical science could have had an impact here as stated
earlier. These results do support the hypothesis that no significant
difference would be found among the honors groups regardless of the
medium used, video streaming or demonstration as evidenced by the
results of quiz 2 and 3.
The honors chemistry video group outperformed the honors chemistry
demonstration group on the third measure of short-term retention,
Quiz-3 (see, Table 2). This refutes my hypothesis that there would be
no difference between these groups on measures of short-term retention.
I see three possibilities for this result. First, there were factors
inherent to the measures of retention that influenced the results.
Quiz-3 was a short answer essay quiz whereas the previous measures
consisted of short answer and multiple choice items as in Quiz-1 or
solely multiple choice items as in Quiz-2 (see, Appendix A-D). Second,
there were elements in the videos themselves which were more effective
in promoting short-term retention than the other video clips that were
used. Therefore, teaching through the use of video streaming may be
more effective at promoting short-term retention in chemistry than
demonstration teaching in some instances. Short answer questions with
essay items may be more sensitive in assessing this difference. Third,
the results are due to small sample size with the honors video group,
N= 11. Regardless, these factors need to be researched further to
understand these results.
The results on the measure of long-term retention show the
demonstration group outperforming both video groups. These results
support the initial hypothesis that the honors demonstration group
would outperform the advanced chemistry video group. However, no
difference was expected among the honors groups in this measure, so
this hypothesis was refuted. Considering the previous result of the
honors video group outperforming the honors demonstration group on
short term retention, Quiz-3, this result is surprising. It would seem
that demonstration teaching in chemistry conducted in a constructivist
manner is more effective in promoting long-term retention than
presenting chemistry content via video streaming in a teacher-centered
lesson. This would imply that the instructional method mediates
learning rather than the type of media used. It is possible that since
the demonstration group showed more interest as evidenced by the
qualitative results, they had more intrinsic motivation to retain the
material for a longer time. There also could have been some extraneous
cognitive load that did not affect the honors video and advanced
chemistry video groups in the short-term, but interfered with these
students remembering the material two weeks later.
Some factors to consider are typical delayed, post-test constraining
variables such as time. During the period between the short-term
measures of retention and the long-term measure of retention, some
students spent time studying the material while others did not. Honors
students tend to study more than advanced students, and the honors
demonstration group may have studied more than the two other groups.
The majority of factors that may have confounded these results would
have happened outside of the classroom since all classes received the
same lessons in between testing. We covered the same material and
conducted the same laboratory investigations before the students took
the long-term retention measure.
Analysis
of Qualitative Results
All of the
groups would prefer teaching through demonstration rather than through
streaming video. This observation was not due to a lack of cohesiveness
and logical placement during the lessons since all of the students in
the video groups agreed that the clips were properly placed in the
Power Points. Some students in the video groups stated that what they
liked most about the videos were their logical placement in the lesson.
These students may prefer demonstration to video streaming because the
video groups were almost neutral in their opinion of whether or not the
clips were interesting or of poor quality. This leads me to believe
that the demonstration group paid attention more to the demonstrations
than the video groups and had a higher intrinsic motivation to learn
this material. This possibility could be a factor in the results of
demonstration being more effective in promoting long-term retention.
The video group only slightly felt that the video clips helped them
learn the material. However, most stated that the use of video
reinforced the concepts and provided helpful details. This supports
Colfield’s (2002) previous results with college students that
the students perceived streaming video to act as a reinforcer to
learning. He also found that the streaming video supported his
students’ learning style (Colfield, 2002). In my study, many
of the students mentioned that they were visual learners and seemed to
appreciate the visual component given in the video clips. This visual
theme was most apparent in the demonstration group since many described
the visualization as "most liked" compared to the video groups who
perceived the details and reinforcement as "most liked."
Colfield
(2002) also found that the size and appearance of the streaming video
clips did not seem to affect the students’ beliefs or
attitudes towards the clips. It seems that these results were
duplicated in this study. Very few students mentioned displeasure with
the clips in terms of their quality as being slightly pixilated. My
students also remembered the demonstrations and experiments within the
video most of all, which could be evidence that the demonstration
portions of the video had the biggest impact.
Many of the
students in the demonstration group stated that they did not dislike
anything about the demonstrations. Many wished that they could have
been more active in doing the demonstrations themselves. This is not
surprising since most students enjoy observing scientific phenomena
firsthand and possess a motivation for investigating science on their
own. Another interesting observation is that many students who watched
the videos stated that they were too short, whereas very few students
in the demonstration group felt that the demonstrations were too short.
In reality, the duration of the videos and demonstrations were
approximately the same length.
Conclusions
In
conclusion, more research should be done to address the use of
demonstration and video streaming in science education. The findings
from this study indicate that video streaming is effective at promoting
short-term retention of chemistry content and may be more effective in
the short-term than the use of demonstration in some instances.
Seductive details in these videos may interfere with learning and
long-term retention for chemistry students in some instances due to the
coherence principle. Chemistry students who have been pre-exposed to
some level of chemistry in physical science may benefit more from
streaming video, in certain cases, than chemistry students who have
not. These students with a prior knowledge of chemistry may be less
likely to activate inappropriate schema in the organization of new
knowledge. Video streaming used in a teacher-centered, passive manner
is not as effective as the employment of science demonstrations in a
constructivist lesson in long-term retention of chemistry content. The
reasons for this effect could be because students exposed to
demonstration teaching are more emotionally interested and therefore
have intrinsic motivation to learn the material than students exposed
to short video clips. Video streaming may be more effective if it is
employed in a constructivist manner in science to show discrepant
events. If interactive, student-centered lessons incorporate video
streaming, they may provide for greater long-term retention. This
interactivity would promote the ability of the students to construct
their own reality of science more in line with the scientific community
and dispel misconceptions. Nonetheless, video streaming technologies
are a viable alternative to effectively demonstrate certain scientific
phenomena that are difficult or impossible to show in the laboratory or
demonstrate in the classroom.
References
Chiappetta, E., & Koballa, T. (2002).
Science instruction in the middle and secondary schools. 5th ed. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
Clark, R. E.
(1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review
of Educational Research, 43(4), 445-459.
Clermont, C.
P., Borko, H., Krajcik, J. S. (1994). Comparative study of the
pedagogical content knowledge of experienced and novice chemical
demonstrators. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(4),
419-441.
Colburn, A.
(2000). Constructivism: Science Education's 'Grand Unifying Theory.' Clearinghouse
74(1), 4.
Colfield,
Jay L. "An assessment of streaming video in web-based instruction."
Mid-South Education Research Association., Chattanooga. 06 November
2002.
Guy, J. F.,
& Frisbie, A. J. (1992). Using interactive videodiscs to teach
gross anatomy to undergraduates at the Ohio state university. Academic
Medicine, 67(2), 132-133.
Haney, J.
J., Czerniak, C. M., & Lumpe A. T. (2003). Constructivist
beliefs about science classroom learning environment: perspective from
teachers, administrators, parents, community members, and students.
School Science and Mathematics, 103(8), 366-377.
Hastings, N.
B. (2005). Does media affect learning: where are we now? TechTrends:
Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 49(2),
28-30.
Johnson, S.
(2005). Comparing online streaming video sources. Library
Media Connections, 5(1), 58-60.
Kozma, R. B.
(1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7-19.
Krygier, J.,
& Catherine, R. (1997). Design, implementation and evaluation
of multimedia resources for geography and earth science education. Journal
of Geography in Higher Education, 21(1), 17-23.
Lin Hsiao,
J. W. (n.d.). Retrieved Febuary 24, 2006, from CSCL Theories Web site:
http://www.edb.utexas.edu/csclstudent/Dhsiao/theories.html#construc.
Manhendran,
M., & Young, J. (1998). Use of advanced technology videotapes
in the delivery of structural engineering courses. Journal of
Engineering Education, 23(3), 327-328.
Mayer, R.
E., Heiser, J., & Lonn S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on
multimedia learning: more material results in less understanding. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 187-198.
Mayer, R. E.
(n.d.). Research Based Principles of Multimedia Training. Retrieved
Apr. 5, 2005, from
http://projects.ict.usc.edu/itw/vtt/mayer_march%207_v2.ppt#256,1,Slide 1
Miller, M.
(1994). Cognitive load theory. Retrieved Apr. 03, 2006, from
Encyclopedia of Educational Technology Web site:
http://coe.sdsu.edu/eet/Articles/cogloadtheory/index.htm.
Miltenoff,
P. (2003). Teaching with technology: multimedia and interactivity in
social science education. Multimedia Schools, 10(2),
34-37.
Narguizian,
P., & Wali, A. S. (2005). Favorite demonstrations for college
science. School Science & Mathematics, 105(5),
270.
Redden, L.
(2005). Videostreaming in k-12. Media and Methods, 9. Retrieved August
04, 2005, from http://www.media-methods.com/
Reiber, L.
P. (1991). Animations, incidental learning, and continuing motivation. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 83(3), 318-328.
Rodriguez,
S., Smith, A., & Ainley M. (2001). Video clips and animation in
chemistry cd-roms: student interest and preference. Australian
Science Teacher Journal, 47(2), 9-16.
Shepardson,
D. P., Moje, E. B., Kennard-McClelland, A. M. (1994). The impact of
science demonstrations on children’s understanding of air
pressure. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(1),
243-258.
Sheppard, K.
(2003). Questioning, promoting, and evaluating the use of streaming
video to support student learning. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 34(3), 295-308.
Praise for
video streaming service. (n.a.). (2003). School library
journal, 3(1), 34.
Smith, J.
P., deSessa, A. A., & Roschelle J. (1994). Misconceptions
reconceived: a constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. Journal
of the learning sciences, 3(2), 115-163.
The great
media debate: media are mere vehicles of instruction. (n.d.). Retrieved
Apr. 1, 2005, from http://hagar.up.ac.za/rbo/construct/media.html.
United
streaming. (2005). Retrieved March 18, 2004, from United streaming Web
site: http://www.unitedstreaming.com/
van
Merrienboer, J. J., & Ayres, P. (2005). Research on cognitive
lad theory and its design implications for e-learning. ETR&D,
53(3), 5-13.
Wise M., and
Groom, F.M. (1996). The effects of enriching classroom learning with
the systematic employment of multimedia. Education, 117(1),
61-70.
Wetzel, D.,
Radtke, P., & Stern, H. (1994). Instructional effectiveness of
video media. 1st ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawerence Erlbaum Associates.
Quia; Where
Learning Takes You. (1998). Retrieved Apr. 5, 2005, from
http://www.quia.com/
Appendix A
Short-term
Retention Measure Quiz-1
1. Define
matter.
2. Define
mass.
3. What
holds solids together?
4. Name one
example of an amorphous solid.
5. What is a
property of liquids as given by the description “as slow as
molasses in January.”
a. fills a container b. viscosity
b. wet c. sublimes easily
6. What
intermolecular force gives water unique properties such as a high
boiling point.
a. polar bonds b. van der waals forces
c. hydrogen and oxygen d. hydrogen bonding
7. What is
the process that allows gases to fill a room completely?
a. osmosis b. kinetic energy
c. diffusion d. elastic motion
8. What is
the term given to the particles in a gas that allows them to collide
and keep moving in another direction without a loss in kinetic energy?
a. elastic motion b. diffusion
c. collision d. osmosis
9. Define
kinetic-molecular theory.
10. What is
a property of water that allows water bugs to walk on water?
a. polar bonds b. hydrogen bonding
c. high boiling point d. surface tension
Appendix
B
Short-term
Retention Measure Quiz-2
1. A mixture
that is not uniform throughout is a
a. homogeneous mixture b. heterogeneous mixture
c. element d. compound
2. In this
heterogeneous mixture, the particles are dispersed in another substance
but don’t settle out of the substance.
a. suspension b. colloid
c. compound d. element
3. What is one way to determine if something is a colloid or not?
a. shine a light through to see if particles are present
b. let the mixture stand to see if particles settle
c. use distillation to separate the liquids
d. use a funnel to separate the substances
4. An
example of a suspension is _______________.
a. shaving cream b. jello
c. orange juice d. dirt
5. Physical
blends of two or more pure substances are called
a. elements b. compounds
c. mixtures d. colloids
6. This is
an example of a mixture
a. dirt b. calcium carbonate
c. water d. uranium
7. This is
an example of a heterogeneous mixture
a. milk b. perfume
c. oxygen d. granite
8. What is
one way to determine if something is a suspension or not?
a. shine a light through to see if particles are present
b. let the mixture stand to see if particles settle
c. use distillation to separate the liquids
d. use a funnel to separate the substances
9. An
example of a homogeneous mixture is __________.
a. perfume b. cereal
c. granite d. salad
10. An
example of a colloid is ____________.
a. milk b. jello
c. orange juice d. dirt
Appendix
C
Short-term
Retention Measure Quiz-3
1. What is a
chemical property of materials such as methane or gasoline?
2. Name
three physical properties.
3. What
physical properties could you use to differentiate iron from aluminum?
4. What are
some physical properties that you could use to differentiate two
liquids?
5. What is
another name for homogeneous mixtures?
6. What is
special about dry ice?
7. Define
sublimation.
8. Describe
what would happen to iron(Fe) if you began applying 3000 degrees
Celsius to the solid. The melting point of iron is 1535 °C and
the boiling point is 2750 °C.
Appendix
D
Long-term
Retention Measure Final Quiz
1. What is a
property of liquids as given by the description “as slow as
molasses in January?”
a. fills a container b. viscosity
b. wet c. sublimes easily
2. What is
the process that allows gases to fill a room completely?
a. osmosis b. kinetic energy
c. diffusion d. elastic motion
3. What is
one way to determine if something is a colloid or not?
a. shine a light through to see if particles are present
b. let the mixture stand to see if particles settle
c. use distillation to separate the liquids
d. use a funnel to separate the substances
4. An
example of a homogeneous mixture is __________.
a. perfume b. cereal
c. granite d. salad
5. What
physical properties could you use to differentiate iron from aluminum?
Appendix
E
Survey
for video group
1. What did
you like most about the videos?
2. The
videos were interesting.
1-strongly disagree
2-disagree
3-neutral
4-agree
5-strongly agree
3. What did
you least like about the videos?
4. I paid
attention to the video in the lectures.
1-strongly disagree
2-disagree
3-neutral
4-agree
5-strongly agree
5. I would
prefer real demonstration to video demonstration.
1-strongly disagree 2-disagree
3-neutral
4-agree
5-strongly agree
6. The video
in the lecture helped me to learn.
1-strongly disagree
2-disagree
3-neutral
4-agree
5-strongly agree
7. The
videos helped to prepare me for the quizzes and test.
1-strongly disagree
2-disagree
3-neutral
4-agree
5-strongly agree
8. What do
you remember most about the videos?
9. The
videos were in the Power Points in a logical manner.
1-strongly disagree
2-disagree
3-neutral
4-agree
5-strongly agree
10. The
video in the lecture helped me to learn.
1-strongly disagree
2-disagree
3-neutral
4-agree
5-strongly agree
11. How did
the video help me or hinder me from learning?
Appendix
F
Survey
for demonstration group
1. The
demonstrations helped me to learn.
1-strongly disagree
2-disagree
3-neutral
4-agree
5-strongly agree
2. How did
the demonstrations help me or hinder me from learning?
3. The
demonstrations helped to prepare me for the quizzes and test.
1-strongly disagree
2-disagree
3-neutral
4-agree
5-strongly agree
4. I would
prefer video demonstrations to real demonstration.
1-strongly disagree
2-disagree
3-neutral 4-agree
5-strongly agree
5. The
demonstrations were presented in a logical manner.
1-strongly disagree
2-disagree
3-neutral
4-agree
5-strongly agree
6. The
demonstrations were interesting.
1-strongly disagree
2-disagree
3-neutral
4-agree
5-strongly agree
7. I paid
attention to the demonstrations.
1-strongly disagree
2-disagree
3-neutral
4-agree
5-strongly agree
8. What do
you remember most about the demonstrations?
9. What did
you least like about the demonstrations?
10. What did
you like most about the demonstrations?
