draft – revision 14 – 3/4/04 2:37 pm running head: video … › courses › ged575w2004 ›...

Draft – Revision 14 – 3/4/04

2:37 PM

Running Head: Video Designs for Learning

Video Designs for Learning

P. G. Schrader, Ph.D.

Cal Poly, Pomona

Michael F. Young, Ph.D.

James Sulzen

Lori Holcomb

Gilton Lee

&

Suzanne Scheffler

Neag School of Education, The University of Connecticut

Submitted to: Draft Jan 2nd, 2002.

Direct correspondence to Michael Young, Department of Educational Psychology,

UConn, 249 Glenbrook Rd. – Unit 2004, Storrs, Connecticut, 06269-2004.

[email protected].


2:37 PM

Video Designs for Learning

Abstract

Contemporary researchers have been forced to operationally define the term video

in educational contexts in many different ways. Consequently, we propose a definition of

video based on its affordances and potential features of video in the hopes of establishing

a consensus for educational research. In particular, we distinguish video as an object

(DVD) from video as an action (filming a classroom). We also identify video “classes,”

which result from manipulating the affordances and their significance for educational

researchers.

Key Terms

Video designs, media, affordances, context, mediated learning


2:37 PM

Introduction

The prospect of defining a term that everyone has some vague notion of its

meaning without ever being able to clearly parse out the meaning is difficult at best.

Consider the term “technology” for example. Every individual has a distinct

understanding of what that term means. Vygotsky would suggest that a term like

technology is culturally defined and subject to change, but there are certainly some

characteristics of these terms that can be agreed upon. This is important before

undertaking research in that particular area. This paper will not try to define technology,

distance learning, or any number of concepts that have found their way into current

literature. Rather, we will take a concept that in the past century has found its way into

nearly every home in America. We will describe video as a class, provide examples of

our intent, and continue with the educational implications of video designs for learning.

Video Designs for Learning: Why?

Many would agree that learning is ubiquitous and natural, an unavoidable

consequence of being in the lived-in world. Many would also agree that Americans

spend far too much time in front of televisions and video monitors, virtually experiencing

the world through the video perspectives of screenwriters, directors, and producers. In

this sense we can assert not only that people learn from video (be it for entertainment or

educational purposes), but that video is ubiquitous and in at least some ways, quite

powerful in its learning effects.

There is little doubt that current trends in home technology focus on the video

medium. A trip to any home entertainment store will confirm this; camera phones, digital

still cameras, and digital video cameras are found in abundance. Consumers now have

access to reasonably priced equipment and editing software. For decades, the manner in

which we view the world has been through television and other video media. For nearly

as long, we have also used video to capture our memories. Unlike viewers and

videographers of the past, modern consumers (e.g., educators and students) are able to

interact with video in distinct and unanticipated ways. There are attributes, affordances,

and design issues that make video particularly interesting as an instructional medium

(Fischman, 2001). Defining its key characteristics and affordances may allow us to see

how videos may be effectively designed for different purposes, provide different levels of

interaction, afford different types of viewing, and create a different type of virtual

learning environment.

Historical Views on Media

There have been lively discussions in the literature concerning the role of media

in education (see Educational Technology Research & Development, 40 (2), for an in-

depth discussion). In a seminal article on the effects of media, Clark (1983) argued that

the selection of media did not matter. The foundation of Clark’s argument was based on

years of research that failed to find a significant difference between mediated learning

and more traditional learning. More than a decade later, Clark (1994) reasserted his


2:37 PM

original stance by stating that the choice of media was non-essential to instruction, rather

the pedagogical technique and design were the main determinants of effective instruction.

He argued that good instruction could be delivered using any appropriate media. Given

that argument, Clark (1994) maintained that media should be selected on the basis of

other factors, e.g. cost or ease of implementation.

1) It is usually not feasible or realistic to completely isolate the effect of any

given media on a learning result. There are typically too many coupled effects

and attributes to accurately determine how a given medium affects an

instructional outcome.1

2) Even if it were feasible to isolate media effects to some degree, learning

design must be more or less looked upon as a unified whole. Any piece can

be “replaced” with some other equivalently effective technique or method, but

such “replaceabilty” does not alter the fact that instructional effect results

from the interaction across the whole. If Clark would rule out media as a

major determinant of instructional effect because it can be “replaced,” then

someone else can rule out method on the same basis (Morrison, 1994). It is

neither media nor method nor any single other component that can be or

should be ruled out as a non-essential piece of the mix. Doing so would be

comparable to trying to rule out the engine or the wheels as non-essential in

automobile design because there are effective alternatives to each.

Rather than question any particular element in the mix of learning environments,

our purpose for this paper is to focus on one class of media, video, and ask: What are the

particular affordances, and not necessarily unique affordances, of video as a class of

media and how might we frame our thinking so as to use those affordances wisely toward

the design and implementation of instructional goals? To some extent, relative to media

in general, this has been a main response to the Clark position (Jonassen, Campbell, &

Davidson, 1994; Kozma, 1994; Mayer, 1997; Morrison, 1994).

Kozma (1994) answered this question by identifying the following as the

particular affordances for computer mediated instruction:

Motion;

Microworlds the ability to create simulated worlds with their own logic of

existence and manipulations which can be performed upon them;

Complex contexts (visually and socially); and

Search and display large quantities of information.

Most of these items can apply to video, especially in its various interactive forms. For

multimedia learning, Mayer (1997) identified the following factors for consideration:

1 However, see Mayer (1998) for a study demonstrating an advantage of mixed animation and audio over

mixed animation and text presentations for instruction in a secondary level science domain.


2:37 PM

Delivery media - system used to present instruction (e.g., book, multimedia,

web text or graphics, audio-visual, etc.);

Presentation modes - formats used to present the instruction such as words

versus pictures versus audio; and

Sensory modalities - sensory channel a learner uses to process the material.

For example, a description can be delivered via printed text in a book or on a

computer screen (i.e., different media), in the form of a series of illustrations or printed

statements (i.e. different modes), or as printed words or spoken words (different

modalities). As we define it below, most of these characteristics also apply to video.

Ultimately, researchers may arrive at a consensus concerning which combinations

of media, methods, domain, and audience are most effective. However, at this point we

do not have such a state of knowledge and therefore cannot make general claims about

the relative significance of one or another particular media, such as a videotape, in the

design of instruction.

Video as a Class of Media

In order to undertake this discourse, one must start by defining what video is in

general followed by the definition of the term in the specific context of learning. We

begin by suggesting that video is not itself a single medium, as discussed by Clark and

others (e.g., Clark, 1983, 1994; Jonassen, Campbell, & Davidson, 1994; Kozma, 1994),

but rather a set of affordances that defines a class of media. Furthermore, we agree with

both Clark and Kozma in the sense that the important aspect of this argument falls out of

an affordance-pedagogy interaction. Video can be interpreted as a compilation of

requirements and characteristics that present possibilities for action. Figure 1 depicts the

ontological descent of instructional video and the relationship of these characteristics and

requirements.

We argue that it is possible for a media element to fall within the video class if it

possesses all of four affordances. However, it is necessary that this element also contain

a reproducible visual component. In this light, a reproducible visual component is

viewed as the only requirement. Gibson (1986) suggested that a great deal of information

is located in the visual field, particularly in the dynamics of movement (visual flow field).

Through the individual’s interaction with the visual world, they come to understand it.

Without the ability to display something visually, there can be no possibility for

classification as video. This may be as simple as a still image or as elaborate as 60-

frames per second, full motion interactive video.

In addition to the visual component, there are several additional characteristics of

media that qualify it as video. The sole difference between the visual component and

these other characteristics is the others need not be actualized for a presentation to be

classified as video. Gibson (1986) described any capability for action that exists in the

environment when he introduced the term “affordance.” According to Gibson, “the


2:37 PM

affordances of the environment are what it offers the animal, what it provides or

furnishes, either for good or ill” (p. 127). In this sense, the remaining qualities of video

are characteristics that video supports or affords. Said another way, for something to

qualify as video, it must have the potential or capability to afford certain end results, even

if those results are never realized. Said another way, “excluding” one of these

affordances also precludes the result from being classified as “video” and is a basic

litmus test for determining the fundamental affordances.

Our analysis suggests that the set of affordances unique to video are: motion,

simultaneous audio and video, identical reproduction and distribution, and controllability.

These affordances are manipulated during the creation of video and through the influence

of pedagogical intent. There are as many examples of video as there are ways to

manipulate these affordances. As a result, an unlimited number of video genres emerge

which makes scientific, operational definitions essentially impossible.

_______________________________________________

<Insert Figure 1 about here>

_______________________________________________

Video: Two Interpretations

One of the challenges of defining an ambiguous term like ‘video’ is that it

manifests itself in everyday language in many forms. There are two conventional and

distinct interpretations of video, the creation or capturing of footage and the object

intended for playback. From this perspective, video has two forms: video as an object or

as an action. With respect to video as a verb or action, it is possible to capture your own

footage, such as a wedding or a classroom lesson. Furthermore, modern technologies

make it possible for the consumer to edit historical and recently captured footage. With

respect to video as an object or noun, it is possible to watch a movie on demand, record a

broadcast on a digital terminal (Tivo or ReplayTV), or simply play a rented tape or DVD.

Both interpretations of video have different affordances and different pedagogical

implications. From a simplistic perspective, video as an action (or verb) is the process in

which you create some video (the noun). From a more critical point of view, video the

video the verb is the process of selecting and manipulating the affordances as well as

other characteristics and video as a noun is a the result that manipulation. Video

examples range from a database format, to anchored instruction, to a news documentary.

Each class differs in the manner in which the four affordances are manipulated and used.

Each example of video possesses characteristics and traits that are consequences of the

four main affordances.

The Visio-spatial Perspective

During the creation of video, the selection of the visio-spatial perspective

distinguishes video as a verb from video as a noun. In order for video to be classified, it


2:37 PM

must first be created. Video as a verb is a generative process that allows the creator to

not only manipulate the camera’s point of view but also offers the capability to

manipulate the class of affordances present in video as a noun, namely: motion,

simultaneous audio and video, identical replicability and distribution, and controllability.

In this sense, a perspective is the orientation in the visual field. With respect to video as a

verb, the designer has the unique capability to manipulate this by selecting aspects like

the camera shot, media, or elements in the scene.

Essentially, for a product to be classified as video the noun, it must have

undergone the video the verb process. The ingredients for this product are not

specifically relevant. For the creation of video, the use of real life or the use of

previously edited tapes is more or less equivalent. Admittedly, even though it is possible

in a limited sense, the editing or re-purposing tape is far more constrained in the selection

of the visio-spatial perspective than the use of real life. The important matter is that the

end result be classifiable as video the noun according to our definition. If the product

fits, then you were videoing (as a verb) otherwise you were engaged in some other action,

directing a play for example.

We have great respect for video as an action, as it is an often-overlooked video

design for education. A designer creating video has the ability to manipulate all four

affordances, but also has the unique capability of manipulating the visio-spatial

perspective. In an instructional sense, this offers the student the amazing capability to tell

or convey an important, instructionally relevant point of view. In certain examples the

use of “roving reporters” is an exciting application of this design. As we shall see, video

as an action also presents different educational affordances for the teacher as well as

additional complications.

Video as a Noun

Mentioned previously, through the manipulation of the visio-spatial perspective

and the remaining affordances, video as an action results in video as a noun. In greater

detail, video as a noun has important characteristics that allow it to be classified as video.

The presence of four specific affordances is enough to qualify a product as video,

namely: motion, simultaneous audio and video, identical replicability and distribution,

and controllability.

Motion (including animation)

Reeves and Nass (1996) indicated one of the common characteristics of all video

is motion. Motion elicits attention and offers information. On screen, motion still offers

a great deal about the world within the video. As objects occlude and accrete, spatial

information is presented at a very high rate. Additionally, there are characteristics of

interpersonal interactions that are well adapted to motion. However, as we define video,

it is not necessary that video contain elements of motion. For a presentation to be

classified as video it must only support the use of motion. Even though full motion

capabilities are intriguing, we submit that video must permit motion rather than require it.

This distinction is critical so that we may include examples such as the National Art

Galleries videodisc, a video database design. This videodisc contains individual frames


2:37 PM

of artworks. Even though it contains no motion, we classify this design as video since it

certainly affords motion.

Simultaneous audio and video

Paivio (1986) has described the view that learners naturally perceive their

experience of the world in both visual and auditory modalities. Consequently, one of

video’s most fundamental affordances is its simultaneous presentation of a visual and

auditory channel that maps so readily to what are very fundamental and natural senses

through which we experience the world. Also, the nature of each of these channels

provides several consequential affordances in that each can be sub-divided into multiple

channels, each capable of carrying particular forms of meaning. For example, in the

visual channel, in addition to the particular affordance of motion, there is the capability

for animation, text or graphic overlays, mixed and distinct multiple visual channels (e.g.,

picture-in-picture, split screen). Similarly, audio consequentially affords speech (either

synchronized to the video or as voice-over narration), music, or sound effects.

Identical reproduction and distribution

This affordance distinguishes video from similar visual forms such as computer

monitor work, live theatrical performances, micro world environments and other

dynamically constructed presentations. By identical reproduction we do not insist upon a

strict beginning-to-end playback such as with a VCR or 35mm film, but rather that the

material can be duplicated in some manner. The theatrical play fails to adequately employ

this affordance since it is impossible to generate two plays that are identical. And

although no two viewings of a videodisc are identical, the disc is unchanged and

therefore replicable. The recorded material may be played back in single freeze frame, as

short sequences of frames, or a branching structure may be supported as a viewer is

moved from segment to segment.

Controllability (minimally, start and stop)

In our definition, video should have some degree of controllability. At a

minimum it should be possible to start and stop the video. Potentially, there may be more

powerful controls such as random access to any part of the time stream, freeze frame,

book marking, splicing sequences together, and so on. Even continuously playing

commercial TV (MTV, TMC, HBO), is controllable either at the studio, or through tape

delay. It is difficult to conceive of a direct live broadcast that is not stored and cannot

ever be recovered, but such an example would be excluded from our definition of video.

Given recent developments in video compression technologies, streaming technologies,

and broadcast formats, the controllability of media is becoming ever present in our daily

lives. Media center PCs, TIVO systems, improved algorithms for DVD and digital media

compressions all point toward a tomorrow that is considerably more dynamic and

accessible.

Understanding Affordances for Definition


2:37 PM

Streaming Video

To demonstrate how this definition of video as a class of media can characterize

products as video or non-video, consider two examples. The first, streaming video, is

drawing more attention daily from the digital world. Streaming video certainly has a

visual component. Additionally, even though there may be still frames, the streaming

video affords motion. Some video streams do not use an audio track, but all streaming

video supports the use of a simultaneous audio track. Even though a designer may never

take advantage of the fact that streaming video is a file, the video easily affords identical

replication and distribution. Finally, the user can start and stop the movie. Some movies

remove the capability for control, but the interface supports that capability for action, as

well as additional forms of control. With all these criterion met, a visual component and

the various affordances, streaming video qualifies as video in our proposed definition.

A Theatrical Play

As a counter-example, consider a theatrical play. A play is certainly visual. A

play also supports audio and motion. Even though the audience may not be able to stop

the presentation, the director has control over the play (i.e., when to begin and when to

change scenes). What the play lacks is identical reproduction and distribution. This

difference is not due to the audience as much it is a characteristic of the play itself. Two

plays are never the same presentation twice. Admittedly, no two video situations are

identical either, due to the learner-video interaction. However, differences between plays

are due to the affordances of the play itself. The play does not afford identical replication

in the video sense. Although the audience has an influence upon this, this is very

different from what video is as we define it here. A play, therefore, would not qualify as

video.

Virtual Reality

Another way to understand what we mean by video as a class of media is to

consider a very difficult example. As computer systems grow and expand, virtual reality

worlds emerge more frequently. In a basic sense, a virtual world is one in which motion

is the method of interacting with the world (Spring, 1991). One interpretation of virtual

reality is a system that has few degrees of freedom. The invariant between occasions is

the actual code of the virtual reality world. “Pterodactyl” is one such example. This

game provides a complex visual/movement based interface into a very limited world.

This example would be considered “video as an action” due to the gamer’s ability to

select the visio-spatial perspective. Each gamer’s experience is very different, but the

elements of the world remain the same due to a limited number of degrees of freedom.

By increasing the degrees of freedom and opportunities for control and interactivity,

other interpretations of virtual reality become problematic.

Consider a virtual world that is totally dependent upon the user, for example. The

user arrives and defines the world as they move through it. The world that they create

does not exist before they arrive or after they leave, even though the code is the

essentially the same. The world and the code evolve with the interaction of the user

during the experience and interaction. Even though both examples adhere to the

remaining considerations (i.e., visual component, motion, simultaneous audio and video,


2:37 PM

and controllability) the second virtual world does not exactly support the ability to be

duplicated. At the very least, this interpretation of virtual reality is challenging to

categorize due to the immense control offered to the user. For the purpose of this article,

we may consider this video under the terms of video as an action, but we recognize that at

some point such examples cease to be video and are something else entirely.

Potential Features of Video

Through the manipulation of the affordances, the designers and producers of

video have at their disposal a powerful means to communicate different qualities of

information. Although each of these features may not be present, and some rely heavily

on the users interpretation of the situation (e.g. affective conveyance), video has the

potential to embody them. We identify three of these important features: affective

conveyance, dynamic conveyance, and what we refer to as the “Where is Waldo?”

phenomenon.

Affective Conveyance

The visual motion of video particularly, and to a lesser extent the audio

component, is capable of conveying emotional content in a way not easily achievable by

text or still images. Twenty seconds of an appropriate video clip has the potential to be

far more riveting than any other individual media can generally achieve. While written

passages, audio recordings, and paintings may induce powerful affective responses; none

of these can convey the nonverbal dynamics that communicate many emotions. In this

we wish to capture in our definition video's special abilities to quickly establish a rich

context and to “tell a good story.” For example, compare the emotional impacts of a

description of the destruction of the World Trade Centers rendered via a written passage

(with still photos), a radio broadcast (with suitable vocal or sound effects), an expertly

rendered painting, and a video with voice-over narration.

As Nass and Reeves (1996) argued, video has the power of making a viewer react

to it as if the media itself were real. (Contrast the universal emotional response to the

WTC destruction with much worse disasters that had no video coverage such as

destruction of the Titanic, earthquakes which have individually killed tens of thousands

of people, or other man-made disasters such as the various acts of genocide and war-time

carpet and fire bombing of entire cities). Other media just cannot reach such a wide

audience, as quickly, with such consistent effects and do so in such a fluid manner. Even

an on-stage play takes much more time and is much more limited in developing its effects

than can be achieved by a short video clip. For this reason, affective conveyance must be

considered a particular affordance of video.

Dynamic Conveyance

Through the interaction in the visual field, users may acquire more information

than a simple picture. Through the mechanisms accretion and occlusion, the viewer is

able to discern a great deal of visual information unavailable in many other classes of

media. Interpreted another way, video offers a mode in which characters can interact and

the viewer can detect their respective roles, traits, etc.


2:37 PM

Parallel Visual Analog: The “Where is Waldo?” Phenomenon

Video also has the potential to communicate massive amounts of information in a

limited time. Several affordances influence this, but it is certainly intrinsic to video. We

term this “the ‘Where is Waldo?’ phenomenon” for the following reason. Consider the

popular children’s puzzle book, “Where is Waldo?” That book contains images with

hundreds of people in different situations and a single character, Waldo, which the reader

must find. Presented in another medium, this experience would be dramatically different.

In text, for example, the user would have a difficult time scanning the vast number of

pages needed to adequately describe the scene. With respect to video, the capability to

convey audio and video simultaneously, the visual component, and the capability to use

motion all influence the amount of information easily conveyed through the class of

media.

Video as Instructional Media

Until this point, we have discussed video as a class in very general terms, i.e. not

specifically related to learning. This is primarily due to the need for a need for a clear

and precise operational definition of video as a class. In order to engage in a discourse

about the educational implications of video designs for learning, it is important to arrive

at a common understanding of both video as a class, and learning. For the sake of

brevity, we will adopt the definition of learning posited by King, Young, Drivere-

Richmond, and Schrader (2001). According to King et al., “learning is improved

capabilities in knowledge and/or behaviors as a result of experience.” (online). We will

also interpret the act of learning as an active, interactive process through which the

learner manipulates and receives feedback from their environment.

Jonassen (1999) argued that there are many drawbacks to using video in an

instructional role. Jonassen, in quoting Healy (1990) summarized the effects of TV

viewing on children's learning as: 1) Attention to fast–paced auditory and image changes

is fragmented, which causes attention disorders when trying to perform complex

cognitive tasks, especially those that require sustained attention (i.e., it tends to promote a

low state of vigilance/alertness). 2) Lack of persistence; if materials are not readily

understood, viewers tend to give up more readily than with a live presentation.

Alternatively, if the materials are not engaging, they stop paying attention unless

something alerting or salient happens (such as with commercial programming). 3)

Viewers become readily “glued" to the tube. Brain activity slows down, causing a

hypnotic trance–like state (i.e., addictive behavior). The "lowest common denominator"

nature of TV programming trivializes issues so that it is impossible to distinguish fact

from fiction.

These can be significant learning issues with video viewing in general, and TV in

particular. Mayer (1997) argued that video in particular, should be targeted to low prior

knowledge learners and that it is best suited for conveying concepts as opposed to highly

detailed material. While we agree that video can be misused and be inappropriate for


2:37 PM

many learning applications, as discuss below, it has many affordances that can make it a

powerful and useful learning tool.

Examples of Video Designs for Learning: Selected Examples

Through the manipulation of video’s affordances, producers have created various

examples of video designs for learning. We categorize these examples by inspecting

their particular characteristics. Each trait can be said to emerge from the treatment of one

of the affordances. Consider, for example, the video database design implemented in the

National Art Galleries videodisc. In this example, the affordance of control was treated

so to that the user could select each image individually in a non-linear manner. This

characteristic of the videodisc, along with the user interaction, provides for some

interesting instructional potential. Table 1 provides a quick overview of some of the

examples of video designs for learning and lists some of the characteristics of each

example.

Additionally, researchers are presented with numerous salient outcomes of

commercially available video that presents a convenient description. In an educational

context, many attributes of video become principal to the instruction. For example, genre

may dictate the manner in which the video is utilized in class. A didactic documentary

may be used as an initiation activity while a fully interactive videodisc may insight

debate and be fully incorporated into a large scale topic. The list of characteristics

includes: audience, genre, structure, instructional intent, natural affordances, and student

and teacher roles.

Audience

One of the first steps in organizing video for education is to understand the

audience. This includes the grade level and the quality of prior knowledge. Instructors

that use videos that are used outside of the intended audience will need to provide

scaffolding or other additional instruction to supplement the material in the video.

Genre

Genre characterizes a video work in the same way that we use genre to

characterize a movie (e.g., drama, comedy, and thriller) or TV show (sitcom,

police/crime, sports, and news). It does not precisely or completely define the work, but

offers a simple specification of a class of affordances that are invariant across a collection

of works. In most cases, practitioners will prefer this description of video for its

parsimony and implied relevance.

Structure

Certain video designs have an obvious or intended structure to them. Many

videos produced commercially include instructional approaches, objectives, and

supplemental learning materials. While the user interacting with the videodisc may affect

that, the designer’s intent is usually salient. In the example, “National Geographic

Explorers,” we have described this approach as a documentary. Although the videodisc

provides the user the option of selecting the specific chapters they would like to view; the


2:37 PM

disc is arguably best watched in a linear manner. Contrasting with this, the videodisc

“Fame Up!” is very confusing if watched from beginning to end. This video design has

been termed a branching storyline and requires the learner to make decisions throughout

the progress of the story. Each decision affects the plot and if a viewer were to watch this

from beginning to end, they would experience a bizarre storyline unintended by the

designers.

Instructional Intent

Due to the large effort that typically goes into designing and creating a video,

videos designed for learning will have learning objectives for viewers as well as narrative

structure. This intent may entail the manner it is to be used (and for which we identify

the category of “natural affordances” as a design element below), the style of the content

delivery (didactic, investigatory, a vehicle for reflection or problem solving), and

instructional result (improved problem solving ability, new content knowledge, deeper

comprehension). The intent has a major impact on the design of the video itself and may

well drive the choices of other design elements. It will also impact the design and nature

of supporting materials provided with a video (such as student worksheets or teacher

guides).

_______________________________________________

<Insert Table 1 about here>

_______________________________________________

Natural affordances

While video designers could never anticipate all the ways in which their videos

might be used. The design process demands that some assumptions be made about the

eventual uses of the product. Thus there are intended uses for which a video design is, in

some ways, optimized. For example, arguably a News genre video like "The Great

Quake of '89" is designed to be used in circumstances where viewers sat and listened to a

five-to-ten minute narrative section essentially beginning to end. In this way, the

videodisc design offers a natural possibility for action, namely starting the video at the

beginning, taking a seat in a comfortable chair, and watching the video to the natural end

of the video segment without interruption or interaction. In contrast, while this

affordance exists for a video database like "National Museum of Art," it would seem very

odd, since the video presents only a few frames of each painting that would scan by

almost imperceptibly. The intended use for such a video database, then, would suggest

that the natural affordances of the genre would be to navigate the video to a single frame

or short segment for a specific user-defined purpose. This is analogous to the directed

search of a dictionary as compared to the less natural use of reading the dictionary cover

to cover. In some sense then, there are natural affordances in which each video design

can be viewed. While we do not assert that these are exclusive or prohibitive (e.g. one

may actually take the opportunity to read the dictionary cover to cover), we do suggest

that these natural affordances are the most obvious and easily understood ways to

implement the designs.


2:37 PM

Student and Teacher Roles

Another characteristic of video design is that of the student and teachers’ roles

during instruction. The affordances of each video design certainly influence this trait but

this idea is an important one and one of the most observable. To demonstrate the point,

consider examples of “Windows on Science” and the “Jasper Woodbury Series.”

Windows on Science is an interactive videodisc that contains excerpts of science content.

This content comes in the form of still images or isolated video clips. The user may

select any of the segments in any order. The Jasper videodisc contains a 15-20 minute

story, which confronts the student with a question or problem. The information needed to

solve this math problem is contained within the videodisc and within the context of the

story. The students need to navigate the videodisc in order to solve the problem.

These two examples immediately describe the roles of the teacher and student in

different ways. In the Windows on Science example, the teacher is absolutely necessary

in order for the material to be meaningful. The images and clips contained on the

videodisc are only examples of certain scientific principles in action. Without the

intervention of the instructor, connections between the images and the content are not

feasible. Due to the design and natural affordances, the students are channeled into a

passive role in this instructional context. The instructor, however, must remain very

active in the presentation of information.

In the second example, designers of the Jasper Woodbury series recommend that

the instructor allow the students the opportunity to work on the problem in groups

without the direct intervention of the teacher. The suggested role of the instructor in this

case is that of a guide rather than a directive instructor, a more passive role than

traditional settings. Consequently, the students must become more active in their own

learning. While it is obvious that the theoretical approach to instruction influences

student and teacher roles, the level of student and teacher activity is highly dependent on

the video design itself and not only the manner in which it is implemented. Admittedly,

instructional style and pedagogical beliefs have a hand in the eventual implementation of

this videodisc but the natural affordances of such a design suggest these roles.

Closer inspection of the classroom context and the interaction of the instructor

with the learning context reveals other ways in which the teacher may interact with the

students. The teacher is the one responsible for most of the instructional decisions made

in the learning environment. With respect to a lesson involving video for learning, the

teacher may ask: when should the learners be exposed to the media, how should the

learners group, or what form of media should I use? These are all questions that the

teacher must answer when creating the lesson.

Although the role of the teacher may vary in level of involvement, it should not be

overlooked in any situation. At the very least, the teacher should be available as a mentor

or guide for the students. If an instructional video is presented as a learning material in a

traditional instruction, teachers may not expect students’ active interaction with video.

When a teacher play a role in facilitating students’ learning activities in anchored


2:37 PM

instruction, however, students’ active involvement is important to a successful teaching

and learning.

Conclusion

Our discussion has focused on several key points. First, we assert that video is

typified in two ways: as an action and an object. The primary difference between the two

is the ability to manipulate the visio-spatial perspective the four affordances. A video

object is the result of this action. The four affordances we refer to are: motion,

simultaneous audio and video, identical replicability and distribution, and controllability.

Additional consequences or potential features of video, which have instructional merit,

are: affective conveyance, dynamic conveyance, and the “Where is Waldo?”

phenomenon. Furthermore, we have also described several examples of video in terms

that relate specifically to instruction: audience, genre, structure, instructional intent,

natural affordances, and student and teacher roles.

This discussion is timely given the current migration of many media formats from

analog to digital. A selected review of still and video cameras, monitors and screens, and

playback devices will demonstrate a distinct shift from analog to digital formats. Very

soon, television stations will only broadcast in higher resolution digital signals and digital

formats will be of sufficient quality to mimic film. Technology advocates are quick to

point out the immense potential available in these emergent technologies and their

importance in our educational systems.

However, we have already indicated that we agree with Clark (1994). If

technology is merely a delivery mechanism, then instruction with technology is

equivalent to instruction without. Studies that endeavor to show a difference in this light

will ultimately fail. Yet we also agree with Jonassen, Campbell, & Davidson (1994) in

that pedagogy associated with technology is highly complex and affords the teacher and

learner different capabilities when compared to learning situations without technology.

When research attempts to equate conditions on all levels except technology, then the

pedagogical benefits are necessarily diminished and sterilized. There is little question

that research of this sort yields no significant differences.

Given a changing world and an increasingly technological society, the question

should not be “which condition is better?” The question should be “can we afford not to

integrate technology?” What disservice to we offer students when we deprive them of

the experiences necessary to excel in a modern, digital world? In our technological

society where the digital divide is an ever-present issue, we can ill-afford to answer this

question.

In our discussion of video as a class, we have tried to highlight the affordances of

video and describe ways in which those affordances can be manipulated to create video

for educational contexts. Using this strategy, designers are able to take full advantage of

the technology to deliver skillful and intentional instruction. The examples given are an

indication of the rich and varied outcomes that are possible when instructional intent is


2:37 PM

combined with the careful manipulation of these affordances. For researchers,

understanding the ontological descent of video is a vital step towards asking the right

questions.


2:37 PM

References

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L. & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How People Learn: Brain,

Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences

[Available online at http://books.nap.edu/html/howpeople1/]

Clark, R. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational

Research, 53(4), 445-59.

Clark, Richard E. (1994). Media will Never Influence Learning. Educational Technology

Research & Development, 42 (2), 21-29.

Duffy, Thomas M. & Jonassen, David H. (1992) Constructivism and the Technology of

Instruction: A Conversation. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Fischman, G. E. (2001). Reflections about images, visual culture, and educational

research. Educational Researcher, 30 (8), 28-33.

Gagne, Robert M., Briggs, Leslie J., & Wager, Walter W. (1992). Principles of

Instructional Design. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Thomson Learning.

Gibson, J. J. (1986). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Jonassen, D. H., Campbell, J. P., & Davidson, M. E. (1994). Learning with media:

Restructuring the debate. Educational Technology Research & Development, 42

(2), 31-39.

King, F. B., Young, M. F., Drivere-Richmond, K., & Schrader, P. G. (2001). Defining

distance learning. [Online] Educational Technology Review. Available at

http://www.aace.org/pubs/etr/king2.cfm

Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will Media Influence Learning? Reframing the Debate.

Educational Technology Research & Development, 42(2), 7-19.

Lakoff, G. (1987). Wittgenstein. New York: Routledge & Keagan Paul.

Mayer, R. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? Educational

Psychologist, 32(1), 1-19.

Mayer, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual

processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology. 90

(2), 312-320.


2:37 PM

Morrison, G. R. (1994). The media effects question: Unresolveable or asking the right

question. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42, 41-44.

Paivio, A. (1986). Mental Representations : A Dual Coding Approach. New York:

Oxford University Press.

Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). Media and form (chapters 17-22) in The Media Equation.

Cambridge, MA: Cambridge U. Press.

Spring, M. B. (1991). Information with virtual reality. In S. K. Helsel & J. P. Roth

Virtual Reality Theory, Practice and Promise. London: Meckler.

Young, M. F., Barab, S., Garrett, S. (2000). Agent as detector: An ecological psychology

perspective on learning by perceiving-acting systems. In. D. H. Jonassen & S. M.

Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp147-172).

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

draft – revision 14 – 3/4/04 2:37 pm running head: video … › courses › ged575w2004 ›...

Documents