Do video mash ups help or hinder student learning and engagement?

Patrick Lyons3468313

Research Proposal submitted to Dr. Philip C. Abrami in support of the course requirements for ETEC 513

Concordia University

May 5, 2008

1

Do video mash ups help or hinder student learning and engagement?

Abstract

VideoNotes is an online learner centered multimedia tool that wraps around video streamed course lectures at Carleton University. It allows learners to insert keywords, edit and rearrange course lectures, and create a personalized lecture mashup. Doing so may alter the lecture’s original instructional design. VideoNotes effectiveness will be compared to an existing Internet video on demand (VOD) system, which allows learners to access streamed course lectures. Effectiveness will be examined via final grade comparison, questionnaire and tool usage metrics. The results from this study will be examined and interpreted based within the theoretical framework of constructivism and cognitive load theory.

Introduction

The purpose of this research is to examine the effectiveness of VideoNotes as a learner centered tool, specifically in comparison to traditional instructional television (as delivered via Internet video streams), and within the context of constructivism and cognitive load theory. While VideoNotes is a mechanism for the transmission of video based lectures online, it allows students to do much more than simply watch a lecture. VideoNotes is not a medium; it is a tool that allows students to construct and manipulate their instruction in a potentially meaningful fashion.

Since the appearance of the very first instructional media, researchers have analyzed their impact on learning and students’ achievements. There have been numerous studies examining the effectiveness of various delivery media and their effectiveness as compared with a traditional, in-class mode of delivery. The general conclusion by the majority of researchers has been that there is no significant difference between a new method of delivery and a traditional classroom (Russell, 1999).

The tools that can now be wrapped around delivery methods continue to evolve and become advanced. With the advent of rich Web 2.0 technologies, we are beginning to see learning tools that learners can use to manipulate the medium of transmission. These tools may allow students to construct a more meaningful and personalized learning experience from what traditionally, in the case of instructional television has been a direct, instructor controlled medium. In addition these learner-controlled tools may also impact and allow students to modify the instructional design contained in the instruction and may have profound effects on how learners construct meaning, and the cognitive load they experience as they learn.

VideoNotes is potentially one such tool. It is a web-based, Adobe Flash application, which allows learners to insert keywords, titles, and descriptions to user defined segments, (‘clips’) of a webcast class lecture and then allows learner to break a lecture apart and recombine it into a new and personalized lecture based instruction (Appendix

2

1). These personalized lectures can be shared and modified by fellow learners, creating a potential social learning environment.

Following Kozma’s (1994), Mayer (2005), and Yiping et. al (2006) ideas that contemporary research should investigate how different media characteristics can be effectively used to support meaningful and more effective learning, this study will explore the following research questions:

1) Does interactive VideoNotes technology enhance the learner’s understanding and improve learning effectiveness?

2) Is this technology “just a tool”, a “vehicle for delivering instruction” (Clark, 1994), or does it have characteristics that might allow learners to construct meaningful learning more effectively and efficiently?

Literature Review

On April 25, 2008 a search was conducted through five education research databases, and two computer science/technology databases using the query “mashup”, or “remix” and “video”. The databases and number of studies returned were as follows ERIC (2), JSTOR (2), CBCA Education (1), PsycInfo (0), PsycAbstracts (0), IEEE Xplore (3), and ACM Digital Library (27).

The abstracts of theses 34 articles were read to determine whether research had been conducted into the use of mashups in both practical and experimental studies. Not one of the articles consisted of research into the use of video mashups or remixes in an educational context. They are either more concerned with the description of this new technology and the technical mechanisms.

However, there is a rich and vast literature on distance education and media, and older media, such as instructional television, audio media, etc. and their effectiveness and influence on students’ performance, facets of which will be present below.

Instructional Television in EducationAs soon as television was introduced to the public, educators started inquiring about educational potential of a new medium. During the 1950s and early 1960s enrollment in American colleges and universities increased, while financial support stayed on the same level, which prompted some administrators to recommend the use of instructional television. The argument was that instructional television could handle classes with large enrollment while saving time and money for postsecondary institutions (Frantz, 1965).

Frantz (1965) observed that instructional television does not provide a desirable interactivity between students and instructors, but despite that, he concludes that “in 86 percent of 393 experiments, students who received televised instruction performed as well as or better than those in the conventionally taught sections of the same course” (p. 213).

3

Research studies during the 1990s and 2000s echoed Frantz’s (and others) earlier conclusions. The most consistent findings comparing traditional classroom instruction with instructional television suggest no difference between the two in student achievement (Phipps and Merisotis, 1999). Bacon and Jakovich (2001) compared the effectiveness of an introductory psychology course taught through instructional television with the same course as it has been traditionally taught. The study analyzed students’ attrition, attendance, and performance. They found no significant differences between the three groups of students.

Online Modes of DeliveryThere is some research that examines electronic delivery of lectures: synchronized PowerPoint slides and recorded audio, streaming video lectures, and text based, chunked navigable lectures.

Since the late 1990s, there has been significant growth in postsecondary education delivered through the Internet (Cohen and Brawer, 2003). A frequently used technology is streaming audio and video. Hecht and Klass (1999) conducted one of few studies about the use of streaming video technology in off-campus classes. They examined and compared the achievement of two groups of students, one of which attended a traditional class, and the other accessed it of-campus, via Real Media streaming technology. The authors found no difference in students’ final results.

Stephenson et al, (2008), compared two delivery methodologies and structures of online lectures (synchronized lectures and text based segmented lectures navigation to face-to face-lectures and determined that performance between the three methodologies were similar.

The Role of MediaDoes the medium of delivery play a role? In his article published in 1994 (Media will never influence learning) Clark argues that media cannot influence learning or motivation. Clark states that the instructional effectiveness was never a function of the media of instruction but rather depends on the instructional methods used (emphases added). The goals of instruction are the same, regardless of delivery media. Clark summarized his research on media in his 2001 book Learning from Media: “media are mere vehicles that deliver instruction but do not influence student achievement any more than the truck that delivers our groceries causes changes in our nutrition” (2001, p. 13, emphases added). Clark also argues that educators should choose instructional media based on costs and not learning benefits (Ibid.).

Clark’s conclusions initiated significant debate among researchers. The most prominent critic being Kozma (1994), who argues that media and instructional methods should not been separated. According to Kozma (1994), and Mayer (2005), each medium has unique capabilities to carry specific instructional methods and educators need to decide how these capabilities can best be used to promote learning events. Kozma (1994) believes that instructional methods, technology, and context of learning situation come together to create a mixture that influences students’ learning. Kozma suggests that, the most

4

important question one should ask is: “In what ways can we use the capabilities of media to influence learning for particular students, tasks, and situations?” (1994).

Distance education (DE) depends on media for delivery. Without an appropriate medium, DE cannot exist (this includes paper based courses). Media does have a role to play, but it should not be the determining factor in instruction. Bernard et. al., (2004) conclude that the design of learning materials should follow cognitive principles including constructivist and socio-cognitive. There appears to be widespread weakness in the tools of DE (Bernard et. al., 2004).

“Where are the cognitive tools that encourage deeper, active learning – the ones that Kozma and Cobb predicted would transform learning experiences?” (Ibid., p. 414).

VideoNotes and Theories of Learning

Research into the effectiveness of any new tool to aid learning should be placed within the framework of an appropriate learning theory. This is necessary to help explain any observed phenomena. While it may be useful to analyze collected data within a theoretical vacuum and to observe cause and effect relationships, it is far more useful to explain the reasons for the observed phenomena.

VideoNotes is a multimedia tool that potentially allows individual students to construct meaning from a direct instruction teaching method, and to share this meaning with other students. VideoNotes will be examined within the context of two educational theories: constructivism and cognitive load theory (CLT).

In the case of VideoNotes, CLT and constructivism can be seen as being potentially complimentary to help situate and understand how VideoNotes may or may not impact learning.

Constructivism Constructivism incorporates many ideas and aspects from many different psychologists and philosophers including Piaget, Bruner, Vygotsky, Dewey (Driscoll, 2005). According to this instructional framework learners construct knowledge best in an active fashion; they participate rather than being passive. Instead of being passive and waiting to be “filled” with knowledge provided by instructors, learners play an active role in their own learning process. The theory also states that learners bring prior experiences that must be activated, in order for learning to take place (Ally, 2004). Because learners bring personal experience, and each learner brings different experiences, learning is personal. Finally humans are social animals, and learning takes place in a social environment. In summary constructivism states that learning requires effort on the part of the learner, it is active and requires students to activate their prior knowledge (Muller et. al., 2008).

Consider how VideoNotes fits within constructivism. The instructional material hosted inside of VideoNotes is usually anything but constructivist in nature. The materials

5

consist essentially of direct instruction techniques (lecture); the instruction is very much teacher centered.

However once the lecture is placed in VideoNotes, the tool allows students to take responsibility in how they use the direct instructional material. By entering keywords and descriptions at any point of the lecture, are learners not making personal choices about what and where to enter keywords? Since each learner enters his or her own keywords, each lecture becomes a personalized learning resource. This way, instead of just receiving information provided by the instructor, learners are actively engaged with instructional material, which they contextualize and personalize to meet their own needs. The learners’ choice of vocabulary when entering these keywords and descriptions may be a method of activating prior knowledge and a way of better preparing the learner to learn from the lecture.

The second aspect of VideoNotes to consider is the editing of the lecture by the learner into clips and their subsequent reassembly. The process of determining what is important in a lecture again reflects on the personal nature of learning. Each learner using VideoNotes makes choices about what they feel is important in a lecture and what is of less importance. When a learner decides that an aspect of the lecture is important (perhaps based on their previously entered keywords), they are making a personal decision. This personal decision of importance and less importance may again be linked to their prior knowledge. A choice not including a concept in a mashup could indicate that their prior knowledge is already sufficient to understand the concept.

The process of reassembly allows the learner to deconstruct the original instructional design and to potentially assemble a new lecture into something more meaningful. Learners can work across topics and lectures, to construct potentially powerful personal meaning.

VideoNotes may also address the social aspects of constructivism. Social constructivism implies that knowledge is constructed from social interaction and collaboration (Fox, 2001). VideoNotes touches on this aspect by allowing learners to share their completed mashups. Other learners can reuse, reedit and reassemble these mashups into their own personalized lectures.

Cognitive Load TheoryThe second learning theory that will be applied is Cognitive Load Theory (CLT). CLT is concerned with the learning of complicated tasks or knowledge, specifically where the learner can be overloaded with information and cannot process the information quickly or efficiently for learning to take place (Pass et al., 2004).

CLT works on the assumption that there are two memory systems: a working memory with a limited capacity and a long-term memory system with essentially unlimited capacity. Information is stored in these memory systems as schema (Kirschner, 2002)

6

When learners work with material that is unfamiliar, the capacity of working memory is small, however if the material is familiar to the learner, long term memory activates and short term memory capacity becomes large (Pass et al., 2004). The theory suggests that there are three types of cognitive loads: intrinsic, extraneous and germaine. Intrinsic load refers to number or amount of information and their interrelations, while extraneous and germane load is the method of how information is presented and the activities around them to the learner. If the manner and activities do not contribute to the process of creating schema it is extraneous; if they are related and it fosters schema creation, it is considered germane (Sweller et al., 1998).

Ignoring the instructional design of the lecture video itself (which incorporates some techniques to lower load, with its simultaneous use of visual and auditory materials), VideoNotes can be examined in the role it plays in how it address cognitive load. Does VideoNotes lower intrinsic load, does add extraneous and/or germane load?

The learners’ decision process of adding keywords, descriptions, and selecting content that is meaningful or of less meaning (to them) adds cognitive load as they try to process the information that is being presented. What kind of cognitive load is this? If the load is helpful to the learning process, it would be consider germane, however if the load is extraneous, detrimental effects to the learners ability to learn the information would be expected.

However VideoNotes can also be considered to play a role in potentially lowering intrinsic load by allowing students to compartmentalize their learning, specifically when they edit the lecture and reassemble the video lecture into a personalized lecture.

This same process can introduce unintended extraneous load, because the learner can deliberately break apart an expertly designed lecture. The instructor who assembled, designed and then delivered the original lecture likely had valid reasons for its initial structure. Novice learners could break this underlying structure and add extraneous load as they attempt to learn from an illogically structured lecture.

Methodology

The purpose of this research is to examine the effectiveness of VideoNotes as a learner centered tool as compared to learners learning from traditional instructional television (delivered via Internet video streaming) within the framework of constructivism and cognitive load theory.

This research will be conducted at Carleton University, a comprehensive university located in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, with approximately 21 000 undergraduate students. Since 1978 Carleton has offered university credit courses via one way broadcast television on a local cable television. In 2005 all Carleton University Television (CUTV) courses were made available via Internet using Real Player in a video on demand (VOD) format. This Internet video on demand format essentially duplicates the television

7

broadcast, with the added benefit that students can access the content at their own convenience.

CUTV currently offers forty-eight full and half credit courses in the Fall and Winter terms, comprising approximately 10000 student registrations, representing about 7500 unique students. With more than 1 in 3 students participating in a CUTV course each academic year, CUTV plays a significant role at Carleton.

A large majority of the 7500 student registered in CUTV courses are on campus students (i.e. students that attend other courses at Carleton in face to face classroom learning environments). Students register for CUTV courses predominantly by choice, rather than being forced into a CUTV course section due to course sections being full. The most common reasons cited by students when registering in a CUTV section were for reasons related to convenience or to address class conflicts (Lyons, 2003).

The two methodologies to be compared in this study are instructional television lectures as delivered via Internet video on demand, and the VideoNotes system.

Instructional Television (Internet Video on Demand)Students view their course lectures using a computer running Windows or Mac Operating systems via Real Player player technologies. Lectures are typically posted within 24 hours of lecture being recorded. Students must have high speed Internet and be registered in the VOD course section to access the lectures. Only students registered in the VOD section have access to these lectures. Lectures are delivered via redundant content delivery network to ensure a high quality and reliable viewing experience. Video quality is approximately equal to VHS tape. Students can pause, fast forward and rewind to any section of the lecture.

VideoNotesStudents view and use VideoNotes course lectures in a similar fashion to the Internet VOD service. Rather than using Real Player, a modern web browser along with the Adobe Flash 9 plugin is used. The video content in VideoNotes and the VOD service are identical. Students must have high speed Internet and be registered in the VOD course section. Content is also served from a content delivery network and video quality is similar to VHS tape. In addition to learners having the functionality of VOD, VideoNotes adds the abilities to keyword, describe, edit, reassemble and sharie video lectures). These additional tool features are the major differences between VideoNotes and Internet VOD services and the focus of this research proposal.

Instructional MethodsThe instructional method primarily used by instructors in teaching a CUTV course section is lecture. The instructional strategies are identical in both VOD and VideoNotes systems as the medium (video) is identical.

8

It should be noted that some instructors do use more active instructional methods in their teaching, (discussions, student presentations etc), but again these instructional strategies will not vary when comparing VideoNotes to VOD.

Courses The forty-eight courses used in this study are from across all disciplines and range from first year to third year, with the majority being second year courses. Some of the courses have small enrollments (40 to 70 students), while other are large (400 or greater). The demographics (age, sex, standing and study discipline) of students registered in each course can vary significantly. This is most typically seen in the elective courses offered on CUTV. See appendix 2 for a listing of courses from the 2007/08 academic year.

Distributing Students Currently students register for a VOD section in Carleton’s course registration system. Once registered in the VOD section, they automatically gain access to a BlackBoard Learning System CE Enterprise (formerly known as WebCT 6) course that provides access to the VOD course lectures. Each CUTV course has it own VOD WebCT 6 course. Only students registered in VOD lectures have access to these courses, and only the VOD courses that they have registered in.

These WebCT 6 courses will be slightly modified to allow for this research study to be conducted. Using existing functionality in WebCT 6, the group manager tool will be used in each VOD WebCT 6 course to randomly and evenly assigning students between two groups. Using the conditional access controls in WebCT 6, one group will access the links to the VOD lectures, while the second group will access the VideoNotes system.

Students registered in two or more CUTV course may potentially be assigned to one system in one course and to the other system in their other course. Group lists from each course will be exported and compared to ensure that this does not occur; in the event that it does occur the student’s assignation to one of the groups will be altered.

Student SupportWhile the use of the VOD system is straightforward and does not require training or documentation, VideoNotes is a more complicated tool due to its added functionality. Students using VideoNotes will be provided with a short tutorial and documentation illustrating how the tool can be use to add keywords, remix and share class lectures.

Data Collection

There are three sources of data, two quantitative: learner performance and tool use metrics and one qualitative: learner questionnaire. Each will be addressed separately.

Student Performance DataOne accepted strategy to examine effectiveness of an initiative is to compare student performance in the form of final grades between the two systems (Fenollar, (2007); Godwin et al., (2008), and Kochman et al., (2001)). Depending on statistical differences

9

between courses, the data may allow comparisons to determine overall effectiveness of VideoNotes across disciplines, instructional strategies, and level of course. The data may also indicate scenarios were VideoNotes is more or less effective, compared to VOD.

For baseline information, VOD data can be compared to historic data (2005 -2008).

In addition to examining final grade information, course withdrawal rates will also be compared. This data is currently tracked institutionally.

System use MetricsThe third source of information to be collected and examined will be the log information collected by the applications running on the servers that the systems are being delivered from. The log information currently tracks length and number of times, when and what a learner accesses when they are using either system. This data can be analyzed either as an aggregate or a granular level on course-by-course basis. This data may indicate differences of how students use the tool and could allow correlations between performance and effort.

Metric data will be collected after the courses end and after all requirements have been completed.

Learner QuestionnaireAt the conclusion of each course and after all course requirements have been completed, learners will be asked to complete an evaluation instrument in the form of a questionnaire (Appendix 3 for preliminary draft of instrument). The questionnaire will consist of demographic questions, Likert-type questions regarding whether the systems played a role in their learning, and questions on how they used each particular tool. It will consist partly of questions that will be sourced from previous multimedia/distance education literature (Evans, 2008; Stephenson et al., 2008; Sole et al., 2001) as well as questions that will be generated specifically to evaluate VOD and VideoNotes. It will be necessary to trial the instrument to ensure its validity.

Anonymity and confidentiality will be assured.

Data CorrelationThis three sources of data will allow for comparisons and may allow for establishing causality. An example of this would be in the event that learners using VideoNotes perform better than learners using VOD. This result can be compared with the length of time students spent using VideoNotes as compared to VOD students, as well as correlated to learner responses on the questionnaire relating to opinions on each tools effectiveness in helping their learning.

Limitations and Delimitations

A potential weakness in the study is in the effect of new technology on performance. The so-called novelty effect (Clark, 1983) may temporarily increase motivation and as such

10

learners may more time using VideoNotes, and making it difficult to establish causality to VideoNotes. This may be able to be addressed by conducting this study over a two or three year period.

Another possibility for limitations could include sample size. Enrollment in some of the CUTV courses may be too low to generate an effective sample size for both VOD and VideoNotes.

This study currently does not compare learner performance in an inclass face to face learning environment, (although this would be possible as VOD and VideoNotes lectures are recorded with learners attending the inclass lecture). Nor does this study consider learner motivation.

Significance of VideoNotes Research

Research examining the performance of learners using VideoNotes is less research into media effectiveness, but rather an important investigation in a student centered tool within the constructs of two establish learning theories: constructivism and cognitive load theory.

VideoNotes is a type of tool that may allow students to construct personal meaning from direct instruction. It requires learners to make decisions on what is important, to associate and activate their prior knowledge when entering keywords and allows students to arrange topics and concepts in an order that is different from the original instructional design. These types of activities may place increased cognitive load on the learner. Is this increased cognitive load extraneous or germane?

This research will be useful to practitioners and researchers, as it will help indicate whether or not these types of tools and student centered processes help meaningful learning. This investigation may determine that VideoNotes is the “type of cognitive tool that encourages deeper and active learning as envisioned by Kozma and Cobb” (Bernard et al, 2004).

11

References

Ally, M. (2004). Foundations of educational theory for online learning. In T. Anderson and F. Elloumi (Eds.). Theory and Practice of Online Learning. Athabasca: Athabasca University

Bacon, S. and Jakovich, J. (2001). Instructional television versus traditional teaching in an introductory Psychology course. Teaching of Psychology, 28, 88 - 92.

Bernard, R. M, Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L., Wallet,P. A., Fiset, M., and Huang, B. (2004). How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research. 74, 379-439.

Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53, 445-459.

Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42, 21-29.

Clark, R. E. (2001) Learning from Media: Arguments, Analysis and Evidence Charlotte, North Carolina: Information Age Publishing.

Cohen, A., & Brawer, F. (2003). The American Community College (4th edition). SanFrancisco: JosseyBass.

Driscoll, M. P. (2005) Psychology for Instruction (3rd edition). Montreal: Pearson Education.

Evans, C. (2008). The effectiveness of m-learning in the form of podcast revision lectures in higher education. Computers & Education, 50, 491-498.

Fenollar, P,, Román, S., and Cuestas, P, J. (2007). University students’ academic performance: An integrative conceptual framework and empirical analysis. British Psychological Society, 77, 873-891.

Fox, R. (2001). Constructivism Examined. Oxford Review of Education. 27, 22-35.

Frantz, J. (1965). The educational advantages of instructional television: as compared with conventional teaching methods. The Journal of Higher Education, 36, 209- 213.

Godwin, S. J., Thorpe, M. S., and Richardson, J. T.E. (2008). The impact of computer-mediated interaction on distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39, 52-70.

12

Hecht, J., and Klass, P. (1999). The evolution of qualitative and quantitative research classes when delivered via distance education. Available through ERIC (ED430480) at http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/Home.portal?_nfpb=true&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=%22Klass+Patricia+H.%22&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=au&_pageLabel=RecordDetails&objectId=0900019b800c98cf&accno=ED430480&_nfls=false

Kirschner, P. (2002). Cognitive Load Theory: implications of cognitive load theory on the design of learning. Learning and Instruction, 12,1-10.

Kochman, A. and Maddux, C. D. (2001). Interactive televised distance learning versus on-campus instruction: a comparison of final grades. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34, 87-91.

Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42, 7-19.

Lyons, P. (2003). Carleton University Television (CUTV) student survey: Viewing habits, access to technology and preferences for the future. Poster presentation at the annual meeting for the Society of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (STLHE), Ottawa , ON.

Mayer, R. (2005). The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.

Muller, D. A., Sharma, M. D., and Reimann, P. (2008). Raising Cognitive Load with linear multimedia to promote conceptual change. Science Education, 92, 278- 296.

Pass, F., Renkey, A., and Sweller, J. (2004). Cognitive Load Theory: Instructional implications of the interaction between information structures and cognitive architecture, Instructional Science, 32, 1-8.

Phipps, R. and Merisotis, J. (1999). What is the Difference? A Review of Contemporary Research on the Effectiveness of Distance Learning in Higher Education. Available at: http://www2.nea.org/he/abouthe/images/diseddif.pdf

Russell, T. (1999). The No Significant Difference Phenomenon. North Carolina State University.

Sole, M. L. and Lindquist, M. (2001). Enhancing traditional, televised, and videotaped courses with web-based technologies: A comparison of student satisfaction. Nursing Outlook, 49, 132-137.

Stephenson, J. E., Brown, C., and Griffin, D. K. (2008). Electronic delivery of lectures in the university environment: An empirical comparison of three delivery styles. Computers & Education, 50, 640-651.

13

Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., and Pass, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251-296.

van Merrienboer, J. J. G. and Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive Load Theory and complex learning: recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 147-177.

Yiping, L., B., M. R., and Abrami, C. P. (2006). Media and pedagogy inundergraduate distance education: a theory-based meta-analysis of empirical literature. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54, 141-176.

14

Appendix 1: VideoNotes Site

Figure 1: VideoNotes Entry page.

Figure 2: Entering keywords, description and creating ‘clips’

15

Figure 3: Assembling a mashup.

Figure 4: Modifying order of clips in mashup.

16

Appendix 2: CUTV Course List

ScienceBIOL 1010 Biotechnology and SocietyBIOL 1902 Natural HistoryBIOL 1903 Natural History of OntarioCHEM 1000 General ChemistryCHEM 1003 Chemistry of Food, Health and DrugsERTH 1006 Exploring Planet EarthERTH 2401 DinosaursERTH 2402 Climate ChangeERTH 2403 Introduction to OceanographyPHYS 1901 Planetary AstronomyPHYS 1902 From Our Star to the CosmosTSES 3001 Technology-Society Interaction

Arts and Social ScienceENGL 2006 Children's LiteratureENGL 3304 ShakespeareENGL 3502 British Literature IIFINS 2105 Written Comprehension IFINS 3105 Written Comprehension IIGEOG 2200 Global ConnectionsHIST 2303 Canadian Political HistoryPSYC 1001 Introduction to Psychology IPSYC 1002 Introduction to Psychology IIPSYC 2001 Introduction to Research Methods in PsychologyPSYC 2100 Introduction to Social PsychologyPSYC 2400 Introduction to Forensic PsychologyPSYC 2600 Introduction to the Study of PersonalityPSYC 2700 Introduction to Cognitive PsychologyPSYC 3402 Criminal BehaviourPSYC 3403 AddictionRELI 1000 Judaism, Christianity, IslamRELI 2008 Religion and Aesthetics in IndiaRELI 2308 Death and Afterlife

Sprott School of BusinessBUSI 1001 Principles of Financial AccountingBUSI 1002 Management Accounting

Public AffairsECON 1000 Introduction to EconomicsLAWS 1000 Introduction to Legal StudiesLAWS 2003 Private Law RelationshipsLAWS 2004 Criminal Law in Context

17

LAWS 2005 Public LawLAWS 3305 Crime and State in HistoryLAWS 3306 Crime, Law, Process and PoliticsLAWS 3307 Youth and Criminal LawPSCI 1000 Introduction to Political SciencePSCI 2601 International Relations: Global PoliticsSOWK 1000 Introduction to Social Work

18

Appendix 3: Very preliminary DRAFT Learner Questionnaire

1) How did you use the VideoNotes site (http://videonotes.carleton.ca) this term? (Select all that apply)

a) Viewing lectures.b) Viewing video remixes.c) Creating video remixes.d) I didn't use Videonotes

2) How often did you use the Videnotes site? (Watching and/or making remixes)

a) Neverb) 1 to 3 timesa) 4 to 6 timesb) 7 to 10 timesc) 10 - 13 timesd) More than 13 times

3) If you viewed the video remixes created by others, did you find the remixed videos you viewed helpful to your learning?

a) Very helpfulb) Helpfulc) No differenced) Unhelpfule) Very unhelpfulf) Not applicable

4) If you created your own remix, did you find the process helpful to your learning?

a) Very helpfulb) Helpfulc) No differenced) Unhelpfule) Very unhelpfulf) Not applicable

5) If you did not create Videnotes remixes, please describe why you did not? (select all that apply)

a) Would take too much time/You were too busyb) It seemed difficult to usec) I did not want to share my remixes with other studentsd) Remixes seemed unnecessarye) Other - please explain:

19

6. Name one thing you liked about Videonotes:

7. Name one thing that you disliked about Videonotes:

20