March 26, 2007Microsoft Research India1 Tutored Video Instruction and Course Export Richard Anderson University of Washington

March 26, 2007 Microsoft Research India 1

Tutored Video Instruction and Course Export

Richard Anderson

University of Washington


Course Export

• Offer established courses at external institutions

• Remote institution is not in a position to offer the course


Tutored Video Instruction

• Recorded video basis of instruction• Video watched in a group setting with a

facilitator• Model – alternate between video and

discussion• Technology has radically changed costs

– Capture– Distribution– Replay


TVI Projects

• Gibbons, 1974-1980– Stanford University and HP– Master’s Level Engineering Courses

• UW, 1997-2000– University of Washington and Community Colleges– Introductory Computer Programming

• Digital Study Hall, 2005-– India, Urban and Rural Schools– Primary education

• UW, 2006– University of Washington and Beihang University, Beijing– Senior level Computer Science Course (Algorithms)


What factors influence success or failure of TVI?

• Initial measures of success:– Impact on students– Sustainability

• Additional measures of success:– Impact on facilitators– Institutional relationships


Gibbons, Stanford

• Master’s level courses offered between Stanford University and HP Engineering sites– Offer Stanford classes to remote degree candidates– Students received Stanford Credits– Centralized grading

• Courses recorded live– Single camera– Distributed by videotape– Video quality poor – e.g., blackboard writing illegible– Quality of instructor considered important


Stanford

• Small sections led by facilitators– 3-10 students– Model – stop video frequently for discussion

• Once every five minutes or when question• Goal – student initiated discussion

– Peer facilitation• Theory that discussion would be better with peer

facilitation• Student who took the course the previous year


Positive results reported from Stanford Experiments


UW-Community Colleges

• Introductory Computer Science courses from UW offered at Community Colleges

• State of Washington Higher Education Model

UW

Branch Campuses

WSU

CC CC CC CC CC CC


UW - CC

• Problems being addressed – Lack of qualified CS Instructor’s at CC’s– Courses not available at CC’s– Transfer students not having an equivalent

background

• Political sensitivities between UW and CC’s


UW-CC TVI

• Materials recorded from Live UW lectures– Talking head + slides– Shown in CC courses with CC instructors as

facilitators– Wanted to have instructors be “peers”

• Grading done by UW


UW-CC

• Two phases of project

• Phase I– Live materials recorded at UW– Grading Centralized– Substantial management from UW

• Phase II– Studio created materials– Grading handled by CC’s


Digital StudyHall

• Facilitated video instructor for primary education in rural India– Severe resource constraints– Limited teachers

• Hub and spoke model– Multiple sites (Lucknow, Bangalore, Pune)

• Capture of live-staged lectures


UW - Beihang

• Pilot course offering

• Algorithms course taught at UW and Beihang University

• Beihang students received Beihang credit for the course

• Goal was to offer course using US pedagogy and content


UW-Beihang

• Materials captured from live classes– Slides, talking, head,

digital ink

• Classroom Technology– Students used Tablet

PCs to participate in classroom activities

– Tablets PCs used both at Beihang and UW


Facilitation

• Three sections of 25 students each in Beihang

• Teaching Assistants led each section

• Instructional materials in English, but much of the discussion was in Chinese


High degree of UW involvement

• Initial visit– Set up– Training– Introduction to the students

• Second visit– Observation– Deliver class

• Support materials– Lecture summaries



General Lessons

• Were these courses successful?• Stanford

– Considered successful in terms of outcomes

• UW-CC– Initial offerings had mixed results– Some of the sections could be considered successful– Program was not sustainable

• UW-Beihang– Pilot offering, student outcomes and evaluations were

positive


Institutional Relationship

• Student View– Stanford – favorable– UW CC – negative, fear of competition– UW Beihang – favorable

• Facilitator View– UW CC – mixed

• Resentful• Supportive of program• Personal advancement• Positive because course couldn’t be offered without support

– UW Beihang• Favorable


Facilitation I

• Peer vs. non-peer– Stanford – peer– UW CC – non-peer– Beihang - peer

• Often extensive involvement of source site– Negative: Limits scaling– Positive: Mentorship


Facilitation II

• Relationship between facilitator and external teacher– UW CC: Mixed

• Competitive or supportive• Reflected general attidudes

– Beihang• Teacher / TA


Facilitation III

• Gibbons – Encourage students to ask questions to figure

out the material

• UW– Co-teaching with recorded materials– Facilitators initiated interaction (not students)

• Broad range of techniques

• Preparation by facilitators important


Institutional Course Adoption

• Transfer of curriculum– Institution adopts curriculum or teaching style

• Transfer of expertise– Facilitators gaining experience to teach the

course


Delivery Mechanics

• Course materials – Gibbons – capture of live materials– UW CC

• Version 1 – Live• Version 2 – Studio

– UW Beihang• Live – designed for TVI

• Supporting materials– UW CC – classroom activities– UW Beihang – lecture summaries


Evaluation

• Learning outcome evaluation– Established deployments

• Robust technology, methodology, programs

– Autonomous– Multiple instances– Control– Education experts


Additional approaches to evaluation

• Learning outcomes are not the only metric – Broader range of impact– Richer understanding


Evaluation

• Student outcomes– How do students perform– Attendance

• Student reactions– Survey

• Student satisfaction• Evaluation of different components

– Short answer

• Facilitator reaction– Interviews


Understanding classroom behavior

• The TVI methodology has certain classroom goals– Are these achieved?

• Observation• Data logging

– Observational (e.g., rounds of communication)– Technology logs

• Digital artifacts


What I have learned about TVI

• Relationship between institutions/partners is absolutely critical– Inherently asymmetric– Motivations open to question

• Role of “source” site– Develop materials that are suitable for target

population and facilitated playback• No general guidelines

– Important to support facilitators• Training• Support materials


What I learned about TVI

• Potential long term impacts on facilitators and institutional relationships

• Facilitation– Co-instruction by facilitator and video (not

Peer instruction as proposed by Gibbons)– Wide range of practices adopted by

facilitators– Facilitator training and attitude important


• For more information, contact Richard Anderson ([email protected])

• UW-Beihang course website:

• Papers

• This work has been supported by Microsoft External Research and Programs, University of Washington, and Microsoft Research Asia

Questions?

http://www.cs.washington.edu/education/courses/cse421/06au/

http://www.cs.washington.edu/education/dl/presenter/papers.html

mailto:[email protected]

Documents

March 26, 2007Microsoft Research India1 Tutored Video Instruction and Course Export Richard Anderson University of Washington