Dr. Naomi Hall Behavioral Sciences and Social Work July 2010

2. The students who accessed the VLC system most frequently were those who had GPAs either in the very high or low range;

3. Students who worked more than 11 hours per week were more likely to utilize the videos for instruction and review;

4. The availability of pre-recorded and live recorded videos did not negatively impact student attendance in classes;

5. Data indicate that class structure should be should be taken into account when deciding whether or not to implement VLC in a particular course; and

7. A student’s grade point average (GPA) was correlated with whether or not the videos were viewed, and for how long. The students who reviewed the videos more frequently, and for longer periods of time appear to be those students whose GPAs are hovering around the 3.1-3.5 range.

8. It appears that two of the main factors that helped students decide whether or not to access the videos were class requirements, and time. Of those students who did not review any videos, over half said they did not because it was not required for the course.

9. The summer sessions are very fast and intense, and most of the students who were attending classes (per Assessment data) also worked at least 20 hours per week. Students were honest in saying they had to prioritize what they could and could not do in this shorten course. This speaks to making Panopto a requirement so that students will not have to make those types of study and review choices in the future.

10. Summer faculty did not see the benefit of the videos to the students. The videos were not seen as convenient, helpful in student preparation for quizzes and exams, or in discussions.

12. If it can enhance it, to what extent?

13. If the availability of the videos had any significant impact on student assessment scores

15. Dr. Stanley—his class made up 24.3% of the students who viewed videos, and the top three videos viewed were Chi-Square, Hypothesis testing, and Means and Variances.

16. Dr. Kump—his class made up 9.1% of the students who viewed videos, and the top video viewed was the one related to Chapter 7 (Carbon Cycle).

17. Dr. Adams—his class made up 7.6% of the students who viewed videos, and the top video viewed was on the Brain.

18. Dr. Porter-Kelley—her class made up 4.2% of the students who viewed videos, and the top video viewed was on Chapter 7 (DNA Replication).

20. 26% of the students who viewed at least one video watched between 6-10 minutes of each video, and 25.3% watched at least 10 minutes of each video.

22. “It would be quite valuable in conducting distance-learning or on-line courses or for students who miss class due to an excused absence. As a tool for enhancing learning in traditional courses, in my opinion it does not appear to be effective, at least in the courses I have taught. Students do not appear to want additional lecture, even though the videos might not technically be a lecture. Other methods of enhancing learning may be far more valuable. In the courses I teach, this includes studying the textbook and reviewing the notes.”

23. “I wish the system was a little more user friendly—is there a way the students can log on through Blackboard and not an outside link”

24. Continue to use an "experimental approach" where there are some systematic comparisons. In class video versus supplemental video, or enrichment type presentations versus repetition (of same material from class), etc.”Discussion<br />Based on the information provided by the three student surveys, faculty assessment data, and faculty assessment forms—it appears that the VLC has great potential to enhance teaching and learning outcomes. We know that those students who split their time between working and being a fulltime student were more likely to have taken the course again because of a DFW. Additionally, we know that these students were also more likely to utilize the videos for instruction and review. With the large number of undergraduate students (traditional and non-traditional) working more than 11 hours per week, this may prove to be an essential learning tool for students. Chandra (2007) indicated that one of the primary concerns of faculty and administrators was that students would just listen/watch to the videos and not attend the class sessions. We found that this was not a factor with our students—this tool did not have a negative impact on student attendance. <br />Unfortunately, we don’t have enough statistical data to discuss the extent to which this project enhanced teaching and learning. One of the major concerns is the way that faculty collected student assessment data. There was a lack of consistency in collection and reporting of final assessment data. It was very difficult to measure whether or not the accessibility and usage of the videos were significantly related to the assessment scores in each class. We have descriptive and qualitative information on all classes; however, we don’t have final, correlated, assessment data on all students. Dr. Kump found that the videos did not significantly increase student assessment scores, while Dr. Adams found that it did. One of the suggestions moving forward is to have a standardized data collection format for all faculty and classes. <br />Data indicated that VLC usage did not have a statistically significant effect on the assessment scores of students in the individual classes. However, examination of the aggregated VLC usage and assessment data reveal that a statistically significant trend was found with number of minutes viewed and corresponding assessment score of the second video. It appears that most students did not view the first video in any of the classes but viewing increased with each subsequent video—plateauing and then declining at approximately the fourth video. Speculation is made that perhaps it took students some time to become comfortable with the Panopto system and/or word of mouth began to spark student curiosity. Another hypothesis is that continued faculty encouragement may have prompted students to utilize the resource.<br />Similar to the results of the 2009 summer session II pilot, overwhelmingly, students thought the VLC was helpful, beneficial, and valuable to their learning experience in the participating classes. The majority of the responses by students, quantitative and qualitative, were positive and in favor of keeping the VLC system in classes. In fact, several students indicated that it should be implemented in their other classes. We found that students who had GPAs either in the very high or low range were more likely to watch the videos, and rate them as more beneficial and valuable. This may speak to the fact that those students who are doing very well or very poorly are more conscientious about their performance. Additionally, motivation may play a major factor in how students perceive and utilize this tool. If you are at the top of your class, you may want to engage in additional activities to stay there. If you are not doing very well, you may be motivated to seek additional assistance to ‘pull’ your grades up. What still remains unknown is how to motivate and encourage those students in the ‘middle’ of the class to take advantage of the VLC. <br />Other interesting findings have to do with the length, type, and content of the videos. Students seem to enjoy the shorter, concept-focused videos over the longer, class-related videos. Additionally, two in five students indicated they preferred the pre-recorded videos versus the ‘live’ videos. Based on some of the feedback from students and faculty, a combination of both may be the best practice. For activities such as concept explanation and instructional techniques, shorter videos may be preferred. However, the longer ‘live’ recorded videos may be better for exam review and content questions. It was noted by two faculty members that the class structure should be taken into account in deciding whether or not to implement VLC in the course. CETL will look at the structure and course content of the classes with the instructors to see if VLC is a viable supplemental tool. <br />Finally, with any technological tool, there are some challenges with quality and usability. Students and faculty thought the quality of the videos were pretty good. However, there were a few comments that focused on the accessibility of the videos through an external link. If there is a way to access the videos through Blackboard, instead of directly through Panopto, this may increase the usage. One comment from a faculty member was that some students are not willing to try and access the Panopto system multiple times.<br />Limitations<br />No study, especially a quasi-experimental one, is without limitations. The first limitation is the lack of consistency with type and amount of data collected. There were some professors who were able to conduct descriptive and inferential analyses, while others were only able to produce descriptive data. Even though the data was aggregated, two professors had the majority of students using the software. It is unclear if accessing/using the software is positively correlated with the incentive given by that professor. Secondly, students were self-reporting and may over exaggerate their software usage because of the desire to obtain an incentive offered by their professor. Conversely, students may have not participated because there was not an incentive offered by their professor. A large portion of the sample were nursing majors and this may skew the data. Some students are theoretically more motivated to do well in this particular class, because not doing so would mean denied entry into a specialized program. <br />References<br />Chandra, S. (2007). Lecture video capture for the masses. ITiCSE, June 23-27.<br />Hall, N. M. (2009). Video lecture capture initiative: summer pilot final report. Winston-Salem State <br />University: Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning.<br />Winston-Salem State University (2010). Achieving academic distinction: The plan for student <br />success. Winston-Salem, NC: Office of the Chancellor<br />