Presentation on theme: "Using Screencasting Technology to Learn Application Software Yong Su Ting."— Presentation transcript:
Using Screencasting Technology to Learn Application Software Yong Su Ting
Outline of Presentation Introduction Background Purpose of research What is screencasting? Screencast Development Classroom Experiment Students’ feedback Discussion Conclusion
Introduction PowerPoint Excel Access PowerPoint Excel Access The first IT module for Foundation students: Learn Microsoft application software Education background Computer proficiency Learning experience Novice, intermediate or expert users? Education background Computer proficiency Learning experience Novice, intermediate or expert users? Diversity of Foundation students
Background Conventional classroom teaching: Software Demonstration + Notes Challenges & Problems Slow learners learning difficulties & cannot complete exercise. Fast learners bored. Students have diverse learning pace. An alternative teaching approach is needed.
When student learning styles are matched with instructional strategies, student achievement is maximized (Ballone & Czerniak, 2001; Davidson, Savenye & Orr, 1992; Dunn, Denig & Lovelace, 2001; Gregorc, 1979).
The purpose of this research is to identify students’ preferred learning style: Conventional vs. New Approach Conventional Approach New Approach Software demonstration Notes Screencasts Software demonstration Notes Screencasting is rapidly becoming a popular method of presenting content for instruction (Brown, Luterbach& Sugar, 2009)
What is screencasting? Screenast is “a digital movie in which the setting is partly or wholly a computer screen, and in which audio narration describes the on-screen action” (Udell, 2005). Screencast is a digital recording of the activity on a computer screen and it may contain sound tracks (Winterbottom, 2007; Lee, Pradhan & Dalgarno, 2008). The term “screencast” was coined and popularized by Jon Udell (father of screencast) in November 2004 (Pival, 2006; Lee, Pradhan & Dalgarno, 2008).
Use of Screencasting in Education Live capture presentations (PPT lecture) University of Wales, UK (Thomas, 2006). University of Stirling, UK (Winterbottom, 2007). Saint Xavier University, US (Arman, Wilson & Shirvani, 2007). George Fox University, US (Arman, Wilson & Shirvani, 2007). Ohio University-Zaneville, US (Arman, Wilson & Shirvani, 2007). Appalachian State University, US (Kurtz, Fenwick & Ellsworth, 2007). University of Ulster, Northern Ireland (Wilson, Uhomoibhi & McCartan, 2008). Edith Cowan University, Australia (Garner, 2008). Montana State University, US (Peterson, 2007) – Distance Education. Software/ Programming Indiana University, US – Multimedia Software: Microsoft PPT, FrontPage, audio software & Windows Movie Maker (Ross & Ross, 2005). University of Ulster, Northern Ireland – AutoCAD (Wilson, Uhomoibhi & McCartan, 2008). University of Texas-Pan American, US – Engineering Softaware: MathSoft‘s Mathcad & MSC‘s Working Model 2D (Freeman, 2004). University of Ballarat, Australia - BlueJ & Java (Lee, Pradhan, & Dalgarno, 2008). Step by step problem solution University of Saskatchewan, Canada – Physics (Robinson, 2008). University of Nottingham, UK- Mathematics.
Screencasts can accommodate different learning styles (Educause, 2006) and it is an effective learning object because it can incorporate visual (screen capture), auditory (narration) and kinaesthetic (demonstration).
Research Process Screencast Development Classroom Experiment Students’ feedback
Sample Exercise: Microsoft Excel Screencast Development Screencasts: Microsoft Excel & Access-demonstration of exercises Limitation: No narration
Experiment: Semester July 2009 (Semester 1 Foundation Programme) Classroom teaching: Week 4&5: Conventional approach Week 6, 7&8: New approach Week 9&10: New approach Demonstration + Notes: Microsoft PowerPoint Demonstration + Notes + Screencasts: Microsoft Access Demonstration + Notes + Screencasts: Microsoft Excel
MaleFemale 921 Students’ feedback Week 11 - Semester 1 Foundation in Bioscience – 30 students 1 st Section: Conventional Approach - Open ended 2 nd Section: New approach - Likert Scale - Open Ended
If I miss one step, I will miss everything. If I miss the class, I will miss the whole lesson. I can’t follow the demonstration. I am lost if the function is too complicated. I don’t like reading the notes. I don’t understand by reading the notes. Sometimes, I don’t understand because it is too fast. I can’t remember all the steps & functions. Conventional Approach
Learning Experience Mean AllMaleFemale Complete Exercise4.9 Understand better4.4 Better learning126.96.36.199 Learn at own pace188.8.131.52 Enjoy learning4.1 4.0 1-Strongly Disagree, 2-Disagree, 3-Neutral, 4-Agree, 5-Strongly Agree New Approach
Video demonstrations can help me to learn and understand better than reading the notes. Video demonstrations enable the slower students to learn at their own pace and replay the required steps. Video demonstrations can help the students who miss the class. Video demonstrations are useful and helpful for the class and revision purpose. Video demonstrations are interesting and fun. Video demonstrations are helpful but the lecturer’s explanation is also important to make us understand better. New Approach
Feedbacks from students are very positive! 100% - Agreed that lecturer’s demonstration supported by screencast is a better teaching approach.
Discussion Screencasting Students preferred learning style: Demonstration + Notes + Screencasts Screencasts can be used to supplement teaching materials (Peterson, 2007). Students can replay the screencasts. & reinforce their learning (Ross & Ross, 2005). Students can learn at their own pace & accommodate different learning styles and speeds (Educause, 2006). Students can use screencasts for revision because they are flexibility (Winterbottom, 2007). Students can learn and understand better because can help students to understand course concepts better (Freeman, 2004).
Conclusion Screencasting technology has a great potential to provide constructive learning experience in learning application software at tertiary level. Suggestions for improvement: Brief explanation. Narration & audio. Screencasts can be applicable across all disciplines (Peterson, 2007).
References 1. Agarwal, A. (2007) Camtasia Studio 5 Review - The Best Screen Recorder Ever. Digital Inspiration. Retrieved February 18, 2009 from http://www.labnol.org/software/download/camtasia-studio-5-screencasting-desktop- videos/1475/ 2. Aman, J., Wilson, B. & Shirvani, S. (2007) Maintaining lecture context in a blended course. Consortium for Computing Sciences in Colleges. 3. Ballone, L.M., & Czerniak, C.M. (2001). Teacher’s beliefs about accommodating students’ learning styles in science classrooms. Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH 43402, Electronic Journal of Science Education, 6 (2), 1-41. 4. Barbe, W., & Swassing, R. (1988). Teaching through modality strengths : Concepts and practices. Columbus, OH: Zaner-Bloser. 5. Becta. (2005). Learning styles – an introduction to the research literature. British Educational Communications and Technology Agency. 6. Brown, A., Luterbach, K. & Sugar, W. (2009). The Current State of Screencast Technology and What is Known About its Instructional Effectiveness. In I. Gibson et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2009 (pp. 1748-1753). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. 7. Carpenter, C. and Steiner, S. (2007) Using Web 2.0 Technologies to Push E-Resources. 2007 Electronic Resources and Libraries Conference. 8. Carrera, F. (2006) Informal training, a window of opportunity for e-learning. Distance learning conference & workshop 2006. 9. Clark, J.D. & Kou, Q. (2008) Captivate and Camtasia. Journal of Medical Library Association, 16(1). 10. Coiro, J., Malloy, J. and Rogers, A. (2006) Patterns of effective strategy use among adolescent online readers. In National Reading Conference. Los Angeles, CA, November 29, 2006. 11. Davidson, G.V., Savenye, W.C., & Orr, K.B. (1992). How do learning styles relate to performance in a computer applications course? Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 24, 348-358. 12. Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1978). Teaching students through their individual learning styles: A practical approach. Reston, VA: Reston Publishing Company. 13. Dunn, R.S., Denig, S.J., & Lovelace, M.K. (2001). Two sides of the same coin or different strokes for different folks? Teacher Librarian, 28(3), 9-16. 14. Educause (2006). 7 Things that you should know about screencasting. Retrieved January 6, 2010 from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI7012.pdf 15. Freeman, R.A. (2004) Asynchronous teaching of Math and Engineering software within the context of a course in Mechanisms. Proceedings of DETC’ 2004: The 2004 ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & The Computer and Information in Engineering Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah, September 28-October 2, 2004. 16. Garner, S. (2008). The Use of Screencasting and Audio to Support Student Learning. In Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2008 (pp. 4693-4698). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. 17. Goodwin, S. (2005) Using screen capture software for web site usability and redesign buy-in. Library Hi Tech, 23(4), 610- 621. 18. Gregorc, A.F. (1979). Learning styles: Differences which profession must address. In C. Vacca and J. Maegher (Ed), Reading through content. pp. 232-235. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut press. 19. Iding, M. (2000) Can strategies facilitate learning from illustrated science texts? International Journal of Instructional Media, 27(3), pp 289-307. 20. Keefe, J. W. (1988). Development of the NAASP Learning Style Profile. In J.W. Keefe (Ed.), Profiling & utilizing learning style (pp.1-21). Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principles. 21. Kurtz, B.L., Fenwick, J. B. and Ellsworth, C. C. (2007) Using podcasts and tablet PCs in computer science. In Proceedings of the 45th Annual Southeast Regional Conference (Winston-Salem, North Carolina, March 23 - 24, 2007). ACM-SE 45. ACM, New York, NY, 484-489. 22. Lauffer, S. (2002). The translation process: An analysis of observational methodology. 23. Lee, J.W., Pradhan, S. & Dalgarno, B. (2008). The Effectiveness of Screencasts and Cognitive Tools as Scaffolding for Novice Object-Oriented Programmers. Journal of Information Technology Education, Vol 7 (2008). 24. Lemire, D. (2001). An introduction to learning styles for college teachers. Journal of college reading and learning, 32(1), 86- 92. 25. Letteri, C. A. (1988). The NASSP Learning Style Profile and cognitive processing. In J.W. Keefe (Ed.), Profiling & utilizing learning style (pp.22-34). Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principles. 26. Library Hi Tech, 22(4), pg 366-374. 27. Mayer, R.E., Steinhoff, K., Bower, K. and Mars, R. (1995) A generative theory of textbook design: using annotated illustration to foster meaningful learning of science text. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(1), pp 31-44. 28. Nichols, R. and Anderer, C. (2007) Using video podcasts outside the classroom. SIGUCCS’07, October 7-10, 2007, Orlando, Florida, USA. pg 6-8. 29. Peterson, E. Incorporating Screencasts In Online Teaching. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, Vol 8, No 3 (2007), ISSN: 1492 ‐ 3831 30. Pival, P.R. (2006). Show and Tell the Easy Way: An Introduction to Screencasting. Retrieved January 6, 2009 from http://distlib.blogs.com/screencasts/SDIScreencasting-Pival.ppt 31. Reid, J.M. (1995). Learning Styles in the ESL/EFL Classroom. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers. 32. Robinson, A. (2008) Easy implementation of internet-based whiteboard physics tutorials. The Physics Teacher, 46(8), pp 456-459. 33. Ross, J. M. and Ross, K. R. (2005) Developing web-based video training modules to aid students learning multimedia skills. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 21(2), 281-287. 34. Sim, G. and Horton, M. (2005), Performance and Attitude of Children in Computer Based Versus Paper Based Testing, 35. Stewart, K. L., & Felicetti, L. A. (1992). Learning styles of marketing majors. Educational Research Quarterly, 15(2), 15-23. 36. Sweller, J. and Chandler, P. (1994) Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognitive and Instruction, 12(3), pp 185-233. 37. Tang, J.C., Liu, S.B., Muller, M., Lin, J. & Drews, C. (2006) Unobtrusive but invasive: using screen recording to collect field data on computer-mediated interaction. Computer Supported Cooperative Work. Proceedings of the 2006 20 th anniversary conference on Computer supported cooperative work, Banff, Alberta, Canada, pp 479 – 482. 38. TechnoTarget (2008). Best Screencasting Software. Retrieved February 18, 2009 from http://technotarget.com/bestscreencast-software/ 39. Thomas, K. (2006) The power of the pod cast. Viewpoint, January 2006. www.futurelab.org.uk/viewpoint/art70.htm 40. Treichler, D.G. (1967) Are you missing the boat in training aid? Film and A-V Communication, 1, pp 14-16. 41. Udell, J. (2005). What is Screencasting. Digital Media (November, 16, 2005). Retrieved January 26, 2009 from http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/digitalmedia/2005/11/16/what-is-screencasting.html http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/digitalmedia/2005/11/16/what-is-screencasting.html 42. Ward, J.L. (2006) Web site redesign: the University of Washington Libraries’ experience. OCLC Systems & Services: International digital library, 22(3), 207-216. 43. Wilson, N., Uhomoibhi, J. and McCartan, K. (2008) Technology-enhanced teaching and learning: A strategic perspective. EUNIS 2008: Vision IT - Visions for use of IT in Higher Education, June 24-27, 2008, University of Aarhus, Denmark. 44. Winterbottom, S. (2007) Virtual lecturing: Delivering lectures using screen casting and pod casting technology. Planet 18, World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, Montreal. 45. Xiao, Y., Pietraszewski, B.A. & Goodwin, S.P. (2004) Full stream ahead: database instruction through online videos.