16 Video-Based Literacy Coaching

Chelsey Bahlmann Bollinger, College of Education

Video-Based Literacy Coaching

Abstract:

The use of video-based interactive annotation and analysis with time-attached comments and reflection are on the rise in teaching and learning. To understand the teaching and learning possibilities and outcomes of these video annotation tools, the researchers, in their second iteration of data collection, are conducting case studies of both graduate and undergraduate students enrolled in literacy courses both fully online and in hybrid form.

Rationale:

Video-based reflection and interactive annotations provide the joint merits of capturing real-time experience with visuals, audio, and context as well as reserving the replayed moments for self-reflection and mediated interactive comments at the exact time spot.These facilitate substantial possibilities for professions, such as teacher education, that count on time- and space-based practices and interactions (Hung, Yang, Fang, Hwang, & Chen, 2014; Leijen, Lam, Wildschut, Simons, & Admiraal, 2009; Shih, 2010). While powerful, video-based technology applications can also imply challenges related to ethics, power dynamics of usage, and affordability of technologies (Goldman, Derry, Pea, & Barron, 2014; Markle, West, & Rich, 2011), the potential of video-based
annotation tools will only be optimally utilized when the technology affordances are explored and proper activities are integrated in teaching and learning practice (Markle, West, & Rich, 2011; Suthers, 2006). For these reasons, this research is underway to take an in-depth look at the video annotation tool, Sibme through several case studies.

Plan for design and implementation

In the spring of 2019 the researchers planned and implemented an instructional design sandbox to explore with faculty from various disciplines the teaching and learning of the video-based coaching tool, Sibme. In this sandbox we (three researchers and five faculty members) co-explored how to use the tool, the formative assessment options of this tool, and most importantly, we established a network of faculty sharing a common interest in using video reflection. During this sandbox, the researchers obtained IRB approval and then collected data from a hybrid literacy course where one of the researchers was the instructor of record. This course included graduate students enrolled in a literacy course who used Sibme during their tutoring sessions with elementary students. During the current semester, data collection continues with an additional case of undergraduate students enrolled in a fully online literacy course. The researchers would like to continue data collection in spring with a second fully online course, however the year-long subscription to Sibme that was purchased for participation in the sandbox will be expiring at the end of this fall semester.

Outcome of the innovative and creative teaching

The use of video annotation tools in various course delivery formats (face-to-face, online, and blended) in higher education courses, is rapidly becoming the norm (Goldman, Pea, Barron, & Derry, 2014; Yousef et al. 2014) in order to make learning a more collaborative and dynamic process (Cross et al. 2014). Using video annotation tools with pre-service teachers to reflect and refine their teaching practices has been studied (Rich & Hannafin, 2008) and students have perceived the use of these tools as being valuable to their learning and reflection (Bargeron et al. 1999; Colasante 2011; et al. 2010). However, the students’ engagement with these video annotation tools is still in the early stages with few studies focusing on data to understand students’ actual experiences (Giannakos et al. 2015).

The application of these video annotation tools fits within the social constructivist learning environment where knowledge is created during the interaction between people before it becomes internalized by the learner. This collaborative activity, which these types of tools afford, plays an important role in learning (Shuell & Moran, 1994). In addition, novice teachers are focused mostly on their own actions during instruction, have difficulty paying attention to the multiple behaviors occurring amongst the students during their lessons (Berliner, 1987). Video recording lessons can help these novice teachers gain information about these behaviors that may otherwise go unnoticed without the use of a video (González & Skultety, 2018; Hamilton, 2011; Skultety, González, & Vargas, 2017; van Es & Sherin, 2008). Because of the system cost, data privacy, and storage related to these tools, the actual use still remains within a limited audience (Goldman, Pea, Barron, & Derry, 2014). Therefore, the cultural and historical activity implications in teaching and learning with these video annotation tools take on a more complicated layer that invites close investigation.

Research design/data analysis

The data currently being collected from this fully approved IRB protocol comes from several sources, including usability tests, video artifacts and user analytics, and one-on one interviews. The data was initially analyzed with applied thematic analysis (Guest, MacQueen, & Namey, 2011). By reading, rereading, and categorizing the data with themes and supportive artifacts, the researchers have uncovered preliminary findings.

Usability test from in-service teachers: The heuristic usability test questionnaire was adopted as the usability test and developed into a Google form to collect student feedback on Sibme (Benson, et al., 2002). In Spring 2019, 22 complete data sets were generated. On a 4-point Likert scale, the usability test results on the categories of Content, Consistency, Flexibility and Efficiency of Use, Aesthetic, Help and Documentation, Interactivity, Accessibility, Learning Management, Feedback, the mean scores ranged from 3.2 (Accessibility) to 3.7 (Interactivity, Flexibility, and Learning Management). There were some comments from students such as, “I thought the assignment tied to Sibme was helpful. I liked how I had to reflect on my lesson and THEN read my colleague’s responses.”

Artifacts and User Analytics: In the duration of Spring 2019, the participants contributed 54 video clips to the Sibme video annotation system. Using the “huddles” feature, users commented on their or their partner’s video clip with specific timestamp, using videos, images, text, or attachment of a variety of file formats. This exploration continues in fall 2019 with another class focused on literacy in early childhood education.

Interview with CHAT framework: Interviews will be conducted in order to develop an in-depth understanding of student perceptions of these video annotation tools. The checklist from Duignan, Noble, and Biddle (2006) was adapted as the semi-structured interview protocol. The researchers will conduct the interviews with the student participants in late fall 2019.

Data collection will continue with this same protocol, if funds are awarded in the springand fall of 2020.

Plan for result dissemination

With the continued data collection, the researchers are hoping to analyze and present a complete picture at AERA 2020. In addition, we plan to present at the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) conference in 2020 followed by writing for AECT’s journal Educational Technology Research and Development (ETRD). Once we have data from fall and spring 2020 we will submit an article to The Journal of Literacy and Technology (JLT).

Research design and data analysis plan

The study is already underway, and IRB has already been approved. Below is our timeline:

• January-May: Continue data collection with fully online course, write AECT conference proposal, begin writing for ETRD
• June-July: data analysis, write AERA conference proposal
• August-December: Continue data collection with hybrid course, analyze data, write an article for JLT, decide as a team if we’ve reached a data saturation point of if we should continue with data collection for 2021