Using YouTube to Extend Microteaching Sessions and to

Enhance Instructor Assessment of Pre-Service

Teacher Practice

Empire State CollegeMaster of Arts in Teaching Program

Eileen O’Connor, Ph.D.www.slideshare.net/eoconnor

Presented at: An Inclusive Vision for Teacher Education: Exploring Issues of Engagement; NYSCATE / NYACTE – October 2010

Paper soon to be published

THE EFFECT ON LEARNING, COMMUNICATION, AND ASSESSMENT WHEN STUDENT-CREATED YOUTUBES OF MICROTEACHING WERE USED IN AN ONLINE TEACHER-EDUCATION COURSE

In the Journal of Educational Technology Systems

Agenda Background on the course & the needs of

the course ; research questions Findings from the YouTube pilot Conclusions, improvements, and next steps:

› How can we scaffold a developmental teacher-growth process where we can view performance? What are you doing now in related areas?

› How can we help pre-service teachers think more specifically about ALL students even before the classroom? What evidence would you want to see in a self-taped microteaching?

Course Particulars Pre-service teachers who are learning to

become science teachers; career changing adults

An associated course is face-to-face and allows these teachers to practice but . . . › content-pedagogy experts are not always

available Purpose of YouTube pilot—to have students:

› develop a microteaching that they share with peers & the instructor that can aid in their development as soon-to-be K12 teachers, that can serve as a course assessment , and that can encourage peer networks

Course particulars: the nature of the course interactions

The online course itself is highly interactive and tech-enabled online course: › Second Life for meetings and discussions› Talk-aloud discussion boards for planning › Networking students in an expressed

instructional objective

Demographics: Career-changing adults

Content area:

Physics Earth Science

Chemistry

4 2 4

Gender: Female Male

5 5

Approx. age:

Under 30 30 – 45 45+

3 3 4

Research questions Can the use of readily-available video-recording and

sharing applications, such as YouTube, provide more opportunities for pre-service teachers working in a largely online environment to practice teaching before they enter the classroom? How can having more opportunities for content-expert faculty review help these students grow as research-based science teachers? Can students in online courses develop more collegial relationships through YouTube sharing?

What areas appear as problematic when students self-created and posted these videos – from a technical perspective and from a presentation perspective?

How did the YouTube serve as an assessment tool within the course? How has the use of student-developed videos improved the course effectiveness?

You & your online students get to know

each other

Findings: students get to know each other – online

More personal interactions were apparent: › Peer help with creating and posting the

YouTubes› Students discuss their presentation style

Do I look shifty eyes? › Students comment about themselves

personally Not happy with the beard it was shaved

Personalities become apparent › From show-off-y to competent to quiet

Findings: learning the technology

Some technology struggles in the beginning; but quickly overcome – issues at the beginning: › Uploading problems – timing out / too long › Trouble embedding the right links › No Helpdesk – students helped each other › Initial handout from the instructor with some

“basics” › The icebreaker to test the process was very

helpful - and students enjoyed their presentations

Ways students worked1st microteaching 2nd microteaching

Used attached webcam 2 of 10 students 2 of 10 (same students)

Used detached video camera 8 of 10 students 8 of 10 (same students)

Created some video-editing 3 of 10 students 4 of 10 (one new)

Sophisticated video-editing was clearly stated & demonstrated as NOT being required; this was not per se a technology course

View students’ actual work

Findings: now you can analyze performance characteristics

1st YouTube 2nd YouTube

Addressing a K12 audience 3 of 10 (30%) 8 of 9 (89%)

Challenging K12 student with questions

3 of 10 (30%) / 3 partially (30%)

2 of 9 (22%) /3 (33%) partially

Asking K12 students to make predictions

3 of 10 (30%) 0 / less relevant

Most of lesson tells K12 students what to observe

7 of 10 (70%) 6 of 9 (67%)

Such as the style of teaching that was evident:

Students were creative in displaying data & its use

A “performance based” assessment

Brings in a vital aspect of instruction and review: › The process of creating the microteaching is

instructive in-and-of itself As evident in the scientific quality within the

productions even without specific coaching on how & what to present

› Kindly but pointed review Mastery of many areas but still not student centered or

interesting More similar to actual classroom observations

› The content-pedagogy instructor can now observe technique, technology integration, & aspects of comfort in front of an audience Difficult qualities to assess in online environment

Findings

Good science & tech . . . however: › Too much to an adult audience – their colleagues

Despite criteria, notes, rubrics, and comments But improvement by the second microteaching

› Too much “this is what you should know about science” and not enough engendering of the questions that science addresses

› Too little evidence of why K12 students would be interested or engaged in the science

Benefits

Good way for online instructors to get to know students – in an asynchronous manner

Easy to use: › The learning curve for the technology is small› Network students for peer support

Important communication skills that teachers need: › Good modeling for their own classroom; K12

students work well in this environment

Value to the students

Practice with the technology and with the teaching; learning how to assemble materials needed, how to address the standards

Getting to know their peers better Using 21st century skills

Value in teacher prep

Practicing with assembly of all the materials and ideas needed when teaching:› Requires the integration of many areas: the

science; the lessons; the technology; and the videotaping goes beyond what is evident in a lesson plan

› Provides practice in speaking and later critiquing The natural concern about speaking with colleagues

as evident in comments to the audience and introductions

Also, these students may soon have to do a demo lesson on a job interview

Selected links to microteaching YouTubes (T&L – spring 2010)

Deleted for the public posting

Value to using YouTube, in general

•Accessible to most students

•Useful especially with online; improves student & teacher communication

Easily implemented

•Many facets can be studied

•Richer assessments possible since live materials can be readily reviewed

•Data can be saved, stored, compared over time

“Performance” can now be observed

•New questions arise about what is evidence of learning in the content area

New ways of teaching &

learning emerge

Lessons learned for teacher ed: more research & development needed

Very valuable techniques – show the good and the bad of teaching › Often teacher-centered / little evidence of

differentiation – but movement towards best practice

› VERY difficult to change practice – we teach how we were taught; which may not be as evident in lesson plans and papers

Student products (the videos) can be shared, stored, and analyzed improvement in teacher-ed instruction can be supported by actual performance evidence

Lessons learned for teacher ed: how can we start to make improvements?

Requirements for improvement – in the outcomes and the instruction (the technology itself was mostly supportive) › A more realistic conception of pre-classroom teaching needs

and how they are assessed must be developed› More YouTube models of best practice – they should be

analyzed and discussed by students before they create their microteachings; Need more scaffolding and assignments on the student-

centeredness and inclusive aspects that can serve as models Need short exemplar YouTubes that illustrate different aspect of

best practices

› Criteria & rubrics should better alignment with desired outcomes within the video format – need to highlight the new expectations

› Address ways to bring in the unseen audience› Consider creating more specific peer review – anonymous,

perhaps

Questions when developing possible YouTubes

Topic Your ideas?

What small segments might comprise the components of a good lesson?

(DIN, questioning, transitions, etc.)

What rubric would you create to assess these segments?

What audience (or pretend audience) could you require?

What peer-analysis questions could you develop?

In conclusion: the pilot outcomes

Very worthy – providing a whole new face for pre-service teacher education › Closer to the classroom – than written lesson plans;

much better assessment of preparation for teaching› However, lack of “real” students may have skewed

this towards a performance for other scientist› Performance-based assessment – heralds our adult

students: good concrete experience Need to bring the course itself into better

alignment with this performance approach areas in need of improvement were highlighted

Notes to prospective implementers

Valuable way to assess performance but we need to improve the evaluation of live performances and not simply “papers”

Particularly useful in clinical programs and/or where performances are required

Model the techniques you want › Easier said then done› In teacher education, you need a new mental model

of teaching; the YouTube gives evidence to the deeper thinking of students

› The instructor will have students continue to use these videos in the fall semester’s course