Teacher Education and Special
Education: The Journal of the Teacher
Education Division of the Council for
Exceptional Children
http://tes.sagepub.com
Using Digital Videos to Enhance Teacher Preparation
Stacy K. Dymond and Johnell L. Bentz
Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the
Council for Exceptional Children 2006; 29; 98
DOI: 10.1177/088840640602900202
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://tes.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/29/2/98
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Teacher Education Division of the Council of Exceptional Children
Additional services and information for Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher
Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://tes.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://tes.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations http://tes.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/29/2/98
Downloaded from http://tes.sagepub.com by Gillian Geary-Jones on October 30, 2009
Teacher Education and Special Education
2006, Volume 29, No. 2, 98–112
Using Digital Videos to Enhance
Teacher Preparation
Stacy K. Dymond & Johnell L. Bentz
The technology to produce high quality, digital videos is widely available, yet its use in teacher
preparation remains largely overlooked. A digital video library was created to augment instruction in a special
education methods course for preservice elementary education teachers. The videos illustrated effective strategies
for working with students with disabilities in general education settings. All videos were filmed in the local
public schools. The processes involved with identifying who, what, and where to videotape, obtaining parental
permission, collecting digital video, and creating digital movies are described in this article. Considerations for
teacher educators seeking to construct and use digital videos as a form of pedagogy are examined, and directions
for future research are discussed.
Abstract:
umerous forms of technology are being
employed to further enhance and/or
N
supplement the educational experience for
university students. For example, professors
have increasingly used the Internet to help
bridge the information divide by a) delivering
coursework through distance education in
order to reach a greater number of students
(Caywood & Duckett, 2003; Cosgrove, 2002;
Mercer, 2004; Sun, Bender, & Fore, 2003), b)
utilizing web-based course management tools
such as WebCT and Blackboard to allow
greater access to course materials beyond
scheduled class times (Johnson, 2004; Sun, et
al.), c) requiring systematic use of electronic
mail to facilitate idea exchanges (Schlagal,
Trathen, & Blanton, 1996; Thomas, Clift, &
Sugimoto, 1996), d) conducting classroom
observations via videoconferencing in order to
allow all students enrolled in a university
course to observe and debrief with the school
teacher following the observation (McDevitt,
1996), and e) structuring two-way observations
of fieldwork through videoconferencing to
provide immediate feedback to preservice
teachers (Falconer & Lignugaris-Kraft, 2002).
Despite the increasing use of technology in
teacher preparation courses, limited attention
has been given to the use of digital video as
a medium for instruction. VHS videotapes
have long been used in university courses, with
instructors employing both commercially available videos as well as homemade videos that
portray instruction from local schools. Some of
the benefits of videos are that they demonstrate
situations that cannot be explained adequately,
showcase effective teaching methods, allow the
instructor to point out practices that might not
be obvious to an untrained observer, promote
dialogue on critical issues in the field, help
apply theory to practice, and create enthusiasm
and confidence in the viewer to try new
strategies (Hagen, Gutkin, Wilson, & Oats,
1998; Johnson, 1988; Jongsma, 2000; Meisel,
1998). Even with the many benefits of video,
careful attention must be given to how videos
are used in instruction. The less knowledge and
experience possessed by a teacher, the less
complex their understanding of the videos they
view (Copeland, Birmingham, DeMeulle,
D’Emidio-Caston, & Natal, 1994). As a result,
video instruction for novice preservice teachers
98
Downloaded from http://tes.sagepub.com by Gillian Geary-Jones on October 30, 2009
Using Digital Videos
Dymond & Bentz
must be highly structured in order to affect
positively their views, knowledge, and skills.
VHS videotapes have been used for preservice and/or inservice training in the social
sciences to simulate situations in the field,
illustrate effective practices used by practitioners, and provide feedback to students
during fieldwork. More than three decades
ago, Spivack (1973) used video simulations to
help train counselors to be more effective in
their sessions with clients. Trainers observed
the counselors and provided feedback on their
responses to the video simulations. The major
advantage to the video simulations was the
increase in variety of clients’ personal circumstances to which the counselor was exposed.
During the last twenty years, commercial
and homemade VHS videos have emphasized
actual teaching more frequently than simulations. Perin (1990) used video vignettes of real
teaching and learning situations among community college students to help faculty learn
techniques for instructional modifications in
teaching community college students with
learning disabilities. Most participants rated
the videos as useful in providing relevant
examples for teaching students with learning
disabilities. Volker, Gehler, Howlett, and
Twetten (1986) combined VHS videotapes
with an interactive computer program that
allowed education preservice teachers to receive
immediate feedback (reinforcement for correct
responses and remedial assistance for incorrect
responses) after each question answered about
a video they viewed. The preservice teachers
preferred the use of the interactive program to
a computer program that simply provided
a printout of the correct responses. Additionally, the literature provides evidence that some
teacher education programs have begun to
augment instruction provided via the Internet
and print materials within distance education
courses by incorporating VHS videos (see
Herbert, 1999; Schiller, 2001).
Videotapes have also been used to help
preservice students critique their instruction,
though limited data is available to systematically evaluate their effectiveness. Armbruster,
Anderson, and Mall (1991) required elementary education preservice teachers to videotape
themselves conducting literacy lessons in
different classrooms. Following videotaping,
the preservice teachers viewed the videotape,
wrote a self-evaluation, reviewed the video with
their cooperating teacher and obtained feedback, and wrote a summary of the interchange.
These videos were also discussed during
a weekly seminar class with other preservice
teachers. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the
preservice teachers benefited from reflecting on
the videos individually and with others.
Similarly, Busch (1989) videotaped clinicians
from a graduate program while they provided
one-on-one tutoring in reading instruction.
The authors reported that as a result of viewing
the videotapes, the clinicians were able to
appropriately identify their teaching strengths
and concerns. A more thorough analysis of the
effectiveness of videotaping preservice teachers
during fieldwork was conducted by Paul et al.
(2001) who found that initial teaching performance in the area of instrumental music was
significantly related to the number of videos
preservice teachers watched of their peers
teaching. Interestingly, there was no relationship between initial teaching performance and
the number of times preservice teachers received coaching while viewing a video of their
teaching.
More recently, the use of video has been
expanded to include presentation of digital
video through the Internet using a technique
called streaming video. Dhonau and McAlpine
(2002) used streaming video to present video
case studies on best practices for teaching
foreign languages and English as a second
language (FL/ESL) to undergraduate students.
The rationale for using these video case studies
was to provide the students with a greater
variety of real-life teaching situations. The
videos used in their course were stored on a class
web site so that students could access them at
any time. Student evaluations of the streaming
video case studies showed that many students
found the video case studies helpful in providing teaching ideas, viewing the modeling of
teaching methods, and assisting them to
generate new ideas for teaching in the area of
FL/ESL. The only negative comments were
related to the technical difficulties some
students experienced, specifically the slow
download speed of the Internet connection
on their personal computers.
In another examination of using streaming
video in teacher education, Dieker (2002)
presented information on how streaming video
99
Downloaded from http://tes.sagepub.com by Gillian Geary-Jones on October 30, 2009
TESE, Volume 29, No. 2
Spring 2006
can be used to prepare post-baccalaureate
teachers in special education. Dieker found
streaming video to have several advantages over
traditional video presentations. First, it allowed
easier access from remote sites and files were
more transportable. Second, presenters at
various locations did not need their own copy
of a video to present, but rather needed only to
have access to the designated web site to stream
the video for their presentation.
Digital video has also been used to
facilitate learning in fieldwork settings. Beck,
King, and Marshall (2002) asked preservice
elementary education teachers to create ‘‘videocases’’ during their fieldwork experience. The
preservice teachers collected digital video,
edited the video, and analyzed the teaching
and learning portrayed within the final product. Preservice teachers who participated in
creating videocases were better able to analyze
elements of effective teaching on an end of
semester video test than students who engaged
in traditional classroom observation without
constructing videocases.
Given the positive use of video in preparing a wide variety of social science professionals (e.g., counselors; community college
faculty; teachers in FL/ESL, instrumental
music, elementary education, and special
education), we sought to use digital video
technology to enhance the learning of candidates in an elementary education teacher
preparation program. Preparing preservice
general education teachers to affect positively
the education of students with disabilities who
are included into the general education
classroom is a challenge. Some might argue
that teacher candidates need to spend more
time in the field to be better prepared to meet
the challenges in today’s classrooms. Gardner
and McNally (1995) found that the length of
time students spent in one field experience did
not replace the need for a variety of different
experiences. In order for teachers to be
responsive to a wider range of students’
disabilities, they need to be provided with
sufficient and relative examples of those
classroom situations featuring various students
with disabilities.
We were responsible for teaching 150
fourth-year undergraduate elementary education students (across two class sections) about
effective methods for including students with
disabilities in the general education classroom.
Our task was complicated by the fact that the
students were placed in a wide variety of
classrooms for their fieldwork and many lacked
experience working with children with disabilities. As instructors of this special education
methods course, we were determined to provide the students with some common experiences to illustrate effective practices for teaching students with disabilities. We decided that
our best approach was to develop a series of
digital videos based on exemplary practices in
the public schools, and utilize the videos across
both sections of the class. The process we used
to develop a digital video library, examine the
procedures we found most and least effective,
and identify areas for future research on
pedagogy involving digital video is described
in this article.
Getting Started
We collaboratively developed and submitted a successful mini-grant proposal to our
College of Education to develop a series of
digital videos to illustrate effective methods for
working with children with disabilities in
general education classrooms. As a result of
this grant we each received funding to purchase
state of the art digital video cameras and related
equipment (tripod, external microphones, digital videotapes), as well as laptop computers
with the peripherals needed to edit our videos.
An important aspect of obtaining these minigrants was the availability of on-going technical
support from individuals in the college who
had expertise in digital video. This support
came in the form of small group trainings and
one-on-one meetings. Through on-going technical support we learned how to operate
a digital video camera, use external microphones and tripods appropriately, control for
factors that affect video quality (e.g., sound,
lighting, use of zoom feature), create a story
board to pre-plan our video footage, edit video
to create movies, and burn movies to either
a CD or DVD. This support was an essential
factor contributing to the success of our
project.
As we were learning to use the digital video
equipment, we also began to make plans
regarding the process we would use to obtain
video in the schools. Since one of us had
100
Downloaded from http://tes.sagepub.com by Gillian Geary-Jones on October 30, 2009
Using Digital Videos
Dymond & Bentz
expertise in mild disabilities and the other in
severe disabilities, we chose to use our diverse
backgrounds to our advantage, by collecting
video that focused on effective strategies for
educating each population of students in
general education classrooms. Exemplary, research-based practices highlighted in the course
text (Friend & Bursuck, 2002) were used to
guide decisions about what to videotape. We
agreed to share our videotapes with each other
as they were created. By coordinating our work,
we were able to develop a wide array of videos
that enhanced instruction across both sections
of the course. All video was obtained one year
prior to the semester in which it was first
incorporated into the course.
Process for Building a Digital Library
The steps we took to develop a digital
video library included identifying who, what,
and where to videotape; obtaining permission
to videotape; collecting digital video; and
editing video to create digital movies (see
Table 1). Although these steps seemed fairly
simple on paper, there are a number of caveats
that impacted the process. The purpose of this
section is to share the varied processes used,
their strengths and weaknesses, and some of the
obstacles we encountered and how we addressed them. We hope this information will
be useful to others who are considering the use
of digital video to supplement class instruction.
(see Table 1)
Identifying Who, What, and Where
to Videotape
There were three different approaches
utilized to identifying who, what, and where
to videotape. Our respective expertise and
connections with individuals in the local
schools influenced the approach(es) we chose.
Approach 1: Creating an assignment
One method was to create an assignment
that required students enrolled in an offcampus graduate special education course to
videotape and critique their teaching. All of the
students were employed by the public schools
as full-time special education teachers and had
enrolled in the course to update their special
education teaching certification. The assign-
ment required students to demonstrate, on
video, their use of specific strategy instruction
with individuals with mild disabilities. The
final products were critiqued by the student
and professor, and assigned a grade. Selected
videos that demonstrated exemplary instruction were edited for use in the undergraduate
course for elementary educators.
One of the primary benefits of this approach
was that it generated a large number of video
clips in a relatively short period of time. Given
that students enrolled in the course were
responsible for gaining parent permission and
collecting the actual video footage, the only time
required of the professor was in editing the
videos and creating movies. The drawback to this
method was that the students received limited
training on using the video equipment prior to
the assignment, and thus some of the videos had
poor sound quality, lacked appropriate lighting,
or showed footage that was deemed less than
useful to share with others. When possible, the
teaching assistant (TA) for the course, conducted
the videotaping to increase the utility of the
videos generated. The TA was assigned to the
course for purposes of observing the full-time
teachers and providing feedback. Adding the
videotaping along with the observations was
a logical extension of her responsibilities. This
proved helpful for those teachers who did not
have access to another adult in the classroom to
videotape their teaching.
Approach 2: Selecting peer nominated schools
A second method was to obtain recommendations from colleagues regarding teachers
who demonstrated effective methods for teaching students with disabilities. With this
approach, the professor contacted the nominated teachers by telephone, indicated the
person who had nominated them, briefly
explained the project, and requested a face-toface meeting to discuss the project. Prior to
the meeting, a list of possible scenarios to
videotape (see Table 2) was developed in order
to help teachers understand the content that
was needed for the course and identify times
during the day they felt best-demonstrated
effective practices.
All four teachers contacted agreed to meet
to discuss the project. During each meeting,
the professor discussed the purpose of the
101
Downloaded from http://tes.sagepub.com by Gillian Geary-Jones on October 30, 2009
TESE, Volume 29, No. 2
Spring 2006
Table 1.
Process for Developing a Digital Video Library
Steps
Activities
Identify who, what and where to videotape
N
N
N
N
N
N
Obtain permission to videotape
Collect digital video
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Create digital movies
N
N
N
N
N
N
Determine the purpose of the videos (i.e., how they will be used to
supplement the course).
Brainstorm a list of desired video content that corresponds with
research-based practices in the course text.
Contact school districts to obtain administrative support for
videotaping.
Identify and contact selected teachers to determine those interested in
participating.
Meet with teachers to determine the best activities/times to videotape.
Determine who will collect the video (e.g., professor, TA, students
from the course).
Develop a videotaping schedule.
Identify school district policies for videotaping.
Develop videotape permission forms for adults and children.
Identify an incentive for students to return signed permission slips.
Disseminate and collect permission slips.
Purchase or borrow digital video cameras and related equipment
(tripod, external microphones, digital videotapes).
Investigate university policies regarding equipment liability and
insurance coverage.
Obtain training in using the video camera and equipment.
On each day of videotaping:
Arrive 15–20 minutes early at the school site to set up and test all
equipment.
Confirm the classroom activities scheduled for observation with the
teacher.
Review the videos collected and determine if they are ‘‘acceptable’’
or need to be re-taped.
Determine which software program will be used to create movies (e.g.,
I-Movie, Movie Maker).
Obtain training in using the editing software program.
Create movie clips.
Determine how movies will be stored (e.g., DVDs, CDs, VHS, email,
web).
Save movies in one or more formats that correspond with their
intended use.
Save a back up copy of the finished movies on digital videotape to
preserve them for future editing.
videos and shared the list of possible scenarios
to videotape. Although all of the teachers
indicated interest in the project, only one
agreed to participate. The others failed to
follow through with the next steps despite
follow up phone calls and email reminders.
Some indicated that it was a busy time of year
for them and that they might be more available
‘‘next year’’. It may be that these teachers felt
less obligated to participate in the project since
they did not have an existing relationship with
the person who requested their participation.
In addition, building level administrators were
not involved in the initial request, although the
district’s special education director was supportive of the project.
The benefit of this method was that it
enabled the professor to meet individuals in the
local schools and observe the setting first hand.
Decisions about what to videotape and how to
capture the video were discussed between the
professor and the teacher, thus ensuring that the
102
Downloaded from http://tes.sagepub.com by Gillian Geary-Jones on October 30, 2009
Using Digital Videos
Dymond & Bentz
Table 2.
Videotaping Possibilities
Videotaping possibilities
Students with disabilities educated with their peers without disabilities.
Curriculum adaptations employed during lessons (i.e., videotapes of students using adaptations).
A general and/or special education teacher showing adaptations they have made for a specific student (i.e., describe the
general education lesson and student’s support needs, and then show the adaptation and how it met the student’s needs).
A discussion among general and special education teachers about the role and appropriateness of adaptations for some
students.
A special education teacher describing her staffing schedule (i.e., show the schedule and explain how decisions are made
about the assignment of paraprofessionals, related services personnel, volunteers, peer helpers, and the special education
teacher to support students during the day).
A general and special educator co-teaching.
Cooperative learning groups.
Explicit/direct instruction.
Perceptions of inclusion from teachers, related services personnel, parents, and/or students.
Collaborative meetings between general and special educators; general educators and paraprofessionals; and/or team
meetings that include parents.
content of the video was something that would
be useful. There were few issues with video
quality since the professor was skilled in using
the equipment. Obviously, the down side of this
approach was that it consumed a tremendous
amount of the professor’s time. It was the least
efficient of the three approaches chosen and
produced the fewest number of videos.
Approach 3: Using Personal Connections
A parent of a child with a disability, who
also was a certified general education teacher,
served as a TA in the course for which the
digital videos were being developed. Following
the semester in which the course was taught,
she was hired through the mini-grant to collect
digital videos in the school district where her
daughter was enrolled. The TA had prior
experience using a digital video camera and was
knowledgeable about effective practices in
special education. Under the direction of the
professor, she took primary responsibility for
contacting the special education director of her
child’s school district to discuss the project.
The special education director was extremely
supportive and shared information about the
proposed project with each building administrator and the superintendent to obtain their
support. Following those meetings, the TA met
with two of the building administrators and
identified a method for securing teacher input.
While one administrator requested she meet
with each pair of collaborating general and
special education teachers, the other adminis-
trator preferred she speak to all of the special
education teachers at their monthly meeting to
determine interested candidates. Three to four
teachers volunteered at each school.
This method was far more effective and
efficient than the second approach. We found
that gaining administrative support from
district and building level administrators
proved essential in obtaining teacher volunteers
at these schools. In addition, we believe it was
also important to have the person requesting
participation in the project to have an existing
personal or professional relationship with those
involved. The TA, in this situation, had
a positive, relationship with many individuals
in the school district and served as the primary
contact with the schools regarding all videotaping. The professor supervised the work of the
TA by meeting with her regularly to discuss
procedures and address any issues that arose.
This method generated an increased number of
videos compared to the second approach and
allowed the professor to spend most of her time
creating the final edited movies. Although it
was not a problem in this situation, a potential
drawback to this approach could be a breakdown in communication among the TA, the
professor, and the school district if the TA was
not as knowledgeable about the ways schools
work as the TA hired for this project.
Obtaining Permission to Videotape
District and building level administrators
were supportive of our efforts to videotape.
103
Downloaded from http://tes.sagepub.com by Gillian Geary-Jones on October 30, 2009
TESE, Volume 29, No. 2
Spring 2006
They appreciated the opportunity to share their
successes and challenges, and were excited to
have their schools serve as a model from which
future educators could learn. Administrators,
teachers, related services personnel, paraprofessionals, and parents readily gave written
permission to be videotaped. Although some
of these individuals were initially hesitant to
become involved (i.e., because they felt nervous
being in front of a camera), once they agreed to
participate, they signed the permission form
without any specific questions. A copy of the
final edited versions of the videos was given to
each participating school as a small token of
appreciation at the conclusion of the project.
Obtaining permission to videotape children proved to be much more difficult. The
first difficulty we encountered was that policies
for videotaping frequently varied across school
districts. Some schools required all parents to
sign a permission form at the beginning of each
school year. These districts felt it was not
necessary to send out a separate form from the
university requesting parent permission. Other
schools encouraged us to create a permission
form similar to that used by their district,
which specified that if the form were not
returned by the due date, we would assume the
parent granted consent for videotaping. Still
others indicated that we needed to receive
written permission, using a university generated permission form, for every child we wished
to videotape.
Although the policies of certain districts
would have allowed us to circumvent the use of
project specific permission forms, we opted to
obtain written permission from each parent of
a child we wished to videotape (see appendix
for a copy of the parent permission form). We
felt it was important for parents to understand
how the videotapes would be used, particularly
if our intent was to stream them over the
internet on a secure website. We also wanted to
make sure that the permission form specifically
granted us permission to use the videotapes
since a school permission form would only
grant permission to the school.
This method created a problem at one
school where the majority of parents in two
classes failed to return the forms despite
repeated reminders. Teachers at this school
acknowledged that they had previously experienced difficulty with parents returning permis-
sion forms. In a different school district, we
found that providing an incentive to all of the
students significantly increased our return rate.
When the permission forms were distributed,
the classroom teacher told the students that if
everyone in the class returned their form by the
due date (regardless of the parent’s response)
everyone in the class would earn a treat.
Most classes earned their treat and only a couple
of parents refused to have their child participate. Although we anticipated that some
parents would object to having their child’s
image shown over the Internet, we were
surprised to find that this was not an issue.
Perhaps parents’ experience using the Internet
and awareness of security features affected their
positive decision.
Collecting Digital Video
Once signed permission slips were obtained, the process of collecting digital video
began. Individuals involved with videotaping
included graduate students, teaching assistants
(TAs), and the authors.
Equipment access
Although our college possessed and loaned
digital video equipment to faculty and students, it was not always available when needed
and often could not be checked out for more
than two days. The demand for the technology
was simply greater than the availability of the
resources. Faculty and students increasingly
saw the benefits of digital video (over other
media formats) through college technology
presentations, which in turn bolstered their
enthusiasm for utilizing the technology in their
own teaching. The demand for limited resources made it impossible to utilize the
college’s equipment for a sustained period of
time. For this reason, we each chose to use our
grant funds to purchase a digital video camera
and tripod so that we would have consistent
access to the equipment.
Despite having our own equipment, it was
often challenging to coordinate camera usage
with our TAs. When the TAs were filming,
they needed flexibility in obtaining and using
the camera to film at the times provided by the
school. Since cameras from the college were not
always available on the days and times needed,
the TAs frequently used our cameras. While
104
Downloaded from http://tes.sagepub.com by Gillian Geary-Jones on October 30, 2009
Using Digital Videos
Dymond & Bentz
this enabled them to retain the camera and
have it available as needed, it meant that we did
not have access to the camera for editing the
tape into movies. By loaning the cameras to the
TAs, it often became necessary to use the
equipment located in the college’s faculty
development center to edit videos during the
work week, or save video editing until the
weekend, when it was assured that the camera
was not going to be needed for filming in the
schools.
Insurance
Once the videotaping equipment was
purchased from the grant, it became the
property of the special education department
(i.e., the department in which we work). When
we inquired about insurance coverage for the
equipment, we found that our department did
not carry insurance. Although the Office of
Educational Technology (which funded our
mini-grant through its PT3 project) held
insurance for all of its technology, it was
unable to include our equipment in its
coverage because the equipment belonged to
the special education department. We were
intrigued that the College did not have an
insurance policy that covered all technology
equipment across departments. We are presently working within our department to
address the issue.
Although we were fortunate that our
equipment did not malfunction or break
during the project, the absence of insurance
raised concerns about loaning our equipment
to TAs. If TAs borrowed cameras from the
Office of Educational Technology, the equipment would be insured if the camera was
broken or stolen. Yet, if they borrowed our
equipment we would have no way to recover
funds to repair or replace the items. In our
case, we found it worth the risk of loaning our
own equipment since the college’s equipment
was not always available when needed. TAs
were made aware of the issue and were asked to
keep the equipment in a secure location at all
times.
Videotaping
It was important to arrive 15–20 minutes
prior to each scheduled observation in order to
set up the camera, identify an appropriate
location from which to videotape, strategically
place the microphones and test the sound, and
talk with the teacher about any changes to
the scheduled activity. In most instances we
observed for a specific class period (e.g.,
reading, P.E.) jointly determined in advance
by the general or special education teacher and
the observer. Being flexible was key to obtaining usable video. For example, sometimes
activities that were scheduled did not occur
or occurred much differently than were
originally described; occasionally a teacher’s
selection of a particular practice for videotaping
was not one that we believed to be exemplary;
and in some instances it took multiple days of
shooting video of the same activity before
obtaining just the right clip to illustrate
a concept in the course. In each of these cases,
the observer sought to make the most of the
moment by collecting video that was not
necessarily planned and identifying another
time to visit the class. The course instructor
and TA discussed the videotaping process at
the end of each day and jointly arrived at
decisions about a) what constituted ‘‘acceptable’’ video that demonstrated effective practice
and b) which activities required re-taping.
Creating Digital Movies
The process for creating digital movies
involved importing video from the camera to
a computer; editing the video; creating a ‘‘movie’’ using transitions and special effects; and
compressing and saving the movie in multiple
formats.
Editing video
We experimented with several PC and
Macintosh software programs for editing video.
Since one of us was a PC user and the other
a Macintosh user, our goal was to utilize the
free movie making software available through
our preferred platform. Unfortunately, we
quickly learned that the software available
through the Macintosh (i.e., I-Movie) was far
superior to the software offered through the PC
(i.e., Movie Maker). I-Movie offered bigger
and clearer pictures for purposes of movie
editing and was less complicated to use than
Movie Maker. In fact, the PC user was easily
converted to I-Movie once she saw how much
105
Downloaded from http://tes.sagepub.com by Gillian Geary-Jones on October 30, 2009
TESE, Volume 29, No. 2
Spring 2006
Table 3. Selected Digital Video Editing
Software Programs
Software
Website
Adobe Premier
Avid Express Pro
http://www.adobe.com/motion
http://www.avid.com/products/
xpressdv
http://www.apple.com/finalcutpro
http://www.apple.com/imovie
http://www.microsoft.com/
windowsxp/moviemaker
Final Cut Pro
I-Movie
Movie Maker
Note: Additional information about digital video
software options is available through the University of
Illinois’ Digital Video Portal, located at http://dvp.ed.
uiuc.edu
simpler it was to use. Although it would have
been preferable for the PC user to edit movies
on her own computer, she was able to borrow
a Macintosh from the college to complete this
task.
We investigated the possibility of purchasing an alternative PC video editing software
program. As of yet, it has been difficult to find
one that offers the simplicity of I-Movie. More
sophisticated options are certainly available for
both the PC and Macintosh; however, for
purposes of creating quality videos for our
classes in a relatively short period of time, IMovie is an efficient program option that
meets our needs. A list of useful websites that
describe various video editing software programs is presented in Table 3.
Burning CDs and DVDs
One of the concerns we shared as we began
the process of making digital movies is that we
wanted to make sure the videos were of
sufficient quality that they would be interesting
to students and easily viewed by a large class.
When we first began the process, we initially
saved our movies onto CDs. With a CD, the
movie is only a fraction of the size of the screen
on which it is displayed. If it is enlarged to fill
the full screen, the picture becomes distorted.
Although displaying movies saved in a CD
format was adequate for small classes, the small
size of the picture made it difficult for all
students in large classes to view. As a result, we
began to experiment with DVDs.
DVDs have a number of advantages over
CDs. First, when movies saved to DVDs are
projected onto a screen they fill the entire
screen. The quality of the image is crisp and
movements of people and objects are fluid.
Second, DVDs have more space than CDs,
thus allowing storage of movies that have been
saved in a larger file format. This larger file
format contributes to the improved video
quality evident between a CD and a DVD.
Third, when DVDs are created on I-DVD (a
free program on the Macintosh) it is possible to
create a menu screen on the DVD that projects
small clips of each of the videos along with
their titles. One need only click on the picture
of the movie they wish to show in order to
activate the movie. This provides an artistic
look to the presentation of video options, as
opposed to the CD where one must pull up
a list of icons and text to select the desired
option.
Despite the benefits of DVD technology,
we did experience some problems. Movies
created through I-Movie were burned on
a Macintosh using I-DVD software. These
DVDs could be played off of a Macintosh or
PC. Although the picture quality was equally
clear when displayed off of both platforms, the
sound quality from the PC was poor. One
could easily hear the sound from the original
movie; however, there was an additional
crackling noise present throughout the video.
This was true whether the DVD was played off
of a PC laptop, a PC desktop with external
speakers, or a PC in a high tech classroom with
speakers. (Coincidently, we found no significant differences in the quality of CDs that were
created on a Macintosh and then played on
either a Macintosh or a PC). Interestingly,
when the DVD was played from a DVD
player, the sound and picture quality was
excellent. This led us to believe that the source
of the problem was the media player associated
with the PC (i.e., RealPlayer). Through
experimentation with numerous media players
we were eventually able to locate one called
VideoLAN (available free of charge at http://
www.videolan.org) that eliminated the crackling noise on the PC.
Storage options
One of the primary benefits of digital
video is that it can be saved in a variety of
different formats (e.g., CD, DVD, VHS,
106
Downloaded from http://tes.sagepub.com by Gillian Geary-Jones on October 30, 2009
Using Digital Videos
Dymond & Bentz
email, web). Also, because of its digital nature,
it can be saved in one format at the time the
movie is made and then imported back into the
computer at a later date and saved in a different
format. This provides tremendous flexibility
since the creator of the movie may not
anticipate all of the uses for the video at the
time the original movie is developed. In our
case, we originally saved our movies to CDs
and DVDs, as well as onto digital videotape.
When we became interested in streaming
video, we imported the original I-Movie onto
the computer and saved it in a format suitable
for the web. Using the digital videotape version
of the movie (as opposed to the version saved
to CD or DVD) produces a higher quality
movie when re-saved in a different format
because it retains its composition from the
original source (i.e., the digital videotape).
Despite the variety of options available for
formatting digital movies, we found it necessary to think carefully about our long-term
storage options. The size of most movie files
limits the number of movies that can be saved
to a computer hard drive. At least two issues
affect the size of the file. First, the more
movement within the movie, the larger the file
size required. For example, a 5-min movie of
children playing basketball in the gymnasium
will require a larger file size than a 5-min movie
of a teacher delivering a lecture in front of the
class. Second, when movies are exported from
the computer, the user has the opportunity to
specify the desired file size. Within I-Movie,
options include email, small, streaming small,
CD ROM, and DVD, with email being the
smallest file size and DVD the largest file size.
The bigger the file size selected, the better the
picture quality and the bigger the picture
displayed. The smaller the file size selected,
the poorer the picture quality and the smaller
the picture displayed. Choice of file size
should correspond with the intended use of
the movie.
We chose to store our final movies on CDs
and DVDs. When CDs were chosen as the
primary storage method, a CD was burned
after the movie was created and a backup copy
of the movie was exported to digital videotape.
Once these copies were produced, the movie
was deleted from the computer hard drive.
DVDs presented a further challenge with
regards to storage. Our goal in creating DVDs
was to organize our videos according to themes.
For example, we have developed some DVDs
devoted to examples of co-teaching, curriculum
adaptations, systematic instruction, and perceptions of inclusive education. Because of the
size of the DVD files, we found it necessary to
utilize an external hard drive to store completed videos prior to burning them. The external
hard drive allowed us the flexibility of creating
numerous movies and then determining how
to group them to burn on a DVD once several
movies with similar themes were acquired.
Displaying Movies
In our courses, we have experimented with
several methods for presenting digital movies.
We have played the movies directly from a CD
or DVD, and we have copied a movie from
a CD or DVD to the computer hard drive and
played it off of the hard drive. We have also
accessed our movies through video streaming
off of the web. When we have had to teach in
classrooms outside our college, we have copied
movies onto a Disk on Key (i.e., a small
external drive that attaches to your key chain)
and connected the device to the USB port of
the classroom computer. All of these methods
have been equally effective, though the latter
method has proven particularly useful for
organizing and saving video for a particular
class session that may have originally been
saved on multiple CDs or DVDs. This device
is extremely portable and decreases the time
needed to transition between movie clips
during class. The device is limited only by
the size of its storage space (i.e., 128 or
256 MB).
Evaluation of Digital Movies
Following the development of the digital
movies, we incorporated seven of the movies
within each section of our course on special
education methods for elementary education
preservice teachers. These movies were stored
in a variety of formats including CD, DVD,
and streaming video. Students were asked to
complete a 12-item survey after viewing each
movie in order to evaluate its quality (see
Table 4). Eight questions provided a 4–5 item
forced choice rating, two questions required
open-ended responses, and two questions
107
Downloaded from http://tes.sagepub.com by Gillian Geary-Jones on October 30, 2009
TESE, Volume 29, No. 2
Spring 2006
obtained demographic information. Survey
questions developed by the authors were
reviewed by three experts in instructional
technology and piloted with two students in
the special education preservice program prior
to data collection. (see Table 4)
The combined findings from the surveys
suggest that the instructor-created digital
movies were viewed favorably by the students.
The majority believed that the content of the
videotapes was appropriate for the class (94%)
and that watching the videotapes increased
their knowledge of the topic (92%). The
picture quality (87%) and sound quality
(86%) was rated as ‘‘good’’ or ‘‘excellent’’.
Some of the variables that were most commonly cited as detracting from students’ ability
to benefit from the videos included sitting too
far away from the screen to see the picture
(11%), too much light in the room (11%), and
glare from the screen (10%). Although some
students felt the movies were too long or too
short, most (73%) thought the movies were
just the right length. Eighty percent of the
students recommended or strongly recommended that the movies be shown in subsequent sections of this course.
Feedback from students suggests the videos
helped them feel more comfortable about
educating children with disabilities, added
variety to the course content, and stimulated
discussion around ‘‘real’’ instructional issues
rather than ‘‘theory’’. We believe the benefits of
using digital videos are that they provide
perspectives from diverse school stakeholders
(i.e., general and special education teachers,
paraprofessionals, parents, administrators, related services personnel); illustrate concrete
methods described in the textbook; generate
reflective thinking; and present situations from
local schools which extend beyond students’
fieldwork placements.
Discussion
The development of a digital video library
was, and continues to be, a time consuming
process. Each step of the task (i.e., ordering
video equipment, learning to use the equipment and software programs, identifying and
scheduling sites to videotape, traveling to and
from sites, collecting the video samples,
creating movies) consumed much more time
than anticipated. Although we were fortunate
to acquire a small grant to pay for needed
equipment, we did not have release time to
engage in this activity. Some factors that should
be considered by teacher educators before
embarking on this type of project are presented
in Table 5.
Practical Implications
Using digital videos to highlight local
school practices is an effective means for
providing preservice elementary educators with
a common set of experiences related to
educating students with disabilities. Through
digital video, all preservice students in the
course were exposed to children with diverse
abilities learning in inclusive classrooms and
school personnel from various disciplines (e.g.,
general and special educators, paraprofessionals, therapists) effectively collaborating
with parents of children with disabilities.
When prior practicum experiences do not
uniformly provide preservice students with
exposure to children with disabilities in the
schools, digital video is one effective method
for ensuring that lack of experience does not
interfere with access to and understanding of
the course content.
Teacher educators in the field of special
education who are responsible for teaching
preservice general education students how to
work with children with disabilities can determine the extent to which students in their
courses have similar practicum experiences by
asking about their experiences with children
with disabilities at the beginning of the
semester. Additional information should be
gathered prior to the course by talking with
colleagues from other departments in which
the students are enrolled for their program
(e.g., curriculum and instruction, foreign
language, agricultural sciences) and practicum
supervisors. We have found it helpful to attend
monthly elementary education faculty meetings
to coordinate activities for students between
the two departments and to ensure that
disability issues are discussed within general
education courses. In turn, we have learned
more about the elementary education program,
thus allowing us to understand the educational
philosophy, terminology, and curriculum prac-
108
Downloaded from http://tes.sagepub.com by Gillian Geary-Jones on October 30, 2009
Using Digital Videos
Dymond & Bentz
Table 4.
Survey Questions
Survey questions
1. The content of this videotape was appropriate for this class.
A. Strongly Agree
B. Agree
C. Disagree
D. Strongly Disagree
2. Watching the videotape increased my knowledge of the topic
A. A Lot
B. Some
C. A Little
D. Not At All
3. The picture quality of this video was:
A. Excellent
B. Good
C. Fair
D. Poor
If the picture quality of the video was not ‘‘excellent’’, please explain why:
4. The sound quality of this video was:
A. Excellent
B. Good
C. Fair
D. Poor
If the sound quality of the video was not ‘‘excellent’’, please explain why:
5. The length of the videotape was:
A. Too long
B. Too short
C. Just the right length
6. Please indicate any of the following room variables that may have detracted from your ability to benefit from the video:
A. Glare from the screen
B. Too far away from screen to see picture
C. Room was not dark enough
D. Room was not light enough
E. Other people were talking
7. Please indicate any of the following factors that may have detracted from your ability to benefit from the video:
A. Volume too low to hear sound
B. Not enough background information provided by the instructor prior to viewing the video
C. Did not have time to complete the readings before class
D. Other
8. Would you recommend that this video be shown to subsequent SPED 305 classes?
A. Strongly recommend
B. Recommend
C. Recommend with reservations
D. Do not recommend
If you do not recommend this video, please explain why:
9. Please indicate your class rank:
A. Undergraduate
B. Graduate
10. How much of your reading did you complete prior to coming to class today?
A. All
B. Some
C. None
11. What did you learn from this videotape?
12. Please feel free to make any additional comments about the quality and content of these videos.
tices to which students have been previously
exposed.
In addition to providing preservice students with a common set of experiences related
to disability, digital video has the capacity to
help students ‘‘see’’ research-based practices
described in their course text. Today’s generation of learners has grown up learning through
interacting with multiple means of technology.
As such, it may be easier for some learners to
109
Downloaded from http://tes.sagepub.com by Gillian Geary-Jones on October 30, 2009
TESE, Volume 29, No. 2
Spring 2006
Table 5.
Factors to Consider Before Deciding to Develop a Digital Video Library
Factors to consider
Evaluate whether and/or how your current courses could benefit from digital video. Identify clear expectations for how the
video could be used to augment instruction.
Be sure the technology needed to develop digital video and movies (i.e., camera, tripod, microphones, video supplies, video
editing software) is accessible to you on a regular, flexible basis.
Ensure that the technology needed to project movies during targeted courses is available (e.g., computer, LCD projector,
internet connection).
Determine the technical support available within or outside your college. Identify how you will obtain the expertise needed
to collect quality digital video, create movies, and problem solve issues that arise.
Think about your current responsibilities and assess the time you have available. If your time is limited, determine the degree
to which other resources are available to support the project (e.g., teaching assistants, students completing an honors
project, teachers, volunteers).
process new information through technology
rather than traditional university lectures, small
group work, and individual projects. While
teacher educators who specialize in a particular
content area such as special education may have
limited skills in using instructional technology,
offices of educational technology within one’s
school or college of education can provide
assistance with methods for incorporating
technology into courses. The one-on-one
technical assistance we received was instrumental in helping us determine the appropriateness
of digital video for our classes and developing
the skills needed to embark on this project.
Collaboration with instructional technology
personnel allowed teacher educators to merge
their knowledge of the course curriculum with
the ideas of experts who were on the cutting
edge of today’s instructional technologies.
Directions for Future Research
Given the limited empirical literature
addressing the use of digital video in teacher
preparation, additional research is needed to
evaluate this form of pedagogy. In order to
establish digital video as a valid, evidencedbased practice, three core areas of research must
be addressed. First, research must focus on
evaluating the impact of digital video on
preservice students’ learning. Rather than
viewing technology as an ‘‘add on’’ component
of the course or a method for varying
instruction, data must be gathered to determine whether the systematic use of digital
video within preservice courses results in
improved student outcomes in the areas of
knowledge, skill acquisition, and the application of knowledge and skills to novel situations.
Second, methods for selecting and using
digital videos within the course curriculum
must be investigated in order to determine
effective strategies for incorporating digital
video in the curriculum. For example, research
is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of digital
video when viewed as a large class, as a small
class, and individually. The use of digital video
without discussion, with guided discussion,
with a pre and/or post activity, or as
a supplement to fieldwork experiences should
be investigated. Also, methods for combining
digital video with other forms of instructional
technology (e.g., course management systems,
video conferencing with individuals from the
videos) should be compared.
Finally, data must be gathered about the
effectiveness of digital video as perceived by its
consumers (i.e., preservice teachers, teacher
educators). With the substantial time and
financial resources involved with creating
digital videos that reflect local school practices,
it is imperative to understand whether these
types of videos are perceived by preservice
teachers and teacher educators as more, less, or
similarly useful as commercially available
videos. Factors that affect preservice teachers’
perceptions of digital videos (e.g., video
format, sound quality, picture clarity, size of
picture, content of video, length of video) must
be investigated to assist with the future
development of videos that will facilitate
learning. Likewise, factors affecting the perceptions of teacher educators toward developing
digital videos (e.g., time, cost, availability of
equipment and technical assistance, access to
sites for videotaping) and using them for
instruction (e.g., availability of movies that
110
Downloaded from http://tes.sagepub.com by Gillian Geary-Jones on October 30, 2009
Using Digital Videos
Dymond & Bentz
correspond with course content, ease of use,
access to technology to show videos, technology support) must be examined to identify
methods for promoting increased application
of this form of instructional technology.
Preservice teachers, public school teachers,
and teacher educators are being increasingly
asked to meet standards that demonstrate their
proficiency in using technology to teach.
Whether or not the increased emphasis on
technology in teaching is effective remains to
be seen. Technology, in and of itself, does not
enhance learning. It is what we do with it, and
how we choose to use it during instruction,
that ultimately has potential to strengthen
pedagogy, and in turn, student outcomes.
Appendix
Sample Parent Permission Form
Dear Parent:
I currently teach a course at the [name of university] that helps future teachers learn how to work with students
with disabilities in the general education classroom. Last semester the individuals in my class indicated how helpful it
was to see ‘‘real examples’’ of the specialized techniques teachers use to help all children learn. As a result, I am
collecting videotapes of instruction that will help future teachers see how to apply the concepts they learn in their
university classes to the real world.
I am writing to ask permission to videotape your child along with his/her classmates for 3–5 hours during
February and March. The taping will take place during typical classroom daily routines so there will be minimal
disruption to your child’s school day. No information will be taped that could reveal confidential or personally
identifiable information about your child. Your child’s last name or the name of your child’s school will not be used
when presenting the videotape. The videotape will be used to enhance the skills of future general and special
education teachers (through university courses) and current teachers (through workshops). Some videotapes will be
presented to university students on a password protected secure website while others will be shown during actual class
sessions.
I hope you will consider allowing us to videotape your child. Your child’s teachers and administrators are aware of
this request and are supportive of this effort. Please return this form to your child’s teacher by Tuesday, January 28
indicating whether you grant permission for your child to be videotaped. If all students in your child’s class return
their permission forms by January 28, they will receive a special treat.
We’re really excited about starting this project and hope you will consider allowing your child to participate. If you
have any questions about this request, please feel free to call me at [insert phone number].
Sincerely,
[name of instructor]
Permission to Videotape
I give consent for my child ____________________________, to be videotaped by [names of individuals collecting
videotapes]. I understand that the videotape will be used in university classes (during class presentations and on a password
protected secure website) and at educational workshops. The purpose of the videotapes is to help current and future
teachers learn strategies for teaching diverse groups of children.
_________________________
Signature
____________________
Date
I DO NOT give consent for my child ____________________________, to be videotaped.
_________________________
Signature
____________________
Date
PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM TO YOUR CHILD’S TEACHER BY JANUARY 28.
THANK YOU!
111
Downloaded from http://tes.sagepub.com by Gillian Geary-Jones on October 30, 2009
TESE, Volume 29, No. 2
Spring 2006
References
Armbruster, B. B., Anderson, R. C., & Mall, V. C.
(1991). Preparing teachers of literacy. Educational Leadership, 49, 21–24.
Beck, R. J., King, A., & Marshall, S. K. (2002).
Effects of videocase construction on preservice teachers’
observations of teaching. Journal of Experimental Education, 70, 345–361.
Busch, R. F. (1989). The use of videotaped tutoring
sessions to improve student performance. Reading Improvement, 26, 24–28.
Caywood, K., & Duckett, J. (2003). Online vs. oncampus learning in teacher education. Teacher Education
and Special Education, 26, 98–105.
Copeland, W. D., Birmingham, C., DeMeulle, L.,
D’Emidio-Caston, M., & Natal, D. (1994). Making
meaning in classrooms: An investigation of cognitive
processes in aspiring teachers, experienced teachers, and
their peers. American Educational Research Journal, 31,
166–196.
Cosgrove, M. S. (2002). Telecommunications
distance learning and teacher preparation. ERIC Digest.
Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and
Teacher Education.
Dhonau, S., & McAlpine, D. (2002). ‘‘Streaming’’
best practices: Using digital video-teaching segments in
the FL/ESL methods course. Foreign Language Annals,
35(6), 632–636.
Dieker, L. A. (2002, November). Investigating the use
of video streaming to impact the preparation of preservice
teachers. Paper presented at the 25th Annual Conference of
the Teacher Education Division of the Council for
Exceptional Children, Savannah, GA.
Falconer, K. B., & Lignugaris-Kraft, B. (2002). A
qualitative analysis of the benefits and limitations of using
two-way conferencing technology to supervise preservice
teachers in remote locations. Teacher Education and
Special Education, 25, 368–384.
Friend, M., & Bursuck, W. D. (2002). Including
students with special needs: A practical guide for classroom
teachers (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Gardner, J., & McNally, H. (1995). Supporting
school-based initial teacher training with interactive video.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 26(1), 30–41.
Herbert, J. M. (1999). An online learning community. American School Board Journal, 186, 39–41.
Hagen, K. M., Gutkin, T. B., Wilson, C. P., &
Oats, R. G. (1998). Using vicarious experience and verbal
persuasion to enhance self-efficacy in pre-service teachers:
‘‘Priming the pump’’ for consultation. School Psychology
Quarterly, 13, 169–178.
Johnson, L. R. (2004). Research-based online course
development for special education teacher preparation.
Teacher Education and Special Education, 27, 207–223.
Jongsma, K. (2000). Viewing for self-study and staff
development. Reading Teacher, 53, 580–583.
McDevitt, M. A. (1996). A virtual view: classroom
observations at a distance. Journal of Teacher Education,
47, 191–195.
Meisel, S. (1998). Videotypes: Considerations for
effective use of video in teaching and training. Journal of
Management Development, 17, 251–258.
Mercer, D. (2004). Project VISION: An experiment
in effective pedagogy for delivering preservice training to
professionals in visual impairment through distance
education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 27,
68–74.
Paul, S. J., Teachout, D. J., Sullivan, J. M., Kelly, S.
N., Bauer, W. I., & Raiber, M. A. (2001). Authenticcontext learning activities in instrumental music teacher
preparation. Journal of Research in Music Education, 49,
136–145.
Perin, D. (1990). Inservice training for community
college faculty in learning disabilities using video vignettes:
Final report. New York: Institute for Research and
Development in Occupational Education.
Schiller, J. (2001). Technological choices and
challenges in preparing resources for teaching children’s
dance composition. Early Child Development and Care,
171, 1–10.
Schlagal, B., Trathen, W., & Blanton, W. (1996).
Structuring telecommunications to create instructional
conversations about student teaching. Journal of Teacher
Education, 47, 175–183.
Spivack, J. (1973). Critical incidents in counseling:
Simulated video experiences for training counselors.
Counselor Education and Supervision, 13, 263–270.
Sun, L., Bender, W. N., & Fore, C. (2003). Webbased certification courses: The future of teacher preparation in special education? Teacher Education and Special
Education, 26, 87–97.
Thomas, L., Clift, R. T., & Sugimoto, T. (1996).
Telecommunication, student teaching, and methods
instruction: An exploratory investigation. Journal of
Teacher Education, 47, 165–174.
Volker, R., Gehler, D., Howlett, W. P., & Twetten,
A. (1986). Using interactive video to assess teaching
behaviors. Educational Leadership, 43, 59–61.
Stacy K. Dymond, University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign.
Johnell L. Bentz, University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign.
112
Downloaded from http://tes.sagepub.com by Gillian Geary-Jones on October 30, 2009