Content First: The YouTube Generation and Student Video Projects

Randy Schultz
California State University, Bakersfield

The YouTubers
     The YouTube generation was born February 15, 2005 as of this writing, it is little more than a toddler. What started as an idea now has more than 78.3 million videos, with over 80% of this content generated by amateurs. (Welch 2008) Partially fueled by YouTube and the variety of other video posting sites, and partially the causation for these sites’ successes, students all over the world are making and posting videos of a tremendous variety of content.
     Students have discovered the power of digital video as a means to communicate their thoughts and inner feelings. They also have found that it is a great way to present their projects in school. A Simple search On YouTube reveals:

• 58,000 “School Projects”
• 14,800 “High School Projects”
• 4,670 “*Grade Projects” (a wildcard search for any grade level)
• 1520 “Social Studies Projects” (YouTube 2008)

     Many students are past the adoption stage when it comes to putting their ideas onto video. They have access to the technology through their cell phones and can borrow their parents’ video cameras that lie unused in the home. Most modern computers (both PC and Mac) come preloaded with some type of digital video editing program that makes adding music, sound effects, and special effects to videos relatively easy. When faced with the choice of writing a paper or making a video these same students will elect to do the latter.
     A random viewing of these project videos reveals a variety of technological abilities as well as depth in content, with titles such as:

• Egyptian Mythology and Religion Project     
• High School Funny AP Chemistry Project
• Romeo and Juliet: Fortune's Fools     
• House of Spirits - High School Project
• My Life (High School Project)
• Auschwitz The Horrors
• Class Assignment (over 6,270 videos have this title)

     Some of these videos have quite high production values, while others are shot in the spirit of the “Blair Witch Project” a 1999 film made with handheld digital video cameras and no tripods. For example the title “Egyptian Mythology and Religion Project” (Claymation345 2007) has a fairly low production value – the majority of the video is shot without the use of a tripod and there is a definite feeling that  the whole production was done as one continuous video. On the other hand, the video “House of Spirits - High School Project” (RogueBH 2007) is a culminating project for one student’s media class, as well as a project for an English class assignment. There are high production values and a well-thought out script. It is obvious that the student spent a great deal of time planning, shooting and editing to arrive at the final product.
     Both of these videos were turned in as final projects. How can a teacher know how to assign a grade to either one? The dilemma can be compounded when the students initiate the video project as their way to meet a project requirement, rather than having been assigned a video project by their teacher. The student or students bring in their production and show it to the class. Their peers may respond in a quite positive way to the video production, simply because their friends are in it. When the video is over, the teacher then needs to assign a grade. This can be a daunting activity for the classroom teacher who does not have much experience with technology and/or video production. Many times the teacher feels pressure into giving high marks based solely on the positive classroom response to the video.
     Classroom teachers who may or may not have the technical know-how when it comes to video in the classroom are now faced with the need to evaluate the video project and apply a grade to the final project. There is a gap between the teacher’s technology knowledge and the students.
Faced with this gap, how can a non-video trained teacher evaluate a student production in a way that meaningfully advances the students’ knowledge in the specific content area.
A Framework for Assessment
    To begin, the teacher needs neither to be seduced by the production value of the video nor be disheartened by a lack of value. Primarily, the teacher as assessor needs to focus on the content of the actual video     
     If the teacher allows videos to be used as a method of meeting a class project requirement, he or she should then have a set of content criteria established along the same lines as any other type of work that would be used to complete the assignment. The students need to be pre-exposed to the amount of subject matter content the video should provide. One example of such a teacher’s grade from the expectations can been seen in the student video titled “Ethiopia Social Project” (dabeyer 2006) where the students made a video about the conflict in Ethiopia between the Italians and the Ethiopians. The video starts out as a newscast and deteriorates in to about a five-minute sword fight between several young men complete with gruesome sound effects and slow motion special effects. The video is capped by a short interview with the Ethiopian king, and then ends. The student who posted the video on YouTube sums it up best when he states: “Yeah we pretty much failed our Ethiopia social project because of this movie... but it was worth it. Enjoy!” (dabeyer 2006). An astute teacher, who viewed the video for content, “pretty much failed” this particular video.
    One decisive way that a teacher can ensure that there is ample content in a student video is to provide the students with a rubric describing exactly how the content will be evaluated. There are many examples of these types of rubrics on the internet (American Film Institute 2007, Vandervelde 2007, Bitter and Legacy 2006) and they have a recurring theme. When looked at through the lens of content, an exemplary project by be defined as “ Information is in a logical, intuitive sequence: information is clear, appropriate, and accurate.” (Bitter and Legacy 2006) or “The project has a clear, organized vision as it relates to the topic or issue (AFI 2007) or even “The content includes a clear statement of purpose or theme and is creative, compelling and clearly written. A rich variety of supporting information in the video contributes to understanding the project's main idea. The project includes motivating questions and advanced organizers that provide the audience with a sense of the presentation's main idea. Events and messages are presented in a logical order.” (Vandervelde 2007)
. Knowing the amount and quality of content wanted the student or students can then work towards a goal that places content over production value. This way the assessing teacher does not have to feel compelled to score a popular or high production value video based solely on its pizzazz quotient, but can actually focus on the subject matter content of the video. The video “Egyptian Mythology and Religion Project” (Claymation345 2006) may not have much production value but the students were careful to get as much content about the various Egyptian gods and their creation mythology in as possible. Such a video does raises other questions about the content of student videos.
Learning Doesn’t Flower it Bloom’s
     When one views student projects on YouTube, it becomes quickly apparent that the content is at a variety of cognitive levels. Some videos, (Claymation345 2006, dabeyer 2006) specifically re-cover material that has been covered in a direct and linear way, while others (RogueBH 2007, drumkey87 2006, Viper053 2007) show a depth of understanding that goes far beyond the simple repetition of facts in a digital format. By using other tools already available, the teacher can assess and evaluate the depth of student learning shown in the video content. Bloom’s taxonomy is one such tool. In 2001, made the first revisions to Bloom’s taxonomy (Anderson and Krathwohl 2001). This update works beautifully when evaluating and discussing student videos. The figure below is an attempt to coordinate levels of the new Bloom’s taxonomy with various types of video that can be turned in as projects.

Figure 1.1

     This is a superficial overview of types of video to demonstrate the significance Bloom’s revised taxonomy can play in the evaluation of videos. What is important to remember is that although the videos may have a range of production values, the teacher as assessor needs to focus on the content.
Moving Students Towards Content Rich Video Projects
     How can a teacher who has no expertise in video production insure that his/her students turn in content rich video projects? If we turn to research in metacognition, we have a rich scaffold with which to help students build their video projects. The teacher can develop a procedure for all projects based on simple metacognitive ideas thus enabling the student to focus on the content rather than on just impressing fellow students. Based on the simple definition of metacognition- “
thinking about one’s own thinking” (Georghiades 2004) the use of non-complex metacognitive methods to prepare students for video project can give a simple framework for the students to follow as they progress through their video work. Three essential skills that can be used are planning, monitoring and evaluating (Woolfolk 2007). When applied to a student’s video project, the following set of questions would be beneficial.

Figure 1.2

Bringing the Two Worlds Together
     When working with the YouTube generation teachers must ask themselves, “What Do We Know?” In the world of content it is the teacher who is the native. As educators the teacher has the understanding of the pedagogy required to teach content and to assure student learning of that content. The students are the immigrants to this world.
     Many students are technology natives (although it is important to remember that not all students are technologically literate). The teacher is the immigrant to their world.
     The teacher can build bridges and allow students to use the technology with which they are comfortable. In doing so the teacher enables the student to make the connection to the content. The teacher brings expertise in the content to make the connections that are needed for learning and the student brings their love of technology. This allows immigration to each other’s world. As long as the teacher has great expectations and front loads the student videographer with the necessary content requirements, student video projects can move further up Bloom’s taxonomy and student metacognitive skills can be developed.  As a result there is a win-win situation and the bottom line is that learning is achieved.

References
Anderson, L. W. & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001) A taxononomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s
       taxonomy of educational objectives.  New York: Longman
Bitter, G.  and Legacy J. M. (2006) Using technology in the classroom. Brief Edition. Boston: Pearson Allyn and Bacon
Claymation345 (2007, November 3). Egyptian Mythology and religion Project [Video file]. Video posted to
       http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqGYvFVeBP4
Dabeyer (2006, September 11) Ethiopia Social Project [Video file] Video posted to
       http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1a3yrYDpXDY
Drumkey87 (2006, August 27) My Life [Video file] Video posted to
       http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDbP0HSJzEA
Georghiades, P. (2004, February 27). From the general to the situated: three decades of metacognition. International Journal
       of Science Education, 26(3), 365-383. Retrieved March 21, 2008, from Academic Search Elite database.
RogueBH  ( 2007, March 20)  House of Spirits - High School Project [Video file]. Video posted to
       http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqlNuX0FVRo
The American Film Institute (2007) The 21st century educator's handbook [Electronic version] Retrieved November 19, 2007, 
       from http://afi.edu/teachers/book.aspx
Vandervelde, Joan (2007, May 15)  Video project rubric [Electronic version] Retrieved from
       http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/profdev/videorubric.html
viper053 (2007, October 2) Auschwitz The Horrors [Video file] Video posted to
       http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPqcKeKBh4E 
Welch, M. (2008, March 18) YouTube Statistics
       http://mediatedcultures.net/ksudigg/?p=163 Message posted to Digital Ethnography @ Kansas State University
Woolfolk, Anita (2007) Educational psychology Tenth Edition Boston: Pearson Allyn and Bacon
YouTube  Retrieved March 2008, from http://www.youtube.com