22 SES 10 C, Paper Session
The use of videos in university teaching is not a new innovation. It goes back to the 1960s. Nevertheless, the scientific interest in audio-visual media is continuously increasing, especially due to the digitalization Higher Education (see Stigmar 2016). There are various forms and application scenarios of such learning videos (Halverson & Smith 2009). However, a characteristic design feature is the bimodal structure with a simultaneous presentation of visual and auditory elements (cf. Stigmar 2016). It is conspicuous that most studies deal with learning videos which were designed by teachers. Those videos, which are created by students, are not given much attention. Therefore, it seems from great interest to explore the use of those videos in which students are the main protagonists.
2. Theoretical framework
This concept we concentrate on is called Peer Teaching and describes a form of Teaching and learning framework in which “people from similar social grouping who are not professional teachers helping each other to lean and learning themselves by teaching” (Topping 1996, p. 322). Therefore, the concept differentiates from “Expert-layman-learning”. Peer learning is becoming an increasingly important part of many courses in Higher Education, and it is being used in a variety of contexts and disciplines in many countries. It can be understood as a form of collegial learning. It is not only about the similar age, but also about the group affiliation with the peer, which makes Peer Teaching effective. Students develop skills in organizing and planning learning activities, working collaboratively with others, giving and receiving feedback and evaluating their own learning. (Cate & Durning 2007). But Peer teaching is not a uniform concept but comprises different forms
– for example students from higher semesters take on teaching positions
– and students from the same semester (can be freshmen) teach fellow students
Peer teaching is a well-established practice in many universities but until recently, reciprocal peer learning has not been identified as a phenomenon in its own right that might be used to students' advantage (Mellany, Rees & Tripp 2000).
3. Research Question and Hypotheses
The main research question is, to detect the differences between Peer and Expert teaching in regard of different video learning formats.
H1 The overall evaluation of the learning videos differs between the individual groups taking into account possible influences of interest and previous knowledge
H2 The results of the performance test differs between the individual groups, taking into account possible influences of interest and prior knowledge
H3 Video-based peer teaching gets higher ratings in the respective formats than video-based expert
H4 Video-based peer teaching favors the acquisition of knowledge to a greater extent than video-based expert teaching
In order to be able to investigate the role of Peer Teaching in learning videos, an experimental field study was conducted. An expert and student teacher were chosen. The topic of the learning video was “descriptive statistics”. The expert as well as the peer teacher prepared with the identical presentation slides as well as the same script with a detailed pre-wording. The content was presented by both teachers in the same way. Individual differences, e.g. speaking speed was minimal. The first two videos were shot in the video format “medium close”, one shot with the talking head Peer instructor and one with the talking head Expert Teacher while ppt-slides were visible. Having those two videos, two other formats were easily created for each teacher (not taking another shot) – one audio version (screencast without the visible talking head) – and one picture-in-picture version A total of six learning videos were produced for the study. Undergraduate students ( N = 214) of social science of German University participated in the study. We created six randomized groups. Each group watched only one version of the six existing learning videos without any pre-explanation. Each video was designed to test knowledge acquisition (learning performance) and the learner’s perception and acceptance of the specific video format (leaner’s rating). The content of the videos covered the basics of descriptive statistics for social sciences students and was part of the curriculum. Learners were tested directly after watching the video (pen-and-paper-testing). As control variables, we integrated prior knowledge of statistics and learners’ interest in the subject. Independent variables were format (medium, audio, pic-in-pic) and teacher (expert vs. peer).
In general, participants of the Peer Teaching formats scored significantly higher on the performance test. Still, the scoring was on average level. the audio groups had the highest performance scores (M = 9.45), highest standard deviation (SD = 4.03) as well. The picture-in-picture groups had the lowest performance scores (M = 8.28, SD = 2.24). Highest Performance score was reported on Peer Video format audio (M = 12.32, SD = 2.40), lowest performance score was on Expert Video format audio (M = 12.32, SD = 2.80). From the rating perspective it was obvious that video-based Peer Teaching received significantly higher approval by the learners than video-based Expert Teaching. The medium-close structured format was rated highest on average on Peer Teaching (M = 3.53, SD = .53). Audio format received high ratings both for Peer and Expert. it is very possible to assume that students perceive peers more helpful as teachers in learning videos than experts because of the group affiliation. It is striking that in every format the peer was rated better than the expert. Reasons for this could be that the peer had a more pleasant voice / tonality, was perceived more sympathetically by the students or could convey the topic in a more understandable way. The setting audio was rated best overall. This may be due to the fact that the recipient only has to concentrate on the slides in connection with the voice of the teacher and is therefore not distracted from their appearance (cognitive load theory). In addition, it should be noted that all video formats as well as the respective teacher were only rated on average.
Cate, Olle Ten; Durning, Steven (2007): Dimensions and psychology of peer teaching in medical education. In: Medical Teacher 29 (6), p. 546–552. Halverson, Richard; Smith, Anette (2009): How new technologies have (and have not) changed teaching and learning in schools. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 26 (2), p. 49-54 Mellanby, A. R.; Rees, J. B.; Tripp, J. H. (2000): Peer-led and Adult-led School Health Education. A Critical Review of Available Comparative Research. In: Health Education Research 15 (5), p. 533–545 Stigmar, Martin (2016): Peer-to-peer Teaching in Higher Education: A Critical Literature Review. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 24 (2), p. 124-136. Topping, Keith J. (1996): The Effectiveness of Peer Tutoring in Further and Higher Education. Typology and Review of the Literature. In: Higher Education 32 (3), p. 321–345. among others
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.