Some Internet Videos May be More Appropriate For Teaching Than Others Jeffrey Bell 1,3 and Jim Bidlack 2,3 Abstract IntroductionMaterials & Methods Results Conclusions Online educational videos have great potential as teaching aids as they can incorporate animations, drawings, pictures, videos of students, instructors and real objects, text, audio and music. Proper use of these materials can create a much more engaging learning experience than is possible with static textbooks or web pages, or even what is possible in the normal lecture. As more and more video becomes available on the web, more instructors are incorporating video into their instruction, either by showing videos in class, or adding them to class web sites. A significant problem, though, is finding appropriate videos for students. As the MERLOT organization has systems in place for reviewing online educational materials, we investigated how well the current MERLOT reviewing standards worked for video, and how well MERLOT compared to more common methods of finding video, such as Google or YouTube. We also wanted to determine how well typical educational videos could be evaluated with the three areas used by MERLOT - “quality”, “ease of use”, and “educational effectiveness”. To compare the different search methods and determine the ease of finding quality materials, the search term “mitosis” was used at each site and the top hits (the first 20 videos or the first page of results) were examined. The videos found contained some combination of the following elements: pictures or video of real cells dividing, drawings or animations of cells and chromosomes during division, text or voice over explanations, actors acting out the actions during mitosis, common pictures to explain scientific terms, background music, and songs with or without mitosis specific lyrics. The source of the videos was An in-class survey was also conducted to determine student impressions of a YouTube video on mitosis and meiosis, as well as videos on fungi diversity and the nervous system (Figure 1). Students were asked to rate videos on a scale of 1 to 5 (5 being the highest rating) using the following statements: 1.This video helped you to better understand the topic. 2.The information presented corresponded well with what you learned from lecture and the textbook. 3.Inclusion of this video would encourage and enrich our learning experience in the classroom. 4.You were able to learn more from this video than you did from the textbook. 5.You were able to learn more from this video than you did from lecture. 6.You would prefer to have this video replace material presented in the classroom. Online educational videos are becoming more available. However, determining which ones are most effective, and finding the most accurate educational videos can be a challenge. We examined several sources of educational videos, examined whether the MERLOT criteria worked for evaluating videos, and assessed student opinion of the videos. We also wanted to see how easy it would be find “good” teaching videos using traditional searches. In addition, we had students in a class look at some educational videos to see what students thought about the use of online videos for education. Table 1. Total number of search results for “Mitosis.” SiteNumber of hits Google22,400,000 Google video3,780 YouTube3,010 Vimeo78 TeacherTube~90 MERLOT17 A quality site was one that would meet the normal standards for presentation in class – images or drawings that accurately represented mitosis, along with an accurate and complete explanation. The number of non-relevant hits was also determined – typically these were art projects or had music where the term “mitosis” was used for artistic purposes. Google video and MERLOT had the most quality material in the top hits, while Vimeo had none. Vimeo primarily had promotional material form professional illustrators and animators, or art projects, but little educational material. YouTube and TeacherTube’s top hits had large numbers (>70%) of student projects. While these are probably very educational for the students making them, their use by other students is problematical, due to poor quality, errors, and the use of inappropriate language and images. The videos found were made by professionals for textbooks, instructors for their classes, students as a class project, and promotional work by scientific illustrators. The videos contained some combination of the following elements: pictures or video of real cells dividing, drawings or animations of cells and chromosomes during division, text or voice over explanations, actors acting out the actions during mitosis, common pictures to explain scientific terms, background music, and songs with or without mitosis specific lyrics. Table 1 shows the number of hits for “mitosis” at each site. The videos found were made by professionals for textbooks, instructors for their classes, students as a class project, and promotional work by scientific illustrators. Google had the most material by far, however, as most users will only look at the first page or two of search results, the quality of the results is most important. The quality of the hits varied significantly among the sites. Table 2 gives the number of hits for the first page or two for each site, as far as most users will look. SiteQuality hit Not relevant Goggle video 53 YouTube22 Vimeo02 TeacherTube10 MERLOT32 Table 2: Quality and relevance of hit results. While the use of only one search term makes this very preliminary, it would appear that the Google ranking algorithm, or else the manual entries of a site like MERLOT, is the best method for finding educational videos. While YouTube and TeacherTube do have quality materials, the ranking methods used at those sites appears to favor student entries or instructor entries. The MERLOT criteria of “quality” and “Potential effectiveness” appear relevant to the analysis of these videos, while “ease of use” is not. Surveys of students showed that YouTube videos can be useful accessory materials in the classroom but not as a replacement for learning. Figure 1. Students evaluating YouTube videos in the classroom. Figure 2: Results from student evaluation of YouTube sites. Classroom evaluation of YouTube videos revealed that opinions of the learning objects vary (Figure 2). Students generally liked the material as learning accessories (rating of 3.5 to 4.0) but did not necessarily believe YouTube videos should be used to replace their learning experience (rating of 1.5 to 3.0). 1 Department of Biology, California State University, Chico CA 95929, 2 Department of Biology, University of Central Oklahoma, Edmond, OK 73034, and 3 MERLOT (