A taxonomy of video in instruction: Knowledge objectives, aesthetic stages of development

Choosing to use video in instruction is primarily based on two objectives, what knowledge is to be gained from the video and what are the technological determinants that will permit it to be used in the learning environment. For example, the best videotape cannot be shown, if there is no VCR available. Similarly, a video that illustrates a procedure does little good helping students learn specific facts. In essence, teachers must consider both the knowledge objectives and the technological factors, if video is to be used effectively in instruction. This taxonomy of video in instruction looks not only at the technological determinants for video, but attempts to tie together the noted work of Bloom (1956) and Housen (1992) as they relate to categorizing levels of knowledge objectives and aesthetic development.

Knowledge Objectives. One of the most cited works for helping teachers design lesson plans which meet stated objectives is BloomÕs taxonomy of educational objectives (Bloom, 1956). According to Bloom, students may achieve mastery in a content area if the instructional design mirrors those goals. Bloom defines knowledge objectives in the following way:

• knowledge (student has direct recall of information);
• comprehension (student paraphrases to explain information)
• application (student has chiefly procedural recall)
• analysis (student identifies interrelationships)
• synthesis (student develops a plan, a proposed set of operations)
• evaluation (student judges the worth of the information).

Learning, for Bloom, occurs in stages with the first being the ability to recall direct facts and the last being able to judge the information based on prior knowledge. If there is a specific knowledge objective for the students, the lesson plans should be designed to reflect that objective above all else. However, often lesson plans are geared for one level of attainment, but the instructorÕs own agenda focuses on another level. The use of video in instruction can aggravate this problem. Video may be selected because it is available either in a schoolÕs library, or it is part of a CD-ROM or it can be easily downloaded from the Internet and not because of the instructional objective it helps to reach.

Aesthetic Development. Moreover, there is one aspect of video use in instruction that is not often considered. That aspect is the aesthetic nature of video. Video is used in the classroom for many reasons. Chief among these reasons is the ability to motivate and interest the learner by presenting him/her with a myriad of visual images. For over the past 20 years, Housen has studied the effect of visual static images on viewers. HousenÕs primary work has been on works of art as are found in museum settings. She has defined 5 stages of aesthetic development which may easily be used not only to define people viewing still images, but also moving images as found. Housen believes that people can be taught to view objects - artwork - in such a way that they begin to see the beyond the obvious. The first stage of viewing is the accountive stage. In this stage, a viewer notices the concrete and the obvious. The viewer is a storyteller who simple states what is observed in the picture. During the second stage, the constructive stage, the viewer begins to compare the work of art to the world s/he knows by using his/her own perceptions and values about the natural world. In the third stage, the classifying stage, the viewer is said to decode the artistÕs intentions and historic influences by analyzing the cues in the art. In the fourth stage, the interpretive stage, viewers look for a meaningful message. Each encounter is a catalyst for a new consciousness between the self and the art. The last stage, the re-create stage, includes the smallest percentage of individuals. Few people readily reach this stage. In the re-create stage, the art takes on a life of its own. The viewer reconstructs the art again and again with each viewing bringing a new meaning (Housen, 1992). However, this last level of aesthetic development could hinder a studentÕs learning process, if s/he reaches such an esoteric relationship with what s/he is viewing. At this stage, the learner may transcend the educational value of what s/he is viewing. Because of this, I have redefined and combined the last stages, naming them the "operational" stage. In my opinion, the highest level of attainment for viewing visual materials occurs when the student can do something with that information. In essence, the student operates with the knowledge.

Applying HousenÕs levels of aesthetic understanding to video, individuals may be able to become better consumers of video when taught to view and review the video as a combination of still images to better - to find the hidden messages within the medium. Moreover, HousenÕs stages of aesthetic development parallel knowledge objectives. Consider, on a very basic level, HousenÕs main belief. People begin to view art with no more ability than to directly relate the facts seen. Likewise, Bloom saw the first level of his objectives to be one in which the learner simply has direct recall of information. Similarly, HousenÕs final stages as redefined, operational, is comparable with BloomÕs synthesis and evaluation stages where the knowledge, like the art, begins to take on its own meaning and with each new experience becomes more flexible in its relationship to the individual.

Technological determinants. Video in instruction may be viewed from a technological perspective. There are three main groupings of video as it is used for instructional purposes: broadcast, asynchronous and semi-interactive productions, and computer assisted playback. Within these main groupings, the video types may be broken down as follows:

for broadcasts:

1) Broadcasts - Live either in analog or digital form;

for asycnchronous, semi-interactive productions:

• Videotapes;
• CD-ROMÕs;
• Interactive LaserDiscs.

for computer assisted playback (either user produced or professionally produced):

• stand-alone digital movies
• Embedded digital movies
• Quickstart or Streaming digital movies
• HyperVideo
• Video Conferencing

Each type of video may also be broken down into its most salient features. Upon doing so, it may be viewed according to three main features:

1) fidelity to real time/ full motion video (30 fps/640X480 frame size)

2) level of interactivity by the user

3) type of knowledge acquisition. Are the learners accessors of the knowledge or creators of it?

Three levels of activeness define the second category, level of interactivity,: 1) High; 2) Medium; and, 3) Low. "Low" implies that the learner has limited control. S/He only has the ability to turn the video on or off and, in some instances, may have the ability to switch broadcasts. "Medium" allows the learner to fast forward/rewind & pause whatÕs been seen. A "high" degree of activeness permits the learner numerous choices while allowing the learner to fast forward/rewind, pause and switch views. In essence, it is a culmination of the previous two degrees of activeness. It is also the degree of interactivity that is the newest one to extend the conventional uses video, as technological advancements have permitted the linking of video to other video. The ability to internally link to other video resources in a network environment until now has been not readily available, but it is quickly gaining in popularity as instructors are noting its potential and worth. However, technological constraints still need to be overcome before hypervideo may be widely used.

Keeping in mind the association previously made between knowledge objectives and aesthetic development, one could consider the following parallels between knowledge objectives, aesthetic stages development and video type.

Figure 1: Parallels of knowledge objective, aesthetic development and video type.

These parallels help to distinguish what video type would work best with what knowledge objective while considering how the individual may be aesthetically processing the visual information. Key to any type of learning from a visual medium is for students to be visually literate. This means that the students are able to interpret, analyze and evaluate the visual content in order to produce meaning and understanding. For example, an individual who had reached an evaluation level of knowledge objectives and was using visual material in a hypervideo format, but was only in an accountive stage of aesthetic development, would not be understanding the information as best and as deeply as one would had s/he reached the operational level of aesthetic development.

The Taxonomy at a Glance:

The following table outlines the entire taxonomy, showing how instructional objectives and technology must be in synch, if effective learning is to occur. A more detailed interpretation of the taxonomy follows that table.

Figure 2: Taxonomy of Video Use, Knowledge Objectives and Technological Determinants.

Interpretation of the taxonomy. From this breakdown, it is apparent that the fidelity characteristics define 2 types of video, analog and digital. This is consistent with the common distinction between video types. However, in terms of interactivity such a concise breakdown is not as obvious. Digital and analog video types seem to share varying degrees of interactivity. However, this breakdown clearly defines the level based on whether or not the learner has the control to navigate through a video. This occurs with a non-linear video clip and when the learner is experiencing the video concurrent to its broadcast as in the case with any synchronous communication. By considering what type of user control there is and what is the time-relationship of the video production, instructors may become better able to choose an appropriate video type. Obviously, very little which is synchronous affords a learner the opportunity to create his/her own knowledge path. If the instructional objective requires a student to have a higher level of knowledge acquisition, such as that found in BloomÕs stages 4-6, then a choice of video might be one in which the learner can manipulate the sequence in which the information is presented. Thus, the ideal situation would have the instructor determine in advance what type of video is most appropriate for reaching a given instructional objective.

Considering the individual learners and the overall main groupings, there is some extent to which knowledge objectives and interactivity relates. The following diagram illustrates the interaction. The boxes represent each level of knowledge acquisition as defined by Bloom. The ovals represent each level of interactivity. It is important to note that each level builds upon the previous level with the ultimate goal being a learner who is a creator of his/her own knowledge path and as such may effectively analyze & synthesize information with what is stored in long-term memory.

Considering again the taxonomy table, it is clear that video relying on computer assisted playback either has hardware or network limitations. More importantly, the main characteristics of this digital video are found in how it is included in an application, such as the World Wide Web, and how it is associated with other media. Technology of the past only allowed stand-alone digital movies that needed a helper application for playback. These movies were downloaded to the computerÕs hard drive and opened up somewhere near the top of the screen. The individual had the ability to start and stop the movie, advance frame-by-frame, pause, etc. and could also move the movie anywhere on the screen. Implicitly, these free floating movies disassociated themselves with the other media on a Web page. Furthermore, the amount time necessary for download often made these digital movies ineffective as learning tools. As technology advanced, the ability to embed movies into Web documents became possible and current advances are permitting these embedded movies to begin play even before completely downloading or to be streamed. What this is also permitting is the ability for a viewer to associate the movie with the other media on the screen; thus allowing the learner to find the relationship between the movie and the other screen artifacts. It is for this reason that the choice of what digital video should be used is even more important than before. It is no longer a self-contained medium, but is quickly becoming a component medium within multimedia.

For my current research proposal, I focus on the latter half of the taxonomy, digital video within a network environment. Concentrating on this aspect of the taxonomy, I began to search for models within the K-12 community. However, technological limitations restrict effective use of digital video over the Internet. Transfer rates, storage capacities, and expertise with digital video makes it prohibitive for the average K-12 school. Yet, interest in using digital video within a network activity is strong among many teachers. As a result, I became involved with an initiative sponsored by the National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA). The K-12 Digital Video Testbed was an initiative aimed at helping teachers develop curricular Web pages which integrated digital video.