Using Traditional LMS for Mathematics Instruction

Lessons Learned from Instructor-made Videos

Izolda Fotiyeva

and Ebony Terrell Shockley

Howard University, 2400 Sixth Street NW, Washington, District of Columbia, U.S.A.

University of Maryland College Park, 2411 Benjamin Building, College Park, Maryland, U.S.A.

Keywords: Online Learning, Blackboard, Instructor-made Videos, Mathematics Instruction, Learning Management

System, Instructional Method.

Abstract: The authors discuss the outcomes of a traditional and online mathematics course in the Mid-Atlantic United

States. In the undergraduate Algebra course being investigated, the researchers used a matched pair design

to determine whether technology infusion had positive effects on successful acquisition of mathematics

skills. They also researched whether there was a pass/fail rate difference between the technology-enhanced

class and the face-to-face class. The results indicated that there appeared to be a relationship between the

instructional method and the pass/fail rate when comparing the traditional class and the technology-

enhanced class.

1 INTRODUCTION

With the student dropout rates in virtual

mathematics and science courses, higher than in

traditional face to face courses (Thompson, 1997;

Phipps and Merisotis, 1999; Smith et al., 2002), the

use of traditional learning management systems is a

persistent problem. Researchers have investigated

student dropout rates in online education, in terms of

student demographics, such as age, maturity level,

gender, marital status and educational level (Morgan

and Tam, 1999; Carr, 2000). Research has also

suggested that the dropout rates may be lower in

classes with instructors more experienced with e-

learning (Carr, 2000).

Online instructors praise the new possibilities of

e-learning, the increased one to one interaction with

students, the deeper levels of discussion engendered

by the written format, and the increased student

participation (Boshier, 1990; Swan, 2001; Smith et

al., 2002). Markedly missing from the celebration,

however, are online mathematics instructors and

students (Leventhall, 2004; Smith and Ferguson,

2004; Smith et al., 2004).

What is also limited, is a body of work that

provides examples of effective pedagogical practices

for e-learning in STEM fields. There are

suggestions, that when there is an online component

of a science course, that the use of group activities

aid in focusing specific topics and increase the

communication, for less participative students, in a

face to face class (Seng and Mohamad, 2002).

2 BACKGROUND

2.1 Videos and Multimedia

Videos have become commonplace as online

education has become more interactive and engaging

(Pan et al., 2012). There have been systematic

attempts to augment the online environment with

this technology to address issues related to high

withdrawal and drop rates as well as retention

(Toppin, 2011). What makes video a resourceful

teaching and learning tool is its ability to incorporate

multimedia, including text, images, sound, and

speech. When a learner processes and later re-

processes information, each medium reinforces the

others while adding to the authenticity and reality of

the learning context (Brown et al., 1989). Moreover,

the combination of visual and auditory messages

helps foster students' dual coding of information

(Bonk, 2011; Paivio, 1986) which, in turn, improve

and augment students' learning process as they see

concepts in action (Michelich, 2002).

Another benefit of video is learner control. In

this learning environment, learners become active

338

Fotiyeva I. and Terrell Shockley E..

Using Traditional LMS for Mathematics Instruction - Lessons Learned from Instructor-made Videos.

DOI: 10.5220/0005495603380342

In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU-2015), pages 338-342

ISBN: 978-989-758-108-3

 2015 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)

participants, able to pause, stop, skip, and rewind

video sections to revisit difficult or unclear content

until learners fully grasp the material presented. This

process creates a greater sense of autonomy for the

learner. As stated by Hartsell and Yuen (2006),

video is an ideal vehicle for self-paced and self-

directed learning, and learner control is the main

advantage of incorporating streamed videos into

distance learning courses.

2.2 Instructional Videos

Despite all the above merits, generic videos are not

without stumbling blocks or challenges. Many of

them are lengthy; therefore, many online learners

will not be able to patiently sit, view, and remember

due to the capacity of their working memory

(Goldstein, 2010; Ormrod, 2008). Another

disadvantage is that too often generic videos may

not align well with course goals and objectives.

Stacey Williams (2007) argues, given the wealth of

freely available online videos, be sure to use videos

that relate to course content and objectives. In light

of the above mentioned disadvantages of generic

videos, more and more instructors resort to so-called

instructor–made videos (IMVs) that offer myriad of

opportunities to enhance an online course, ranging

from a general instructor introduction to discussing

weekly topics, course assignments, the syllabus, to

offering test reviews, answering forum questions

(Rose, 2009).

The original goal for producing the IMVs by one

of the authors was driven primarily by the desire to

provide traditional in-class mathematics students

with re-playable archives. These customized

instructor-made videos are brief and concise. What

makes them stand out in comparison to generic

videos is their scaffolding role – addressing those

specific and particular problems and concepts that

are the most difficult and typically cannot be

resolved independently by the students (Pan, 2012).

Another merit of instructor-made videos is

accommodation of students with different learning

styles (Neuhauser, 2002). Visual learners need to see

information. They crave pictures, graphs, and charts

and would appreciate video tutorials. Auditory

learners like to listen to lectures because they

remember what they hear more accurately and fully

than they remember what they see. Incorporating

audio will accommodate their needs. The most

difficult learners to address are kinesthetic and

tactile learners who need to move and touch and feel

what they’re learning about. Mobile learning and

touch screens have really opened up online video

tutorials for those learners. Finally, interpersonal

learners will benefit the most from customized

instructor made videos that replicate the classroom

setting with the sound of the instructor’s familiar

voice and LMS layout and background.

A quasi-experimental study was conducted in

two Introductory Algebra classes at Howard

University, with each class containing 45 students.

Students are allowed to take more advanced

mathematics courses only after they have obtained

75% or higher percentage of achievement on all

tests, quizzes, and the final exam combined for this

Introductory Algebra course. These combined scores

constitute their final grade (given in %).

One class has been assigned to receive a

traditional treatment that included only regular in-

class lectures. These were 45 students in this class

that served as a control group for this study. The

other class, in addition to in-class instructions, had

access to online instructor-made videos. These 45

students served as a treatment group for this study.

Both, the control group and the treatment group met

twice a week for lectures, covered the same

mathematics content, and used the same textbook.

The same instructor taught both classes.

3 METHOD

3.1 Research Questions

The study focused on the following research

questions:

1. Does technology infusion (instructor-made

videos) have positive effects on successful

acquisition of math skills?

2. Is there difference in pass-fail rate between the

traditional class and technology-enhanced class?

The participants of both the control group and the

treatment group had to read and study the indicated

pages from the math textbook prior to each in-class

lecture. In-class tests, collected mandatory

homework, and the final exam required proper

algebraic steps for full credit. In addition to the

scheduled in-class lectures and open math lab hours,

participants of the treatment group were provided

with the online instructor-made videos incorporated

in their Blackboard class to enhance and reinforce

material covered in class as well as to assist the

students in making significant progress in their

mathematical abilities.

UsingTraditionalLMSforMathematicsInstruction-LessonsLearnedfromInstructor-madeVideos

339

3.2 Instructor-made Videos

The instructor-made videos were produced by using

Camtasia™Studio Software and Wacom Bamboo

Pen & Touch tablet. The Bamboo Pen & Touch

tablet combines the benefits of Multi-Touch with the

comfort and precision of a pen that uses the digital

ink. The instructor used this tool and the Widows

Journal software to write the mathematics problems

as if they were on a regular whiteboard and also go

over step-by-step solutions for each of these

problems. All these stages of solution appeared on

the instructor’s computer screen. The visual and

audio components of these instructional

presentations were captured, produced, and edited

using Camtasia™ Studio by TechSmith Company.

As the next step, all produced video tutorials

were uploaded to YouTube to insure that all

participants had access to these tutorials regardless

of their location. Then, the uploaded videos were

embedded into corresponding instructional modules

in Blackboard. Each module contained

approximately 4-6 videos with 2-3 problems in each

video. In addition to the videos that showed step-by-

step solutions to many mathematics problems, the

instructor also included the major rules, procedures,

and formulas related to the corresponding math

topics in each module. The instructor then enabled

the tracking and statistical features of the

Blackboard course function to track the number of

students viewing the tutorials.

3.3 Data

The final individual scores of participants in both

classes were calculated by summing up the scores

for all quizzes, tests, homework, and final exam that

students took in this Introductory Algebra classes.

The final grade was given in percent.

The descriptive analysis of the final grades was

performed using the IBM SPSS Statistics 20

software. Tables 1 and 2 illustrate the results of the

descriptive analysis. Since the mean score for the

students in traditional face-to-face lecture class is

73.4 (with the passing minimum score of 75), we

can assume that many students in this class had

lower than minimum score as their final grade. The

range is 53, which means that the final grades for

traditional method class vary considerably; and a

small part of a sample (judging by the obtained

frequency distribution) had final scores that were

higher than the minimum passing score of 75%.

The mean score for the students in technology-

enhanced class is 81.2 (with the passing minimum

score of score of 75), which is 7.8 points higher than

the average final score in traditional instructional

method class. Therefore, we can assume that more

students in technology-enhanced class had the final

score that was higher than the minimum passing

score.

The second research question focused on the

difference in pass-fail rate between the traditional

class and technology-enhanced class. The null

hypothesis was that there was no relationship

between the variables (method of instruction and

pass-fail rate) and that they were independent. The

alternative hypothesis was that there is a relationship

between the variables and that they were not

independent.

4 RESULTS

With a χ

of 7.465 (p <0.05), the researcher rejected

the null hypothesis. Table 3 shows the results of the

Chi-Square Test. There appears to be relationship

between the class instructional method and pass/fail

rate and the higher passing-the-course numbers for

the treatment group is not due to the chance but were

the result of the treatment (technology-enhanced

instructional method). Therefore, the results of this

study demonstrated that there was a difference in

passing rate between the traditional class and

technology-enhanced class and the freshmen

students had higher passing rate for Introductory

Algebra course when they use technology-infused

instructional method than when they use traditional

face-to-face lecture only method.

5 DISCUSSION

The current e-learning model, which is

asynchronous and relies heavily on threaded

discussions, does not work well for math. It is

particularly challenging for the teaching and

learning of mathematical problem solving (Smith

and Ferguson, 2004).

In an ongoing research pilot, one of the authors is

using a Blackboard discussion forum feature to

stimulate mathematics problem solving and increase

instructor – student and student – student interaction

in a hybrid Algebra course. For individual

participation on an ongoing basis, there is a

collection of participation topics posted in weekly

Blackboard discussions, drawn primarily from the

even-numbered exercises in the course textbook. For

CSEDU2015-7thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation

340

Table 1: Descriptive analysis for traditional instructional method class.

Statistic Std. Error

Traditional-final-score

Mean 73.4222 1.91129

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Lower Bound 69.5703

Upper Bound 77.2742

5% Trimmed Mean 73.8086

Median 75.0000

Variance 164.386

Std. Deviation 12.82130

Minimum 42.00

Maximum 95.00

Table 2: Descriptive analysis for technology-enhanced instructional method class.

Statistic Std. Error

Technology-final-score

Mean 81.1778 1.60658

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Lower Bound 77.9399

Upper Bound 84.4156

5% Trimmed Mean 81.6790

Median 84.0000

Variance 116.149

Std. Deviation 10.77727

Minimum 51.00

Maximum 99.00

Table 3: The results of the Chi-Square Test.

Value df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig.

(1-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 7.465

1 .006

Continuity Correction

6.273 1 .012

Likelihood Ratio 7.650 1 .006

Fisher's Exact Test .012 .006

Linear-by-Linear Association 7.382 1 .007

N of Valid Cases 90

UsingTraditionalLMSforMathematicsInstruction-LessonsLearnedfromInstructor-madeVideos

341

participation credit, over the fifteen weeks of the

term, students are expected to solve fifteen topics

(from different textbook sections). Students are free

to choose any topic, complying with the discussion

instructions, provided someone else has not already

attempted it or "reserved" it.

For each participation topic, students earn up to 5

participation points for the accuracy of their

solution. Students are given opportunities to attempt

their solution more than one time. If they make an

error, they get feedback from their instructor and a

chance to edit their work and resubmit it. Instructor

may also ask to solve an additional similar problem

to make sure that students fully grasped a concept.

Other students are allowed to participate in other

students’ discussion by providing useful clues and

comments (but not full solutions or answers). One

example of this student –to-student interaction was a

case when one student helped other to solve a

difficult problem by guiding that other student to

similar problems in the textbook and recommending

instructor-made videos on this topic. The goal of

online participation and problem solving is to help

students understand the concepts and to give them

an opportunity to practice solving problems and get

feedback from the instructor.

REFERENCES

Bonk, C. J., 2011. YouTube anchors and enders: The use

of shared online video content as a Macrocontext for

learning. Asia-Pacific Collaborative Education

Journal, 7(1), pp.13-24.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P., 1989. Situated

cognition and the culture of learning. Educational

Researcher, 18(1), 32-41. doi:10.3102/

0013189X018001032.

Boshier, R., 1990. Socio-psychological factors in

electronic networking. International Journal of

Lifelong Education, 9(1), 49-64.

Carr, S., 2000. As distance education comes of age, the

challenge is keeping the students. The Chronicle of

Higher Education, February 11, A. pp.39-41.

Goldstein, E. B., 2010. Cognitive psychology: Connecting

mind, research, and everyday Experience, 3rd edn,

Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Hartsell, T., & Yuen, S. C.-Y. (2006). Video streaming in

online learning. AACE Journal, 14(1), pp.31-43.

Available at: http://www.editlib.org/p/6152. [Accessed

10 January 2015].

Leventhall, L., 2004. Bridging the gap between face to

face and online math tutoring. Paper presented at The

International Congress of Mathematics Education–10,

Copenhagen, Denmark, July 2004.

Michelich, V., 2002, January/February. Streaming media

to enhance teaching and improve learning.

The Technology Source. Available at:

http://www.technologysource.org/article/streaming_m

edia_to_enhance_teaching_and_improve_learning/.

[Accessed 5 January 2015].

Neuhauser, C., 2002. Learning style and effectiveness of

online and face-to-face instruction. The American

Journal of Distance Education, 16(2), pp.99-113.

Ormrod, J. E., 2008. Human learning, 5th edn, Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Morgan, C.K. & Tam, M. (1999). Unraveling the

complexities of distance education student attrition.

Distance Education, 20(1), pp.96-108.

Paivio, A., 1986. Mental representations: A dual coding

approach. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Pan, G., Sen, S., Starrett, D., Bonk, C., Rodgers, M.,

Tikoo, M., & Powell, D., 2012. Instructor-made

videos as a learner scaffolding tool. Journal of Online

Learning and Teaching, 8(4).

Phipps, R. & Merisotis, J., 1999. What’s the difference? A

review of contemporary research on the effectiveness

of distance learning in higher education. Council for

Higher Education Accreditation.

Rose, K. K., 2009. Student perceptions of the use of

instructor-made videos in online and face-to-face

classes. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching,

5(3).

Seng, L. & Mohamad, F., 2002. Online learning, is it

meant for science courses? The Internet and Higher

Education, pp.109-118.

Smith, G.G. & Ferguson. D., 2004. Learning math

problem-solving in online courses. Proceedings of E-

Learn. 2004: World Conference on E-Learning in

Corporate, Healthcare & Higher Education,

Washington, DC.

Smith, G.G., Ferguson, D. & Caris, M., 2002. Teaching

online versus face-to-face. Journal ofEducational

Technology Systems, 30(4), pp.337-364.

Smith, G.G., Ferguson, D. & Gupta, S., 2004.Diagrams

and math notation in e-learning:Growing pains of a

new generation. International Journal of

Mathematical Education in Science and Technology,

35(1), pp.681-695.

Swan, K., 2001. Immediacy, social presence, and

asynchronous discussion. In Elements of quality

online education, Volume 3 in the Sloan-C series, The

Sloan Consortium New York.

Thompson, E., 1997. Distance education drop-out: What

can we do? In R. Pospisil & L.Willcoxson, eds.1997.

Learning through teaching, pp.324-332. Proceedings

of the 6th Annual TeachingLearning Forum, Murdoch

University, February 1997. Perth: Murdoch

University.

Toppin, I. (2011). Video lecture capture (VLC) system: A

comparison of student versus faculty perceptions.

Education and Information Technologies, 15(4), 383-

393.

CSEDU2015-7thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation

342