Communication pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
Exploring Technology-Enhanced Learning Using Google Glass To Offer Students a Unique Instructor’s Point of View Live Laboratory Demonstration Fung Fun Man* Department of Chemistry, National University of Singapore, 3 Science Drive 3, 117543, Singapore ABSTRACT: Technology-enhanced learning (TEL) is fast gaining momentum among educational institutions all over the world. The usual way in which laboratory instructional videos are filmed takes the third-person view. However, such videos are not as realistic and sensorial. With the advent of Google Glass and GoPro cameras, a more personal and effective way to educate students on laboratory procedures has been pioneered: the instructor’s point of view (IPOV) technique. To capture the attention of technology-savvy students in the 21st century, educators have to be innovative and reinvent new ways to teach procedures for conducting chemistry experiments. Here, this pilot study made use of Google Glass to film realistic IPOV videos (live and prelab) from the demonstrator’s point of view. Students who have viewed the videos were found to have a better understanding of the tasks at hand when conducting the experiment. KEYWORDS: High School/Introductory Chemistry, First-Year Undergraduate/General, Second-Year Undergraduate, General Public, Organic Chemistry, Laboratory Instruction, Internet/Web-Based Learning, Synthesis, Demonstrations
W
experts conducting demonstrations. This novel concept may not be entirely unfamiliar to the young adults of the 21st century: many of these young adults would have grown up in the era of first-person shooter (FPS) games which have been popular among the young worldwide in the recent two decades and, in the process, experienced the IPOV effect. With the advent of Google Glass and GoPro cameras in the past few years, more people are starting to recognize the tremendous value that such devices can add to the current teaching methods/tools to improve learning. Additional research done on quantifying effects of third- and first-person perspectives in virtual-reality-based training also suggests that learning is enhanced with IPOV.4 At the National University of Singapore (NUS), the IPOV technique has been applied to laboratory sessions using GoPro cameras.5 Students who have watched these laboratory instruction videos shot by IPOV have reported in their end-of-semester feedback that these videos provided them with an authentic learning experience, demonstrating that this novel teaching method is valued and well-received by the students. As summarized in the research by Williamson et al.,6 the original belief that many educators had was that “knowledge could be transferred intact from the mind of the teacher to the mind of the learner”. Jean Piaget, a cognitive psychologist whose research covers the ways which people think and acquire ideas, firmly argued that instead of knowledge transfer, learners
ith technology being increasingly featured in our daily lives, there is greater affinity between technological tools and day-to-day activities. One such important everyday task is traveling.1 When travelers visit a new destination for the very first time, they may be lost due to their unfamiliarity with the route or directions even if they have a hard-copy map for guidance. However, with the help of global positioning systems and virtual maps readily accessible on smart phones, they would be able to preview their route precisely before embarking on a maiden trip and navigate their way with ease during the journey. Likewise, in the context of learning practical skills, being able to preview the steps beforehand from a first-person perspective would help increase learning efficiency with ease in the process.
■
INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY IN TEACHING The need for integration of technology into classroom teaching cannot be emphasized enough. In recent years, we witnessed firsthand the rapid growth in educational technology, led by major universities in the United States of America.2 Top Asian institutions have followed suit and spearheaded this fascinating modernization of 21st century education in their respective countries. The commonality in all of these newly transformed classrooms is the infusion of video lectures in the program. Without the armory of visual elements in the form of videos, the effect of learning is diminished drastically, as reported by O’Loughlin et al.3 Pedagogical Theory in Instructor’s Point of View (IPOV) videos
Received: June 24, 2016 Revised: November 5, 2016
Instructor’s point of view (IPOV) is a technique/teaching approach defined as the first-person view from the subject matter © XXXX American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
A
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00457 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Communication
build new knowledge through a process of assimilation and accommodation. Piaget wrote that when learners are presented with new information or ideas, they first assimilate the ideas, and then attempt to accommodate the new ideas with their preexisting schema.7 Learning occurs when schema are modified or created to accommodate the new ideas. Through this process, new knowledge is constructed in the mind of the learner, thus giving rise to the term “constructivism”.8−11 With the help of the IPOV videos, the construction of the new knowledge could be more vivid. On the other hand, Vygotsky emphasized the key role of the teacher rather than the learner in his defining theory of zone of proximal development.12 This is the idea that learners have several different levels or zones in their process of acquiring new knowledge.12 The lowest level is where the preexisting knowledge or schemas are placed. Again, Vygotsky reiterated that learners use these schemas to relate prior knowledge to new knowledge that is at the edge of their understanding. While this is similar to Piaget, Vygotsky acknowledged the role of the teacher in facilitating learning. If learners are not well-led in this, they will either fall back into their previous schema or fail to advance in their understanding, or they will step into an area that they cannot connect to any prior knowledge and be lost.12−14 The basic premise of constructivism stems from the students building from prior knowledge in order to learn new concepts and ideas.15 As such, watching IPOV videos allows the learners to peer through the teacher’s lenses, and in doing so, the facilitation of learning becomes a smoother process.
unsettled while determined to make up for lost time. In addition, an individual GTA has his/her own idiosyncrasies when conducting the recrystallization, and thus, the teaching would not be consistent. Even though these idiosyncrasies are not detrimental to the outcome of the experiments, they could cause unnecessary confusion to the students when students from different groups gather to discuss about the technique afterward during the viva voce test. This explains the second disadvantage of decentralized demonstrations. Finally, even if the chief instructor conducts a one-time live demonstration just before the laboratory session, not all 45 students would obtain a full view of the setup. The demonstrator himself, in particular, would mask the apparatus with his body while standing right in front of the experimental setup. This causes students who observe from the back of the class to have their views partially, if not fully, blocked. Even if they gain an unobscured view of the demonstration, they would be way too far behind to see the fine details performed by the instructor. Missing out on such key steps may then affect the students’ purification yield when they conduct the experiment on their own subsequently. Filming Using the GoPro
The aforementioned problems of the traditional teaching method can be resolved via the use of GoPro camera to record IPOV videos.5 That said, this novel method was not entirely free of problems. On rendering the videos afterward, it was noted that there were some videos which did not capture the targeted frame due to a poor angling of the camera pivot (Figure 1). At that point of time, the demonstrator who filmed
Challenges Faced by Learners and Facilitators in CM3291: Advanced Experiments in Organic and Inorganic Chemistry
This is a college practical module for chemistry majors in their third year of studies. The undergraduates are required to attend a 10-week laboratory course with each session lasting 6 h. They will also have to attend a 2 h lecture on a weekly basis. These lectures had been migrated into the flipped classroom mode since the end of 2014. Each student is assigned a fume hood to work on the synthetic experiments individually. There are two or three graduate teaching assistants (GTA) present to assist the instructor in guiding the students. These GTAs’ role mainly entails policing the lab to make sure safety protocols are adhered to, and ensuring students perform the correct technique for the equipment setup when conducting the experiments. In one of the experiments, students have to perform a purification task, recrystallization. This is a technique that has been taught to them in their freshman year, and now, after a year’s absence in practicing this technique, they were revisiting the same concept again. Most students in their third year would have forgotten how to perform such a purification using the required chemicals and apparatus, and would welcome the availability of instructional videos for revision. In the past, the class of 45 students would break out into three small groups of 15 each. Each group would be guided by a GTA. The GTA could then choose to conduct a live demonstration for their group of students to revise. There are three disadvantages here with this method of instruction. First, the undergraduates would have to dedicate about 20 min of their practical session time to revise by observing what the GTA was doing. Most of the time, they would hurry into their experiments immediately after and act carelessly under stress since their top motivation was to finish the synthesis on time. With this 20 min downtime, students felt perturbed and
Figure 1. Still frame of GoPro IPOV missing the targeted glassware.
IPOV videos was unable to view the live preview of which was being captured. The only way to review the videos was to check it after the whole filming procedure has been completed. This makes the whole process futile if full filming was carried out with the camera being positioned at a less strategic angle. What this culminates in is a waste of time and resources by the demonstrator and those who assisted in the preparation of the equipment in the laboratory. As a result, the GoPro videos that were produced and used to teach the chemistry students were filmed successfully only after several attempts. The Solution: Google Glass and Livestream IPOV Videos
Google Glass is a unique pair of spectacles with ultrahigh technology and has been sold in the mass market since 2013. It is able to search for access to the Internet and conduct online searches such as determining the directions to a destination. This pair of wearable lenses is equipped with an optical headmounted display that translates to a tiny computer screen B
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00457 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Communication
attached to the head. In addition, it is able to film live videos with a resolution of 720p and photos at 5 megapixels. This device weighs a mere 43 g, which means that the wearer would not feel any extra mass weighing down his/her head. The best part about this device is the incorporation of the technically popular voice command technology, meaning that a user would be able to record a video by speaking the command out loud without the need of pressing any button. This hands-free prototype is best applied to situations where the user’s arms are preoccupied with actions and still able to start/stop a video recording procedures with the help of a voice command. Google Glass has been applied in filming live surgery for use in medical training.16−20 With this intrinsically advanced characteristic, the idea to apply the Google Glass in filming IPOV instructional videos in the laboratory eventually evolved. This approach of enabling students to see through the demonstrator’s lenses is very novel to both the educators and students. In particular, students who have undergone education with prelaboratory assessment videos filmed by GoPro in IPOV mode gave positive comments based on previous research.21 The comment given by the respondents included the following (ref 21, p 110): Try to tie the GoPro on the forehead (wear a hat with the GoPro attached on it) instead of hanging it over the chest so that we could see what you see. Several comments similar to the one above indicated that there are improvements for IPOV videos filmed with GoPro cameras. One of the challenges experienced with the GoPro approach is that the cameras were attached to the chest or the forehead. During filming, the image which was to be captured was missed due to the incorrect angle of vision. This is synonymous with what was mentioned in an earlier segment. Using the Google Glass would eliminate this problem because the camera hole is positioned next to the pupil of the right eye (Figure 2).
the Google-Glass-wearing instructor guides the students in real time in the experimental setup and chemical synthesis (Figure 3), the student could watch from IPOV while keeping an eye on
Figure 3. Instructor wearing a Google Glass recording a live demonstration.
their own reaction setup at their fumehood. Students would therefore be able to discern if they did not perform certain steps correctly, which would lead to “no observation” of a supposed reaction. These IPOV videos are available for students to revisit after the lab classes (Figure 4).22−25
■
METHODOLOGY The use of IPOV videos for lab teaching was conducted over two consecutive semesters for the same cohort of 158 students. There were 65 and 93 students in semesters 1 and 2, respectively. On top of viewing IPOV videos as preparatory work, the class of 93 students in semester 2 was asked to download the free Livestream app, and during the onset of every lab session, they could choose to open the app and watch live IPOV videos recorded by the lecturer. The live footage could be a demonstration in the setup of apparatus or commentary on incorrect operations observed by the lecturer in the laboratory. The IPOV technical videos were put up onto the university’s intranet, Integrated Virtual Learning Environment (IVLE), for student viewing prior to attending the laboratory session. The students had at least 1 week of time before the actual practical to revise and explore the experimental techniques taught in the video. A voluntary questionnaire pertaining to the IPOV perception was conducted to poll the students’ opinions before the end of the semester.
Figure 2. Google Glass anatomy. The computer processor of the Glass is located on the user’s right. It integrates a prism that acts as a screen located just above the instructor’s right eye. The camera is located to the right of the prism, and both parts are adjustable to adapt to the user’s individual facial shape. The touch control panel facilitates the user to swipe a finger front, back, and down to scroll through the menus and tap to select the items. The speaker is located behind the ear, in the battery part of the Glass. Sound is transmitted by bone conduction.
■
Livestream is an application (app) which enables a user with a smart phone or smart devices such as Google Glass to broadcast their live recording in real time. The user views the live video, which has a 20 s delay from anywhere with Internet access. As
FINDINGS
Student Perception of IPOV Videos
In the class of 93 students (semester 2), 61 responded to an anonymous perception survey on IPOV videos (response rate: 66%). C
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00457 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Communication
it was found that the connectivity to the Internet using wifi was poor in the lab, and students might eschew using their own data from the mobile plans to watch the videos. Nevertheless, the students are fully aware that a communal TV was installed to allow them to watch the IPOV videos freely (Figure 5).
Figure 4. Still frame of Google Glass IPOV capturing the targeted glassware. Notice that the object of interest, the separatory funnel, was captured off left of the central screen. This is due to the position of the camera of the Glass, which is at the right eye of the wearer. More familiarization practice has to be conducted to capture the object right at the middle.
Figure 5. Graphic depicting students who review the IPOV videos during the lab session, as revising the lab techniques could minimize making mistakes in their experiments.
This voluntary survey was conducted at the end of the second semester. As this module is practical exam-free, students are assessed purely by their performance in their laboratory work and quizzes on laboratory techniques in viva voce and on a written test. In the survey, 86.9% (strongly agree and agree) found that the use of Livestream where they watch live views from IPOV videos increases their confidence in conducting the experiments. Additionally, 90.2% (strongly agree and agree) of the respondents answered that they were more eager to try the experiments after watching the IPOV videos. More significantly, 88.5% (strongly agree and agree) of them affirmed that the IPOV videos improved their ability to operate the instruments and machines in the actual laboratory (Table 1). Interestingly, only 67.2% of the respondents recommend live IPOV in laboratory teaching. This might be linked to the statement where 14.8% of the respondents felt that the use of Livestream affected their concentration in the lab. On further investigation,
The findings from the questionnaire underscore that students indeed benefited from watching the IPOV mode videos. From the IVLE’s data on viewership, it was found that more than 80% of the students watched the same video on more than one occasion. The highest record of viewership of a single video was eight times. In the feedback gathered, there were a number of positive comments on the IPOV videos. Two of the comments are highlighted here. The E-lectures (IPOV videos) are good as students can learn at their own pace. I quite enjoyed the experiments. The online lectures and demonstrations help in the understanding of the experiments. Merits of Using Google Glass for Live Teaching
The quality of the video is of extreme clarity with top notch audio recordings; the images were well-defined and nonpixelated. In addition, the aim of this exploration was accomplished:
Table 1. Learners’ Perceptions of the Google Glass and Livestream IPOV Video Experience
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8
Combined Categories,b %
Responses by Score,a N
Survey Statements for Student Response The use of Livestream where one can watch live views from the instructor’s lenses increases my confidence in conducting the experiments. Reviewing the IPOV videos on Livestream was beneficial to my understanding and learning, and improves my ability to operate the lab instruments. The IPOV videos increase my interest to try the experiment on my own. The IPOV videos are effective in making connections between the theory and practice of laboratory teaching. The use of Livestream in the lab did not disrupt my concentration. Overall, the use of Google Glass to make IPOV videos is effective for my learning. I would recommend the continued use of Google Glass and Livestream in lab teaching. I appreciate how the use of video technology has enhanced learning in this module.
5
4
3
2
1
5+4
2+1
39
14
5
2
1
86.9
4.9
40
14
5
2
0
88.5
3.3
24 24
31 31
3 3
2 3
1 0
90.2 90.2
4.9 4.9
15 22 14 43
22 32 27 12
15 3 16 4
7 4 4 2
2 0 0 0
60.7 88.5 67.2 90.2
14.8 6.6 6.6 3.3
The scores from 5 to 1 represent the following agreement levels: “strongly agree”, “agree”, “neutral”, “disagree”, and “strongly disagree”, respectively. The total number of responses for each level of agreement are tabulated. bThe combined category “5 + 4” represents the percentage of students responding with “agree” and “strongly agree”; the category “2 + 1” represents the percentage of students responding with “disagree” and “strongly disagree”. N = 61. a
D
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00457 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education no parts of the instrumentation and glassware setup which the demonstrator intended to showcase to the students were missed. The full view captured by Google Glass was an evident improvement over the GoPro cameras. Moreover, to execute the start and the end of the recording, the demonstrator does not need to use his/her fingers to press anywhere on the device. He/she only needs to enunciate the commands out loud. During the university-wide eLearning Week where students stay home to attend virtual classes, the Google Glass with Livestream can be adopted by the classroom and laboratory facilitator for online teaching. In the past, laboratory sessions are canceled during that week or postponed to the following week because of logistics difficulties. With this technologically advanced eyewear, the instructor could wear a Google Glass to record the live practical session, and students will be able to see through the teacher’s lens. In the process, they learn from the demonstrator’s live experiment and are thus able to write a report on any observations seen. Using the Google Glass to conduct live lab demonstration in tandem with Livestream eliminates the aforementioned problems faced by the lab instructors and students.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
■
REFERENCES
The author would like to thank Loh Kian Ping and Lam Yulin of the Department of Chemistry for their support in ITenhanced learning. The author also registers his gratitude to Goh Say Song from the Science Dean’s Office for his encouraging support. Thanks also to Simon Francis Watts and Alan Soong Swee Kit for their helpful assistance and others who have contributed in one way or another. The abstract graphic was created by Goh Ka Lin and is used with permission.
(1) Costa, A. L.; Kallick, B. Learning and Leading with Habits of Mind: 16 Essential Characteristics for Success; Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD): Alexandria, VA, 2008; pp 117− 130. (2) Hennessy, J. L. The Coming Tsunami in Educational Technology; Computing Research Association. Snowbird, UT. http://cacm.acm. org/blogs/blog-cacm/153706-john-l-hennessy-on-the-comingtsunami-in-educational-technology/fulltext (accessed Jun 2016). (3) O’Loughlin, J.; Chróinín, D. N.; O’Grady, D. Digital video: The impact on children’s learning experiences in primary physical education. Eur. Phys. Educ. Rev. 2013, 19 (2), 165−182. (4) Salamin, P.; Tadi, T.; Blanke, O.; Vexo, F.; Thalmann, D. Quantifying effects of exposure to the third and first-person perspectives in virtual-reality-based training. Learning Technologies. IEEE Trans. 2010, 3 (3), 272−276. (5) Fung, F. M. Using first-person perspective filming techniques for a chemistry laboratory demonstration to facilitate a flipped pre-lab. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92 (9), 1518−1521. (6) Williamson, V. M.; Lane, S. M.; Gilbreath, T.; Tasker, R.; Ashkenazi, G.; Williamson, K. C.; Macfarlane, R. D. The effect of viewing order of macroscopic and particulate visualizations on students’ particulate explanations. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89 (8), 979− 987. (7) Piaget, J. Part I: Cognitive development in children: Piaget development and learning. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1964, 2 (3), 176−186. (8) Yezierski, E. J.; Birk, J. P. Misconceptions about the particulate nature of matter: Using animations to close the gender gap. J. Chem. Educ. 2006, 83, 954−960. (9) Bunce, D. Does Piaget Still Have Anything to Say to Chemists? J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 1107−1120. (10) Nakhleh, M. B. Why some students don’t learn chemistry: Chemical misconceptions. J. Chem. Educ. 1992, 69, 191−196. (11) Turro, N. Constructivism and Information Technology at Columbia: A Journey from the Wilderness to the Promised Land. 2004 George C. Pimentel Award. J. Chem. Educ. 2005, 82, 1292−1299. (12) Vygotsky, L. S. Thought and Language; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 1986. (13) Bodner, G. Constructivism: A theory of knowledge. J. Chem. Educ. 1986, 63, 873−878. (14) DeJong, O.; Taber, K. S. Teaching and Learning the Many Faces of Chemistry. In Handbook of Research on Science Education; Abell, S., Lerderman, N., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ, 2007; pp 631−652. (15) Velázquez-Marcano, A.; Williamson, V. M.; Ashkenazi, G.; Tasker, R.; Williamson, K. C. The Use of Video Demonstrations and Particulate Animation in General Chemistry. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2004, 13 (3), 315−323. (16) Russell, P. M.; Mallin, M.; Youngquist, S. T.; Cotton, J.; AboulHosn, N.; Dawson, M. First “Glass” Education: Telementored Cardiac Ultrasonography Using Google Glass-A Pilot Study. Acad. Emerg. Med. 2014, 21 (11), 1297−1299. (17) Feng, S.; Caire, R.; Cortazar, B.; Turan, M.; Wong, A.; Ozcan, A. Immunochromatographic diagnostic test analysis using Google Glass. ACS Nano 2014, 8 (3), 3069−3079.
Drawbacks
One disadvantage of Google Glass is that the tiny lithium ion battery that is housed in the frame of the Google Glass heats up very quickly. As the motherboard of Google Glass is located on the right side of the spectacles frame, the demonstrator would feel the extra warmth arising from the battery at his right temple. This heat could be felt within just half an hour of filming and cause discomfort. This limits the use of Google Glass indoors as the device’s exposure to the sun may cause the battery to heat up even faster. Among the positive feedback, there was one negative comment from a student who stated the following: While using the IPOV videos allows me to clearly see what I am supposed to in the lab, I end up spending more time watching it several times to refresh than compared to a single 10 min watching live demo in lab in the traditional mode.
■
CONCLUSION The use of the Google Glass to conduct a live demonstration in the chemistry laboratory is shown to be beneficial in providing consistent teaching within the same lab group. The problem of students’ inability to observe the demonstration setup is circumvented. The student perceptions illustrated that the IPOV videos and teaching with the Google Glass and Livestream raised their interest and confidence while working in the lab. Such IPOV technological tools allow students to revise the previous lab classes and remember the lessons more vividly. Going forward, the use of IPOV videos could be explored in real-time teaching for distance learning curriculum.
■
■
Communication
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*E-mail:
[email protected]. ORCID
Fung Fun Man: 0000-0003-4106-3174 Notes
The author declares no competing financial interest. E
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00457 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Communication
(18) Muensterer, O. J.; Lacher, M.; Zoeller, C.; Bronstein, M.; Kübler, J. Google Glass in pediatric surgery: an exploratory study. Int. J. Surg. 2014, 12 (4), 281−289. (19) Paro, J. A.; Nazareli, R.; Gurjala, A.; Berger, A.; Lee, G. K. Video-based self-review: comparing Google Glass and GoPro technologies. Ann. Plast. Surg. 2015, 74, S71−S74. (20) Knight, H. M.; Gajendragadkar, P. R.; Bokhari, A. Wearable Technology: Using Google Glass as a Teaching Tool. BMJ. Case. Rep. 2015, 2015, bcr2014208768. (21) Fung, F. M. Seeing through My Lenses: A GoPro Approach To Teach a Laboratory Module. Asian J. Scholarsh. Teach. Learn. 2016, 6 (1), 99−115. (22) Fung, F. M. YouTube video titled Green Chemistry: Direct Reduction of Aldehyde by NaBH4 in a Separatory Funnel (in-situ). http://tinyurl.com/ffmglass1 (accessed Oct 2016). (23) Fung, F. M. YouTube video titled How to prepare NMR Tube sample (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance). http://tinyurl.com/ffmglass2 (accessed Oct 2016). (24) Fung, F. M. YouTube video titled Schlenk Line and Cannulation Technique. http://tinyurl.com/ffmglass3 (accessed Oct 2016). (25) Fung, F. M. YouTube video titled Cannulation: Making a Filtered Cannula. http://tinyurl.com/ffmglass4 (accessed Oct 2016).
F
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00457 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
