Fyfield, M. (2022). YouTube in the secondary classroom: how teachers use instructional videos in mainstream classrooms. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 31(2), 185–197. 

The research study intended to explore why and how teachers actually use instructional videos in their classrooms rather than focusing on results from a specific application of video technology. Foundational to the study was a review of the pedagogical reasoning and action (PR&A) framework proposed by Shulman in 1987, which Shulman used to investigate “how teachers transform subject matter for students through the use of representations, and then how those representations were used in instructional settings” (p. 187). The author interviewed nine secondary teachers from a locally representative school system, with the goal of embracing the “messy reality of pedagogical reasoning” (p.187). Results shared included a section titled “practicalities of playback” (p. 189), which reviewed teacher practices related to how videos were shared (whole class or individual), and teachers actions during video sharing (pause and clarify). In this same section, the author noted that YouTube was the platform of choice due to its “range, familiarity and ubiquity” (p. 189) and discussed how video was incorporated into learning activities through the use of note-taking and other, similar activities.  The second section of results was titled “Common pedagogical uses of videos in classrooms;” grouped answers revealed that teachers used videos as lecture tools, to display things that would otherwise be impossible in the classroom, as engagement tools, to encourage student autonomy, and for reteaching when students were absent. The final conclusion was that teachers were not using videos in a transformative way.

At the outset the research design seemed like it could provide some real insight into how to use video in the classroom.  Nine classroom teachers were part of the study, from a variety of disciplines and with varied demographics. However, the teachers “presumably [made] informed decisions about how to use the media they have chosen.” I think that presumption is a mistake. Just because teachers have access to technology doesn’t mean they know how to use it effectively. As I read on, the study felt more like a proof for Shulman’s theory of PR&A dated 1987. (The author mentioned more recent studies but never referenced them again.) Later specific studies were briefly mentioned in the discussion sections, but the majority of look backs were to Shulman’s work. A huge missing piece from the study were the research questions. There was no table provided to show the questions that were asked (I wonder if this is typical or atypical); the reader was forced to infer what the questions were based on the results. There was no table summarizing the results, so there was a lot of prose to wade through. Throughout the discussion section, the author made broad, sweeping generalizations, such as “knowledge of education context is a key factor in making pedagogical decisions about instructional techniques,” (p. 190) and “videos should be accompanied by appropriate learning activities” (p. 192). I’m not sure the evidence from the study was enough to warrant these statements. 

I continue to wonder about Shulman. While Shulman evidently made some pithy comments (“teaching is an outrageously complex activity,” p. 187), video streaming wasn’t a reality until some six years after his cited work. Was it a design flaw, to use such dated references? Or is a video just a video, regardless of whether you need a hard copy on CD or can stream it from almost any device? Or maybe, it’s a scary thing that the teaching practice of contemporary teachers still reflects the practices from an almost 30 year old study. No transformative teaching with video? Perhaps that’s because four of the teachers had been teaching for 25 or more years; these teachers are not digital natives, so perhaps that skewed the results. Or maybe it was the fact that the teachers were from Catholic schools. I wonder how their curriculum and instruction department has viewed the advent of video streaming? I wonder if those questions were even asked. Eventually the article ended, with no new information (for me, anyway).

I guess in terms of my own research, I’d rather have a mic drop moment. While research (like this study) that confirms what we already suspect is important (I guess), I would rather focus my efforts on truly making a difference. In my statement of purpose for entry into grad school, I wrote that my passion lies in designing [teaching] methods that capitalize on the critical attributes and diverse  delivery methods of education technology in order to cultivate creative responses in the classroom. This seems much more intriguing than proving the ghost of educational technology present.