Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 603–621 | Cite as

Video clips for YouTube: Collaborative video creation as an educational concept for knowledge acquisition and attitude change related to obesity stigmatization

  • Carmen Zahn
  • Norbert Schaeffeler
  • Katrin Elisabeth Giel
  • Daniel Wessel
  • Ansgar Thiel
  • Stephan Zipfel
  • Friedrich W. Hesse
Article

Abstract

Mobile phones and advanced web-based video tools have pushed forward new paradigms for using video in education: Today, students can readily create and broadcast their own digital videos for others and create entirely new patterns of video-based information structures for modern online-communities and multimedia environments. This paradigm shift in video usage can be used for advanced learning about complex topics in higher education, for example, learning about socio-scientific or medical topics. Yet–technology aside–applicable educational concepts using collaborative video creation as a method need to be developed. In the present study, we investigate a specific concept designed to fight obesity stigmatization by developing knowledge using a learning-through-design-approach. We expected that creating videos can actually contribute to a deeper understanding of obesity and to a reduction in stigmatizing attitudes–when compared to a control condition. Dependent measures were based on the students’ video products, obesity-related knowledge and attitudes. The course group assessed their own knowledge on causes of obesity and stigmatization because of obesity higher in the post-test than a control group who read a newspaper article on the topic. A corresponding significant reduction in stigmatizing attitudes was found. In sum, results indicate significant differences between students who produced YouTube videos and a control group of students. The results are interpreted as a confirmation of our initial assumptions and evidence indicating that the program is successfully applicable in higher education.

Keywords

Video Mobile learning Authorship and creativity Education Health Obesity Socio-scientific topics 

References

  1. Alby, T. (2007). Web 2.0: Concepts, applications, technologies. Munich: Hanser Fachbuchverlag.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  3. Ata, R. N., & Thompson, J. K. (2010). Weight bias in the media: a review of recent research. Obesity and the Facts, 3(1), 41–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bandura, A. (2004a). Social cognitive theory for personal and social change by enabling media. In A. Singhal & M. J. Cody (Eds.), Entertainment education and social change. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass.Google Scholar
  5. Bandura, A. (2004b). Health promotion by social cognitive means. Health Education and Behavior, 31(2), 143–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baur, L. A. (2001). Obesity: definitely a growing concern. Medical Journal of Australia, 174, 553–554.Google Scholar
  7. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  8. Burgess, J., & Green, J. (2009). YouTube. Online video and participatory cultures. Digital media and society series. Cambridge (UK) Malden, (MA, USA): Polity.Google Scholar
  9. Carver, S. M., Lehrer, R., Connell, T., & Erickson, J. (1992). Learning by hypermedia design: issues of assessment and implementation. Educational Psychologist, 27(3), 385–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cha, M., Kwak, H., Rodriguez, P., Ahn, Y., Moon, S. (2007). I Tube, you tube, everybody tubes: Analyzing the world’s largest user generated content video system. In Proceedings of the Internet Measurement Conference (IMC), October 24–26 (pp. 1–14). San Diego CA, US.Google Scholar
  11. Chavez, V., Israel, B., Allen, A. J., Floyd DeCarlo, M., Lichtenstein, R., Schulz, A., et al. (2004). A bridge between communities: video-making using principles of community-based participatory research. Health Promotion Practice, 5(4), 395–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Degner, J. (2006). Die indirekte Erfassung von Einstellungen gegenüber übergewichtigen Menschen mit dem affektiven Priming. [Indirect Measurement of attitudes toward overweight people by affective priming]. Kassel: Kassel University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Degner, J., &Wentura, D. (2005). Vorurteil oder Selbstbild? Implizite Einstellungen gegenüber übergewichtigen Menschen. [Prejudice or self-concept? Implicit attitudes toward overweight people]. Paper presented at the 10th Meeting of the Section of Social Psychology of the German Association of Psychology. Jena. 25.–28. Sep.Google Scholar
  14. Deusinger, I. M. (1998). Die Frankfurter Körperkonzeptskalen (FKKS). Goettingen, Bern, Toronto, Seattle: Hogrefe Verlag.Google Scholar
  15. Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS: Second edition. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  16. Frank, C. (2010). Menschen, die alles Dicke haben [People that are fed up with everything]. Süddeutsche Zeitung, 24th Seoptember, 2010. Süddeutsche Zeitung GmbH.Google Scholar
  17. Gaebel, W., Ahrens, W., Schlamann, P. (2010). Konzeption und Umsetzung von Interventionen zur Entstigmatisierung seelischer Erkrankungen: Empfehlungen und Ergebnisse aus Forschung und Praxis. [Conceptualizing and realizing interventions targeting de-stigmatization of mental disorders: Advice and results from research and practice]. Aktionsbündnis seelische Gesundheit.Google Scholar
  18. Giel, K. E., Thiel, A., Teufel, M., Mayer, J., & Zipfel, S. (2010). Weight bias in work settings—a qualitative review. Obesity and the Facts, 3(1), 33–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Giel, K. E., Zipfel, S., Alizadeh, M., Schaeffeler, N., Zahn, C., Wessel, D., et al. (2012). Stigmatization of obese individuals by human resource professionals: an experimental study. BMC Public Health, 12(1), 525–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Goel, V., & Pirolli, P. (1992). The structure of design problem spaces. Cognitive Science, 16, 395–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goldman, R. (2004). Video perspectivity meets wild and crazy teens: design ethnography. Cambridge Journal of Education, 2(4), 147–169.Google Scholar
  22. Goldman, R. (2007). ORIONTM, an online digital video data analysis tool: Changing our perspectives as an interpretative community. In R. Goldman, R. D. Pea, B. Barron, & S. Derry (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 507–520). Mahwah: Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  23. Greeno, J. (2006). Learning in activity. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 79–96). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Harel, I. (1990). Children as software designers: a constructionist approach for learning mathematics. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 9, 3–93.Google Scholar
  25. Haslam, D. W., & James, W. P. (2005). Obesity. Lancet, 366, 1197–1209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In M. Levy & G. E. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications. Mahwah: Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  27. Hays, W. L. (1980). Statistics for the social sciences. London: Holt.Google Scholar
  28. Hennessey, S., & Murphy, P. (1999). The potential for collaborative problem solving in design and technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 9(1), 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hilbert, A., & Ried, J. (2009). Obesity in print: an analysis of daily newspapers. Obesity and the Facts, 2(1), 46–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hussin, M., Frazier, S., & Thompson, J. K. (2011). Fat stigmatization on YouTube: a content analysis. Body Image, 8(1), 90–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jenkins, J. (2009). What happened before YouTube? In J. Burgess & J. Green (Eds.), YouTube: Online video and participatory culture. Digital media and society series (pp. 109–125). Malden: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  32. Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robison, A. J., Weigel, M. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture; Media education for the 21st century. An occasional paper on digital media and learning. (Retrieved in June ‘09 from: http://tinyurl.com/2uztw4).
  33. Kafai, Y. B. (1996). Learning design by making games: Children’s development of design strategies in the creation of a complex computational artifact. In Y. B. Kafai & M. Resnick (Eds.), Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking, and learning in a digital world (pp. 71–96). Mahwah: Erlbaum Press.Google Scholar
  34. Kafai, Y. B., & Ching, C. C. (2001). Affordances of collaborative software design planning for elementary students’ science talk. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(3), 323–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kafai, Y., & Resnick, M. (1996). Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking, and learning in a digital world. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  36. Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., Puntembakar, S., Ryan, M. (2003a). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: putting learning by Design™ into practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(4), 495–548.Google Scholar
  37. Kolodner, J. L., Gray, J., & Fasse, B. B. (2003b). Promoting transfer through case-based reasoning: rituals and practices in learning by design classrooms. Cognitive Science Quarterly, 3(2), 183–232.Google Scholar
  38. Krauskopf, K., Zahn, C., & Hesse, F. W. (2012). Leveraging the affordances of YouTube: the role of pedagogical knowledge and mental models of technology functions for lesson planning with technology. Computers and Education, 58, 1194–1206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lehrer, R., Erickson, J., & Connell, T. (1994). Learning by designing hypermedia documents. Hypermedia and multimedia in the schools. Computers in the Schools, 10, 227–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Maldonado, H., Lee, B., Klemmer, S., Pea, R. (2007). Patterns of collaboration in design courses: Team dynamics affect technology appropriation, artifact creation, and course performance. In Proceedings of CSCL-2007 (Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning) (pp. 486–495). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  41. Mensink, G., Schienkiewitz, A., Scheidt-Nave, C. (2012). Übergewicht und Adipositas in Deutschland: Werden wir immer dicker? DEGS–Studie zur Gesundheit Erwachsener in Deutschland. [Overweight and obesity in Germany: Are we becoming fat? DGES Study on the health of adults in Germany. Robert Koch Institut.Google Scholar
  42. Paul, T., & Thiel, A. (2005). Eating disorder inventory-2. Goettingen, Bern, Toronto, Seattle, Oxford, Prag: Hogrefe Verlag.Google Scholar
  43. Pea, R., & Hoffert, E. (2007). Video workflow in the learning sciences: Prospects of emerging technologies for augmenting work practices. In R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron, & S. Derry (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 427–460). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  44. Pea, R., Mills, M., Rosen, J., Dauber, K., Effelsberg, W., & Hoffert, E. (2004). The DIVERTM project: interactive digital video repurposing. IEEE Multimedia, 11, 54–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Persky, S., & Eccleston, C. P. (2010). Medical student bias and care recommendations for an obese versus non-obese virtual patient. International Journal of Obesity, 1–8.Google Scholar
  46. Preiss, K., Brennan, L., & Clarke, D. (2013). A systematic review of variables associated with the relationship between obesity and depression. Obesity Reviews. doi:10.1111/obr.12052.Google Scholar
  47. Puhl, R. M., & Brownell, K. D. (2001). Bias, discrimination, and obesity. Obesity Research, 9, 788–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Puhl, R. M., & Heuer, C. A. (2010). Obesity stigma: important considerations for public health. American Journal of Public Health, 100(6), 1019–1028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Puhl, R. M., Schwartz, M. B., & Brownell, K. D. (2005). Impact of perceived consensus on stereotypes about obese people: a new approach for reducing bias. Health Psychology, 24(5), 517–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Roschelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaborating: convergent conceptual change. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(3), 235–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2002). Knowledge building. Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97–115). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Schwartz, D. L., & Hartman, K. (2007). It’s not television anymore: Designing digital video for learning and assessment. In R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron, & S. Derry (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 335–348). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass.Google Scholar
  53. Sikorski, C., Luppa, M., Kaiser, M., Glaesmer, H., Schomerus, G., Konig, H. H., et al. (2011). The stigma of obesity in the general public and its implications for public health—a systematic review. [Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t]. BMC Public Health, 11, 661–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stahl, E., Finke, M., & Zahn, C. (2006a). Knowledge acquisition by hypervideo design: an instructional program for university courses. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 15(3), 285–302.Google Scholar
  55. Stahl, E., Zahn, C., Schwan, S., & Finke, M. (2006b). Knowledge acquisition by designing hypervideos: Different roles of writing during courses of “new media production”. In L. Van Waes, M. Leijten, & C. Neuwirth (Eds.), Writing and digital media (pp. 77–88). Oxford: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Teachman, B. A., Gapinski, K. D., Brownell, K. D., Rawlins, M., & Jeyaram, S. (2003). Demonstrations of implicit anti-fat bias: the impact of providing causal information and evoking empathy. Health Psychology, 22(1), 68–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Webb, N., & Palincsar, A. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In D. C. Berliner, & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 841–873). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass.Google Scholar
  58. Wentura, D., & Greve, W. (2005). Assessing the structure of self-concept: evidence for self-defensive processes by using a sentence priming task. Self and Identity, 4, 193–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zahn, C., Krauskopf, K., Hesse, F. W., & Pea, R. (2009). Participation in knowledge building “revisited”: Reflective discussion and information design with advanced digital video technology. In C. O'Malley, D. Suthers, P. Reimann, & A. Dimitracopoulou (Eds.), Computer supported collaborative learning practices: CSCL2009 conference proceedings (pp. 596–600). New Brunswick: International Society of the Learning Sciences (ISLS).Google Scholar
  60. Zahn, C., Krauskopf, K., Hesse, F. W., & Pea, R. (2010a). Digital video tools in the classroom: How to support meaningful collaboration and advanced thinking of students? In M. S. Khine & I. M. Saleh (Eds.), New science of learning–cognition, computers and collaboration in education (pp. 503–523). New York, Heidelberg, London: Springer.Google Scholar
  61. Zahn, C., Pea, R., Hesse, F. W., & Rosen, J. (2010b). Comparing simple and advanced video tools as supports for collaborative design processes. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(3), 403–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Zahn, C., Krauskopf, K., Hesse, F. W., & Pea, R. (2012). How to improve collaborative learning with video tools in the classroom? Social vs. cognitive guidance for student teams. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(2), 259–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carmen Zahn
    • 1
  • Norbert Schaeffeler
    • 2
  • Katrin Elisabeth Giel
    • 2
  • Daniel Wessel
    • 3
  • Ansgar Thiel
    • 4
  • Stephan Zipfel
    • 2
  • Friedrich W. Hesse
    • 3
  1. 1.University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern SwitzerlandOltenSwitzerland
  2. 2.Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and PsychotherapyUniversity Hospital of Tuebingen, University Medical Hospital of TuebingenTuebingenGermany
  3. 3.Knowledge Media Research CenterTuebingenGermany
  4. 4.University of TuebingenTuebingenGermany

Personalised recommendations