Downloading and Using Video in the Classroom
There is little doubt that video engages kids. The evidence of that reality stares me in the face each time I watch my three-year-old daughter become slack-jaw while watching her favorite television show. As an educator, I know that we need to harness that kind of power in our efforts to engage students.
However, video is a difficult world to deal with when it comes to the Internet. The quality and size of video files causes it to suck up a lot of network resources (meaning that other people cannot access what they may need to teach or learn). If you have ever suffered through a “choppy” video that plays faster than it streams to the computer, you’ve dealt with this frustration. It becomes especially difficult to justify that constraint on resources when you walk into the neighboring room of people crowded around a computer, all laughing uncontrollably at the latest viral video.
Of course, there is also the issue of the appropriateness of content. You understand that if you have ever shown a YouTube video (that you’ve previewed and decided is appropriate) to a class and then had a host of “suggested” videos appear on the sidebar with less than appropriate subject matter. In my case it was a video on “mob mentality” that returned pictures of scantily clad people dancing and a video on a dog breeding program (you can imagine what the images for that one looked like). Needless to say, I lost my audience before the intended video even started.
With that said, there are ways to get the upper hand on Internet video to maximize its power and limit its distractions. Below are several ways that you can capture Internet videos in order to share them with your students.
*Disclaimer: The world of Internet video is peppered with lots of technical jargon and elements. Downloading Internet video is more of an “art” than a science at this point. Patience is critical! Also, having a few “methods” to fall back on is helpful.
Internet Overrides
YouTube and other sites are often filtered at school. However, there is little doubt that some educationally valuable content is available on these sites. For this reason, any staff member in my district can use an override code to access these filtered resources. This allows him/her to access any content that he/she may need while at school simply by using the override code whenever he/she encounters filtered material.
If you do not presently have access to these resources at school, perhaps its a conversation starter with your Director of Technology to get the ball rolling in the right direction.
Zamzar.com
Of course, without that option in place, it's nice to be able to "collect" or download Internet video content directly from the web BEFORE going to a filtered environment. If that option speaks to you, you can utilize Zamzar.com to download videos from several Internet video streaming sites.
- First you will need to locate the video you want to download.
- Then, copy the URL and open another browser window to http://www.zamzar.com .
- On the green box in the center of the page, click the second tab, which reads “Download Videos”
- Under “Step 1” paste the URL of the video into the text box
- Under “Step 2” choose one of the following formats:
- FLV – if you want to place the video directly into a SMART Notebook file
- WMV – if you want to play the video with Windows Media Player
- Under “Step 3” enter your school email address and then click “Convert”
- Zamzar will send a link to your email inbox. This is not an immediate process, but if you have not received the link within 24 hours, check your “Junk Email” folder.
- Click the link emailed to you, click “Download Now” on the web page, and save the file to your computer.
| Pros: | Cons: |
| -Reliable download of videos | -Slow process; may take hours to receive email from Zamzar |
| -Lots of file formats available | -Small video files only; 100 mb limit |
ClipNabber.com
Another reliable source that is a bit more streamlined is http://www.clipnabber.com .
- First you will need to locate the video you want to download.
- Then, copy the URL and open another browser window to http://www.clipnabber.com
- In the “URL” box in the middle of the page, paste the address of the video you want to download
- Click “Nab” just to the right of the URL box
- Wait a few seconds, and several buttons will appear below the “URL” box that will indicate the preferred file format and quality of the video for the video you want to download (FLV medium, FLV high, WMV low, etc.). Click on the preferred format and quality.
- Wait a few more seconds and a “Save” dialogue box will appear. Click “Save” and identify where you want the video to go.
| Pros: | Cons: |
| -Faster download process | -Video files formats limited to what is available; not all formats available |
| -Reliable download of videos | -May have to use another service to convert video file formats |
*Not all video players are made equal. If you’ve got a file that won’t play with a standard media player (like Windows Media Player), you may want to download and install another media player – VLC Media Player. You can download VLC at this site: http://www.videolan.org/vlc/
Alternative Video Sites
There are lots of great video sites out there to pull resources from. Here are just a few worthy of mentioning.
School Tube and Teacher Tube
While no comparison to the expansive library of YouTube, School Tube and Teacher Tube are vetted content sources that have systems in place to monitor the content hosted on the site. There is a wide array of educational resources available on both sites.
Find them at: http://www.schooltube.com and http://www.teachertube.com
YouTube Edu
About a year ago YouTube launched YouTube Edu (http://www.youtube.com/edu). Partnering with academics and universities the world over, there is an expansive list of lectures and resources available for free on the site. Hosted on YouTube, you’ll have to access the site using the Internet override you were given, but it has lots of great content that may just fit your classroom needs.
The most important element to remember is that video engages students in a wide variety of ways. Although showing video from YouTube isn't an option that is presently available for every teacher, it is definitely worth the extra effort to pre-plan, download in advance of the class period, and show the video to students using some of the techniques and tools mentioned here.
What should come first: the technology, or the need for it?
I have been kicking this question around in my head lately, but I'm not sure that there is a correct answer. Instead, what I'm really searching for is the logical response that I can buy into and support when I propose ideas or help to make decisions about technology purchases in my district. Understand that what I'm really looking for is a space to flesh out my own thinking in order to find a logical response to a question that requires an answer.
The question is simply this: Does the availability of technology in schools encourage the end users to put the technology to use (if you buy it, they will come), or is the purchase-upon-request model more likely to yield the greatest use of educationally focused tech?
Questions like this feel heavily philosophical, and they aren't often taken seriously by people who have the luxury of pondering the question and then flushing it from their minds. However, the moment my philosophical pondering of this question was faced with the reality of a financial purchasing decision that was influenced by the way I answered it, I found out that sometimes philosophy has palpable implications.
At the core of this question is really the issue of human motivation. Are educators, a collectively resourceful group by both nature and training, likely to utilize the technological tools if we provide access and adequate training (the latter of the two is the key, and often the most heavily overlooked element of any technology purchase)? Is access enough to motivate their curiosity or to spark their internal motivation to explore in the hopes of finding a more efficient or engaging way to teach? Can we "buy and train" our way to more engaging classroom instruction? The "buy it and they will come" model of purchasing educational technology is built upon a foundational belief that teachers will gravitate to and adopt the most effective and efficient educational tools if they are given access and exposure to them. It also leans heavily upon the belief that when hurdles, pitfalls, or perceived limitations are removed, people are more likely to explore, learn, and grow.
Alternatively, we can take the road more commonly traveled (well, I guess that depends where you teach). In this model, teachers make requests for some technological marvel that they believe can support learning in their classroom. The district accommodates and often leaves the teacher (or the small pod of teachers who requested the tech) to their own devices to put the technology to work. While the initial purchase may include some professional development dollars, these teachers are often left to fend for themselves, and to promote the "good word" to their colleagues if the grand experiment succeeds. This model subscribes to the belief that people are requesting due to an already present intrinsic motivation. Relevance is key here; the technology they request is somehow more relevant to their role as a classroom teacher, thus they are more likely to put the purchase to use immediately, appropriately, and for a longer duration of time. Of course, there are obvious procedural limitations placed upon staff members in this model. The "exploration" of the tech that exists is forced to take place outside of the school day (for most teachers), and those who are uninterested in participating in the exploration are far less likely to issue requests for technology.
By now, the downfalls to each should be fairly apparent.
In the open access model of tech purchasing, there is no guarantee of any return on investment. The purchases could become the next hot item at the school. It could also become another one of the dust collectors in the technology graveyard at your school. For this reason, visionary leadership and a sensitive pulse on the curriculum, teaching styles, and attitudes of the staff are essential qualities of the lead person making the purchasing decisions. Obviously, those aren't qualities that are easy standard in most people, especially many of the technologically savvy people that tend to head into the computer science field.
The other major issue with the model is the issue of justifying the funding. Many tech purchases are heavy financial decisions that need to be weighed (often by a panel of board members). Advocating for the purchase of expensive laptops or wireless infrastructure or the latest gadget is a tough sell when the proposal is littered with phrases like "we think," "we hope," and "ideally they will." This kind of blind faith in the sanity and vision of a district's technology leader takes time to develop between the board, the staff, the techies, the families, and the community. Without that kind of trusting relationship, this model of equipping our schools becomes a much tougher financial sell.
Even more apparent are the downfalls of the purchase-upon-request model. The statement, "You don't know what you don't know," has been made to me far too many times this year as I lead professional development sessions (I bristle at the statement; we live in a period where our surplus commodity is accessible information). This comment suggests to me that many educators feel victimized by the pace of change that accompanies the advancement of technology. In a time where cash flow is limited in schools, the logic of these teachers may go something like this: "Even if I'd like to try out that tool I heard about at the conference, the reality is that I don't know enough about it. With all that I'm expected to do to perform my job well, I don't have time to learn a whole lot about it, and I would hate to waste funds to buy something I'm really not sure about. I know I could use those funds to buy something for my classroom that I am sure about." The resulting action is inaction. They fail to make the request for new technology. In this model, there are no anecdotal stories and experiences from colleagues they trust to sell them on the value of an element of technology (and let's be honest...those anecdotal pieces are often the impetus for many of the technology purchases made in school districts; look to the interactive whiteboard craze for evidence of this).
Of course, this leads to the other major issue with this model: pockets of excellence and pockets of despair. Educators who are capable of identifying tech that will assist them or their students in the classroom are likely to be more dynamic teachers to begin with. This assertion stems from this group's general awareness of the technology that actually exists in the first place. That may be a result of their ability to research and sift through information, or their ability to network, connect with, and learn from others, but those educators with these skills are likely to be the ones advocating for themselves and their students regarding the request of technology. Any way we slice it, those submitting requests for technology are likely those who are motivated enough to put the technology to use. The other educators (those unwilling to submit requests for new technology) are not. This results in a greater disparity between the teachers who teach effectively with technology the teachers who avoid technology.
My underlying assumption here is that technology provides something to any learning environment that cannot be achieved without that technology. I understand all of the arguments that can be made suggesting that effective teaching and learning can happen without technology. I understand that meaningful education happens with or without technology. What I also understand, though, is that technology offers opportunities that are not present without the technology. Conversing with (and seeing) a group of students across the country during the regularly scheduled school day didn't regularly happen before Skype existed. Collaborating and collectively crafting presentations, articles, and projects without planning a face-to-face meeting time didn't happen before the days of wikis and learning management systems. For this reason, teachers that request and put technology to use in their classroom create opportunities for their students that other students lack as a result of lacking access to that same technology.
Perhaps the higher ground is to take a diversified approach to the technology purchasing strategy at any school. By maintaining a pulse on the wave of widely adopted/accepted technology, we can make reasonable predications about the technologies that have caught on and the technologies that are still kept at arms length by the general public. For instance, A crystal ball isn't necessary to see the trend in wireless technology. The expectation for most tech users is open access to the Internet. Outfitting our buildings and learning environments with the wireless infrastructure (complete with a guest network) is certainly a justifiable cost with most school boards. Providing a laptop/net book/tablet for each teacher is also one of those increasingly obvious purchases, primarily because the public has generally accepted these technologies as an element of workplace productivity. These are wise "infrastructural" investments because they open up possibilities for experimental adoption/trials of other less accepted technologies.
However, more controversial purchases, such as a 1:1 laptop initiative for each student, perhaps should be reserved, at least at first, to a per request purchase process. That kind of significant financial investment needs to see a legitimate return on investment. That means that teachers with the intrinsic motivation to use that technology regularly should be the ones to trial it first. First impressions matter, and when a school outfits its students with hundreds of iPads or net books, only to have many of them vastly under utilized, it becomes a tough pill for parents, taxpayers, and board members to swallow when the question of continued support of the program rears its head.
Non-negotiables exist in this conversation, though. Regardless of the model that any organization adopts, honesty, trust, and open communication must exist between those who purchase and support the technology, and those who put that technology to use. Tech departments that do not listen to and address the needs of classroom teachers and students invalidate the value of either purchasing model. When end users do not feel adequately supported, they are less likely to take risks in using new technologies. When end users don't feel trusted, they are less likely to form a working relationship with their tech department, thus decreasing the likelihood will engage in the meaningful communication that must exist between the two groups. Until both sides feel that they are working toward the same goals, meaningful experimentation cannot take place.
The last non-negotiable element is having a rock solid, consistently reliable technology infrastructure in place from the beginning. It is the foundation on which any technological advancements take place, so there is simply no room for inconsistent or unreliable performance. I equate this to the infrastructure of roads and bridges. Due to the reliability and consistency of this infrastructure, most Americans can focus on the type of vehicle that suits their personality or lifestyle, not on the type of vehicle that will allow them to travel through the terrain of their daily commute. End users should be able to depend on their tech infrastructure in the same way, allowing them to make decisions based upon goals or purpose, not based upon access or reliability.
I hope this rant has helped you think through the question I posed at the beginning. While a correct answer doesn't exist, a logical rationale in a district's tech purchasing model is an essential starting point.
Adopting educational technology: The journey to full integration
What I love most about my professional learning network (PLN) is the continuous opportunities it has provided me for reflection on my professional practice. It never fails to inspire me when I'm in a funk, teach me something new when I least expect it, or provide insight that I would not have come to on my own. My PLN has been particularly helpful lately as I've experienced incredible frustration with the sluggish pace of educational reform.
Recently while fumbling between an Ed Tech Talk podcast, reviewing some of the recent Tweets I missed, and I was thinking about comments I heard a recent tech committee meeting at our school. I was specifically stuck on a comment made by one person that suggested that the district needed to provide both quality educational experiences and experiences utilizing technology. The suggestion that the two could not work in tandem reminded me that everyone at the table was at a very different place regarding their conceptual understanding of the role technology could play in changing the way we teach students.
Through the combination of it all I was reminded of just how much I've grown in my understanding of the ways that technology can transform and enhance educational delivery and instructional practice for educators willing to embrace it. It wasn't really so long ago when I was the one scoffing at some of the very same ideas I now promote in these meetings. I, too, probably wondered how we could find enough time in the day to teach all of the regular curriculum and then add new "technology specific skills" to the list. The epiphany that technology can alter what education looks like probably never struck me when I was just beginning to grasp the concepts I fully accept now. That is a realization one has to come to as we allow these concepts to roll around for a while.
This strikes me as an important revelation to hold on to when I experience the frustration that comes with trying to move the juggernaut of education at anything faster than a snail's pace.
While seeing can be believing within the world of educational technology (and thus doing is adopting???), there is no substitute for the time needed to allow the innovative ideas of this movement/pedagogy/practice to really take hold and transform the thoughts/beliefs/practices of those on the journey to adoption and integration of instructional technology principles. Those of us that have made a habit of drinking the koolaid have to remember that. Most of us needed that time to adjust as well. It just happened that so many of us, as early adopters, were so far ahead of the wave that there was no pressure to adopt these ideas overnight. Too often I find myself wanting to push the masses of educators just arriving to these concepts in a direction that they are not mentally prepared to accept. I feel like that little kid who has been in the cave hundreds of times; now I just need my friends to trust me enough to follow me blindly into the darkness. Fortunately, these professionals value their students and their profession enough to step cautiously when entering the darkness. They are not going to follow blindly. The result: I'm left to search for new and better ways to urge these educators along on the path to adoption and integration of educational technology more quickly than I came to the same full acceptance I want them to achieve.
One of the best ways that I can think of to help them achieve this growth and adoption more quickly is to take full advantage of something I was skeptical of during my journey: developing a high quality PLN. For me my Twitter, Teachers 2.0, podcast, and personal networks serve as an ongoing source of ideas that help me to uncover new ideas, explore new terrain, and reflect on my practice.(you see, of course, the circular reasoning of this post...I end in the same place that I started). My PLN serves as the ongoing backdrop of professional conversations that keep me focused on the areas of interest to me. If I had the benefit of these conversations earlier in my educational technology adoption journey, perhaps I would have started to accept these ideas/practices more quickly.
Therefore, I'm going to begin suggesting to those that I would like to see move along more quickly in their instructional technology adoption that they form a network of influential thinkers that may help keep them focused on the task at hand: using technology to transform education. Of course, this suggesting will best be served with a side of mentoring as to how to actually achieve this(do you remember how hard it was to start developing a high quality PLN?). By the way, this is a heck of a way to start gaining even more followers and growing my virtual ego to an even greater extent.