Track 12. Educational Innovation Authors: João Marçal, Maria Borges, Paula Viana and Paulo Simeão https://youtu.be/lrOBluEADKg

1. Audiovisual Annotation in
the Study of Physics
João Marçal | Maria Manuel Borges | Paula Viana | Paulo Simeão Carvalho
jonimar@gmail.com mmb@fl.uc.pt paula.viana@inesctec.pt psimeao@fc.up.pt
Track 12 – Educational Innovation
Salamanca, October 2018

2. Context: Online Video Annotation in the Study of Physics
Physics
Education
Testbed with
K-12
Students
Online Video
Annotation
Tool
Select
Annotate
Organize
Publish
Question:
Does the provision of video annotated
content contribute to improve the
training process by promoting active
learning?

3. Video in Education:
NO
 


Olivero (1965) – Use of video in the improvement of teaching
Flanders (1970) – Interaction Analysis Method – teaching observation
Wragg (1987) – Video Autoscopy in the formation for teaching
Hipermedia software to support learning in science domain -
(Goldman e Barron 1990; Lampert, Heaton, Ball 1994; Krajcik 1996;
Frederiksen, Sipusic, Sherin 1998)
Cogan-Drew (2009) – “Videopaper” system, allowing teachers and
students to interact with video sections from the Internet
Project Vincere (2013) – Development of didactic video content in
science and engineering, produced at FEUP

4. Annotation:
Latour & Woolgar (1979) - central importance of inscriptions in the organization of
scientific knowledge
Roth & McGinn (1998) - consider two types of registration tools: paper and pen,
and computer
Bottoni et al. (2004) - Cognitive Functions: Remembrance | Reasoning | Understanding
Burr (2006) – Video annotation has increased reliability, repeatability and optimization
of workflow
Meira et al. (2016) – Video annotation for immersive journalism
Viana & Pinto (2017) – Video annotation using gamification
i

5. Physics Education:
T.J.PICKELL/AT&T LABS
L
DiSessa (1993) - students do not feel they can participate in their own learning
Redish (2003) - students with different abilities memorize without
understanding, despite the more elaborate methodologies of exposition
de Jesus (2014) - the boundary between the classroom and the laboratory
Models of Learning Physics:
Just-in-Time Physics (Novak et al. 1999) - based on the interaction
between didactic content on the Web and the tasks that are developed
in the classroom or laboratory
Active Learning (Knight, 2004) - Teaching where students build their own
knowledge, through interaction with materials and ideas, rather than
simply receiving knowledge
'

6. Testbed – Audiovisual Annotation Tool - CLIPPER:
Features:
• Create annotated video clips
from videos in Youtube;
• Define time segments from
the loaded video and
transform into a new clip;
• Store the clips and lists of
clips inside projects;
• Share individually annotated
clips, cliplists or projects;
clipperdev.com

7. Testbed – Application Scenario:
• Presentation of CLIPPER to Teacher / Students
• Annotation experimentation with test videos
• Search and select videos according to curriculum themes
• Assign videos to annotate per student
• Annotation of short clips summaries in pairs as revision
• Interaction with the CLIPPER development team
• Creation of site with the result of annotations
• Making-of Video of Testbed
K-12 | 20 Students | 95 annotations
Content: K-10 Curriculum
1. ENERGY AND MOVEMENTS
2. ENERGY AND ELECTRICAL PHENOMENA
3. ENERGY, THERMAL PHENOMENA AND RADIATION

8. Testbed – Evaluation Process:
The evaluation process included two features:
• The teacher in charge analyzed the output of the annotation process and classified each group according
to a set of pre-defined parameters:
1. Clarity in the presentation (organization of video clips) [10%]
2. Creativity / originality (what kind of videos was chosen) [40%]
3. Subject agreement (if the clip was in accordance with the topic) [10%]
4. Content (annotation quality) [40%]
• To measure the students' perception about the annotation process, a 4 point Likert scale was used, to
evaluate six statements related to the annotation experience. Also 3 open questions served as feedback to
troubleshooting and improvement either in the teaching methodology or the technology itself.

9. Results:
Positive Rating
• Contribution of notes to understand the contents of Physics
• Collaborative annotation strategy
• Advantage of organizing annotation work on cliplists
• Optimize study from short versions of content instead of reading and watching long videos
Negative Rating
• Students did not see this methodology as a motivating
effect for the study of physics, one of the lessons for
this result is perhaps due to the fact that students did
not have enough time to explore the features of the tool
• Problems with organization of cliplists; in the reproduction of certain segments; impossibility to undo an
action such as "deleting" an annotation

10. Conclusions:
• Overall the results were positive, considering that this was the first time this methodology was tested and
adjustments and improvements will be needed.
• Future work includes making similar experiments in a larger pool of students and focusing on the teacher’s
use of video annotations to support his teaching.

11. Audiovisual Annotation in
the Study of Physics
João Marçal | Maria Manuel Borges | Paula Viana | Paulo Simeão Carvalho
jonimar@gmail.com mmb@fl.uc.pt paula.viana@inesctec.pt psimeao@fc.up.pt
Track 12 – Educational Innovation
Salamanca, October 2018