The Language Teacher
December 2001
Does Video Production Enhance Language Learning?
Ken Barnes
Yanagisawa Junichi
Hokuriku University
Video production (distinct from studies done on video viewing) has probably been one of the least investigated areas of second language acquisition. Since the mid 1980s, increasing numbers of books and papers have appeared extolling the merits of using video production in the classroom (Lonergan, 1984; Nakasako, 1985; Price, 1987; Dow & Ryan, Jr., 1987; Stempleski & Tomalin, 1990; Cooper, et al., 1991; Biegel, 1998; Murphy & Woo, 1998). Previous research has focused on motivational benefits and self-analysis by students (Machida, et al., 1991) or on the practical application of video production in the classroom (Sagliano & Sagliano, 1997; among others).
As video and other digital media compose a large portion of the time students spend interacting with varied images and sounds, we are beginning to see a parallel development in the number of studies looking into how these might affect language learning. However, no specific studies were found which investigated actual language acquisition benefit from video production.
Many second language teachers and programs include elements of video production in their lessons. Recently, with the advent of digital technology, camcorders have become cheaper, smaller, and simpler to use. Free or reasonably priced editing software can arrange even the crudest video footage into a finished product that students and teachers can be proud of. Narration and music can be added in a controlled manner. Visual images can be enhanced with transition effects or other creative techniques. Teachers and students willing to invest the time can create very enjoyable productions for relatively little expense.
As access to technology encourages more teachers to use video production in the L2 classroom, it becomes increasingly important to attempt to judge the effectiveness of such a technique. Is there a difference, for example, in students' language acquisition when making a video role play compared to a less technically imposing drama role play?
This paper reports on a study designed to answer the following questions concerning video role plays: Does the production of a video role play have an effect on language acquisition in the EFL classroom? And, if so, is it more or less effective than a simple drama role play?
Method
Subjects
All of the students in this study were second year English majors at Hokuriku University in Japan, aged 19 or 20. For practical considerations and consistency in both content and approach, the particular students chosen were all from co-author Barnes' English classes.
Group D (for Drama) were 16 students in his Eigo Kaiwa (2nd year English Conversation) class, while Group V (for Video) consisted of 16 students from his Kiso Zemi (2nd year Seminar) class. The conversation class actually consisted of 23 students, but for assessment purposes 16 were chosen whose average TOEIC score was equal to the average TOEIC score of the seminar class students. Both Groups D and V contained an equal number of writers (6) and actors (10).
It should be noted that both the conversation class and the seminar typically focused on English conversation pair work with no significant differences in content or teaching methods.
Materials
All teams in both groups created their own scripts based on "restaurant English," incorporating dialog appropriate to ten typical restaurant situations. The scenarios were checked by the instructor for grammatical accuracy and naturalness before being returned for rehearsal. The final drafts were appropriate to the conversation level of second year English majors at Hokuriku University. In addition, Group V members who were writers and camera operators had to familiarize themselves with Sony VX1000 digital video camcorders. All Group V members were also given basic instruction in digital editing on a Macintosh G3 computer using Media100XS editing software.
Procedure
Day 1
Group D was administered a pretest of restaurant English during class time. This took the form of a set of 14 incomplete mini dialogs. They were given 25 minutes to fill in 20 lines of dialog according to the particular situation in a restaurant. Time was determined based on pilot tests by three students representative of the population. After 25 minutes, the tests were collected. This pretest was repeated for Group V during their class time.
Day 2
Group D, which consisted of 23 students (later reduced to 16 as mentioned above) was further divided into four teams, each consisting of three actors and two or three writers chosen by the teams themselves. Teams were selected at random, except to ensure equal distribution of males and females. The group was then shown a short Mr. Bean comedy video segment in which Mr. Bean goes to a fancy restaurant. After a short discussion about character and acting, teams were instructed to create an original restaurant scenario including dialog between at least one waiter and two patrons. They were also instructed to include dialog appropriate to the following: 1) making a reservation by telephone; 2) arriving and being seated; 3) discussing the menu; 4) ordering; 5) commenting on the food; 6) complaining; 7) leaving a tip; 8) paying the bill; 9) receiving and complaining about incorrect change; and 10) leaving the restaurant. Following a brainstorming session, the chosen writers were told to complete the scenario for homework and hand it in to the instructor's office prior to the next week's class. The instructor would then correct errors and edit the scenarios for naturalness in time for the next class. Group V had 16 students, divided into three teams, each consisting of three or four actors and two writers/camera operators. The same procedure was followed by Group V during their class time and for homework. While all team members in both groups provided initial input for the scripts, only the writers were finally responsible for the completed dialog scenario.
Day 3
All teams in both groups spent the class time rehearsing corrected and edited versions of the scenario. In addition, the writers in Group V were shown how to use the digital camcorders, since they would be doing the videotaping on the performance day. All actors were given copies of their scenarios to memorize for homework.
Days 4 and 5
One and a half 60-minute class periods were required for the presentation of Group D's Restaurant role plays. These were done in a "live stage" manner with no breaks or restarts. No scenarios or prompting of any kind were allowed. Students did very good jobs of memorizing and performing, and one team was particularly outstanding, bringing props and improvising a singing waiter! While the role plays were performed, the other teams watched. Each performance took approximately 15 minutes. Extra time at the beginning of class was required to prepare and do last-minute rehearsals. Day 5 had 30 minutes remaining and Group D took a written test similar to their pretest.
Although Group V had only three teams, they took three full 90-minute class periods to videotape their performances in the university's studio. This was because they were allowed to do re-takes and consult their scenarios. While one group was shooting their scenario, the other groups were either rehearsing or, if they had shot previously, editing their work. The instructor gave each group a very basic computer editing seminar following completion of their videotaping. In order to facilitate the process of videotaping the scenarios, the instructor acted as director, guiding the camera operators and encouraging the actors.
Day 6
Group V continued as in Days 4 and 5 above. The last team finished videotaping and one of the other teams completed editing. The other two groups were assigned editing times outside class time to complete their projects. Group D reverted to their previous pair work conversation-style class for Days 6 and 7.
Day 7
Group V was shown the final edited versions of all three teams' efforts, each one lasting about ten minutes. Students enjoyed viewing their work and laughing at each other's acting skills or lack thereof. At the end of the viewing period, Group V students were given the same test as administered to Group D.
Analyses
Test answers were graded on a scale of 0 to 5 according to four categories: understanding, communication, accuracy, and naturalness (see appendix). It was thought that, although these categories might overlap somewhat, they would provide a deeper insight into each written response. Test scores were calculated and charted.
Results
In every case, final test results showed some improvement over the pretest in both the SDP and SVP groups. Table 1 below shows the average improvement of each group of students.
As seen in Table 2, there was no significant difference between the SVP group and the SDP group in test score improvement.
Results were further broken down to account for the potential differences between those students who had a dramatic role (players) and those who did not (writer/camera operators). Table 3 shows these differences in percentage, calculated as improvement over the base total score for each test.
Pretest Score and Posttest Scores in the Same Group
| Drama | (SDP) | Group | Video | (SVP) | Group | |||
| N | Mean | SD | t-values | N | Mean | SD | t-values | |
| Pretest | 16 | 258.125* | 41.707 | -7.028 | 16 | 253.815* | 33.704 | -11.887 |
| Postest | 16 | 334.688* | 39.026 | 16 | 314.312* | 39.695 |
SDPand SVP in Posttest Scores
| N | Mean | SD | t-values | |
| SDP | 16 | 334.688 | 39.024 | 1.464 |
| SVP | 16 | 314.312 | 39.695 | . |
Table 3: Improvements
| . | actors | writers | combined |
| SDP | 18.08% | 21.33% | 19.14% |
| SVP | 13.7% | 17.46% | 15.11% |
| . | combined | combined | overall |
| . | 15.89% | 19.395% | 17.125% |
Discussion/Conclusions
The data seemed to show that our Student Video and Drama Projects both helped to promote language acquisition among our second year Japanese university English majors. Perhaps not unexpectedly, given that written tests were used, those who had the greatest investment in writing the scenarios performed better on tests than those who were acting as players. That difference was nearly the same in both groups. The results of this study show a slight difference favoring SDP productions overall; however, as seen in Table 2, this difference is statistically insignificant. Still, teachers might want to consider carefully whether SVP is the best approach for their particular teaching style or needs. Or, in analyzing this study, teachers may find better and more efficacious ways to make video productions. Certainly there are simpler ways to incorporate SVP than those methods used in this study.
Video production, in the full sense of the term that our study uses (incorporating multiple-camera shooting and computer editing), is by nature a technical procedure. Time spent on mastering technical elements is time not given to the simple practice of the spoken word. Machida, et al., (1991) reported that students assigned video-editing roles in their video-production class complained that they were not able to spend enough time practicing English because of their duties. In a student self-evaluation in their study, 28.3% of students who dealt with roles with rare chances to use English in the class claimed no effect of the video project on development of their L2 skills. On the other hand, the repetition that comes into SVP in the form of rehearsals, multiple takes of a scene, the editing process and post viewing was clearly of some benefit for our L2 learners. Taken together with the motivation that some students might have for acting in front of a camera, capturing the action through a camera viewfinder, learning the very creative process of editing or watching themselves on screen afterwards, it would seem that SVP can offer another window of learning opportunity for students of second languages. Despite the sometimes daunting technical considerations and, as a result, the shorter time spent on actual target language practice, the SVP group was able to achieve test results whose variance from the SDP group was statistically insignificant. In our minds, this fact shows that the use of video production in language learning should not be discounted.
The extent to which we may generalize from this study is limited by the number of students, the reliability of the tests, and the cultural uniformity of the population. Other variables may include gender difference, technical aptitude, experience, and familiarity with the tasks and equipment, among others.
That new technologies are changing the way languages are taught is becoming apparent (see Johnson & Johnson, 1998). The question of how best to utilize these advances, or whether to use them at all, remains problematic for both educators and learners. Video production that includes, especially, digital editing can be complicated. Individual instructors have to decide for themselves whether the rewards of a reasonably polished production are worth the complications
In a task-oriented approach, where students must work together in the target language, it is difficult to imagine a more cooperative or language intensive activity than a video production. Not unlike making a movie or documentary film, an SVP is a team effort in all respects. From its initial planning stages, through script development to acting and post production, hundreds of decisions have to be made. But for this very same reason, when all students share a common mother tongue, the temptation to slip into it is very great in the face of overwhelming technical and logistical considerations. Again, instructors need to weight that possibility against pervrived benifits.
The following are comments students in this study wrote about their preferences for video production versus the pair work conversations that they had been accustomed to prior to this activity:
"I'm not good at computers. I like conversation."
"Making video was fun. I could enjoy."
"I want to speak more to my friends."
"We had to wait long time when groups were acting."
Those students who performed in the drama role play, however, also had revealing comments about their activity:
"I liked our old class better. It is more interesting."
"I like acting, but I'm not a good one."
"Some acting was funny, but I was boring many times."
"I hope we can make better scene. We should try harder."
If those eight comments fairly represent both groups' reflections, there seems to be a similarity in attitudes towards both the drama and video plays with the majority of students in both groups preferring their previous type of class. When asked informally, by a show of hands, whether they would like to do another video project or revert to pair work conversations, Group V was decidedly in favor of pair work. A similar vote was taken in Group D with the same result, but with a smaller majority. This may say less about the drama or video productions' failures than it does about the popularity and success of their previous pair work conversation class.
The findings in this study invite further research in the area
of video production tasks and how they compare to other activities
in terms of language acquisition. Questions raised by this study
include:
- How could SVP be made more effective in improving language acquisition?
- How could improvements in language acquisition in this form of study be more accurately measured?
Further empirical research is necessary to answer the above
questions conclusively. The authors would like to call for more
research in the area of SVP.
No matter what the tools of the trade, it remains the responsibility
of the instructor to creatively adapt those tools to the needs
of the students. Questions for teachers interested in using SVP
and other technologies should, as always, focus on: 1) how to
select and structure tasks, and 2) how to identify strategies
that will help learners get the most out of the activity. We believe
we have shown that, with careful planning and a lot of flexibility,
video production can be a fun, motivating, and effective tool
for L2 despite its technical nature. The fact that students involved
in a technical medium could attain similar results to those involved
in a more traditional one, such as a drama role play, makes us
confident in the potential of SVP.
References
Biegel, K. (1998). It's show time: Video production in the EFL classroom. The Language Teacher, 22(8), 11-14.
Cooper, R., Lavery, M., & Rinvolucri, M. (1991). Video. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dow, A., & Ryan, J., Jr. (1987). Preparing the language student for professional interaction. In W. Rivers (Ed.), Interactive language teaching (pp. 194-210). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, K., & Johnson, H. (1998). Encyclopedic dictionary of applied linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Lonergan, J. (1984). Video in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Machida, K., Watanabe, A., & Shimazaki, M. (1991). Bideobangumi no seisaku -- jijieigokyouiku no kokoromi. [Video production: An experiment in a current English education course.] Current English Studies, 30, 91-108.
Murphy, T. & Woo, L. (1998). Videoing conversation for student evaluation: Educational video's diamond in the rough. The Language Teacher, 22(8), 21-24.
Price, K. (1987). The use of technology: Varying the medium in language teaching. In W. Rivers (Ed.), Interactive language teaching (pp. 155-169). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sagliano, J., & Sagliano, M. (1997). Tapping students' imaginations via video projects. Video Rising: Newsletter of the Japan Association for Language Teaching's Video Special Interest Group, 9, 2.
Stempleski, S., & Tomalin, B. (1990). Video in action. Hertfordshire: Prentice Hall.
Criteria for Grading Restaurant English Pretests
and Final Tests
For each written dialog utterance, each of the four criterion below were evaluated on a scale of 0-5, with 5 being the best or most appropriate response.
1. Understanding: Does the written answer show that the student has proper understanding of that particular dialog situation?
2. Communication: Does the answer allow successful information exchange in the dialog, regardless of grammatical correctness? Could the utterance be misinterpreted by the other party in the conversation?
3. Accuracy: Given proper understanding and adequate communication, how accurately has the student been able to complete the dialog with respect to grammar and vocabulary?
4. Naturalness: How natural or native English-like are the
written dialogs? If the grammatical inaccuracy, if any, was able
to be corrected, would the utterance be in the manner of a native
speaker? How appropriate is the register to the situation?
All materials on this site are copyright © by JALT and their respective authors.
For more information on JALT, visit the JALT National Website