Student-made Video Projects in Engineering Technology Courses

Technologists are required to perform a variety of communication methods after graduation. Industry has begun producing videos as a communication method for marketing and also requiring videos as part of the employment process. Videos have become prevalent in the workplace and at home. As many students have access to video cameras in their mobile phones and access to inexpensive video-editing software, uploading videos has become a normal activity. This research builds on previous research about YouTube videos as a student assignment. The video project incorporates the student-as-teacher approach for a research presentation. Further, the video project utilizes experiential learning to encourage students to enter new areas of social media, specifically YouTube. Instead of an in-class presentation, students were asked to create instructional videos like those they view online. The students were asked to present Engineering Technology related research topics. The research topics were in addition or to expound upon topics identified in the course. Students not only had to communicate technical content but communicate it to a layperson in an easily understood manner. This is one of the most valuable traits of a technologist, to communicate between the theoretical/technical side to an audience with little expertise on the subject. Non-technical faculty also reviewed the videos to validate whether technology students have mastered this important communication skill. Two groups of students were given the same video project framework: construction management technology and computer technology. The combined dataset of the students will be used to determine similarities and disparities in communication, interest, and project format of the two groups. Introduction Technologist is not a traditional term to identify those in the work force. Engineering technology program graduates may receive a number of titles and in many states and can be licensed as a Professional Engineer (P.E.). However, the P.E. is quite important distinction in the construction industry and is frequently not a consideration elsewhere as a requirement for a title. Construction firms frequently use the title Project Engineer for unlicensed project managers. Firms employing both mechanical, electrical or civil engineers with licenses, and unlicensed construction project managers, the term engineer is saved for those having their license. This paper reviews students in a Construction (management) Engineering Technology program. For this paper, graduates of Engineering Technology Programs with 4-year degrees will be noted as technologists (IEA 2013). Engineering Technology students and curriculum are evolving as social media becomes ever more engrained in our lives. Students are bombarded with a variety of ways to communicate including instant messages, text messages, Snapchat and YouTube while leaving the fax machine and land line behind. Further, it is appropriate to define technology here. There are two types of technology; that identified as the Engineering Technology program which graduates Technologists and that of Social Media which is used to communicate online. Engineering Technology students should be able to apply knowledge “to defined and applied engineering procedures, processes, systems or methodologies.” Social Media however can be defined as ‘‘any technology that facilitates the dissemination and sharing of information over the Internet’’ (Robbins and Singer 2014). YouTube is one of many social media tools used by students, but it may not be the most prevalent. Students see YouTube as a learning tool which provides additional information (Mao 2014). College students tend to be consumers rather than producers of video media (Schmidt, 2013) and are missing out on what Daley (2003) refers to as “the language of the screen,” an important piece of contemporary literacy. Although students may use social media tools frequently and with ease on their phones, they may lack more formal skills that could be translated into the workplace. Social media tools, specifically creating videos, are technology falling under the category Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) (Mishra & Koehler 2006 and Stewart et al 2013). Traditional laboratory exercises within an Engineering Technology program can also fall within TPCK. TPCK requires the instructor to have knowledge of pedagogy, knowledge of content, and knowledge of technology. Further application of all three knowledge bases while understanding how methods of each must change to accommodate the others, like balancing on a three-legged stool (Mishra & Koehler 2006). For clarity, the technology focus of this paper will be identified as the above defined social media tools. The pedagogy traditionally used by this instructor is problem-based learning (PBL), where the instructor provides some content and context and has the students complete the problem. This pedagogy has been employed on previous video projects (Mosier 2016). In this case, project requirements require technical expertise in social media students would develop during their daily life. Further as a research project on construction topics, it is also an open-ended problem, where the student results are guided by their individual research and often their own preconceptions on the topic. Many of the construction research topics are approached during class, so the students have familiarity with the topic, but the research must be above and beyond course content. This research combines two previous projects that focus on student communication specifically in utilizing videos as a presentation media. Although some similar research on student-made videos as a means of presentation has been performed, there is very little research in the field (Genereux 2017, Mosier 2016). The authors have performed much of the research on this topic. A few additional articles about using video projects in science, technology and engineering courses do exist. For example, student-made videos have been used in courses such as chemistry, (Lichter 2012) neuroscience, (Jarvinen 2012) chemical engineering, (Ludlow 2012) engineering thermodynamics, (Abulencia 2013) construction estimating, (Talley, 2013) electromagnetics, (Cheville & Derr 2016) and biomechanics (Ebrahimi & Higginson 2017). The current research combines previous separate research projects into a collaborative project using a single survey instrument, adding more data points in additional students and comparing a different group of students. The initial survey was conducted on Computer Technology (ComET) students. The survey is now being conducted on Construction management Engineering Technology (CmET) students. There were some minor differences in the two studies. Although the CmET students have been previously exposed to projects with video interaction, these projects were optional. Therefore, not all CmET students had previously completed a video presentation. Both the instructor and the students’ required Technical Writing course have offered optional video presentation projects. Since the students have been exposed to the concept and this was the first time introducing video presentations in the course, very little course time was spent explicitly on learning required techniques. This semester acts as a benchmark for the knowledge of the students on their own. Conversely, Genereux used in-class time for discussion on a variety of the video project requirements including plagiarism and video editing concepts (2014). Another difference is that the CmET students were still required to submit a term paper in addition to the presentation whereas the ComET video project was the sole research project in that course. Students in the CmET program have been exposed to computer technology during various courses. They are required to take a Visual Basic programming course as well as an AutoCAD/Revit course. There are additional computer technology courses in the curriculum, which are mostly electives, so there is not an expectation that all students would have been exposed to them. CmET students have previously been offered the opportunity to perform video presentations. The Technical Writing course which is required in their curriculum offers a video presentation option, but it is not required. Similarly, the faculty for the Business Practices course which was used as a basis for this study has offered extra credit for video presentations for many semesters and has previously written about a group of those videos (Mosier 2016). However, this is the first-time videos were a requirement as part of the course content. Methodology The CmET students in a Business Practice course with a research paper and presentation requirement were asked to present via video and complete a survey. The initial project information was shared with the class on the first day of the semester. A group of topics were identified for the students. Subsequently, the students chose topics the first week of September and provided rough drafts the first week of October which received peer and faculty reviews. Finally, the project was turned in the Monday of Thanksgiving week. It should be noted that the video was not peer reviewed. The survey required students to self-assess three main topics: communication skills, student interest/engagement and project value/format using a Likert scale (Genereux 2014) shown in Table 1. The survey questions varied slightly between the two groups as they specifically identified the name of the course and degree programs. Table 1 Survey Statements In addition to the self-assessment survey, the Association of American Colleges and Universities VALUE rubric was provided to students and utilized for grading. The course instructor and nontechnical faculty viewed the videos and scored the students on the rubric. The rubric identifies five different areas for assessment; organization, language, delivery, supp