Collaborative Experience Between Social Communication and Informatics Engineering in the Educational Videos Production
Article Sidebar
Total or partial reproduction of the contents of the journal are authorized for educational, investigative or academic purposes as long as the source is cited. In order to make reproductions for other purposes, it is necessary to have the express authorization of the imprint or Sello Editorial of the Universidad de Medellín.
Main Article Content
Abstract
The study that gave rise to the research project discussed in this paper is a comparative analysis of visual and textual languages. In this case, the textual calculus PiCO (created in 1996 by Avispa research group at Universidad del Valle and Universidad Javeriana) and the visual calculus GraPiCO (also developed by Avispa in 2000) were used. The project’s goals were to establish in a basic way what perceptions does a user have when confronted with these two types of languages, as well as to find under what circumstances will it be considered that a given language performs better than the other. In this sense, let us remember the popular saying 'a picture is worth a thousand words', but also, 'a word tells more tan a thousand images'. To answer these questions, an experiment consisting of several sessions was designed: The top 5 universities in Santiago de Cali were visited and pedagogical workshops, evaluations and surveys were performed. Thus, levels of assimilation, apprehension and acceptance of these two programming languages from a population selected according to certain specific parameters were measured. In order to produce the audiovisual material used in the learning sessions, a methodology was created and adopted for ensuring its communicative efficacy, and it became the main contribution of the study, it is introduced step by step in this paper. It is concluded that the methodology led to the development of effective and convincing audiovisual material.
Article Details
References
Asinsten, J. (2017). Comunicación visual y tecnología de gráficos en computadora. Educ.ar y Ministerio de Educación, Ciencia y Tecnología.
Blomberg, G. (2014). Understanding video as a tool for teacher education: investigating instructional strategies to promote reflection. Instructional Science, 42(3), 443-463.
Brame, C. (2016). Effective Educational Videos: Principles and Guidelines for Maximizing Student Learning from Video Content. CBE Life Sci Educ., 15(4). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-03-0125
Bravo, E., Amante, B., Simo, P., Enache, M., y Fernández, V. (2011). Video as a new teaching tool to increase student motivation [conferencia]. 2011 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (educon), IEEE.
Calandra, B. (2009). Using Video Editing to Cultivate Novice Teachers’ Practice. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(1), 73-94.
Carvajal, A. (2010). Teoría y práctica de la sistematización de experiencias (4° ed.). Universidad del Valle, Escuela de Trabajo Social y Desarrollo Humano.
Cronin, M. (1997). The effects of visuals versus no visuals on learning outcomes from interactive multimedia instruction. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 8(2), 46-71.
De Federico, S., Gago, J., Avogradini, M., Melfi, L., y Gonnet, S. (2016). Definición de una herramienta de calificación y priorización de nuevos requerimientos de software por medio de la valoración de los clientes. En XXII Congreso Argentino de Ciencias de la Computación (CACIC 2016) (pp. 595-604). Universidad Nacional de San Luis.
Hardman, J. (2015). Tutor-student interaction in seminar teaching: Implications for professional development. Active Learning in Higher Education, 17(1), 63-76.
Horakova, T. (2014). On Improving the Experiment Methodology in Pedagogical Research. International Education Studies, 7(9), 84-98.
Jara, O. (s. f.). Orientaciones Teórico-Prácticas para la Sistematización de Experiencias. Centro de Estudios y Publicaciones Alforja.
Jones, S. (2002). Research on the Relationship between Verbal and Nonverbal Communication: Emerging Integrations. Journal of Communication, 52(3), 499-521.
Kayumova, L., Savva, L., Soldatchenko, A., Sirazetdinov, R., y Akhmetov, L. (2016). The Technology of Forming of Innovative Content for Engineering Education. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 11(9), 3029-3039.
List, A., y Ballenger, E. (2019). Comprehension across mediums: the case of text and video. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 1-22.
Milner, R. (1999) Communicating and Mobile Systems: The Pi Calculus. Cambridge University Press.
Ministerio de Educación Nacional (men). (2019, febrero 28). Estadísticas. Sistema Nacional de Información de la Educación Superior (snies). Recuperado de: https://www.mineducacion.gov.co/sistemasinfo/Informacion-a-la-mano/212400:Estadisticas.
Minnes, M. (2019). Podcast Highlights: Targeted Educational Videos from Repurposed Lecturecapture Footage. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 365-371.
Norton, P., y Hathaway, D. (2010). Video Production as an Instructional Strategy: Content Learning and Teacher Practice. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 10(1), 145-166.
Otzen, T., y Manterola, C. (2017). TeÌcnicas de muestreo sobre una poblacioÌn a estudio. International Journal of Morphology, 35(1), 227-232.
Pappas, I. (2017). Investigating students’ use and adoption of with-video assignments: lessons learnt for video-based open educational resources. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 29(1), 160-177.
Ritchie, S. (2016). Self-assessment of video-recorded presentations: Does it improve skills? Active Learning in Higher Education, 17(3), 207-221.
Rueda, C., Álvarez, G., Quezada, L. O., Tamura, G., Valencia, F., Díaz, J., y Assayag, G. (2001). Integrating Constraints and Concurrent Objects in Musical Applications: A Calculus and its Visual Language. Constraints, 6(1), 21-52.
Saeli, M. (2011). Teaching Programming in Secondary School: A Pedagogical Content Knowledge Perspective. Informatics in Education, 1, 73-88.
Schworm, S. (2014). Learning with video -based examples - Are you sure you do not need help? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(6), 546-558.
Seidel, T. (2013). Instructional strategies for using video in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 34(1), 56-65.
Signer, B. (2014). A Model of Cooperative Learning with Intergroup Competition and Findings When Applied to an Interactive Video Reading Program. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 25(2), 141-158.
Tavera Romero, C., y Díaz, J. (2007). Nuevo cálculo visual GraPiCO: Presentación de sus características fundamentales. En Memorias del 2° Congreso Colombiano de Computación. Pontificia Universidad Javeriana. Bogotá.
Tavera Romero, C., y Díaz J. (2008). Breve discusión de las ventajas de los lenguajes visuales frente a los textuales: caso de estudio el cálculo GraPiCO [conferencia]. III Congreso Colombiano de Computación. Medellín.
Tavera Romero, C., Cano, C., y Espinosa, L. (2012). Estudio comparativo entre lenguajes textuales y lenguajes visuales. Caso: PiCO y GraPiCO. Universidad de San Buenaventura Cali, Universidad Autónoma de Occidente. Recuperado de http://bibliotecadigital.usb.edu.co/handle/10819/1338.
Tavera Romero, C., Díaz, J., Soto, A., Gallego, J. y Jojoa, A. (2007). Alternativa de Comprobación sintáctica de VLP: Gsig Parsing. Aspectos formales y el caso de estudio: E_GraPiCO. En G. Simari y A. De Giusti (Eds.), Anales del XIII Congreso Argentino de Ciencias de la Computación (pp.1632-1644). RedUNCI.
Velilla, J. (2010). Virtual and Real Classroom in Learning Audiovisual Communication and Education. Comunicar: Scientific Journal of Media Literacy, XVIII(35), 183-190.
Yadav, A. (2011). If a picture is worth a thousand words is video worth a million? Differences in affective and cognitive processing of video and text cases. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 23(1), 15-37.
Yang, K-H. (2015). Critical Assessment of Video Production in Teacher Education: Can video production foster community-engaged scholarship? McGill Journal of Education, 49(3), 661-673.