Behind the Scenes with a Video Training Platform: The Challenges of Researching the Provision of Ope

Advances in Internet of Things, 2013, 3, 66-72

http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ait.2013.34009 Published Online October 2013 (http://www.scirp.org/journal/ait)

Behind the Scenes with a Video Training Platform: The

Challenges of Researching the Provision of Open

Educational Resources

Ayse Kok

Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey

Email: ayshe.kok@gmail.com

Received June 5, 2013; revised July 22, 2013; accepted August 3, 2013

mits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

ABSTRACT

Video training platforms are now being implemented on a large scale in organizations. In this paper, I look at a video

training platform including open educational resources available for many employees with varying patterns and motiva-

tions for use. This has provided me with a research challenge to find methods that help other practitioners in the field

understand and explain such initiativ es. I describe ways to model the research and identif y where pressures and contra-

dictions can be found, drawing on a reflective view of my own practice in performing the research. Open educational

resources are defined as technology-enabled educational resources that are openly available for consultation, use and

adaptation by users for non-commercial purposes [1]. The bank subject to this case study has been the first organisation

in Turkey that provided open educational resources for all its employees. The video platform (called “For @ Tube”)

provides users with over 100 video lectures drawn from reputable universities around the world including Yale and

Harvard. Other learning tools such as discussion forums, blogs and traditional e-learning courses have been made avail-

able to the users on th e e-learning platform called “For @” since 2006. In this paper, I ai m to introduce th e new video

training platform (“For @ Tube”) and outline some of the main research issues surrounding such an initiative. I seek to

explore theoretical and practical approaches that can provide suitable tools for analysis. Activity theory is seen as a

suitable approach for macroanalysis and its use is illustrated in terms of the complexity of large scale research. Activity

theory, besides informing research perspectives, can be turned in upon the research process itself, allowing us to con-

sider the challenges and context of the research. By using activity theory in this way and illustrating from a range of

practical approaches, I demonstrate and illustrate a useful research approach.

Keywords: E-Learn ing; Open Content; Video; Action Research ; Activity Theory

1. Introduction

Open educational resources are defined as technology-

enabled educational resources that are openly available

for consultation, use and adaptation by users for non-

commercial purposes (UNESCO, 2002). The in ternet has

recently seen an increase in such initiatives, including

areas such as MIT Open Course Ware, CORE (China

Open Resource for Education), Wikipedia, Open Learn

and Open Course Ware Universia. Key features of many

of such in itiatives includ e the prov ision of course co ntent,

the ability to adapt, use and develop content, the avail-

ability of social learning tools, and the introduction of

other learning tools. The range of initiatives is illus-

trated by the membership of the Open Cour se Ware Con-

sortium (http://www.ocwconsortium.org) which has mem-

bers from a diverse number of countries. The impact of

these resources and changes in the ability of individual

users to access such educational materials is likely to

impact significantly on how people learn. The confine-

ment of knowledge to educational institutes is likely to

be challenged. Alternatively, new power structures may

arise as a result of “big players” dominating the open

resource markets. The question arises as to how these

open resources will impact on the learning of employees

or groups of employees. Will these resources empower

learners and how will learners’ experience change? Cou-

pled with the advent of open resources, there is also a

development of new software and hardware tools such as

software that supports social learning and mobile com-

puting that may change the possible affordances of such

technologies.

A. KOK 67

For @ Tube (Figure 1) is a video training platform

provided by a Turkish banking institution and it entails

open educational resources. The project was officially

launched on 20 August 2012. Currently it provides over

200 video lectures for personal study. The material used

in this platform is mostly derived from global universi-

ties’ course materials. In addition, training videos from

local providers and the global bank’s (with whom the

Turkish bank has established a joint venture) videos are

also utilized. The conversion of all of these materials into

an appropriate provision for For @ was conducted using

an “integrity” model where the content is kept as close as

possible to the original source material with adjustments

made relating to presentation on the web, rights issues,

and reshaping for a wider audience.

The entrance point for the video training platform is a

website for employees called “For @”. The e-platform

“For @” which is a web-based application developed by

a third company is divided into 2 sections (F igure 1):

E-learning portal: The e-learning portal called For @

includes over 350 asynchronous web-based courses, an

online library and a social learning platform which pro-

vides digital collaboration tools such as blogs, forums

and an internal social networking platform. This built-in

social environment enables participants to share informa-

tion about the training they have taken online or offline

and communicate with colleagues at other branches.

The digital learning catalog (including videos) consists

of four types of training:

1) Mandatory courses: These can be in the form of ex-

isting catalog courses or courses specifically developed

for the bank based on the managers’ needs (courses about

product/process/service).

2) Regulatory mandatory courses: These are courses

that need to be taken by every bank personnel due to the

compliance issues within the Turkish banking industry

(e.g.: information securıty, operational risk).

3) Elective courses: These are courses which can be

selected from the existing course catalog based on one’s

specific interest.

Figure 1. General appearance of the online learning plat-

form used in the bank.

4) Personal development: These are catalog courses

that aim to improve one’s soft skills through his/her pro-

fessional life. Some of these courses can also be accessed

from the online performance management tool based on

the specific targeted skills of the employees.

It is also a high level management mandate to conduct

frequent online exams via the LMS in order to enhance

the branch personnels’ information about the bank’s

products and sevices. From time to time, online knowl-

edge competition s are also held within the bank based on

the departmental requests.

Video Portal: This section includes video-based les-

sons in the categories of finance, professional develop-

ment, bank-specific areas and personal development.

Videos that are produced internally or announcements of

higher level management are also included in this sec-

tion.

The platform has also searching capabilities, tutorials,

and a technical and content help desk, is targeted at

nearly 9200 users of the bank. The platform is planned to

be made compatible with the mobile phones (any smart-

phone apart from Blackberry can display the online

courses.).

2. Video Training Platform—The Research

Challenge

For @ Tube (Figure 2) is a large project with a dedicated

e-learning team including also individuals involved with

research and evaluation. Besides this dedicated research

team others within the project have research interests

including academics responsible for the transformation

and development of content. The project as a whole is

viewed in terms of an action research model where the

results and impacts of research are fed back into project

development. Within th is paradigm there is also the chal-

lenge and the tension between academic research requir-

ing high degrees of rigour and having underlying theo-

retical aims and that of applied research with the re-

quirement of fast-feedback and relating more to the suc-

cess of the site via such issues as marketing, usability

studies, site design etc.

Researching such a large project involves examining

several different areas, each of which presents its own set

of challenges. The four main strands of research include;

training with For @, the users’ experience, project de-

velopment, and sustainability. To this, we can add a

meta-layer; the challenge of researching open content.

This paper is chiefly concerned with this objective and

aims to illustrate our own problems and dilemmas in

conducting such research and by offering our insights

into models of research provide a guide for others in re-

search techniques.

An idealised approach to the research has been to:

) Identify and develop theoretical frameworks for

A. KOK

Figure 2. General appearance of the video training platform used in the bank.

analysis at macro and micro levels;

2) Find tools and ways of mapping and talking about

our research;

3) Develop and find appropriate methodologies to en-

able us to collect and process research findings.

This list may seem very logical and structured as pre-

sented here but the evolution of the framework, as we

learn within an action research paradigm is more hap-

hazard and iterative in nature. A research technique is

seen not as something developed in advance but rather as

something in the process of development with continual

trials, implementations and reworking. For @ itself is a

continually evolving construct and this presents an addi-

tional challenge to research. The three approaches listed

above will be described in more detail with specific ref-

erence to research within the project and also to re-

searching users’ experience.

2.1. Developing Theoretical Frameworks of

Analysis at the Macro- and Micro-Levels

2.1.1. Acti on Research

One possible criticism of academic research is that the

impacts of such research often have little effect on or-

ganisational practice. A possible reason for this may be

the divide that exists between the world of academia and

the world of work. The process of academic research can

be very slow with the major outputs often consisting of

writings in journals for an academic audience. Research

is often conducted from “afar” that is, it is separate from

the object of research. An advantage of this is that re-

search is more likely to be independent if not connected

to the object of the research. This independence and ob-

jectivity is unlikely to be untainted in that research and

researchers are embedded within research paradigms,

personal social-cultural influences, and the influence of

the grant holders who partially or wholly shape the re-

search questions. The principles of action research call

for a research process that involves change within that

which is researched [2]. In a sense it is more of an ex-

perimental “trial and error” process in that it is iterative,

ongoing and affects change in practice. It can therefore

be seen as a process of reflection and practice, often re-

ferred to as praxis. In order to affect action research it is

necessary to

1) Involve more of the organisation than simply the

ded icated rese archers,

2) To integrate the results of the research into decision

making at managerial levels.

Dangers exist however when moving towards a culture

of “self-development” where Action Research is seen as

an efficiency tool as opposed to its more idealised aims

of development and empowerment of workers [3]. There

are also dangers when research is taken out of the hands

of research savvy practitioners and placed in those of

research novices. Hence, there may be many models of

action research adopted according to one’s perspective.

Another key issue of action research is the “social-tech-

nical” view which sees the successful development of

any organisation being an integration of the right social

and developmental environment with the use of appro-

A. KOK 69

priate tools. For example, the use of tools for doing re-

search and for enhancing interpersonal communication

within the research community and others in the organi-

sation is part of praxis resulting from the research itself.

Action research can provide us with a framework of re-

search at the level of For @ as an organisation but also as

a framework of reflection and practice. In this case we

see this as a way of developing ourselves as individuals

and as a team allowing an exploration of ways of work-

ing and knowing.

It has been mentioned [4]:

“The self of the researcher can best be understood as

intermeshed with others through webs of interpersonal

and professional relationships that co-construct the re-

searcher’s identity.”

In this sense action research is abou t both personal and

professional development.

2.1.2. Activit y Theory as a Way of Modelling

Macro-Behaviour

For @ Tube represents one of the largest open education

interventions in the financial sector in Turkey and as

such the opportunity exists to understand how this oper-

ates and develops at a macro level.

Possible contenders for analysis include activity theory

and actor network theory which allow potential ways of

understan di n g macro-behaviour.

Actor Network Theory (ANT) focuses on identifying

the various actors in a social organizations and examin-

ing the relationship between these actors [5]. Activity

theory focuses on action as it is mediated by tools within

a socio-cultural context [5]. It was used as an analytical

framework in this instance because of its educational

applications including learning in organisations and that

ANT was felt to be less clearly structured as an analytical

tool.

The foundation for Activity Theory comes from the

Vygotskian view that all action is mediated by tools

whether these be external or internal, concrete or psy-

chological [6]. This has been developed into concepts

such as “person plus” and cognition as a distributed ac-

tivity located within a social group and th e tools that they

use (Perkins, 1993). Leont’ev, a prodigy of Vygotsky,

explored the way in which this could be applied through

emphasising the activity as the main unit of analysis

(Kaptelinin and Nardi, 2006).

Engeström extended the framework and the subject-

tools-object model to take into account aspects of the

context within which such action was taken [6,7]. He

represented the interrelationships between these contex-

tual elements within a triangular structure each node rep-

resenting some aspect of interaction. The additional con-

textual nodes that he added were “rules”, “community”

and “division of labour” [8,9]. This framework was

adopted as a practical tool of analysis since it could be

applied to view For @ from any number of different

perspectives. These different perspectives could then be

contrasted, reflected upon, or pushed against each other

to force the identification of characteristics within each

perspective and various “contradictions” that existed

between such perspectives.

Figure 3 demonstrates the use activity theory as a way

of viewing the research aspects of For @. Researching

such a complex and large training initiative provides

many opportunities and areas for potential study and of-

ten these are driven by project aims. These aims can be

envisaged as being part of the rules in which the research

is located and represent rules embedded in project design.

Other rules are external to the project and include guide-

lines for general social research. These deal with issues

such as research ethics which can sometimes create ten-

sions in terms of the need for fast feedback and the drives

for “interesting stories” that may come from other parts

of the project such as marketing, or management. “Rule s”

may also relate to perceptions of individuals within the

team (i.e. not formally held or shared rules) and relate to

theoretical perceptions and opinions on the nature of

good educational practice. Much research demands a

certain standard of rigour (lower risk of error) which

might create contradictions with the need for quick feed-

back (higher risk of error) to help move the implementa-

tion process forward. This contradiction highlights a

general problem of the slowness of academic research to

reach and inform its intended audience. By identifying

and recognising this contradiction ways can be investi-

gated for disseminating research internally in order to

quickly feedback into the implementation and adaptation

processes.

When examining Figure 3 contradictions maybe ana-

lysed within the structure itself e.g. between the research

interests, motivations, and perceived views of the team

players, between individuals and rules, about the essence

and nature of research itself, about the choice of methods

to monitor the learning effectiveness of TEB For @. Con-

tradictions can also be viewed of as occurring across dif-

ferent perspectives. For example, a contradiction may

exist between the need for neutrality and a critical ap-

proach of the researchers within the research perspective

and the need for promotion and publicity within a mar-

keting perspective that is directed towards gaining the

attention of us ers .

2.1.3. Activit y T h eo ry and Ac tion Research

It is clear that Action Research and Activity Theory can

be used effectively together. As Somekh (2006) says

when talking about Action Research, “…activity theory

is particularly helpful because it gives priority to col-

aborative decision making on the basis of sharing l

A. KOK

Figure 3. Using activity theory to represent the research perspective within TEB For @.

knowledge abou t identified ‘contradictions’”.

The socio-technical aspects of action theory can be re-

lated to aspects of tool mediation and the development of

community. Activity Theory can be used to iden tify con-

tradictions and these can be used to implement change.

Such chang e might create new contr adiction s but through

the iterative process of action research improvements can

be made. A multi-perspective approach can be used to

inform those e-learning practitioners working within the

banking industry to affect change. The challenge of how

this dissemination occurs is something that needs to be

addressed.

2.2. Tools for Mapping and Talking about

Research

Taking into account th e socio-technical aspects of Action

Research and the central role of tools within Activity

Theory the development of various tools for thinking,

analysing and describing is a key part of my research

process. With such an array of available media there are

difficulties in identifying the most suitable way or ways

for research discussion and dissemination. The develop-

ment of a research community that allows the findings of

For @ to be discussed and disseminated can be seen as a

good area for the application of action research. It can

mean experimenting with different tools and the con-

struction of different types of space. In discussing and

disseminating research findings a number of technologi-

cal options present themselves as possible platforms e.g.

blogs, wikis, editable web sites and facilities which can

be found in the For @ itself. Within For @, there is the

opportunity to create discussion forums around research

issues.

These forums can be opened up to anyone. Individual

blogs in For @ can also reveal insights into research and

development of For @ and open content as a whole.

Linking and exploring blogs can be of value as a research

activity.

2.3. Developing Appropriate Methodologies

Researching For @ is a complex phenomenon and vari-

ous tensions exist internal to the research perspective in

such issues as:

 Tensions between pedagogical paradigms;

 Intrusiveness of research methods;

 Nature of sampling and reaching hard to reach groups;

 Speed of research feedback;

 Choosing suitable analytical techniques;

 Dissemination methods;

 Nature of research tools used;

 Dealing with a non-homogeneous user base.

As an example we can look at one of these issues in

A. KOK 71

more depth. One of these is the fact the user base appears

to be very heterogeneous and heavily skewed in terms of

time spent on the site toward the low user. This pyrami-

dal structure in terms of the time spent visiting a site is

probably a common occurrence in many web sites al-

though comparative studies are difficult because open

content sites may differ greatly in form and function.

Every website is in a sense competing against a large

number of other sites in terms of grabbing a person’s

attention and part of the decision that people make in

spending time on a site is their initial perception of the

site’s value. This can very much depend on how the

home page of the site is presented and whether the site

gives a clear indication of what kind of content or activ-

ity that it might contain.

A major challenge is to find out about the user experi-

ence. Questions relating to this challenge include:

1) How does the use of For @ fit into the wider con-

text of the user’s formal and informal learning context?

2) Are users learning from For @? If so how are they

learning?

3) Are users engaging and using the tools? If so what

are they using the tools for?

Distinctions will exist in terms of types of users.

Learners may primarily study or use content but others

may engage with social learning or using For @ tools.

Part of the challenge is to identify the types of user. One

possible means of tracing the user’s experience is by us-

ing website logs. Generally one can infer whether a user

was browsing, skimming, downloading or printing con-

tent, or systematically studying or reading parts of a unit.

This however does not tell us about what the user is

learning and with For @ it is not possible to use pre- and

post-study tests since learners will often not be studying

a unit as a whole. In this instance, thinking of the units as

courses is inappropriate since th is implies a journey fro m

a starting point to an end point, and an externally struc-

tured pathway through th e material often with some form

of assessment. Identifying learning therefore depends on

the unique experiences of users and needs to be process

orientated. In order to get at the experience of users and

the process of learning qualitative studies can provide a

rich picture and thick description of users’ experience.

There are also several technological tools that can help

the researcher in this process although there is always the

problem of the degree of intrusiveness in any research

exercise.

One method of examining whether learning is taking

place is by in situ observation and making inferences

from user activity. Getting users to think aloud and to

record their thoughts can help in this although there are

disadvantages to this technique. Another is by using in-

terviews where a user’s learning experience can be ex-

amined. Simple questions such as “What have you

learned?” or “What have you found out that you didn’t

know before?” can act as the basis for more probing

questions perhaps relating to a range of skills within

Bloom’s taxonomy [3]. A problem of such interviews is

that they can become an additional form of training in

that by causing the participant to recall or reconstruct

their experience one is actually changing and r eshap ing it.

Thus the research is adding to the learning experience.

Remote monitoring can allow a clearer insight into the

actual live experience of the learner.

3. Discussion

For @ represents one of the largest developments within

the open content community in the corporate settings in

Turkey and presents a challenge for research. This chal-

lenge exists within four strands: teaching with For @, the

users’ experience, project development, and sustainabi-

lity. In this paper, I have indicated and discussed the use

of action research and activity theory as tools to enable

us to think and understand the dynamics of a large educa-

tional initiative. Action research can potentially allow

reflection, action and change within such a project. Ac-

tivity Theory represents a tool for recognising areas for

action and change and communicating issues to the pro-

ject team. It also allows us as researchers to inwardly

analyse our own behaviour and help in our personal and

professional development.

As researchers, there is a need to disseminate inter-

nally and externally the research findings to inform-

change. The development of communication tools and

the novel use of technology to do this are considered an

evolutionary process, experiment and change by trial and

error. Providing useful research networks and integrating

with others are important in the social construction of

knowledge and understanding about open educational

resources. How to use tools such as For @ Tube effec-

tively is a challenge and an important part of my own

iterative process of development within an action re-

search framework. Reflecting on my own research prac-

tice can be considered a meta-research process.

Some of the research challenges of finding out about

users’ experience have been illustrated. Possible techno-

logical tools that can help in this process have been dis-

cussed. A consideration of the use of tools as appropri-

ated by individuals is a characteristic of the socio-tech-

nical view of action research. I have considered re-

searching For @ Tube in terms of a number of different

perspectives and themes. A three level approach has been

presented. At one level, For @ Tube can be viewed using

activity theory to shape various perspectives and then

examine intra-nodal and extra-nodal contradictions be-

tween the perspectives. At the level of the community of

researchers, there has been a consideration of the sharing

and dissemination of knowledge and the tools can aid

A. KOK

this process. At the third level, there has been a consid-

eration of the challenge of developing research tools us-

ing the iterative processes of action research, which is

illustrated in Engeström’s [2] ideas: expansion, people,

tools and community are in a constant state of change.

REFERENCES

[1] UNESCO, “Forum on the Impact of Open Courseware for

Higher Education in Developing Countries, Final Re-

port,” 2002.

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001285/128515e.pdf

[2] “Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. The Classification

of Educational Goals,” In: B. Bloom, Ed., Handbook 1:

Cognitive Domain, Longmans, London, 1956.

[3] V. Kaptelinin, and B. A. Nardi, “Acting with Technology:

Activity Theory and Interaction Design, ” MIT Press, C a m-

bridge, 2006.

[4] J. Greenwood and M. L. Levin, “Introduction to Action

Research: Social Research for Social Change,” Sage,

London, 2006.

[5] M. Engeström and M. Cole, “A Cultural-Historical Ap-

proach to Distributed Cognition,” In: G. Salomon, Ed.,

Distributed Cognitions. Psychological and Educational Con-

sid e r a t i o ns, C a m b r i d g e U n i v er sity Pre s s , C a m b r i d g e , 1993.

[6] Y. Engeström, “Developmental Work Research: Expand-

ing Activity Theory in Practice,” Lehmanns Media, Ber-

lin, 2005.

[7] L. S. Vygotsky, “Mind and Society: Development of

Higher Psychological Pr ocesses,” Harvard University P ress,

Harvard, 1980.

[8] B. Latour, “Reassembling the Social. An Introduction to

Actor-Network- Theory,” Oxford University Pre ss, Oxford ,

2005.

[9] D. N. Perkins, “Person-Plus: A Distributed View of Thin k-

ing and Learning,” In: G. Salomon, Ed., Distributed Cog-

nitions. Psychological and Educational Considerations,

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993.

[10] B. Somekh, “Action Research: A Methodology for C ha n ge

and Development,” Open University Press, Maidenhead,

2006.

上一篇:Developing E-society Cognitive 下一篇:Electronic Commerce Technology

我要分享到：

职称论文发表交流平台！

Behind the Scenes with a Video Training Platform: The Challenges of Researching the Provision of Ope

最新文章NEWS

推荐期刊Tui Jian

热点文章HOT