115 University Faculty Describe Their Use of Moving Images in Teaching and Learning and Their Perceptions of the Library’s Role in That Use Jane Johnson Otto Jane Johnson Otto is Media and Music Metadata Librarian at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey; e-mail: jjotto@rutgers.edu. © 2014 Jane Johnson Otto, Attribution-NonCommercial (http://creativecom- mons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) CC BY-NC The moving image plays a significant role in teaching and learning; faculty in a variety of disciplines consider it a crucial component of their coursework. Yet little has been written about how faculty identify, obtain, and use these resources and what role the library plays. This study, which engaged teaching faculty in a dialogue with library faculty, revealed a gap between faculty’s film and video information retrieval needs and provision of access by the library. Ultimately, the findings of this study can inform and transform library practices to make more moving images available for use in coursework and research. urs is a culture pervaded by images. The moving image, in particular, surrounds us: on television, on the web, via mobile devices, and, increasingly, in teaching and learning. Use of video in higher education is accelerating rapidly; it is expected to increase further, and the demand for educationally targeted video archives and services is high.1 In a culture where processes of media creation, distri- bution, and consumption are faster and cheaper than ever before,2 faculty more and more are integrating moving images into the classroom, as a way of informing discussion, enriching understanding, and bridging the generational divide that can mark both media fluency and faculty/ student relations. It is surprising, then, that so little has been written on faculty use of moving images: how they are used, by whom, and why, what types are favored, where faculty identify and obtain appropriate titles, the role of the library catalog, and barriers to use. Without these data, it is difficult to define the library’s role in this increasingly important aspect of the edu- cational process. In fact, a 2009 Intelligent Television report on video use in higher education reveals that, of all obstacles to video use cited by faculty, a substantial number were rooted in library services: the library lacked copies; the library catalog was poor; there was inadequate information about library acquisitions.3 This paper reports findings from a discussion forum, survey, and interviews crl12-399 116 College & Research Libraries March 2014 with teaching faculty about their use of moving images in coursework and re- search and the library’s role in that use. At Rutgers University Libraries (RUL), moving images are a focus of techni- cal and public services and technology development. In addition to cataloging commercially released titles in the library catalog, the libraries led collaborative development of the statewide video re- pository, NJVid (www.njvid.net). They have targeted video deposits in the institutional repository, RUcore, in an effort to preserve and disseminate forms of research ineligible for traditional pub- lication. The libraries have worked with faculty to customize metadata for video research and developed a number of tools for managing and enabling discovery of these resources, including a workflow management system incorporating ex- tensive source and technical metadata for moving images.4 The libraries offer “partner portals” to provide portable, configurable, targeted access to selected collections; and RUanalytic, RUL’s award- winning video annotation tool, enables faculty to compile, annotate, and post clips to the repository for preservation and wide distribution.5 On the “traditional cataloging” side, the libraries have been anticipating the implementation of RDA6 and are active participants in a statewide initiative to develop an open-source integrated li- brary system. RUL librarians are closely following the progress of the Mellon Foundation–funded Kuali OLE Project (an open-source ILS designed by and for academic and research libraries),7 while concurrently evaluating discovery layers such as VuFind and Blacklight that sup- port faceting by format. Rutgers librarians know that moving images are ubiqui- tous, that demand for moving images (particularly streaming video) is bound to grow at dramatic rates, and that there will be significant implications for their technical and public services operations. In 2010–2011, Technical Services Depart- ment responsibilities were reorganized to meet growing needs in this area, and a new moving image cataloger was hired. The time was ripe to talk to faculty about moving images in research and the cur- riculum, to learn how they use film and video now, how they would like to use them, and how they are using the library catalog to find them. The libraries’ objec- tive was to transform technical and public services to enable greater use of moving images in coursework and research. Literature Review A rich body of research on the efficacy of moving images in teaching and learning exists in the education and psychology literature, and within many disciplines there is considerable literature on mov- ing image use in the specific curricula.8 However, relatively little has been said in the library literature about why and how faculty use video, and there appear to be no studies involving a dialogue on the topic between librarians and faculty. Much of the library literature on video in higher education focuses on student- or faculty-produced video, search and retrieval mechanisms such as transcript and caption mining or visual indexing, collection development, cataloging and metadata, video games, access via mobile devices, reserves, video tutorials, or video conferencing. In terms of faculty use of moving im- ages in teaching and learning, Krippel et al. (2009) discussed both recent and his- torical claims made for the value of mul- timedia (broadly defined) in education, and where multimedia has fallen short. The authors cite conflicting research findings in this area, noting that research studies have been formulated on multiple theoretical bases and that some have employed questionable methodologies. The authors assert that pedagogy must drive educational technology usage and not the reverse; therefore, future research should examine the educational environ- ments where new technologies yield superior results, identify and define the characteristics of those environments, and Moving Images in Teaching and Learning 117 identify those characteristics in specific disciplines.9 Shephard (2003) presented case studies to describe streaming video use in post–compulsory education in the United Kingdom. Although written be- fore video was extensively used in higher education, barriers of use described echo those of today: a lack of metadata and a plethora of technical issues.10 Barford and Weston (1997) presented original research on video as a teaching resource within a single university. Paralleling the current study, theirs found that the video selec- tion and acquisition process adopted by lecturers tends to be independent and in- dividualistic. The authors recommended that management of faculty video use be supported at the policy level through promotion of existing services. Informa- tion about video resources (inside and outside the institution) should be cen- tralized and disseminated. At the same time, faculty should be offered training in video selection and use, as well as time to develop customized resources. Barford and Weston’s findings, while 15 years old and predating YouTube, are strikingly similar to those presented in this paper, particularly with respect to how video is used, barriers to use, and confusion as to stewardship of the resources.11 Intelligent Television (2009) focused on video use in higher education more broadly. Based on interviews with 45 faculty and 12 librar- ians across 18 academic departments in 20 institutions nationwide, this study reported an accelerating faculty demand for video across disciplines, from arts, humanities, and sciences to professional and vocational curricula. Authors noted that technological, legal, and other barri- ers continue to thwart faculty attempting to identify and access the video resources they need, and that faculty and librarians are eager to collaborate in creation of resources that are easy to find and use.12 In other literature on moving images and libraries, Primary Research Group (2011) published a study on library use of video and audio based on a 30-ques- tion survey returned by 50 North Ameri- can organizations, including colleges, universities, public libraries, and other cultural institutions. Questions pertained to budgets, facilities, formats, streaming video use, licensing, and other topics, but insights gleaned from these data would largely relate to library services to libraries, rather than library services to patrons.13 Special media issues of Library Trends, published in 1967, 1971, 1985, and 2010, confirmed the aphorism that “the more things change the more they stay the same.” The introduction to the 2010 issue chronicled a continuing series of shortcomings related to metadata, rights issues, budget, format changes, and technology.14 In terms of solutions, Vallier (2010) asserted that media centers are models for innovation and adapt- ability and described several areas where thinking outside the box has produced advances in services to moving image users.15 Healy (2010) added to Vallier’s innovations with her description of Net- flix as a collection development tool and means to speed content to patrons. Her comment that “Today’s research libraries are not the right finding tools for users” is consistent with some of the findings presented here.16 The Research Project This research project was conceived as a conversation between librarians and faculty in three parts: a discussion forum, survey, and interviews conducted in a variety of venues throughout the duration of the study. The purpose was to answer the following questions about faculty use of moving images in teaching, learning, and research: • How often are moving images used? • What types and formats of mov- ing images are most useful? • How does usage vary by disci- pline? • How do faculty identify relevant moving images, where do they obtain them, and how effective are the library catalog and other li- 118 College & Research Libraries March 2014 brary services in facilitating these processes? • What are the obstacles to faculty use of moving images? Faculty input on how moving images are discovered and used for teaching, learning, and research will help library professionals assess library services in this area. The project targeted faculty who actively use moving images in their coursework or research at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey. Because the research addresses the area where teaching and library tools converge, and because library tools and technologies are emerging and evolving at a rapid rate, participation was limited to the Rutgers population in order to have a manageable and representative sample of teaching faculty using moving images within a single library environment. Moving Images in Rutgers University Libraries To place the research in context, some background about moving images in the Rutgers University Libraries is needed. RUL is a system of nearly 30 libraries and resource centers on three main campuses across the state. The New Brunswick- Piscataway Campus is composed of five smaller campuses,17 and Rutgers Cooperative Extension county offices are found in all 21 New Jersey counties.18 Rutgers also has several off-campus sites located at three community colleges19 and is actively growing its offerings of online courses and degree programs. The libraries hold approximately 20,000 moving image titles, the bulk of which are located in the Media Center on the Douglass Campus, although smaller collections may be found in five other libraries on as many campuses.20 Delivering physical media from multiple locations to faculty across the state is a continuing challenge. A rapidly growing collection of commercial streaming video serves all campuses, as do the digital vid- eos in the institutional repository. Rutgers University Libraries have sig- nificant holdings in older formats, but vir- tually all new moving image acquisitions are DVD or electronic, either locally pro- duced or commercially released. Stream- ing titles are purchased individually, or as a subscription to a video database, or acquired through the Federal Depository Library Program. Some are restricted to Rutgers affiliates; others are available to all via open access; some are in the public domain. Streaming video may be stored in the institutional repository, hosted on vendor platforms, or available via NJVid, the statewide video repository. Soon the Libraries will host electronic media cen- trally through a streaming server with authentication/authorization capability. Patrons can expect to find titles of mov- ing image resources within the libraries’ website, but where a resource is listed can be a function of its subject, provenance, authorship, and acquisition workflow. Listings of individual titles and collec- tions are scattered, and not necessarily where users would expect to find them. Patrons encounter references on the al- phabetical and subject-classed “Indexes & Databases” list (linked from “Find Ar- ticles” and “Research Resources”), in two different listings of new acquisitions, as well as in LibGuides, the library catalog, and RUcore, the institutional repository. Broadly speaking, commercially re- leased streaming titles are described in the library catalog alongside all other moving image formats and made available, usu- ally just to Rutgers affiliates, through links to the host platforms. The largest influx of streaming video comes to the libraries as video databases—almost exclusively, so far, from Alexander Street Press, which provides the platform, the bibliographic records, playlist creation and sharing capability, and numerous other features.21 Examples are Dance in Video, Counseling and Therapy in Video, and Theatre in Video. Rutgers-produced videos (that is, those forming part of the university’s scholarly output) are described and made freely available through RUcore to any person Moving Images in Teaching and Learning 119 with access to the Internet. Research data and conference proceedings comprise the majority of moving images in the repository, but RUcore also includes educational materials created by the university’s strategic collaborators, such as the oral histories in the Asia Society’s China Boom project.22 RUcore titles are generally not listed in the library catalog, since the Libraries anticipate federated search capability in the future. Librarians at Rutgers University Libraries, believing the organization’s moving image collections to be under- discovered and underused, wished to make them more accessible, particularly to faculty who had been vocal about the importance of these resources. Approval of an Institutional Review Board exemp- tion was obtained, the discussion forum was organized, and the research project commenced. Faculty Discussion Forum on Moving Images in the Curriculum Because of the dearth of current literature on faculty use of moving images, it was important to hear directly from faculty on expressly how and why they use mov- ing images in coursework and research and how they use the library to find and obtain these resources. The discussion forum was planned to shed light on these questions as well as to engage faculty, provide a framework for further discus- sion, make contacts for later interviews, verify the validity of survey questions already drafted, and promote the survey. The two-hour forum was organized by the author, with (public services) Media Librarian Jane E. Sloan and their staffs. It opened with an introductory presentation by the author briefly outlining the librar- ies’ role in facilitating video use, some constraints under which the libraries are forced to operate (such as cataloging rules and technology shortfalls), and the availability of options that can improve services. The author stressed that the Libraries can more effectively exercise its options once it has a clear idea of how faculty use video and the catalog and how they’d like to use them. The audience also learned that changes in library staff, emerging developments in cataloging rules and systems, as well as the prolifera- tion of streaming video, put the library at a crossroads where their comments could make a difference in transforming video cataloging, availability, and use. Three faculty speakers were then introduced. Following these presentations, a 45-min- ute question-and-answer session allowed participants to share their experiences using moving images in research and the curriculum, discuss their concerns, and suggest improvements to library services. This part of the program was moderated by the author with a prepared list of talk- ing points. The discussion forum was video- recorded, originally with the single intent to document the proceedings for further analysis. The faculty presentations were outstanding and the organizers received numerous requests to view the proceed- ings online; so, with permission of the participants, we hope to make them avail- able in RUcore at a later date. To ensure maximum participation, the forum was scheduled as a luncheon event in late October. Publicity materials, developed and disseminated in consul- tation with the libraries’ Communica- tions Director, described the research project and included testimonials and a photograph that became the brand for the event. The forum merited a news story on the libraries homepage and was listed on the university’s online calendar. Deans in departments whose faculty were showcased were contacted individually and provided additional publicity through their own distribution outlets. The event was a success; fifty people attended, with library and teach- ing faculty equally represented. Many faculty, including those unable to attend, expressed considerable enthusiasm for the topic and contacted the organizers before and after to offer input and re- quest interviews. 120 College & Research Libraries March 2014 Three Rutgers faculty members from diverse disciplines were asked to open the forum by describing their own use of moving images in their work, using clips to illustrate. These three were heavy users of both moving images and the libraries and vocal advocates for media in teach- ing and learning. All spoke eloquently about the value of moving images in the university environment. One professor uses moving images both to increase media literacy and as a pedagogical tool to explain abstract concepts, reclaim lapsed attention in very long class sessions, and bring dis- tinguished lecturers from other institu- tions and countries into the classroom. A second teaches a range of classes, from introductory surveys to smaller-scale seminars and production courses. She incorporates moving images into all of these classes, and her usage exemplifies the range of films used in teaching and learning: clips, short documentaries, and occasionally feature films from the library, her own personal collection, or online videos from sources like YouTube. In addition, she employs her own research footage to teach research methods and show students how to effectively incorpo- rate video in ethnographic field work. The third speaker, a cinema studies professor, drew the analogy between film and art, pointing out that students studying the art and history of cinema are not using film as media adjuncts to their primary course of study: “they’re studying film as film.” Calling cinema studies a classical tradition, he argued the need for the ac- tual film artifacts for study and described the financial and philosophical struggles of cinema studies faculty to hold and maintain the university’s film collection.23 Survey Methodology After the discussion forum, a 17-question survey was individually e-mailed to at- tendees, as well as to the Media Library contact list, which is composed of ap- proximately 300 faculty members who use the university’s media collections. It was also distributed to university depart- ments via library liaisons as a means to reach other faculty employing moving images, across all campuses and disci- plines, who may not be in contact with the Media Librarian. Although the survey was confidential, more than 50 percent of respondents identified themselves by name. Therefore, it is known that the Media Library contact list, not surpris- ingly, produced a much higher response rate than blanket invitations sent through library liaisons, and those contacts are heavily weighted toward the social sci- ences and humanities. The survey was drafted prior to the dis- cussion forum in consultation with public, media, technical, and digital user services librarians. After the discussion forum, it was revised slightly based on comments made by the speakers and by members of the audience during the question and answer session. The questionnaire asked faculty for their discipline, department (optional), frequency of moving image use, and preferred moving image formats (DVD, web-based video, or other). They were asked to rate the value of various types of moving images (documenta- ries, fictional films, and so on), and the value of resources for identifying and obtaining moving images for teaching, learning, and/or research. In terms of the library catalog, respondents were asked about the library catalog’s ease of use and the relative value of various parts of the library catalog bibliographic display. They were also asked to rate particular obstacles to use (library-related and oth- erwise). Respondents were asked their availability for follow-up and offered a final, optional, open-ended question asking for “anything else you’d like to tell us about how or why you use moving images in your research or coursework.” Because the survey focused primar- ily on moving images in teaching and learning, it was considered important to include the university’s entire teaching community; therefore, “faculty,” for the purposes of this study and in this paper, Moving Images in Teaching and Learning 121 has been broadly defined as those em- ployed by Rutgers to teach classes. This allowed input from part-time lecturers and adjuncts who have not yet achieved permanent status as tenured faculty but who, it was believed, might be more likely to be classed as “digital natives” and more open to use of streaming video and newer technologies. Two hundred fifty faculty completed the survey. All quoted remarks in this paper are drawn from the survey responses, unless footnoted. Survey Responses Use of Moving Images by Discipline Survey responses indicate, not surpris- ingly, that use of video in coursework and research varies by discipline (see figure 1). The object of querying faculty about their teaching discipline was to determine differences between usage in hard sciences, social sciences, and the humanities. Respondents were asked to self-identify by broad area, rather than by department, since many Rutgers fac- ulty teach across departments, and some departments (such as psychology) span hard and social sciences. Of 250 survey respondents, 38 (15%) self-identified as working (“teaching and/or research”) in the natural, physical, and computing sciences; of these, five had responsibili- ties that crossed over into social sciences. With the exception of two respondents, all others self-identified as working in the social sciences and humanities, including area, gender, class and/or race studies, language studies, communication stud- ies, other visual/performing arts, and other social sciences and humanities. Two respondents came from vocational programs. As mentioned above, surveys distrib- uted to Media Librarian contacts were returned in disproportionately high numbers, and this may account for the relatively low response rate from sciences faculty. These faculty are also geographi- cally removed from the Media Center, where the Media Librarian works and where most of the Libraries’ moving im- ages are held. Responses to subsequent survey questions are consistent with sig- nificant video usage in the sciences, but they also indicate that any moving images employed by Rutgers sciences faculty are most likely acquired from sources other than the university libraries. (Interest- ingly, the science literature indicates that physics teachers were early adopters of figure 1 What is Your Area of Teaching or research at rutgers? (Select All That Apply.) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Number of Respondents Other Social Sciences and Humani�es Other Visual/Performing Arts Voca�onal Program Cinema Studies Communica�on Studies Language Studies Natural, Physical, Compu�ng Sciences Area, Gender, Class, and/or Race Studies 122 College & Research Libraries March 2014 visual media for teaching; they used visu- alizations long before any form of motion picture was available and were producing films since at least the early 1950s.24) Sci- ences faculty survey responses and inter- views suggest that many of these faculty are largely unaware that the Libraries purchase video and don’t realize titles can be searched in the library catalog. Accord- ing to a respondent in psychology, faculty were notified in the early 1990s that the Libraries no longer had funds available for purchasing video; perhaps this policy coincided with the beginnings of the seri- als crisis.25 He, and possibly many other sciences faculty, never returned to the Libraries for moving images. In dividing respondents into disci- plines, categories were broad, but cer- tain branches of the social sciences and humanities were called out, based on the assumption that moving image use in those areas would vary by specific dis- cipline and otherwise skew results. For example, cinema studies was expected to have a disproportionately high use of moving image materials; area, gender, class, and/or race studies were thought to rely heavily on fictional feature films. Visual/performing arts faculty were ex- pected to use performance recordings, and sciences faculty to screen moving images documenting a process. Frequency of Moving Images Use Virtually all respondents used moving images in the classroom a minimum of once or twice per academic year, and the majority (72%) used it six or more times (see figure 2).26 It is impossible to calculate the number of classes, or class sessions, any given professor would teach during an academic year, but a clearer picture emerges from the comments. Of 20 re- spondents who were more specific, 11 said they showed moving images in almost every class session; four said they showed something every week, and five said they screened moving images two to five times per class over the semester. One professor averages five videos per class and his stu- dents (combined) use up to 15 or 20 in their oral presentations. Many faculty assigned video outside the classroom as well as in class, although outside classroom usage was significantly lower than in-class use (see figure 3). Some of the outside class- room numbers may also represent viewing assignments for online or hybrid courses, where there is no classroom. figure 2 in a Typical Academic Year, How Many Times Do You use Moving images in the Classroom? 0 50 100 150 200 Number of Respondents 0 Once or Twice 3–5 Times Six or More Times Moving Images in Teaching and Learning 123 Many factors influence how often moving images are employed, includ- ing discipline and specific course topic. Many faculty point to greater use in undergraduate education, and use often appears to increase with class size and duration. Several responses suggested use of moving images in general is increasing, which may correspond to increasing me- dia availability, especially of online video from YouTube and similar sources. There were some indications that usage would TABLe 1 Highest and Lowest use by Discipline 72% of All respondents Screen 6+ Times per Academic Year: 94% of Cinema Studies 90% of Visual/Performing Arts (Exclusive of Cinema Studies) 72% of Language Studies 72% of Area, Gender, Class, and/or Race Studies 68% of Communication Studies 64% of Other Social Sciences and Humanities 40% of Sciences 7% of All respondents Screen Only 1–2 times per Academic Year: 16% of Sciences 10% of Other Social Sciences and Humanities 9% of Communication Studies 9% of Language Studies 6% of Area, Gender, Class, and/or Race Studies 0% of Cinema Studies 0% of Visual/Performing Arts (Exclusive of Cinema Studies) figure 3 in a Typical Academic Year, How Many Times Do You Assign Viewing outside the Classroom? 0 20 40 60 80 100 Number of Respondents 0 Once or Twice 3–5 Times Six or More Times 124 College & Research Libraries March 2014 rise with the increase in hybrid and fully online courses, an emphasis at Rutgers. For example, one professor uses “10+ for three face-to-face classes [and] 50+ for three online classes.” This may be due to a preference for online clips and films, cou- pled with the fact that streaming video is less problematic outside classroom walls. Infrastructure issues at Rutgers, including lack of media-equipped classrooms and bandwidth congestion, inhibit effective video streaming in the classroom. Sev- eral respondents said they would use more moving images if they had more time to identify appropriate titles and/or compile clips. Frequency of Use by Discipline As expected, cinema studies professors showed the most moving images in the classroom, with 94 percent screening six or more times in a typical academic year. Table 1 shows the highest and lowest use by discipline. Figure 4 shows frequency of use by discipline. Types of Moving Images Used Survey participants were asked to rate usefulness of these moving image types (see figure 5): • Fictional films (commercial or independent, features or shorts, theatrical, television, or online) • News • Documentaries • Experimental film/video • Recorded performances (such as operas or sporting events) • Television other than the above (episodic television, religious programming, commercials, and so on) • Footage documenting a process/ activity/ritual/experiment and the like • Video captured as part of your own research • Locally produced from YouTube and similar sites (other than the above) For social sciences and humanities, vir- tually all respondents identified the three most useful categories as documentaries, fictional films, and “locally produced vid- eo from YouTube and similar sites.” The exception was for Communication Studies faculty, where news and other television edged out fiction. Sciences faculty showed a heavier reliance on research video and footage documenting a process or activity. figure 4 in a Typical Academic Year, How Many Times Do You use Moving images in the Classroom? 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 Once or Twice 3–5 Times Six or More Times Communica�on Studies Other Visual/Performing Arts Other Social Sciences and Humani�es Voca�onal Program Natural, Physical, Compu�ng Sciences Area, Gender, Class, and/or Race Studies Language Studies Cinema Studies Moving Images in Teaching and Learning 125 public services missions. Survey respon- dents were asked to rate the usefulness of several resources for identifying the best moving images for teaching, learning, and/ or research (see figure 6): • Rutgers Media Collections Re- search Guide27 • “More titles like this” listings at Amazon, Netflix, and similar sources • A library catalog outside Rut- gers Based on survey comments and knowing that YouTube is a source for most of the forms listed, it is likely that YouTube is far and away the richest source of moving images for coursework. Sources for Identifying and Obtaining Appropriate Titles For the librarian, knowledge of where us- ers (faculty, in this case) go to identify and obtain resources is essential to fulfilling collection development, cataloging, and figure 5 for use in Your Own Courses, How useful Are the following Types of Moving images? 0 50 100 150 200 Number of Respondents Extremely Useful Very Useful Television Other Than the Above (Episodic Television, Religious Programming, Commercials, and so on) Recorded Performances (such as Operas, or Spor�ng Events) Experimental Film/Video Video Captured as Part of Your Own Research News Footage Documen�ng a Process/Ac�vity/Ritual/Experiment and the Like Fic�onal Films (Commercial or Independent, Features or Shorts, Theatrical, Television, or Online) Locally Produced from YouTube and Similar Sites Documentaries figure 6 How useful Are These resources for Identifying the Best Moving images for Teaching, Learning, and/or research? 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Number of Respondents Extremely Useful Very Useful A Library Catalog outside Rutgers Rutgers Media Collec�ons Research Guide Vendor Catalogs or Adver�sements Online Syllabus Exchange "More Titles Like This" Lis�ngs at Amazon, Ne�lix and Others Reviews The Rutgers Library Catalog Your Own Movie Going or Television Viewing Word of Mouth YouTube and Similar Sites 126 College & Research Libraries March 2014 • Your own moviegoing or televi- sion viewing • Vendor catalogs or advertise- ments • Online syllabus exchange • Reviews • Word of mouth • YouTube and similar sites • The Rutgers library catalog • Other Respondents then were asked to rate the usefulness of several resources for obtaining the best moving images for teaching, learning, and/or research: • Rutgers University Libraries • Rentals (such as Netflix DVDs or streamed, video store) • Library other than Rutgers (like a public library) • YouTube and similar sites • Personal/departmental purchase • Personal collection • Other I n g e n e r a l , s o u r c e s m o s t u s e f u l (extremely useful or very useful) for identifying the best moving images were online sites like YouTube, word of mouth, and the faculty’s own movie- going or television viewing, followed by (in a rough tie) reviews and the Rutgers library catalog. The handful of faculty who answered “other ” listed textbook publishers, producer/distribu- tors (such as PBS), Google, professional associations, newsgroups, and online databases such as Internet Movie Da- tabase (IMDb). One professor, upon identifying a need, produces the video himself. Three of the four resources least familiar to faculty were library resources (see figure 7). For obtaining moving images for coursework, the libraries ranked fourth after personal collection, YouTube and similar sites, and personal or departmen- tal purchase (see figure 8). The faculty who answered “other ” listed another Rutgers unit (the Department of Univer- sity Relations), scientific websites, and professional associations. That said, 70 percent of faculty found the libraries “moderately to extremely useful” for obtaining moving image titles, compared with 56 percent who found it “moderately to extremely useful” for identifying moving image titles. It may be that faculty users tend to approach the catalog looking for a particular item figure 7 How useful Are These resources for identifying the Best Moving images for Teaching, Learning, and/or research? 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Number of Respondents I Wasn't Aware of This Resource Your Own Movie Going or Television Viewing Word of Mouth YouTube and Similar Sites Reviews Vendor Catalogs or Adver�sements "More �tles like this" Lis�ngs at Amazon, Ne�lix and Others The Rutgers Library Catalog A Library Catalog outside Rutgers Online Syllabus Exchange Rutgers Media Collec�ons Research Guide Moving Images in Teaching and Learning 127 they have already identified elsewhere. It is likely, though, that some bypass the catalog altogether; they simply identify a title, then ask the libraries to order it. Nonetheless, 75 percent of respondents found the Rutgers library catalog at least “slightly useful” for identifying the best titles (see figure 9). An important finding of this survey is that most video content used in Rutgers coursework is not coming from library collections. In addition to online video sites like YouTube or TED.com, faculty also produce their own content or use other rich sources of digital video, such as the foreign language programming distributed via cable by RU-tv across campuses and into the dorms. Although 45 percent of faculty sur- veyed said they found the Rutgers Li- braries extremely useful or very useful for obtaining titles, nearly half (49%) felt “Rutgers Libraries don’t own the title(s) I need.” Thirty-four percent agreed or figure 8 How useful Are These Sources for Obtaining Moving images for Teaching, Learning, and/or research? 0 50 100 150 200 Number of Respondents Library Other Than Rutgers (such as, Public Library) Rentals (such as, Ne�lix DVDs or Streamed, Video Store) Rutgers University Libraries Personal/Departmental Purchase YouTube and Similar Sites Personal Collec�on Extremely useful Very useful figure 9 How useful is the rutgers Library Catalog for Identifying the Best Moving images for Teaching, Learning, and/or research? 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 The Rutgers Library Catalog Extremely Useful Very Useful Moderately Useful Slightly Useful Not at All Useful I Wasn't Aware of This Resource Number of Respondents 128 College & Research Libraries March 2014 strongly agreed with the statement “Even if I know the Libraries have the title, it is too hard/takes too long to get the video.” However, few conclusions can be drawn about strengths and weaknesses in the libraries’ moving image collections, since many respondents were by choice acquiring much of their content from noncommercial sources not available to the libraries, and significant numbers are largely unaware of what the libraries have or how to find out. One respondent men- tioned being “continually frustrated” by the difficulty of borrowing media materi- als via interlibrary loan: “I realize that this type of media is more easily damaged but [DVDs] are also sent to millions of homes each year by companies like Amazon and Netflix without too much of a problem.” Rutgers University Libraries Discovery Issues When librarians, and especially catalog- ers, think discovery, possibly they think first of cataloging and metadata, search and retrieval systems, and public catalog interfaces. This survey, however, revealed a more profound issue: Many faculty do not discover library moving image resources because they are unaware of the libraries’ moving images collections and services. Although 34 percent of respondents said they find the Rutgers library catalog very useful or extremely useful for identifying titles (see above), free-text responses within the survey as well as interviews indicated many are completely unaware that the libraries pur- chase videos for faculty and make them available for classroom viewing. This is particularly true of faculty in the sciences. Fifty percent of respondents indicated they were “not sure where all the Rutgers Libraries’ films/videos are listed.” Per- haps faculty have encountered moving image listings on the RUL website, but they have a sense that more is out there. They may also be aware that video col- lections are housed or described outside the libraries, but they are unsure which belong to the libraries or where exactly the resources might be found. Certainly survey results indicate that many faculty don’t recognize the library catalog as the primary discovery tool, or even a discov- ery tool, for the libraries’ moving image collections. It is possible that this lack of aware- ness dates to a time when most libraries housed their moving image collections separately and described them outside the regular catalog.28 Whatever the reason, over 27 percent of respondents indicated they don’t use the library catalog to find moving images (in other words, they answered “not applicable” when asked about ease of catalog use). Sometimes faculty have librarians, graduate students, or support staff do the catalog searching for them, but not always. There were over twenty responses suggesting faculty were not sure how to search the catalog for moving images, didn’t know it was available for this purpose, or had simply never tried. A few said they wouldn’t look in the catalog—period. Faculty might also be vaguely aware that Rutgers videos are administered by more than one university unit and may be scattered, physically or virtu- ally, across several locations. Indeed, Rutgers-produced videos may be found in the institutional repository (RUcore), while other collections are housed in the offices of the Rutgers University Televi- sion Network (RU-tv), the Department of University Relations, and in depart- mental collections. Some commercial and locally produced videos are available through NJVid (New Jersey’s statewide video repository); although these are listed in the library catalog, faculty may not realize it. Rutgers Library Catalog Issues Despite the fact that many faculty aren’t sure where to look for the libraries’ mov- ing image resources, nearly three quarters (73%) do use the catalog to find film and video (based on the number who assigned an “ease of use” rating; see figure 10). Unfortunately, 25 percent of respondents Moving Images in Teaching and Learning 129 find the Rutgers library catalog “difficult to search and/or navigate” (see figure 11). There are many possible reasons for this, most of which could not be effectively identified through a survey instrument. However, many faculty commented on specific problems. Survey responses and interviews strong- ly suggest that faculty have trouble brows- ing through the catalog to find relevant materials; they generally find known item searches to be the most effective. Several noted that exact title searches were easiest. Some explicitly stated they identify what they want from an outside source, then turn to the catalog to see if the libraries own it. More than one faculty member felt that “If you have it, it is of course easy to find,” belying an assumption that if it is not retrieved in a search, it is not held by the li- braries. On the other hand, faculty have dif- ficulty finding titles within compilations. There was a general frustration with subject searching; faculty wanted “better search terms,” title suggestions based on search terms, system ranking of “most useful search terms,” autocorrection of search terms, and “Amazon-type fuzzy figure 10 How easy is it to find the Moving image Title You’re Looking for in the rutgers Library Catalog? 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Extremely Easy Very Easy Moderately Easy Slightly Easy Not at All Easy Not Applicable Number of Respondents figure 11 The Rutgers Library Catalog is Difficult to Search and/or Navigate 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Number of Respondents 130 College & Research Libraries March 2014 logic.” Some said that specific search terms yield extremely broad and unre- lated titles, or nothing at all. Finally, many respondents would simply like more sub- ject access, such as links to fuller descrip- tions (such as on the film’s homepage) or indexing on the scene level, rather than the traditional summary describing the film as a whole. For example, “In the film Ordinary People, there are good examples of work between a therapist and patient. I don’t want to have to watch the whole film to find them. Instead, I find them on YouTube.” Respondents also implicitly or explicitly criticized the order of search results, which is not alphabetical and can be unpredictable. Although never explicitly stated, the “needle in a haystack” issue is likely a significant part of the discovery problem. The library catalog includes 2.7 million bibliographic records, of which only 20,000 (seven-tenths of one percent, or 0.7%) describe moving images. Numer- ous respondents noted the difficulty of limiting a search to video, and especially streaming video. (While both are pos- sible, the means are neither obvious nor intuitive.) The survey revealed that many users limit their search to moving images by limiting to the Media Center, likely not realizing that other libraries also house moving images and that streaming videos are not assigned that library location. Finally, respondents were asked to rate the importance of various components of the catalog record display: library location, availability status, link to electronic ver- sion, and detailed description (see figure 12). None were rated as being of special importance. Library location was less im- portant, possibly because faculty often del- egate pickup and delivery to support staff or because of a preference for streaming. Preferred Moving Image Formats Survey participants were asked to indi- cate whether they preferred DVDs, web- based video (downloaded or streaming), or another format for teaching and learn- ing (see figure 13). They were then asked their preference for their own research purposes. Format preferences did not ap- preciably vary according to use, although the “no preference” responses doubled (in terms of percentage) for research use. For teaching and learning, faculty in- dicated they might use any format from 16mm film, to VHS, laser disc, DVD, Blu- ray, and streaming. The greatest number, however, preferred web-based video (44%). No doubt this number would be much higher if reliability were not an issue; over 35 percent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that “playback in the classroom is a problem.” Thirteen of the 32 respondents who replied “other” used or preferred VHS. Preference often depended on availability of material, figure 12 When Searching Moving images in the rutgers Library Catalog, How important Are the following? 0 50 100 150 200 Number of Respondents Extremely Important Very Important Moderately Important Library Loca�on (like Media Center) Link to the Streaming/Downloadable Version, if Available Detailed Catalog Descrip�on (Title, Abstract, Release Informa�on, Credits, etc.) Status (For Example, IN–LIBRARY; CHECKED OUT) Moving Images in Teaching and Learning 131 classroom technology (and, consequently, reliability), and segment length (DVD for longer pieces, digital files for shorter clips). In general, respondents like DVD for its dependability, superior image quality, and bookmark capability. Those who pre- fer VHS find it easier to cue up precisely, and/or know the desired content is avail- able only in that format. Cinema Studies professors may prefer to screen film, but one respondent cited faculty’s constant battle for proper equipment and light- blocking shades; another, who might have been referring to film or video, noted that too many classrooms have small televisions rather than big-screen projec- tion. Although faculty complained that streaming video is the most “glitchy” and image quality is often poor, web-based video is preferred for its immediacy, flex- ibility, practicality, and convenience. It is easier to insert into lecture slides, avoids pickup and delivery issues, and solves the problem of booking conflicts (and thus the need for multiple copies). For faculty who teach both in the classroom and online, and who wish to show mov- ing images, streaming video is the only way to meet the university mandate to provide exactly the same content in all versions of a course. With physical media, experienced fac- ulty have learned that “the key in access is planning ahead,” not only for classroom presentations but for prescreenings. If the libraries own the title, it might be on an- other campus or checked out. If the librar- ies don’t own it, the professor must request it, await its order, arrival, cataloging, and processing, then pick it up and eventually return it. All of this is too time consuming for many faculty, and the problem is exac- erbated by short loan periods that make pickup and return even more burdensome. As one respondent put it, “It’s not hard to get videos from the library, but sometimes that extra half hour is more than I have, and I opt for something online instead. Whatever I can stream from my laptop is by far the easiest option.” One professor went so far as to say “I will never pick up a DVD to use. That is like starting fire with flint stones. I need to be able to upload it immediately. After all, isn’t that the essence and beauty of learning with film?” When delivery of a title is delayed, the professor can’t use it; s/he is forced to revise the les- son and deviate from the syllabus. At the same time, many professors desire flexibil- ity in their syllabus, and anything requir- ing advance planning reduces options. In many disciplines, currency is paramount; professors want up-to-the-minute content figure 13 What Moving image format Do You Prefer for Teaching and Learning? for Your Own research use? 0 50 100 150 Not Applicable Other (Please Specify) No Preference DVD Web-based Video (Downloaded or Streaming) Number of Respondents Research Use Teaching & Learning 132 College & Research Libraries March 2014 and immediate turnaround. They’d like the option of a last-minute consultation at the libraries; but, until streaming becomes the norm and routine, this can be difficult, especially for faculty on the Newark or Camden campuses or at other outlying locations. Student expectations and viewing needs also play into faculty’s preference for streaming media. With streaming, many students can simultaneously view a title and aren’t required to visit a library that might be geographically inconvenient to their particular campus. One respondent noted that “because more media is available online, students are less compliant about going to the Media Li- brary” for screenings; then limited copies create problems when several students, “often waiting till the last minute,” show up at the same time. One respondent rec- ommended opening “a branch of a media rental department” in the main library, or “at least viewing kiosks with everything centrally located on servers.” When it comes to media use, many faculty at Rutgers find themselves in a quandary. On the one hand, pickup and delivery of physical media items are pro- hibitively inconvenient in light of faculty schedules. On the other hand, streaming media is a chronic problem due to infra- structural difficulties and lack of technical support (see figure 14). Faculty were quite vocal on the techni- cal issues, some of which apply to physi- cal media as well. “Each and every class- room at the University should have the capability to play every format and have Internet connections,” said one profes- sor, yet faculty commented extensively about a general lack of reliability, as well as an absence of requisite comput- ers, DVD and VHS players, projectors, Internet access, wireless connections, bandwidth, written instructions, and training (both for classroom equipment and courseware uploading), as well as malfunctioning projectors, screens, and speakers. Faculty are often required to bring their own equipment into class- rooms with hardware that is either non- existent, malfunctioning, or outdated. Because equipment and reliability vary from room to room, a change of venue can require a change to the syllabus. Professors who teach on more than one campus find video capabilities so differ- figure 14 Delays Obtaining Physical Media and infrastructure Problems for Streaming Video 0 20 40 60 80 100 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Playback in the classroom is a problem Even if I know the Libraries have the �tle, it’s too hard/takes too long to get the video Number of Respondents Moving Images in Teaching and Learning 133 ent on the two campuses that, in some cases, they must create two different syllabi depending on the location of the class. Lack of training and professional development was a particular problem for those who are, as one described him- self, “pre-technology.” The advent of online learning and hybrid courses has increased the need for streaming resources while intro- ducing new challenges. Many faculty commented on their desire to integrate video content into course software such as Sakai, Blackboard, or E-College; those teaching online courses must do so. Often these professors feel their selec- tions are limited to what can be found for “free on the Internet,” yet that is not what they would choose to show in the classroom; and, as mentioned previously, the university mandates they provide exactly the same content in all versions of a course. Generally, faculty lack a full understanding of public performance rights, fair use, and privacy permis- sions. Frequently they don’t know how to locate the content they need and lack the technical expertise or training to in- corporate it into the courseware. These faculty, and the university staff whose job it is to assist them, need a stream- ing video solution that is user-friendly, courseware-agnostic and respective of rights issues. Whatever the current difficulties, for busy faculty, streaming video affords unrivaled flexibility and convenience, and the greater number prefer it, despite technological issues. There is little doubt that, if more streaming content were available and technology issues were addressed, this would be the format of choice and moving images could play a far greater role in teaching and learning. Unfortunately, when video is streamed beyond the classroom walls, significant rights issues come into play; and, while few faculty were vocal on this point,29 this problem will become more pressing with the growth of online and hybrid courses. Other Barriers to Moving Image Use The difficulties inherent in any time-based media significantly inhibit use of moving images in teaching and learning. The dearth of time and tools to identify, pre- screen, and prepare moving images for presentation to students appears to pres- ent a major difficulty for faculty. When asked to rate the various types of moving images, several faculty noted that low rat- ings are “more a reflection of not having thought about how to incorporate these into the classroom.” “More titles like this” (listings at Amazon or Netflix) would be rated “extremely useful,” one respondent said, “if I had more time to watch titles and populate the recommendations.” In reference to the various moving image identification tools faculty were asked to rate, one respondent said, “Some would be useful but I have not had opportunity to find and use” them. Another said sim- ply, “I need to use moving images more, but there is so little time.” One point made clear throughout survey comments was that many faculty often prefer using clips to films in their entirety, for a variety of reasons. (Cogni- tive learning theories suggest that “learn- ers possess a limited amount of cognitive resources to apply towards encoding new concepts”30 and video processing requires “high levels of mental abstraction and synthesis” that “can overload students’ cognitive capacity, especially when stu- dents are novices in a domain.”31 A 2007 study supported the hypothesis that seg- menting video would promote students’ retention of relevant visual information. Data suggested that segmenting “allows novice students to reduce cognitive load by minimizing the amount of information that needs to be processed in working memory at one time.”32) Faculty cited their value as class starters, to introduce a topic, to demonstrate concepts, or simply to save “precious classroom time.” Per- haps of most importance to faculty, use of clips puts them in the driver’s seat. While the faculty surveyed would all agree that a video can be immensely valuable, the 134 College & Research Libraries March 2014 fact remains that the control exercised by the instructor is limited to turning it off and on.33 Once on, “the flow of informa- tion is controlled by the film production team. Thus one of the most important capabilities of the experienced teacher— the ability to respond immediately and appropriately to the needs of the stu- dents—is not available in these media.” 34 By showing a series of their own selected clips interspersed with lecture content, the faculty member assumes the role of editor, actor, director, and producer. The professor becomes auteur. Clips present particular difficulties for busy faculty; many are “unsure where to look for such materials”; several re- spondents said they could use guidance finding more relevant materials, and some would look to the libraries for this. Unfortunately, libraries do not index mov- ing image (or any) materials at the excerpt level, so discovery of relevant segments can be a challenge for reference librarians as well. There are technical issues too. One professor noted his biggest problem was editing DVDs to a manageable size and incorporating them into PowerPoint presentations. Another commented, “I’d love to know how to create a clip reel but have no idea where to go to find out.” Discussion of Moving Images in Teaching and Learning Although survey respondents were not required to answer any specific question about the uses and benefits of moving im- ages in coursework or research,35 virtually every question offered a space for a free text response, and respondents seemed to seize every opportunity to talk about their use of moving images, regardless of the specific question asked. Thus, an unexpected product of the survey was a rich trove of several hundred responses clearly articulating how and why moving images advance teaching and learning.36 Moreover, faculty responses reflected, and at times alluded to, the considerable research on how students learn and the role that images and audiovisual presen- tations can play in the learning process. To meet user needs, librarians must have a full understanding of how resources are being used. In the interest of increasing that understanding, some of the research and faculty discussion are summarized below. The Scholarly Literature on Moving Images in Teaching and Learning The wider social sciences literature includes extensive research on moving images in teaching and learning. Stud- ies have suggested that video may be superior to textual materials for learn- ing complex skills because it can expose learners to problems, equipment, and events that cannot be easily demonstrated otherwise.37 Video-based instruction can standardize messages38 and allow stu- dents to control the sequence and pace of instruction.39 For language learning, the moving image is a particularly ef- fective tool, since language is a cultural product40 and the moving image offers the language’s cultural content alongside the more traditional lexical and grammatical aspects of language learning.41 Film and video present “complete communicative situations“42 including accents, paralin- guistic cues, etc.43 Further, moving images also play a role in addressing boredom and attention lapses. Research shows that “boredom in the lecture theatre has a significant pres- ence for students” as well as serious reper- cussions, including diminished academic achievement.44 Some research has shown that “students do not pay attention con- tinuously during a 50-minute lecture”45 and “student attention is higher during non-lecture pedagogies.”46 The least bor- ing teaching methods involve interaction and active learning. “In order to reduce boredom, students must be engaged.”47 Finally, “a pattern of intentional diversity in instruction creates an educational cli- mate that provides both a solid cognitive and affective base for learning.”48 At a more basic level, Baggett observed that information obtained visually was Moving Images in Teaching and Learning 135 more memorable than that obtained through listening.49 Kozma supported the fact that the visual component of a mov- ing image is memorable, and “argued that simultaneous processing of auditory and visual information may aid learning.”50 Considerable research has been done on information encoding (imagery vs. verbal), learner preferences for imagery and verbal encoding, and the influence of those preferences on student perfor- mance. Research “suggests that pictures are easier to remember than words” and that information coded in both imagery and verbal systems is easier to remember than information coded only in the verbal system.51 In short, words and images to- gether are “a powerful team.”52 That said, learner preferences differ;53 and, when the presentation materials conflict with the individual’s preferred representational style, recall is lower.54 Those who strongly prefer verbal representation, however, adapt better to the conflicting scheme than those who strongly prefer imagery and have to adapt to the traditional presentation.55 Thus moving images, by employing both verbal and imagery sys- tems, accommodate the greater number of learners. Learning styles, an individual’s “char- acteristics and preferred ways of gather- ing, organizing, and thinking about in- formation”56 (visual, aural, read/write, or kinaesthetic57), also play a role in student performance.58 While most individuals use a combination of different learning modalities to learn effectively, each in- dividual has preferences, and the most effective lessons will be those designed to best accommodate all learners.59 Video, by accommodating a variety of learning styles, may best meet the needs of diverse learners.60 Research findings conflict as to moving images’ contribution to understanding and retention. A number of factors have been cited as influencing the efficacy of moving images in learning, including learners’ mental effort,61 engagement,62 learning styles,63 motivation,64 attitude,65 and literacy,66 the type of information to be conveyed (such as procedural),67 the “capability of the media and the methods they employ,”68 and the design and qual- ity of the materials.69 A review of numer- ous studies on video, comprehension, and retention also reveals that many take place in a laboratory or use video or mul- timedia presentations that are essentially replicating the print material. “Relatively few studies on video-based instruction have actually engaged learners in active learning.”70 Rutgers Faculty Use of Moving Images in Teaching and Learning The uses of moving images described by faculty in this study contrast dramatically with the laboratory studies, painting a clear picture of video’s impact and role in knowledge retention. As psychologist Jerome Bruner aptly noted in a 1961 dis- cussion of innovative teaching materials of the late 1950s, “The intelligent use of [audiovisual] resources will depend upon how well we are able to integrate the tech- nique of the filmmaker or the program producer with the technique and wisdom of the skillful teacher.”71 In the classroom, be it physical or vir- tual, some Rutgers faculty use moving images to introduce a topic or provide background and context for lecture con- tent. For literature classes, a film might introduce an historical period or provide historical contexts for literary works. A documentary about a writer that illus- trates his or her home, workplace, social milieu, and so on, can enrich understand- ing of the author’s corpus. Historically, lit- erature has contained frequent references to contemporary or past events or other literary works. Since literary texts increas- ingly allude to moving image works, understanding of the text is incomplete without an understanding of the filmic work it references; therefore, faculty will show a clip from the film to illuminate the meaning of the text. In many disciplines, the nature of the coursework itself demands a moving 136 College & Research Libraries March 2014 image as exemplar of a particular perfor- mance or art form: for example, in classes on public speaking, performing arts, media journalism, or cinema studies. In a business course section on leadership, one faculty member screens both an ex- cerpt from the Gettysburg miniseries and an interview with Steve Jobs. A theater professor shows multiple productions of a play; media communications faculty screen the morning’s news. For cinema studies courses, one respondent noted “the films we ask students to screen are as essential as are the books we ask students to buy” for literature courses. That moving images can document and illustrate is axiomatic both within and outside the education community. Several faculty in this study cited video’s unique ability to illustrate behaviors, techniques, activities, or processes, dem- onstrate technologies, or show students clinical concepts in practice. One chem- istry professor has been creating and using videos for two decades to provide clear and consistent introductions to a day’s experiment. Before the video was introduced, this instructor had Teaching Assistants or faculty course coordinators open each three-hour General Chemistry Lab session with a 15- to 20-minute talk about the day’s experiment, using the chalkboard. Students evaluating these talks gave them low marks. Most TAs were foreign born and had some difficul- ties with English; often students on this commuter campus would miss the talk due to traffic tie-ups; details of an experi- ment could be difficult or impossible to visualize on the blackboard; and, with seven lab sections, the quality of the talks was highly variable. In 1988, the profes- sor began replacing these live talks with videos. Moving images could better show details of the experiments; it could be made available in the library’s video cen- ter, and students could replay the video as necessary to understand the more difficult points. For the last ten years, videos have been created in digital format and posted on the course’s homepage. Students can view the video before class, giving them more time for the hands-on experimental work or to think about what they have “discovered.” Student ratings have risen dramatically, and the videos are now used three semesters each calendar year by up to 400 student viewers.72 In addition to the more conventional uses of moving images to document, illustrate, and contextualize, moving images offer additional advantages, in- cluding impact, timeliness, immediacy, and a communal learning experience, all of which facilitate greater engagement by the students with the course material and with each other. Many survey respon- dents spoke to the power of moving im- ages to educate, how they can speak more forcefully than a lecture and “bring the course to life.” In the words of one faculty member, “A picture is worth a thousand words. I can tell my students that Blacks were beaten and lynched in the South, or I can show them a segment of PBS’ Eyes of the Prize with actual footage of these atrocities. It makes all the difference in their learning and retention.” As cultural productions, film and video offer diverse perspectives on social and cultural realities. This fact, together with the inherent force of the moving image, can advance learning by destabilizing the closely-held “truths” that are often rooted in students’ individual experience or per- sonal bias. For example, an anthropology professor73 uses Balseros, a 2002 Spanish film about the 1994 Cuban rafters crisis,74 in part to explain the different waves of Cuban migration to the United States and demonstrate how the rafters of the early 1990s were different from Cubans in prior waves of migration. Frequently the professor’s Latino Studies students are first-generation Cuban-Americans whose parents came in previous waves, and they have accepted on faith the anti-Castro Cuban narrative of Cubans as the “suc- cessful” Latino migrants to the United States. This film can challenge that main migration story and open students’ minds to new ideas. Moving Images in Teaching and Learning 137 Also contributing to media’s impact are its timeliness and immediacy; bringing current events into the classroom via the moving image “allows students to connect to real time practice and policy issues.” One professor noted YouTube’s special value for showing up-to-the-minute cov- erage. For a course on Social Movements and Media, for example, students “will watch quick clips of Occupy Wall Street, often the very day a protest, rally or series of arrests occurred.” Indeed, one profes- sor likened video to “a virtual field trip” that can supplement and contrast with the actual field trips taken by her class. Just as video can take students out of the classroom and into the field, profes- sors use video to bring experts right into the classroom. One faculty member, when assigning readings by prominent theorists, often finds it useful to have the theorists explain and contextualize their own work. For example, she might “bring Noam Chomsky in and have him talk about the propaganda model, or his linguistics, or what have you. It makes the classroom experience more interesting.”75 Capturing and sustaining student at- tention is a constant challenge for faculty, and particularly in today’s classrooms, where students “are constantly distracted by easily available activities and contacts via their handheld devices.” According to one respondent, “I have found that noth- ing engages students in the classroom more than moving images.” “Student participation in class discussion increases with the use of visual materials,” says another, because it brings “an immediate common experience that we all have in the same room.”76 Many undergraduates more readily relate to the immediacy of that moment than to a text read in solitude quickly, partially, or several days before. Faculty have also observed that variety in instructional delivery can help sustain students’ attention. One professor notes the transition from lecture to documen- tary film enables students to “renew their interest and pay attention again.” 77 According to many respondents, this is particularly useful in Rutgers’ larger and longer lecture courses, many of which take place over a half or full day. Interestingly, students also “seem to feel empowered to analyze visual images more readily than verbal ones,” according to one faculty member; this willingness on the part of students to engage with the moving image explains in part why another uses “for-profit movies loosely based on historical events” as a catalyst for analysis by students who are then asked to respond using knowledge drawn from other sources. O n e p r o f e s s o r ’s u s e o f D e n n i s O’Rourke’s 1988 documentary Cannibal Tours illustrates the many ways in which a moving image can further student understanding and discussion. The film raises its own interesting questions, but this professor uses it to set the stage for an Introduction to Anthropology class and deepen students’ understanding of the discipline they are about to study. Many of these young students are new to anthropology, and have many ideas as to what anthropologists study, such as monkeys, dinosaurs, or native peoples. Cannibal Tours depicts European and American tourists traveling to remote locales to experience native culture. The real subjects of the film are not the na- tives, but the tourists who go to “view” them. The film challenges assumptions about what anthropology is and who cultural anthropologists study. After the screening, the professor’s questions to the students engage them in discussion of the film, anthropology, and the process of studying others. This is a way to ask “Who are anthropologists studying?” that can make students think, says the professor, and a way, “against all odds,” to make a very large class become interactive and learn collaboratively. 78 This same faculty member also calls moving images pedagogical tools that are “extremely useful in helping students un- derstand complex issues.” Another said she finds images are useful pedagogically to explain and illustrate certain concepts 138 College & Research Libraries March 2014 and abstract theories that she makes “more real and more understandable” through the use of clips.79 Furthermore, “students appreciate an image to go with an idea,” yet another says; they “respond more and are more likely to remember visual images that accompany theory in the readings.” Several survey respondents alluded to their students’ “visual thinking” or “strong visual memory”; these faculty consciously introduce the moving image into coursework, not as a supplement to the lecture and readings, but as a specific, selected medium of learning. According to one professor, “My students are very visual thinkers, and they enjoy readings more after they have seen a film on the subject.” A science professor cited stu- dent feedback in observing this: “a large proportion of the students that I have taught through the years have stated that they have a stronger visual memory and that they can understand a concept if it is expressed graphically.” Another went so far as to say “I think that in the future almost all learning will be done through film images. Although I still assign aca- demic articles and sections of books, the lasting lessons are from visual images [and] sound. I don’t see this as detracting from students’ intellectual development; rather it is an enrichment and enhance- ment of the subject matter.” Survey responses indicate that many faculty build moving images into their coursework as an effective means to en- gage students and enhance learning. But this is only part of the picture. To many of these faculty, the moving image’s key role is to advance media literacy. One professor speaks of the “new and differ- ent kind of world” in which we live, a visuals-saturated environment constantly bombarding us with images. “No image is ever neutral,” she says; “no image is ever value-free.” 80 More often than not, an image is used to sell something, be it a commodity, an idea, a lifestyle, or a value. In the words of one survey respondent, “We cannot assume that our students are visually literate on account of their immersion in a so-called visual culture.” Another notes, “It’s a challenge to get un- dergraduates, who take the video at face value, to look at the videos critically as texts reflecting points of view just like the texts they read.”81 In today’s media-rich culture, taking images seriously, using them, and training students to think criti- cally about them, is crucial.82 “Students often spend far more time exposed to tele- vision and movies than they do to printed texts, yet they are far less equipped by their academic training to deal critically with those visual texts so central to our culture. I believe that students at every stage of their education from pre-school through graduate school should be taught how film and television work, and how best to understand and interpret those texts.”83 When engaging film and video critically, students refine analytical and interpretive skills and learn how to treat moving images as cultural texts to be analyzed, and not just consumed. One professor occasionally screens, without introduction, satires and small mocku- mentaries in her courses. Student reac- tions usually provoke lively discussion, because despite repeated deconstruction of media texts in her classes, viewers are still caught unawares, and students come to realize “we are still a receptacle; we are still ‘tricked’ by the medium.”84 Conclusion We live in a media-centric culture where video creation and consumption are in- creasing at dramatic rates, and moving images are playing an ever-expanding role in teaching and learning. As a pedagogical tool, the moving image docu- ments, illustrates, and contextualizes; it offers currency, immediacy, impact, and a communal experience that can engage students as texts cannot. Moving images can help students understand complex or abstract concepts and provide an additional modality for learning. They deliver experts directly to the classroom; they teach media literacy. One professor Moving Images in Teaching and Learning 139 summed up the benefits in three words: “pacing, memorability, explanatory power.” Nonetheless, little has been written about how faculty identify, obtain, and use this material, and the library’s role in those processes. This study, envisioned as a dialogue between library and teaching faculty at Rutgers University, was con- ducted to learn more through a discussion forum, survey, and interviews. Findings affirm that the moving image in teaching and learning offers a striking array of benefits, and faculty in a variety of disci- plines consider it a crucial component of their coursework. Most faculty surveyed, however, do not find the library the most useful source for identifying and obtaining moving image resources. Many rely on word of mouth, reviews, or their own discoveries to identify moving images, which are then obtained through online video sites, and personal or departmental acquisitions. A surprising percentage of active faculty video consumers are unaware of library collections, tools, and services, includ- ing the catalog. Of those familiar with the library catalog, a significant number find it difficult to search and/or navigate. While not explicitly articulated by survey respondents, it is known that moving im- age resources are siloed and the keys to finding them are scattered. As demand for streaming video increases, libraries are purchasing more and more streaming packages, but these come at a significant cost. At Rutgers, at least, it is too early to tell how well these are known and used, and it will be interesting to see whether or not they gain traction over time. Of particular concern is the fact that libraries collect and catalog moving image works, but what the faculty often need are clips. In short, libraries play almost no role in facilitating access to the moving images that faculty find most useful: in- dividual segments of works and resources outside the organizational collections. The demand for streaming video, the heavy use of YouTube resources, the expansion of online learning, and the difficulty in obtaining rights clearances point to an increasing need for open access to mov- ing images. Findings suggest several areas for further examination. To improve their visibility, libraries might provide more outreach to raise awareness of their col- lections, tools, and services. They should seek ways to better organize and expose video references to all users, faculty and students alike. Particularly given the complex array of resources, platforms, and access restrictions, it is essential that libraries better integrate moving image resources into bibliographic instruction and other public services presentations, including liaison work, reference services, and chat. Catalog searching, retrieval, and navigation must be improved to aid discovery of the video “needle in the haystack.” Often it is not only the faculty, but their support staff, who are burdened with the problems of access to moving images. Conversations with these staff indicate that faculty need assistance to find streaming content, to understand the associated intellectual property rights, and to navigate complex issues of technology, infrastructure, and video delivery for both classroom and course- ware. Perhaps libraries should focus their resources on the licensed materials and provide guidance on content discovery and acquisitions, complex rights issues, and content delivery. There may well be ways to facilitate use of clips in syllabi and courseware, either reexamining indexing at the seg- ment level (perhaps on an on-demand basis) and/or offering services to facilitate use of clip reels, but always with an eye toward what the publishers are planning to provide. At Rutgers, our plan is to pro- vide a streaming server to deliver video via RUcore, incorporating our analytic tool with private LDAP-authenticated workspaces for faculty and students, and negotiating licenses accordingly, as we do for reserves. These workspaces will 140 College & Research Libraries March 2014 allow faculty and students to share ana- lytics within groups, such as by course or project teams within a course. Our hope is that the analytic will make analysis more interactive, with students documenting their own insights in a manner that can be shared with the instructor and fellow students. Open access is a ubiquitous topic in academia, but more could be said in terms of open access to video. There is also room for libraries to take the lead in providing open access to today’s new “grey litera- ture,” locally videorecorded conference proceedings that serve faculty’s need to bring world-renowned experts into the classroom. These are areas where librar- ies have much to offer. Most important: libraries must remain flexible, as these solutions are subject to change as the moving images domain evolves. The largest issue, however, may be that faculty video users appear to be falling away. If libraries are to survive as players in this arena, they will have to redefine themselves. They must reexamine their relationship to YouTube and other online video sources. Are there ways in which libraries can facilitate access to the heavily used resources they don’t own, and never will? Will they choose to compete with online providers or identify new services to complement those of the Internet video sites? Libraries should stake out their ter- ritory, marshal their resources, focus their efforts, and get the word out. Notes 1. Video Use and Higher Education: Options for the Future (June 2009), available online at www. intelligenttelevision.com/images/uploads/INTCCCNYUVideo_and_higher_edJune_2009.pdf [accessed 20 May 2012]. 2. Yochai Benkler, The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006) and Jonah Bossewitch, Possibility Spaces: Architecture and the Builders of Information Societies (December 10, 2008), cited in Video Use and Higher Education (June 2009): 3. 3. Video Use and Higher Education (2009): 9. 4. Jane J. Otto, “A Sound Strategy for Preservation: Adapting Audio Engineering Society Technical Metadata for Use in Multimedia Repositories,” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 48 (2010): 403–22. 5. Jane J. Otto and Sarah L. Ralston, “Disseminating Equine Research and Teaching Videos Through the Institutional Repository: A Collaboration,” Journal of Agricultural & Food Information 13 (2012): 64–77, available online at 10.1080/10496505.2012.638247. RUanalytic won the New Jersey Library Association College and University Section/ACRL-NJ’s Technology Innovation Award for 2012; see Winner of the 2012 Technology Innovation Award, available online at http://cus.njla.org/ node/161 [accessed 20 May 2012]. For more information on the RUanalytic, see www.libraries. rutgers.edu/rul/news/12/04_RUanalytic.shtml. 6. RDA: Resource Description & Access, prepared by the Joint Steering Committee for the De- velopment and RDA, is copublished by the American Library Association, the Canadian Library Association, and CILIP: Chartered Institute of Library and Information Science Professionals. 7. For more information about the Kuali Foundation’s Open Library Environment (OLE), see Kuali OLE, available online at www.kuali.org/ole [accessed 20 May 2012]. 8. For example, see Dean A. Zollman and Robert G. Fuller, “Teaching and Learning Physics with Interactive Video,” Physics Today (Apr. 1994): 41. 9. Gregory Krippel, A. James McKee, and Janette Moody, “Multimedia Use in Higher Educa- tion: Promises and Pitfalls,” Journal of Instructional Pedagogies 3 (2009): 1–8. 10. Kerry Shephard, “Questioning, Promoting and Evaluating the Use of Streaming Video to Support Student Learning,” British Journal of Educational Technology 34 (2003): 295–308. 11. Jane Barford and Colin Weston, “The Use of Video as a Teaching Resource in a New Uni- versity,” British Journal of Educational Technology 28 (Jan. 1997): 40–50. 12. Video Use and Higher Education (2009). 13. Library Use of Video & Audio (New York, Primary Research Group, 2011). 14. Ciara Healy, “Introduction: Current Trends in Academic Media Collections and Services” Library Trends 58 (Winter 2010): 321–23. 15. John Vallier, “Twenty-First Century Academic Media Center: Killer App or Chindogu?” Moving Images in Teaching and Learning 141 Library Trends 58 (Winter 2010): 378–90. 16. Ciara Healy, “Netflix in an Academic Library: a Personal Case Study,” Library Trends 58 (Winter 2010): 321–23. 17. “Rutgers University,” Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia [accessed 20 May 2012]. 18. “Office of the Executive Dean of Agriculture and Natural Resources” website, available online at http://execdeanagriculture.rutgers.edu [accessed 20 May 2012]. The agricultural exten- sion offices are part of the New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, a research and outreach arm of the university. 19. Rutgers Continuing Studies, “Off Campus Programs,” available online at http://offcampus. rutgers.edu/home [accessed 20 May 2012]. 20. This count does not include the Shoah Foundation’s Visual History Archive, a database of 52,000 oral histories that are cataloged at the collection level. 21. The other significant streaming video collection is the Shoah Foundation’s Visual History Archive. 22. See Asia Society, “The China Boom Project,” available online at http://chinaboom.asiasociety. org/about [accessed 20 May 2012]. 23. The professors were Deepa Kumar, Associate Professor of Journalism and Media Studies, Ulla Berg, Assistant Professor of Anthropology and Latino & Hispanic Caribbean Studies, and Richard Koszarski, Professor of English and a film historian who teaches cinema studies. 24. Zollman and Fuller, “Teaching and Learning Physics with Interactive Video,” 41. 25. The Wikipedia article on the serials crisis calls it “common shorthand to describe the chronic subscription cost increases of many scholarly journals. The prices of these institutional or library subscriptions have been rising much faster than the Consumer Price Index for several decades, while the funds available to the libraries have remained static or have declined in real terms.” See “Serials Crisis,” Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia [accessed 28 March 2012]. In practice, the consequence was diverting of funding from other library resources to cover the costs of the subscriptions. 26. The survey was directed to faculty actively using moving images in coursework or research; so, in theory, there should be no “zero” responses. However, one respondent was not currently teaching but answered in terms of his extensive prior experience. 27. The Media Librarian at Rutgers maintains a series of LibGuides that pull together titles by broad theme, discipline, and curricular components and that assist users in locating streaming video. See http://libguides.rutgers.edu/cat.php?cid=25882 [accessed 20 May 2012]. 28. In 1993, 30 percent of ARL libraries with video collections included either only some or none of their videos in the online catalogs, according to Kristine R. Brancolini and Rick E. Provine, Video Collections and Multimedia in ARL Libraries: Changing Technologies, ed. Laura A. Round, OMS Occasional Paper, no. 19 (Washington, D.C.: Association of Research Libraries, Office of Manage- ment Services, 1997): 11, cited in Jeannette Ho, “Cataloging Practices and Access Methods for Videos at ARL and Public Libraries in the United States,” Library Resources and Technical Services 48 (Apr. 2004): 108. 29. In hundreds of free-text survey comments, only one faculty member alluded to rights is- sues, and s/he mentioned them twice: “I only use professionally generated content and insist on proper projection. I have never and will never encourage students to consult AV materials via any non-licensed source. First-year students should be made aware of the deleterious effects of YouTube both on artistic integrity and on the rights of creative artists.” And again, “Permanent collections of the RUL should remain the focus of university efforts to make content available. There is no reason to sponsor external corporate ventures when legal acquisitions are possible. The RUL catalog in AV is good and deep and the new Media Center can contribute to making students aware of the legal channels through which content can be accessed in original form.” 30. J. Sweller, “Cognitive Load Theory, Learning Difficulty, and Instructional Design,” Learn Instr 4 (1994): 295–312, cited by Elizabeth A.H. Wilson et al., “Media and Memory: The Efficacy of Video and Print Materials for Promoting Patient Education About Asthma,” Patient Education and Counseling 80 (2010): 393. 31. Roxana Moreno, “Decreasing Cognitive Load for Novice Students: Effects of Explanatory vs. Corrective Feedback on Discovery-Based Multimedia,” Instructional Science 32 (2004): 99–113 and J. Sweller, Instructional Design in Technical Areas (Camberwell, Australia: ACER Press, 1999), cited in Roxana Moreno, “Optimising Learning from Animations by Minimising Cognitive Load: Cognitive and Affective Consequences of Signaling and Segmentation Methods,” Applied Cognitive Psychology 21: (2007): 766. 32. Roxana Moreno, “Optimising Learning from Animations by Minimising Cognitive Load: Cognitive and Affective Consequences of Signaling and Segmentation Methods,” Applied Cogni- tive Psychology 21: (2007): 778. 33. Zollman and Fuller, “Teaching and Learning Physics with Interactive Video,” 41. 142 College & Research Libraries March 2014 34. Ibid. 35. The final question in the survey was “Is there anything else you’d like to tell us about how or why you use moving images in your research or coursework?” This question was not required but 19 percent (58) responded; in a question asking permission to follow up, more than 63 percent said “yes.” 36. Interestingly, although the survey asked about research use in several of its questions, almost no free-text responses addressed moving images in the research context. 37. R.C. Anderson, B.B. Armbruster, and M. Roe, A Modest Proposal for Improving the Education of Reading Teachers (ERIC, ED 313674, 1989) and R.C. Overbaugh, “The Efficacy of Interactive Video for Teaching Basic Techniques of Classroom Management of Pre-Service Teachers,” Computers in Human Behaviors 11 (1995): 511–27, cited by Hee Jun Choi and Scott D. Johnson, “The Effect of Context-Based Video Instruction on Learning and Motivation in Online Courses,” The American Journal of Distance Education 19 (2005): 217. 38. L.A. Dusenbury, W.B. Hansen, and S.M. Giles, “Teacher Training in Norm Setting Ap- proaches to Drug Education: A Pilot Study Comparing Standard and Video-Enhanced Methods,” Journal of Drug Education 33 (2003): 325–36, cited by Choi and Johnson, “The Effect of Context- Based Video Instruction,” 217. 39. R.E. Mayer, “Ten Research-Based Principles of Multimedia Learning,” in H.F. O’Neil & R.S. Prez, Web Based Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice (Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Association, 2006): 371–89, cited in Doris U. Bolliger and Supawan Supanakorn, “Learning Styles and Student Perceptions of the Use of Interactive Online Tutorials,” British Journal of Educational Technology 42 (2011): 471. 40. Erwin Tschirner, “Language Acquisition in the Classroom: The Role of Digital Video, Computer Assisted Language Learning 14 (2001): 312. 41. C. White, P. Easton, and C. Anderson, “Students’ Perceived Value of Video in a Multimedia Language Course,” Educational Media International 37 (2000): 168. 42. R. Tuffs and I. Tudor, “What the Eye Doesn’t See: Cross-Cultural Problems in the Com- prehension of Video Materials,” RELC Journal 21 (1990), cited in White, Easton, and Anderson, “Students’ Perceived Value of Video,” 168. 43. White, Easton, and Anderson, “Students’ Perceived Value of Video,” 168. The authors add (174) that video also “replicates situations that the foreign language classroom cannot produce, and for distance learning students in particular, the opportunity to witness the dynamics of interaction in the cultural context is highly valued.” 44. Sandi Mann and Andrew Robinson, “Boredom in the Lecture Theatre: An Investigation into the Contributors, Moderators and Outcomes of Boredom amongst University Students,” British Educational Research Journal 35, no. 2 (Apr. 2009): 244, 256. Mann and Robinson found that 59 percent of students find their lectures boring half the time and 30 percent find most or all of their lectures to be boring (253). 45. Diane M. Bunce, Elizabeth A. Flens, and Kelly Y. Neiles, “How Long Can Students Pay Attention in Class? A Study of Student Attention Decline Using Clickers,” Journal of Chemical Education 87 (Dec. 2010): 1442. 46. Bunce, Flens, and Neiles, “How Long Can Students Pay Attention,” 1442. The 2009 Mann/ Robinson study assigned boredom ratings to various teaching methods, and found that video presentations fall roughly in the middle of a continuum ranging from laboratory work, the most boring, to group discussions, the least boring (243, 250, 255). 47. Mann and Robinson, “Boredom in the Lecture Theatre,” 246. 48. Bob Samples, “Instructional Diversity: Teaching to your Students’ Strengths,” The Science Teacher 61 (Feb. 1994): 14. 49. P. Baggett, “Role of Temporal Overlap of Visual and Auditory Material in Forming Dual Media Associations,” Journal of Educational Psychology 76, no. 3 (1984): 408–17, cited by Choi and Johnson, “The Effect of Context-Based Video Instruction,” 217. 50. R.B. Kozma, “Learning with Media,” Review of Educational Research 61 (1991): 179–211, cited by Choi and Johnson, “The Effect of Context-Based Video Instruction,” 217. 51. Shu-Sheng Liaw, “Considerations for Developing Constructivist Web-Based Learning,” International Journal of Instructional Media 31 (2004): 314. For a description of Dual Coding Theory, see Janet B. Butler and R. David Mautz, Jr., “Multimedia Presentations and Learning: A Labora- tory Experiment,” Issues in Accounting Education 11 (Fall 1996): 262–63. 52. Liaw, “Considerations for Developing Constructivist Web-Based Learning,” 314. Dual Coding Theory posits that both visual and verbal information is used to represent information; see R. Sternberg, Cognitive Theory, 3rd ed. (Belmont, Calif.: Thomson Wadsworth, 2003), cited in “Dual-Coding Theory,” Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia [accessed 20 May 2012]. 53. Janet B. Butler and R. David Mautz, Jr. “Multimedia Presentations and Learning: A Labora- tory Experiment,” Issues in Accounting Education 11 (Fall 1996): 263. Moving Images in Teaching and Learning 143 54. Butler and Mautz, “Multimedia Presentations and Learning,” 271. 55. Ibid. 56. N.D. Fleming, VARK: A Guide to Learning Styles, available online at www.vark-learn.com/ english/index.asp, cited by Doris U. Bolliger and Supawan Supanakorn, “Learning Styles and Student Perceptions of the Use of Interactive Online Tutorials,” British Journal of Educational Technology 42 (2011): 471. 57. Bolliger and Supanakorn, “Learning Styles and Student Perceptions,” 471. 58. Ibid. 59. Ibid. 60. Bolliger and Supanakorn, “Learning Styles and Student Perceptions,” 479. Although the research pertained to online tutorials, it suggests the same would be true of moving images. 61. K.S. Cennamo, “Learning from Video: Factors Influencing Learners’ Preconceptions and Invested Mental Effort,” Educational Technology Research and Development 41 (1993): 33–45, cited by Choi and Johnson, “The Effect of Context-Based Video Instruction,” 217. 62. G. Salomon, “Television is ‘Easy’ and Print is ‘Tough’: The Differential Investment of Mental Effort in Learning as a Function of Perceptions and Attributions,” Journal of Educational Psychology 76 (1984): 647–58, cited by Choi and Johnson, “The Effect of Context-Based Video Instruction,” 217. 63. Bolliger and Supanakorn, “Learning Styles and Student Perceptions,” 470–81. 64. Choi and Johnson, “The Effect of Context-Based Video Instruction,” 217. 65. “Users who have positive attitudes toward a system are more likely to use the system and to use it effectively,” according to F.D. Davis, “Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology,” MIS Quarterly (Sept. 1989): 319–42; F.D. Da- vis, “User Acceptance of Information Technology: System Characteristics, User Perceptions and Behavioral Impacts, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 3 (1993): 475–87; and F.D. Davis, R.P. Bagozzi, and P.R. Warshaw, “User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models,” Management Science (Aug. 1989): 982–1003, cited in Butler and Mautz, “Multimedia Presentations and Learning,” 265. 66. Much of the conflicting literature is surveyed in Elizabeth A.H. Wilson et al., “Media and Memory: The Efficacy of Video and Print Materials for Promoting Patient Education about Asthma,” Patient Education and Counseling 80 (2010): 394. 67. Wilson et al., “Media and Memory,” 397. 68. R. Kozma, “Will Media Influence Learning: Reframing the Debate,” Educational Technology Research and Development 42 (1994): 7–19, cited in Bolliger and Supanakorn, “Learning Styles and Student Perceptions,” 471. 69. Bolliger and Supanakorn, “Learning Styles and Student Perceptions,” 471, 472. 70. Choi and Johnson, “The Effect of Context-Based Video Instruction,” 218. 71. J.S. Bruner, The Process of Education (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1961), cited in Zollman and Fuller, “Teaching and Learning Physics with Interactive Video,” 41. 72. Email correspondence with professor, October 14, 2011. 73. The professor was Ulla Berg, who described this use in the faculty discussion forum. 74. “Balseros (film),” Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia, available online from http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Balseros_(film) [accessed 20 May 2012]. 75. The professor was Deepa Kumar, who described this use in the faculty discussion forum. 76. The professor was Ulla Berg, quoted from the faculty discussion forum. 77. Kumar presentation at the faculty discussion forum. Note that Bunce et al. found that the pedagogies that decrease student attention lapses have the added benefit of a carryover effect to a subsequent lecture segment; “changing pedagogies within a class period cannot only be seen as a way to present concepts in an alternate format but may also help engage students in subsequent lecture teaching formats.” Bunce, Flens, and Neiles, “How Long Can Students Pay Attention,” 1442. 78. The professor was Ulla Berg, who described this use in the faculty discussion forum. The film discussed is described in: “Cannibal Tours,” Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia, available online from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibal_Tours [accessed 20 May 2012]. For the segment Berg screened in her discussion forum presentation, see “Cannibal Tours: Dennis O’Rourke,” YouTube, available online at www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQiDufdir_M (segment 00:41:47–00:43:30) [ac- cessed 11 April 2012]. 79. Kumar, quoted from the faculty discussion forum. 80. Kumar, quoted from the faculty discussion forum. 81. This testimonial to the use of video in coursework comes from Professor Louisa Schein, Departments of Anthropology and Women’s and Gender Studies at Rutgers University. She adds that students “appreciate very much acquiring these critical skills.” Her statement first appeared as a response in a survey on video use conducted by Jane E. Sloan in 2002. It was used with per- 144 College & Research Libraries March 2014 mission in publicity material for the faculty discussion forum. 82. Berg, quoted from the faculty discussion forum. 83. This testimonial to the use of video in coursework comes from Professor Leslie Fishbein, now Chair of the Department of Women’s and Gender Studies at Rutgers University. She holds appointments in American Studies and Jewish Studies and is an affiliated faculty member of Women’s and Gender Studies and Urban Studies. The statement first appeared as a response in a survey on video use conducted by Jane E. Sloan in 2002. It was used with permission in publicity material for the faculty discussion forum. 84. Berg, quoted from the faculty discussion forum.