Abstract
Content acquisition podcasts (CAPs) are a popular tool in special educator preparation but little is known about their application to communication disorders. This quasi-experimental study investigated the effectiveness of two instructional methods: lecture plus video and a content acquisition podcast (CAP). Participants were undergraduates in early childhood education and special education programs (N = 62). Participants were assessed on their knowledge and application of communication development and disorders at four time points. Results indicated that the lecture plus video condition was more effective at producing knowledge gains compared to the CAP condition, but both conditions were equally effective at producing gains in application ability at post-test. Neither group maintained their knowledge gains 8 weeks after instruction. Learning condition did not affect participants in the two education programs differently. Implications for teacher preparation are discussed.
Introduction
Efficient and effective instructional practices in teacher preparation have never been more important with shifts to remote instruction and availability of field placements (Hartshorne, Baumgartner, Kaplan-Rakowski, Mouza, & Ferdig, 2020). The limited nature of semester-long lecture-style courses means that instructional time and methods need to be focused and successful at delivering key concepts and information within the constraints of the university classroom, particularly if that instruction is occurring online. A critical area of knowledge for educators is communication disorders, or speech and language impairments (Christopulos & Kern, 2020). All teachers will likely come into contact with a student with a communication disorder at some point in their career (Hussar et al., 2020), and knowledge of oral language is directly related to understanding of reading instruction ( Bos, Mather, Dickson, Podhajski, & Chard, 2001; Moats, 1994). This is especially true for special educators and early elementary educators, who are part of two critical and related aspects of early education: teaching young children to read and referral of students to special education for communication disorders ( Cabbage, Farquharson, Iuzzini-Seigel, Zuk, & Hogan, 2018; Christopulos & Kern, 2020).
Importance of Understanding Communication Disorders
The onus of responsibility for referring young children for speech and language screenings in public schools falls largely on general educators. Children in preschool and early elementary grades spend most of their day with their classroom teacher, thus general educators are usually the people, outside of parents, who become most familiar with their students’ communication abilities (Christopulos & Kern, 2020). In addition, among students ages 3–21 years receiving special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, communication disorder is the second largest disability category, with 19% of students receiving services for a speech or language impairment (Hussar et al., 2020). Over 80% of students with communication disorders spend most of their day (80% or more) in the general education classroom (U.S. Department of Education, 2019), therefore early childhood educators will likely work with children experiencing communication problems. Unfortunately, researchers indicate teachers are not always correctly identifying students with speech and language deficits. Antoniazzi and colleagues (2010) found teachers missed 59% of students who were identified on a standardized measure as “at risk” for a communication disorder, and Christopulos and Kean (2020) found teacher ratings were only 35% accurate at correctly identifying students with language impairments. Adequate teacher training and professional development are needed to aid educators in understanding communication development not just for referral purposes but for the critical relationship between language and reading ability.
Oral language development, including skills in phonological awareness, vocabulary, and syntax, impact how well students learn to read and understand text (Adlof & Hogan, 2018; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network, 2005) which is a key aspect of early elementary academic instruction. However, several studies have concluded elementary teachers are often underprepared and frequently misunderstand basic terminology and concepts related to oral language and reading instruction (Bos et al., 2001; Joshi et al., 2009; McCutchen et al., 2002; Moats, 1994). This misunderstanding and lack of preparation has direct consequences for the type of reading instruction all students receive, especially students with or at risk for reading disabilities or language disorders. The importance of understanding communication disorders is not limited to general educators, however. Recent work indicates students with reading disabilities often have co-occurring speech and language impairments due to the significant overlap of language and phonological abilities with learning to read (Adlof & Hogan, 2018; Cabbage et al., 2018). Therefore, special educators are likely to have students on their caseloads with concurrent reading disabilities and communication disorders (Hussar et al., 2020) and need to understand the relationship between language and reading to provide effective instruction and to support students in their communication goals (Adlof & Hogan, 2018).
Clearly, general and special educators need better instruction and support in understanding communication development and disorders not solely for the purpose of referrals, but to understand how to support students in reading, particularly students with speech and language impairments. However, it is unclear how educators are being prepared to understand communication disorders.
Current Teacher Preparation in Communication Disorders
There is limited information on what training educators actually receive about communication development and disorders. A recent study by Pennington and colleagues (2021) reported survey results from 51 higher education faculty members representing 51 different special education teacher preparation programs across the country about the extent to which they offered coursework about students with significant communication needs. About half of participants said they offered either multiple class sessions within a course or single class sessions across multiple courses about communication needs to their undergraduate preservice teachers. The topics most commonly taught by almost all participants were related to augmentative alternative communication (AAC) and assessing communication needs related to AAC. About 40% of participants said they believed special education teachers were responsible for planning communication goals on a student’s Individualized Education Program (IEP) and 64% said they thought it was the special education teacher’s responsibility, not a speech-language pathologist’s, to deliver communication instruction. Although this study was conducted with a small sample of faculty and it is unclear the extent to which these views are held by teacher education faculty more broadly, it is still interesting to note that a majority said communication instruction and support is the responsibility of special educators while simultaneously providing only a few class sessions’ worth of communication instruction. Results from this study beg the question why more extensive coursework in communication disorders is not more prevalent in teacher preparation programs.
In their review of the teacher preparation literature for general educators, Cochran-Smith and colleagues (2015) noted that most research on preparing teachers to work with diverse learners, including students with disabilities, focused on improving preservice teacher attitudes towards working with such students. Results cited in the review indicated that activities around personal perceptions (e.g., writing one’s own language and culture autobiography; Haddix, 2008) and placement in an inclusive classroom in the field (Lambe & Bones, 2007) improved preservice general education teacher attitudes about working with diverse learners, but there was no indication of coursework or experiences specific to communication development and disorders. In spite of this gap in research and practice, we do know what knowledge and skills preservice teachers are required to have after completing an accredited preparation program.
Several accrediting bodies state that preservice teachers must have knowledge and skills to work with diverse learners. The Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) requires preservice special education teachers to show knowledge of general curriculum academic content as well as specialized curricula to inform instructional decisions for students with exceptionalities (CEC, 2020). The National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) requires early childhood preservice teachers to demonstrate knowledge about how to use teaching skills, including differentiated instruction, to respond to the learning needs of each child, including children with developmental delays or disabilities (NAEYC, 2020). The Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) standards require teacher preparation programs to ensure preservice teachers can apply knowledge of learning differences and learner development as well as participate in high-quality clinical (field) experiences (CAEP, 2020). Although educators are expected to have some level of knowledge of students with disabilities, which include those with speech and language impairments, to the author’s knowledge, no accrediting body requires any specific amount or depth of instruction in communication disorders in particular.
Summary
General and special educators need to understand communication development and disorders for the dual purposes of identifying students in need of a special education referral and understanding the relationship between oral language and reading to provide high-quality reading instruction. Preservice teachers in special education and early childhood education are expected to have knowledge of child development, learner differences, and how to teach according to individual child needs, but the amount of instruction and training provided in communication development and disorders in such programs is ultimately unclear and likely lacking. One research-based approach to providing effective instruction for preservice teachers that could be harnessed to teach communication disorders is using multimedia.
Multimedia Instruction for Preservice Teachers
Video Instruction
In their review of the literature, Thomas and Rieth (2011) found that video and media-anchored instruction have been used for a wide variety of purposes in teacher education. They concluded that video instruction has some evidence to support its use as a means for improving preservice teacher content knowledge, skills, and self-efficacy through providing models of instruction, presenting case studies or specific teaching scenarios, and having preservice teachers analyze their own beliefs and responses to such videos. In the last 10 years, researchers have evaluated video-based instruction as a means of presenting examples of specific disabilities, classroom practices, and as a reflection tool during student teaching.
Greenfield and colleagues (2016) evaluated how a course in learning disabilities (LD) impacted preservice teachers’ perceptions of students with LD. The course included activities like journal prompts, video vignettes of adults with LD, field placement observations, and lesson planning. Overall, the course helped participants feel more prepared to teach students with LD, but when asked what specific elements of the course impacted their perceptions of students with LD, all 15 participants reported that video vignettes were the most useful. The vignettes were of adults with LD describing their educational experiences and what they had accomplished in their lives. Participants said watching the videos helped their understanding of LD more than hearing the instructor lecture about the topic and changed their perceptions of people with LD.
Wiens and colleagues (2021) used video modeling of evidence-based teaching practices (EBPs) with 130 elementary, secondary, and special education preservice teachers. They found that participants who were successful at recognizing EBPs in video examples of classroom organization, instructional support, and emotional support were more successful at correctly implementing those practices in their student teaching, particularly in the areas of instructional and emotional support. Researchers concluded that the video examples served as a way to prepare participants to focus on practices like providing feedback and using rich language in their own teaching.
Xiao and Tobin (2018) had 23 preservice teachers in early childhood education write a lesson plan and record themselves delivering that lesson to pre-k students in their field placement mid-way through the semester. Participants were then told to watch the video once with sound and once without and to reflect on their use of non-verbal body language, gestures, and facial expressions while teaching as well as critiquing the lesson overall. Participants reported in their reflections that it was easier to evaluate their body language and connection with students when watching the video without sound, and that the video with sound enabled them to critique things like the questions they asked and how they delivered directions. Each participant repeated this activity with a new recording of themselves at the end of the semester. The researchers concluded that participants improved in their use of appropriate body language and pacing of lessons after reflecting on their own practice on video.
Video instruction during university courses may provide an opportunity for preservice teachers to see specific aspects of classroom (Wiens et al., 2021) or characteristics of specific disabilities ( Greenfield, Mackey, & Nelson, 2016) that they may not otherwise be able to observe in real life, as well as an opportunity to receive feedback on their teaching (Xiao & Tobin, 2018). Another type of multimedia instruction studied in teacher preparation is content acquisition podcasts (CAP).
Content Acquisition Podcasts
Although not strictly a “podcast” in the traditional sense, a CAP is a short video combining still images, audio narration, and key text phrases to teach specific concepts (Kennedy & Thomas, 2012). CAPs adhere to Mayer’s (2008) principles of multimedia instruction, which aim to reduce cognitive processing load for the learner by only presenting information relevant to the main concept, strategic use of images, text, and narration to highlight key concepts, and breaking important information down into cohesive sections.
Since 2011, CAPs at the university level have demonstrated medium to large effects for teaching a range of subjects to preservice teachers, including functional behavior analysis (d = .45, Hirsch, Kennedy, Haines, Thomas, & Alves, 2015; Kennedy, Hirsch, Dillon, Rabideaux, Alves, Driver, 2016a), positive behavior intervention and supports (d =.78–.84, Firestone & Rodl, 2020), characteristics of various disabilities (d = 1.33, Kennedy, Thomas, Aronin, Newton, & Lloyd, 2014), curriculum-based measurement (d=1.29–1.75, Kennedy et al., 2016b), and elements of literacy instruction (η 2 = .19, Carlisle, Thomas, & McCathren, 2016; d = .76–.98, Driver, Pullen, Kennedy, Williams, & Ely, 2014; Romig et al., 2018). Across studies, participants in the CAP condition outperformed participants in comparison conditions on knowledge following instruction (Carlisle et al., 2016; Kennedy et al., 2016a) and maintained that knowledge 1–5 weeks after the experiment (Driver et al., 2014; Firestone & Rodl, 2020; Hirsch et al., 2015; Kennedy et al., 2014; Kennedy et al., 2016b). The effectiveness of CAPs is complemented by their flexible and efficient nature. CAPs are usually available online so they are portable and can eliminate time constraints in traditional lecture-style courses. They also allow students to pause or replay parts of the video to take notes or review content, which is not possible during a live lecture. This is particularly important during the shift to online learning in recent years as students can maximize their learning during asynchronous instruction or outside of synchronous meeting times (Hartshorne et al., 2020).
One CAP study in particular revealed the effectiveness of a CAP at teaching phonological awareness content to general and special education preservice teachers. Driver and colleagues (2014) compared a CAP condition to a comparison condition where students read a practitioner-friendly article on phonological awareness. They found that the CAP group significantly outperformed the text group on measures of knowledge and application of phonological awareness at post-test and 3 weeks later. In addition, they analyzed whether participant learning in the CAP differed based on previous coursework in reading. CAP participants were classified as either having zero or 1–3 reading courses completed. They found that while CAP participants differed at pre-test based on number of reading courses completed, there were no significant differences at post-test or maintenance, meaning the CAP video “caught up” students who had no previous experience in phonological awareness or reading. Results demonstrated the potential for CAPs to positively impacting learning for preservice teachers with little knowledge of the target concepts beforehand. However, little is known about whether this translates to other topics such as communication disorders.
Study Purpose
Understanding communication development has critical implications for educators’ ability to respond to young children with communication and reading needs. Most preservice teachers in accredited programs likely take some amount of coursework on students with disabilities, and communication disorders are typically taught with that content. However, it is unclear to what extent effective instructional practices are being used within these courses and programs to teach communication disorders. The purpose of this study was to evaluate two different methods for delivering course content on communication disorders: a content acquisition podcast (CAP) condition and a lecture plus video condition. The current study was guided by the following research questions: (1) Which instructional method is more effective at increasing preservice teacher knowledge of communication disorders: a CAP or a traditional lecture with video examples? (2) Does instructional method impact participant performance differently based on program of study?
Method
Participants and Setting
A convenience sample of 67 undergraduate students from a medium-sized public university in the Southeastern United States participated in the study. All participants were enrolled in a course, Early Intervention Strategies for Young Children with Special Needs, which was required in participants’ programs of study and taught by the author, a former speech-language pathologist. The course covers information about developmental delays and services for young students ages birth to 9 years.
Participants were majors in either the early childhood education (n = 33, 53%) or special education program (n = 29, 47%). The early childhood education program prepares candidates to become general education classroom teachers in grades K-2. The special education program prepares candidates to become cross-categorical special education teachers in grades K-12. Early childhood majors took the early intervention course in fall of their junior year and special education majors took it in spring of their junior year. The planned course content is the same every semester. Early childhood majors were simultaneously taking Introduction to Special Education the same semester, while special education majors took the introductory special education course the previous year as sophomores, which is a weakness of the study.
Upon approval from the university’s Institutional Review Board, the author explained the purpose of the study and requested the use of the undergraduates’ assessment data for analysis. All study data were scored and maintained by a graduate research assistant during each semester and data analysis was conducted after the study was complete to ensure no students would feel pressured to have their data included or feel at a disadvantage if they declined. Only participants who provided written consent had their data included in the analysis. Five students either did not give consent or were absent for study activities, so the final sample was 62 participants (97% female, 3% male, 6% Black or multi-racial, 94% white). All study activities were part of regular classroom practice and participation points were given to all students for completion, whether or not their data was used in the analysis.
Research Design
The study utilized a quasi-experimental group design with pre- and post-testing. Data collection occurred over four semesters from fall of 2017 to spring of 2019. Participants took the course during the semester dictated by their program of study. Each semester was randomly assigned to either the CAP condition (n = 34; early childhood n = 17, special education n = 17) or the lecture plus video condition (n = 28; early childhood n = 16, special education n = 12) using a random team generator (https://www.randomlists.com/team-generator). An independent samples t-test on the outcome measure (see Measure section) confirmed there were no significant group differences at baseline (knowledge: t (59) = −1.97, p = .054; application: t (59) = −1.08, p = .290).
Measure
All participants took a researcher-created assessment with two parts. The assessment was similar in structure and scope as in previous CAP studies (Carlisle et al., 2016; Driver et al., 2014). The first part of the assessment contained declarative knowledge items. The author compiled a list of the key terms about communication disorders from the course content and textbook (see Procedures) which resulted in 13 terms: communication, language, speech, articulation, fluency, voice, semantics, syntax, morphology, pragmatics, phonology, receptive language, and expressive language. The author then compiled the definitions of the terms from the textbook, edited the definitions for clarity, and shortened them to 10 words or less for ease of reading. Two content experts (not the author), both professors of special education and speech-language pathologists, then reviewed the terms and definitions for accuracy, clarity, and face validity. Experts commented that the terms reflected a good overview of communication development and that the definitions were clear and simple. The 13 terms were arranged as a vocabulary matching task. The terms were listed on the left of the paper and 13 definitions were presented on the right. Participants were told to match the terms to the definitions.
The second part of the assessment contained items that captured application of knowledge. Although the questions described in this section are not a true measure of application in a classroom setting, they serve as a proxy for taking knowledge of terms and recognizing descriptions and manifestations of those terms in a given scenario. The author identified 10 of the vocabulary terms from the first part of the assessment that are typically used as descriptors in speech and language impairment diagnoses: articulation, expressive language, fluency, morphology, pragmatics, receptive language, semantics, syntax, and voice. The author then constructed two types of questions for each term. One type of question presented the term and asked the participant to recognize a description of that impairment (e.g., A common difficulty with an articulation impairment is: (a) repeating sounds or words, (b) sound distortion or omission, (c) running out of air while talking, and (d) blocks while speaking). The other type of question presented a description of a behavior or skill and asked the participant to identify the matching term or impairment (e.g., A child who says “wabbit” instead of “rabbit” likely has an impairment in: (a) expressive language, (b) articulation, (c) voice, and (d) semantics). The result was 20 multiple-choice questions. The content experts reviewed the items for accuracy, clarity and face validity and reported that the questions adequately measured participant ability to apply terms and concepts to given descriptions. Participants were instructed to circle the best answer for each question.
The assessment was group-administered by the author during class and given untimed via paper/pencil. Although the test was untimed, no participant took longer than 15 minutes to complete it. All items on both parts of the measure were taught in both study conditions. The assessment was given at four points during the semester (see Figure 1): during the second week of class (baseline), 3 weeks after baseline on the first day of communication disorders content (pre-test), and approximately 1 week (two class sessions) and 8 weeks after communication disorders content (delayed post-test and maintenance, respectively). Cronbach’s alpha was calculated at all four time points and averaged for the knowledge and application items separately (knowledge mean α = .78, range .74–.83; application mean α = .74, range .69–.77). Coefficients above .70 are generally considered acceptable for social science research (George & Mallery, 2003). Flowchart of Study Procedures.
The assessment was scored by a trained doctoral student in special education using an answer key for both the matching and multiple-choice sections. The author trained the doctoral student on how to use the answer key for scoring. Student responses were marked as either correct or incorrect for a total score out of 13 for the matching and out of 20 for the multiple-choice items. Once data collection was complete, the author and the doctoral student both scored 30% of assessments for inter-rater reliability and reached 100% agreement on scoring.
Procedures
First, general procedures for both groups are discussed, then study procedures for the lecture plus video group are presented, followed by how the CAP recording was created, and finally the study procedures for the CAP group (see Figure 1).
Study Procedures for Both Groups
Both groups received lecture-style instruction on communication development and disorders in children ages birth to 9 years during two sessions of 75 minutes each using identical lecture slides. The author used the same structure and order of content for each group during every class session. At the time of initial data collection, the author had 7 years of teaching experience and 1 year of experience teaching the course in which the study was conducted.
All participants took the pre-test assessment during the first-class session before instruction began (up to 15 mins). The first class session covered speech development and impairments and the second session covered language development and impairments. During each session, content was organized into the following three main topics: definitions, typical development, and disorders and supports. Lecture slides were presented in PowerPoint® using the author’s Lenovo ThinkPad laptop connected to a projector and displayed on a large screen at the front of the classroom. All lecture slides contained 2–3 bullets of text accompanied by still images that represented the slide’s main point. All images were retrieved from a Google image search under Creative Commons license. The lecture slides during each class session were identical for both groups. The slides used to create the CAP video were identical in content, wording, and layout to the slides used during instruction in the lecture plus video condition. This was done to facilitate comparisons between conditions and decrease the likelihood of confounding instructional variables impacting results (Romig et al., 2018).
During the study, all participants were instructed to complete a required chapter reading on communication development in the course textbook, Adapting Early Childhood Curricula for Children with Special Needs (Cook et al., 2016), before the first day of communication development content, as scheduled in the course syllabus. Participants indicated on their pre-test whether or not they completed this reading (see Descriptive Data in Results). To encourage honesty about completing the reading, the author explained to participants that their pre-tests would be collected and deidentified by a research assistant, so the author would not see their responses, nor would they be penalized for not having completed the reading. The author did not view the responses about reading until after each semester was complete.
Lecture Plus Video Group Procedures
Duration of each section of the lecture are presented here for context, but they are estimates only because participants were allowed to ask questions and comment during lecture and some semesters participated more readily than others. Video clips (see Figure 2) were chosen based on two criteria: (1) the abstractness or likely unfamiliar nature of a concept needing more concrete representation, and (2) public availability of clips on YouTube® adequately illustrating the concept. All clips were shown for 5 mins or less. All items from both part of the outcome measure were taught during the lecture. Web Links for Video Clips Used with Lecture Plus Video Group (n = 28).
After the pre-test during the first class session (15 mins max), the author presented a brief review of the previous class session (1 min) and an advanced organizer presenting the main topics for the day (1 min). After the advanced organizer, definitions of relevant terms were presented in text with supporting images while the instructor provided a verbal elaboration of each term to avoid just reading definitions from slides (approximately 5–10 mins on day 1 speech, 10–15 mins on day 2 language). For example, the term “speech” was presented on the slide in text as “the motor act of producing sounds,” while the author elaborated, “…think about speech as the sounds we use to talk with each other.” The printed definition was paired onscreen with a picture of two children talking to each other with their mouths open. All definitions were presented in text using student-friendly language in 10 words or less and were the same as the definitions on the knowledge measure and in the CAP video; however, participants could ask questions during the lecture and the author often told stories from their classroom experience, which was not present in the CAP (see next section).
Next, the instructor presented typical development (approximately 20–25 mins) including developmental milestones, timelines, and common behaviors in infants, toddlers, and school-aged children using text with supporting images and verbal elaboration. Video clips (see Figure 1) were used during this portion of the lecture to provide additional examples of typical babbling (speech, day 1) and joint attention (language, day 2). For example, the author showed the bullet point for the joint attention definition, verbally elaborated and took questions from participants, and then played the brief video clip illustrating how a child might engage in joint attention with a parent when looking at an airplane. The video clips (see Figure 1) were used after a definition or concept was presented to provide a more realistic example of that concept.
Finally, the instructor presented examples of disorders and associated supports (approximately 25–35 mins), again in written text with supporting images and instructor elaboration. Video clips (see Figure 1) were used to provide examples of stuttering (speech, day 1), language delay, expansion as a language support strategy, and signs of language disorders in the classroom (language, day 2). Again, the term or concept was presented on the lecture slide with bullet points and a verbal elaboration, followed by the selected video clip to illustrate a realistic example of the concept. After each main section (definitions, typical development, disorders, and supports) a slide prompted participants to “check and connect” and the instructor paused to enable participants to either take notes or ask questions about new things they had learned. At the end of each lecture, a brief one-slide summary was presented (1 min).
CAP Construction
Two CAP videos were created to adhere to Mayer’s (2008, 2009) principles of multimedia instruction including coherence (present only relevant content), pretraining (use of advanced organizer), signaling (audio and text highlight essential information), redundancy (only specifically chosen content is highlighted), segmenting (information is broken down into manageable chunks), spatial contiguity (text and pictures are near each other), temporal contiguity (text and audio match), and personalization (conversational speaking style).
To adhere to Mayer’s (2008) segmenting principle, the content was divided into two CAPs (speech impairments and language impairments) to avoid overloading participants. The author designed and constructed both videos according to guidelines from previous research (e.g., Kennedy & Thomas, 2012). Videos were created using slides in Microsoft PowerPoint® and recorded with audio narration using Camtasia. Each video began with an advanced organizer explaining the topic of the video and that the video was divided into two segments with each segment covering one main concept. Ten-second pauses were inserted into the recordings after each section with instructions for participants to take notes or reflect on what they had learned. The videos ended with a summary of the content. The author provided the audio narration and all images were selected from Google images freely available under Creative Commons license. The CAPs were accessible to participants online (website redacted for blind review). All items from both part of the outcome measure were taught during the two CAP recordings.
In the 6m 28s speech impairment video, the main concepts introduced were (a) What is speech? And (b) What are common speech impairments? In the first section, participants were presented with brief definitions, a matching picture, and brief verbal examples of the terms, speech, articulation, fluency, and voice. In the second section, participants were presented with brief definitions, an image, and verbal examples with images of the terms, articulation impairment, phonological impairment, fluency impairment, and voice impairment. Two pause points were inserted into the video after the first main section at 2:30 and after the second main section at 5:10. Because the CAP is a recording, there was no opportunity for elaboration or questions from participants.
In the 13 m 29 s language impairment video, the main concepts introduced were (a) What is language? and (b) What are common language impairments? In the first section, participants were presented with a brief definition, image, and verbal example of the terms, expressive language, receptive language, semantics, syntax, morphology, phonology, and pragmatics. In the second section, participants were presented with a brief definition, image, and verbal examples with images of the terms receptive language delay, expressive language delay, semantic impairment, syntax impairment, morphological impairment, and pragmatic impairment. A pause point was inserted into the video after the first section at 6:11 and after the second section at 11:44. Again, no elaboration was provided beyond the recording.
For clarification, the terms phonology and phonological impairment were included in both the speech and the language videos. The author explained in each video that although phonology is technically part of language (system for ordering sounds within words), children who have problems with the broader system of phonological sound knowledge typically sound like they have a speech impairment and the appropriate service for a phonological impairment is speech therapy. This concept is explicitly explained in both videos.
CAP Group Procedures
After the pre-test during the first session (15 mins max), the author presented a brief review of the previous class session (1 min) and an advanced organizer presenting the main topics for the day (1 min). Then participants watched the CAP (day 1 speech, 6 m 28 s; day 2 language, 13 m 29 s). The author provided the link to the CAP on the board (links removed for blind review) and participants used their own personal laptops and headphones to watch the CAPs during class. The author circulated throughout the room to ensure students were watching the video and not surfing to other websites or checking email. The author instructed participants to pause or replay sections as needed to take notes. Once all participants indicated they had completed the CAP, the instructor proceeded with the remaining lecture content (a summation of typical development and disorders and supports) with the same slides and explanations as the lecture plus video group (as described previously) but without the video clips.
Data Analysis
All data were entered in SPSS v.25.0 for analysis. Descriptive data (mean, SD, range, skewness, and kurtosis) were calculated for the knowledge and application assessment items. To answer the first research question about effect of experimental condition, a repeated-measures analysis of variance (RM-ANOVA) was conducted with simple and repeated contrasts and a partial η2 effect size on each set of items (knowledge and application). Hedges’ g effect size was also calculated at post-test and maintenance to estimate the magnitude of effect of instructional condition. To answer the second research question about differential effects, two-way independent ANOVAs were conducted on each set of items at post-test and maintenance with experimental group (lecture plus video = 0, CAP = 1) and program of study (early childhood = 0, special education = 1) included as fixed factors. Categorical variables were included as fixed factors rather than random factors or covariates, which are typically continuous (Field, 2009).
Previous CAP research (Driver et al., 2014) has investigated whether a CAP video has different effects on participants based on different levels of background knowledge. Although there were no significant differences between the experimental groups in the current study, it is possible that participants from different programs might have different levels of background knowledge and experience with the target content before the study. A series of independent samples t-tests were conducted on the baseline knowledge and application scores within and across participant program of study. Within the lecture plus video group, there was a significant difference between early childhood and special education majors on the knowledge measure at baseline t (26) = −3.26, p = .003. Within the CAP group, there were no significant differences between majors on either measure. Therefore, baseline knowledge scores were included as a covariate in the two-way ANOVAs (making them ANCOVAs).
Results
Descriptive Data
Descriptive Data (n = 62).
Although all participants were instructed to complete a required textbook reading before the experiment, only 8% of participants did so. Out of an abundance of caution, a series of independent samples t-tests were conducted within and across experimental groups at pre-test to determine whether there were any group differences according to whether participants completed the required textbook reading (yes or no) before the first class session. Results indicated no significant differences on knowledge or application items within or between experimental groups at baseline according to reading status, therefore reading status was not included in the analyses.
RM-ANOVA Results
RM-ANOVA Results by Experimental Group (n = 62).
Note. RM-ANOVA = repeated measures analysis of variance.
On the knowledge items, Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of sphericity had been violated, χ 2 (5) = 11.38, p = .03, therefore degrees of freedom were corrected using the Greenhouse–Geisser estimates of sphericity (ε = .85). Results indicated a main effect of time F (2.56) = 20.08, p < .001 and a significant time x group interaction effect F (2.56) = 3.91, p = .02. Simple and repeated within-subject contrasts indicated that significant differences for the time x group interaction occurred between baseline and pre-test F (1, 48) = 8.22, p = .006, and between baseline and post-test F (1, 48) = 7.22, p = .010, but no group difference at maintenance. The lecture plus video condition had a moderate effect on learning at post-test (g = .47). Effect size at maintenance was negligible.
On the application items, Mauchly’s test was not significant, χ 2 (5) = 6.42, p = .27, therefore sphericity was assumed. Results indicated a significant main effect of time F (3) = 12.35, p < .001, but no significant time x group interaction effect, indicating that group membership did not have an impact on performance on the application items. Simple and repeated within-subject contrasts indicated that time was the only factor that produced significant growth between time points. No significant differences were found for the time x group interaction term across testing occasions. Post-hoc paired samples t-tests indicated significant growth did occur on the application items from baseline to post-test for each group (CAP t (29) = −4.79, p < .001; lecture t (23) = −2.89, p = .008), but performance was not significantly different between the two groups. Effect sizes were negligible at post-test and maintenance.
Two-Way ANCOVA Results
ANCOVA Results by Experimental Group and Program of Study (n = 62).
Note. ANCOVA = analysis of covariance; df = 1
On the knowledge items, after controlling for baseline knowledge score, results indicated a significant main effect for group F (1, 49) = 5.97, p = .018 at post-test but no main effect for program of study nor a significant group x program interaction effect. At maintenance, there was no main effect for group, program, or a group x program interaction effect detected. After controlling for baseline knowledge, instructional method did not impact participant learning differently based on their program of study on the knowledge items at post-test or maintenance.
On the application measure, after controlling for baseline knowledge scores, no main effects were detected for group or program of study, nor was there a group x program interaction effect. After controlling for baseline knowledge, instructional method did not impact participant learning differently based on program of study on application items at post-test or maintenance.
Discussion
The current study compared two instructional methods for teaching communication disorders: lecture with video examples and CAPs recordings. Results indicate that for declarative knowledge, the lecture plus video condition produced significant growth compared to the CAP condition, whereas for application of content, both conditions were equally effective. When controlling for baseline knowledge, instructional method did not impact participant performance differently based on university program of study (special education or early childhood).
Effect of Instructional Method on Learning
The current study raises several important points about the impact of instruction using video and multimedia. First, the results differ from past research in that the lecture plus video condition, not the CAP condition, had a moderate effect on knowledge scores at post-test, which conflicts with numerous prior studies finding that CAP recordings are more effective than other types of instruction (e.g., Carlisle et al., 2016; Firestone & Rodl, 2020; Hirsch et al., 2015; Kennedy et al., 2016). Although CAPs are designed to lighten the cognitive load of the learner (Mayer, 2009), seeing live examples of speech and language disorders may have been more powerful than targeted CAPs presenting the same information with images, text, and narration. Firestone and Rodl (2020) echoes this general idea. They concluded that CAP-only instruction is not sufficient to increase knowledge. Rather, it is critical to pair CAPs with examples, application, and/or discussion. Past work in teacher preparation in language and reading instruction has revealed that many educators have a misunderstanding of oral language and related reading skills (Bos et al., 2001; Moats, 1994), so embedding illustrative videos into traditional lectures could be an important avenue to pursue for preservice teacher preparation, particularly for the topic of communication disorders. Seeing how the concepts of communication impairments actually manifest in children on video may be more instructive than even a CAP.
Second, both conditions were equally effective at increasing participant application of concepts and knowledge in the sense that participants were able to recognize examples of different communication disorders, which generally aligns with previous research finding that CAP recordings can produce growth on application of concepts (Hirsch et al., 2015; Kennedy et al., 2014), but conflicts with other research where researchers concluded CAPs by themselves are not as effective at impacting participant application (Firestone & Rodl, 2020). The assessment items in the current study used as a proxy of application ability were not true application tasks where students used declarative knowledge to accomplish some classroom-based task, hence the conflict with studies where true application tasks were used. Use of video examples and/or a CAP recording as part of traditional instruction may hold promise for increasing student learning and application of key concepts; however, university instructors may need to be thoughtful in their use of such methods. Although multimedia instruction has potential to increase student learning and application of concepts, educators may wish to use videos or CAPs in conjunction with more thorough discussion and hands-on activities for significant learning gains (Firestone & Rodl, 2020).
Third, neither condition produced significant group differences at maintenance on either measure, which conflicts with previous work finding maintenance of learning gains after multimedia instruction (e.g., Driver et al., 2014; Firestone & Rodl, 2020; Kennedy et al., 2016). The difference in the current study is that the maintenance period was 8 weeks post-instruction, whereas previous studies’ maintenance measures were given up to 5 weeks post-instruction. More research is needed to evaluate whether multimedia instruction is more useful for a short-term boost in knowledge acquisition compared to longer-term retention of knowledge or application ability.
A final important point to note is that although participant scores increased significantly over time, their scores on the assessment measure were still below 80% correct on average at post-test. Participant improvement is encouraging from a growth perspective, but practically speaking, they are still missing important information about communication disorders. It is unclear whether instructional method, target content, or participant characteristics influenced overall level of performance and speculating about such relationships is beyond the scope of this study. Although use of multimedia may have some evidence of effectiveness at improving content knowledge, researchers and educators need to evaluate not just evidence of growth over time but participant overall performance levels as well and what that means in practical terms.
Effects of Instructional Method Based on Participant Program of Study
After controlling for baseline knowledge scores, instructional method did not influence learning differently for participants in the two programs of study (early childhood education: CAP n = 17, lecture n = 16; special education: CAP n = 17, lecture n = 12) on either measure, which conflicts with findings by Driver and colleagues (2014). They found that their CAP recording produced enough learning in participants with no reading coursework to essentially “catch them up” to participants with some level of knowledge of phonological and phonemic awareness. However, there are several important differences between the current study and the Driver study that likely influenced results. First, the Driver study had a larger overall sample size (N = 130) compared to the current study (N = 62) and larger subsamples within elementary education (n = 28), secondary education (n = 43), special education (n = 24), and communication disorders majors (n = 8) compared to the subsamples in the current study (cited above). The small subsamples in each major in the current study were all less than n = 20, which indicate that the ANCOVA was likely underpowered to detect differences. Second, the use of number of reading courses or assumed background knowledge as covariates in the Driver study rather than baseline knowledge scores or actual background knowledge in the current study could have impacted detectable results. Third, it is possible that the CAP used in the Driver study was of higher quality than in the current study, although the same CAP creation procedures were followed in both studies. To the author’s knowledge, these are the only two multimedia studies that have investigated differential effects of conditions based on participant experience or program of study, so clearly more research is needed, but the Driver study may have been larger and more robust and thus led to greater group differences.
Implications for Teacher Preparation
The current results have important implications for preservice teacher preparation in communication disorders. The limited evidence about how preservice teachers are prepared in communication disorders indicates that explicit instruction in this area is necessary (Adlof & Hogan, 2018; Pennington et al., 2021). The current study suggests that incorporating efficient explanations and video examples of speech and language impairments into university instruction can provide preservice teachers with a more realistic model and experience with the content than lecture alone can provide (Greenfield et al., 2016). Current practices in preparing teachers to work with students with disabilities broadly tend to rely on helping them feel prepared and having a positive attitude (Cochran-Smith et al., 2015), but should incorporate effective practices, such as multimedia instruction, to build a foundational knowledge in novice teachers to recognize communication disorders and their impact on academic performance.
Even though the current study was not conducted during online instruction, the results have implications for online and distance education. Preservice teachers taking coursework online can gain valuable content knowledge through the use of video examples and targeted multimedia instruction. Video clips and CAP recordings are relatively easy to find or create and integrate into online course platforms or online sharing repositories, such as Vimeo or Google Drive. Video clips and CAP recordings can be viewed multiple times if desired, which removes the barrier of time constraints in a face-to-face university classroom. Finally, as mentioned previously, using multimedia to highlight specific disabilities, characteristics, or classroom aspects may be an effective method of providing targeted instruction and could be used as an alternative or complement to field-based practicum (Thomas & Rieth, 2011).
Limitations and Future Directions
The current results must be viewed within the limitations of the study. First, the participant sample was rather homogenous and small. Future iterations of this work should include a larger, more diverse sample of preservice teachers. Ideally, the study would have had three groups: CAP-only, lecture plus video, and CAP plus video. However, logistically this was not possible. Second, some participants were concurrently enrolled in an introductory course in special education during the study, which could have confounded results. It was not clear whether those participants had learned about communication disorders in that course before the experiment took place; however, if significant content knowledge had been acquired, it should have been evident in the baseline knowledge scores. Also, while the author attempted to control for fidelity of instruction across groups by using the same planned content, differences in class discussions, explanations, etc. each semester could have confounded the results.
Third, the outcome measure was aligned with the target content, but was not aligned with the structure of the two lectures and CAP recordings. The measure assessed declarative knowledge and application separately but assessed speech and language content together within each set of items, meaning participants took the assessment after both lectures were complete instead of taking an immediate post-test after each lecture (e.g., a speech test and a language test). This is a weakness of the study in that too much time elapsed between learning the content and taking the assessment to gauge the effectiveness of the instructional conditions, or the two instructional methods were not strong enough to produce lasting effects on learning. Additionally, there were no distractor definitions on the declarative knowledge matching section, meaning participants could have used process of elimination to get some items correct, which could have inflated total scores. This may have resulted in a possible ceiling effect. However, participants still did not score above 80% at post-test, so a ceiling effect was unlikely. Future work with a matching assessment should include distractor definitions or consider assessing vocabulary knowledge in a multiple-choice format. Also, application ability was assessed in a multiple-choice format, which, while providing ease of scoring and is a more objective measure, does not necessarily reflect a participant’s ability to actually identify or support students with communication needs in a more realistic context. Future iterations of this study should include more open-ended application items where participants have to describe or discuss identifying needed classroom supports.
Fourth, social validity was not assessed in the current study. Although it is critical in technology and teacher preparation research to assess the effect of tools and practices on preservice teacher learning, assessing participant preference and experience is also important. Future work should include a participant survey or focus group to learn about which method of instruction was preferable. Although previous research has indicated that preservice teachers valued watching video vignettes during class (Greenfield et al., 2016) and use of CAP recordings (Hirsch et al., 2015), it is not possible to explicitly evaluate whether this was true in the current study. However, in university course evaluations, participants did indicate to the author that they appreciated the use of real-life examples during class, which includes videos. Fifth, although the author tried to keep each semester’s class equal in terms of instructional time, some classes of participants asked more questions and made more comments during class, which could theoretically impact the amount of time spent on the content across semesters. One could argue that students who were more engaged might be learning more, not less, but the inability of the author to provide an exact identical classroom experience for each semester, although not realistic or practical, is a threat to internal validity. Using targeted post-tests assessing specific content after a short instructional period instead of administering global measures after large pieces of content would help cut down on these validity threats and more precisely capture whether preservice teachers learned specific content using different instructional practices.
The topic of communication disorders is rather broad. The author chose to focus on definitions and examples of speech and language impairments specifically in children ages birth to 9 years in keeping with the focus of the course in which the study was conducted, early intervention, and the definition of early childhood in the state in which the study was conducted. Because of this relatively broad topic, the author split speech impairments and language impairments into two separate CAP recordings and two oral lectures and presented them on two separate days to avoid overloading participants. Because of this structure, participants were not given the post-test until both class periods were complete rather than post-testing immediately after each presentation. There could have been some knowledge loss between the first-class session and the delayed post-test. However, the CAP presentation adhered to Mayer’s (2008) principles of instruction, it could be that the example videos in the lecture were more illustrative of the basic concepts than the narration and visual images were in the CAP. A CAP recording following Mayer’s (2008) principles paired with live video examples would be a more effective way of teaching certain concepts and addressing the issue of maintenance of learning gains.
Finally, although the statistical analysis detected growth and group differences on the outcome measure, participants did not score more than 80% correct on either part of the measure at post-test, meaning they were still missing key components of communication development and disorders. Future work should evaluate the extent to which multimedia instruction not only produces growth from baseline knowledge but the depth and mastery of content that is possible with such instruction.
Conclusion
The ability to recognize and support elements of communication development have important implications for how educators refer students for special education services and support their needs in the classroom. This study found that a traditional lecture with embedded video clips of communication disorders is effective at increasing the knowledge of preservice teachers in early childhood and special education, and the lecture plus video as well as the CAP recording were equally effective at increasing student application of this knowledge. However, neither method was particularly effective at producing long-term knowledge retention. The use of multimedia and targeted video clips may be a useful and effective way to introduce specific content to preservice teachers in an efficient and flexible way.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
