Design Critque

Learning Environment

Each Science Class session has a learning goal specific to the topic for that lesson and while these goals are not expressly stated during the class, they can be inferred based on the clues and demonstrations Rober provides. These goals are most meaningful to viewers currently taking science courses with overlapping concepts taught during the series. In his teaching Rober emphasizes the importance of updating mental models, applying critical thinking skills, and testing hypotheses. Because these skills are relevant and applicable across multiple disciplines, I believe that his learning goals are important for all viewers, regardless of prior knowledge.

Rober aids viewer engagement in the learning material by including opportunities for interactive activities (Chi & Wylie, 2014) in the form of at-home challenges. He challenges viewers to recreate some of the demonstrations he performs live or for them to create their versions using the concepts they learned. For those that participate, this process of articulating knowledge helps build deeper learning, allows them to reflect on what they have learned, and explore more physics-related content (Andriessen & Baker, 2014; Chi & Van Lehn, 1991; Collins & Kapur, 2014; Winne & Azevedo, 2014).

Although they may not follow the framework exactly, there are some aspects of the sociology section of the cognitive apprenticeship framework present in Rober's learning environment. Through his challenges and social media engagement with challenge participants, Rober is building a community of practice amongst himself and his viewers (Collins & Kapur, 2014). While Rober's community of practice may not mirror a more traditional example, I still believe it to be an important aspect of his learning environment because of his visible role in the science education community at-large, specifically his ability to engage a large audience around physics. Viewers are intrinsically motivated to watch Rober's content and cognitively engage with the material because he makes learning physics more relatable and enjoyable to viewers (Blumenfeld, et al., 2005).

Implementation

Rober's Science Class series is interesting to critique because it incorporates different aspects of learning in a live classroom setting, a synchronous virtual classroom, and an asynchronous multimedia experience. However I believe it falls best under the category of multimedia learning because regardless of how and where Rober delivers his lessons, his students are ultimately still YouTube viewers. With that in mind, while there are some multimedia learning principles that Rober incorporates into his learning environment, there are still best practices that he could benefit from implementing into his design to reduce the risk of extraneous overload on the part of his viewers.

In his teaching, Rober relies on a stationary chalkboard that he uses to write out the question being answered during class as well as to reveal each of this three clues. Rober keeps each of the clues covered until he is ready to introduce them into his lesson. This process of signaling viewers' attention to the organization of content essential to the lesson helps promote deeper learning (Mayer & Fiorella, 2014) and, as previously mentioned, prevent essential cognitive overload (Mayer & Pilegard, 2014). However, because the chalkboard is continuously in frame during each Science Class session whether or not it is in use, it is, at times, extraneous material that risks overloading viewers (Mayer & Fiorella, 2014).

To reduce this risk moving forward, Rober can rearrange his set so that the chalkboard and clues are not always in frame during his demonstrations. Some potential ways he can achieve this include:

• Adjust the camera angles so there is not only a shot of Rober in front of the chalkboard while behind the workbench, but also shots of Rober with only the chalkboard, and multiple angles of Rober with only the workbench.

• Relocate the chalkboard to a neighboring station so that Rober can walk between his workbench and chalkboard areas during class.

• Incorporate a graphic overlay when introducing each clue that can disappear when Rober begins his demonstrations.

• Use the chalkboard only for drawing or writing out formulas and rely on a graphic overlay that appears on screen as needed to display the question and clue(s). Alternatively, he could write on an iPad connected to a camera for this purpose although it may detract from the authenticity of his delivery.

• Introduce multiple workbenches that can either be rolled in and out of frame or are located in different areas. By having at least two workbenches this also makes it easier for Rober's team to prepare for his next demonstration quickly and out of frame.

Another important factor to consider is how learners receive feedback on their progression through the material when it is delivered in this format. Rober announces the questions for each Science Class lesson ahead of time and asks viewers to submit a Google Form or tag him on social media with their guesses, which he can then use to guide his lesson plan. But because Rober teaches Science Class live, he is not able to actively engage with viewer questions that arise during each Science Class session until the end of his lesson (2020g). Viewers are still able to have conversations in the chat section of the video, but this type of interaction lacks important corrective and explanatory feedback to help viewers better understand the material (Johnson & Priest, 2014). One potential way to support this would be including an online quiz for viewers to take in real time that can inform Rober's content. A variation of this was done during Rober's "What if all toilets flushed at once?" session (2020b) where he incorporated Kahoot! quiz questions and incorporated feedback in real time.

Since Rober's Science Class series is not intended to replace a formal physics education and viewers do not receive any credit for participation, assessing learners is not a priority but still an interesting topic to raise. Adding real time quizzes using a platform like Kahoot! can provide formative assessments that Rober can use to gauge how well his viewers are progressing. Rober can also incorporate a summative assessment at the end of each lesson hosted on Google Forms or other testing platform of his choice. Because viewers already share videos of themselves recreating Rober's demonstrations, he can instead ask that they make videos using the physics concepts they learn during Science Class to answer a related question and document the process. For example, in Rober's last session he explored the concepts of momentum and impulse, these can be translated to a viewer challenge to create a vehicle for safely dropping one or more eggs from a set height.

Design Process

It is difficult to determine from an external vantage point if Rober followed any specific instructional design model when developing his Science Class series. However based on the instructional content he has created and the internal processes he has discussed during his videos, I believe his process best aligns with the ADDIE model, specifically the development, implement, and evaluate phases.

With each successive Science Class session, Rober implemented changes based on a combination of feedback from viewers and his crew, as well as his self-evaluations. For example, in his second session he gave his final answer for the question based on different levels of prior knowledge including grade school and college (Rober, 2020f). Additionally, as the series progressed Rober spoke at a clearer pace and also relied less on technical terms and formulas. When he did incorporate technical terms or formulas, he also included multiple explanations make the concept clear. For example, in his first Science Class session (2020g, 17:00), when explaining his second clue (sound travels in waves) he covered several different, but related, complex concepts for about a minute before showing a video that helped make his point—thunder and lightening, sonic booms, the speed of sound, freedom units, electromagnetic waves, and the Doppler effect. To someone with prior knowledge of either physics or sound waves, this conversation thread may been easy to follow, however that may not be the case for all viewers. Another example is the difference in Rober explaining the formula F=ma in his first Sciene Class session (2020g, 21:10) versus his fifth session (2020b, 14:05); in the latter example he can provide a relatable analogy more quickly and clearly than in the former.

However, as a viewer knowing that Rober has a fear of public speaking and found it terrifying to go live during his first Science Class session (2020g, 0:07), I am more forgiving of any delivery faux pas on his part. Throughout the series, Rober becomes more comfortable teaching live on camera and in one session (2020a, 12:02) when a demonstration did not work properly, he recovered easily and used footage pre-recorded for that exact reason.

Regardless of my design critique, the most successful part of Rober's process is his implementation because he delivers on his goal of making physics approachable. This is evident not only in the viewer statistics for his Science Class series which average 785k viewers per session (Rober, n.d.-b), but in viewer comments and the quality and quantity of viewer submitted videos.