MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400081594 · doi:10.2196/51740

How to Develop an Online Video for Teaching Health Procedural Skills: Tutorial for Health Educators New to Video Production

2024· article· en· W4400081594 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Education · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicVisual and Cognitive Learning Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVideo productionMultimediaProduction (economics)Computer scienceOnline videoVideo recordingMedical educationMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Clinician educators are experts in procedural skills that students need to learn. Some clinician educators are interested in creating their own procedural videos but are typically not experts in video production, and there is limited information on this topic in the clinical education literature. Therefore, we present a tutorial for clinician educators to develop a procedural video. OBJECTIVE: We describe the steps needed to develop a medical procedural video from the perspective of a clinician educator new to creating videos, informed by best practices as evidenced by the literature. We also produce a checklist of elements that ensure a quality video. Finally, we identify the barriers and facilitators to making such a video. METHODS: We used the example of processing a piece of skeletal muscle in a pathology laboratory to make a video. We developed the video by dividing it into 3 phases: preproduction, production, and postproduction. After writing the learning outcomes, we created a storyboard and script, which were validated by subject matter and audiovisual experts. Photos and videos were captured on a digital camera mounted on a monopod. Video editing software was used to sequence the video clips and photos, insert text and audio narration, and generate closed captions. The finished video was uploaded to YouTube (Google) and then inserted into open-source authoring software to enable an interactive quiz. RESULTS: The final video was 4 minutes and 4 seconds long and took 70 hours to create. The final video included audio narration, closed captioning, bookmarks, and an interactive quiz. We identified that an effective video has six key factors: (1) clear learning outcomes, (2) being engaging, (3) being learner-centric, (4) incorporating principles of multimedia learning, (5) incorporating adult learning theories, and (6) being of high audiovisual quality. To ensure educational quality, we developed a checklist of elements that educators can use to develop a video. One of the barriers to creating procedural videos for a clinician educator who is new to making videos is the significant time commitment to build videography and editing skills. The facilitators for developing an online video include creating a community of practice and repeated skill-building rehearsals using simulations. CONCLUSIONS: We outlined the steps in procedural video production and developed a checklist of quality elements. These steps and the checklist can guide a clinician educator in creating a quality video while recognizing the time, technical, and cognitive requirements.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.607
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.433 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it